[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H. CON. RES. 427, A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE CONGRESS
REGARDING SANCTIONS ON NATIONS UNDERMINING ATLANTIC MARLIN
CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURES
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
September 26, 2002
__________
Serial No. 107-154
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
_______
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
81-890 WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California
Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
Joel Hefley, Colorado Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Scott McInnis, Colorado Calvin M. Dooley, California
Richard W. Pombo, California Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Adam Smith, Washington
George Radanovich, California Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Islands
Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Mac Thornberry, Texas Jay Inslee, Washington
Chris Cannon, Utah Grace F. Napolitano, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Tom Udall, New Mexico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Greg Walden, Oregon Hilda L. Solis, California
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Betty McCollum, Minnesota
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Tim Holden, Pennsylvania
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
Tim Stewart, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel/Deputy Chief of Staff
Steven T. Petersen, Deputy Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Samoa
Jim Saxton, New Jersey, Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Vice Chairman Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Richard W. Pombo, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North
Carolina
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 26, 2002............................... 1
Statement of Members:
Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland...................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Statement of Witnesses:
Dunn, Russell, Assistant Director, Ocean Wildlife Campaign,
The Audubon Society........................................ 40
Prepared statement of.................................... 42
Graves, Dr. John, Chairman, Department of Fisheries Science,
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, and Chairman, ICCAT
Advisory Committee......................................... 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Hayes, Robert G., Counsel, Coastal Conservation Association
and ICCAT Recreational Sector Commissioner................. 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Hemilright, Dewey, Captain, F/V Tar Baby, Commercial Longline
Vessel..................................................... 36
Prepared statement of.................................... 38
Hogarth, Dr. William T., Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce................................ 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Johnson, Gail L., Shore Captain of the F/V Seneca, Commercial
Longline Vessel............................................ 28
Prepared statement of.................................... 30
Motsko, James, President, White Marlin Open.................. 25
Prepared statement of.................................... 27
Weber, Rick, Marina Owner and Manager, South Jersey Marina &
Yacht Sales................................................ 32
Prepared statement of.................................... 34
Additional materials supplied:
World Wildlife Fund, Press statement submitted for the record 52
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H. CON. RES. 427, A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE
SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS ON NATIONS
THAT ARE UNDERMINING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT
MEASURES FOR ATLANTIC MARLIN ADOPTED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION
FOR THE CONSERVATION OF ATLANTIC TUNAS (ICCAT) AND THAT ARE THREATENING
THE CONTINUED VIABILITY OF UNITED STATES COMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL
FISHERIES.
----------
Thursday, September 26, 2002
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2 p.m., in room
1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Wayne T. Gilchrest
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. Gilchrest. The Subcommittee will come to order.
There are a couple of members that probably will be here
eventually, but we might as well get started; and I ask
unanimous consent that my statement be included in the record.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Gilchrest. We are here today to discuss a resolution
dealing with--initially, at any rate, dealing with the issue of
white marlin and the role of the United States in ICCAT and the
role of Congress in this issue of conservation of highly
migratory species and determining whether or not our resolution
as proposed is sufficient to bring about a change in the
conservation ethic and effort on the part of not only ICCAT
countries but nations around the world. To do that, we are
proposing that the U.S. delegation, this administration, use
trade sanctions as a tool.
We also realize that that is already a tool in the tool
box, but to list this particular issue of highly migratory
species and, in particular, white marlin as an issue that the
United States is interested in, too, in my estimation will
buttress the American delegation position with ICCAT in a much
more firm manner. Not using a heavy hand, but I think using the
concept of conservation as a partner with the international
community to ensure the oceans' abundance, based on a
scientific understanding of highly migratory species and the
ecosystem.
I think this Congress needs to take an active role in
ensuring that, since our commercial and recreational fishing
communities lead the world in their conservation effort, in
their fishing effort, that they should not be penalized by
other countries that don't comply with the same types of
regulations. That, in fact, the U.S. can lead the world in
helping develop more abundant fish stocks with these
conservation proposals.
Our resolution was dropped, as you have probably all read,
using white marlin as the priority. But, as your testimony
attests to, it is not and should not be the only priority of
the United States; and it should not be the only priority of
ICCAT. So we look forward to your testimony to help us
understand your views and will likely expand the context of the
resolution before it hits the House floor, which we would like
to see that done in the next couple of weeks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]
Statement of Chairman Wayne T. Gilchrest, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Maryland
It's a pleasure for me to welcome all of our witnesses to this
legislative hearing on H. CON. RES. 427, expressing the sense of
Congress that trade sanctions should be imposed on Nations that
undermine the effectiveness of the International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas--ICCAT--management measures.
Multiple viewpoints and backgrounds are represented here today,
with fishermen, ocean advocacy groups, the regulators, and their
advisors, seated at the table to discuss this most important issue. I'm
also particularly pleased that Mr. James Motsko from the White Marlin
Capital of the World, Ocean City Maryland--in my own district--is able
to join us today.
The problem we're examining is how to best deal with white marlin
stocks that are severely depleted and continuing to decline. It is
estimated that their levels are currently at only 5-15% of the carrying
capacity, and that they are being harvested at about 7 times the level
that would sustain a healthy population.
It is widely recognized that white marlin are being over-
harvested--but, the reality is that 95 percent of that harvest is by
other countries. Already in the U.S. we have the cleanest and most
regulated longline fishery in the world and we have already eliminated
commercial harvests of white marlin and instituted time-area closures
to limit potential interaction with them.
White marlin range across the Atlantic, so this is not simply a
domestic issue. ICCAT member nations other than the U.S. retain 95
percent of the documented catch, but at least these harvests are known.
Besides this large documented catch, illegal, unreported and
unregulated fishing by ICCAT members and non-member countries is taking
a serious toll on marlin and many other valuable fish species.
Many feel that ICCAT is not doing enough to protect the white
marlin and other species under its management, and that when action
finally does come, it is toothless and has no consequences. I agree
with that assessment. Trade sanctions by the U.S. represent a powerful
tool in the arsenal against both non-compliant countries and countries
whose vessels are conducting IUU fishing. This resolution proposes to
use all mechanisms at our disposal to dissuade countries from
participating in these activities and be in full compliance with ICCAT
resolutions. H. Con. Res. 427 states clearly that the U.S. recognizes
there is a real problem here and we consider it important enough to
take direct action.
Due to your expertise with these issues, we are asking for your
opinion on this resolution. We look forward to hearing your views and
suggestions on how to improve this important piece of legislation, and
to use this legislation to urge countries to comply with ICCAT
management measures.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Hogarth, Mr. Hayes and Dr. Graves, thank
you very much for coming this afternoon; and we look forward to
your testimony.
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Hogarth, you may begin, sir.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM HOGARTH, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR
FISHERIES, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE AND ICCAT FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT COMMISSIONER
Mr. Hogarth. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to
talk about House Concurrent Resolution 427.
Also, I would like to take the opportunity to thank you and
other members for your continuing involvement in the
conservation of our living marine resources. We as an agency
really appreciate your interest.
I am Bill Hogarth, the Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. I know I am most of the time very difficult to
understand, and today I may be even a little more so because I
have been suffering from a sinus problem, so I'll try to speak
a little slower to make sure you understand.
Although I have been familiar with the international aspect
of highly migratory species management for a number of years,
the 2002 meeting of the International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, or ICCAT, will mark my first as
a U.S. Commissioner; and I look forward to leading the US
delegation at the meeting this October.
We have two very capable commissioners that will be going
with me, plus a very good delegation. The Recreational
Commissioner is sitting next to me, Bob Hayes; and Glen Delaney
is the Commercial Commissioner.
With respect to marlin, the United States has successfully
pursued increasingly stringent conservation and management
measures at ICATT; and this has not been an easy feat,
considering the majority of marlin harvested are taken by
nontarget species in other, more lucrative tuna and swordfish
fisheries that are spread among a large number of international
fleets. The first binding measure ICCAT adopted required a 25
percent reduction in the marlin landings from 1996 levels by
1999. These reductions were to be maintained through the year
2000.
Although not all ICCAT members were able to meet the
landings reduction targets for white marlin, by the year 2000
the overall landings of species had declined by 35 percent.
Most recently, ICCAT adopted a rebuilding plan for marlins. The
first phase of the plan requires additional landing reductions.
White marlin landings are to be reduced 67 percent from the
1999 level and blue marlin by 50 percent.
It is too soon to tell whether or not these landing
reductions have been achieved since they only went into effect
last year. We have, however, received very encouraging
information from Japan, Brazil and the EC and others with
significant longline fleets that have taken steps to implement
the required reductions. In fact, Brazil has even gone so far
as to institute a ban on the trade of marlin.
Regarding compliance, the United States has been pursuing
state-of-the-art measures to ensure ICATT and its members abide
by their commitments. Among other things, these compliance
rules require that quota overharvests are paid back and that
quota penalties, including trade measures, are assessed for
consecutive quota violations in certain cases. Further, ICCAT
has developed approaches designed to encourage nonmember
cooperation with ICCAT conservation and management measures.
These measures can and have resulted in the imposition of trade
measures against both ICCAT member and nonmember countries and
they, together with other innovative approaches taken by ICCAT,
have been effective in helping to address illegal, unregulated
and unreported fishing for Atlantic highly migratory species.
The United States fully supports the use of multilateral trade
measures to further conservation goals. Since we are a major
importer of certain ICCAT species--in particular, the
swordfish--we are a key player in that implementation.
Even with the progress ICCAT has made on these and other
issues, challenges remain. We are currently considering new
steps that we can take at ICCAT this year to address not only
marlin conservation and compliance issues but a host of other
important matters such as bluefin tuna and swordfish
management, allocation issues and fishery monitoring issues. In
this regard, we welcome the attention Congress is giving to the
ICCAT issues that are evidenced by Congressional Resolution
427. The good intentions and spirit behind the resolution are
clear, and in that respect we are very supportive of it.
We do believe, however, that the language is too narrowly
focused in some instances, particularly given the large level
of important issues to be faced at ICCAT this year. It would be
useful to recognize in the resolution that progress on
compliance matters, including addressing illegal, unregulated
and unreported fishing has been made and should continue to be
a priority. We would be glad to work with you and your staff to
develop language on this and other areas in the resolution that
may need clarification or technical corrections.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. Once again,
thank you for the opportunity to be here today; and thank you
again for your interest. I look forward to answering any
questions you or the members may have.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Dr. Hogarth.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hogarth follows:]
Statement of William T. Hogarth, Ph.D., Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to testify before the Subcommittee regarding House
Concurrent Resolution 427. I am Dr. William T. Hogarth, Assistant
Administrator for Fisheries for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). In this testimony, I will be commenting on House
Concurrent Resolution 427, a resolution concerned with the conservation
and management of Atlantic highly migratory species.
I would like to begin by making a few general remarks. Although I
have been familiar with the international aspects of highly migratory
species management for a number of years, the 2002 meeting of the
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)
will mark my first as a U.S. Commissioner. I am looking forward to
leading the U.S. delegation at the meeting this October. The United
States is committed to the effective functioning of ICCAT. Practically
speaking, it is the only viable means we have to conserve and manage
Atlantic highly migratory species and to ensure future fishing
opportunities for all U.S. fishermen.
It has become increasingly clear over the years that the issues
facing ICCAT are not only increasing in number, but they are also
increasing in complexity. The 2002 ICCAT meeting may prove to be the
busiest and most complicated yet. Marlin conservation and compliance
are two of the complex issues we will be addressing at ICCAT this fall.
The United States has faced these important issues repeatedly at ICCAT
over the years, and we have made some notable progress.
With respect to marlin, the United States has successfully pursued
increasingly stringent conservation and management measures at ICCAT.
This has been no mean feat considering that the majority of marlin
harvested are taken as non-target species in other, more lucrative,
tuna and swordfish fisheries that are spread among a large number of
international fleets. The first binding measure ICCAT adopted required
a 25 percent reduction in marlin landings from 1996 levels by 1999.
These reductions were to be maintained through 2000. Although not all
ICCAT members were able to meet the landings reduction targets for
white marlin, by 1999 overall landings of this species had declined 40
percent below the 25 percent target reduction level. More recently,
ICCAT adopted a rebuilding plan for marlins. The first phase of the
plan requires additional landings reductions. White marlin landings are
to be reduced 67 percent from the 1999 level, and blue marlin by 50
percent. It is too soon to tell whether or not these landings
reductions have been achieved since they only went into effect last
year. We have, however, received very encouraging information that
Japan, Brazil, the European Community, and others with significant
longline fleets have taken steps to implement the required reductions.
Brazil has even gone so far as to institute a ban on the trade of
marlins.
Regarding compliance, the United States has been pursuing state-of-
the-art measures to ensure ICCAT members abide by their commitments.
Among other things, these compliance rules require that quota
overharvests are paid back and that quota penalties, including trade
measures, are assessed for consecutive quota violations in certain
cases. Further, ICCAT has developed approaches designed to encourage
non-member cooperation with ICCAT conservation and management measures.
These measures can and have resulted in the imposition of trade
measures against both ICCAT member and non-member countries and they,
together with other innovative approaches taken by ICCAT, have been
effective in helping to address illegal, unregulated, and unreported
fishing for Atlantic highly migratory species. The United States fully
supports the use of multilateral trade measures to further conservation
goals. Since we are a major importer of certain ICCAT species - in
particular, swordfish - we are a key player in their implementation.
Even with the progress ICCAT has made on these and other issues,
challenges remain. We are currently considering new steps that we can
take at ICCAT this year to address not only marlin conservation and
compliance issues but a host of other important matters such as bluefin
tuna and swordfish management, allocation issues, and fishery
monitoring issues. In that regard, we welcome the additional attention
Congress is giving to ICCAT issues as evidenced by Congressional
Resolution 427. The good intentions and spirit behind the resolution
are clear and, in that respect, we are supportive of it. We do believe,
however, that the language is too narrowly focused in some instances,
particularly given the large number of important issues to be faced at
ICCAT this year. Operative paragraph 1 is one such example. It would
also be useful to recognize in the resolution that progress on
compliance matters, including addressing illegal, unregulated, and
unreported fishing, has been made and should continue to be a priority.
We would be glad to work with you and your staff to develop appropriate
language. With changes along the lines I have described, I believe that
the resolution would be very useful in helping the United States
advance its goals for ICCAT.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. Once again, thank you
for the opportunity to be here today. I look forward to answering any
questions you or members of the Subcommittee may have.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Hayes.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT HAYES, COUNSEL, COASTAL CONSERVATION
ASSOCIATION AND ICCAT RECREATIONAL SECTOR COMMISSIONER
Mr. Hayes. Thank you. I would like to just submit my
written testimony for the record and--if I could; and then,
second, I will just go ahead and summarize it and talk about
some of the specific issues that I think you have in your
resolution.
Mr. Gilchrest. Without objection.
Mr. Hayes. I am the recreational commissioner, and I was
just appointed by the President in January, and that process
alone was frightening enough. But one thought I had while I was
sitting here is here is a lawyer sitting with two biologists,
one on either side, and I thought that was fairly frightening.
Mr. Gilchrest. Is it frightening for the biologist or the
lawyer?
Mr. Hayes. Touche.
The resolution that you have before you, as I read it,
deals with really three central and critical issues that are
before ICCAT. One is how they treat white marlin.
White marlin is obviously important to us. We have just
dodged a major bullet, in my view, by not listing it under the
Endangered Species Act, something that I commend the National
Marine Fisheries Service for; and they did that, I believe,
because they felt that the international community had begun to
address the conservation of white marlin through ICCAT, through
the 67 percent reduction in landings.
We don't know if that is going to work yet. We don't know
if that is adequate. We don't know if there is more that needs
to be done. And, most assuredly, there are things that can be
done. But, clearly, the 67 percent reduction would appear to be
adequate for most scientists, as best I understand, to ensure
that they won't go extinct and that, in fact, they might begin
some form of rebuilding. So I think we have got a little time
to work on white marlin.
The second thing, as I see it, that you have got in your
resolution is a discussion of the EU eastern bluefin situation;
and I think Bill's testimony and my testimony and everyone's
testimonies really describe that situation. The United States
simply has a different view of what ought to be done to
maintain eastern bluefin. Our view is based, as I see it, on
the principles that are in the Magnuson Act, that is, you
prevent overfishing, and when a stock is overfished, you take
those measures that are necessary to rebuild it.
The Europeans don't quite seem to be in that view. In fact,
they are proposing things like overfishing the eastern bluefin
stock by 8,000 metric tons over the MSY of 25,000 metric tons.
So that is pretty significant. That is a 33 percent overage.
That is a pretty big number.
We are going to try to make some progress on that issue. I
know that there has been a 301 petition filed with USTR on this
issue. As I understand it, there may be a Pelly Act petition
filed later next week also on this issue. I think it is
something that we not only need to focus on but which, at least
in my preliminary discussions with both of my two biologist
colleagues here and Glenn Delaney, we have focused in on as a
clear priority. So the inclusion of that in your resolution is
both appropriate and necessary.
The third thing that I saw that you basically focused on
was this whole idea of IUU vessels--illegal, unreported and
unregulated. Yes, I always throw in unknown because that is the
truth of it. I think there is a third U that belongs out there,
which is unknown.
``We'' being the international community--know something
about these vessels. We know some of them came from Japan. We
know that some of them are included on the list for various
reasons by other countries, and we are not--you know, they
might be competitive reasons, as an example. We know that there
are a number of those vessels that we may think are illegal but
which the company--countries, excuse me--that they are
registered in think are legal.
So there is, you know, this whole concept of how many there
are, what they are doing; and the impact of those vessels
isn't, frankly, all that clear. But I did a back-of-an-envelope
sketch for you in my testimony, and I am going to go through a
little bit of that just to give you a sense of the size of the
problem that I think we are facing.
The problem we are facing is that the Japanese have
identified at least 400 of these vessels. Now, let's assume,
just for the purposes of the argument here, that these vessels
are conducting longline fishing. We're going to compare them to
the U.S. longline fleet, which is a regulated fleet, which is
in absolute compliance with international requirements, which
is looking at by catch responsibilities and doing, both for
white marlin and blue marlin, a great job of complying with
U.S. regulations and international regulations.
The U.S. fleet is about a hundred boats. They fish about 80
days a year. The IUU fleet is about 400 boats. By my estimate,
they fish 300 days a year. They are just out there. They go on
6-month cruises. They transship at sea. They have much larger
vessels. They deploy larger gear and more hooks.
So let's just assume the back of the envelope says this
fleet has potentially 10 times the fishing power of the United
States fleet--10 times. Now let's assume that I am absolutely
crazy, that I am off. Let's make me off by 70 percent. They are
three times the size of the U.S. Fleet.
There is no regulation from the United States, and there is
no international regulation that applies to them. They do not
discard white and blue marlin in a way that the U.S. fleet
does, which is with some care to ensure that they get released
if they are alive, they do take some care to ensure that this
happens.
I think, you know, years ago there was a thing that people
got upset about called a crucifier. Some people might remember
this device. This is an automatic dehooker. It saves a $1 hook.
The way it works is you bring the line up, and it is like a
shovel head. What it does is it splits the fish down the
middle, takes the hook and frees it and then casts the carcass
over the side. No U.S. fisherman is using one of those. But it
is pretty efficient, pretty easy to own, and it is pretty
likely that at least half of this IUU fleet is using that. So
these fish aren't being released alive. They are being
butchered and sent over the side.
Now, it is not difficult to get enraged over this problem,
and if you sit there and think about the impact of that problem
on white marlin recovery, it is staggering.
So where are we today and what do we need to do? The United
States for 5 years easy has been at ICCAT chasing this IUU
fleet country by country by country in an attempt to corner it.
Other international regional regimes are doing very much the
same kind of thing.
This year, we are going to discuss at ICCAT amongst the
major markets exactly the thing that you suggest, Mr. Chairman,
trade sanctions, a multilateral identification of product that
is legal in the world markets and, obviously, an international
identification of product that is illegal in the world market.
If we can do that, then we can come back to the United States
and implement measures here in the United States, in Canada, in
Europe and in Japan which will put these guys out of business,
which is exactly what we need to do. If we can do that, we will
do more for conservation, more for the white marlin
conservation than any measure which ICCAT presently has before
it; and it would be a significant step forward. I was glad to
see that you noted it in your resolution, and I commend you on
doing so.
Now, there is one last thing I would like to talk about
which is in my testimony which I would like to raise, and this
is the issue of science which is--I will defer to Mr. Graves as
to what kind of science. You have before you in this Congress a
bill which you are the sponsor of. You are at the moment in a
negotiation with the Senate on ITQs. Included in your bill,
however, is a section which deals with science which is
absolutely necessary to ensure that we can go ahead and bring
the kind of effort that we need to bring to ICCAT.
ICCAT moves on science. Internationally, you make progress
by presenting sound science. What I would ask you to do is to
split that portion of your bill out as you probably would like
to split that portion of the ITQ bill of your bill out, couple
those two things together and take those to the discussion that
is going on in the Senate.
I would be fairly convinced that something, it may only be
a moratorium, but something is clearly going to pass this year
on fisheries. One of the things that ought to pass is that
science portion which there is not a single person in this room
that objects to, and there is not a single person on your
Committee objects to. I think it would be a sound and good
effort and something that would move this process forward.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much. An enticing suggestion.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hayes follows:]
Statement of Robert G. Hayes, Counsel, Coastal Conservation Association
and ICAAT Recreational Sector Commissioner
Good afternoon, my name is Robert Hayes and I appear before you
today in my capacity as one of three commissioners to the International
Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). I also note
that I am the General Council for the Coastal Conservation Association
and the American Sportfishing Association. The views I am presenting
are my own, although each of the groups I represent agree with what I
have to say here today.
I am not here to extol the virtues of ICCAT. It is a difficult
place to make progress and it is a process that is often frustrating
and laborious. I am here to tell you that this is where the
conservation game gets played for highly migratory species in the
Atlantic Ocean. ICCAT can be made to work if we continue US
conservation leadership and we are imaginative, well armed with good
science and stand by our principles throughout our negotiations. The
Congress has been helpful in reinforcing the US commitment to sound
conservation principles and in demonstrating our commitment to our
foreign counterparts. The resolution, which we will discuss today and
the actions of the Congress need to send just such a signal again as we
head for yet another round of contentious international conservation
negotiations.
The fisheries that ICCAT manages cover the entire Atlantic Ocean,
including the Mediterranean Sea, the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean
Sea. The countries that are members of the Commission are mostly
Atlantic coastal countries except for the distant water fishing
countries like Japan, Korea and China. There are 32 members of ICCAT
with the European Union representing 15 individual countries including
Spain, France and Portugal.
To date, ICCAT has established conservation restrictions for
eastern and western bluefin tuna, yellowfin tuna, albacore, big eye
tuna, blue and white marlin and swordfish. It has considered but has
yet to adopt binding measures for sharks, turtles and seabirds. To
enforce these measures, ICCAT has adopted compliance measures for
member and non-member countries whose vessels operate in contravention
of the Convention's conservation measures. Almost all of these measures
have been put in place in the last ten years and they have begun to
bear fruit.
The most recent assessment for Atlantic Swordfish demonstrates that
sound management measures based on universally accepted and peer
reviewed science can recover stocks of fish. I think it is fair to say
that the efforts of the Congress, three administrations, the industry,
the recreational and environmental communities and the legions of
volunteers and agency staff are beginning to pay off. Having said that,
there is a mountain of work yet to do.
ICCAT has just begun to address the concept of bycatch. The impact
of large commercial harvesting of target species on sharks, billfishes,
seabirds and turtles is just beginning to come under the purview of
ICCAT. At the insistence of the United States, marlin were the first
non-target species in the Atlantic to get protection. As most in this
room know, billfishes are much valued in the United States as gamefish.
However, in other parts of the world they are a food source at best and
a waste of bait at worst. Nevertheless, ICCAT has promulgated a series
of rules directed at retarding the decline of Atlantic marlin. In 1995,
they adopted an enhanced data program to establish a baseline for
future stock assessments. In 1996, ICCAT adopted a voluntary program to
encourage the release of all live marlin. In 1997, a mandatory 25%
reduction in landings was adopted followed up three years later by
adoption of a 50% reduction for blue marlin and a 67% reduction for
white marlin. These escalating restrictions were in response to a
concern shared Atlantic-wide that marlin stocks were in significant
trouble and that effort restrictions were justified.
These reductions apply to the fleets that are fishing legally in
the Atlantic. To my knowledge, all of the ICCAT member countries have
complied with the marlin recommendations. It is too early to assess
what affect the latest measures will have on arresting the decline and
furthering the recovery of marlin, but most international scientists
agree that these measures have produced a significant decline in
mortality.
ICCAT is at best an incremental process. One cannot assume that all
of the ills, as this country sees them, will be solved every year.
However, as long as our goal is conservation of the resource, the
prevention of overfishing and the recovery of overfished stocks, we can
make progress. This year there are two very large problems on which we
can make progress. The first is bringing a recovery program to eastern
bluefin tuna; the second is putting measures in place to control
illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing.
Eastern Bluefin
Last year, the United States took the extraordinary step of
objecting to the harvest levels proposed for eastern bluefin tuna.
1 The action precipitated a series of events which cratered
last year's meeting and resulted in the first series of votes ever
taken by ICCAT. Many delegations in the room in Murcia, Spain were
shocked the United States felt so strongly about a fishery that they
did not participate in and what, at least to most, was a fishery which
had little impact on the United States. 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ICCAT operates on consensus but has since its inception had a
very detailed voting process. Prior to last year, the voting process
had never been used for conservation measures.
\2\ It is unclear today what the impact of the US action will be on
the future of ICCAT. Last year's meeting will be adjourned this year at
the start of the Bilbao meeting after an agreement on how to treat
eastern bluefin catches for this fishing year. The need for votes in
the future and how it will change the acceptance of measure by
individual countries is still in doubt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why was the United States so adamant in its opposition to the
harvest levels agreed upon by the EU and 20 other members of ICCAT?
The United States has three paramount interests here. The first is
the impact on the conversation ethic of our own citizens. US
harvesters, commercial and recreational, are the conservation leaders
at ICCAT. Year after year, our harvesters tighten their belts, lower
their expectations and work toward conservation regimes that prevent
overfishing and rebuild stocks. It is extremely difficult to maintain
that ethic in the face of foreign vessels fishing well in excess of
scientifically recommended levels.
The second reason is biological. Scientists have increasingly found
evidence that there may not be two stocks of bluefin in the Atlantic.
At a minimum they are concluding that there is a significant amount of
intermingling of the east and the west. The level of dependence of one
on the other will be determined in the future but it is now clear that
the two stocks mix. What happens in the east does have some impact on
the western stock.
Lastly, there is the integrity of ICCAT itself. ICCAT has operated
as a consensus organization for 30 years. Consensus is important
because any country disagreeing with a conservation measure can object
to it after the meeting and the measure will not apply to harvests from
that country. The use of objections, which are being used more
frequently, undermines the conservation objectives of ICCAT. In order
to get consensus and reduce the use of objections, it is necessary for
the larger fishing nations and the principal seafood markets to show
conservation leadership. Without that leadership the conservation gains
of ICCAT will quickly erode to an all nation harvest free-for-all.
For the last ten years, the United States has endorsed harvest at
levels supported by sound science. For the last six years, the United
States has followed the management formula in the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
namely, preventing overfishing and rebuilding stocks as quickly as
possible. What the European Union proposed last year was a harvest of
some 8000 MT above the harvest level recommended by the SCRS of 25,000
MT. They simply wanted to overharvest for a couple more years so they
could get a comprehensive allocation scheme put in place. When the
United States objected, other countries, notably Canada and Korea,
voiced concerns. Soon enough Korea noted the absence of a quorum
without which no votes could be taken. Subsequently, ICCAT has taken a
series of votes by mail. All of them passed except the EU eastern
bluefin tuna proposal.
This leaves the issue of eastern bluefin tuna to the beginning of
this year's meeting. ICCAT will have to decide what to do about this
year's catch level and then decide on subsequent years. It will have to
make that decision in a far more heated environment than last year. The
Recreational Fishing Alliance has filed a 301 petition here in the
United States asking for trade sanctions for the EU's failure to comply
with ICCAT measures. 3 The petition has the support of a
number of recreational and commercial groups. There is a rumor that the
World Wildlife Fund will file a Pelly Act petition making similar
arguments. In addition, there is the continued Congressional oversight
of the EU actions. Lastly, the voting coalition that the EU enjoyed in
Murcia dissolved during the mail votes on the eastern bluefin proposal
last spring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ EU countries have failed to comply with the minimum size
requirement for years. In addition, the EU's reluctance to fish eastern
bluefin at MSY levels can be argued to be in contravention of the
treaty's objective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last year, the United States position was clear and so far it has
remained unchanged. The countries in the eastern bluefin fishery need
to reduce their harvest to a level consistent with the SCRS recommended
level. This may take a series of years to achieve but the continuation
of the overharvesting at the present level is unacceptable. We need to
press forward aggressively on eastern bluefin to ensure that harvest of
all ICCAT species is consistent with sound internationally accepted
principles of conservation.
Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported Fishing
The second problem that needs to be addressed at this year's
session is the ongoing dilemma of illegal, unregulated and unreported
(IUU) fishing. The world has been chasing a fleet of pirate vessels
harvesting on the high sea for the last ten years. These vessels are
not registered in countries that are part of any regional conservation
regime and for the most part don't comply with any of the conservation
recommendations. These vessels are predominately longliners built in
the 60's and 70's as part of the Japanese longline fleet. Japan,
wishing to right size its overcapitalized longline fleet, sold these
vessels in the early 90's and the chase began. These vessels harvest
tunas and swordfish on the high seas without encumbrances.
ICCAT estimates that there are some 400 of these vessels. The
fishing power of this fleet is substantial. As a comparison, the US
fleet in the Atlantic is about 100 vessels. They average 70 feet in
length and fish about 80 days a year. The IUU fleet averages 120 feet
in length and fish in the Atlantic about 200 days a year. The fishing
power of this fleet is roughly 10 times that of the US fleet
4. But that only begins to describe the potential damage.
The 67% reduction in landings for white marlin does not apply to this
fleet. The cap on Yellowfin effort does not apply to this fleet. The
rebuilding plan for swordfish does not apply to this fleet. Nothing
ICCAT has put in place has been able to be enforced on this fleet. The
damage they are doing is stunning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ This is a very conservative estimate. The IUU fleet probably
fishes 300 days a year in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans. Its
cargo is transshipped at sea to the major seafood markets in the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the past ten years, ICCAT has instituted a series of
enforcement measures, many of which have been directed at these
vessels. The committee which reviews the enforcement of these measures
now takes almost half of the plenary session to complete its work.
5 These measures have been directed at the countries that
register the vessels. By the time the enforcement measure goes into
place the vessels have moved to a new country. ICCAT can not continue
to approach controlling this fleet by the use of country specific
measures. It needs to take an approach that puts the IUU fleet out of
business by controlling access to the market for the fleet's products.
Just such a measure is being discussed by the EU, Japan, Canada and the
US.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Five years ago this committee, known as the Permanent Working
Group for the Improvement of ICCAT Statistics and Conservation Measures
or PWG met for less than two hours in a 10 day meeting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This measure would make harvests of these vessels ineligible for
entry into the markets of the ICCAT member countries. Ideally it would
work similar to the present coffee and textile agreements. Vessels
allowed to harvest in the Atlantic would be registered with the ICCAT
Secretariat every year before fishing begins. Harvests would be shipped
with accompanying documentation identifying its origin. In order to
import swordfish, bigeye, bluefin and yellowfin tuna the import would
require a certification from the exporting country that the product was
caught in compliance with ICCAT conservation measures.
Domestically, it would mean more work for Customs and NMFS but once
the EU, Japan, US and Canada put market controls in place, the impact
on the conservation of ICCAT managed stocks will be significant. The
adoption and implementation of this measure will have more impact on
the conservation of white marlin than any other single measure ICCAT
now has under consideration.
Future Needs
The United States will continue it conservation leadership at ICCAT
so long as it can provide a scientific justification for the measure it
supports. Science, more than any other effort, brings results at ICCAT.
The United States is considering the use of closed areas to reduce
bycatch and enhance the recovery of stocks. This effort lacks adequate
data to analyze the specific areas and the consequences of closures.
Longlining continues to be a preferred method of high seas harvest.
Many in the United States believe that there are ways to reduce the
impact of longlining on non-target species by changing fishing methods
and gear. If the United States intends to go this route, it will need
some research to support change.
What can Congress do?
1. LSupport the United States effort to bring the EU into
compliance for the harvest of eastern bluefin tuna.
2. LSupport the adoption of market controls to eliminate IUU
fishing.
3. LBreak out the highly migratory species research portion of the
Gilchrist/Saxton bill and add it to the IFQ discussions now being held
by the House and the Senate. In the alternative, being an initiative to
fund HMS research.
This Congress has already been supportive of the efforts to bring
sound conservation to ICCAT. Passage of the resolution before you and
continued dialogue with the administration on EU fishing and IUU
controls can this year take us all one step closer to a better managed
and healthier resource in the Atlantic.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Graves.
STATEMENT OF JOHN GRAVES, CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
SCIENCE, VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE, AND CHAIRMAN,
ICCAT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to
testify before this Subcommittee on House Concurrent Resolution
427.
I have a keen personal interest in Atlantic highly
migratory species and for almost two decades I have been
involved in research and management of these impressive
animals. For the past 7 years I have served as chairman of the
US ICCAT Advisory Committee and in October will be my eighth
consecutive trip to the annual ICCAT meeting as a coordinator
of the U.S. Delegation. It is in this capacity that I wish to
address you today.
Last November, the ICCAT meeting ended in a meltdown. On
the last day, the United States refused to agree to a binding
recommendation that would allow gross overfishing of eastern
atlantic bluefin tuna to continue. Our actions precipitated a
series of events that resulted in the meeting ending without
adoption of most management measures and the control of many
fisheries in limbo. Fortunately, panel reports, and their
management provisions, were subsequently adopted by mail.
The U.S. delegation did not take its actions lightly. For
years, the Commission has been presented with management
proposals that condone overfishing, often at the 11th hour at
the meeting. The United States has agreed to such proposals
simply to preserve consensus and to ensure that some management
measure remains in effect. But last year there was unanimity
among the U.S. Delegation that in the case of eastern atlantic
bluefin tuna no recommendation was better than the
irresponsible recommendation that had been proposed. It was
hoped that the breakdown of the ICCAT process would raise
awareness back in the United States of problems within the
Commission and spur the administration to promote bilateral
negotiations with certain recalcitrant parties prior to this
year's meeting. Such direct interaction, might facilitate the
adoption of more meaningful management measures by the
Commission. I am pleased that this Subcommittee has taken note
that ICCAT is in trouble, as are many of the stocks under its
management purview.
I strongly support the spirit and the intent of House
Resolution 427. For several years, a priority for the U.S.
ICCAT Advisory Committee has been to obtain multilateral
authorization for unilateral trade actions promoting compliance
with Commission conservation recommendations. I recently
convened four regional meetings of the Advisory Committee along
our Atlantic coast, and I cannot adequately express the
indignation and outrage many of the public felt when they found
out that the United States cannot stop the importation of more
fish from a nation than that nation's ICCAT quota. Not only
does this noncompliance erode the resource and slow recovery
plans, but the extra imported product depresses the domestic
market for U.S. fishermen who do abide by ICCAT conservation
measures.
It was, therefore, very gratifying for all of us on the
Advisory Committee to see ICCAT adopt a resolution last year
that directs member and nonmember nations to refrain from
engaging in the transaction and transshipment of atlantic
highly migratory species from IUU vessels or vessels fishing
out of compliance with ICCAT recommendations. It is our hope
that this resolution will provide one mechanism to promote the
conservation of ICCAT species and protect the interests of our
fishermen.
Atlantic marlin certainly merit high priority at next
month's ICCAT meeting. I spent most of my summer as a member of
the white marlin ESA status review team, and I know the plight
of these populations. However, I feel that making them the
Commissioners' highest priority could potentially limit our
effectiveness. There are many critical items on the agenda at
this year's meeting for ICCAT. During 2002, ICCAT's fishery
science arm, the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics,
has conducted an unprecedented number of stock assessments,
including white marlin, western Atlantic bluefin tuna, eastern
Atlantic bluefin tuna, North Atlantic swordfish, South Atlantic
swordfish; and they are currently conducting an assessment of
Atlantic bigeye tuna. That is a lot of work.
Based on the outcomes of these assessments, new management
measures and, in some cases, quota allocations will have to be
negotiated. As the United States has interest in all of these
stocks, narrowing our focus or publicizing our priorities could
be counterproductive.
I would also like to point out that it is quite unlikely
the Commission members will be receptive to additional
management measures for marlins this year. A hard-fought ICCAT
recommendation requiring release of live white marlin and blue
marlin from longline and purse seine fisheries went into effect
in the middle of last year. Until the impact of this management
measure can be assessed--and that will be several years down
the road--there will be little resolve within the Commission to
do more for the marlins. It may be more prudent to request the
Standing Committee on Research and Statistics to consider other
means of reducing fishing mortality on the marlins, including
determining the effects of various time/area closures
throughout the Atlantic. That way, if the next assessment
indicates additional management measures are required to
rebuild the stocks, the Commission will have the information
necessary to make an immediate decision on the best course of
action to pursue.
In closing, it is time for the United States to do all it
can to ensure that ICCAT properly manages Atlantic highly
migratory species. Our commercial and recreational fishermen
have made many sacrifices to rebuild overfished stocks, and it
is frustrating to see their efforts diminished by
noncompliance, IUU fishing and the continuing adoption by ICCAT
of management measures that condone overfishing. The United
States should not abet such activities by acting as a market
for nations who do not adhere to the Commission's policies.
House Resolution 427 conveys that message, and it is a good
first step. But we must also follow through with high-level,
bilateral negotiations to reduce ICCAT's current dysfunction
and to ensure conservation of the resource its member nations
manage.
I thank you for your time, and on behalf of the U.S. ICCAT
Advisory Committee I thank you for your support.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Dr. Graves.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Graves follows:]
Statement of John E. Graves, Chairman, Department of Fisheries Science,
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, and Chairman, ICAAT Advisory
Committee
Mr. Chairman, Honorable Members of Congress, fellow witnesses,
distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen:
I am pleased to testify before the Subcommittee on Fisheries
Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans on House Resolution 427. I have a
keen personal interest in Atlantic highly migratory species, and for
almost two decades I have been actively involved in research and
management of these impressive animals. For the past seven years I have
served as Chairman of the U.S. ICCAT Advisory Committee and this
October will be my eighth consecutive trip to the annual ICCAT meeting
as a coordinator of the U.S. delegation. It is in this capacity that I
wish to address you today.
Last November the ICCAT meeting ended in a meltdown. On the last
day, the United States refused to agree to a binding recommendation
that would allow gross overfishing of bluefin tuna in the eastern
Atlantic and Mediterranean to continue. Our actions precipitated a
series of events that resulted in the meeting ending without adoption
of most management measures, leaving control of many fisheries in
limbo. Fortunately, panel reports--and their management provisions--
were subsequently adopted by mail. The U.S. delegation did not take its
actions lightly. For years, the Commission has been presented with
ICCAT management measures that condone overfishing, often at the
eleventh hour of the meeting. The United States has agreed to such
proposals simply to preserve consensus and to ensure that some
management measure remains in effect. But last year there was unanimity
among the U.S. delegation that in the case of the eastern Atlantic and
Mediterranean stock of bluefin tuna, no recommendation was better than
the irresponsible recommendation that was proposed. It was hoped that
the breakdown of the ICCAT process would raise awareness back in the
United States of problems within the Commission, and spur the
Administration to promote bilateral negotiations with certain
recalcitrant parties prior to this year's meeting. Such direct
interactions might facilitate the adoption of more meaningful
management measures by the Commission. I am pleased that this
Subcommittee has taken note that ICCAT is in trouble, as are many of
the stocks under its collective management.
I strongly support the spirit and intent of House Resolution 427.
For several years, a priority for the U.S. ICCAT Advisory Committee has
been to obtain multilateral authorization for unilateral trade actions
promoting compliance with Commission conservation recommendations. I
recently convened four regional meetings of the U.S. ICCAT Advisory
Committee, and I cannot adequately express the indignation and outrage
many of the public felt when they found out that the United States
cannot stop the importation of more fish from a nation than its annual
ICCAT quota. Not only does this non-compliance erode the resource and
slow recovery plans, but the extra imported product depresses the
domestic market for U.S. fishermen who do abide by ICCAT conservation
measures.
It was therefore very gratifying for all of us on the U.S. ICCAT
Advisory Committee to see ICCAT adopt a resolution last year that
directs member and non-member nations to refrain from engaging in the
transaction and transshipment of Atlantic highly migratory species from
IUU vessels, or vessels fishing out of compliance with ICCAT
recommendations. It is our hope that this resolution will provide one
mechanism to promote the conservation of ICCAT species and protect the
interests of our fishermen.
Atlantic marlin certainly merit high priority at next month's ICCAT
meeting; however, I feel that making them the Commissioners' highest
priority could potentially limit our effectiveness. There are many
critical items on the agenda at this year's meeting. During 2002,
ICCAT's Standing Committee on Research and Statistics has conducted
stock assessments of white marlin, western Atlantic bluefin tuna,
eastern Atlantic/Mediterranean bluefin tuna, North Atlantic swordfish,
South Atlantic swordfish, and they are currently assessing bigeye tuna.
Based on the outcomes of these assessments, new management measures
and--in some cases--quota allocations, will have to be negotiated. As
the United States has interests in all of these stocks, narrowing our
focus or publicizing our priorities could be counterproductive.
I would also like to point out that it is quite unlikely the
Commission members will be receptive to additional management measures
on white marlin and blue marlin this year. A hard-fought ICCAT
Recommendation requiring release of live white marlin and blue marlin
from longline and purse seine fisheries went into effect in the middle
of 2001. Until the impact of this management measure can be assessed
(which will be a few years down the road), there will be little resolve
to do more. It may be more prudent to request the Standing Committee on
Research and Statistics to consider other means of reducing fishing
mortality on the marlins, including determining the effects of various
time/area closures. That way, if the next assessment indicates
additional management measures are required to rebuild the stocks, the
Commission will have the information necessary to make an immediate
decision on the best course of action to pursue.
In closing, it is time for the United States to do all it can to
ensure that ICCAT properly manages Atlantic highly migratory species.
Our commercial and recreational fishermen have made many sacrifices to
rebuild overfished stocks, and it is frustrating to see their efforts
diminished by non-compliance, IUU fishing, and the continuing adoption
by ICCAT of management measures that condone overfishing. The United
States should not abet such activities by acting as a market for
nations who do not adhere to the Commission's policies. House
Resolution 427 conveys that message, and it is a good first step. But
we must also follow through with high level, bilateral negotiations to
reduce ICCAT's current dysfunction and to ensure conservation of the
resources its member nations manage.
I thank you for your time, and on behalf of the U.S. ICCAT Advisory
Committee, I thank you for your support.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Just a quick question that you raised about
ICCAT not being in the mood to further restrict the catch of
white marlin. ICCAT has--it is my understanding, based on the
testimony, accepted a reduction of 67 percent in the management
plan for white marlin. And if that is the case, if--let's say
our resolution doesn't change and it still has as its highest
priority white marlin, how will our resolution, having white
marlin as a priority, and trade sanctions against those
countries that are violating it, how likely will ICCAT--not
that they--I mean, it is our resolution. But how likely will
ICCAT be positive or negative in its reception to this
resolution coming so soon before--on the heels of the ICCAT
meeting?
Mr. Graves. I don't personally think that it will have a
great impact on the ICCAT countries. If you look at the
recommendation, it turns out that our estimates of the
percentage of white marlin that are alive when longline gear is
hauled back or the purse seine closed ranged from 44 percent
alive to 69 percent of them are alive at the time the gear is
retrieved. So if we are reducing the landings by 67 percent, it
was hoped that that 67 percent would be those that were alive.
But there may not even be 67 percent of them that are alive.
But essentially what they are doing is, by releasing all
live billfish, is they have gone as far as they can go in terms
of making a reduction without reducing their effort in terms of
the hooks they put in the water or where they are setting them.
So until they can actually see what the benefit of this
rather--what they perceive as a draconian measure and one for a
resource that they are not that terribly interested in
anyway--.
Mr. Gilchrest. They would look at this resolution as a
draconian measure.
Mr. Graves. No, the recommendation that was passed was a
draconian measure for them.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see.
Mr. Graves. So now putting right on the heels of that
before we see what was done, they would think that this might
be unnecessary.
Mr. Gilchrest. Will it help or hinder the U.S. position,
this resolution in the ICCAT negotiations?
Mr. Graves. On white marlin?
Mr. Gilchrest. On white marlin.
Mr. Graves. I think it would be much better for us to have
a more general resolution. I think the problems that ICCAT--the
same problems we are having with white marlin transcend to many
other species. And I think that--I think that what the United
States should be--the resolution we want, well, I would like to
see it as not--is making sure that we don't adopt any
recommendation that condones overfishing. If we could do that
and put the squeeze on IUU fishing, we would be doing an awful
lot for the resources.
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Hogarth, your opinion on whether this
resolution would hurt or help the U.S. position, let's say,
from a white marlin perspective or a more general, suppose we
wrote the resolution where it was much more general so that
anybody that participated in overfishing faced a potential
trade sanctions. Would that help or hurt the U.S. position?
Mr. Hogarth. I think it helps the U.S. position to be
broader, I think, in this instance. As you go forward, like for
this year is probably one of the toughest year we have had. We
have got most species on the table for discussion. I think if
we go in with just marlin then they will say, well, this is the
U.S. interest this year, so we don't really have to worry about
bluefin tuna or swordfish or, you know, compliance measures. So
I think if it is broader it shows that we are concerned about
compliance in overfishing, period; and we want conservation
measures.
I think what we are going to try to start pushing is time/
area closures for white marlin. We want to talk about putting
them under the compliance regime. Right now, they are not under
the same compliance regime as bluefin tuna. So, imposing trade
sanctions is not possible until we change the compliance regime
and include them.
That is the type of thing we want to do this year, continue
to work on changing the compliance regime, getting them in
there so we can impose trade sanctions, getting them to look at
other measures such as time/area closures. So that is what we
want on white marlin, but we have to deal with eastern bluefin
tuna, which is a major, major issue for us also, and swordfish.
So I think it is great to have Congressional support, but we
would like to see it broader.
Mr. Gilchrest. So when you say "broader," don't mention a
particular species? Just--would it be too broad to say
overfishing on any species?
Mr. Hogarth. Well, I think when we talk about species under
the management of ICCAT, we need to make sure that we have
compliance and conservation measures in place and reduce
overfishing. And if you want to say, you know, including white
marlin or especially white marlin, that doesn't bother me.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see.
Mr. Hogarth. Yes. But we want to be--we want to make sure
that we are concerned about the big picture of all the highly
migratory species that ICCAT manages in the Atlantic.
Mr. Gilchrest. So just to make sure I understand, in this
resolution that deals with the recommendation for trade
sanctions, it would be helpful for the U.S. position--not only
for the reality of the trade sanctions but it would be helpful
for the U.S. position in your negotiations with ICCAT to
mention trade sanctions against those nations that pursue--I
guess we could either say overfishing of those species under
ICCAT, including bluefin tuna, white marlin, swordfish.
Mr. Hogarth. Yeah. That is correct. We have some specific
wording that we were willing to work with your staff this
afternoon after this hearing to--because we know you want to
get this on the floor. And we have some specific wording which
we think would help this, and it is not very complicated. It is
just a few words here and there we think would make it, you
know, much more, more general and help us, for the big picture
this year.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Hayes. Any comment on that issue?
Mr. Hayes. I was just--I know Bill's got some specific
wording, but so do I, as it turns out. I would make it broad
enough to say that you would apply trade sanctions to any
product imported into the United States inconsistent or not in
compliance with any ICCAT measure. Now, by saying any ICCAT
measure, then that gives us the ability to go negotiate
overfishing arrangements like the ones that have been
suggested, specific 67 percent reductions for white marlin.
That takes care of everything.
Mr. Gilchrest. OK.
Mr. Hayes. Because no one is going to import into the
United States a white marlin. You can't import a white marlin
into the United States. So applying a trade sanction, you need
to apply the trade sanction to yellow fin tuna. So that is why
I would make it as broad as I could.
Mr. Gilchrest. My intent here is not to ban the importation
of white marlin as a trade sanction but to ban everything.
Mr. Hayes. No, I understand.
Mr. Gilchrest. I would even go so far as to say we are not
going to import any of your refrigerators or televisions.
Mr. Hayes. I think we might have a little WTO problem. But
I certainly think we can do the more narrow one in that sense,
and I think that would work.
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes. Maybe Dr. Hogarth can give me this, I
am not sure, or certainly each one of you could give an answer
to this. The percentage of the world's market that the U.S.
represents for ICCAT-managed species, anybody know that? And do
we have a big enough market that trade sanctions will scare
countries away from overharvest quotas?
Mr. Hayes. Actually, I think I can answer the latter
question much easier.
I think the United States is not that significant a market
for ICCAT species because, by and large, we--except for
swordfish. But the truth there is that the combination of the
three markets--or four markets, if you will, if you add
Canada--the United States, the EU and Japan, and then you apply
it to ICCAT-caught species, you have a significant, significant
trade implication there and an enormous amount of market
control over what gets caught legally or illegally. So I think
the trick here is to get ICCAT to adopt a provision that all of
its member countries can put in place.
Mr. Gilchrest. Of all of the fish that we import into the
United States, how much of that is nonICCAT-caught? Anybody
know that?
Mr. Hayes. You mean, like a yellow fin tuna or something?
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes. The fish that we import into the United
States, from other than nonICCAT countries.
Mr. Hogarth. We can probably get you a good idea. I don't
know it off the top of my head. I know tuna was extremely
important to our canneries also and then swordfish import. But
we can probably get you some estimates, and I will get that for
you.
Mr. Gilchrest. All three of you mentioned the illegal
unregulated fishing fleet that could be as much as 10 times the
size of the United States, up to 400 vessels; and the already
existing, I guess, regulations that have been promulgated by
ICCAT to deal with these unregulated ships. In this round of
talks with ICCAT, are you optimistic? What is the potential for
enforcement of these unregulated vessels with some type of
documented or undocumented regime that can be identified? Who
is going to be--who is going to enforce that? Can they be
boarded on the high seas? You know, those kind of things. What
is the potential for beginning the real process of resolving
that issue of these unregulated vessels?
Mr. Hayes. I think the potential is actually reasonably
good. We had an intersessional meeting in Japan in May or so in
which--the first 3 days of it--with how do we do something
about these IUU vessels. And there were two approaches raised
at that meetings.
One approach was to do essentially what we have been doing,
which is not working, which is chasing these vessels from
country to country to country and then we sanction the country
and then the next thing you know they would be off to the next
country. So that clearly wasn't working. And a lot of the
countries represented there--Japan, the United States, Canada,
the EU--the principal ones all said, yeah, this isn't working.
So the question became how do we make one work? And there
are two approaches which people are discussing at the moment.
One approach is to literally list the bad guys. If we list the
bad guys--that is a vote.
Mr. Gilchrest. Finish.
Mr. Hayes. OK. If you list the bad guys, that is an
approach that might be a little bit difficult because we,
frankly, that unknown--I'm serious about that unknown. We don't
really know very much about these vessels. So the question for
us really is a more positive approach, which is to have all of
the legal vessels that are allowed to legally harvest fish in
the Atlantic ocean identified and then product from those
vessels allowed to legally be imported into any of the larger
markets in the world. That is an approach we are looking at,
and that is an approach we are going to discuss at this
meeting.
Mr. Gilchrest. Are these unregulated vessels--there could
be 2 to 400 hundred of them. Are there any likely from the
United States?
Mr. Hayes. I don't believe so. It depends how you identify
unregulated.
Mr. Gilchrest. Are they from Asia, Latin America?
Mr. Hayes. Actually, we don't--I have not heard of a U.S.
Pirate vessel out there, even by way of rumor. So maybe there
is one out there.
Mr. Gilchrest. So are these European vessels, Asian
vessels, South American vessels?
Mr. Hayes. These are mostly owned at the moment by a group
of Taiwanese companies. Many of those vessels were Japan--Japan
reduced--this will give you a sense of doing--of what you're
doing in the United States. Japan reduced its longline fleet by
selling them. What a surprise. They went fishing for somebody
else.
A large number of these vessels--not all of them, but a
large number of them are as a result of the downsizing of the
Japanese fleet.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
I will yield to the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Saxton.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman; and let me
first apologize for being late. For the last 3 days, I have
been hosting a Russian delegation from their parliament, their
duma, and I just bid them good-bye. So we can get back to fish.
Mr. Hogarth. I am surprised they didn't bring up fish.
Mr. Saxton. No, they were dealing with terrorists.
Let me say that I appreciate that there are a number of
differing positions and ideas about how to deal with this white
marlin program. I daresay that most everybody in the room knows
mine; and I am going to bypass that part of this subject, at
least for right now, because there has occurred something else
which I find very exciting.
I have said, ever since I have been a member of, Mr.
Chairman, of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, that
it is very difficult, if not impossible, to have a meaningful
international negotiation on fish in a vacuum. Recently, I am
pleased that there seems to be an American consensus, at least,
among commercial and recreational fishing communities who have
cooperated to file a petition with the U.S. Trade
Representative requesting the President take action against the
European Union under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974
according--as a contracting nation. I have been aware that the
U.S. has a history of compliance with ICCAT quotas and
conservation measures. However, the European Union,
particularly Spain and Portugal, has a history of serious
noncompliance with ICCAT, at least maybe I should use the word
this is alleged.
But, for example, the EU has consistently allegedly
exceeded catch limits, quotas and landing limits for eastern
Atlantic bluefin tuna and ignores rules for protection of
juvenile swordfish. Now this is particularly important in the
context of white marlin. Because if they are exceeding quotas
and limits, it would follow logically that they are fishing
additional sets and, therefore, are also greatly killing more
of the species that we are here to talk about today.
So I would just like to begin perhaps with Mr. Hayes, who I
know has been--has--is very familiar with this and then ask
both Dr. Graves and Dr. Hogarth to give us their impressions of
this subject on how--what we might expect to hear in the
foreseeable future.
Mr. Hayes. The 301 itself, I believe the decision process
on that is right before the ICCAT meeting. The way you do is
you essentially file a petition and the question is whether the
U.S. Government is going to accept it. If the U.S. Government
accepts it, then the U.S. Government then will begin a
negotiation at different levels than Bill and I with the
European community; and I can assure you that won't hurt.
Before that is accepted, in the process of that
deliberation there are a number of issues that are in that
petition, particularly the overfishing which Dr. Graves
referred to earlier and Dr. Hogarth has referred to of eastern
bluefin tuna, which we intend to have some--we collectively
intend to have some very serious talks with the Europeans about
before the ICCAT meeting and then at the ICCAT meeting.
I think you missed my remarks earlier, but I think the use
of trade sanctions, particularly if you can get them used
multilaterally, is the avenue here to get international
conservation compliance. Boarding boats, all of these other
things are fun. But getting international conservation
compliance through market-driven measures is really the answer,
and the 301 helps bring that community together.
I understand--I won't speak on behalf of Bill, but I
understand that the Commerce Department and NMFS in particular
are going to go out and begin to educate a little bit some the
people on 301 committee with respect to what the fisheries side
of this issue is and why it is a commercial issue, which I
think will be very helpful.
Mr. Gilchrest. We have to run for a vote. We will be back
as soon as we can. But I think the other questions that we both
may have for the panel we can probably pick up a phone and
resolve those issues. So rather than hold you here, one of the
questions I will have is, if you have a country that skips
from--if you have an unregulated fishing vessel that jumps from
country to country to country, how can we target the sanctions?
But I have to run for a vote so I don't miss it.
Dr. Hogarth, Mr. Hayes and Dr. Graves, we appreciate your
coming the distances you traveled to be here. As we move
through the process over the next week or so to bring this to
the floor we would like to stay in touch with you for the
language that you feel would be appropriate.
Dr. Hogarth.
Mr. Hogarth. Just one last thing. We will be having a
briefing on the Hill before we go to the ICCAT meeting in
October to discuss the positions we will be taking after we
have that Advisory Committee.
Mr. Gilchrest. What are the dates on those, on the ICCAT
meeting?
Mr. Hogarth. It starts the 25th of October and goes through
November the 5th.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
The House will stand in recess.
[Recess.]RPTS THOMASDCMN MAGMER
Mr. Gilchrest. The Subcommittee will come back to order,
and there is a wonderfully pleasant rain continuing outside to
alleviate the drought.
Mr. Saxton has asked to have one more question to the first
panel. Dr. Hogarth has left. If Mr. Hayes and Dr. Graves don't
mind, we will get one more question from Mr. Saxton before we
move to the next panel; and I will recognize now Mr. Saxton.
Mr. Saxton. I guess the first question that I ask, the one
that I am interested in just pursuing relative to the--on the
subject of 301, I understand that there were some suggestions
about broadening it and so on, and I just wanted to hear
firsthand and make sure that we have a complete record--as
complete as possible today on this subject.
So, Mr. Hayes, you were explaining your position when I
left. I don't know whether you were finished.
Mr. Hayes. I think I did finish, but I would be happy to
try it again.
I was thinking it is tough to pin down the administration
without the administration sitting up here.
Mr. Saxton. I agree.
Mr. Hayes. The use of 301 for conservation regimes I think
is a little unique, but it is not something that is impossible.
Because conservation regimes deal with trade, ultimately, we
always tend to look at them as biological things, as things
in--overfishing is an example. The truth of it is, they are the
beginning of a large commercial activity which is involved in
international trade, and the more we can think of it as trade
and the more we can bring in people like USTR to help us
negotiate conservation regimes, the better off we are going to
be.
So, at least from my perspective, I welcomed the filing of
the 301. I think it is a good idea. I think it begins to couple
together the whole concept of multilateral trade sanctions
which I think are going to be necessary as we try to enforce
all of these conservation regimes, not just ICCAT but all the
rest of them, particularly with IUU vessels. So I think it is a
good idea.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you.
Dr. Graves.
Mr. Graves. Well, I will have to agree with Mr. Hayes on
the issue. I think he put it quite eloquently.
The arena for conservation of these species is ICCAT, and
ICCAT is broken. So whatever other measures we can use to get
the attention of the parties at ICCAT we are going to need to
do.
So I want to turn up the heat everywhere so that the next
10 days when I go over to Spain I don't feel like once again I
have been hitting my head into a brick wall and accomplishing
nothing. There are parties there that are absolutely
inflexible.
We have overfished stocks. We have new countries that want
to join ICCAT, want to get a share of the pie. They want to see
that they do have an opportunity, and that means that some
parties are going to have to give up some historical catches.
There is going to have to be some negotiating. If certain
parties aren't flexible, then it doesn't work.
Last year we were very, very close to getting a measure, a
sharing arrangement and a total allowable catch for south
Atlantic swordfish. But the EU was unwilling to give up 1,000
metric tons to accomplish that, and they were the only party
there that was unhappy with the plan which--in Japan, they are
giving up quite a bit to do it. So in the end no measure was
passed.
The only thing they could do was ask countries to submit
what they planned to catch, mindful that the replacement yield
for the next year would be about 14,500 metric tons. When you
take in what everybody submitted, it is over 21,000 metric
tons. So they are seriously overfishing that stock.
It was this obstinance on the part of certain parties that
have gummed up the works, and we need to soften them up before
we get over there. So any measures that we can do here to do
that--and certainly trade measures are one very effective means
of doing that--will be helpful.
Mr. Saxton. Now, with regard to the subject of the
petition, you actually need to get the Trade Representative to
accept the petition before you go.
Mr. Hayes. There is a statutory 45-day time period. As I
understand it, it has been filed at a time which--I think the
first day of the opening day of the ICCAT meeting is the day
upon which USTR needs to render the decision. But, you know, we
all work with the National Marine Fisheries Service. We know
that there is no time limit that you can't exceed.
So, you know, my personal perspective is I would prefer the
administration deliberate the petition as earnestly and as
thoroughly as they possibly can, rather than rush to a decision
to comply with a 45-day time limit that, frankly, doesn't
really have an impact one way or the other. So I would like
them to deliberate it, frankly, for as long as it is necessary
so that they can accept it on its jurisdictional grounds and on
its injury grounds.
Mr. Saxton. I have prepared a letter to offer to the
Chairman and other members of the Committee to send to the
Trade Representative. Perhaps you and Jennifer should talk
before I finalize that letter to make sure that--to make sure
it is right.
So I guess I have no further questions.
Oh, one thing. There was some talk, I understand, earlier
about broadening this to other species? Is that--.
Mr. Hayes. Actually, the discussion was not particular to
the 301. I think we were talking about the joint--the
resolution that you have before us.
Mr. Saxton. I see.
Mr. Hayes. What we were saying was it is probably not
useful to indicate our priorities, white marlin as an example,
in that resolution. I think it is more important to say, move
forward on conservation, get some compliance with existing
efforts. I think that was the nature of the discussion.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your consideration.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Saxton.
I have one question left hanging out here. It is not a
resolution question before us, and it is not a 301 issue before
us. It is sort of a biological question I guess that maybe Dr.
Graves can give me some insight into, and that has to do with
post-release mortality of white marlin. I am just curious, is
that or is that not in the range of data collection so we know
approximately what that might be, whether it is commercial or
recreational? And is that then, if it is possible to have data
on post-release mortality of white marlin, is that factored
into any management plan in ICCAT?
Mr. Graves. I will start with the second part of your
question first, because it is the easiest one for me to
describe.
In the status review team report on white marlin, our
projections did not include any information, we did not
consider post-release mortality. So it has not been factored
in, but, yes, it does occur. Assessing it is expensive. We use
pop-up satellite tags. These are $3,500 apiece, plus satellite
time is maybe $400 an animal. We have had support from the
National Marine Fisheries Service and the private community,
and we did a pilot study just to see if white marlin could
carry the tags, which are smaller than blue marlin.
We have done some work on blue marlin, and blue marlin we
released nine from the recreational fishery in Bermuda, and we
know that eight of those survived. We released nine from the
U.S. longline fishery, and we know for a fact that seven of
those survived.
We had one nonreporting tag in the recreational study and
two in the commercial studies, and those could have been
mortalities or they could have been a tag failure. We couldn't
discriminate. But two of the fish we had 30-day tags on in the
commercial study, and one of those animals went 750 miles
straight line distance in a 30-day period. The other went 1,500
miles. So they didn't seem to be too badly damaged by their
time on the longline.
So then we have gone and tried it with white marlin because
they are a much smaller animal. We started off with five
animals in the Dominican Republic this May. We did the tags for
5 days, and we heard back that four animals survived, and we
heard from the fifth one, and the fifth one didn't survive. So
we did have a post-release mortality.
We have expanded the study. We are still getting the data
back now. We have tags out on about another dozen or so
recreational released white marlin and another six or seven
from the longline fishery. We have had a few mortalities in
each study, but at this point, you know, percentages are sort
of meaningless. We need to boost our numbers significantly.
But mortality for white marlin, post-release mortality is
higher than it was for blue marlin. It needs to be factored
into the next stock assessment, and I am sure it will be.
Mr. Gilchrest. So is there any reliable data that can
extrapolate the number of marlin released and that live to the
number of white marlin that are known to be discards or
bycatch?
Mr. Graves. The data are small, So you would be making
conclusions based on 12 recaptures and say three or four
mortalities. You would be expanding that. I would be much more
comfortable if we had 40 animals, because I think with a small
sample size you can just by chance have extremely biased
results. So the few data that we have I think are quite
reliable, but I would be very hesitant to expand them. I
suppose that is what every scientist would say, but in this
case it could be quite misleading.
Mr. Gilchrest. Is there a timeframe when these tags might
be useful to understand the post-release mortality issue?
Mr. Graves. We could have a very good handle on this by
this time next year if we had the funding to do it. But, as I
said, it is expensive.
Mr. Gilchrest. In your mind, is that the only way? Based on
what you have done you are saying that there is not real
reliable data on post-release mortality of white marlin out
there right now?
Mr. Graves. These are the only data.
Just to give you a perception of how important they are, in
2000 at the ICCAT meeting there was a lot of resistance from
some nations to take cuts on white marlin and blue marlin; and
their rationale was if you use conventional tags, little
streamer tags that have been put out, less than 2 percent of
those are returned for marlins. And their inference was that,
aha, this shows you that there is a very high post-release
mortality.
But we--at that time my graduate student Dave Kerstetter
had just finished collecting some of these data on using pop-up
satellite tags off of longliner; and we said, wait a minute,
seven out of nine here survived, eight out of nine we know
survived from the recreational fishery. They are surviving. And
at that meeting Japan and a few other countries just said, OK,
that is--we will buy that. And that took out one of the major
roadblocks and the fact that Japan needed some help with its
swordfish quota in the north Atlantic we got the measure
adopted by ICCAT.
And that was no mean feat but certainly the data that we
had they bought. They saw it as the only really reliable data
on post-release mortality.
Mr. Gilchrest. What is the biggest problem with the
depletion of the white marlin stock? Is it bycatch or is it
countries eating white marlin?
Mr. Graves. There are very few targeted fisheries for white
marlin. So it is an incidental catch in a lot of fisheries. Now
it is mandated ICCAT that all live ones will be released. They
are allowed to retain those that are dead, and they will be
used--a lot of times they are used as crew shares on a boat.
They take them home to their families or whatever. There is a
market for white marlin, but it is not that valuable that it is
worth shipping it sometimes.
Mr. Gilchrest. Is the major reason for the depletion of the
white marlin stock the unregulated vessels, the--.
Mr. Graves. No. The depletion is the fact that white marlin
interact with fishing gears of all types and in that
interaction some of them die. Even though they are not
targeted, they are taken.
Mr. Gilchrest. So what does that include besides
longlining, purse seines?
Mr. Graves. Longline, purse seine. Everything that goes out
there that catches a white marlin, whether directed or not, has
some level of fishing mortality on the stock.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see.
OK, Jim, any other questions?
All right. Mr. Hayes, Dr. Graves, we will probably have
some follow-up questions. Thank you very much.
The next panel is Mr. Jim Motsko, President White Marlin
Open; Ms. Gail Johnson, Shore Captain of the F/V Seneca,
commercial longline vessel--I like to give my Maine accent to
Ms. Johnson, see if it is a good one. My daughter is going to
Bar Harbor now, and she really likes it. It is not too far.
That is in case I retire in Maine--Mr. Rick Weber, marina owner
and manager, South Jersey Marina and Yacht Sales; Mr. Dewey
Hemilright, Captain of Tar Baby, commercial longline vessel;
and Mr. Russell Dunn, Assistant Director, Ocean Wildlife
Campaign, the Audubon Society.
Thank you very much for your patience and apologize in
advance for the potential vote that may interrupt our hearing.
But thank you for your patience.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Jim Motsko from Ocean City, Maryland. He
runs a successful white marlin tournament out of Ocean City on
an annual basis, and he is here to testify, and we look forward
to your testimony.
STATEMENTS OF JIM MOTSKO, PRESIDENT, WHITE MARLIN OPEN
Mr. Motsko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Saxton.
My name is James Motsko; and I am here from Ocean City,
Maryland, the white marlin capital of the world. I am the
founder and the President of the White Marlin Open, which is
the world's largest billfish tournament. I am here today to
testify about the importance of conserving the populations of
Atlantic billfish, including white marlin. It is clear that the
population of billfish has been declining for quite some time,
and I feel it is extremely important that our government take
all necessary steps in order to prevent billfish from becoming
endangered.
There are several reasons I am concerned about the billfish
populations. First and foremost, I am a concerned recreational
angler. I have been fishing off the coast of Ocean City,
Maryland, since 1966. In the late 1960's there were record
numbers of billfish, primarily white marlin, caught off of
Ocean City by a relatively few number of boats. When the
longline industry began, in this case primarily Japanese
longlining, the number of white marlin caught began to steadily
decline and has continued to do so.
Because of this decline, I helped to fight for the Magnuson
Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, which established an
exclusive economic zone for the United States. Essentially, it
became illegal for any foreign vessel to fish within 200 miles
of the United States. While this was a very important piece of
legislation, it did not do enough to preserve the population of
billfish.
Secondly, I am a concerned businessman. The White Marlin
Open generates in excess of $20 million in revenue in a 1-week
period every year. There are many different entities that
benefit from this revenue, including the Town of Ocean City and
the surrounding areas, the State of Maryland and even the
Federal Government by the way of income taxes.
The White Marlin Open, currently in its 29th year, draws
contestants from the East Coast, as well as Texas, California,
Louisiana, Hawaii, Bermuda and even Australia, with the
majority of the contestants coming from the Mid Atlantic
States. This past summer's event drew a record 400 boats and
over 2,400 anglers, captains and mates. Over 20,000 spectators
visited Harbor Island Marina, the home of the White Marlin
Open, during the 1-week event to view a variety of fish being
weighed in.
The basic entry fee for the White Marlin Open is $800 per
boat, with crews having the option of entering different added
entry levels that range from anywhere from $100 up to $10,000.
The total prize money awarded during this past summer's event
was over $2.1 million. The contestants of the White Marlin Open
consistently released over 98 percent of all white marlin
caught. This is truly the highest and best use of this precious
resource.
Longlining, which is a nonselective type of fishing,
threatens not only the prosperity and the existence of the
White Marlin Open and other billfish tournaments but the entire
recreational fishing industry along the East Coast of the U.S.
This includes boat and fishing tackle manufacturers, retailers,
fuel distributors, charter boat operators, marinas, hotels,
restaurants, and the list goes on. Needless to say, the effects
of decreasing numbers of billfish caused by longlining could be
devastating to the coastal economy.
As you know, there was a petition filed with the National
Marine Fisheries Service to list the white marlin as an
endangered species. National Marine Fisheries Service estimates
that the white marlin stocks are at 15 percent of their maximum
sustainable yield and are officially designated as overfished.
Clearly, additional conservation measures for white marlin are
necessary, but a listing under the ESA is totally unwarranted,
considering recreational fisherman are releasing 98 percent of
all billfish caught and there is also a ban on possession of
white marlin aboard U.S. commercial vessels. Such a listing
could have led to a prohibition on all fishing for white marlin
and would have been an absolute disaster for Ocean City, the
White Marlin Open and thousands of other sport fisherman.
The white marlin is now a candidate for the ESA and will be
reevaluated within the next 5 years. According to the National
Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. fishery accounts for
approximately 5 percent of the total mortality of white marlin,
which is caught mostly as bycatch by international longline
fisheries. The evidence is clear that the decimation of white
marlin and other pelagic fisheries is due largely to the EU
failing to comply with their obligations under ICCAT. The EU
has consistently failed to implement binding conservation
measures for marlin, and they have consistently exceeded their
ICCAT quotas.
For these reasons, I strongly support the resolution in
question today. I feel that it is of utmost importance that our
government take all necessary steps to preserve the population
of billfish, including imposing trade sanctions on noncompliant
countries. While ICCAT took very appropriate steps in
instituting quotas for billfish catches, the quotas do nothing
to preserve billfish if they are not enforced. I feel the most
effective way of enforcing quotas in noncompliant countries is
to hit them where it hurts, which is financially. It is time we
hold the members of ICCAT up to their end of the bargain and
force them to follow the rules they agreed to.
I fully support the petition filed by the Recreational
Fishing Alliance under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 as
a tool to bring the EU into compliance into ICCAT. The
acceptance of this petition by USTR will give the U.S.
delegation tremendous leverage to negotiate conservation
measures at the ICCAT meeting in Spain this coming October and
could be a major breakthrough in the conservation of our highly
migratory species.
I appreciate your time and hope that you consider the
importance of the proposed resolution. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Motsko.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Motsko follows:]
Statement of James Motsko, President, White Marlin Open
My name is James Motsko and I am from Ocean City, Maryland, the
``White Marlin Capitol of the World.'' I am the founder and president
of the White Marlin Open, the world's largest billfish tournament. I am
here today to testify about the importance of conserving the
populations of Atlantic Billfish, including white marlin. It is clear
that the population of billfish has been declining for quite some time,
and I feel that it is extremely important that the government take all
necessary steps in order to prevent billfish from becoming endangered.
There are several reasons I am concerned about the billfish
populations. First, and foremost, I am a concerned recreational
fisherman. I have been fishing off the coast of Ocean City since 1966.
In the late 1960's, there were a record number of billfish, primarily
white marlin, caught off of Ocean City by a relatively few number of
boats. When the longline industry began, in this case primarily
Japanese longlining, the number of white marlin caught began to
steadily decline and has continued to do so. Because of this decline, I
helped to fight for the Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and Management
Act, which established an exclusive economic zone for the United
States. Essentially, it became illegal for any foreign vessel to fish
within 200 miles of the United States. While this was a very important
piece of legislation, it did not do enough to preserve the population
of billfish.
Secondly, I am a concerned businessman. The White Marlin Open
generates in excess of $20 million in revenue in a one-week period
every year. There are many different entities that benefit from this
revenue, including the Town of Ocean City and surrounding areas, the
State of Maryland, and the Federal Government. The White Marlin Open,
currently in its 29th year, draws contestants from along the East
Coast, as well as Texas, California, Louisiana, Hawaii, Bermuda, and
Australia, with the majority of contestants coming from the Mid
Atlantic states. This past summer's event drew a record 400 boats and
over 2,400 anglers, captains, and mates. Over 20,000 spectators visited
Harbor Island Marina, the home of the White Marlin Open, during the
one-week event to view a variety of fish being weighed in. The basic
entry fee for the White Marlin Open in $800 per boat, with crews having
the option of entering different added entry levels that range from
$100 up to a total of $10,000. The total prize money awarded during
last summer's event was over $2,100,000. The contestants of the White
Marlin Open consistently release over 98% of all white marlin caught.
This is truly ``the highest and best use'' of this precious resource.
Longlining, a nonselective type of fishing, threatens not only the
prosperity and existence of the White Marlin Open and other billfish
tournaments, but the entire recreational fishing industry along the
east coast. This includes boat and fishing tackle manufactures,
retailers, fuel distributors, charter boat operators, marinas, hotels,
restaurants, and others. Needless to say, the effects of decreasing
numbers of billfish caused by longlining could be devastating to the
coastal economy.
As you know, there was a petition filed with the NMFS to list the
white marlin as an endangered species. NMFS estimates that the white
marlin stocks are at 15% of Maximum Sustainable Yield and are
officially designated as overfished. Clearly, additional conservation
measures for white marlin are necessary, but a listing under the ESA is
totally unwarranted considering recreational fisherman are releasing
98% of all billfish caught and there is a ban on possession of white
marlin aboard U.S. commercial vessels. Such a listing could have led to
a prohibition on all fishing for white marlin and would have been an
absolute disaster for Ocean City, the White Marlin Open, and thousands
of sport fisherman.
The white marlin is now a candidate for the ESA and will be
reevaluated within the next five years. According to the NMFS, the U.S.
fishery accounts for approximately 5% of the total mortality of white
marlin, which is caught mostly as bycatch in international longline
fisheries. The evidence is clear that the decimation of white marlin
and other pelagic fisheries is due largely to the EU failing to comply
with their obligations under ICCAT. The EU has consistently failed to
implement binding conservation measures for marlin and they have
consistently exceeded their ICCAT quotas.
For these reasons, I strongly support the resolution in question
today. I feel that it is of utmost importance that the government takes
all necessary steps to preserve the population of billfish, including
imposing trade sanctions on non-compliant countries. While ICCAT took
very appropriate steps in instituting quotas for billfish catches, the
quotas do nothing to preserve billfish if they are not enforced. I feel
the most effective way of enforcing quotas in non-compliant countries
is to ``hit them where it hurts,'' which is financially. It is time we
hold the members of ICCAT up to their end of the bargain and force them
to follow the rules they agreed to. I fully support the petition filed
by the Recreational Fishing Alliance under Section 301 of the Trade Act
of 1974 as a tool to bring the EU into compliance with ICCAT. The
acceptance of this petition by USTR will give the U.S. delegation
tremendous leverage to negotiate conservation measures at the ICCAT
meeting in Spain this November, and could be a major breakthrough in
the conservation of our highly migratory species.
I appreciate your time and hope that you consider the importance of
the proposed resolution.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Ms. Johnson.
STATEMENT OF GAIL JOHNSON, SHORE CAPTAIN OF THE F/V SENECA,
COMMERCIAL LONGLINE VESSEL
Ms. Johnson. First of all, on behalf of Blue Water
Fisherman's Association, congratulations to U.S. pelagic
fishermen for their major contributions toward rebuilding on a
fast track the swordfish stock. ICCAT estimated last year that
the stocks had recovered to almost 96 percent of their ideal
size and are currently being fished at three-quarters of the
ideal rate.
The other thing is, where is Glen? He has the longest track
record of any of the current commissioners; and last year, with
the consent of the U.S. Longliners over there, he was able to
use some of our quota to actually make the marlin
recommendations happen. Excuse me, I don't think it was last
year. I am very sorry that you don't have his opinion here
today.
So, anyway, my name is Gail Johnson. I am shore captain of
the fishing vessel Seneca. My husband and I own it together
through our corporation. Thank you very much for inviting me to
speak today.
When I read the resolution I couldn't figure out exactly
why we need it. Because the process now includes domestic,
international scientists all getting together, the public, a
committee that is knowledgeable about all aspects of these
fisheries, the ICCAT Advisory Committee. The laws that we use
in this committee include all the tools you mentioned for
encouraging ICCAT to comply, their nations to comply. What is
not addressed, however, is the problem of having to use last
year's data to identify a noncompliant entity.
Available ICCAT data are usually 2 years old. Perhaps a
provisional identification of a noncomplying entity could be
actionable on the basis of older data with a follow-up. I am
not good at figuring these things out, but that is a thought
that came to me.
I have to tell you, some commercial highly migratory
species fishermen feel a bit--kind of insulted. It took a close
call with an ESA listing for white marlin before Congress
seemed to notice international noncompliance. Where were you in
1998 during the Give Swordfish a Break campaign when the
extraordinary amounts of swordfish, much of it illegal,
noncompliant, were flooding the U.S. market? Our fishermen
barely made it financially to the next year, and we continue to
bear the burden of noncompliant imports which lower our prices.
Marlin have been a high priority for the United States
since about the early 1990's.
Do you have to go?
Mr. Gilchrest. You can finish.
Ms. Johnson. However, they are not a food fish for the
U.S., whereas bluefin, yellowfin, bigeye, swordfish, they are
extremely important food fish and money species. To put marlin
as the highest priority for consecutive years could give the
perception that the U.S. isn't serious about what really counts
to the other countries or to their commercial fishermen which
have a higher standing in those countries than we do. Few
nations have had or have do have such a large and passionate
recreational HMS fishery as we do, and it is taking a lot of
time to explain the importance of marlin to our economy and
actually to the U.S. psyche.
Now that you have recognized illegal, unreported and
unregulated--it is easier to say IUU--fishing, eliminating it
and encouraging compliance should be the highest ICCAT priority
for the United States because that will help all the species,
not just white marlin, not just marlins. Without compliance
from all the HMS fishing entities, ICCAT can't be effective.
And rebuilding plans, targets, minimum sizes, they mean nothing
but problems for U.S. fishermen if foreign noncompliance makes
it effectively moot.
The resolution I read refers to, quote, threatening the
continued viability of U.S. commercial and recreational
fisheries, end quote. I don't understand this. Other than to
keep searching for better gear or cease fishing, the longline
fleet can't do anything more than release 100 percent of the
marlin, which we have been doing for over a decade. Why should
other nations noncompliance for marlin threaten U.S. commercial
fishermen? Our productive fishing grounds are severely reduced.
Our fleet is drastically reduced. More closures as proposed may
push our diminished fleet into areas of actually increased
marlin interactions. The plan seems to be to eliminate this
U.S. fishery.
We have to remember ICCAT is, first and foremost, a
commercially oriented organization and continuing in this
direction with marlin as the narrow focus will be
counterproductive to the U.S. effectiveness.
And I am concerned about saving face at ICCAT. For years,
the U.S. has touted our ability to get good data on landings of
our commercial fisheries. However, the data on U.S.
recreational HMS efforts are scant, and the mortality is even
worse. We insist on good data from all nations, but we don't
have it ourselves.
The ESA petition notes up to a 32 percent mortality rate
for recreationally caught and released white marlin. A table
with this information is attached to Mr. Hemilright's written
testimony. While H.Con.Res. 427 may be a useful exercise to
express your seriousness about marlin, it is much too narrow a
focus and I am afraid won't really serve us well at ICCAT.
Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Ms. Johnson.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Statement of Gail L. Johnson, Shore Captain, F/V Seneca, Harpswell,
Maine
I am Gail Johnson from Harpswell, Maine, one of those towns in
Maine where you can't get there from here, first you must go to
Brunswick, unless you have a boat. From the age of 10 I fished as
sternman with my father lobstering, worked at a roadside seafood stand,
lobstered with my husband, Charlie Johnson, until children came along
and then ran the business of buying lobsters, wholesaling them,
procuring bait, and all the things that business entails.
Over the years our fishing focus changed from lobstering and
Charlie was attacked by Blue Water Fever and would not be limited to
the coastal bays. I was elected as the first woman on the Maine
Fishermen's Cooperative Association's Board of Directors, was one of
several women who founded the Maine Fishermen's Wives Association, and
am a founder and officer of Blue Water Fishermen's Association. I am
currently a member of the Associated Fisheries of Maine and their
representative to the Maine Fishermen's Forum Board of Directors, where
I serve as its Vice-President. From 1985 to 1991 I served as a member
of the New England Fishery Management Council and convinced them to
send a council representative to the ICCAT plenary meetings. At that
time, some HMS were managed by the New England, Mid-Atlantic, South
Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean councils. I am gratified that I
was able to convince enough people that these stocks' problems had to
have an international solution, that the US could not do it alone. I am
a member of the ICCAT Advisory Committee and have attended several
ICCAT plenary sessions.
My years of experience with the fisheries, making business and
friendly contacts in such various places as Nova Scotia, Newfoundland,
Peru and Brazil, have given me a basic idea of how the HMS fisheries
work in those places and enable me to speak with some authority. I have
dealt with various levels of domestic and foreign governments on
fishery issues.
Currently Charlie and I are co-owners of the 78 ft. Fishing Vessel
Seneca, a pelagic longliner. He takes care of the boat and fishing and
I take care of everything else. Between 1974 and now, Charlie's fished
from 55N all the way to 25S, or the latitudes from off Labrador down to
about Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. He's fished the Grand Banks since 1976.
At present, the only way we may fish the international waters off the
Grand Banks of Newfoundland is under government contract, the value of
which could be as much as $132,000.00 depending on the number of sets
made, the unit of payment.
Congratulations to those who have made the ICCAT process work for
swordfish! There are the fishermen who sacrificed more in quota,
fishing areas, and juvenile swordfish restrictions than other countries
and also more than necessary. Especially, there are the ICCAT
commissioners to thank for their hard work and downright dedication to
the US fisheries. Of the three current commissioners, Glenn Delaney has
the longest track record. Glenn laid the groundwork for marlin
conservation and with the consent of the commercial fishermen, did the
trading necessary for marlin conservation. I am stunned the man most
responsible for international marlin measures is not here and surprised
and disappointed that you didn't ask his opinion about this resolution.
Glenn was probably the largest part of the arduous process of gaining
conservation for swordfish conservation that appears to have worked,
given the high estimates of the stock at this year's assessment.
Although I'm gratified that Congress has noticed the highly
migratory species at last, I'm dismayed that it took a near miss of an
ESA listing for white marlins as endangered or threatened. Where were
you in 1998 when the longline fleet nearly went under from the
reductions in prices from the extraordinary amount of swordfish
imports? Ironically, that was the year of Give Swordfish A Break. More
ironic is that probably most of the imports were from nations who were
over-quota or not ICCAT members at all. As your resolution notes, we
could be called culpable of ``diminishing the effectiveness of an ICCAT
conservation recommendation'' for allowing fish in that were from
noncompliant nations.
The resolution's narrow focus on marlins (they are mentioned eight
times in the document, other species only twice) and the recommendation
that white marlin be the US' ``highest priority'' is insulting to HMS
commercial fishermen and could be counter-productive at ICCAT for these
reasons.
Most countries are focused on the ``money fish,'' the tunas and
swordfish. They don't have the numbers (or the passion) of US HMS
recreational fishermen. For a decade, the US has tried to educate ICCAT
members about the need for marlin conservation and what it means to the
US. We are making progress, as seen by the accepted measures for
Atlantic marlin. It's too soon to note any trends, as the reports to
ICCAT are usually two years old. The data on marlin are sparse, making
assessment results speculative, or as scientists say, ``uncertain.''
Even the U.S. has no idea of marlin mortality from recreational catch
and release. Longline fishermen have observers as a basis for mortality
estimates. Recreational fishermen have no such independent observations
of their fishing or subsequent mortality. There are studies underway
now that may provide some answers, but if we use the ESA listing
petition, which could be the ``best scientific information available,''
it says that the estimated white marlin mortality is up to 32% of those
caught and released! With the estimates of numbers of marlin fishermen
and the numbers of hooks they ``set,'' the mortality rate from catch
and release is likely significantly higher than from the much-reduced
longline fleet. Please refer to the table in Mr. Hemilright's testimony
that contains information referenced in the White Marlin ESA Petition
for Listing.
The resolution's preface notes that noncompliance is ``threatening
the continued viability of United States recreational and commercial
fisheries.'' US longliners already release 100% of the marlins caught
and many are very much alive. Rationally, how could others'
noncompliance threaten U.S. longliners?
However, we have lost nearly 70% of our productive fishing grounds
during some times of the year to closed areas. Some of those closed
areas actually have the potential to increase longline-marlin
interactions. Our numbers of vessels are reduced by 70%. We are
continually upgrading gear for best target species results. Perhaps the
threat is that some will call for ``just a few'' more closed areas to
protect marlin from longline hooks and that will just eliminate us
completely. Now that recreational HMS fishermen are threatened, the
Congress acts.
What we do need is a change in the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act
that relieves the problem of using last year's data to identify
noncompliant entities. As I mentioned, the data are two years old and
we need the previous year before we can prove noncompliance. With
measures as sensitive as trade, we must have more timely and accurate
data. Perhaps provisional identification could work with 2-year-old
data and be followed up in subsequent years, taking action in the
second year of noncompliance.
If you're really serious and can convince countries that marlin is
worth the money and trouble, we could try to implement a statistical
document such as the one that seems to be working for bluefin tuna. The
swordfish statistical document isn't yet operational but we hope it
will encourage compliance by denying markets to noncompliant product.
This resolution may be useful to show our citizens that Congress
cares about Atlantic white marlin, but I doubt that the ICCAT members
will attach much importance to it; and, sad to say, it feels very much
like a slap in the face to HMS commercial fishermen.
Thank you for this opportunity.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. We do have a vote on. I apologize. So we
will recess and be back as soon as we can.
But I do want to assure you, Ms. Johnson, that we have to
plan to reduce the U.S. fishery. That is an issue that I just
want to make sure you know, that our deliberations here with
ICCAT are to ensure the further abundance of nature's bounty in
the ocean so that both the commercial and recreation fishing
industries cannot only survive but thrive.
Ms. Johnson. I hope.
Mr. Gilchrest. We will be back in about 15 minutes. Thank
you.
[Recess.]
Mr. Gilchrest. The hearing will come back to order.
Once again, thank you for your patience. I think we may be
OK this time.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Weber, you are on, sir.
STATEMENT OF RICK WEBER, MARINA OWNER AND MANAGER, SOUTH JERSEY
MARINA & YACHT SALES
Mr. Weber. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Saxton.
My name is Rick Weber. I am before you today as a
conservationist and businessman and offshore angler. My
comments on H.Con.Res. 427 itself are relatively brief, and you
have an esteemed panel. I would like to take a moment to fully
introduce myself in hopes that you can better understand its
impacts on me and members of your constituencies that I likely
represent.
I have been involved in fish and fishing for as long as I
can remember. My dad was a charter boat captain, and I remember
going down to the docks to see what he had caught.
Once, he brought me a video or a movie at the time that he
had taken on a fishing trip while offshore. They had gone on
someone else's boat. They didn't catch much on the trip, but it
really didn't matter. The trip alone seemed like an adventure
to a young boy, a long trip to remote waters where few people
ever went.
They hoped to find a lot of fish, but no one really knew
for sure. The anglers had waited all day by the rods. The mate
kept the cockpit ready, while the captain scanned the ocean. As
a young boy, I was awestruck by the tale.
That spirit of adventure is alive today in the heart of
every marlin fisherman. We are the ultimate optimists. How else
can you explain getting up before dawn to run for hours, to
troll through the day, and run those same hours back home, all
in the hopes of encountering a fish that, for the most part, we
have neither intent nor desire of landing?
As stocks have declined, as we all know they have, the
marlin fisherman have adapted. We are traveling further. We
fish keener. And, ultimately, we have scaled down our
expectations. Time was when a three or four fish day was
ordinary. Now it has become noteworthy. We are still hoping to
catch fish on every trip, but that optimism has a limit.
Each fisherman will decide for themselves how great the
likelihood need be of catching a marlin to make the time and
expense involved worthwhile. Some have already decided to get
out of the sport. For certain, there are others right around
the corner. We would ask that you use what powers you have to
help save our sport.
To me, though, it is about more than saving a sport. You
see that charter boat captain father of mine bought the very
marina where he kept his boat, and we have as a family--that
is, mother, father, sister, grandfather, both aunts, both
uncles and most of my cousins--spent over two decades building
a business centered around one niche market, the East Coast
marlin fisherman. We have sold them boats, homes, tackle and
outfitting. We have stored, serviced, financed and even insured
their boats. We host them for parties, tournaments and
rendezvous.
Again, I will let others give you the industry values. I
need you to understand the mindset of the consumer. When these
people decide to jump into the marlin fishing scene, they do it
with both feet. They buy things, they hire people, they
contract services, they contribute to the industry and the
national economy as a whole. For the most part, they have
continued to do it despite the decline in the populations. But
make no mistake, each one that leaves takes thousands if not
millions of current and future dollars with them.
My family's livelihood, along with thousands of other
people's and their families', are inextricably tied to the
health of the white and blue marlin stocks. Think for a moment
the number of people behind every offshore trip--boat builders,
sellers and outfitters, marine operators, their dock
attendants, bait and tackle suppliers, mates and captains. And
the fuel behind this economic engine? The optimism that today
will be a great day of fishing. We would ask that you use what
powers have you to help save our industry.
Anyone who has spent any time at all around these great
animals can hardly help but become a conservationist. Following
in the footsteps of that same charter boat captain, who spent
many years as a director of the Billfish Foundation and was
instrumental in the founding the RFA, I am currently a director
of the National Coalition for Marine Conservation and last year
accepted a nomination to the Billfish Advisory Panel to NMFS.
We get involved with these groups and enter the national
discussion and debate because we refuse to believe that the
fate of the marlin is cast in stone.
We are intent on saving our sport and our industry, not
just for ourselves but our children and our children's children
and perhaps yours, too, that they, too, might know the
excitement of an outrigger signal or the frustration of a
mistimed backlash or the simple sheer joy of setting off early
one morning on an adventure, full of optimism of what the day
might bring. For these next generations, we would ask that you
use what power you have to save our marlin.
That brings us to today's topic, H.Con.Res. 427. Let me
start by thanking you for this resolution. Billfish
conservation in general is a slow-moving cause, where progress
is measured in inches rather than yards. The fact that you and
your staffers are willing to spend time and energy on this
resolution is reenergizing. We are happy to have your
attention.
Would I change H.Con.Res. 427? I suppose that we all have
our own biased agendas and there are things I might like to
take further. But I am told politics is the art of compromise,
and I certainly don't see anything here that would cause me to
oppose the resolution. Frankly, I am supportive of any
initiative that might help the long-term health of my sport and
my industry and promote the conservation of marlin. This
resolution if acted upon would certainly be helpful. So, yes, I
support and encourage you to support H.Con.Res. 427 as written.
Am I hopeful for H.Con.Res. 427? That, friends, lies with
you. This is not a topic that you will be able to address with
a few choice words and hope it will resolve itself from there.
I can tell you it will not. It will take some resolve from this
body to move this agenda forward.
The international nature of the resolution is sure to help
it pass. One thing that the environmental, commercial and
recreational sectors all agree on is that, by almost any test,
U.S. fisheries are cleaner, more selective, and more closely
monitored than any other in the world. The oceans would be a
better place if more nations would follow our examples. Does
that mean, though, that we should park our domestic agendas or
stop striving for cleaner fisheries? To the contrary, once we
have people following our lead it is more important than ever
that we keep raising the bar, that we keep pointing the way to
sustainable fisheries.
In the past year, you have considered many things that
would be beneficial to the Nation's billfish. You have looked
at Mr. Saxton's rolling closures, Mr. Hunter's total closures,
Mr. Farr's ideas on ecosystem management and Chairman
Gilchrest's bycatch reduction ideas, to mention a few. Any of
these are examples of ways we might next lead the world in
billfish management.
If the sense of Congress reflected in H.Con.Res. 427 is
that we must reduce the decline of marlin populations, then we
must not be afraid to demand more, more of ICCAT, more of our
trading partners, more of our government and, yes, more of our
domestic fishing industries, both commercial and recreational.
To those who say the U.S. has done enough, I would respectfully
disagree, but there are still places for us to work together in
the future as well.
I have attached as part of my testimony a copy of the
petition filed with the USTR that, if accepted, would require
them to take action along the same lines as what is requested
in H.Con.Res. 427. The petition was filed by the Recreational
Fish Alliance but is quickly gaining support from all sides
among those who would rather work together where we can and
only fight where we must. They could use any assistance your
offices could offer in getting it accepted and moved through
the system.
It is critical that the world understand that as a Nation
we will not sit back and let them go on decimating these
populations, ignore what international law if not plain common
sense tells them is the better path. We need you to send a
clear message expressing our collective resolve to save these
fish. It is critical to see these stock levels start rising
again. It gives us hope, it gives us optimism--and that is
truly the most important thing--to me, my family, my progeny,
my sport, my industry, my Nation and, ultimately, to the fish
themselves.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Weber.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weber follows:]
Statement of Rick Weber, Marina Owner and Manager, South Jersey Marina
& Yacht Sales
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank
you for the opportunity to address you today regarding H. Con. Res.
427.
My name is Rick Weber of Cape May, New Jersey. I am before you
today as a Conservationist, a Businessman, and an Offshore Angler. My
comments on 427 itself are relatively brief, and I know you have other
panel members to give you facts and figures. So I would like to take a
moment to fully introduce myself in hopes that you can better
understand its impacts on me, and members of your constituencies that I
likely represent.
I've been involved with fish, fishing, and the ocean for as long as
I can recall. My father was a charter boat captain and I remember going
down to the docks each day to see what he had caught. Once, he showed
me a movie he had taken when he went on a trip on someone else's boat,
a bigger boat, that they could take far offshore.
They didn't catch much that trip, but it didn't matter. The trip
alone seemed like an adventure, a long trip to take them to remote
waters, where few people had ever gone. They hoped to find a lot of
fish or maybe a big one, but no one knew for sure what they would find.
The anglers had waited all day by the rods to be ready incase they got
a bite, or two, or three. The mate kept the cockpit ready while the
captain scanned the ocean for signs of fish. As a young boy I was
awestruck by the tale. I had caught marlin fever.
Ladies and Gentlemen, that spirit is alive today in the heart of
every marlin fisherman. We are the ultimate optimists. How else can you
explain getting up at 3 a.m. to then run offshore for 3 or 4 hours,
trolling around through the day, only to run those same 3 or 4 hours
back home. All in the hopes of maybe encountering a fish, that for the
most part we have neither intent nor desire of landing. But that
optimism has a limit.
As stocks have declined, as we all know they have, marlin fisherman
have adapted. We are traveling further. Modern boats and electronics
help us run to wherever the fishing is hottest, rather than just
fishing your local grounds. We fish keener. That is, changing our
equipment and methods to catch more of what we see, since the
encounters have become less frequent. And ultimately, we have scaled
down our expectations. Time was when a 3 or 4 fish day was ordinary,
now it has become note worthy and commendable. We are hoping to catch
fish on every trip, but that optimism has a limit.
Each fisherman will decide for themselves how great the likelihood
need be of catching a marlin to make the time and expense involved
worthwhile. Some have already decided to get out of the sport. For
certain, others are right around the corner. We would ask that you use
what powers you have to help save our sport.
To me though it is about more than saving a sport. You see over
twenty years ago that charter boat captain father of mine bought the
very marina where he kept his boat, and not long thereafter a second
marina. We have as a family (That is mother, father, sister,
grandfather, both aunts, both uncles, and most of my cousins) spent
over two decades building a business centered around one niche market,
the East Coast marlin fisherman.
We have sold them boats, homes, tackle and outfitting. We have
stored, serviced, financed, and even insured their boats. We have
hosted them for parties, tournaments, and rendezvous. Again, I'll let
others give you the industry values, I want you to understand the
mindset of the consumer. When these people catch that marlin fever,
when they decide to jump into the marlin fishing scene, they do it with
both feet. They buy things, they hire people, they contract services,
they contribute to the industry and the national economy as a whole.
For the most part they have continued to do it despite the decline in
the populations. But make no mistake, each one that leaves, takes
thousands if not millions of current and future dollars of spending
with them.
My family's livelihoods along with thousands of other people's and
their family's are inextricably tied to the health of the white and
blue marlin stocks. Think for a moment of the number of people behind
every offshore trip; boat builders, sellers and outfitters; marina
operators; dock attendants; bait and tackle suppliers; captains and
mates. And the fuel behind this economic engine? The optimism that
today will be a great day of fishing. We would ask that you use what
powers you have to help save our industry.
Anyone who has spent any time at all around these sleek, powerful,
nimble animals can hardly help but become a conservationist. Following
in the footsteps of that same charter captain, who spent many years as
a director of The Billfish Foundation and was instrumental in the
founding of the Recreational Fishing Alliance, I am currently a
director of the National Coalition for Marine Conservation and last
year accepted a nomination to the Billfish Advisory Panel to NMFS. We
get involved with these groups and enter the national discussion and
debate because we refuse to believe that the fate of the marlin is cast
in stone.
We are intent on saving our sport and our industry, not for
ourselves but for our children, and our children's children, and
perhaps yours too. That they too might know the excitement of an
outrigger clip snapping or the frustration of a mistimed backlash or
the simple sheer joy of setting off early one morning on an adventure,
full of optimism of what the day might bring. For these next
generations, we would ask that you use what power you have to help save
our marlin.
That brings us to today's topic, 427. Let me start by thanking you
for this resolution. Billfish conservation in general is a slow moving
cause, where progress is measured in inches rather than yards. I'm sure
that each of us involved has, at one time or another, wondered if we
were getting anywhere, whether we were just going through the motions.
The fact that you and your staffs were willing to spend time, energy,
and political capital on this resolution is re-energizing, a glimmer of
light at the end of the tunnel. We are happy to have your attention.
Would I change 427? I suppose we all have our own biased agendas
and there are things I might like to take further. But, I'm told
politics is the art of compromise, and I certainly don't see anything
here that would cause me to oppose the resolution. Am I then supportive
of 427? Frankly, I am supportive of any initiative that might help the
long term health of my sport and my industry and promote the
conservation of marlin. This resolution if acted upon certainly would
be helpful. So yes, I support and encourage you to support 427 as
written. Am I hopeful for 427? That friends lies with you. This is not
a topic that you will be able to address with a few choice words and
hope it will resolve itself from there. I am here to tell you it will
not. It will take some resolve from this body to move this agenda
forward.
The international nature of the resolution is sure to help it pass.
One thing that the environmental, commercial, and recreational sectors
all agree on is that by almost any test, U.S. fisheries are cleaner,
more selective, and more closely monitored than any other in the world.
The oceans would be a better place if more nations would follow our
examples. Does that mean, though, we should all park our domestic
agendas, or stop striving for cleaner fisheries? To the contrary, once
we have people following our lead, it is more important than ever that
we keep raising the bar, that we keep pointing the way to sustainable
fisheries.
In the past year your have considered so many things that would be
beneficial to the nations billfish. You have looked at Congressman
Saxton's rolling closures, Congressman Hunter's total closures,
Congressman Farr's ecosystem management, and Chairman Gilchrist's
bycatch reduction, to mention a few. Any these are examples of ways we
might next lead the world in billfish management.
If the ``Sense of Congress'' reflected in 427 is that we must
reverse the decline of marlin populations, then we must not be afraid
to demand more. More of ICCAT. More of our trading partners. More of
our government. And yes, more of our domestic fishing industries. We
all understand that you have started where there is the greatest
consensus. The important thing to me is that you have started.
To those who say the U.S. has done enough, I would respectfully
disagree, but there are still places for us to work together in the
future as well. I have attached, as part of my testimony, a copy of a
petition filed with the United States Trade Representatives that, if
accepted, would require them to take action along the same lines as
what is requested in 427. The petition was filed by the Recreational
Fishing Alliance, but is quickly gaining support from all sides amongst
those who would rather work together where we can and only fight where
we must. They could use any assistance your offices could offer in
getting it accepted and moved through the system.
It is critical that the world understand that as a nation we will
not sit back and let them go on decimating these populations, ignoring
what international law if not common sense tells them is the better
path. We need you to send a clear message expressing our collective
resolve to save these fish. That we will not allow them to further harm
my industry nor undermine the conservation efforts being made by our
domestic commercial fisheries. We need to see those stock levels start
rising again. It gives us hope. It gives us optimism, which is truly
the most important thing, to me, my family, my progeny; my sport, my
industry, my nation; and ultimately to the fish themselves.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Hemilright, the gentleman from North
Carolina. Walter Jones asked me to give you his best. He is
tied up in a meeting with Senator Warner about some defense
issues, but I am passing along his goodwill, and he will read
your testimony. You may begin, sir.
STATEMENT OF DEWEY HEMILRIGHT, CAPTAIN OF THE F/V TAR BABY,
COMMERCIAL LONGLINE VESSEL
Mr. Hemilright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee, for the invitation and opportunity to speak
concerning H.Con.Res. 427. I am Dewey Hemilright, captain of
the 42-foot longline fishing vessel Tar Baby of North Carolina
that fishes 3 to 75 miles offshore from Montauk, New York, to
Mayport, Florida, depending upon the seasons and weather
conditions.
I have many questions and reservations about the
effectiveness of this resolution in its present form. We must
not forget that the U.S. alone cannot rebuild highly migratory
fish stocks. However, as we now see with the north Atlantic
swordfish, we can reach this worthy goal with the cooperation
and compliance of harvesters throughout the range of a species.
The U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fisherman has led the
way with enormous sacrifice under both international and
domestic conservation measures to rebuild this important
species. I bring your attention to the fact that north Atlantic
swordfish has recovered to 95.8 percent of optimal biomass
before the imposition of overly extensive closures placed
against only commercial longline fisherman in the U.S. waters.
My basic concern with this resolution is that it is far too
narrow. Focusing primarily upon marlin ignores the overall
compliance problem within ICCAT and could isolate our U.S.
ICCAT delegation. Let's face facts. No matter how hard we may
try, other cultures will not accept a higher priority for
marlin when they consider other food fish species much more
important. The United States should make every effort to ensure
international compliance for all ICCAT conservation measures,
not just marlin. A broader approach could also provide greater
conservation for marlin.
I think the combination of compliance enforcement, coupled
with the existing marlin recommendations that my fishery helped
to achieve and, more importantly, the elimination of illegal,
unregulated and unreporting fishing for ICCAT species will end
Atlantic marlin overfishing and allow these important species
to rebuild. But other countries are not going to accept
international trade prohibition for marlin alone.
The Senate Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Staff Draft
contains an international compliance provision that could
eliminate all noncompliant ICCAT fish from entering U.S.
markets. I strongly recommend that Congress work in this
direction, both to revise this resolution and on future
implementing legislation. Please end the embarrassing situation
that allows the U.S. to continue to accept internationally
pirated fish, ICCAT quota overages and noncompliant, undersized
fish from foreign fleets into American markets. And, in doing
so, let's not sacrifice the Atlantic's most efficient and
conservation-minded pelagic longline fishery.
In the past, U.S. fisherman could harvest 29 to 34 percent
of the north Atlantic swordfish using only 8 to 10 percent of
the overall hook effort for this species. Today, due to cheaper
imports, many of which are illegally caught, and draconian
domestic overrestriction, it is unclear whether or not a
profitable longline fishery can continue.
The U.S. vessels cannot operate on $2 a pound fish. Sadly,
it has become politically correct to tradeoff our commercial
longline fisheries for progress within ICCAT. I caution
Congress that the loss of this important HMS commercial fishery
will only weaken the U.S. abilities within ICCAT.
In ending, I also think that the U.S. commercial ICCAT
commissioner should have been here today to testify to give
this Subcommittee an increased understanding of the
ramifications of this resolution as it applies to ICCAT-managed
fisheries.
Mr. Chairman, again I thank you for the opportunity to
speak.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Hemilright; and stay safe out
there on the high seas.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hemilright follows:]
Statement of Dewey Hemilright, Captain, F/V Tar Baby, Wanchese, North
Carolina
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee for the
invitation and opportunity to speak concerning HR 427. I am Dewey
Hemilright, Captain of the 42 ft. longline fishing vessel Tar Baby of
North Carolina that ranges, depending upon the season and weather
conditions, from 3 to 75 miles offshore from Montauk, NY to Mayport,
FL.
Before I begin, I must note with disappointment that the U.S.
Commercial ICCAT Commissioner has not been asked to be here today to
testify in order to give this subcommittee an increased understanding
and his informed insight of the potential ramifications of this
proposed resolution as it applies to the U.S. and ICCAT. With all due
respect to Dr. Hogarth and Mr. Hayes, Mr. Glenn Delaney is the only
current ICCAT Commissioner who has been directly involved at the ICCAT
negotiating table, working on conservation for all Atlantic highly
migratory species in recent years. This subcommittee does itself a
disservice by his exclusion from these discussions and proceedings.
I also note that I am proud to be a member of the North Carolina
Fisheries Association and the Blue Water Fishermen's Association. Our
fishermen catch a variety of fresh domestically-caught fish for
American seafood consumers who cannot or choose not to catch their own.
We proudly carry on and wish to continue this important heritage of our
Nation's coastal communities.
The U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fishery has led the way with
enormous sacrifices for both international and domestic conservation
measures to rebuild Atlantic highly migratory species. I strongly note
that swordfish have returned to 95.8% of optimal biomass prior to the
imposition of the overly extensive small swordfish closures placed only
against commercial fisherman in U.S. waters.
In the past, U.S. longline fishermen harvested up to 29 to 34
percent of the N. Atlantic swordfish using only 8 to 10 percent of the
overall hook effort for this species. Today, due to cheap, many of
which are illegally caught imports and draconian domestic over-
restrictions, it is unclear whether or not a profitable longline
fishery can even continue. U.S. vessels cannot operate on $2.00 per
pound fish.
Today, our fishery is so over-restricted that we have lost the
ability to harvest our full ICCAT quota on an annual basis. We're
working hard through cooperative bycatch reduction research to develop
gear modifications that will allow some of these domestic restrictions
to be eased. Sadly, it has become politically correct to trade off our
commercial longline fishery for progress within ICCAT. I caution
Congress that the loss of it's most important HMS commercial fishery
will only weaken the U.S.'s abilities within ICCAT.
We must not forget that the U.S. alone cannot rebuild highly
migratory fish stocks. However, as we now see with North Atlantic
swordfish; with the cooperation and compliance of harvesters throughout
the range of a species, we can reach this worthy goal.
I have many questions and reservations about the effectiveness of
this resolution in its present form.
My basic concern with the resolution is that it is too narrow.
Focusing primarily upon marlin, ignores the overall compliance problems
within ICCAT and isolates our U.S. Delegation because no matter how
hard we may try, other cultures will not accept a higher priority for
marlin, than what is to the world, more important food-fish species.
The United States should make every effort to ensure international
compliance with all ICCAT conservation measures, not just marlin.
A broader approach would also provide greater conservation for
marlin because I think the combination of compliance with the existing
marlin recommendations that my fishery helped to achieve and more
importantly, the elimination of Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported
Fishing (IUU Fishing) for ICCAT species will end Atlantic marlin
overfishing and allow these important species to our country to
rebuild. But other countries are not going to accept international
trade prohibitions for marlin alone.
The Senate Magnuson-Steven's Reauthorization Staff Draft contains
an international compliance provision that could eliminate all non
compliant ICCAT fish from entering U.S. markets. I strongly recommend
that Congress work in this direction, both to revise this Resolution
and on future implementing legislation. Please end the embarrassing
situation that our country continues to accept internationally pirated
fish, ICCAT quota overages and undersized tunas from foreign fleets
that are not adhering to ICCAT conservation measures. And in doing so,
let's not sacrifice the world's most efficient and conservation minded
pelagic longline fishery.
Before we start to embargo any member or nonmember country, I have
to ask ``What will the U.S. pelagic longline fisherman give up this
time to achieve these goals at ICCAT?'' Will it be more quota or more
closures because the swordfish fishery has become the bargaining chip
for the U.S. position for the past several years? We haven't filled the
U.S. ICCAT swordfish quota in recent years due to unilateral
restrictions. Last time, we gave our unharvested quota to Japan for
marlin conservation and to ensure the security of our long-term country
share. Who gets it this year?
Also, as an example of just how bad compliance within ICCAT's own
members can be, and the weakness of our U.S. Delegation's ability to
respond to member noncompliance; last year at ICCAT we learned that the
E.U. exceeded their bluefin ICCAT quota by 15,000 metric tons. NMFS's
response to its constituencies was that they were glad the compliance
reporting process worked. Would this resolution address these types of
non-compliance by member nations?
It is critical that we are careful with the wording of Atlantic
marlin mortality, because domestically, the NMFS turns a blind eye
regarding the U.S. recreational industry's Atlantic marlin mortalities.
To the other countries, this may seem to be hypocritical and could hurt
the U.S.'s overall positions. How can we go to ICCAT and demand more
marlin conservation when even the U.S. does not accurately report its
own mortalities? Should not these mortalities be included in ICCAT
stock assessments? Yes'the U.S. recreational landings are reduced but
its catches, both in and outside of tournaments, are not,. This year in
14 days, Mid-Atlantic tournaments reported catching and releasing more
than 1,550 marlin.
A recently filed petition to list white marlin as endangered under
the ESA provides documentation that U.S. recreational post-release
mortalities may exceed landings by all Atlantic harvesters. The
petitioners have presented data regarding the level of impact on the
species caused by the recreational/sportfishing sector.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
As the above indicates, the U.S. might be wiser to get its data
straight before pointing fingers elsewhere.
As a U.S. pelagic longline fisherman, I think this resolution would
be great if the language included swordfish and BAYS (Bigeye, Albacore,
Yellowfin and Skipjack) tunas as the highest priority just like the
marlins since the U.S. is using our swordfish underharvest as a trade-
off for marlin conservation.
In conclusion, I think that if properly crafted, this resolution
could show the other countries that the U.S. is strongly committed to
the goal of rebuilding these fish stocks to sustainable levels by
holding all fishermen accountable. If this subcommittee were to broaden
and revise this resolution to include my suggestions, it would help to
ensure the reality of rebuilding then sustaining healthy ICCAT species
for a brighter future for all Atlantic HMS fisheries, commercial and
recreational.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. The next witness Mr. Dunn. We were looking
for your name.
STATEMENT OF RUSSELL DUNN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OCEAN WILDLIFE
CAMPAIGN, THE AUDUBON SOCIETY
Mr. Dunn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to testify on H.Con.Res. 427. My name is Russell
Dunn. I am Director of Government Relations for Audubon's
Living Oceans Program and Assistant Director of the Ocean
Wildlife Campaign, which is an organization that works
exclusively on marlin, swordfish, tunas and other highly
migratory species.
Before I begin my formal testimony, I want to acknowledge
and thank you for the tremendous leadership of the Chairman,
Mr. Saxton, Mr. Pallone and others on the Committee regarding
fisheries conservation over the years.
As an advocate for marlin conservation, I am pleased that
marlin are receiving attention at such high levels. Many of
these species are in desperate shape. White marlin have the
distinction of being in the worst shape of any ICCAT-managed
species. According to ICCAT data, overfishing has driven white
marlin populations down to less than 15 percent of healthy
levels, while fishing pressure for white marlin continues to be
at least seven times that which the population can sustain.
For blue marlin, the immediate situation is slightly less
dire, although the long-term outlook is also grim. The
political nature of ICCAT has allowed mismanagement to rise to
an art form. Science is too often ignored, and decisions based
on short-term economics are the rule rather than the exception.
The result is that the majority of stocks under ICCAT's purview
are overfished. ICCAT's management has been so poor that it is
now often referred to as the International Conspiracy to Catch
All the Tunas, rather than by its proper name.
The migratory nature of marlin and other species such as
swordfish and tunas unfortunately demands international
management as these animals cross international boundaries and
ocean basins. While the United States has been complicit in bad
decisionmaking on occasion, the U.S. and Canada are the leaders
in conservation in this forum bar none. Rarely have other
nations outside the U.S. and Canada demonstrated the political
will to do the right thing when under pressure from their
domestic commercial fishing interests, pressure that is
increased by the $1.1 billion in subsides pumped into ECD
fishing fleets annually.
The U.S. has worked to improve compliance at ICCAT but can
and must do more to ensure compliance for all ICCAT species.
H.Con.Res 427 can be a positive and appropriate step in that
direction.
The decline of marlin and other ocean giants is directly
attributable to rampant overfishing. Put in simplest terms,
these species have been, and many continue to be, caught and
killed faster than they can reproduce.
The Atlantic wide overfishing that is negatively affecting
the health of fish populations and U.S. commercial and
recreational fishing interests is primarily the result of a
number of factors, including ICCAT member nations rejecting
scientific management recommendations, noncompliance with ICCAT
recommendations, including the nonreporting of data, IUU
fishing, and bycatch. And it is bycatch that represents the
largest single threat to marlin, as marlin are primarily caught
and killed as bycatch in fisheries targeting swordfish and
tuna.
There is no single solution to the problems facing marlin
and other migratory species that ICCAT manages. If we are to
save marlin, we must find a way to reduce bycatch and bycatch
mortalities.
The most effective available mechanism to do so is to close
areas of the ocean to commercial fishing activities of all
nations where and when marlin bycatch is highest. The U.S. has
preliminary data showing that domestic area closures intended
to reduce bycatch of juvenile swordfish and bluefin tuna seem
to be effective, so there is every reason to believe that
international area closures may also be effective.
The U.S. has provided leadership on conservation and
compliance use through unilateral actions and pressing for
multilateral cooperation and should continue to do both. Most
problems facing Atlantic HMS will have to be solved through
multilateral agreements and actions, given the nature of the
fisheries under discussion. Without downplaying the importance
of international cooperation, however, appropriate unilateral
actions such as those outlined in H.Con.Res. 427 may contribute
to improved compliance. We believe that H.Con.Res. 427 can help
move ICCAT member nations toward improved compliance with
conservation recommendations by sending a strong message that
healthy fish stocks and robust fisheries are a national
priority.
In conclusion, we support the spirit and intent of
H.Con.Res. 427 as well as much of its specific language. We are
also supportive of the RFA's 301 petition and similar actions
on this issue.
We believe that a few amendments would strengthen
H.Con.Res. 427. Specifically, we suggest that identification
and implementation of international time and area closures to
longline fishing activities of all nations where and when
marlin bycatch is highest should be a top priority; that
ensuring the continuation of north Atlantic swordfish
rebuilding plan until recovery is complete in 2009 or before,
given the miraculous recovery, should be a top priority of the
delegation; that the resolution should broaden its
recommendations pertaining to ending IUU fishing to include all
ICCAT species while maintaining an emphasis on marlin; and that
the resolution should urge the Secretaries of Commerce and
State to better document noncompliance with ICCAT
recommendations to support trade actions, recommend that the
Secretaries identify those nations fishing in a manner that
undermines ICCAT conservation mandates in their annual report
to Congress--which I don't believe has ever been done--and
recommend that the ICCAT delegation continue to pursue
multilateral agreements and compliance recommendations through
ICCAT with renewed vigor.
Finally, we would urge that H.Con.Res. 427 resolve to urge
the Secretary of Commerce to attend this upcoming ICCAT meeting
to clearly signify U.S. resolve on fisheries issues.
While H.Con.Res. 427 does not by itself solve the problems
facing Atlantic HMS, it will send a strong message regarding
the seriousness with which this Nation views fisheries issues.
It is an important step in the right direction, and we support
its adoption.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify on
this issue.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Dunn.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dunn follows:]
Statement of Russell Dunn, Assistant Director, Ocean Wildlife Campaign
and Director, Government Relations, Audubon's Living Oceans Program on
behalf of the National Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense
Council, The Ocean Conservancy, Wildlife Conservation Society, and
World Wildlife Fund
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting
me to testify on H. Con. Res. 427 and its underlying issues. My name is
Russell Dunn, I am the Director of Government Relations for Audubon's
Living Oceans Program, and Assistant Director of the Ocean Wildlife
Campaign (OWC). The OWC is an entity that represents six national
conservation organizations, including the National Audubon Society,
National Coalition for Marine Conservation, Natural Resources Defense
Council, The Ocean Conservancy, Wildlife Conservation Society, and the
World Wildlife Fund on issues pertaining to marlin, sharks, swordfish,
tuna and other highly migratory species. I have worked on these issues
for the past six years and have been a member of NOAA's Federal
Billfish Advisory Panel for five of the last six.
Introduction
As an advocate for marlin conservation, I am pleased that marlin
are receiving attention at such high levels. The migratory nature of
marlin and other species, such as swordfish and tunas, demands
international management as these animals cross international
boundaries and ocean basins. The political nature of the International
Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) has allowed
mismanagement to rise to an art form. Science is too often ignored and
decisions based on short-term economic considerations are the rule
rather than the exception. ICCAT management has been so poor that it is
often referred to as the International Conspiracy to Catch All the
Tunas rather than by its correct name. While the United States has been
complicit in bad decision making on occasion, the U.S. and Canada are
the leaders in conservation in this forum bar none. Rarely have other
nations demonstrated the political will to do the right thing when
under pressure from their commercial fishing interests. The U.S. must
do more to ensure compliance with ICCAT recommendations for all ICCAT
species and H. Con. Res. 427 is a positive and appropriate step in that
direction.
We support the spirit and intent of H. Con. Res. 427. The United
States has led ICCAT efforts to halt overfishing of white marlin and H.
Con. Res. 427 bolsters those efforts. We believe, however, that the
resolution would more effectively deal with the problems facing marlin
and other ICCAT species if it were broadened and amended as detailed
below. To provide context for our suggested amendments, the Committee
should first look at the array of problems facing marlin and other
ICCAT species.
State of the Stocks
Atlantic white and blue marlin, top predators in the marine
environment, are in desperate condition. In fact, white marlin has the
distinction of being in the worst shape of any ICCAT managed species.
According to ICCAT data, overfishing has driven white marlin
populations down by 90-95% since 1961. They currently stand at less
than 15% of healthy levels. Further, ICCAT acknowledges that
overfishing has taken place for at least three decades, that the stock
is less productive than previously estimated, and that the fishing
mortality rate inflicted upon the stock is at least seven times that
which the population can sustain. For blue marlin the immediate
situation is slightly less dire, although the long-term outlook is also
grim. Overfishing has reduced blue marlin to 40% of healthy levels and
the stock is subjected to four times as much fishing pressure as it can
withstand. Unfortunately, this situation is not unique to these two
species. In fact, the majority of species under ICCAT's jurisdiction
are considered overfished. In 2001, after nearly forty years of
mismanagement, 8 of 15 stocks managed by ICCAT were considered
overfished (white marlin, blue marlin, bigeye tuna, Northern albacore,
West Atlantic bluefin tuna, East Atlantic bluefin tuna, North Atlantic
swordfish and South Atlantic bluefin tuna). The status of four species
under ICCAT's purview was unknown (skipjack tuna, sailfish, spearfish,
and Mediterranean swordfish) and just three stocks were still
considered healthy (yellowfin tuna, southern albacore, south Atlantic
swordfish).
Problems Facing Marlin and Other ICCAT Species
The decline of marlin and other ocean giants is directly
attributable to rampant overfishing. Put in simplest terms, these
species have been, and many continue to be, caught and killed faster
than they can reproduce. The Atlantic-wide overfishing, which is
negatively affecting U.S. commercial and recreational fishing fleets,
is the result of a number of factors including:
ICCAT member nations reject scientific management recommendations
Short-term economic interests of fishing fleets of various nations
frequently prevent ICCAT members from accepting management
recommendations made by ICCAT's scientific committee when those
recommendations might result in reduced economic opportunities. Massive
European subsidies of more than one billion dollars annually contribute
to and sustain political pressure for national delegations to bring
home more fish no matter the cost to the environment.
For example, in 2001, the European Community (EC) refused to accept
clear and unequivocal scientific advice indicating that a quota of
25,000 MT or less is necessary to halt the decline of East Atlantic and
Mediterranean bluefin tuna. The EC demanded a quota (33,925 MT) 35%
above scientific recommendations (25,000 MT) on a stock that is
estimated to stand at just 19% of 1970's levels. 1 In 2001,
the Europeans did not object to the scientific recommendation of 25,000
MT or less based on scientific grounds, but rather that at that level,
there were not enough bluefin tuna to divide among the nations that
fish on these stocks. Economic hardship for domestic fishing interests
was the driver behind the EC's unacceptable position. The United States
admirably rejected the EC proposal, but unfortunately, the meeting
ended deadlocked with no formal quota being established for eastern and
Mediterranean bluefin tuna.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ However, no population assessment has been conducted for
eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin since the mid-1990s because
nations fishing on these stocks repeatedly failed to report the
necessary data in time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-compliance with ICCAT recommendations and lack of consequences
Non-compliance with ICCAT conservation recommendations and basic
membership obligations by member and non-member states contributes to
overfishing and prevents or retards recovery of depleted species. Non-
compliance includes, among other things, exceeding catch quotas,
landing undersized fish, and the failure of states to submit accurate
data in a timely manner. The lack of consequences for non-compliance in
all but a handful of examples contributes to ongoing and repeated
violations of ICCAT recommendations and undermines data collection
schemes.
Recent examples of non-compliance include:
1995-1998--Spain and Portugal exceed undersized swordfish fish
tolerance by two and three times legal limit.
1999--Forty Percent of contracting parties reporting white marline
landings exceed white marlin catch limits.
More than one-third of contracting parties reporting blue
marlin landings exceed blue marlin catch limits
2000--One-third of contracting parties reporting white marlin
landings exceed white marlin catch limits.
Thirty one percent of contracting parties reporting blue marlin
landings exceed blue marlin catch limits.
1999-2001--The United States was in violation of ICCAT Compliance
Recommendation 97-12 regarding satellite-based vessel monitoring
systems from 1999-2001.
2001--The vast majority of contracting parties failed to meet the
most basic obligations for providing data. Only six contracting
parties, including the U.S., submitted their reporting tables on time,
and of these only four reported on minimum size requirements.
In none of these cases was punitive action taken.
As ICCAT attempts to address non-compliance, states seek to avoid
penalties by non-reporting, or filing false reports. Each year
compliance tables are increasingly blank or report zero catch landed
for nations with histories of non-compliance. Despite numerous
violations by many nations, only non-contracting parties and Equatorial
Guinea have been singled out for punishment. In most of these cases,
the imposition of a ban on the importation of tuna products from these
states was enough to result in corrective action being taken by the
offending nation. This demonstrates that when multilateral enforcement
mechanisms are applied, compliance with ICCAT conservation measures is
the result. However, the general lack of consequences for nations
violating ICCAT recommendations contributes to repeated violations.
Punishment is the exception rather than the rule, and this allows the
rewards for cheating putting illegal fish into the market stream'to
substantially outweigh the consequences. Illegal fish in the market
stream disadvantage U.S. fishermen and undermine conservation. Passage
of H. Con. Res. 427 can demonstrate U.S. resolve on compliance issues.
3) Bycatch
The largest threat to the survival of marlin is bycatch'the
catching and killing of non-target and or undersized species during
fishing operations not inappropriate regulation or non-compliance.
Marlin are usually caught as bycatch in the directed commercial fishery
for swordfish and tunas. No nation's commercial fleet intentionally
targets Atlantic white or blue marlin. As such, new approaches to
reducing marlin bycatch must be applied. While no single mechanism can
rebuild marlin, we believe that the best available mechanism to limit
marlin mortality and halt their precipitous decline is to identify
marlin bycatch hotspots and close those areas to commercial fishing
activities during periods of highest bycatch.
The United States has begun to utilize area closures to reduce
bycatch in HMS fisheries. Recently implemented domestic time and area
closures intended to reduce swordfish bycatch appear to have decreased
dead discards by roughly 40 percent in the pelagic longline fishery.
2 For the U.S. fishery alone, this means that roughly 10,000
to 15,000 fewer undersized North Atlantic swordfish are discarded dead
every year (using 30 and 40 lbs average weight). The technique has also
worked well to reduce bluefin tuna discards. The National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) has concluded that an annual one month (June)
closure of the Mid-Atlantic Bight to pelagic longlines is effective at
reducing bluefin tuna discards, while not reducing overall landings. A
comparison of discards in the area for the two years preceding the
annual June closure with discards in the area for the first two years
of implementation indicates a decline in discards of 84 percent. While
there is strong evidence that area closures can be effective in
reducing discards, it is too early to eliminate other regulations
intended to reduce mortality of small fish such as minimum size
restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This is preliminary data based on only one year of data.
Effectiveness may be shown to vary in future years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) Illegal Unreported, Unregulated Fishing (IUU fishing)
IUU fishing poses a tremendous threat to the sustainability of fish
populations and legitimate fishing interests in the Atlantic and around
the globe. ICCAT estimates that the IUU fleet fishing for Atlantic
highly migratory species is now approaching the size of the legitimate
ICCAT sanctioned fleet. It is my understanding that Japan has
identified more than 330 IUU vessels fishing the high seas. The
uncontrolled mortality inflicted by the IUU fleet grossly undermines
the effectiveness of ICCAT conservation measures and must be dealt with
quickly and effectively. ICCAT is addressing this issue by identifying
these vessels and placing them on a ``black list'', developing fish
tracking mechanisms to avoid purchasing from IUU vessels, working with
nations to discourage the registry of flag of convenience vessels by
ICCAT member nations, and developing a ``white list a list of properly
documented vessels registered with ICCAT. The United States should
continue to do all it can to put an end to IUU fishing.
Solutions
There is no single solution to the problems facing marlin and the
other highly migratory species that ICCAT manages. Most problems will
have to be solved through multilateral agreements and actions given the
nature of the fisheries under discussion. However, appropriate
unilateral actions may, in some cases, contribute to improved
compliance. We believe that H. Con. Res. 427 can help move ICCAT member
nations toward improved compliance with ICCAT conservation
recommendations by sending a strong message that healthy fish stocks
and robust fisheries are a national priority.
H. Con. Res 427
We support H. Con. Res. 427, but believe it can be made more
effective and should be broadened in scope.
Resolution 1)
We support the sprit and intent of resolution one, but believe it
should be amended to reflect additional priorities. In our opinion,
establishment of large-scale commercial time and area closures to
reduce marlin bycatch and continuation of the international rebuilding
plan for North Atlantic swordfish and should share equal priority with
the general goal of marlin conservation expressed in resolution number
one.
As the committee has heard, the population of Atlantic white marlin
is collapsing. To try and slow its collapse, ICCAT, led by the U.S. in
2000, adopted a mortality reduction plan for white and blue marlin.
This plan requires a 67% reduction and 50% reduction in mortality,
respectively, over previous levels (1996). The 2000 recommendation also
requires that rebuilding plans for white and blue marlin be established
at the 2002 meeting. 3 Although a new population assessment
has been done for white marlin, it has not been finalized by ICCAT's
scientific committee. Because only one year of data will be available
at the reduced mortality levels stipulated by the 2000 recommendation,
it will be difficult if not impossible to judge the effectiveness of
those measures. While we want marlin rebuilding plans established as
soon as possible, it seems unlikely that a rebuilding plan can be
established this year with the limited new data available on white
marlin. Therefore, at the very least the U.S. should ensure that (1)
mortality levels do NOT increase during the next few years while
additional data are collected, and (2) progress is made on identifying
and establishing bycatch hot spot closures in the Atlantic. Collection
and examination of marlin bycatch data to identify appropriate areas
for closure to commercial fishing activities is essential to saving
marlin. There is no debate that international time and area closures
will have to be part of any rebuilding plan for marlin. As such, we
recommend that the committee amend H. Con. Res. 427 to make it a
priority for the U.S. delegation to establish international time and
area closures to longline fishing in areas where, and during times
when, marlin bycatch is highest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A subsequent recommendation adopted by ICCAT in 2001 delayed
the development of a rebuilding plan for blue marlin beyond 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1999, North Atlantic swordfish populations stood at levels
capable of supporting only 58% of the maximum sustainable catch (MSC).
At that time, ICCAT adopted an U.S. sponsored 10-year rebuilding plan
for North Atlantic swordfish, however, the agreement established
specifics for only the first three years. During the 2002 ICCAT meeting
(October 28th-Nov 4th) the next phase of the rebuilding plan must be
negotiated. The assessment for North Atlantic swordfish has just been
completed, and it appears to have made a dramatic recovery. Modeling
shows that populations have recovered to more than 90 percent of
healthy levels. It should be understood that these results have broad
confidence intervals, so the actual recovery may be somewhat less
robust. It is important to know that the North Atlantic swordfish
rebuilding plan contained strict penalties for non-compliance, which
were generally complied with, as suggested in HCR 427's fourth
resolution.
This remarkable recovery demonstrates that when legitimate
scientific advice is adhered to, and nations comply with appropriate
conservation recommendations, fisheries management can work. This
success should strengthen our resolve to improve compliance.
With continued diligence, North Atlantic swordfish can be fully
rebuilt in the next few years, bringing with it improved catches for
U.S. commercial and recreational fishermen. As swordfish populations
rebuild, now is not the time to allow excessive increases in catch that
could jeopardize the rebuilding schedule. Any increase in the total
allowable catch agreed to by ICCAT this year should be used to offset
existing problems and provide quota to nations newly entering ICCAT
(Mexico), rather than being used as a general increase for all fishing
nations. Because it appears that full recovery may be possible in less
than ten years with no further sacrifices, we recommend that the
committee amend H. Con. Res. 427 to make it a top priority for the U.S.
delegation to ensure the continuation of the swordfish rebuilding plan
until recovery is complete in 2009, or before.
Resolution 2)
We fully support the second resolution and all efforts to end
illegal unregulated and unreported fishing. We recommend that
resolution two be broadened to specifically include all species, while
maintaining an emphasis on marlin.
Resolution 3)
We fully support the third resolution and agree that all
appropriate diplomatic mechanisms, relevant international laws and
agreements, and other appropriate mechanisms should be used to ensure
compliance with ICCAT conservation recommendations for all species
under its jurisdiction.
Resolution 4)
We fully support resolution four and agree that the Commission
should make the inclusion of enforcement mechanisms an integral part of
all conservation recommendations for all species.
Resolution 5)
We fully support the spirit and intent of resolution five, but
believe it should be amended to1) promote flexibility in the imposition
of trade sanctions by requiring the Secretary to build a record of non-
compliance to support trade actions,2) recommend that the Secretaries
of Commerce and State identify those nations fishing in a manner that
undermines ICCAT conservation mandates in their annual report to
Congress, and 3) recommend that the U.S. ICCAT delegation pursue
multilateral agreements and compliance recommendations through ICCAT
with renewed vigor.
While the need to conserve many Atlantic highly migratory species
is urgent, the U.S. must be careful in reacting to apparent non-
compliance. There are many scenarios that can result in inadvertent
``non-compliance'' in a given year, particularly with regard to the
implementation of new conservation recommendations. The United States
must be careful not to punish those states that sporadically and
unintentionally fail to comply with a particular ICCAT conservation
recommendation. Rather, the U.S. should focus on documenting and
punishing those states which demonstrate a pattern of non-compliance
with conservation regulations that undermine effectiveness of ICCAT.
The committee should be aware that if other nations adopt policies
similar to those detailed in H. Con. Res. 427, the U.S. would have been
vulnerable to trade sanctions since 1997. The U.S. has been out of, and
may still be out of compliance with ICCAT Recommendation 96-1 on
yellowfin and bigeye tunas. This recommendation entered into force in
August 1997 and requires a minimum of five percent observer coverage
for all longline trips targeting yellowfin and bigeye tuna. Between
1997 and 2001, the observer coverage on U.S. pelagic longline vessels
ranged from 3.1% to 4.2%, never complying with the recommendation.
While this violation has less severe conservation consequences than
most of those discussed today, it ostensibly makes the United States
vulnerable to retaliatory actions.
The resolution appropriately directs the Secretaries of Commerce
and State to exercise their authority as established under ATCA. As the
Committee is aware, ATCA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce, with the
concurrence of the Secretary of State, to prohibit the importation of
fish regulated by ICCAT from a country whose fishing vessels are
fishing in the Convention area in a manner that diminishes the
effectiveness of ICCAT's recommendations. It further allows the
Secretary to prohibit entry into the U.S. of fish in any form of those
species subject to ICCAT regulation which were taken in such a manner
or circumstance that would tend to diminish the effectiveness of the
conservation recommendations of the commission.
ATCA further requires that the Secretary of Commerce identify
annually those nations whose fishing vessels are fishing or have fished
in the previous calendar year in a manner that diminishes the
effectiveness of a conservation recommendation. To the best of my
knowledge, this has never happened. We believe that ATCA provides the
tools necessary to enhance compliance with ICCAT recommendations,
should the Administration have the political will to act.
Despite the best efforts of the United States now and in the
future, we must remember that this is an international problem that
requires an international solution. The United States cannot prevent
overfishing or rebuild marlin, swordfish, or tunas on its own. The U.S.
can and should become more diligent in documenting non-compliance and
identifying nations that fish in a manner that undermines the
effectiveness of ICCAT, however, we must also continue to pursue
multilateral agreements and internationally sanctioned compliance
recommendations if we are to save marlin and other species.
We believe H. Con. Res. 427 should be amended to urge the Secretary
of Commerce to attend the upcoming ICCAT meeting. Attendance by such a
high level Bush Administration official would send a clear and
unequivocal message to ICCAT members nations that healthy fish stocks
and fishing industries are a priority for the United States.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we support the spirit and intent of H. Con. Res.
427, as well as much of its specific language. We believe that amending
the resolution to include the following points would add significantly
to its message to ICCAT member nations:
1) Lidentification and implementation of international time and
area closures to longline fishing in areas where, and during times
when, marlin bycatch is highest should be a top priority for the U.S.
delegation;
2) Lensuring the continuation of the swordfish rebuilding plan
until recovery is complete in 2009, or before, should be a top priority
of the U.S. delegation
3) Lbroadening recommendations pertaining to ending IUU fishing to
include all ICCAT species, while maintaining an emphasis on marlin;
4) La) promoting flexibility in the imposition of trade sanctions
by requiring the Secretary to build a record of non-compliance to
support trade actions, b) recommending that the Secretaries of Commerce
and State identify those nations fishing in a manner that undermines
ICCAT conservation mandates in their annual report to Congress, and c)
recommending that the U.S.ICCAT delegation pursue multilateral
agreements and compliance recommendations through ICCAT with renewed
vigor; and
5) Lurge the Secretary of Commerce to attend the 2002 Regular
meeting of ICCAT.
ICCAT has, through its actions, demonstrated that it is less than
fully capable of achieving its conservation mandates. The United States
has provided leadership on conservation and compliance issues through
unilateral actions and pressing for multilateral enforcement mechanisms
and should continue to do so. While H. Con. Res. 427 will not by itself
solve the problems facing Atlantic HMS, the strong message that it
sends on behalf of the United States Congress regarding the seriousness
with which this nation views fishery issues is an important step in the
right direction. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify
on this important issue.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. I think someone from the administration is
here to take that message back to the Secretary for the
Secretary to attend ICCAT. That might be a good idea. I don't
know if that has been a recommendation or if he in fact intends
to attend the meeting, but that would, I guess, send a pretty
strong signal.
The basic purpose of this hearing was to determine whether
or not this resolution would give the U.S. delegation some
leverage in their discussion with the ICCAT members.
On the one hand, I think we certainly have an understanding
from the first panel and the second panel that the rewriting of
the resolution to be more broad seems to be a unanimous feeling
among the witnesses. But I know we have covered a lot of ground
and there is differences of opinions on a lot of things,
depending on whether you are from the commercial or
recreational background, what we as a Congress have or have not
done in the past and what little this resolution might do
considering the magnitude of the problem.
So we have listened to all that, we have taken it into
consideration, and we have been dealing with that over the past
few years as far as reauthorization of the Magnuson Act is
concerned.
I will say that some of the language of the Senate draft,
because of the House rules, won't work over here. We are
meeting with them--we continue to meet with them to try to come
up with a Magnuson Act that not only deals with the domestic
problems but with the international problems as well.
I guess I would like to hear from any of you that would
like to give us your opinion as to whether we should pursue
this resolution that deals with trade sanctions? And I am going
to tell you now that the final draft will not just include a
priority with white marlin. It will be a much broader
resolution that will deal with the management of the problems
with bluefin tuna and other species and overfishing. But in
your opinion is it worth pursuing and how would you change the
language, what would your specific recommendation be?
Anybody want to take a crack at that? Mr. Hemilright.
Mr. Hemilright. As we look back over the last few years,
when we go to ICCAT, every year the U.S. will gain something
for conservation, while at the same time compared to other
countries, we lose something. In this resolution, anything that
would strengthen wherethe U.S., both recreationally and
commercially has given up, in the name of conservation,
anything that would strengthen our position to make all these
other countries follow the same rules that we have to, I think
would be very--would be very good, and it also should include
all the base tunas, anything that we have that is at ICCAT,
because the U.S. has taken it on the chin real hard for stuff
when we go over there for our conservation message, and we
build these stocks. We can't do this alone. We are a minute
player.
And I also thank the Congress and this Committee for
looking at this issue, because it is about time. When we go
over to ICCAT, let us come home with something for U.S.
Fishermen, both recreational and commercial, and say, hey,
y'all boys are doing a good job, and a pat on the back instead
of always we look at--for instance, the European Union a year
ago had 15,000 metric tons over their quota. And we come back
to our citizens and say we are glad the reporting process
works. Anything that would strengthen what we have been doing
for conservation measures would be great from my point, and I
think would be a plus for U.S. citizens.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you. That is an excellent
recommendation, Mr. Hemilright.
Mr. Motsko.
Mr. Motsko. I think we ought to pursue the resolution maybe
with some word changes, as you suggested, to maybe have
specifically the highly migratory species, including white
marlin. Most countries do not really view marlin as a target
fish, and if we do not even include that name, it may be
overlooked. So we could include the bluefin tuna, swordfish,
and white and blue marlin also. But I think they each should be
mentioned.
Mr. Gilchrest. All right. Thank you. Another good idea.
Mr. Dunn.
Mr. Dunn. Yeah. I would concur with that because marlin is
not a really important commercial species. Broadening it to
include all ICCAT species, but maintaining an emphasis on
marlin is certainly appropriate.
With regard to pursuing the resolution, I would say
certainly the answer is yes, that anything which can help raise
the profile of compliance issues and signify U.S. resolve on
the issue is totally appropriate. And that is why we are
supportive of not only congressional action, but the actions by
private entities such as the 301 petition. And I have heard
rumors of a Pelly petition action that is up coming as well. So
I would certainly encourage you to do so.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you.
The trade part of this that goes along with the hard work
done at ICCAT to get any multinational kinds of things in there
for trade, that is what works. It has to be things that the
other countries agree to, and they have. Nobody wants to be
seen as the conduit for bad things happening. And as long as we
are going along with the other countries, you know, they are
all agreeing this is no good to bring in illegal fish; don't
want to be seen that way. Let's do it.
And I like Mr. Motsko's idea. I think all the fish should
be named so that there is no disbelief at all.
Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. No ambiguity.
Ms. Johnson. Right. That is the word.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Mr. Weber.
Mr. Weber. Not quite full dissent, but hear me out.
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes.
Mr. Weber. Of all the species that are under ICCAT's
purview, white marlin are the worst off. I am afraid of losing
my marlin back into the pile again. Everything that you have
said about controlling IUU I am fully in favor of. I have no--
nothing at all against including all of them, and let's get the
unfair and illegal competition off these people's back. It
should not be there, and we need to control it.
To take the most damaged population and lump it back in so
it will become amalgamated in again concerns me. There is a
reason that you were acting on white marlin at first. You were
concerned about that population. You know, it brought up very
good issues that I am very glad that these people have had a
chance to express, and I am supportive of everything that they
have brought up, but let's be careful not to lose white marlin
back again as part of, ``oh, that is part of HMS, and we are
doing something about all of HMS.''
Mr. Gilchrest. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Weber.
Mr. Saxton.
Mr. Saxton. First of all, congratulations on having the
idea to introduce this resolution, and I am very pleased to
have been able to cosponsor it with you. And I hope that,
frankly, a resolution like this should be fairly easy to get
out of the full Committee, if we have another full Committee
markup, and it should be fairly easy to get to the floor
because it is not, I don't believe, controversial, and we
should be able to move quite rapidly.
I would just like to comment on, Mr. Hemilright, after you
made the recommendation or told us what you think is going to
be in the Senate bill, I asked our learned staff why don't we
do that. And I was quickly informed that due to the fact that
it is a trade issue, it would then be referred to the Ways and
Means Committee, which is kind of like going into a deep, dark
hole.
And we might try to find a way to pursue something like
that, because I think it is certainly a great approach and
would certainly put some economic incentive for people to
change their behavior, and I think that would be a great idea.
There have been so many hearings and so many questions and
conversations held relative to this subject. I am not quite
sure what kind of questions I could ask beyond what has been
said, but let me just--let me just inquire with Mr. Dunn, if I
may.
Mr. Dunn, I assume that there is broad recognition and a
whole variety of organizations that you are associated with
from time to time on one issue or another, on this resolution,
that broad support in the environmental community for it?
Mr. Dunn. I think that is an accurate statement, yes.
Mr. Saxton. OK. And what is your take on other species that
Mr. Gilchrest and Mr. Weber just had the conversation about?
Ms. Dunn. On including them in the resolution?
Mr. Saxton. Other species, yeah.
Mr. Dunn. I believe that the resolution should be broadened
out to urge better compliance, improve compliance for all the
species. But I agree for the reasons I stated before that white
marlin should--or marlin, both blue and white, should retain a
particular emphasis. A number of the other species are in bad
shape, and in my written testimony I note the number of
species. I document each of the species which is overfished,
and it is actually literally the majority of ICCAT species are
considered overfished. There were eight overfished. Four
species had--their population size was unknown, and 3 of 15
were considered healthy. So you have 8 of 15 overfished, four
unknown and three healthy. For a 40-year management period,
that is a pretty poor record.
Mr. Saxton. Are any species overfished to the extent of the
white marlin?
Ms. Dunn. No.
Mr. Saxton. Maybe that was the wrong way of asking that
question. Has the biomass of any species decreased to the same
magnitude as white marlin?
Mr. Dunn. Depending on which population assessment you
follow with regard to the western stock of bluefin tuna, the
western bluefin tuna at one point was down, I believe, around
13 percent. It is now believed to be at the lower end estimate,
at about 19 percent. So it is bumping along the bottom, but not
quite in as severe shape. The big difference there, right now,
is the fishing mortality level on marlin. My understanding is
in the new assessment, the fishing mortality rate is about
eight times that which the population can actually withstand,
and with bluefin tuna, it is much closer to the appropriate
level. I am not quite sure. I haven't seen the new bluefin tuna
assessment, but it is a much lower rate.
Mr. Saxton. One of my favorite--one of my least favorite
charts. It is not my favorite chart. This is one of my least
favorite charts, shows the population trend of the white
marlin. On this end, in the 1950's and up until the very early
1960's, the biomass was 30,000 metric tons. Is that what that
is? Over 30,000 metric tons, and we are now down to
approximately 3,000 metric tons. And frankly, when I saw this,
that is when I got all excited about white marlin. And I saw
this before the consideration was given to listing them under
the Endangered Species Act.
And so, Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to pay attention to
all species, but there are simply no other--there is simply no
other species that is in this kind of shape that have
experienced this kind of continued decline in population. And
so I think we ought to maybe talk a little bit further about
whether we ought to broaden this out. I am not sure how I feel
about it overall, but anyway, that is just a general feeling on
that topic.
As all of you know, we have had a variety of approaches to
try to save the white marlin, and as somebody pointed out, I
can remember back when I was in the State legislature my
predecessor Ed Forsythe coming home to a Lincoln Day dinner and
making a speech about how hard he, and it must have been
Chairman Magnuson at that time, had worked to put into place
the 200-mile fishing limit. And they were absolutely elated
because that was an attempt that finally everybody in this
country agreed on that was going to begin to turn this problem
around before it got anywhere near to the extent that it is
now.
And then later other conservation efforts were made through
ICCAT and other international actions. Of course, when this
situation began to worsen, we tried negotiations between the
various parties to come up with legislation that everybody
could live with and almost got there 3 years ago. But it was
late in the session when we finally got there. It involved the
same rolling closures that are in the legislation that was
currently reported from the Resources full Committee, the two
rolling closures in the mid-Atlantic and some others that were
actually negotiated back then with the good help of Mr. Hayes
and others.
But we continue to try to find an answer to the problem
that is demonstrated by this chart, and so far we haven't done
it. And so I know that there are lots of frustrated people.
Longliners are frustrated, I am frustrated, Rick Weber is
frustrated, because he sees tragedy around the road, down the
road in this fishery, and yet we have been unable to find a
solution. So I hope that we will be able to move forward
together in some fashion.
Mr. Chairman, I used to be in business, and we always used
to say no problem is too big to solve, but this one has eluded
us so far. And I will continue my efforts to try to work with
all parties to find a solution. Dave Whaley from the
Subcommittee staff and I were just talking about Magnuson-
Stevens on the Senate side, and given the time of the year and
the lateness in the session and the position of the bill in the
Senate, I don't think it is going anywhere. So we are going to
be back here in January starting all over again. So it is
frustrating.
But thank you all for being here. And, Mr. Weber, you all
are very articulate and expressed your points of view very
well, and we thank you all for that.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Saxton.
Is there any other comment that any of the witnesses want
to leave with us, some nugget of wisdom that we might take with
us? I will go to ladies first, Mr. Dunn.
Ms. Johnson, the lady from Maine.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you. Mr. Saxton was talking about
domestic measures, I believe, looking at a chart with--that was
from an international problem. And I know we are supposed to be
talking about Resolution No. 427, but I have to answer him back
and say that we longliners are really very restricted in where
we can go, and if you put in the rolling closures, which, of
course, are about the same time when the swordfish are there,
and we need to catch tuna, too--you have to keep in mind that
not everybody who wants to eat the fish will go get them, and
if we buy them from the other countries, we may be just
supporting the thing that we are trying not to support. So keep
us in mind, please. Thanks.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
Mr. Dunn.
Ms. Dunn. Just want to make one comment about the
longlining industry, and this is in no way supposed to detract
from the recreational efforts, but the longlining industry has
really been instrumental in the last few years at ICCAT in
achieving really major conservation gains in terms of both
securing the swordfish rebuilding plan as well as getting the
marlin mortality reduction plan put in place in 2000. That is
1999 for swordfish and 2000 for the marlin, and they deserve a
lot of credit. They have given up a lot, and without their
either acquiescence or active involvement in achieving those
conservation measures, they really wouldn't have happened.
So, as a conservation advocate, I spend much time doing
battle with the longline industry, but they do deserve some
real recognition for their efforts at ICCAT.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Mr. Dunn. And like Jim
said, we have been through a lot of hearings dealing with
fisheries issues, and I want to tell you, this has been, in my
judgment, based on your testimony and your feelings toward what
you do, this has been the best hearing I have had on fisheries
issues. And it is because of what you believe in, and you put
your heart and your mind into this issue, and it shows. And so
we will very seriously take into consideration all of your
recommendations. And hope for the future, since I think Mr.
Weber talked about optimism and the future, is that we will
connect with the international communities so nature's bounty
will thrive, and all of you will be able to make a good living
and continue to make a contribution.
Thank you all very much. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Information submitted for the record follows:]
World Wildlife Fund-Press Statement
Recreational Fishing and Conservation Groups Join Forces To Protect
Vulnerable Atlantic Marlin and BluefinTuna Congress Urged to
Address European Fishing Industry Non-Compliance
Washington, D.C. (26 September 2002) - World Wildlife Fund (WWF)
and the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) today announced their
support for legislation to enforce trade sanctions against nations that
fail to comply with international regulations to conserve and manage
depleted stocks of Atlantic marlin and bluefin tuna. This announcement
came as a prelude to today's hearing at the House Resources
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans.
House Congressional Resolution 427, a bill to enforce compliance
with Atlantic marlin fishing regulations adopted by the International
Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT), was
introduced in Congress by Representatives Wayne Gilchrist of Maryland,
Walter Jones of North Carolina, and Jim Saxton of New Jersey.
``U.S. recreational and commercial fishing organizations have
considered ICCAT non-compliance in Europe a problem for years and, in
partnership with WWF, we are tackling this issue head on,'' said James
A Donofrio, RFA Executive Director.
The RFA announced that it has asked the Office of the United States
Trade Representative to investigate illegal practices of the European
Union (EU) that are injuring Atlantic stocks of blue and white marlin,
bluefin tuna and swordfish. Under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974,
the President would be required to impose trade sanctions if it is
determined that the EU has acted unlawfully. The RFA petition, which
was submitted by Bart S. Fisher of Bryan Cave LLP, Counsel for RFA, has
been endorsed by the General Category Tuna Association, which
represents the commercial tuna fishing industry.
Both WWF and RFA report that the EU is exceeding catch limits for
Atlantic white marlin and Atlantic bluefin tuna, and has refused to
take steps to protect juvenile fish. In addition, the RFA petition
points out that the EU has provided illegal subsidies to its fishing
industry through its Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) that violate
international trade agreements.
``The EU needs to meet its international obligations. Despite
ICCAT's recommendations that white marlin landings be reduced to 67
percent of 1999 landing levels, the EU has increased its white marlin
landings from 77 metric tons in 1999 to 193 metric tons in 2000,'' said
Tom Grasso, Director of Marine Conservation Policy at WWF.
``Even more disturbing have been the EU failures to enforce the
binding ICCAT recommendations related to the catch of juvenile bluefin
tuna, with a 1999 TRAFFIC report revealing that 83 percent of the
bluefin landed from the Mediterranean, and 51% from the Atlantic, were
undersized ,'' added Grasso.
-