THE CALIFORNIAS AND SOME FISHES OF COMMON CONCERN

PHILIP M. ROEDEL, Director National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atomspheric Administration Washington, D.C. ’ It was 5 years ago at Lake Arrowhead that I had to this group or to anyone else associated with fish- the privilege of opening a CalCOFI Symposium that eries research, management, or utilization in this part represented a significant departure from practices of of the world. the past. Today, I have a similar privilege, for this In 1967, we were prepared only to look inwardly, symposium represents an equally sharp break, one and with good reason, the internal pressures being that can have, and I hope will have, far-reaching what they mere. Now CalCOFI has come to the point consequences as far as the fishes and the fisheries of where it can look at resources as a whole and invites the California Current are concerned. and requires, for scientific success, bilateral accord At Lake Arrowhead in 1967, CalCOFI was seeking and cooperation between the appropriate govern- communication and rapport with the lay public in mental functions of the United States and Mexico. the State of California that was for a variety of This has actually begun in the last year. reasons interested in fisheries and fishery-related prob- I said we were then prepared only to look inwardly. lems. We the scientists hoped that by taking a new This is really not quite true-we know we had ulti- approach, and by inviting as participants people from mately to look outward but it was a matter of one a variety of callings, we could contribute to under- step at a time. However, only one of the speakers standing. help explain the point of view of the scien- made specific mention of the key importmw of tist to the layman, perhaps help ease the tension and Mexico. Robert Vile (1969), representing the Ocean establish a channel between those two protagonists Fish Protertive Association, said, SO frequently at loggerheads, the commercial man and (‘Another area which looms large on the horizon the recreationist. is our relationship with Mexico. Strong coopera- The purpose of that symposium mas to consider : tion between our government and that of Mexico “The living resources of the California Current must be worked out, since so many of our sport System; their fluctuating magnitude, distribution, fish migrate between California and Mexican mat- and susceptibility to use for the benefit of the ers. As both commercial and sport fishing expand State of California.” in Mexico. this will become another steadily rising We asked these questions : source of pressure on the sanie resource. ” “What are the resources and what is the state I doubt that he, or any of the rest of us, thought of our knowledge ? that only 5 years later CalCOFI ~17ouldbe taking so “What are the legal, economic, sociological and broad a look that its proceedings would require a technological problems impeding their best use ? bilingual approach and simultaneous translation. How can these be resolred?” (Messersmith, 1969). In a literal sense, CalCOFI is concerned with a limited array of species, those enumerated in Cali- Whether or not the symposium reached its stated fornia law as subject to a special tax. However, the and implied objectives is arguable, but there is no research organizations represented in CalCOFI have question but that it represented a significant step a much broader concern, and CalCOFI research itself forward for fisheries. Surely, conflicts between user has covered a wide spectrum in its attempts to undcr- groups remain with us. The scientist too often still stand the dynamics of the living resources of the has difficulty translating his findings into English California Current System. (or Spanish) for the benefit of those who pay the The CalCOFT Committee envisioned CalCOFI ’s freight and must use these findings for diverse rea- role in these terms in its report for 1963-1966 (Ahl- sons. Yet the fact that we are prepared to make strom et a1 1966) : another significant departure from the past convinces me that CalCOFI has indeed served well, that the ‘ ‘ Clearly the direction of research that CalCOFI recommends is far from a singleminded inquiry body of knowledge embodied in the report of that syniposium and those that followed it have paved the into the anchovy. We believe that we would be serving neither science nor the state were we to way so that we are now able to do what would have been impossible in 1967. to adopt the anchovy fishery as a single object of study. Rather we are recommending an adequate We are today concerning ourselves not just with continuing and def ensiblc study of the anchovy the people of California and the fisheries adjacent to and sardine and an expansion of the broad studies their coast-the original frame of reference of the of the pelagic environment, which have paid off so Marine Research Committee (MRC) and CalCOFI- handsomely. In this we believe that we arc choosing but with the people and fisheries of Baja California a multilane highway into the future, which not only regionally and the Republic of Mexico as a whole. coincides with the scientific objectives, but serves This is not only right and proper, it is long overdue. the statutory objectives of the State and the MRC, One has only to look at the distributional charts of in manifold mays. ’ ’ the key species of Baja and Alta California to see 1 rresent address : OfIice of Marine liesources, National Ocean that this is true, and it comes as anything but news and Atniospheric Administration, Hocltville, Jld. 62 CALIFORNIA COOPERATIVE OCEANIC FISHERIES INVESTIGATIONS

DE,

Figure 1. Map of California by Hondius, 1631, Amsterdam. Courtesy Huntington library, Son Marino, California. REPORTS VOI,T711E XVII, 1 JULY lDil TO 39 .TUKE 10i3 63

A broad view is, I believe, the only acceptable one. stock which is being utilized only in part at the Because of its long and successful history, I hope present time. While some of these resources are that CalCOFI can play the lead in meeting demands found only in one country or the other, many of of the future so far as fisheries of the Californias are thein occur both in Mexico and the United States concerned. It will, no doubt, require some change and others have far broader ranges. Such species as in its present terms of reference and some means of northern anchovy, Pacific mackerel, sardine, barra- close official collaboration with Mexico’s fisheries cuda, yellowtail, bonito and white seabass are now research organizations if it is to do so. the object of fisheries in both nations. . . Let me turn to specifics. “Future prospects are for increased fishery utili- I want to confine myself geographically to the zation by lktexico, the United States and others. States of California and Baja California and the What can and should be done to afford maximum territory of Baja California Sur-essentially the protection to the lrgitimate interests of the Cali- “Californie Isle” depicted by Hondius in 1631 (Fig- fornias ? ure 1).Parenthetically, one wonders what sort of a “Because the eastern Pacific fishery resources group would be gathered here today if Hondius had and interests, particularly those of Southern Cali- been right. fornia and the west coast of the Baja California I particularly want to consider the coastal stocks Peninsula, are in such a large degree the same, found most abundantly from Point Conception to there is the very evident need for coopera t’ion Cabo Sail Lucas. These species of common concern between the United States and Mexico in fishery to Mexico and the United States are pretty much matters if their coinmon resources are to be prop- restricted distributionally to the waters adjacent to erly husbanded. ’ ’ (Roetiel, 1968a). our two nations. Those that reach Canada do so as I am suggesting that now is the time to take strays or in a couple of cases as northern fringe scientific stock, to expand our base of scientific know- populations. I am not going to discuss essentially ledge where necessary, to act jointly in so doing, and nonmigratory species that are found in the territorial if possible to use CalCOFI as a vehicle. I ani suggest- waters of both nations (eg., kelp bass and abalone). ing that sooner or later sonic sort of an arrangement Nor ani I going to consider the highly migratory high is going to have to be worked out between Mexico seas fishes that are certainly of great importance to and the United States with respect to the conserva- Mexico and the Unitrd States, but which do not fit tion of this group of fishes. my definition. These are, of course, the tropical and You may say this is looking :I long way down the temperate tunas and the billfishes. road. Perhaps so but I think we hare to. Scientifically What I am concerned with are certain of the sound expended programs mounted now on some co- “Marine Research Committee species” (those subject operative base agreed to by our governments will to a special California landing t,lx), particularly the only, with lnck, proride the data necessary for man- Pacific sardine, Pacific niackcrel, and northern an- agement by the time the need for it is with us. chovy; and another group outside the CalCOFI pur- Regardless of how the law of the Sea Chiiferciice view in the sense that they are not subject to the turns out, regardless of whether conserration action special tax. They are, in fact of particular-not sole, is unilateral, bilateral, or multilateral, some sort of I hasten to add-concern to southern California controls will almost surely be necessary beyond those sportsmen. we have now. And there are those mho say the day The group includes for my purposes the barracuda, may already be past. bonito, white seabass, and yellowtail, though some The first thing we have to find out is how much othcrs of lesser significance or unknown migratory we know. This is too often overlooked. Faced with a habits must not be overlooked-ocean whitefish, new challenge, some of us charge madly off in all sheepshead, and various other sciacnids for instance. directions, busily reinventing the wherl. What I am sorting out, quite obviously, are those XTe know quite a great deal about the “non-MRC” species which (1) meet the criteria for coastal stocks California fish and more than some people might as defined in the United States’ position for the Law think about those from Baja California. of the Sea Conference; (2) migrate along the Pacific For example, in pre-CalCOFI, pre-World War I1 coast between Mexico and the United States; but (3) days, the State of California conducted many research do not range as far as Canada in substantial numbers cruises particularly along the west coast of Baja except as relatively discrete populations. In other California, but also into the Gulf of California. These words, key fishes the ratioiial long-range manage- cruises were made by the California State Fisheries ment of which depends on bilateral action. That is Laboratory (CSFL) under terms of permits issued why my laundry list does not include such obvious by the Gorernment of Alesico. Extensire cruises by candidates as the jack maclierel and hake. The first CSFL research vessels began in 1931, but as early may not meet criterion (1) and neither may meet as 1917, the launch “IMP” spent 3 clays at the criterion (3). There is nothing unique about this ap- Coronado Islands trawling for young fish, with what proach-I had occasion to put it this way in 1968: success the surviving record does not tell us (Roedel, “The living marine resources off the coasts of 1968b). the States of California and Baja California and Though the Government of Mexico had no labora- the Territory of Baja California Sur are many and tory in Baja California during the 1930’s, it did varied. In the aggregate they represent a huge offer fine cooperation to the State researchers, issuing 64 CAIiIFORNlh COOl’ERdTIVI~~OCEANIC FISHERIES INVESTIGATIOSS the necessary permits, expediting port procedures, is where does it lead? We have a tendency to study and providing great hospitality at what were then things to death and to expect all the answers before isolated outposts south of Ensenada. The Mexican any use is made of the data in a managerial sense. fishing industry was equally cooperative during the However, in this day and age you cannot postpone sardine and mackerel tagging programs, installing decisions until the last bit of information is in. In and maintaining electromagnets for tag recovery at this connection, it is now becoming quite fashionable the Ensenada plants. to quote John Gulland (1971), which I shall now do : The tagging programs first demonstrated that these “It is obviously a fallacy to think that scientists were in fact common stocks, that the Mexican and given time, and perhaps also money, can produce American plant operators were drawing from a com- the complete answer to management problems, e.g., mon source at least in southern California and north- specify the precise value of the maximum sustained ern Baja California. Pacific mackerel migration pat- yield from a particular stock of fish, and also the terns, for example, showed some intermingling from exact levels of fishing, and of population abundance central Baja California to central California. The required to produce it. The inability of scientists sardine studies demonstrated the same interdepend- to produce such complete and exact analyses has ence. resulted (sometimes deliberately) in a delay in the In the post-World War I1 era, the CalCOFI pro- introduction of managenlent, measures . . . The gram come into being and with it the blossoming of obverse of this fallacy is that a complete scientific that fundamental tool for fishery-independent popula- understanding is necessary for effective manage- tion estimates, the egg and larva survey. ment.” The results of this survey reiterated for some species and established for others the joint Mexico-United Gulland’s point is extremely well taken for we have States nature of so many of these key resources. The had a very definite tendency in the past to postpone distribution of spawning stocks of anchovies and action until it was too late, simply because those of us sardines both above and below the international with managerial responsibilities felt we could not act boundary is an example. until the scientist felt he had all the answers. We need There were other studies of particular species, some look no further than the collapses of the Pacific sar- conducted under university auspices, some under dine and the Pacific mackerel fisheries in California Federal, some under State, still others under various for prime examples. In these cases, management actu- combinations. We learned much, for example, of the ally lagged far behind science which transmitted the life history and migrations of yellowtail and barra- warning (albeit with data far less than complete) far cuda through State-operated partially federally-fin- in advance of the fact. I hope I make it clear that I anced (Dingell-Johnson) projects (Baxter et al, 1960, certainly do not propose an expanded research pro- Pinkas, 1966). These studies required the full support gram as a delaying action. Rather, I look upon it as of the Mexican Government and a great deal of help necessary to provide us at least part of what we need from both sport and commercial sources in California to know before the hour of decision arrives. for their success. I remarked earlier that there was nothing really Now we are conducting integrated research with new ir, what I have discussed so far as expanded re- Mexico ’s fishery research laboratories in the standard search goes. That is equally true of international co- CalCOFI framework. And currently scientists from operation for management. Many of us forget, if California and Mexico are cooperating informally indeed we ever knew, that Mexico and the United in a tagging program. I hope that these efforts not States entered into a convention including an inter- only continue but expand and strengthen. Both our national fisheries commission in 1926. The need for it nations have too much at stake to do otherwise. was based chiefly on prevention of smuggling and on On the United States’ side, we are taking major general concern for the barracuda resource and its steps to expand our research base, with particular economic future, but it was abrogated in 1927 before respect to the so-called migratory marine game fishes, it had a chance to produce. The point is, such a treaty especially barracuda, bonito, white seabass, and did exist. yellowtail. We are taking inventory of what we know The California Division of Fish and Game con- and identifying that which we do not so that a sound tinued the barracuda research, started by the Com- and practical research program can be mounted. This mission, which culminated in a publication on barra- work involves both the Federal Government and the cuda life history and its fishery by Lionel Walford State, and a joint document defining the “state of the (1932), who was himself a Commission scientist dur- art” and recommending a course of action is due ing its brief existence. soon after tfie first of the year (1 973). We now have the bilateral agreement with respect We are concerned to a large degree with stocks to the contigucus fisheries zone which expires next common to both nations and with what we see as the January 1, 1973. One thing that the negotiations lead- ultimate need for our two governments to work jointly ing to the bilateral did was to emphasize the interest for resource conservation if these stocks are to be in Baja California af United States anglers. Those maintained. We hope that Mexico will join with us in the Federal Government who were concerned in in this augmented effort. the negotiations were quite aware of the importance It is all well and good to preach augmented research of Baja California to commercial interests, but were and it is a relatively easy concept to sell. The question less appreciative of its importance to sport fishermen. REPORTS VOLUME XVII, 1 JUJJY 1971 TO 30 JUNE 1973 65

It came out quite clearly that not only do we have a They are, however, apparent. Given an international common resource on both sides of the border, but that arrangement, the State would lose its present author- sportsmen from north of it are likely as not to fish to ity to manage these stocks except to the degree that it the south so long as they can within the framework could influence any international commission that of Mexican law. Finally, ‘ ‘both delegations recognized might be established. This is a factor that State au- the increasing need for joint cooperative efforts di- thorities must weigh in the balance. rected toward research on and conservation of the So far as CalCOFI is concerned, I want to say once many living marine resources of common concern. ” again that I feel it can and should play a significant An annex to the formal report called for “the two role in any research program expanded to include nations to exchange information and develop coordi- migratory marine game fish of common concern. nated programs of research and management with CalCOFI has a long and honorable past. I hope its special respect to anchovies, sardines, and hake. ” future is even longer and more honorable, that its (Roedel and Frey, 1968). frame of reference is broadened, and that the scien- Another organization exists which has at times in- tists of the Republic of Mexico join in as full partners. terested itself in fisheries matters. I am speaking of the Commission of the Californias, that rather unique REFERENCES body made up of delegates from the State of Cali- Alhstrom, E. H., J. L. Bnster, .T. I). Isaacs, and P. &I.Roedel. 1967. Report of the CalCOFI Committee. Mar. Res. Comm., fornia, the State of Baja California, and the Terri- Calif. Coop. Ocean. Fish. Invest., Rept., 11: 5-9. tory of Baja California Sur. This Commission can Baxter, John L., and staff. 1960. A study of the yellowtail perhaps play an increased and significant role in de- Seriola dorsalis (Gill). Calif. Dppt. Fish and Dome, Fish veloping and coordinating plans for research and Bull., (110) : 1-w). Gulland, .J. A. 1971. Science and fishery management. Cons. when and if necessary management of these stocks. Perm. Int. Explor. Xer, J., 33 (3) : 471-477. I am not prepared to recommend a course of action Messersmith, J. D. (ed.) 1969. Symposium on the living re- for management at this point in time. For one thing, sources of the California Current System ; their fluctuating we need to know better where we are in terms of magnitude, distribution, and susceptibility to use for the bene- fit of the State of California. Mar. Res. Comna., Calif. Coop. knowledge and as I mentioned earlier, we will not Ocean. Fish. Invest., Rept., 13 : 17-128. have an evaluation completed until early 1973. The Pinkas, L. lN6. A management study of the California barra- Law of the Sea Conference may welP change many of cuda, Sphyraena argentea Girard. Calif. Dept. Fish and the rules of the international game and it might be Game, Fiah Bull., (134) : 1-55. Roedel, P. AI. 1968a. Fishery research cruises in Mexican wa- good counsel to await development there before taking ters made by State of California vessels. Calif. Dept. Fish further action here. The action when it comes may and Game, AfRO Ref., (68-3) : 1-11. take any one of several forms. One which obviously __ 1968b. Cooperation in fisheries research and derelopment in Baja California and California. Calif. Dept. Fish and comes to mind is a formal bilateral treaty between our Game, MRO Ref., (68-4) : 1-3. two nations. Other less formal steps are possible. My Roedel, Philip AI., and Herbert W. Frey. 1968. California-based purpose now is to get people thinking about the prob- fisheries off the west coast of Mexico for temperate tunas, market fish, and sport fish. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game, Fish lem both from the points of view of science, of man- Bull., (138) : 49-76. agement, and of politics. Vile, R. 1969. The point of view of recreational interests: The I have not mentioned until now the obvious impact organized sportsmen. Mar. Res. Comm., Calif. Coop. Ocean. Fish. Invest., Rept., 13 : 111-112. of joint international management upon the preroga- Walford, Lionel A. 1932. The California barracuda (Sphyraena tives presently exercised by the State of California. argentea). Calif. Diu. Fish and Game, Fish Bull., (37) :1-120.