nfcc: national fisheries conservation center

Seabird Conservation in Gillnet and Longline Fisheries
By Edward F. Melvin

Background

Worldwide, the incidental capture or bycatch of marine organisms in fisheries has posed serious threats to specific animal populations, as well as to specific fisheries. In particular, bycatch of mammals, turtles, and seabirds has proven problematic because of the sensitivity of these species to even slight increases in adult mortality, and the belief of the general public that these charismatic animals must be protected. When conservation issues such as these arise, especially in U.S. fisheries, they necessitate immediate solutions to satisfy requirements of existing environmental law, the demands of the environmental community, and concerns of the public. Unfortunately, no standard mechanisms exist within stewardship and regulatory authorities to go beyond problem identification to crafting solutions.

Since 1994, I have developed cooperative research programs to devise solutions to the mortality of seabirds in two fisheries: the Puget Sound drift gillnet fishery for sockeye salmon and the longline fisheries in Alaska for sablefish and Pacific cod. The gillnet work was completed in 1996 and the longline work is scheduled for completion in 2001. Although these fisheries are very different, the model used for cooperative research was the same and is proving successful in both. This essay outlines a cooperative research model that includes industry and agency input and cooperation at all levels, strict scientific protocols and clear direction toward effective and practical regulations.

Defining the Model

A precursor to the development of successful bycatch solutions was the realization that effective solutions must meet three basic criteria. Successful solutions must be:

Effective at reducing bycatch without reducing target catch or increasing the bycatch of other species;
Acceptable and practical for fishers; and
Scientifically acceptable to managers, conservation organizations and the public.

Although the model for cooperative research was developed with specific reference to seabird bycatch reductions, it is readily applicable to a wide range of conservation issues. There are three key elements:

Working with industry leaders through relevant industry associations to identify possible new technologies and/or operational practices that are practical and likely to solve the problem. Cooperation with managers and agency scientists, academic scientists, and representatives of the conservation community is also essential.
Testing the proposed solutions in a collaborative study within the context of standard industry practices using strict scientific protocols. Developing incentives for individual participants to host scientists (who collect the necessary data) and adhere to a specific scientific protocol within their standard operation is essential.
Crafting new regulations based on the results of the research program in cooperation with the industry, resource management agencies and conservation organizations.

This model results in proof at two levels. Because practitioners within the industry have a primary role in identifying the solutions tested, and are involved in the actual research activity, they develop trust in the scientific process and are satisfied that technologies or methods tested are practical and actually work. Managers, scientists, and conservation groups are satisfied because mitigation techniques are rigorously tested, and results are scientifically defensible, peer reviewed, and ultimately published in the scientific literature.

For this model to be effective both industry and managers must be highly motivated, funding must be available, and a qualified and willing third party must be available to lead the effort. Unfortunately, these conditions rarely exist without a motivating crisis. Crises are important for at least two reasons:

Industry is not likely to respond to conservation issues unless the livelihood of its practitioners is threatened. Similarly, management agencies rarely respond to loss of non-commercial species unless they are threatened by litigation or requirements of environmental law (the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or Court injunction).
Funding for applied conservation research is not likely to be forthcoming unless there is a crisis. In the case histories below, the threat of litigation played a primary role in motivating funding for the research activities.

Finally, scientifically credible and independent third parties are important, because they do not come with unwelcome baggage and are therefore in a better position to establish trust. Applying this model through agency scientists can be difficult because they represent institutions that are both regulatory and scientific. The agencies routinely find themselves in conflict with industry. Scientists associated with conservation organizations or environmental groups are often seen by industry as biased against harvesters of natural resources.

Case Studies

Gillnets and Seabirds: Observer programs established that mortalities of marbled murrelets, listed as threatened under the ESA in 1992, were in fact extremely rare in Puget Sound gillnet fisheries, but also established that these fisheries can entangle large numbers of other diving seabirds (common murres and rhinoceros auklets). The fishery was faced with partial and full closure if research was not initiated to develop techniques that reduce the incidental mortality of diving seabirds. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) was threatened with litigation from a group representing sport fishers. Neither a research plan nor funding to carry out research was in place. After a Sea Grant pilot project in 1994, research was scaled up in 1995 and 1996 with funding from the Saltonstall Kennedy Program of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS S/K), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the Washington Sea Grant Program (WSGP). Ultimately gear modifications (nets with visual barriers in the upper net), eliminating dawn fishing, and ecosystem approaches were proposed for new regulations based on the research. Regulations were adopted with industry support, marking the first time solutions were proven and implemented for seabird bycatch in gillnets.

In this cooperative study, the Puget Sound Gillnetters' Association (PSGA) and WDFW played key roles. PSGA was the lead entity for the industry, promoting cooperation within the association, identifying individual cooperators, and establishing a forum to identify possible solutions. WDFW established the capability to use the proceeds from a test fishery to pay for vessel charters and fish outside scheduled openings, which in turn provided the incentive for individual fishers to participate in research. WDFW also played a lead role in organizing meetings of fishers, scientists and the conservation community.

Alaska Longline Fisheries: Alaska longline fisheries for groundfish and halibut together yield about $300 million in ex-vessel revenue from approximately 2500 vessels. These fisheries have been estimated to catch between 10,000 and 20,000 seabirds per year including exceedingly rare catches of the internationally endangered short-tailed albatross. Under the Biological Opinion of the USFWS under the ESA, bycatch exceeding four short-tail albatross every two years in the groundfish fishery and two short-tailed albatross every two years in the halibut fishery could close or curtail these otherwise healthy fisheries. The motivation to develop effective mitigation techniques was clear to industry, and research to develop bycatch deterrent strategies was required but not funded. Funding was obtained from USFWS, NMFS S/K Program, and WSGP to conduct research over two seasons in the Gulf of Alaska sablefish and halibut fisheries and the Bering Sea Pacific cod fishery.

An ad hoc industry committee was established through the Fishing Vessels Owners Association and the North Pacific Longline Association with participation by NMFS and USFWS representatives. Deterrent techniques specific to each fishery were identified for testing through a series of meetings of the ad hoc group. In the case of sablefish, cooperating fishers received free NMFS-required observer coverage. In the case of Pacific cod, an exempted fishing permit from the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council allowed two vessels to fish under the research protocols for 25 days each prior to the open access season. The second and final year of data collection was completed in late September 2000. The process will conclude with meetings of the ad hoc industry group to share results of the research program and develop new regulations to replace those borrowed from fisheries in the Southern Oceans. The goal is to develop new, practical regulations specific to Alaska fisheries with the support of industry, the resource management agencies and the conservation community.

Conclusion

Cooperative research as described here has limitations. Obtaining adequate funding is difficult and this kind of cooperative field research is costly. Organizing these programs takes a great deal of work and trust, and a little bit of luck. Because of the unique capabilities of the Washington Sea Grant Program, I was able to devote all of my time to these projects for sustained periods. Applying scientific principles to solving fisheries problems and taking risks is the Sea Grant function. Most academics and agency scientists have neither the freedom nor that mandate. I also was fortunate to recruit very talented scientists from within the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences at the University of Washington, Dr. Julia Parrish and Dr. Loveday Conquest, and allies from state and federal agencies. And finally, I had the good fortune to work with associations and individuals within the industry with vision and dedication who understood the threat and the challenge to their industry. This model is not always appropriate, but when the circumstances present themselves and the people are right, it is a win-win formula.

Edward F. Melvin is a marine fisheries specialist with the Washington Sea Grant Program, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington. He has worked to develop solutions to problems in commercial fisheries in California and Washington for the past 20 years through the Marine Advisory Services of the Sea Grant Program.

For More Information

For more information on these studies see the Washington Sea Grant Program web site and/or Melvin, Edward F, J.K. Parrish and L.L. Conquest. 1999. Novel tools to reduce seabird bycatch in coastal gillnet fisheries. Conservation Biology 13(6):1386-1397; Melvin, E.F. 2000. Progress Report: Solutions to the Bycatch of Seabirds in Alaska Longline Fisheries. Report to the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council.