No. 10, November 2020

History of the Fisheries and Their Management in the Western Pacific Region

By Michael Markrich

A ABOUT THE AUTHOR Michael Markrich is the former public information officer for the State of Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources; communications officer for State of Hawai‘i Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism; columnists for the Honolulu Advertiser; socioeconomic analyst with John M. Knox and Associates; and consultant/ owner of Markrich Research. He holds a bachelor of arts degree in history from the University of Washington and a master of science degree in agricultural and resource economics from the University of Hawai‘i.

Disclaimer: The statements, findings and conclusions in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA).

© Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, 2020. All rights reserved, Published in the United States by the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council under NOAA Award #NA20NMF4410013 ISBN: 978-1-944827-55-7

Cover photo: Sports fishing for billfish, Kona, Hawai‘i. Photo courtesy of Kevin Hibbard.

B CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS PREFACE iii 1a–c. , striped and broadbill iv 1. Introduction 1 2. Pacific blue marlin 1 2. Big Game Fishermen 2 3. A marlin hangs in the window of the McDonald’s on Saipan 2 3. Hawai‘i Early Billfish History 3 4. caught by wealthy angler 3 4. Longline Expansion in the Post–World War II Era 7 5. Wooden sampans introduced by Japanese fishermen 3 6. Flagline gear (also known as basket gear) 4 5. Change Brought by the Big Game Fishermen 9 7. Flagline/longline gear illustration 4 6. The Recreational Billfish Controversy Comes to Hawai‘i 11 8. Flagline-caught billfish 4 7. Challenges in Developing of the Preliminary Management 9. Kajiki fillet 4 Plans 12 10. Japanese woman selling fish cake in Honolulu 5 11. President F. D. Roosevelt visits Hawai‘i 5 8. The Council’s Fishery Management Plan 14 12. Capt. Henry Chee 6 9. Competing Fishery Management Goals for Billfish 13. Capt. Chee charter boat advertisement 6 in the U.S. Atlantic 16 14. Peter Fithian 6 15. Peter Fithian’s fishing news column banner 7 10. Inclusion of in the Magnuson-Stevens Act 17 16. Japanese longliner (circa 1946) 7 11. Longline Impact on Hawai‘i Fisheries 18 17. Regional fishery management organizations focused on tuna and billfish 8 12. Local Actions Against the Hawai’i Swordfish Fishery 19 18. U.S. EEZ in the Western Pacific Region 11 13. Marine Protected Areas and Their Impacts 20 19. Longliner heading out to sea from port of Honolulu 17 20. WPRFMC Executive Director Kitty M. Simonds and 14. Negative Impacts of the Billfish Conservation Act Chair Wadsworth Yee 17 Amendment 22 21. Longliner from New Orleans in Honolulu 18 15. Evolution of Billfish Tournaments and Recreational 22. Hawai’i Longline-Sea Turtle Interactions 19 Fishery Policies 24 23. Hawai’i Longline-Seabird Interactions 20 24. Marine National Monuments in the Western Pacific 16. Proposals for Longline Changes 25 Region 20 17. Conclusion 27 25. Hawai’i Longline Exclusion Areas 21 26. U.S. and foreign fishing effort in the Western Pacific22 27. Billfish selling at $4/pound retail after the Billfish APPENDIX 1: Meetings Convened by the Western Pacific Conservation Act Amendment 23 Regional Fishery Management Council in Kona 28. Tagging a striper in Hawai’i 24 and about Marlin 28 29. Great Marlin Race 2010 Highlights 24 APPENDIX 2: Pelagic Fisheries Research Program Projects 30. Recreational fishing for billfish off Kona, Hawai’i25 on Billfish and Hawai‘i Pelagic Fisheries (1997–2012) 29 31. Recreational fishing for billfish off Kona, Hawai’i25 32. Serving blue marlin tempura at the 2003 NOAA APPENDIX 3: Impact of the 2018 Billfish Conservation Act Fish Fry 25 Amendment on Honolulu Fish Dealers 30 33. Spicy Au Tartare 26 REFERENCES 33 34. Smoked marlin 26 35. Nairigi (striped marlin) filet 27 ACKNOWLEGMENTS 36 36. Change in billfish sales by species following the BCA amendment 32 37. Change in total billfish sales following the BCA amendment 32

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Change in billfish sales by type following the BCA amendment 32 i Photo: SBHawaii.com | Pinterest / Joel Villanueva / Joel | Pinterest SBHawaii.com Photo: List Of Abbreviations

BCA Billfish Conservation Act CNMI Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands CPUE catch per unit effort EEZ exclusive economic zone ESA Endangered Species Act FCMA Fishery Conservation and Management Act FCZ Fishery Conservation Zone FMP Fishery Management Plan HIBT Hawai‘i Invitational Billfish Tournament HMS Highly Migratory Species HVB Visitors Bureau IATTC Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission ICCAT International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic IGFA International Game Fishing Association ISC International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean IUU illegal, unreported and unregulated MAFAC Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee MHI main Hawaiian Islands MPA marine protected area MNM Marine National Monument MSA Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act MSY maximum sustainable yield mt metric tons NCMC National Coalition for Marine Conservation NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NGO non-government organization nm nautical mile NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NWHI Northwestern Hawaiian Islands OY optimum yield PFRP Pelagic Fisheries Research Program PIFSC Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center PMP Preliminary Management Plan RFMO regional fishery management organization (international) SEZ Southern Exclusion Zone (Hawai‘i) SPC South Pacific Commission TBF The Billfish Foundation UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea USTF U.S. Tuna Foundation WCPFC Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission WCPO Western and Central Pacific Ocean WPRFMC Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council ii Preface

Western Pacific Islanders have been skilled deep-water fishermen for such as the blue marlin for hundreds of years. During the early twentieth century, a cultural clash occurred between Japanese longline fishermen and European and American big game fishermen. At the heart of the initial dispute was the Western cultural belief that marlin are beautiful, iconic and rare. Their aesthetic value encouraged the belief that the fish should be reserved as big to provide exciting entertainment for the high-end recreational fishing market. This perspective contrasted sharply with the Japanese view. Japanese fishermen considered these fish as the unintended of their far more valuable tuna fishery, to be used most profitably in low-end processed fish meal products such as fish cakekamaboko ( ) for the masses.

Concerns over the survival of The injuring of protected species was species, taken at the expense of Pacific large gamefish led wealthy big game mostly solved by the sustained effort Islanders. Currently, 51% of the anglers—in alliance with recreational of the Council to ban U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ, tackle manufacturers, mass market within 50 nm of the Northwestern 0 to 200 miles from shore) surround­ recreational fishermen, environ­mental­ Hawaiian Islands (NWHI). In addition, ing Hawai‘i, American Samoa, Guam, ists and some commercial fisher­men— longline captains were required to alter the Commonwealth of the Northern to play a key role in the passage of the their fishing practices and type of fish Mariana Islands and the Pacific remote Fishery Conservation and Management hooks. Billfish continued to be caught island areas (collectively, the Western Act of 1976, now known as the as incidental catch, but their numbers Pacific Region) is designated as marine Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA). dropped as commercial fishermen national monuments and 83% of the After implementation of the MSA targeted deeper waters for tuna. In U.S. EEZ surrounding Hawai‘i is legislation, a suite of federal fishery the meantime, the recreational billfish closed to longline fishing. measures in the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf industry thrived, and Hawai‘i remains The issue is at once economic and of , including calls for partial one of the best spots for big game cultural. By forcing U.S. fishermen ban of swordfish fishing off Florida fishing in the world. However, cultural from federal waters, it uninten­tionally (Shillington 1983), led to economic differences remain. While recreational makes the plundering of these waters hardships for commercial fishermen, fishermen practice catch-and-release, more viable by illegal, unreport­ed and compelling them to move thousands one Pacific Islander noted, “Gentlemen, unregulated (IUU) fishermen. of miles to Hawai‘i where state and we don’t play with our food.” The closures have resulted in loss federal agencies were providing The protective exclusion of longline of jobs and income for fishermen incentives for them to fish for pelagic vessels from the waters 0 to 50 nm and their families in Hawai‘i and fish (Wagner 2000). The result was around the NWHI by the Council was the U.S. Pacific territories. In terms a fourfold increase in the number held up as a model by the International of environmental safeguards, U.S. of longline vessels fishing Hawai’i’s Game Fish Association in the early fisheries subject to strict regulations offshore waters, a situation for which 1990s. Ironically, what evolved was have been supplanted by foreign the Western Pacific Regional Fishery demands that huge areas of open fisheries that are largely unregulated Management Council (WPRFMC) was ocean be set aside from fishing forever but are nonetheless able to sell not prepared. The rapid growth in the without compensating Hawai‘i’s their catches in U.S. markets. For fishery led to concerns about impacts indigenous people. Native Hawaiians U.S. Pacific Islanders who have few to protected species such as monk seals have been deprived from from the economic options other than fishing, and turtles as well as with the fishing income of one of their largest assets, these actions have had significant practices of local fishermen. the waters of the NWHI, renamed negative consequences. The problem of longline vessels Papaha¯naumokua¯kea and designated The COVID-19 pandemic is alter­ interacting with the local, small-boat a national marine monument through ing familiar patterns for commercial fishermen was solved by the WPRFMC presidential proclamation. This was and charter boat fishing throughout through the development of a longline the first of what would be a series of the United States. It remains to be exclusion zone that spanned from shore similar closures of offshore federal seen what impact this will have on out to 50 to 75 nautical miles (nm) waters in the name of protecting billfish manage­ment in Hawai‘i and the around the main Hawaiian Islands. coral reefs, billfish and other pelagic Western Pacific.

iii Fig. 1a. Shortbill spearfish hebi( ).

Fig. 1b. Striped marlin (nairagi).

Fig. 1c. Broadbill swordfish (shutome).

Photos: Hawaii Council

iv 1. Introduction

ince ancient times, flocks of black seabirds have indicated the presence of huge schools of tuna swimming off Hawai‘i S (Glazier 2016a). Found among these tuna schools are Indo-Pacific ( mazara) and Atlantic (M. nigricans) blue marlin (both here referred to as blue marlin, kajiki or a‘u), (M. indica or a‘u), striped marlin ( audax and audax, nairagi or a‘u), shortbill spearfish T.( angustirostris or hebi), Istiophorus( platypterus) and broadbill swordfish Xiphias( gladius, mekajiki or shutome). (See Collette and Graves 2019 and HawaiiSeafood.org.) These pelagic fish have been well known to the fishermen of the Western Pacific for hundreds of years (Amesbury 2008) and have long played an important role in Pacific Island culture.

Longlining is an 18th century only one time for eating, they started Japanese fishing technique—considered the practice called catch and release, the most efficient means of subsurface which allowed the same large for tuna on the open sea—that or other billfish to survive after being found its way to Hawai‘i in the early hooked so they might be caught twentieth century. As the longlining multiple times. industry grew alongside the world’s Eventually, a pastime for the very demand for tuna, a number of big rich evolved into a recreational charter game fishermen on the U.S. mainland and tournament industry associated complained that the Japanese longline with gaming that is today valued at fishermen were taking too many prized more than $3 billion (Ditton and Stoll large blue marlin, turning what could 2003).1 As this elite industry grew be rare and beautiful sport trophies in size and influence, it changed the into fish cake. A clash of cultures and nature of the sport and transformed classes developed. the balance between recreational Unlike their counterparts in Hawai‘i, and commercial fishing in U.S. waters. who also caught marlin for sport, The competition between U.S. big big game fishermen from the U.S. game fishermen and commercial mainland did not normally eat the fishermen, as it affects U.S. regulatory marlin and other fish they caught. practices and the islands and peoples They were not interested in the flavor within the jurisdiction of the Western of the fish but in the exhilaration of Pacific Regional Fishery Management catching an elusive quarry and sharing Council (WPRFMC), is the subject the experience with their friends. They of this history. created yacht clubs, competitions and social gambling events around the Fig. 2. Pacific blue marlin (Makaira mazara) catching of marlin and other billfish. is commonly known in Hawai‘i as kajiki or Believing that marlin, like freshwater a‘u (the Hawaiian word applied to all marlin trout, were too valuable to be caught species). Photo: Hawaii Seafood Council

1. Their estimate of the economic impact for the United States in 2003 was $2.4 billion. In 2019 dollars, that number equates to $3.3 billion. Depending upon the multiplier, it may be even higher.

1 2. Big Game Fishermen

The recreational pursuit of trophy billfish such as marlin, spearfish, emitted highly visible social signals of sailfish and broadbill swordfish is known as “big game fishing.” This exclusivity, wealth and success. Men and women alike enjoyed the status sport was helped in its development around 1900 by the creation of and signature branding that came specially built fishing boats with inboard engines. (Holcombe 1923). from being photographed standing, usually well dressed and fishing The social culture of the time in the Atlantic northwest, as far pole in hand, next to a huge blue embraced big game fishing as an south as Florida and as far north as marlin hanging from a steel hook, exciting action sport. Anglers used New England. However, marlin are the fish dwarfing them in scale. carefully crafted fishing rods and reels found throughout the world’s seas, The sense of accomplishment did with specially made fishing lines and and the glamour that surrounded not end there. Many of these large baited hooks to troll for fish behind their catch spread as fishermen trophy fish were cast in sand molds their boats. Photos of brave anglers competed to catch the biggest fish by taxidermists who hand painted standing next to enormous fish caught and establish a world’s record. them into brilliantly colored lifelike the world’s imagination. Opinions The sport was immortalized reproductions that could be hung differ as to when the first marlin was during the 1920s by celebrity writer on walls in prominent locations caught by a motor boat. Some say Zane Grey, who wrote bestsellers as a tangible symbol of success for it was in Florida in 1900. However, such as Tales of Fishing Virgin Seas everyone to see. This is true even following the establishment of the (1925) and Tales of Tahitian Waters today. Visitors to Saipan who visit Tuna Club of Avalon in California, (1931). Images of the sport became the local McDonald’s can admire a prominent big game fishermen who a mainstay of popular culture 239-pound Pacific blue marlin that knew about the abundance of billfish and were featured in Hollywood was caught by the chairman of the and tuna in Hawai‘i founded the movies and sports magazines. McDonald’s Corporation in August Hawai‘i Big Game Fishing Club in Although places such as Key West, 1977 off Honolulu (Tuten-Puckett 1914, the second such club founded Florida, offered at-will shared-cost et al. 2003). Even after more than globally. The first motorized billfish charters aimed at attracting working- 40 years, its shining presence in the fishing boat arrived in Hawai‘i in and middle-class participants, the store fills visiting customers with 1916 from San Diego, California. demographics of big game fishing from awe and demonstrates like a talisman At the heart of this new sport its start was largely the wealthy and the proud connection between was then and is today the marlin— those with high levels of disposable the Saipan McDonald’s and the beautiful fish, distinct in shape and income (Ditton and Stoll 2003). executive of its parent company. color, that swim at 50 miles an Part of the sport’s appeal was that it A number of the big game fishermen hour or more among tuna schools, of the early sports fishing era went feeding off the tuna as they move on to participate in exclusive fishing beneath the surface. The catching tournaments with friends and family. of these large blue and black billfish by means of a lure trolled behind a motor boat produces a sense of euphoria that is difficult replicate in other sports pursuits. During the early part of the twentieth century in the U.S. Atlantic, the catch occurred seasonally. Blue marlin were sought from January to April in the southwest Atlantic and from June to October

Fig. 3. A marlin hangs in the window of the McDonald’s in Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and another hangs on the restaurant’s wall. One of the marlin was caught by the chairman of McDonald’s Corporation. Photo: WPRFMC.

2 These tournaments—with their protocols, The sport also attracted busy Through their international organi­ carefully carved trophies and exotic executives, who could relax fishing for zations, the big game fishermen of rituals—were promoted as incentives billfish on a small boat away from the Atlantic were encouraged to travel for wealthy individuals to visit exclusive the demands of others. Alternatively, the world to catch the biggest marlin. high-end resorts in Florida, Hawai‘i, they could use the sport as an oppor­ Encouraged by their international Cuba and other parts of the world. tunity for negotiating exclusive social networks, a number of big game business deals while they enjoyed the fishing celebrities, such as Ernest enhanced privacy the charter boats Hemingway, became interested in offered (TBP 2004). Hawai‘i where the largest marlin Despite the economic downturn were caught. of the Great Depression (1929–1939), In the desire at the time to catch which caused many of the low-cost the biggest, few were troubled that charter boats to go out of business, the heaviest and largest fish taken were interest in the sport remained high, females. The maximum weight of male and, in 1939, the International blue is 300 pounds and rarely Game Fishing Association (IGFA) a few pounds more. Thus, they are was established. The IGFA was an generally not regarded as trophy fish. organization of like-minded individuals The perceived need to protect and from around the world who supported monopolize the biggest fish for the with annual dues the interests of pleasure of their fellow upper-class big game fishermen, established a sports fishermen would put big game library and museum, and created fishermen on a collision course with protocols for world’s record catches. Japanese fishermen who saw marlin and The last included specifications for the other gamefish as a catch less valuable reporting, weighing, certifying and per pound than tuna but important recording of catches. nonetheless as a source of revenue Fig. 4. Striped marlin caught by wealthy from fish-cake makers. This led to the angler, mid-twentieth century. Photo: Eugene controversy that followed. Marie Marron (1957).

3. Hawai‘i Early Billfish History

Native Hawaiians used special hooks to catch billfish a‘u( ), tuna and other large pelagic fish for hundreds of years from outrigger canoes. The tuna and billfish schools, including those of blue marlin, were abundant and could be found close to shore. As it was among the Europeans and Americans later, the excitement and satisfaction of catching huge, fast-moving fish was considered Fig. 5. Hawai‘i historic flagline/longline vessels were wooden sampans introduced by Japanese such a rare experience that it was fishermen. Photo: NOAA Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC). reserved exclusively for the ali‘i, the Native Hawaiian nobility. In the early nineteen hundreds, two Billfish such as marlin were especially prized for their long, spike-like events occurred that would change that perspective. bills, which, in ancient times, were turned into daggers and swords. From 1906 onwards, Japanese The ancient Hawaiians knew how to catch billfish in the open sea fishermen were searching the world for and did not anticipate competitors from outside their world coming subsurface tuna schools. Information to fish for them. reached Japan about the proximity of

3 Fig. 6. Flagline gear included sections of tarred rope. Each section was kept Fig. 7. Flagline/longline gear includes miles of line kept afloat by in a basket. Photo: NOAA PIFSC. buoys. Source: WPRFMC. bigeye and schools lines with baited hooks fastened to the Hawai’i during the 1920s and 1930s to Honolulu. Soon afterward, mainline descended to depths of 150 ate with thin noodles known as saimin. a fisherman from Wakayama, to 300 feet. The average number of Kamaboko had both economic and Japan, came to Hawai‘i to explore hooks was 300 per vessel. The flagline political importance. It was one of the its fishing possibilities. He was could spread for up to 8 miles behind principal sources of protein for the successful, and, in 1917, a fishing the vessel. plantation workers, many of whom fleet was developed in Wai‘anae that By changing the depth of the hooks, could not afford other kinds of fish. became the largest source of fresh the fishermen could target different The dismay that sports fishing tuna in Hawai‘i (Otsu 1954). species. On average, 7,000 pounds of writer S. Kip Farrington expressed This fleet was comprised of 40- to fish were caught per 10-day trip, of about the Honolulu fish market of the 63-foot motorized wooden sampans, which approximately 25% to 32% was late 1930s was typical of the mainland vehicles introduced by Japanese fisher­ billfish of various kinds, including writers of his era. He described the marlin. In contrast to sight by saying, “… almost all of the the relatively few large fish brought in [to the fish market in game fish caught by the Honolulu] are the magnificent game troll fishermen in small fish we so much desire to catch on rod boats, skilled professional and reel. Every morning there will be flagline fishermen caught sampan after sampan tied up at the hundreds. The largest fishing piers with hundreds of these flagline fleet was in great fish iced down in their holds” Honolulu on O‘ahu, but (Farrington 1942). This cultural diffe­ other fleets were based rence would have long-term political in Hilo and Kona on the repercussions on billfish policy in Hawai‘i. Hawai‘i (locally called the Recreational anglers came to Hawai‘i Big Island) and in Port from California in search of blue marlin Allen on Kaua‘i. and giant tuna soon after these species The catch of marlin were found in Southern California. Fig. 8. (Right) Billfish would account for one-quarter to one-third by the local flagline Over the next 10 years, Hawai‘i became of the flagline catch.Photo: NOAA PIFSC. fishermen was criticized men that would become the standard by visiting recreational fishermen who in the Hawaiian longline industry for feared that the billfish stocks would the next 50 years. The longline fishing be overexploited. The recreational technique imported from Japan was anglers, predominately upper-class known as flagline. The fishing gear Caucasians from the U.S. mainland, included sections of tarred ropes, known did not generally eat the billfish they as “baskets” or “basket gear” as they caught. Instead, they posed with were often stored in baskets. These them for photos. Meanwhile, the local sections were deployed connected to flagline fishermen sold their billfish to each other end to end to constitute a be ground up as fish meal and baked set. Flagged floats were attached at the into kamaboko, or fish cake, which the Fig. 9. Kajiki (blue marlin) fillet. Photo: Hawaii juncture of each section. Numerous working class plantation workers in Seafood Council.

4 a premier global destination for big game fishing for marlin and other fish. The activity was heavily promoted to visitors who arrived on Matson luxury liner ships and stayed in Honolulu at the world-famous Royal Hawaiian hotel. Big game fishing differed in Hawai‘i from other areas on the U.S. mainland. On the mainland, marlin may have been thrown away or sold for cat food after being photographed. However, Hawai‘i sports fishermen knew their crews needed to sell game fish at the local Japanese fish markets to pay their expenses. For this reason, most did not share the antagonism to longliners of their mainland counterparts. Besides, there seemed to be enough fish for everyone. Likewise, recreational billfish played an important role in local society. Fig. 11. President F. D. Roosevelt offered gifts of octopus () and fish while vacationing in Prominent members of Hawai‘i society Hawai‘i, July 1934. Photo: Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, National Archives. such as Charles M. Cooke III, co- founder of the Cooke Trust, became in local tournaments. The sport drew Maui, Kaua‘i and the Big Island of involved in the sport and participated wealthy tourists, who looked at big Hawai‘i catered to both the local game fishing as something to do in elite and mainland visitors. In an Hawai‘i and who posed with the effort to please their high-paying large fish they caught as mementoes clientele who needed to hook up a of their trips. The sport became so marlin to be satisfied, charter boat popular among wealthy visitors that crews developed special knowledge the Kona Inn was built specifically to of marlin habits. They caught a accommodate these visiting fishermen, disproportionate number of the blue who featured among them many and striped marlin in which their famous people including President clients were interested. This was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. especially true off Kailua-Kona on the Recreational billfish fishing also Big Island, where ocean eddies create played a part in local business and unique currents where marlins tend commerce. Because the Hawai‘i to congregate (Seki et al. 2002). tourism charter boat business was Through much of the 1930s, 40s aggressively promoted by mainland and 50s, the Kona area was known writers, business was strong. Skilled among the world’s billfish enthusiasts boatmen of Japanese, Native Hawaiian, as a place where one was likely to catch Chinese and Filipino ethnicities could a “grander,” a large billfish weighing earn significant tips from visitors over 1,000 pounds. Each year wealthy who had high disposable incomes. fishermen from California, including In addition, a small but highly Hollywood celebrities, would hire skilled specialty lure business famous local fishing boat captains like developed. Hawai‘i handmade lures Henry Chee, whose vessel, Malia, was Fig. 10. Ethnic Japanese, working-class women were sold at high prices to sportsmen known as the “Grey Ghost of Kona.” in Honolulu (circa 1930) shopped for items like and fishing stores globally. As with But the fishing trips skippered by Chee fish cake to feed their families. Selling fish and the ali‘i of old, the sport of marlin and others, such as George Stevens fish cake from door to door on the plantation was a form of life insurance for fisherwomen fishing was reserved for the prominent Parker, catered to a small group of and their families and provided a constant in Hawai‘i society. Even the boats very wealthy people and did not have stream of income. If their husband was lost at were moored at yacht clubs, which a significant impact on the island’s sea, the family could survive by selling fish were privileged retreats for the elite. economy. Only four charter fishing provided to them from someone else in their Private-charter trolling boats found boats worked regularly between 1945 close social network. Photo: Hawai‘i State Archives. at small boat harbors in Honolulu, and 1955. They anchored off the

5 Kona Inn, where deckhands doubled tourism destination if they created However, despite these challenges as waiters to drum up fishing clients a prestigious international fishing commercial charter boat fishing in among the visitors. tournament (Hogan 1983). Kona began to grow For the few In 1958 he proposed the idea to the By the early 1970s Fithian’s charter boat director of the Hawaii Visitors Bureau interest in building a reliable database captains, business (HVB). The HVB agreed to make up on Hawaiian billfish attracted the was difficult. The any incurred losses. Support also came attention of John C. Marr, one of the money they made from local airlines, Big Island hotels most influential biologists of the era came from the few and the Kona Jaycees. and the former director of the Bureau tourists and from While preparing for the tournament, of Commercial Fisheries (later renamed what they could Fithian discovered the need for billfish the National Marine Fisheries Service make driving research in Hawai‘i. “We had the species or NMFS) Biological Laboratory in across the island to all screwed up because we didn’t know Honolulu. The Honolulu Laboratory, sell their fish at the Fig. 12. Capt. Henry Chee. one kind of marlin from another and as it was commonly called, began its Source: IGFA. Suisun fish auction we had different names for them. What work in 1949 under the leadership of in Hilo. There were few radios on was a black marlin, we called silver, Oscar Elton Sette and soon started boats. During the early days, captains and there was no recognition of the what would become a long record of like Chee carried pigeons. When he Pacific blue marlin. The Hawaiians advanced tuna and billfish science. caught a marlin, he would write a note, called all the blues black (marlin)” During Sette’s time, the lab was known put it in a capsule, tie it to the bird’s (ibid). The recordkeeping did not meet as the Department of the Interior’s leg and send the pigeon flying to the IGFA standards. Deciding that the Pacific Oceanic Fishery Investigations. home of his partner’s wife, Mrs. Charles offshore anchorage at the Kona Inn was Its internationally recognized research inadequate for world class destination, in the 1950s included groundbreaking he began promoting the idea of a new surveys of tunas and and small boat harbor. their pelagic habitat in the equatorial Fithian persevered and ran the Pacific with the research vessels Smith tournament out of his office. The (which did oceanographic research) first Hawaiian International Billfish and Manning (which did longline Tournament (HIBT) was held in 1959 gear work). and attracted 20 Hawai‘i teams, two In the 1979s, NMFS was moving foreign teams and two U.S. mainland from an approach of fisheries teams. Most of the entrants had their management based solely on catch Fig. 13. Advertisement for Capt. Henry Chee’s own boats. There were only six or data by commercial fishermen to one chartered fishing boat service aboard theMalia . seven charter boats available in Kona in which models might be used to Source: Honolulu Advertiser, Sept. 12, 1954. for hire. determine populations on the open Fithian spent the next years actively sea. There was interest in getting more Findlayson. She would read the note. If promoting fishing charters in Kona and new kinds of data based on the life it was a big marlin, she would arrange with a travel and history of fish, e.g., their ages, what for a photographer. The fish was hung booking agency. they ate, how they reproduced, etc. from a hook attached to palm tree in He introduced This need for improved information front of the Inn. It was a simple life a share concept for management purposes led Richard with the captains living on a narrow so that a single Shomura, the director at the time of margin of income. It may have seemed fisherman could the Honolulu Lab, to hold the first idyllic to some, but, in fact, it was very book a place on international symposium on billfish stressful. One of the last things Chee a charter boat. in 1972. The meeting focused on the said to his wife, before he died of a By making the little known life history of billfishes stroke at age 55 while gaffing a fish, experience more and included panels of fishermen was “Don’t let Butch [their son] fish for Fig. 14. Peter Fithian. affordable for and scientists, including Fithian, a living” (Gutskey 1986). Source: Honolulu more people, he international fisheries author Peter Advertiser, Nov. 6, 1955. The island of Hawai‘i lacks beautiful broadened the Goadby and Kona captains George beaches that are large and accessible, potential market for fishing boat captains. Parker and Richard Stroud (Hawaii and it attracted few visitors during the In 1970, his push for a small harbor Tribune Herald 1972). early years of tourism development. for Kona was successful. It took about By 1975, Fithian’s venture was a Peter Fithian who arrived in 1955 50 tons of dynamite to blast lava to success. Thousands of visitors were decided that things could be different. create the harbor at Honokohau. It was coming to Kona to fish with their He began promoting the concept to a rough harbor without steps in some families and there were luxury resorts local businessmen that the Kona coast places, and people had to jump down to cater to them. However, as this could become a year-round, high-end from rock walls to get to the boats. business developed there was increasing

6 luxury market that Fithian and his Pacific Ocean Research Foundation. colleagues had created. If the granders Its goals were “Preservation, were gone, the business could go too. Knowledge and Management.” The To garner the information needed foundation’s independent research to face this threat, Fithian and Marr and lobbying effort ensured that not Fig. 15. Peter Fithian’s news column banner. formed the Pacific Gamefish Foundation. all discussion dealing with the future Source: Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Jan. 21, 1966. The foundation supported the work of of billfish would be dominated by the researcher Charles Daxboeck, whose commercial fisheries and government concern that commercial longliners work in time moved from forensic exami­ fishing administrators. The big game from Japan were taking too many of nation of stomach contents of caught fishing industry, which depended on the large gamefish on the open sea. billfish toward eventual state of the tourism, would have a seat at the table. The presence of these large fish was art satellite tagging. The foundation (Hogan 1983) essential for the new ocean tourism eventually became known as the

4. Longline Expansion in the Post–World War II Era

Partly subsidized by the U.S. and Japanese governments in an effort took 8,236 metric tons of striped to prevent famine in occupied Japan after World War II, Japanese marlin (126,700 fish) and 9,413 longline fleets re-geared and used their pre-war knowledge to search metric tons of blue marlin (75,300 fish). Not to mention countless other the world’s ocean for tuna. Their quest for yellowfin and other species billfish and tuna.” (Kane 1966). such as albacore as well as bluefin and began in the Pacific The Japanese fleet alone in 1965 and, in 1956, extended the Atlantic (NOAA 1978). They set 100 set almost 100 million hooks in the million hooks in a band between 40˚ N and 40˚ S. Fishing fleets from Atlantic, catching almost 300,000 marlins according to estimates Korea and Taiwan soon followed their example (Beardsley 1989). (NOAA 1978). Although other countries, including the United States, were involved with bycatch of marlin, Japanese longline fishing vessels became identified in the public mind with the issue of of the stock. Some of the recreational big game fishermen began to fear that billfish such as blue marlin, , sailfish and swordfish would be wiped out by 1970. Others, Fig. 16. Japanese longliner (circa 1946). Photo: U.S. NOAA NMFS; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; such as Winthrop P. Rockefeller Jr., U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. a founder of The Billfish Foundation (TBF) and later to become governor It did not take long for the South (mt) in 1963 and then dropped to of Arkansas, were more optimistic and Atlantic big game fishermen to feel less than 2,000–3,000 mt from predicted they would last until 2001 the effects of Japanese longlining. 1967 onwards, while white marlin (Rockefeller 1989). Their catches in the Sea catches peaked at 5,000 mt in 1965 The fears of overfishing worsened off Florida, Cuba and and fell to approximately 1,000 as 100 to 300 foreign vessels from decreased almost immediately. The mt by 1977 (Gentner 2007). Russia, Poland, Spain and other results of the Japanese industrial A sense of panic set in, reflected nations joined the Japanese and fishing effort would soon be borne in articles in Sports Illustrated: “[The developed factory-fishing industries out by Japanese fisheries data, Japanese fishing industry] growth off American shores: from Florida to which indicated that, from 1958 from 1956 to 1963 was astronomical. Maine on the Eastern Seaboard and onwards, the catch per unit effort In 1956, when 164,000 hooks were from California to Alaska on the West (CPUE) of blue and white marlin in set by the Japanese, they caught Coast (NOAA op. cit.). Many of these the Atlantic had decreased from its seven metric tons of striped marlin industries used huge drift and drag previous levels (Beardsley 1989). (100 fish) and 50 metric tons of blue nets that caught everything in their Atlantic blue marlin commercial marlin (400 fish). By 1963 they had path, including billfish (Kifner 1974). catches peaked at 9,000 metric tons more than 50 million hooks out and

7 Regional Fishery Management Organizations

The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) codified the rules of international law relating to the high seas. Signed in 1958 and entered into force in 1962, UNCLOS was superseded by UNCLOS III in 1982. Articles 116 to 120 of UNCLOS address the responsibility of states engaged in fishing on the high seas to negotiate with other states fishing in the same area or on the same stock to establish regional or sub-regional fisheries organizations to conserve these living resources. Today, there are about a dozen and half RFMOs globally. Of these, five manage fisheries for tuna and other large species such as swordfish and marlin, covering approximately 91% of the world’s oceans.

The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Com­ mission (IATTC) was established in 1949, primarily to manage bait fish resources for pole-and-line tuna vessels operating in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. The mem­bers of the IATTC are Belize, Canada, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, European Union, France, Guatemala, Japan, Kiribati, Korea, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Chinese Taipei, United States, Vanuatu and . Cooperating nonmembers include Bolivia, Chile, Honduras, Indonesia and Liberia. The focus on baitfish shifted as more indus­ trialized methods of tuna fisheries, i.e., longline and purse-seine fishing, Fig. 17. The major regional fishery management organizations that focus on tuna and billfish. became prominent. Further information Illustration: PewTrusts.org. is available at www.iattc.org. into force on 19 June 2004. The mem- Northern Committee of the WCPFC. The International Commission for the bers include Australia, China, Canada, Membership is contingent on data Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) Cook Islands, European Union, Federa­ indicating that fishing by a WCPFC was established in 1966. ICCAT is ted States of Micronesia, Fiji, France, member occurred at latitudes higher involved in management of 30 species, Indonesia, Japan, Kiribati, Republic than 20˚N. The ISC’s main focus is on including swordfish, white marlin, blue of Korea, Republic of Marshall Islands, North Pacific albacore, Pacific bluefin marlin and sailfish as well as tuna and Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, tuna, blue marlin, swordfish, striped . The Commission is current­ Papua New Guinea, Philippines, marlin, blue shark and shortfin mako ly comprised of 53 contracting parties. Samoa, Solomon Islands, Chinese shark. http://isc.fra.go.jp/. The Commission may be joined by any Taipei, Tonga, Tuvalu, United States of government that is a member of the America and Vanuatu. Several French, The Commission for the Conservation United Nations any specialized U.N. U.S. and New Zealand terri­tories (Ame­ of Southern Bluefin Tuna was estab­ agency or any inter-governmental eco­ rican Samoa, Commonwealth of the lished in 1994 and involves Australia, nomic integration organization con­ Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Japan, New Zealand, Korea, Indonesia, stituted by States that have transferred French Polynesia, Guam, New Cale­ Taiwan, the European Union and to it competence over the matters donia, Tokelau, and Wallis and Futuna) South Africa. governed by the ICCAT Convention. have a nonvoting seat at the table. The Indian Ocean Tuna Commission was Cooperating­ Non-members countries­ founded in 1996 and is comprised of The Western and Central Pacific Fisher­ include Curacao, Ecuador, El Salvador, 31 members, including Indian Ocean ies Commission (WCPFC) was established Nica­ragua, Panama, Liberia, Thailand coastal countries and countries or by the Convention for the Conservation and Vietnam. www.wcpfc.int. and Management of Highly Migratory regional economic integration organi­ Fish Stocks in the Western and Central The International Scientific Committee zations that are member of the United Pacific Ocean (Honolulu Convention), for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in Nations or one of its specialized which was signed in 2000 and entered the North Pacific Ocean (ISC) is the agencies and are fishing for tuna in the science provider to the members of the Indian Ocean.

8 5. Change Brought by the Big Game Fishermen

One day during the 1960s, big game fisherman Christopher Weld Weld recognized that recreational encountered large foreign fishing trawlers off Georges Bank, one fishermen would have little influence on of his favorite fishing grounds. Concerned that the foreign industrial the general public in regards to marine conservation unless they took steps fishing fleets were threatening the very existence of marlin and other to change their own culture first. For prized game fish, he decided that the laws governing U.S. ocean this reason, he began promoting the policies had to change. It was a daunting task. He believed the only way concept of catch and release. to resolve the problem was for the United States to adopt a 200-mile At the time, catch and release was a known but not a common practice. Fishery Conservation Zone (FCZ) off its shores, a suggestion that A whole industry had been built around had been promoted by UNCLOS since 1958. the killing of game fish: the taking and framing of photographs, the making Weld had a unique perspective. In an effort to empower recreational of trophies and handing them out at In addition to being a big game fisher­ big game fishermen, he convened a tournaments, and the entire livelihood man and hunter, he was independently meeting of the IGFA and the organizers of taxidermists. All of these activities wealthy—a descendant of one Boston’s of the 40 major fishing tournaments in made money and returned it in the oldest, wealthiest and most distinguished the United States. To them he promo­ form of sales commissions to charter families; a Harvard College and ted several ideas: boat crews. These commissions and tips University of Virginia law graduate; • The need to protect Atlantic tuna were vital to the business of the charter and a partner in one of Boston’s most from being overfished, fishing boats. Big game fishermen were reluctant to push catch and release as it prestigious law firms. He was also an • The first major catch-and-release appointee of President Richard Nixon program for billfish, and might alienate the captains and crews to the Department of Commerce’s on whom they depended for successful Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee • A law that would push foreign fishing trips. fishermen away from U.S. shores. (MAFAC). Established in 1970, it was Still, Weld and his colleagues persisted. the highest and most senior fisheries These were major ideas at the time. Over time, catch and release became a advisory committee in the United Management of billfish such as marlin, customary practice that demonstrated States at the time (Marine Biological which travel thousands of miles across that recreational fishermen were not just Laboratory n.d.). the open ocean, involves sharing catching billfish, they were doing their Weld was determined to use his information and gaining cooperation part for conservation. connections and skills to pass a law from many nations. Most of the Pushing foreign fishing vessels away in Congress that would force foreign nations that had access to tuna and from U.S. shores would prove more fishermen from U.S. waters and billfish subsidized the commercial difficult. As a member of MAFAC, promote the concept of a general fishing operations that sought pelagic Weld was aware that Senator Warren marine conservation policy in the fish. African states such as Senegal Magnuson of Washington represented public interest. The number of elite big and Latin American nations such as commercial salmon and crab fishermen. game fishermen upon whom he could and Venezuela allowed artisanal Weld also knew that Magnuson had draw for political support was very fishermen to target marlin and tuna. been trying, unsuccessfully, to push a small, perhaps no more than 8,000 Organizations like ICCAT, the leading bill matching Weld’s intentions through (Ditton and Stoll 2003). However, as RFMO in the Atlantic, had difficulty Congress since the early 1960s. a group, they were disproportionately getting the participating Atlantic However, Magnuson was opposed by wealthy, and many, like him, had nations to provide them with either powerful interests in the U.S. govern­ significant political and economic ties. good data or the authority to make ment: the office of the President, the In 1973, he founded the National management decisions. U.S. Navy and the U.S. Department Coalition for Marine Conservation Fishing agencies in most of the of State (Carmel 2012). (NCMC). His intent was to force countries affected were small, if they During the Cold War, the U.S. foreign fishing vessels from U.S. waters existed at all, and underfunded. political and military establishments and to give recreational anglers “a seat The different nation’s political leaders deemed it strategically preferable to allow at the table” (Hinman 2017). To his competed with one another for fish the presence of foreign fishing fleets in way of thinking, “the table” was then or sold their fishing rights for hard U.S. waters. The alternative was to face dominated by U.S. fishery biologists currency to foreign fishermen. There reciprocal demands that would limit the and large commercial fishing interests. was little incentive to cooperate. ability of U.S. military and fishing vessels

9 to enter the coastal areas within 200 In 1975, Senator Magnuson joined began to be written. The legislation nautical miles (nm) of shores that were Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, whose intended for all decisions to be based claimed by foreign nations. The U.S. son was a commercial crab fisherman on scientific research, with catch targets government’s official position could be off Alaska, in sponsoring a new bill for the different species to be managed summarized as follows: called the Fishery Conservation and based on information derived from The U.S. wanted to send its military Management Act (FCMA) intended to stock assessment models of existing throughout the world’s oceans, protect Alaska’s fish from the Japanese fish populations. The models were unimpeded by regulations as and Russians (Hinman 2017). Congress­ used to determine whether a stock was seemingly far-fetched as where a boat men Don Young of Alaska and Gerry experiencing overfishing (too much could fish. If a country could regulate Studds of Massachusetts, representing fishing effort) and/or was overfished where boats could fish, that could New England fishermen, introduced it (below the stock level capable of yielding open the door to other restrictions. in the House of Representatives. catch equal at MSY) and to provide the But the flip side of this policy was Weld was determined to push the means to support the development of that other nations claimed the same FCMA through Congress. Using his base rebuilding overfished stocks. rights, the freedom of the seas to of big game fishermen, he built a However, soon after the MSA was navi­gate where they wanted, and to coalition of non-tuna commercial fisher­ passed and the regional councils were fish where they wanted, and to claim men, recreational manufac­ created, Weld and big game fishermen those fish resources for themselves. turers and ocean conservationists. They complained that their intentions were (Finley 2012) urged millions of recreational saltwater not being fulfilled. They expressed fishermen, who normally caught fish their dismay that the U.S. government The advocates for acceptance of close to shore, to call their congressmen was still biased in favor of commercial UNCLOS were also opposed by the to protect marlin and other sports fish over recreational fisheries. Since tuna powerful U.S. Tuna Foundation from foreign fisheries. These actions was the fish most sought after in (USTF). The USTF consists of helped find the votes to make the FCMA offshore and distant-water fisheries, individual U.S. flag vessels that use a reality (ibid.). the tuna industry was driving U.S. purse-seine nets to catch fish. At the However, there was a price to be paid. policymakers. The regional councils time, they caught 70% of their fish in The USTF would not allow the bill to could not manage tuna beyond their the Pacific Ocean and opposed any pass Congress without a compromise— jurisdictions; they could only influence effort that could threaten their access tuna had to be exempt from regulation. the management actions of the to the fish off the coastline of any other This requirement created a dilemma international RFMOs by working with nation. The USTF had a powerful because billfish and tuna not only inhabit the U.S. State Department and other lobby. They were supported by many overlapping depths of pelagic waters but stakeholders including the U.S. tuna members of Congress and were also eat much of the same food, which fishing industry (primarily the purse- adamantly opposed to any change in means both have similar vulnerabilities to seine industry). NMFS collaborated U.S. law that would restrict them from longline and troll fishing gear. One could with the U.S. State Department. fishing within 3 nm of a foreign shore. not be managed reasonably on the open In response to criticism from big When Weld began his campaign to ocean without also managing the other. game fishermen, U.S. commercial protect Atlantic billfish, he knew he Weld said, “The net result of the fishermen responded that they had not had to change the paradigm in which exclusion has been to defeat completely suffered from years of foreign fishing fishing research subsidies were awarded every attempt to regulate fishing for so wealthy recreational anglers and almost exclusively to subjects related to large pelagic species beyond the territo­ large recreational tackle manufacturers the success of the commercial fishing rial seas pursuant to the […] Act” (ibid.). could make fortunes at the expense of industry. He wanted the U.S. govern­ Nevertheless, reasoning that this com­ commercial fishermen. Commercial ment to expend funds on scientific pro­mise was better than no legislation fishermen stated they had a right to studies so billfish populations could at all, Weld supported the agreement. catch fish, restaurants had a right to be assessed properly. In the legislation Thus, the revised act, called the serve fish and consumers had a right he envisioned, the government would Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and to eat it. Commercial fishermen stated set careful targets based, not on the Management Act (ultimately known as they would proceed along the lines greatest catch possible, but on the the Magnuson-Stevens Act or MSA), agreed in the FCMA but argued that 2 maximum sustainable yield (MSY) passed through Congress in 1976 and the ocean did not belong to any one of the fishery. He wanted to ensure that took effect March 1, 1977. group. This situation became a national large marlin, spearfish and swordfish— The MSA established eight regional controversy that soon found its way to the world’s pre-eminent game fish— fisheries councils, and, at the urging Hawai‘i. Here, billfish constituted an would be not become overfished. of Weld and his associates, billfish important part of the local diet. fishery management plans (FMPs)

2. The maximum sustainable yield (MSY) for a given fish stock means the highest possible annual catch that can be sustained over time, by keeping the stock at the level producing maximum growth.

10 6. The Recreational Billfish Controversy Comes to Hawai‘i

In 1976, the WPRFMC was formed as one of the eight U.S. councils An estimated 1,500 private recreational created under the MSA. Its authority was the management of fisheries boaters spent more than $1 million to seaward of state/territorial waters of Hawai‘i, American Samoa and operate 386 vessels (WPRFMC 1978). The total spent on recreational fishing Guam and eventually the CNMI and the U.S. Pacific remote island areas for billfish and tuna in Hawai‘i was as well. Although the Council was initially dominated by commercial probably much greater. fishing interests, among its mem­bers were charter boat fishermen Although the Atlantic was very far State Sen. Wadsworth Yee (who would become the Council chair) and away from the Western Pacific, Weld felt compelled to comment on behalf Peter Fithian. On the commercial side, the fishermen were represented of big game fishermen against foreign by Frank Goto, the manager of the United Fishing Agency and the longline fleets operating in the newly first Hawai‘i tuna fisherman to be appointed to the MAFAC. For the established U.S. EEZ in the Western first time, Hawai‘i fishermen had influence at the highest levels of Pacific Region. He came to Hawai‘i to decision-making on fishery policies at the U.S. Department of Commerce. testify against longlining in front of the new Council (WPRFMC 1977). From After the Council was established, its more comprehensive Billfish and his office in Massachusetts, he wrote Council members were appointed and Associated Species FMP (later named to NMFS and recommended several the Council staff was hired, the Council the Pelagic FMP) (1987), which would changes to the 1978 draft Billfish PMP began to assist NMFS in the develop­ regulate both foreign and domestic (Weld 1977). In particular, he wanted ment of the Pacific Billfish and Oceanic fishing in the Western Pacific Region. foreign longlining “prohibited altoge­ Sharks Preliminary Fishery Management There was little question that, by ther in the FCZ” and described long­ Plan (PMP). The PMP (1978) would 1976, the local recreational charter boat line as “an indiscriminate fishing gear be used to regulate foreign fishing in fleet and trollers were more valuable which catches many species of fish ….” the Pacific U.S. exclusive economic zone to the state’s economy than the decli­ Compared to the Japanese fleet, the (EEZ) until the Council comple­ted ning commercial longline fleet was. Hawai‘i longline fleet was insignificant. At the time Weld wrote his criticism 160°E 180° 160°W of longlining in the Western Pacific, only 13 full-time domestic North Pacific Ocean longline vessels were Hawaiian still operating in Islands Hawai‘i. The industry Wake Is. 20°N had been in decline INTERNATIONAL DATE LINE Northern for 25 years, from Mariana Islands Johnston 1950 to 1975, for a Atoll number of reasons: Guam low prices for fresh tuna, the inability Palmyra of Hawai‘i fish distri­ Atoll butors to enter the Japanese market, Howland Is. better opportunities 0° Baker Is. Jarvis Is. for young Japanese- American men and increasingly high fuel costs.

American South Pacific Ocean Samoa

20°S 200 Mile Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) – Pacific Island Nations

Fig. 18. U.S. EEZ in the Western Pacific Region in red.Source: WPRFMC. 11 7. Challenges in Developing of the Preliminary Management Plans

NMFS and the WPRFMC were in a particularly difficult situation marlin (Skillman and Yong 1976). because the PMP and FMP had strict time limits for development. These biological studies used length In addition, the Western Pacific Region was huge. The U.S. EEZ in measurements of the landed fish along with information on weight the Western and Central Pacific Ocean covers 1.5 million square miles. collected by Honolulu Laboratory scientists during the 1960s. Another problem developed as Billfish Symposium in Kailua-Kona, The international scope of the the statisticians began building their Hawai‘i, in 1972. NMFS and the participants at the 1972 symposium models. Billfish constitute a number new Council used the information and 1977 workshop reflected the of species, such as blue marlin, striped presented at the symposium (Shomura emerging cooperation between U.S. marlin and sailfish, that are familiar and Williams 1974, 1975a, 1975b) as scientists and their colleagues in to recreational fishermen everywhere. the basis for the billfish PMP and FMP. Japan and Taiwan who held data on Although billfish was officially Jerry Wetherall, a Honolulu catch, effort and biological parameters termed bycatch, implying incidental Laboratory employee, was assigned to essential to the assessments. Of catch to be discarded on the U.S. the Billfish PMP. He recalls finding critical importance to developing mainland, this was not the situation in “only meager data” to put together management policies for the U.S. EEZ Hawai‘i. Here, billfish represented the a management plan (Glazier 2016b). in the Pacific Islands was information second largest category in Hawai‘i’s The 1972 symposium had assembled on the effort and catch in the 200- reported commercial catch statistics, an excellent collection of available mile zone by foreign fishing fleets. after (Glazier 2016b). information on billfish fisheries and In spring of 1977 Wetherall hired Moreover, a question remained billfish biology, but information numerical analyst Bill Lovejoy for regarding the other migratory species on the status of billfish stocks in a short-term job at the Honolulu that traveled across the Pacific. The the Pacific was glaringly lacking. Laboratory to build a simulation NMFS Southwest Regional Office To help fill the gap, Shomura model of the billfish stock and was charged with providing a concise convened an international workshop fishery dynamics around Hawai‘i. list of the species to include as in 1977 to assess the status of Lovejoy finished the work in August migratory species under the billfish billfish stocks in the Pacific Ocean. (Lovejoy 1977a). Later in 1977 the plans. Ultimately, six species of billfish The Council was a partner in this Council contracted him to do follow- (broadbill swordfish, sailfish, black venture and sponsored participation up work with his simulator looking marlin, blue marlin, shortbill spearfish of scientists from Japan and Taiwan. at recreational fishery impacts of and striped marlin) and four families It was reported at the workshop that longline fishery (Lovejoy 1977b). This of oceanic sharks (Carcharhinidae, the Pacific blue marlin appeared to work was referenced in the PMP. Alopiidae, Sphyrnidae and Isuridae) have been “substantially overfished Subsequently, in 1979, Wetherall were specified for the PMP. since the early 1960s” with overfishing and Honolulu Laboratory NMFS was under pressure to apparently beginning in the 1960s” mathematician Marian Yong sought to complete the PMP by March 1, and that “continued fishing at estimate the fishing effort and catches 1977. The newly appointed Council high levels will continue to reduce of tunas and billfishes by foreign tuna members worked closely with the staff the abundance of the stock and a longline and baitboat fleets within the of the NMFS Honolulu Laboratory recruitment failure will become a U.S. EEZ waters of the central and (then part of the NMFS Southwest distinct possibility.” Likewise, the black western Pacific. They used data from Fisheries Science Center based in La marlin data indicated a substantial a variety of data sources including Jolla, California) and representatives decline in catch rates from the early the Honolulu Laboratory, published from the Southwest Regional Office. 1950s to 1975. The draft report of the fishery statistics and unpublished data When the MSA came into force Pacific assessments was available for provided courtesy of fisheries agencies in 1976, Richard Shomura was the use in the PMP; the final report was in Japan and Taiwan. Most data director of the Lab. Shomura was published in 1980. (Shomura 1980) were aggregated in 5-degree cells of widely recognized as one of the Also included in the workshop latitude and longitude, but some data world’s experts on billfish, and his report were studies on the length- in 1-degree and finer scales were also interest in the species went back many weight relationships of billfishes available. The results were published years. He had been instrumental in (Skillman and Yong 1974) and age in 1980 (Yong and Wetherall 1980). organizing the first International and growth of striped marlin and blue

12 Christofer Boggs, former NMFS to the kind of data collected by the the common goal of promoting and emplo­yee, recalled the following: Japanese Fishery Agency. protecting gamefish (Critchlow 1978). … the [MSA] had been passed in In addition, efforts were made to The 1978 event was successful in 1976 and fishery management plans include information on all other catch another way. It attracted Robert needed to be developed; there really sources of billfish including trollers, Campbell of Guam, a vessel captain wasn’t any management per se. The handliners, charter boat fishermen and member of the Council’s Advisory plans were set up to monitor the and recreational fishermen. This effort sub-Panel on billfish, and Robert Smith, fisheries. It wasn’t seen there was was complicated because the catch of team captain from the Northern any need to control them. But there recreational fishermen (i.e., those who Mariana Islands, to make recommen­ was an interest in getting foreign had no reported sales) could only be dations regarding how the new fishermen out of the U.S. EEZ.… estimated because the State did not 200-mile marine conservation zone some of the earliest studies were to require reporting of recreational catch. might apply to their island entities understand the dynamics between The PMP for Billfish and Oceanic (Eichner 1978). distant-water fishing and the local Sharks in the Pacific Ocean was pub­ The PMP was implemented on fish abundance [e.g., Lovejoy lished on July 21, 1978. However, April 1, 1980. It allowed and managed 1977a, 1977b]. … even though we public concerns caused it to be with­ otherwise prohibited foreign longline didn’t have fishery management or drawn on Sept. 14, 1978. Among the fishing for pelagic species within stock assessments or catch limits we concerns were insufficient recognition the EEZ of the Pacific, excluding did have fishery data from the states of the socioeconomic differences among Alaska. From a policy perspective, the and territories [which] had been the human populations of Hawai‘i, PMP allowed an unlimited amount collecting it for a long time. The American Samoa and Guam and the of foreign longlining in the newly State of Hawai‘i had been collecting lack of management measures for wahoo declared FCZ; specified quotas on data since the 1940s.…Those data (ono in Hawaiian) (Acanthocybium the amounts of billfish and oceanic were analyzed to try and decide solanderi) and dolphinfish (mahimahi) sharks; established non-retention whether big foreign boats could and little dolphinfish (little mahimahi) zones from shore out to 12 to 100 nm have an effect on pelagic fisheries. (Coryphaena hippurus and C. equisetis, (depending on the area) in which all (Glazier 2016a) respectively). (NOAA 1978b). billfish had to be released; provided a That same year, the 20th anniver­ system of reserves if domestic vessels NMFS was not the only one making sary of the HIBT was held in August did not meet expected levels; required estimates of Japanese longline and other 1978. The Council organized an data reporting by foreign vessels; foreign catch in U.S. EEZ. In 1978, the international gathering of anglers and subjected foreign vessels to U.S. South Pacific Commission (SPC) also and scientists to discuss the future observers for onboard inspection produced such estimates for island coun­ of the blue marlin population. The and sampling. Japanese longliners tries and territories in the SPC region. symposium was led by Jim Sutherland. continued to take tuna and billfish Researchers at the Laboratory In addition to being director of the within the U.S. FCZ of Hawai‘i were helped in their endeavors by the HIBT, Sutherland was the chair of until 1980 and reported catches of support of Frank Goto, who facilitated the Council’s Advisory sub-Panel on between 1,300 and 5,000 tons per year the cooperation of the Hawai‘i fisher­ billfish. The symposium participants (Bienfang n.d.). men and fish dealers. To obtain bio­ discussed the measures that should The PMP was supplanted by the logical data on the catch, researchers be taken to preserve blue marlin FMP for Pelagic Fisheries of the Western went to the Honolulu fish auction in populations throughout the Pacific. Pacific Region, which managed all the morning and copied information The symposium was significant and domestic and most foreign fishing for from the fish buyers’ receipts as fish began a process of networking pelagic species off the coasts of Hawai‘i were sold on the auction floor. These scientists, government officials and and the U.S. territories in the Pacific receipts contained information about big game fishing enthusiasts from the weight of the billfish sold, similar around the world to work towards

13 8. The Council’s Fishery Management Plan

As the Council developed its Billfish FMP, it discovered substan­ That same year, Council Chair Yee tial flaws in the PMP effort. Management measures were not intended at the 23rd HIBT convened a special to drive all foreign fishermen from U.S. waters in the Pacific. Never­ meeting where he fielded questions from local big game and artisanal theless, the PMP restrictions on fishing were simply too burdensome fishermen who angrily said the U.S. for foreign fishing companies, and many of them chose to withdraw government was not doing enough from the U.S. EEZ. to protect them and that he was equivocating for fear of offending the Opinions in the islands were used for human consumption (Shima State Depart­ment. They wondered if different than they were on the U.S. 1989). Japan vehemently objected to there would be enough marlin left to mainland. The U.S. island territories any plan that prioritized the release last another 23 years. It was time one of American Samoa, Guam and the of fish for recreation over products charter boat captain said “to make a CNMI welcomed the foreign fishing it insisted were essential to Japanese big stink” (Kwon 1981). investors for the spending they did in culture such as kamaboko and other When the Council submitted the the small island economies and the Japanese fish products. U.S. fishermen, completed draft Billfish FMP to NMFS interesting economic possibilities that on the other hand, had a long-standing in 1981, the United States was in joint ventures raised. fear that their prized fish were being recession, the billfish angling business The management objectives of turned into hot dogs (Kane 1966). was down and so too was business in the proposed Billfish and Associated The loss of access to the Japanese Kona. Worries continued about whether Species FMP for the Western Pacific billfish data placed the Council in a Japanese and Taiwanese longlining were very clear: 1) collect information difficult situation. The process was might ruin Kona’s new big game fishing on these species and their fisheries; doubly painful considering that the enterprise. The Council’s draft FMP 2) encourage increased domestic use; Japanese fishing data on billfish and proposed prohibiting foreign fishing and 3) minimize the impact of regula­ tuna were considered the best in the from shore out to 200 nm of the main tions on the domestic industries world at the time. Hawaiian Islands (MHI) from May (WPR FMC 1980). Laboratory head Richard Shomura through September and out to 100 The FMP was intended to be based proved invaluable during this time. nm from November through April; on science so the fishing targets set for As WPRFMC Executive Director from shore out to 50 nm around Guam commercial fishermen would satisfy Kitty M. Simonds recalls, “You have between November and June; and from the demands established in the MSA to remember that we had been working shore out to 12 nm around the rest of to achieve both the MSY and optimum with billfish statistics for 10 years. When the Hawaiian Islands, around Guam yield (OY)3 for each fishery. the Japanese cut off the information, between July and October, and around Japan continued to compute and Richard still had contacts with Japanese other U.S. possessions in the Pacific print the yearbooks of longline statistics scientists and was able to get data.”4 except the Northern Mariana Islands, and to collaborate with NMFS in Other sources of information were which was still subject to the PMP. assessments of North Pacific albacore diverse and ranged from U.S. Coast Poundage fees of 50% ex-vessel value and annually shared data for that Guard data on charter boat and fishing were to be assessed on the billfish taken effort. However, after 1980, Japan boat registrations to information within the FCZ except for those fish ended external distribution longline from the State of Hawai‘i and indepen­ landed in American Samoa. statistics yearbooks (e.g., to the dent sources. Unlike the PMP, the FMP rejected Honolulu Laboratory). Japan later The Council also convened six the use of non-retention zones for explained that it feared it would be meetings in Kailua-Kona between foreign longliners as being wasteful. excluded from fishing in U.S. waters 1977 and 1981 to enhance participa­ Alternatives requiring extensive for tuna in the future in order to tion of billfish fishermen in the fishery shipboard monitoring were also rejected satisfy a new U.S. national agenda that management decision-making process. because of the high cost of surveillance specified “billfish should be reserved In 1981, while preparing the FMP, and enforcement. for recreational fishermen” rather than the Council contracted Lovejoy again for further work (Lovejoy 1981).

3. Optimum yield means the amount of fish that will provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to food production and recreational opportunities, and taking into account protection of marine ecosystems.

4. Kitty M. Simonds in discussion with the author, Aug. 14, 2019.

14 To the Council’s dismay, NMFS in 1982, 1985 and 1986 (see Appendix 1 of prohibited species; report catch data rejected the draft FMP on three grounds: for a list of Council hosted meetings through daily fishing logs; and report in Kona and about billfish). Research and not retain incidental catch of marine (1) The size of the proposed area also continued including studies on mammals and sea turtles. The FMP closures for foreign longline fisheries the dynamics between foreign fishing was completed in 1986 and became exceeded necessary and appropriate and local fishing around Hawai‘i effective March 23, 1987 (NOAA 1987). measures for management of the (e.g., Wetherall and Yong 1983). The FMP’s first measures also billfish fishery. NMFS specifically During this time, an estimated prohibited drift gillnet fishing within said: “The closures are not necessary 30,000 anglers per year were coming the region’s waters of the U.S. EEZ. for conservation purposes because to Kona (Hogan 1983). Things picked Large-mesh gillnet fisheries, which the billfish stocks are distributed up even more after direct flights from mainly targeted tuna and billfish in broadly throughout the Pacific California were started in 1984. coastal areas around Japan, had begun Ocean where U.S. jurisdiction does A new gantry crane for showcasing in the early 1900s. Then Japan, and not extend. Neither are the closures fish was built at Kailua Pier, and an later Taiwan, started using them on justified as necessary to increase expensive 50-ton travelift, capable of the open ocean in in the North Pacific domestic catches since the evidence hauling large boats out of the water to target tuna and billfish and in the presented in the FMP does not for refurbishment at the new Gentry South Pacific to target albacore. indicate that the closed areas would Marina was installed. It was part of The Council’s moratorium on the produce measurable benefits in the new Kona Marina, which had a practice in U.S. waters of the Western this regard.” tie to real estate development with Pacific Region was one of the first (2) Other non-tuna species associated 20,000 square feet of buildings available major conservation actions taken by with billfish fishing were omitted for lease. In addition, the Hawaii Big any fishery management organization from the management unit. Game Fishing Club together with the to protect billfish and tuna, which was (3) The need for the FMP was not Outdoor Circle beautified the then later emulated by the United Nations. clearly demonstrated. NMFS said raw entrance to Honokohau Harbor The drift gillnetting ban throughout specifically, “Significant benefits with palm trees and memorial stones. the Western Pacific Region’s entire to the national and regional Where there were no more than four 1.5 million square miles of EEZ waters economies or to the condition regular Kona charter boats in 1954, predated Congress’ passing of the of the stocks are not identified in by 1986 there were 60. Driftnet Impact Monitoring Assessment the FMP.” (Gordon 1982) The final elements of the Billfish and Control Act in late December 1987. FMP, renamed the Pelagic Fisheries The Council’s measure and the Letters from Council Chair Yee FMP, included a broader mix of manage­ Congressional action were part of to NOAA Assistant Administrator ment unit species (i.e., mahimahi, wahoo the global effort to curtail high seas for Fisheries William G. Gordon and oceanic sharks as well as billfish). driftnet fishing. South Pacific nations followed questioning what appeared The FMP prohibited foreign longline acted quickly to ban the nets in the to be an unfair disapproval of the fishing within 12 nm of shore. It esta­ region in 1989, and then the U.N. Council’s Billfish FMP. Yee noted blished foreign non-retention zones global moratorium was agreed to in (March 31, 1982) that other Councils between 12 and 100 miles around the 1991, effective Jan. 1, 1993. “(apparently with NMFS support)” main Hawaiian Islands and between Scientists from Canada, Japan, were proceeding with separate FMPs 12 and 50 nm of the rest of the Korea, Taiwan and the United States for billfish, swordfish and sharks. Yee Hawaiian Islands. Foreign vessels were had collaborated extensively during the also noted that the NMFS’s proposed allowed to retain catch beyond 100 nm international driftnet observer programs amendments to its Atlantic Billfish of the main Hawaiian Islands, beyond in the North Pacific. Afterwards, ties PMP included closure of the Caribbean 50 nm of the other Hawaiian Islands; among the scientists remained, but FCZ (i.e., EEZ) all year, which would beyond 50 nm of Guam; seaward of collaborative work shifted to joint make the Western Pacific Council’s certain areas of American Samoa; and assessments of pelagic stocks in the proposed closures appear “relatively beyond 12 nm of shore around other North Pacific and sharing of data, mild” rather than “broad and U.S. possessions. Foreign longline which led to formal establishment of sweeping” as NMFS had indicated. vessels were required to have a permit; the International Scientific Committee In the ensuing years, as the Council comply with vessel and gear identifica­ for Tuna and Tuna-Like Species in worked to revise the draft FMP, it tion requirements; comply with observer the North Pacific in 1995. convened additional meetings in Kona requirements; minimize catch or receipt

15 9. Competing Fishery Management Goals for Billfish in the U.S. Atlantic

From the outset, the fishery management goals of the U.S. Atlantic resource for its traditional use, which differed from those of the Western Pacific. The 1978 PMP for Atlantic in the continental United States is Billfishes and Sharks, produced by NMFS, was far more difficult almost entirely a recreational fishery.” In Hawai’i, billfish were not to implement than the Pacific PMP because the area was subject to reserved by government order for overlapping jurisdictions not only among four U.S. regional councils anyone. Nor would anyone have (New England, Mid-Atlantic, Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico) but considered defining OY, a key element also with the U.S. State Department (which had its own fishery in scientific management, in qualitative rather than quantitative terms. In negotiators) and RFMOs, like ICCAT. It would prove so burdensome the Atlantic, billfish was prohibited to reach policy agreement with so many of these agencies that the for commercial longline and driftnet FMP for the Atlantic Billfishes would not be implemented until 1988. vessels, and an absolute prohibition Ultimately, responsibility for the FMP would be taken over in 1990 was enacted on the sale of Atlantic billfish, with an exemption for Puerto by the NMFS Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Management Rican artisanal handline fishermen Division, based in Silver Spring, Md. (South Atlantic FMC 1988). These laws had far reaching impacts Swordfish was included in the immediately had to be done to protect not only on the United States but on Atlantic Billfishes and Sharks PMP the stock. To deal with the issue, a the member states of ICCAT and other but not in the Atlantic Billfish FMP special U.S. Atlantic Swordfish FMP international tuna commissions, which because relatively few were caught by (1985) was developed by South were forced to acknowledge that these rod and reel and they were deemed a Atlantic Fishery Management Council efforts to protect highly migratory fish caught by commercial fishermen. in cooperation with the Caribbean, species had repercussions for them as Their management, however, became Gulf of Mexico, Mid-Atlantic and well. The budget for ICCAT would an issue that would have long term New England Councils. Among be increased, and the management effects on the management of billfish. the steps taken to protect swordfish of highly migratory species would After 1978, the popularity of from longlining were minimum size be upgraded to new levels that swordfish in Atlantic restaurants limits. Other regulations, such as area demanded greater participation and grew when the U.S. Food and Drug closures, would be later implemented. transparency in fishery management Administration increased the As for the Atlantic Billfish FMP, among the member nations. content guidelines for fish moving in largely influenced by Weld, who During this time Winthrop P. interstate commerce from 0.5 ppm was a member of the New England Rockefeller Jr. was concerned that, to 1.0 ppm (Moore 2000). By the Fishery Management Council, and while Japanese and Taiwanese early 1980s, swordfish was so desired his fellow conservationists, its primary longline vessels were forced from the in restaurants that they were caught objective was not to promote the U.S. U.S. Atlantic, their place was being in far smaller sizes than many fishery commercial fishery but “to maintain taken by the more than 250 U.S. managers thought healthy for the the highest availability of billfishes longline vessels that caught billfish fishery. In addition, marlin steaks to the U.S. recreational fishery by and swordfish in the Atlantic. To him, began to be introduced as an alternate implementing conservation measures foreign longlining had been replaced dish to meet demand. This situation that will reduce fishing mortality.” by U.S. commercial fishing, which was alarmed the big game fishermen Towards that end, commercial longline just as bad in terms of taking marlin who feared that it would be only a vessels (both domestic and foreign) had and other billfish. He feared that the matter of time before their favorite to release alive billfishes, which were MSA had not been the safeguard for big game fish followed swordfish in always caught by Atlantic longliners marlin he and Weld had originally becoming a mass market restaurant as largely unwanted bycatch. sought and that the Council system staple. If that happened, they feared Another idea from big game fish left itself open to be dominated by they would lose their ability to control activists incorporated in the Atlantic commercial fishermen and careerist fishing for billfish in the open sea. Billfish FMP was an objective that NOAA administrators who would only New fishing methods had resulted would never even have been considered respond to political pressure. He was in the dramatic reduction in the size in the Western Pacific: “Optimize also frustrated that the tagging system of swordfish caught off the coast of the social and economic benefits to developed to track the life spans of Florida, and it was felt that something the nation by reserving the billfish marlins and other billfishes by NOAA

16 showed very poor returns, implying that commercial fishermen were not reporting tags. He was determined to find the funds needed so that the science could be done correctly. Towards that end he founded The Billfish Foundation (TBF) in 1986 to promote and finance a more advanced tagging program (Rockefeller 1989). TBF grew into what is today a major sport conservation organization that promotes tagging technology and conservation of sports fishing not only in the United States but in Central America as well.

Fig. 19. Longliner heading out to sea from port of Honolulu. Photo: WPRFMC.

10. Inclusion of Tuna in the Magnuson-Stevens Act

By 1988, the initial Atlantic Billfish FMP was completed. The foreign Congress to include tuna as a highly vessels were removed, the recreational billfish fishery was recognized migratory species to be managed by the councils. The amendment bringing by the federal government, actions were taken to rebuild overfished tuna under the MSA was enacted in stocks of blue and white marlin and swordfish, and efforts were begun late 1990, but the effective date for to ban the sale of billfish in U.S. restaurants to eliminate the incentive U.S. jurisdiction over tuna was delayed for foreign or domestic longliners to catch them. until 1992. The inclusion of tuna under the However, Weld and his associates would be ineffective, since marlin feed MSA meant that the WPRFMC could were still not satisfied. They wanted tuna, on tuna and make forays into tuna obtain better scientific information, which had been excluded from the 1976 schools to eat them. However, the tuna resulting in more accurate stock assess­ MSA, to be managed domestically with­ industry continued to block his efforts. ments. The Pelagic Fisheries Research out interference from the tuna industry. Frank Goto convinced U.S. Sen. Program (PFRP) was established in He knew that, without the tools to Daniel Inouye (D-Hawai’i), a former 1992 to provide scientific information manage tuna, billfish manage­ment classmate, to use his influence in on pelagic fisheries to the WPRFMC. The PFRP was administered through the University of Hawai‘i and super­ vised by a Steering Committee that included representatives from the university, the NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC) and the WPRFMC. The PFRP funded projects from 1994 through 2012 that researched tuna and tuna-like species in the Pacific Ocean, including projects on billfish and other pelagic fisheries around the Hawaiian Islands (Appendix 2). In addition, the Council could work more closely with the RFMOs and their science providers to monitor catches of pelagic fish by foreign vessels and to track tuna and billfish on the open ocean. Fig. 20. Frank Goto, U.S. Daniel K. Inouye and Council Executive Director Kitty M. Simonds.

17 11. Longline Impact on Hawai’i Fisheries

The Hawai‘i longline fleetexperienced dynamic growth during the fishing (Skillman, Boggs and Pooley 1980s. From the late 1970s, the number of vessels grew from 15 to 1993; He and Boggs 1997). Other 37 vessels as Hawai’i enjoyed a tourism boom from Japan and with researchers looked at other pelagic species including billfish. Robert with it a tremendous upsurge in the demand for fresh tuna. This was Skillman reported that intense longline then followed between 1987 and 1991 in a quadrupling of the fleet fishing pressure in the EEZ around to 156 permitted vessels (111 active). The reasons for this were mixed Hawai’i might depress catch rates for but included state and federal incentives for new entrants to the fishing blue marlin (Skillman and Kramer 1992). Other researchers found some fleet that attracted 60 Vietnamese-American boat owners from the evidence that reduced longline fishing Gulf of Mexico who were suffering economic hardship, 18 vessels increased local fishing success for from the U.S. West Coast and 23 of the most productive longline striped marlin in Mexico’s Pacific EEZ vessels from the U.S. Atlantic, which were leaving an atmosphere of (Squire and Au 1990). From 1991, the Council took dramatically declining swordfish stocks and increasing demands for immediate actions to amend the bans of further swordfish fishing in the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. existing Pelagic FMP implemented in 1986. Eight amendments were made to redefine the fishery. Recruitment overfishing5 and the OY for each managed billfish and pelagic species were defined. Logbooks were required; a 50-nm exclusion zone was created around the NWHI where evidence of monk seal interactions were reported; a three-year moratorium was establish­ ed on new entry to the Hawai‘i long­ line fleet; and each vessel was required to carry a NMFS vessel monitoring system to ensure it did not fish within prohibited areas. In 1992, these requirements were extended to create a domestic longline exclusion zone ranging from 50 to 75 nm around the main Hawaiian Islands Fig. 21. Longliner from New Orleans in Honolulu. Photo: WPRFMC. and a similar zone around Guam and its offshore banks. Moreover, in 1994, The influx of so many vessels in As Boggs recalls, both the Lab and the Council changed the Hawai‘i long­ such a short time caused immediate the Council switched from pure research line moratorium to a limited-entry conflict. The boats that came from and the exploration of fish life histories system, restricting the number of vessels the U.S. Atlantic were accustomed to to fish monitoring: “When this long­ in the fishery to 164. fishing for swordfish using shallow-set line fishery took off, in a huge way, it In 1997, Kona fishermen requested longlines extending 35 miles. These really upset the small local fishermen that the longline exclusion zone in the longline vessels would fish north of (the trollers and handliners). So, around western part of the Big Island be the main Hawaiian Islands where they 1990, my career starts to focus on extended from 50 nm from shore to interacted with seabirds, turtles and whether large industrial scale fleets can 75 nm from shore. monk seals. The other longline vessels have a depleting influence on the amount In its response, the Council asked targeting mixed species would operate of tuna locally available to smaller fleets that a third billfish symposium consi­der in the same area as local trollers and and participants” (Glazier 2016a). the issue. The Council and a dozen handliners, resulting in gear conflict Little evidence was found for partners sponsored the Pacific Island and even threats of violence. The reduced availability of tuna in Hawai‘i Gamefish Tournament Symposium: Council had to react quickly. as a consequence of increased longline Facing the Challenges of Resource

5. Recruitment overfishing occurs when the mature adult population (spawning biomass) is depleted to a level where it no longer has the reproductive capacity to replenish itself—there are not enough adults to produce offspring.

18 Conservation, Sustainable Develop­ment and its impact on trollers be taken up Conference, which was in the process and the Sportfishing Ethics, which internationally with the SPC, IATTC of developing an international conven­ convened July 29 to Aug. 1, 1998, in and the Japan Far Seas Research tion for highly migratory species in Kailua-Kona. Laboratory. The WCPFC also thought the Western Pacific. The conference’s The Council at this time also this topic should be communicated Honolulu Convention in 2000 would requested that the issue of longlining through the Multilateral High Level establish the WCPFC

12. Legal Action Against the Hawai’i Swordfish Fishery

The expansion of the longline fishery in Hawai‘i coincided with olive ridley, green or hawksbill turtles or an effort by Weld and his NCMC advocacy group (now called Wild adversely modify critical habitat (Diaz- Soltero 1998). One of the studies cited Oceans) to rewrite the laws of the MSA, so, when it was reauthorized (Wetherall 1997) used a simulation in 1996, it would contain language that mandated bycatch reduction. model to examine the longline impacts Recreational anglers carefully allied themselves with professional on turtles. After the biological opinion advocacy organizations through an organization called the Marine Fish was issued, a lawsuit was brought against NMFS by Earthjustice on Conservation Network—which, among others, included Earthjustice, behalf of several environmental NGOs. the Ocean Conservancy and other non-government organizations There were two aspects to the plaintiff’s (NGOs) that received grants from the Pew Charitable Trusts. Their charges, one pertaining to violations of the ESA and the other pertaining stated goal was the “conserving and revitalizing wild ocean fisheries” to violations of the National Environ­ (Wild Oceans n.d.). mental Policy Act (NEPA). NMFS prevailed on the ESA matters but lost on In 1998, NOAA NMFS Office of It concluded that “the continued opera­ NEPA issues (Laurs and Karnella 2001). Protected Species compiled an Endan­ tion of the Hawai‘i-based longline The fishery was heavily regulated gered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 bio­ fishery for 1998–2001 is not likely to from 1999 to 2001 and closed from logical opinion on the longline fishery jeopardize the continued existence and 2002 to early 2004. Experimentation with a focus on vessel–turtle interactions. recovery of loggerhead, leatherback, with circle hooks and changing the kind of baits used (Watson et al. 2005) showed that turtle bycatch in swordfish longline fishing could be greatly reduced. The Council was instrumen­ tal in seeing these methods applied to Hawai‘i longline management, reducing turtle bycatch from 400 per year to several dozen. The swordfish fishery was reopened in April 2004, and, to mitigate the taking of sea turtles, longline fishing vessels were required to use - type bait and 18/0 circle hooks. They were limited to a maximum effort of 2,120 sets per year, and hard caps were set on loggerhead and leatherback turtle interactions. If this hard cap was reached or exceeded, the fishery would close for the remainder of the year.

Note: Total interations from 1994 to 2004 are estimates from available bycatch data recorded from a small portion of all trips. Fig. 22. Hawai’i Longline-Sea Turtle Interactions. Data since 2004 combine estimated interations from the deep-set (tuna) fishery and actual interactions from the shallow-set (swordfish) fishery.

19 For seabirds, a series of experiments were conducted to determine how best to reduce the interaction rate (Garcia and Associates 1999; Boggs 2001). The resulting Framework Measure 2 required owners and operators of vessels registered for use under a Hawai‘i long­­­line limited access permit and operating with longline gear north of 23˚ N to employ a line-setting machine with weighted branch lines or use basket-style longline gear and to use thawed blue-dyed bait and strategic offal discards during setting and haul­ing of longlines. It also required these owners and operators to follow certain seabird handling techniques and complete a protected species educational workshop conduc­ ted by NMFS.

Note: Total interations from 1994 to 2004 are estimates from available bycatch data recorded from a small portion of all trips. Data since 2004 combine estimated interations from the deep-set (tuna) fishery and actual interactions from the shallow-set (swordfish) fishery. Side setting image: Gilman et al. 2003. Fig. 23. Hawai’i Longline-Seabird Interactions

13. Marine Protected Areas and Their Impacts

During this time, Weld, Wild Oceans and Weld’s environmental National environmental organiza­tions allies began to pressure federal administrators in the Atlantic to seek would speak of a beneficial “spillover greater protections for pelagic species through time and area closures. effect” from this policy. Theoretically, marine protected areas (MPAs) would Ultimately, a series of successful lawsuits against NOAA by Wild cause an increase in the numbers of Oceans and its associated NGOs led to the closing of 133,000 square reproductive fish, thus providing more miles of the U.S. Atlantic to longline fishing. (Hinman 2000) fish that would eventually emerge from the “no-take” areas and swim into the Marine National Monuments of the U.S. Western Pacific Region open waters where they could be caught. Although this theory has been widely touted by environmental groups, its effect has never been verified for highly migratory species like tuna and billfish. The principal argument against it is that commercial fishermen blocked from one area will soon move to an adjoining area to catch fish. The WPRFMC has never opposed MPAs as a tool to meet specific manage­ ment goals. In 1981, its draft Billfish FMP was rejected by NMFS on several grounds, one of which was that the proposed area closures to foreign long­ line fishing appeared to be larger than necessary to protect domestic fishing interests (Gordon 1982). One of the Council’s first successful MPA actions was the Protected Species Zone, established in 1991, which banned domestic longline fishing within 50 nm Fig. 24. Marine National Monuments in the U.S. Western Pacific Region. Source: WPRFMC around the NWHI.

20 Hawai‘i Archipelago 180˚ 170˚W 160˚W 160˚W The open-ocean campaigners contin­ Papaha¯naumokua¯kea Longline fishing prohibited ued their efforts by urging President Marine National Clinton in 2000 to designate the area Monument: commercial fishing prohibited of the Council’s Protected Species Zone Southern Exclusion Zone: as the NWHI Ecosystem 30˚N longline closure triggered by 30˚N 2 false killer whale mortalities Reserve and President George W. Bush within the EEZ in 2006 to use the Antiquities Act to proclaim the Reserve as the Papaha¯nau­ mokua¯kea Marine National Monument (MNM), closing (139,797 square miles) to fishing. This action was followed in 2009 by Bush’s designation of the

Marianas Trench (95,222 square miles), 20˚N 20˚N the Pacific Remote Islands (86,607 square miles) and the Rose Atoll (13,451 square miles) MNMs. In 2014, President Barack Obama, 82% of the 960,000 square-mile U.S. exclusive economic zone by Executive Order, expanded the (0 to 200 miles) is closed to U.S. Fishing.

Pacific Remote Islands MNM sixfold to 180˚ 170˚W 160˚W 160˚W 490,000 square miles, the full extent Fig. 25. Longline Exclusion Areas in the U.S. EEZ surrounding the Hawai’i Archipelago of the U.S. EEZ around the NWHI.. In 2016, President Obama expan­ded Efforts are presently being made grants from NGOs such as the the Papaha¯naumokua¯­kea MNM to by the same environmental groups Pew Charitable Trusts also sell the 583,000 square miles. Marine national to restrict fishing in 30% of the high fishing rights to their EEZs to large monuments now accounted for 51% of seas under the UN framework being fishing nations such as China. the U.S. waters in the region. developed by the Intergovernmental (4) Tuna longliners working out of This situation had immediate conse­ Conference on Marine Biodiversity Hawai‘i may not be able to remain quences for the Hawai‘i fishery, which of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction. in business if increased regulatory Simonds described in her May 1, 2019, The intent behind the MNMs was obstacles are enacted on the high to close off open ocean areas as the testimony to Congress: seas as well as within the U.S. EEZ. other MPAs had been closed off, but In that case, the Council would Our U.S. fishermen are restricted not Council and its science advisors knew lose a vital source of information only from the huge area closures that this effort would be more difficult. about the state of the fishery. of the U.S. EEZ under the Marine The waters in the Western Pacific are National Monument prohibitions under continuous pressure from illegal, In regard to billfish and other highly but also from areas closed under the unreported and unregulated (IUU) migratory species in the Western Pacific, Magnuson–Stevens and Marine fishing. Although satellite monitoring member countries compete for fish that Mammal Protection Acts. In Hawai‘i, capabilities are in place, they are insuffi­ swim freely across a wide area. The bottomfish and groundfish have cient to report the large number of IUU South China Sea has now been over­ been prohibited in the northernmost fishing events. IUU vessels capture fished so extensively that it was at 5% part of the archipelago since 1986, as much as an estimated 30% of the (Sumailia and Cheung 2015) of its and longlining has been prohibited total catch (Bray 2000). productivity during the 1950s, and rising populations in China have since the early 1990s in waters out Regulating fishing on the open ocean increased movement by the Chinese, to 50 to 75 m from shore. South of areas of the Pacific is a diffi­cult reality: the main Hawaiian Islands, long­ Taiwanese and other foreign fleets (1) The area includes more than line fishing is additionally pro­hibited into the Western Pacific. Their 50 nations with vastly different in the Southern Exclusion Zone longline vessels consistently catch resources and priorities that (SEZ) when the fishery interacts with billfish when pursuing tuna (Sala compete for tuna on the open sea two false killer whales in a manner et al. 2018). Between 3,200 tons of in the Western Pacific. determined to be a “mortality and blue marlin and 2,000 tons of striped serious injury,” which includes any (2) Fishery reporting within the marlin are currently estimated to be case in which an is released participating nations varies widely harvested in the Pacific region (IATTC alive with gear remaining. When the as does their reporting to RFMOs, 2016). However, this is likely a gross SEZ is closed, as it is now, the such as the WCPFC. underestimate as Asian national fishing Hawai‘i longline fleet can operate (3) Many of the same island nations vessels routinely undercount their in only 17% of the U.S. EEZ around that side politically with environ­ catches (Pauly et al. 2014). Hawai‘i. (WPRFMC 2019b) mental organizations that received 21 Fishing Effort in the Pacific Ocean and the U.S. Pacific Exclusive Economic Zone—1.5 million square miles

DATA SOURCE: GLOBAL FISHING WATCH Three months fishing effort(October–December 2019) Foreign fishing vessels U.S. fishing vessels U.S. exclusive economic zones Vessels are predominantly purse seine, longline, and pole and line vessels targeting tuna and swordfish.

Fig. 26. U.S. and foreign fishing effort in the Western Pacific

14. Negative Impacts of the Billfish Conservation Act

The Billfish Conservation Act (BCA) of 2012 was proposed and rose an objection. Thus, an amendment lobbied for by recreational billfish anglers and their conservationist allies was passed to the BCA. Radewagen, in an Additional Views statement on to ease the enforcement of the existing bans on marlin in the United H.R. 4528, said the legislation “will States. Introduced by Congressman Jeff Miller (R-Fla.), it prohibited the negatively impact the livelihoods of sale or possession of billfish or billfish products in the United States. fishermen in Hawai‘i, Guam and the Pacific Insular Areas by closing off the The Florida representatives who and then Lt. Gov. Brian Schatz was only off-island market for U.S.-caught supported the legislation were aware appointed to replace him in Congress. billfish.” Acknowledging that several of the impor­tance to their state of In 2018, pro-recreational fishing Atlantic billfish species are subject to recreational charter boat fishing and political action groups re-mobilized over­fishing, the Congress­women said, fishing tournaments. They followed and had new members of the Florida “We support needed conservation the IGFA’s long-term push to create delegation introduce an amendment efforts in the Atlantic, but do not disincentives for marlin as a fresh fish that would end the exemptions that believe that Pacific fisheries need to be consumer item. The idea was an old one, allowed Hawai‘i and the U.S. Pacific targeted in order to achieve these goals.” first proposed by Weld and Rockefeller territories to sell marlin and billfish “When the BCA amendment passed during the 1980s. to customers outside of Hawai‘i. With prohibiting the sale of Hawai‘i caught The bill was passed, but with an Inouye gone, only Congress­woman billfish to markets outside of Hawai‘i, exemption for Hawai‘i and the U.S. Colleen Hanabusa (D-Hawai‘i), Aumua I felt betrayed by the IGFA and resigned Pacific territories proposed by Sen. Amata Radewagen (R-American Samoa) my longtime membership with them,” Inouye. In late 2012, he passed away and Madeleine Z. Bordallo (D-Guam)

22 noted Roy Morioka6, a former Council This fish distributer put the losses it may become so inexpensive that local Chair, current coordinator of Fishing in excess of $20 million to the local fish cake makers may start using it again for Hawai‘i’s Hungry and member industry. He said, “We have no one instead of surimi. of the Hawai‘i Fishermen’s Alliance to speak for us, no one to protect us. These kinds of losses are difficult for Conservation and Tradition. People are saying the good days are to compensate for, and they have a “In Florida, big charter boats can over. We are all going to be buying knock-on effect on the entire longline go hundreds of miles out to sea and fish from foreigners of lower quality.” business, which comprises 80% of tournament fishermen play for big Then he added, “I am glad I am old fish sales in Hawai‘i. Currently, the money. They have a million dollar and getting out.” He said he tried Hawai‘i longline industry has an prize for the biggest and most fish and numerous times to get the local media estimated landed value of $110 million Calcutta prizes (side bets), such as the to cover the story, but no one was (which does not include associated first fish caught, worth $1 million to interested. revenue) (WPRFMC 2019a) and $6 million. It is disingenuous for those The BCA amendment requires involves approximately 1,000 people millionaires in the Atlantic spouting the retention of locally caught billfish in fishing and the auxiliary businesses off about conservation to look down (excluding swordfish) in Hawai‘i and that support it (State of Hawai‘i 2019). on us in the Pacific islands who make the other U.S. Pacific Islands. In 2019, Many of these jobs and businesses are $6,000 a year and sell fish for food.” billfish sales dropped 51% compared now at risk. The 2018 BCA amendment had to the prices prior to the BCA amend­ This BCA amendment led in 2019 immediate consequences: Before the ment (Chan 2020). to the removal of language in the BCA amendment, Honolulu fish dealers (1) a large loss of revenue to fishermen, Atlantic HMS regulations requiring could send Hawai‘i billfish to markets in including the Kona sportfishing that a Billfish Certificate of Eligibility San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boston and captains, crews and their families, accompany billfish product because Miami in the mainland United States who depended on selling marlin for sale of the product from the Western as well as Toronto in Canada. One their livelihoods; Pacific Region was now prohibited Honolulu fish distributor, who has been (NOAA 2019). (2) economic losses to distributors in the business for 40 years, estimated While the 2018 BCA amendment and wholesalers who have limited his losses from the BCA amendment is another success for mainland big markets; and at $4 million per year. He calculated game fishing advocates, it will likely this in terms of $2.5 million in billfish (3) environmental effects because some not have any impact on the protection sales and $1.5 million in the sales of fish were discarded at sea. of billfish internationally. Since 90% of supplemental fish that fish distributors The situation benefits local consu­mers U.S. seafood is imported and only 2% is could sell as “other species,” which were who once paid a premium for orange inspected, the probability of mislabeled combined with regular orders to chefs kajiki at expensive restaurants because seafood leaking into the U.S. markets on the U.S. mainland and Canada it was in high demand from mainland from countries where billfish sales are (see Appendix 3). buyers. Today, kajiki is often sold as filler common is profound. for cheap fish sandwiches. At some point,

Fig. 27. Billfish selling at $4/pound retail after the BCA Amendment. Photo: WPRFMC.

6. Roy Morioka in discussion with the author, May 21, 2020. 23 15. Evolution of Billfish Tournaments and Recreational Fishing Policies

The HIBT, first held in 1959, is now considered one of the most fish were caught than could be sold important billfish tournaments of its kind. Like all of the billfish and the fish were thrown away,” explained Morioka. “However, most tournaments in the United States, the HIBT promotes both the boat captains struggle except for catch-and-release and the tagging of billfish. The place of recreational those at the high end who take out fishing in Hawai’i has grown since the HIBT was initiated. millionaires or who are the best of the best and become ‘hired guns’ to In 2011, the charter industry in the Currently, approximately 215 to 300 work the big gambling tournaments State of Hawai’i employed more than billfish tournaments are held per year on the U.S. mainland. The trend 800 people, involved 192 active vessels on the U.S. mainland and in Central in Kona has been for boat slips to (106 in the County of Hawai’i, where America. These tournaments involve be purchased by millionaires who Kona is located) and generated sales of from 20 to 400 entries, with six people fish their own boats, leaving the six- nearly $50 million (Rollins and Lovell per team. Entry fees can be as high as pack charter-boat fishermen who 2019). An estimated 26,000 people $70,000 per boat (Brakhage 2019). take out middle-class people to fish for billfish in the State of Hawai’i, Because of the “Calcutta” option, endure as during the depression.” representing approximately 10% of crews can win $1 million in a single Furthermore, 14% of the marlin the U.S. total of 300,000 people who contest. Hawai‘i does not permit and other billfish that are caught and say they have caught a billfish or are gambling but does have cash prizes released are estimated to die from interested in billfish fishing (Ditton in its “shoot out” (Miller et al. 2001). their wounds. This number remains and Stoll 2003, U.S. DOI and DOC The billfish contest organizers ask stable regardless of the type of tackle 2018). The charter boat industry also their members to practice catch-and- used to catch the fish or whether they attracts the members of this demo­ release fishing, so the fish will continue are released alive by commercial or graphic who have very high disposable to live. recreational fishermen (Musyl et al. incomes. Thus, the industry represents “It was the jackpot fishermen and 2014). Other studies have placed the an important market for high-end their boat captains and crews who mortality rate as high as 26% (Domeir, resorts. (Ditton and Stoll 2003, Carter wanted catch and release because they Dewar and Nasby-Lucas et al. 2003). and Conathan 2018). didn’t like the waste of fish when more

Fig. 28. Tagging a striper in Hawai‘i. Photo: Fig.29. The Council sponsored the winner (Fish #1) of the 2010 Great Marlin Race. The fish in the David Itano. contest were tagged during the HIBT and followed for 120 days.

24 On the other hand, the HIBT column and have specific circulatory the Atlantic for these species on Sept. over the years has served as a major adaptation that allows them to recover 30, 2020, through the remainder of source of research information on from long struggles like angling.7 the year. billfish as a result of its tagging and Here, differences emerge with The passage of the Modernizing other scientific programs. As a result fishing practices in the U.S. Atlantic, Recreational Fisheries Management of their cutting-edge research using where a hard cap of 250 blue and white Act of 2018, introduced by U.S. Sen. satellite tags, it was discovered that marlin and is in Roger Wicker (R-MS), is indicative marlin spend 75% of their time in place. The limit was exceeded for the of the continued interest of game the upper 10 meters of the water first time in 2020. NMFS implemented fishermen in developing new NOAA manda­tory catch-and-release only in directions for recreational fishing.

Fig. 30 and 31. Recreational fishing for billfish off Kona, Hawai‘i.Photos: Kevin Hibbard.

16. Proposals for Longline Changes

Despite efforts to educate the general public and young people, with up to three hooks per buoy the Council continues to face skepticism from environmental groups deployed in deep water during the day. They hope longliners can thus avoid such as Wild Oceans (formerly NCMC), who say the Council’s policies inter­action with unmarketable and promote “unsustainable and unregulated bycatch” (Hinman 2015). protected species. Swordfish fishermen in the U.S. Pacific have experimented Opponents of longlining have not have the same effect. For example, with this system with support from asked for an immediate ban on it, as they advocate that swordfish vessels NMFS, the Pew Charitable Trust and was the case in the Atlantic. Instead, stop putting out longlines 10 to 60 others. NMFS reports that markets they have been asking for incremental miles long with thousands of hooks are receiv­ing the product at a premium changes in NMFS policy that would and instead opt for a buoy system, and early results of efficient swordfish Fig. 32. Serving blue marlin catches and avoidance of non-target tempura at the Western Pacific species are encouraging. (NOAA 2017). Regional Fishery Management Council’s booth during the A related problem is the international 2003 NOAA Fish Fry are (l–r) reporting and management of billfish Council Executive Director Kitty to the WCPFC. The WCPFC consists M. Simonds, then Secretary of of 40 countries that include members, Commerce Donald Evans, then member territories and participating NOAA Administrator Conrad C. Lautenbacher and Honolulu non-members. The WPRFMC has Chef Russell Siu. Photo: WPRFMC. provided it with resources, technical expertise and hosting sites since 2004.

7. Charles Daxboeck, in discussion with the author, May 27, 2020.

25 Efforts are made to protect and manage tuna and billfish, but the motivations Spicy A‘u Tartare of participating countries are different. Courtesy of Chef Grant Sato, Kapiolani Community College’s Culinary Institute Despite some improvements, reporting of the Pacific, Honolulu remains inconsistent and incomplete. These points were made by Simonds Serves 6 in her testimony to Congress: Ingredients The U.S. fleet in the Western and 1 lb small diced a‘u (marlin or swordfish) Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) is 1 tbsp salt comprised of 30 purse-seine vessels 2 tbsp water targeting skipjack tuna, 144 Hawai‘i- ½ cup green onions, chopped based longline vessels targeting 2 tbsp wasabi tobiko bigeye tuna and swordfish, and 1 tsp sriracha sauce 13 American Samoa longline vessels 1 tbsp oyster sauce targeting albacore tuna. The U.S. 1 tbsp red ebi flakes fleet competes in the WCPO against 1 tbsp toasted seasame seeds much larger foreign fleets, such as 2 tbsp mayonnaise China with 78 purse-seine and ¼ lb sweet potato or taro chips 524 longline vessels, Chinese Taipei Fig. 33 Spicy A‘u Tartare. Photo: WPRFMC. with 34 purse-seine and 1,009 Preparation and Plating longline vessels, and Japan with 66 Salt the a‘u and sprinkle with water. Toss lightly and set aside for a purse-seine and 434 longline vessels. minute. Place the a‘u in a bowl, add all of the other ingredients and With 2,425 longline vessels in the stir well to combine. Serve chilled with chips. WCPO, foreign fleets comprise 94% of the longline vessels in the WCPO. The U.S. fisheries operating in Simonds continued by saying, “the by marine advocacy organizations. the WCPO are among the most U.S. and foreign fleets in the WCPO The common view seems to be highly regulated, monitored and operate in the same high seas waters that longlining anywhere poses an enforced fisheries in the world. up to the boundary of the U.S. EEZ. existential threat to existing billfish Our fisheries adhere to a broad However, foreign vessels are required stocks. The cumulative effect of this range of regulations compared to have 5% observer coverage.” Thus, advocacy is to push legal, regulated to other nations. Besides the as Simonds noted “the playing field is U.S. fishing efforts further to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, they are vastly uneven.” In contrast, the Hawai‘i margins and thereby expose both subject to the Endangered Species longline fishery is subject to 100% obser­ American consumers and our natural Act, Marine Mammal Protection ver coverage for its shallow-set sector resources to unexpected risks. Act, National Environmental Policy and 20% observer coverage for its deep- This presents a dilemma for fishery Act and Antiquities Act, among set sector. It must report in near real managers at the Council. others, as well as federal regulations time and has high levels of monitor­ing They realize that, when fewer fish implementing conser­vation and when it lands in port. are legally caught in U.S. waters, more management decisions of the The consequence of this high level fish will be caught by less regulated WCPFC. (WPRFMC 2019b) of regulation has ensured that, in fisheries on the open ocean to fill the the U.S. Western Pacific, blue marlin market need. In a world where people stocks are healthy are hungry for protein, this situation and striped marlin creates further incentive for some are designated foreign vessels to fish illegally. overfished but are However, they also realize that, actively monitored after more than 70 years of careful and part of an research, if managed correctly, the ongoing recovery U.S. zone has sufficient billfish for both plan. Unfortunately, recreational fishermen and consumers. the accomplishments With no outside markets in which to of fishery managers legally sell it at present, billfish are now in maintaining stocks in such a surplus that large amounts in Hawai‘i have no value and are said to Fig. 34. Due to the BCA amendment, the ban on interstate commerce of while supplying Hawai‘i-caught billfish (except swordfish) caused the price and demand U.S. markets have be thrown away at sea (see Appendix 3). for fresh marlin to fall, which led some in the industry to focus on other gone unrecognized ways to prepare and market the fish.Source: Sylvia Spalding.

26 17. Conclusion

Since 1976 the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council have observer coverage and generally has played a key role in the development of billfish management in the able to sell fish to U.S. consumers through a system in which as much as United States. It was among the first to help federal regulators exclude one-third of seafood imports may be foreign fishermen from the U.S. EEZ. The Council developed manage­ from IUU fishing (Pramod et al. 2014). ment policies that recognized and incorporated the different needs of The year 2020 has also had a number of negative impacts on all sectors of the groups competing for billfish in the region: the artisanal fishermen, Hawai‘i’s billfish fishery. The effect the high-end recreational fishermen and the local commercial longline of COVID-19 on Kona charter-boat fishermen. Council members were able to develop their initial policies fishermen in Honokohau harbor, by working closely with scientists and fishery analysts capable of using data which is largely dependent on tourism, has seen many local fisher­men suffer from a multitude of Japanese, Korean, U.S. and other sources. from lack of clients, and the longline fishery has the double penalty of not When conflicts over swordfish took Hawaii economy. Many of the workers only the pandemic but also the 2018 place in the Atlantic Seaboard and in the fleet are people from Hawai‘i and amend­ment to the Billfish Conservation the Gulf Coast, concurrently with the the U.S. Pacific Islands. Act, which alone dramatically dropped discovery of untapped swordfish stocks Over time recreational fishing and fish prices by more than 51%. All but off Hawai‘i, the result was a large-scale environmental interest on the U.S. those businesses catering to the influx of fishing vessels that quadrupled mainland, which once had worked with ultrahigh-end recreational game fish Hawai‘i’s longline fleet within five years. the Council to incorporate tuna into market have suffered. It resulted in a major environmental the MSA, came to criticize its actions. The combination of the BCA and crisis and a conflict between the They successfully lobbied for a policy COVID-19 have affected the ability of new comers and local artisanal and of closures to longline vessels that many local workers to remain employed recreational fishermen. dictates that 51% of the U.S. EEZ in the in the fishing industry. There is a concern The Council took action and Western Pacific Region are now marine that the proposed large-scale closures instituted one of the first large-scale national monuments, with bans on U.S. will result in further unemployment open ocean closures in the United commercial fisheries, and up to 83% of because owners of fishing vessels will States. Its actions were praised by the U.S. EEZ around Hawai‘i is closed find themselves forced from the fishery. recreational fishermen in groups such to U.S. long line fishing vessels—even Because of the generally healthy state as the IGFA, which held as a model the though the longline vessels have 100% of the Western Pacific billfish stocks, Council’s 1991 Protected Species Zone, observer coverage on swordfish vessels the benefits of these new closure policies which excluded longline operations and 20% coverage on tuna vessels. This and others destined for the Western within 50 nm of the NWHI. The forces all but a few of the Hawai‘i-based Pacific in name of conservation are Council would later point out that longliners to transfer their efforts to the unknown. However, what is recognized despite this increase fishing pressure, international waters of the high seas. is that Hawai‘i residents and Pacific 20 years later the Pacific blue marlin There they must compete with largely Islanders who have few economic stocks which had been declared unregulated fishing vessels from Asia options other than fishing will likely overfished in 1977 were declared and elsewhere, most of which do not dispropor­tionately bear the burden of healthy, while striped marlin is being report their billfish landings, do not any economic costs from these policies. put on a recovery plan. Hawai‘i, which Fig. 35. Orange-colored was always a popular fishing spot, nairigi fillets indicate they continues to be world-renowned for are seasonally fatty. The producing more “granders” (billifish prized fillets make excellent over a 1,000 pounds) than virtually any and poke. Photo: other place. Longliners and artisanal Hawaii Seafood Council. and recreational fishermen learned to coexist and sold locally caught marlin to buyers all over the world. The sale of the marlin, which was prohibited on the continental United States, helped sustain the local longline fleet, which currently contributes 1,134 jobs to the

27 Appendix 1: Meetings Convened by the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council in Kona and about Marlin

Aug. 10–14, 1977 6th Council meeting ...... King Kamehameha Hotel, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i Aug. 2–5, 1978 12th Council meeting ...... King Kamehameha Hotel, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i Oct. 23, 1978 13th Council meeting ...... Kona Hilton Hotel, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i Oct. 27–28, 1978 4th Council Chairmen’s Meeting ...... Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i Aug. 22–25, 1979 19th Council meeting ...... King Kamehameha Hotel, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i July 29–31, 1981 31st Council meeting ...... King Kamehameha Hotel, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i Aug. 16–18, 1982 37th Council meeting ...... King Kamehameha Hotel, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i Aug.6, 1985 U.S. Tuna Association Meeting ...... Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i Aug. 7–8, 1985 50th Council meeting ...... King Kamehameha Hotel, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i Jan. 27–Feb. 1, 1986 6th Western Pacific Regional Tuna Negotiations . Kona, Hawai‘i Aug. 6–8, 1986 54th Council meeting ...... King Kamehameha Hotel, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i Oct. 13–16, 1987 North Pacific Rim Fishermen’s Conference on Marine Debris ...... Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i July 31–Aug. 5, 1988 International Billfish Symposium ...... Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i Aug. 8–11, 1988 62nd Council meeting ...... King Kamehameha Hotel, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i Aug. 21–22, 1991 74th Council meeting ...... King Kamehameha Hotel, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i Aug. 3–5, 1994 85th Council meeting ...... Royal Kona Resort, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i July 27–28, 1998 97th Council meeting ...... King Kamehameha Kona Beach Hotel, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i July 29–Aug. 1, 1998

Pacific Island Gamefish Tournament Symposium: Facing the Challenges of Resource Conservation, Sustainable Development and the Sportfishing Ethic — Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i

Oct. 21, 2003 Fishers Forum–Marlin Management . . . . . Pagoda Hotel, Honolulu July 22-25, 2009 145th Council meeting ...... King Kamehameha Hotel, Kailua-Kona July 23, 2009 Fishers Forum–Marlin on the Menu . . . . . King Kamehameha Hotel, Kailua-Kona April 30–May 3, 2012 Council Coordination Committee ...... Kohala Coast, Hawai‘i Oct. 21, 2014 Fishers Forum-Hawai‘i Yellowfin Tuna and Striped Marlin Management ...... Laniakea YWCA-Fuller Hall, Honolulu

28 Appendix 2: Pelagic Fisheries Research Program Projects on Billfish and Hawai‘i Pelagic Fisheries (1997–2012) Listed by Principal Investigator(s) For a complete list of projects and links to the studies, go to http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/PFRP/allprojects.html.

Allen S. Sociological Baseline of Hawai‘i-Based Longline Kikkawa B. Rescue, Compilation, and Statistical Fishery: Extension and Expansion of Scope. Characterization of Historic Longline Data, Pacific Ocean Fisheries Investigation 1951-73 Amesbury J, Hunter-Anderson R. An Analysis of Archaeological and Historical Data on Fisheries for Pelagic Species in Guam and Kirby D et al. Regime Shifts in the Western and Central Pacific Northern Mariana Islands. Ocean Tuna Fisheries. Bigelow K et al. Performance of Longline Catchability Models in Leung PS. Analyzing the Technical and Economic Structure of Assessments of Pacific Highly Migratory Species. Hawai‘i’s Pelagic Fishery. Block B, Reeb C. Genetic Analysis of Population Structure in McConnell KT. The Economics of Recreational Fishing for Pacific Swordfish (Xiphias gladius) using Microsatellite DNA Pelagics in Hawai‘i. Techniques. Mitchum G, Polovina J. Evaluation of Remote Sensing Boggs C, Gunn J. Investigation of Pacific Broadbill Swordfish Technologies for the Identification of Oceanographic Features Migration Patterns and Habitat Characteristics using Electronic Critical to Pelagic Fish Distribution around the Hawaiian Archival Tag Technology. Archipelago. Boggs C. Integration of Hawai‘i Longline Fishery Performance Musyl M, Malte H, Brill R. Modeling the Eco-physiology of Model with Environmental Information Pelagic Fishes and Sharks with Archival and Pop-up Satellite Archival Tags (PSATs). Branch T, Hilborn R, Jensen O. Biological, Economic and Management Drivers of Fishery Performance: A Global Meta- Musyl M, Moyes C, Brill R. Evaluating Biochemical and Analysis of Tuna and Billfish Stocks. Physiological Predictors of Long Term Survival in Released Pacific Blue Marlin Tagged with Pop-Up Satellite Archival Chow M, Grau EG. Developing Tools to Assess Sex and Transmitters (PSATs). Maturational Stage of Bigeye Tuna (Thunnus obesus) and Swordfish (Xiphias gladius). Myers R, Ward P. Causes of Rapid Declines in World Billfish Catch Rates. Dalzell P, Pooley S. Recreational Fisheries Meta Data - Preliminary Steps. Qiu B, Flament P. A Numerical Investigation of Ocean Circulation and Pelagic Fisheries around the Hawaiian Islands. Dewar H, Polovina J. Long-Term Deployment of Satellite Tags using the California Harpoon Fleet. Pan M, Pooley S. Economic Fieldwork on Pelagic Fisheries in Hawai‘i. Graves J, Block B. Analysis of Pacific Blue Marlin and Swordfish Population Structure using Mitochondrial and Nuclear DNA Pooley S. Hawai‘i Pelagic Fishing Vessel Economics. Technologies. Polovina J, Seki M. Describing the Vertical Habitat of Bigeye Hampton J, Pierre Kleiber and John Sibert. Addition of Multi- and Albacore Tunas and Post-Release Survival for Marlins in species Capability, Sex Structure and other Enhancements the Central Pacific Longline Fisheries with Pop-Up Archival to the Length-Based, Age-Structured Modeling Software Transmitting Tags. MULTIFAN-CL. Walsh WA. Comparisons of Catch Rates for Target and Holland K, Dagorn L. Instrumented Buoys as Autonomous Incidentally Taken Fishes in Widely Separated Areas of the Observatories of Pelagic Ecosystems. Pacific Ocean Kaneko J, Bartram P. Factors Affecting Price Determinations Walsh WA. Distributions, Histories, and Recent Catch Trends and Market Competition for Fresh Pacific Pelagic Fish, Phase I: with Six Fish Taxa Taken as Incidental Catch by the Hawai’i- Tuna and Marlin. Based Commercial Longline Fishery Kaneko J, Bartram P. Local Fishery Knowledge: Its Application Walsh WA, Bigelow K. Evaluation of Data Quality for Catches to the Management and Development of Small-scale Tuna of Several Pelagic Management Unit Species by Hawai‘i-Based Fisheries in the U.S. Pacific Islands. Longline Vessels and Exploratory Analyses of Historical Catch Records from Japanese Longline Vessels. Kleiber P, Nakano H. Incorporating Oceanographic Data in Stock Assessments of Blue Sharks and Other Species Incidentally Walsh WA, Bigelow K. Investigation of Shark Bycatch in the Caught in the Hawai‘i-based Longline Fishery. Hawai‘i-based Longline Fishery, and an Extension of Analyses of Catch Data from Widely Separated Areas in the Pacific Ocean. Pooley S, Allen S. A Sociological Baseline of Hawai‘i’s Longline Fisheries. Walsh W, Brodziak J. Analyses of Catch Data for Blue and Striped Marlins (Istiophoridae). Keller Kopf RK. Age and Growth of Striped Marlin, Kajikia audax, in the Hawai‘i-based Longline Fishery

29 Appendix 3: Impact of the 2018 Billfish Conservation Act Amendment on Honolulu Fish Dealers—An Informal Survey, June–September 2019

Abstract In August 2018, the U.S. Congress passed an amendment to the 2012 Billfish Conservation Act (BCA), which has repercussions for the Hawai’i fishing industry. Specifically, the August 2018 amendment prohibits the sale of all billfish, except swordfish, caught in Hawai‘i and the U.S. Pacific Territories to off island markets. Because more than 550,000 pounds of billfish such as Pacific blue marlin were shipped to the U.S. mainland and Canada prior to this amendment, it had significant economic impacts on the Hawai‘i fishing industry. According to the 2017 Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation report, more than 3.4 million pounds of billfish (not including swordfish) are landed in Honolulu each year. These were primarily Pacific blue marlin (kajiki), striped marlin (nairagi) and spearfish hebi( ). From June to September 2019, an informal survey was undertaken to determine the consequences of the amendment. Input from six fish dealers in Honolulu indicates that, as a consequence of the amendment, estimated losses are as high as $20 million among fish dealers and fishing boat owners. The numbers from one fish dealer indicated losses from 26% to 100% in the year after the amendment was passed.

The PIFSC analysis deduced that fish dealers with stamped, pre-addressed Introduction the amendment to the BCA in August envelopes and no identification of the The Hawai‘i fishing industry made 2018 caused a 51% price drop after the respondent. Only one was returned. several assumptions about the effect amendment was enacted, in comparison Upon a follow up with the respon­ of the amendment to the BCA. to prices during the same months from dent, and in talks with subsequent Researchers commissioned by the 2009 to 2017 (Chan 2020). From this respondents, the low rate of response billfish recreation industry estimated data, the study estimated that the BCA was determined to be the result of a that billfish sales in Hawai‘i had direct amendment had a direct, quantifiable number of factors. Some respondents and indirect costs in 2005 of $12.05 loss of $2.9 million on the economy. did not like the fact that the address million in total output (Gentner The indirect effects of sales to main­ on the envelope was handwritten. Consulting Group 2007). Other land markets were not calculated as a Others felt that “any disclosure of their estimates were $830,000 at dockside means of determining true value. business dealings would put them at a for 2018 and wholesale and retail Another, more direct means of competitive disadvantage” or “that the market values of $2.5 million for export approaching this subject would involve information was nobody’s business (WPRFMC 2018). Still other sources in-depth surveys and actual conversa­ [other] than their own.” One respondent from the industry estimated that tions with dealers and fisher­men. Doing said “it was too much work.” Another the losses would exceed $10 million so would provide a broader under­ expressed fear that the federal (Samiere 2018). It is estimated that standing of the impact of the amend­ government might use the information the Hawai’i longline fishery directly ment to the BCA on the Hawai‘i’s to intimidate fishermen. employs 846 workers and has a total fishing industry. The researcher met with the single impact of 1,134 jobs.8 respondent, who is one of the larger In an effort to understand this Methods fish dealers in the Honolulu area. varia­tion, an analysis was conducted In April 2019, independent researcher After the meeting, the respondent by the Pacific Island Fisheries Science Michael Markrich wrote an initial survey, contacted his fellow fish dealers and Center (PIFSC), which was urged to which the WPRFMC staff made encouraged them to participate. by the WPRFMC to gauge the impact editorial suggestions and comments. Therefore, the researcher subsequently of the amendment. These were then incorporated into a conduted a series of telephone conver­ revised survey that was mailed to nine sations and two in-depth personal

8. Eugene Tian, chief state economist (Research and Economic Analysis Division, Hawai’i State Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism) in discussion with the author, Nov. 15, 2019.

30 interviews with fish buyers, which unaffected due to being able to develop that U.S. fishermen in Hawai‘i face revealed the following information. new ways to sell and prepare marlin. stringent quality-control requirements While one dealer refused to be inter­ The other companies reported indivi­ while supporting observers on board viewed, the comments from the six dual losses from $300,000 to $2.5 their boats. Because of the new tech­ fish dealers who did are reported below million annually from the sale of nology and practices, few turtles are anonymously and summarized as marlin and up to $4 million annually now impacted by the domestic fleet. a group so no single company can when the sale of “other fish” that would However, it was noted that all area be identified. have been shipped with the marlin is closures [swordfish] and quotas have included. One company did not estimate a major effect on business. The dealers Comments from the monetary loss in revenue but noted say they have adjusted to the high prices that recovery took a year. The loss for that result from the enforced fishing Fish Dealers the local industry as a whole was estima­ restrictions on the Hawai‘i fleet. Markets ted to be in excess of $20 million. Ironically, they say, this is the price For certain markets like Miami and Some fish dealers attribute their they pay for having the world’s highest Denver, marlin is a popular fish for economic loss primarily to a drop in quality fish. hotel and restaurant fish buffets and is the price of marlin. One company’s On the other hand, Hawai‘i fish much in demand by chefs. Hawai‘i fish purchases dropped $3,000 in one week dealers question the fairness of a system dealers commonly buy some marlin because of the drop in the price of the that essentially allows unlimited foreign and then fill the rest of the shipping product and not because of less product imports of frozen fish (excluding container with tuna and other fish.9 being available. For example, after the billfish) to mainland markets by foreign The loss of not being able to sell blue ban was enacted, prized deep-orange fishermen from countries, such as China marlin, striped marlin and shortbill nairagi fell from $6.00 to $3.00 per and Indonesia, that have low levels of spearfish to customers in Miami, pound wholesale, leading one dealer quality control and that pay minimal Boston, New York, Denver and other to say that the only people who benefit attention to the protection of sea turtles. markets had the added consequence from the billfish ban are Hawai‘i of no longer being able to sell the consu­mers who can buy nairagi for Negative effects of additional fish. This is because, if the next to nothing. fish dealer is unable to make weight the BCA: Summarized Employment for a full container, the out-of-state (1) Markets: Distributors and whole­ buyer will sometimes opt to purchase The BCA amendment led one com­ salers have limited local markets and, nothing. One company saw its out-of- pany to lay off five employees and may due to the BCA amendment, out- state sales drop from 50% of its business have caused one fish dealer to move of-state sales dropped by up to 15%. to the U.S. mainland after suffering a five years ago to approximately 35% at (2) Revenues: Fish dealers have suffered substantial loss in business. The other the time of the interview. a large loss in annual revenues, companies did not report having to As for the local market, it was noted estimated to be up to $4 million lay off employees as a result of the that Hawai‘i can consume only a certain individually and in excess of $20 BCA amendment. amount of product. One dealer bought million for the industry as a whole. large amounts of marlin at $0.10 per Discards (3) Employment: The impacts of the pound ex-vessel but was then forced Fish dealers reported that, as a result BCA amendment caused reported to stop because of the lack of a market of the reduced value in marlin, a layoffs of five employees in one in local restaurants, as jerky or as any significant number of the fish are not company and potentially the reloca­ other fish product. Although one fish harvested and are tossed back into the tion of one fish dealer to the dealer said that he is working with sea, generating much waste. U.S. mainland. local restaurants to develop new marlin dishes for visitors, other dealers said Conservation and Economic (4) Discards: Fish buyers said the num­ that they cannot find a sufficient marlin Competitiveness ber of bycatch discards of blue and market among visitors to Hawai‘i. The Hawai‘i fish dealers who were striped marlin at sea has increased. interviewed are pro fish conservation Due to the drop in value of marlin, Revenue and say they have learned to accept the longline fishermen tended to keep The loss of revenue was significant for stringent requirements and caps placed storage space for tuna and other the majority of the companies. Only on the Hawai‘i longline fleet in the more valuable species. one company reported being financially interests of saving turtles. They noted

9. This marketing strategy depends on the sale of a novelty item such as marlin that then stimulates the buyer to fill the remaining space in the container (i.e., to “top off”) with other fish from Hawai‘i. Hawai‘i had spent more than two decades carefully building market share for its seafood industry through State-funded promotions in the form of trade shows and marketing materials for its seafood industry in mainland and international markets. Because Hawai‘i is heavily dependent on tourism, developing the seafood industry was a way to diversify the economy, provide more jobs and, by stimulating demand, provide price support for Hawai‘i caught seafood that might otherwise be sold at a loss.

31 (5) Conservation and economic Its sales dropped from $379,570 to competitiveness: Fish buyers are Estimated Losses $282,140, or 26%. The market loss pro-conservation and accept the One fish dealer was asked to compare for shortbill spearfish was particularly increased cost and restrictions his revenues from August 2017 to July hard to take because it had been due to the highly regulated, 2018 with those from August 2018 to difficult to develop on the mainland, monitored and enforced nature July 2019 (see Table A-1). While the finding favor only after mainland of the Hawai‘i longline industry. results represent a sample of one, they chefs discovered they liked working However, they question the ability are likely to be representative. All losses with it. Spearfish sales decreased from of less regulated, monitored were significant, but the highest losses $306,260 to $177,870, a loss of 42%. and enforced foreign fisheries to were for blue marlin, which saw sales The greatest loss by percent, at 100%, have unlimited sales (excluding decrease from $668,020 to $246,860, was among the miscellaneous other billfish) to the United States. a 63% loss. Striped marlin experienced billfish that might have been sold on less of a loss, perhaps because it has the mainland as filler but for which a greater appeal to local consumers. no market now exists.

Species Before After Amount Percent 2017/2018 2018/2019 Lost Lost Blue marlin (kajiki) , , , –% Striped marlin (nairagi) , , , –% Shortbill spearfish (hebi) , , , –% Other (incl. sailfish)  —  –% TOTAL ,, , , –% Table 1. Revenue comparison by billfish species before and after the BCA. Conclusion Fig. 36. Change in billfish sales by species following the BCA amendment. Fish dealers are still wrestling with the Blue marlin (kajiki) $668,020 immediate impacts of the 2018 amend­ $248,860 ment to the BCA. The full consequences will not be known until a more compre­ Striped marlin (nairagi) $379,570 $282,140 hensive study is made of the impacts of the BCA on local Hawai‘i fish dealers $306,260 Shortbill spearfish( hebi) Before ’17/’18 and fishermen. $177,870 After ’18/’19 However, one local fisher expressed the view that total losses could be as high as $20 million. The losses are Fig. 37. Change in total billfish sales following the BCA amendment. particularly felt in the sales of blue marlin, striped marlin and spearfish. The losses Before (’17/’18) $1,354,350 have been severe because no alternative market has been developed for the After (’18/’19) $708,870 billfish in the local economy. This situa­ tion has resulted in a drop in both sales and employment.

32 References

Amesbury JR. 2008 May–Aug. Pelagic Fishing in Prehistoric Garcia and Associates. 1999. Final Report: Hawai‘i Longline Guam. Mariana Islands. In: PFRP 13 (6):4-8. Available from Seabird Mortality Mitigation Project. Prepared for the http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/PFRP/newsletters/May- WPRFMC. Honolulu. Aug2008.pdf. Gentner Consulting Group. 2007 July 30. Economic Beardsley GL. 1989. Trends in the Fisheries for Billfishes in the Analysis of International Billfish Markets. Prepared for the . In: Stroud RH (eds.). 16-17. International Game Fish Association. Available from http:// www.gentnerconsultinggroup.com/wp-content/uploads/ Bienfang P. n.d. Chapter 6. Living Resources of the Sea. final073107.pdf Oceanography 331. Available from http://www.soest.hawaii. edu/oceanography/courses_html/OCN331/ Glazier E. 2016a July 27. Christofer Boggs Oral History Interview. Voices from the Fisheries, NMFS. Available from https://voices. Boggs CH. 2001. Deterring albatrosses from contacting baits nmfs.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-09/boggs_christofer.pdf during swordfish longline sets. In: Seabird Bycatch: Trends, roadblocks and solutions. Melvin E, Parrish K (eds.). Fairbanks, ———. 2016b Aug 2. Jerry Wetherall Oral History Interview. Alaska: Voices from the Fisheries, NMFS. Available from https://voices. Univ of Alaska. Univ Alaska SeaGrant AK-SG-01-01. p 79-94. nmfs.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-09/wetherall_jerry.pdf Boggs CH, Ito R. 1993. Hawai‘i’s Pelagic Fisheries. Marine Gordon WG (NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries). Fisheries Rev 55(2):69-82. 1982 Jan 21. Letter to Wadsworth Y. H. Yee, WPRFMC Chair. In FMP for the Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region. Bray K. 2000. A Global Review of Illegal, Unreported and Final. July 1986. Honolulu: WPRFMC. Unregulated IUU Fishing. FAO Fisheries Department. Available from http://www.fao.org/3/Y3274E/y3274e08.htm Gutskey E. 1986 Feb 18. There is more than sun and beaches on Hawai‘i’s Big Island, Making it easy to get hooked on Kona’s Carmel F. 2012 Oct 19. So why were those Soviet boats fishing Coast: Big Marlin is the Lure. Los Angeles Times. 1, 29. off Washington? Pacific Fishery History Project. Available from https://carmelfinley.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/so-why-were- Hawaii Tribune Herald. 1972 Aug 9. Symposium To Run Billfish those-soviet-boats-fishing-off-washington/. Fact Gamut. Carter A, Conathan M. 2018 Mar 19. Rise of Recreational He X, Boggs CH. 1997. Estimating fisheries impacts using Fishing Lobby. American Progress Magazine. Available commercial fisheries data: Simulation models and time series from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/ analysis of Hawai‘i’s yellowfin tuna fisheries. In: Hancock reports/2018/03/19/448064/rise-recreational-fishing-lobby/ DA et al. (eds.). Developing and sustaining world fisheries resources: The state of science and management, 2nd World Chan HL. 2020 July. Potential economic impacts from the Fisheries Congress. Collingwood, VIC 3066 Australia: CSIRO 2018 amendment of the Billfish Conservation Act of 2012. Publishing. p 593–599. NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center Internal Report IR-20-008. Hinman K. 2000 Nov-Dec. A Giant Leap for Fishkind. Big Game Fishing Journal. 2015 Oct 7. Unfinished Business: Threats to Collette B, Graves J. 2019. Tunas and Billfishes of the World. Big Fish Still Need Our Attention. Marine Fish Conservation Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press Network. Available from https://conservefish.org/2015/10/07/ Critchlow L. 1978 July 27. World Billfish Anglers Lured To Kona. unfinished-business-threats-to-big-fish-still-need-our-attention/ Hawaii Tribune Herald. p 13. ———. 2015 Oct 7. Unfinished Business: Threats to big fish Diaz-Soltero H. 1998 Nov 3. Memo for Dr. Gary Mattlock re: still need our attention. Marine Fish Conservation Network. ESA Section 7 Biological Opinion on the FMP for Pelagic Available fromhttps://conservefish.org/2015/10/07/ Fisheries in the Western Pacific Region: Hawai‘i Central North unfinished-business-threats-to-big-fish-still-need-our-attention/ Pacific Longline Fishery. Silver Spring, Md: NOAA NMFS. ———. 2017. Chris Weld. Wild Oceans. No 152. p. 2. Available Ditton R, Stoll J. 2003. Social and Economic Perspectives on from http://wildoceans.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/ Recreational Billfish Fisheries. Marine and Freshwater Research WO_Horizon_spring_2017_web.pdf. 54: 545–554. Hogan C. 1983 Aug 11. Full-grown billfish tournament transfers Domeir ML, Dewar H, Nasby-Lucas N. 2003. Mortality rate energy to research. Honolulu Advertiser. C-1. of striped marlin Tetrapturus audax caught with recreational Holcombe FD. 1923. Modern Sea Angling. London: Frederick, tackle. Marine and Freshwater Research 54: 435–445. Warne and Co., Ltd. Eichner L. 1978 Aug 17. Guam Offshore. Pacific Daily News. p 47. [IATTC] Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. Tunas, Farrington SK Jr. 1942. Pacific Game Fish. NY: Cowaed McCann, billfishes and other pelagic species in the eastern Pacific Ocean Inc. 184. in 2015. 2016. Presented at the WCPFC Scientific Committee, Twelfth Regular Session. 2016 Aug 3-11. Bali, Indonesia. Finley C. 2012. So why were those Soviet boats fishing off Available from https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/GN-WP- Washington? Pacific Fishery History Project. Blog. Available 02%20IATTC%20Tunas-billfishes-and-other-pelagic-species- from https://carmelfinley.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/ in-the-EPO-2015.pdf. so-why-were-those-soviet-boats-fishing-off-washington/ 33 Kane M. 1966 Jan 31. Plenty of Fish in the Sea. Sports Illustrated. ———. 1987 Feb 27. Foreign Fishing: Pelagic Fisheries of the 20–26. Western Pacific Region. Federal Register 52(39):5983-90. Kifner J. 1974 June 16. Foreign Fishing Crippling New England ———. 2017 Feb 6. Innovation in Swordfish fishery fetches a Industry. New York Times. higher market price. Available from https://www.fisheries.noaa. gov/feature-story/innovation-swordfish-fishery-fetches-higher- Kwon B. 1981 Aug 4. Marlins Future a Concern. Honolulu market-price Star-Bulletin. p 21. ———. 2019 Oct 21. Atlantic Highly Migratory Species: Laurs MR, Karnella C. 2001. Status and impacts of litigation Removal of Billfish Certificate of Eligibility Requirement. Federal on the Hawai‘i longline fishery for swordfish and tuna. Register 84(203):56136. Available from https://www.govinfo. Presented at the 14th meeting of the Standing Committee on gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-10-21/pdf/2019-22882.pdf Tuna and Billfish, 2001 Aug 9-16, Noumea, New Caledonia. Honolulu: NMFS Honolulu Laboratory. Otsu T. 1954 September. An Analysis of the Hawaiian Long-line Fishery 1948–52. Commercial Fisheries Review 16 (9): 1-17. Lovejoy WS. 1977a. BFISH: A population dynamics and fishery management model. Honolulu Lab., Southwest Fish. Sci. Cent., Pauly D et al. 2014. China’s distant-water fisheries in the 21st Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., NOAA, Honolulu. Admin. Rep. H-77-12H. century. Fish and Fisheries 15: 474–488. ———. 1977b. A BFISH population dynamics analysis of the Pitts E. 2020 Apr 25. Annual Tournament Will Not Be Held Due impact of several alternative fisheries management policies in to COVID 19. West Hawaii Today. B1-2. the Hawaiian Fishery Conservation Zone (FCZ) on the Pacific Pradhan NC, Sharma KR, Leung P. 2003. Analyzing Technical stocks and Hawaiian sport fishing yields of blue and striped and Economic Interrelationships in Hawai‘i’s Longline Fishery. marlin. Honolulu: WPRMC. Marine Resources Economics 18:167-193. ———. 1981. BFISH revisited. Unpublished report, WPC-0781. Pramod G et al. 2014. Estimating illegal and unreported fish Honolulu: WPRFMC. in seafood imports to the USA. Marine Policy 48:102-113. Marine Biological Laboratory. n.d.. Christopher M. Weld. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.03.019 Obituary. Available from https://www.mbl.edu/obituaries/ Rockefeller W. 1989. Looking to the Future of Billfishes. christopher-m-weld/ In: Stroud RH (ed.). 1989. Marron EM. 1957. Albacora: The Search for the Giant Broadbill. Rollins E, Lovell S. 2019. Charter fishing in Hawai‘i: A multi NY: Random House. –region analysis of the economic linkages and contributions Miller ML et al. (eds.). 2001. Proceedings of the 1998 Pacific within and outside Hawai‘i. Marine Policy 100. 277-287. Island Gamefish Symposium: Facing the Challenges of Resource Available from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ Conservation, Sustainable Development, and the Sport-fishing pii/S0308597X18303610?via%3Dihub Ethic. 1998 July 29–Aug 1. Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i, USA. Sala E et al. 2018. The economics of fishing the high seas. Honolulu: WPRFMC. 301 pages. Science Advances. 4. Available from http://www.10.1126/ Moore CJ. 2000 Nov 1. Review of mercury in the environment sciadv.aat2504 (Its occurrence in marine fish). South Carolina: Office of Samiere, Wayne. April 18, 2018. Letter to Congresswoman Environmental Management, Marine Resources Division, Colleen Hanabusa. Department of Natural Resources. Seki M et al. 2002. Hawai‘i Cyclonic Eddies and Blue Marlin Musyl M et al. 2014. Post-release mortality in istiophorid billfish. Catches: The Case Study of the 1995 Hawaiian International Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 72. Billfish Tournament. Journal of Oceanography 58. 739-745. Available from http://10.1139/cjfas-2014-0323. Available from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?d [NOAA] National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, oi=10.1.1.374.9497&rep=rep1&type=pdf. U.S. Dept of Commerce. 1978 May. Pacific Billfishes and Shillington P. 1981 March 3. A Fishing Ban Urged to Reduce Oceanic Sharks. Environmental impact statement/Preliminary Swordfish Catch. Miami Herald. D1. fishery management plan. Terminal Island, Calif.: NOAA NMFS SW Region. Shima K. 1989. Development in the International Management of Tuna and Billfish Resources. In: Shroud RH (ed.). 271-281. ———. 1978 July. Billfishes and Sharks Fisheries (Supplement #1). Environmental impact statement/Preliminary fishery Shomura RS (ed.). 1980. Summary report of the Billfish Stock management plan. St. Petersburg, Fla.: NOAA NMFS SE Region. Assessment Workshop, Pacific Resources. 1977 Dec 5-14. Honolulu Laboratory, Southwest Fisheries Center, Honolulu, ———. 1978b Sept 14. Notice of withdrawal of PMP for Pacific Hawai‘i. Tech Memo NMFS-SWFC-5. Available from https:// Billfish and Oceanic Sharks. Federal Register 43(179):41062. swfsc.noaa.gov/publications/TM/SWFSC/NOAA-TM- Available from https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/ NMFS-SWFC-5.PDF fedreg/fr043/fr043179/fr043179.pdf

34 Shomura RS, Williams F (eds.). 1974. Proceedings of the Watson et al. 2005. Fishing methods to reduce sea turtle mortality International Billfish Symposium, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i, 1972 associated with pelagic longlines. Canadian J of Fisheries and Aug 1-12. NOAA Technical Report NMFS SSRF-675. Part 2: Aquatic Sci 62:965-981. Review and Contributed Papers. Available from https://spo. Weld C. 1977 Aug 24. Letter to Gerald V. Howard, Director, nmfs.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/legacy-pdfs/SSRF675pt2.pdf. U.S. DOC/NOAA, on behalf of the National Conservation for ———. 1975a. Proceedings of the International Billfish Marine Conservation, Inc. In: U.S. DOC, NOAA, Southwest Symposium, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i, 1972 Aug 1-12. Region. 1978 May. Final EIS/preliminary Fishery Management NOAA Technical Report NMFS SSRF-675. Part 3: Plan, Pacific Billfish and Oceanic Sharks. -91 93. Available from Species synopsis available from https://archive.org/details/ https://books.google.com/books?id=_Dk3AQAAMAAJ&pg=P proceedingsofint01inte/page/n41/mode/2up A100&lpg=PA100&dq=NOAA+interviews+christopher+weld& source=bl&ots=0q-n5QZ0yb&sig=ACfU3U29qqxmeQXOJgQf ———. 1975b. Proceedings of the International Billfish QZ3E3vrMwcnSSw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj3 Symposium, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i, 1972 Aug 1-12. NOAA Technical Report NMFS SSRF-675. Part 3: Species synopsis [WPRFMC] Western Pacific Fishery Management Council. available from https://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/ August 1977. Christopher Weld testimony. Council Minutes. legacy-pdfs/SSRF675pt3.pdf Sixth Council Meeting. Skillman RA, Boggs CH, Pooley SG. 1993. Fishery interaction ———. 1978 Jan 11, 1978. Statement of Dr. Michael Adams. between the tuna and other pelagic fisheries in Hawai‘i. U.S. Council Meeting Minutes. Ninth Meeting of the Council. DOC, NOAA Tech Memo. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC 189, ———. 1980 Jan. Draft Fishery Management Plan for Billfish 46 pp. Available from https://origin-apps-pifsc.fisheries.noaa. and Associated Species of the Western Pacific Region. Honolulu: gov/library/pubs/tech/NOAA_Tech_Memo_189.pdf WPRFMC. Skillman RA, Kamer GL. 1992. A correlation analysis of Hawai‘i ———. 2018 Aug 2. U.S. Billfish is Sustainable, Provides Fresh and foreign fishery statistics for billfishes, mahimahi, wahoo Seafood and Local Revenue. Press Release. and pelagic sharks, 1962-78. Honolulu Lab SWFSC, NMFS, Honolulu. SWFSC Admin Rept H-92-05. 33 pp. ———. 2019a. Annual Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report Pacific Island Pelagic Fishery Ecosystem Plan 2018. Skillman RA, Yong MYY. 1974. Length-weight relationships for Honolulu: WPRFMC. 375 pp. + appendices. Available from six species of billfishes in the Central Pacific Ocean. In: Shomura https://wpcouncildata.org/pelagicsafereport/ and Williams 1974. 126-137. ———. 2019b May 1. The State of U.S. Fisheries. Testimony ———. 1976. Von Bertalanffy growth curves for striped marlin, of Kitty M. Simonds, WPRFMC executive director, before the Tetrapterus audax and blue marlin, Makaira nigricans in the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources, North Central Pacific. Fish. Bull. 74(3):553-566. Available from Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife. Available from https://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/content/von-bertalanffy-growth- https://naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Simonds%20 curves-striped-marlin-tetrapturus-audax-and-blue-marlin-makaira Testimony%20WOW%20Ov%20Hrg%2005.01.19.pdf South Atlantic FMC. 1988. Atlantic Billfishes Fishery Management Wagner P. 2000 July 13. Go Fish: Longliners seek answers. Plan and Regulatory Impact Review: Final Environmental Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Available at archives.starbulletin.com/ Impact Statement. Available from https://play.google.com/ 2000/07/13/news/story3.html. books/reader?id=Hzo3AQAAMAAJ&hl=en&pg=GBS. Wetherall JA. 1997. Mortality of sea turtles in the Hawai‘i State of Hawai‘i Department of Business, Economic Development longline fishery: a preliminary assessment of population impacts. & Tourism. 2019. State of Hawai‘i Data Book. Available from NMFS, NOAA, Honolulu Lab, SWFSC. SWFC Admin Rapt https://dbedt.hawaii.gov/economic/databook/ H-96-97. 52 pp. Sumailia UR, William Cheung WL. 2015 November. Boom or Bust: Wetherall JA and Yong MYY. 1983. An analysis of some factors The Future of Fish in the South China Sea. Fisheries Economic affecting the abundance of blue marlin in Hawaiian waters. Research Unit. The University of British Columbia, Canada. NMFS, NOAA, Honolulu Lab, SWFSC. SWFC Admin Rep [TBP] Talk Business & Politics. 2004 Sept 27. Hook, Line, H-83-16, 33 pp. and Thinker. Available from https://talkbusiness.net/2004/09/ Wild Oceans. n.d. Bringing Back the Big Fish. Available from hook-line-and-thinker/ http://wildoceans.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ Tuten-Puckett K, Tomokane A, Flores Borja M and Kagman Bringing-Back-the-Big-Fish.pdf Elementary School Young Writers’ Workshop. 2003. Blue Yong MYY, Wetherall JA. 1980 May. Estimates of the Catch and Marlin and other billfish: true stories, legend, original stories. Effort by Foreign Tuna Longliners and Baitboats in the Fishery Kagman Village, Saipan, CNMI: Turtle Song Productions. Conservation Zone of the Central and Western Pacific, 1965–77. [U.S. DOI and DOC] U.S. Depts of Interior (Fish and Wildlife NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFC-2. U.S. DOC, NOAA NMFS Service) and Commerce (Census Bureau). 2018. 2016 National Southwest Fisheries Center. Available from https://origin-apps- Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. pifsc.fisheries.noaa.gov/library/pubs/tech/NOAA_Tech_ Available from https://www.fws.gov/wsfrprograms/subpages/ Memo_002.pdf nationalsurvey/nat_survey2016.pdf 35 Acknowledgments

Special thanks to those who provided interviews for and/or reviews of this report: Randy Blankinship, Christofer Boggs, Paul Dalzell, Charles Daxboeck, Mark Fitchett, Asuka Ishizaki, Pierre Kleiber, Mark Mitsuyasu, Roy Morioka, Samuel Pooley, F. McGrew Rice, Kitty M. Simonds, Craig Severance, Robert Skillman, Sylvia Spalding, Eugene Tian and Jerry Wetherall. While I appreciate their expertise and advice, the final statements, opinions and findings in this report are my own.

36 C Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Tel: 808-522-8220 Fax: 808-522-8226 [email protected] www.wpcouncil.org

ISBN: 978-1-944827-55-7