ACS Public Policies

INTRODUCTION

This policy proposal addresses the coastal commercial gill net fisheries operated in United States waters under permits issued by state wildlife agencies, and include nearshore set gill nets, and trammel nets. This proposal does not include the North Pacific drift gill net fishery, or fisheries utilizing "cod traps", weirs, round haul gear, trawl gear, or cast nets.

DEFINITIONS

Coastal commercial, gill nets are classified into 3 general categories:

1. Nearshore set nets
2. Offshore drift nets
3. Trammel nets

Nearshore set nets are used in shallow water and are anchored to the ocean bottom at each end. The net is usually set one day and retrieved the next. Primary target species are white sea bass, halibut, and angel shark.

Offshore drift nets are used in deeper waters ranging from 25-150 miles offshore. One end of the net is anchored to the fishing vessel, and the other end is attached to a buoy with an attached radar reflector. These nets are set at dusk and retrieved at dawn. The primary target species are various marketable sharks, and swordfish.

Trammel nets are a variation on the basic gill net design. They are composed of a series of mesh panels (usually 3) placed immediately behind one another. The inner mesh is usually larger in diameter, and the two outer panels are normally of smaller mesh. In general, trammel nets are not as widely used as standard set gill nets. However, many set nets are legally considered trammel nets due to their construction. The webbing may be "suspendered", thereby creating slack in the webbing.

Monofilament and multifilament are the two types of webbing that are most commonly used to construct entangling nets. Monofilament is a single strand of nylon, and multifilament is composed of many small strands of nylon twisted together to form twine.

BACKGROUND OF PROBLEM

The gill net issue is, and will continue to be, an emotional one. This problem is not a black and white issue, but a very complex one that is composed of serious environmental, economic, and social concerns. Any proposed solution must consider all facets of the issue, and their significance to our society as a whole.

Coastal commercial gill nets have been in use for many years. However, it has been only within the last 15-20 years that they have become one of the most popular methods among commercial fishermen. Today the gill net industry supplies approximately 70% to 80% of the fish products sold in U.S. markets. The bulk of this market fish is caught in the drift net fishery. While this industry is responsible for many millions of dollars in revenue each year, the individual fishermen receives a very small proportion of this revenue. The coastal gill net fishery is primarily composed of family owned businesses that operate on a small scale.

During last year's fishing season there were approximately 1,100 gill and trammel net permits in force in California. Currently, there are approximately 900 permits that have been issued. Of these 900 permits, there are only about 500-600 permits that are considered "active". The term active is applied to year-round permanent fishermen (Don Schultze, CDF&G pers.comm.). A moratorium on the issue of any new gill net permits is currently in place in California. This figure does not accurately reflect the number of nets in the water; a fisherman may operate more than one net under a single permit.

The introduction of monofilament material was a major influence on the dramatic increase in the use of gill nets. Suddenly, gill nets were much easier to manage for the fishermen, much less expensive than old style nets made of twine, and fishermen were now able to easily carry several nets on board a small boat due to the decreased weight and bulk of the nets. In addition, monofilament nets are considerably less expensive to maintain than the old style twine material. Due to the smaller cost, monofilament nets can be used until they are worn out, or no longer effective, and then discarded. Twine nets had to be repaired, which required time and expertise that many contemporary gill net fishermen lack.

There is a dramatic difference in operational costs to fishermen between the set net and drift net fisheries. In southern California, a set of drift net gear ranges in cost from $10,000 to $40,000, while replacement costs to set net fishermen may be less than $500 to $700. This compounds the problem of applying blanket restrictions to both fisheries. In most cases, an immediate loss of the ability to continue using the gear would not be possible for drift net fishermen, but would have less of an effect on set net fishermen. Many of these fishermen, primarily in the drift net fishery, have their life savings tied up in their vessels and gear.

The gill net industry is quite heavily regulated in most states.There are numerous time and area closures, as well as net length, and mesh restrictions. However, in some fisheries such as the Pacific angel shark fishery, the soupfin shark fishery, and the white croaker fishery, there are no regulations governing the fishermen (Collins et al, 1986). This year, there have been two new pieces of legislation that call for additional time and area closures in California. On April 1, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDF&G) instituted a ban on gill nets in waters less than 20 fathoms in the area from the Mendocino County line to the San Mateo County line, and restrictions to 40 fathoms were introduced from Pt. Reyes to the Duxbury buoy in Marin County. These restrictions were established for a 120 day period. Recently, California Senate Bill 40, which makes these restrictions permanent and introduces an additional closure out to 40 fathoms from Pt. Reyes to the Oregon border, was signed into law. These closures were in response to the increased entanglements of sea otters, and harbor porpoises in shallow waters. In addition, the bill provides for the issue of 7 additional experimental gear permits, and allocates $100,000 toward alternative gear research.

California Assembly Bill 1094, which closes the major promontories south of, and including, Pt. Conception to halibut gill nets from December 15 to April 15, was also recently passed. This bill was introduced with the intent of limiting entanglements of migrating gray whales, and was initiated by the Southern California gill net industry. The bill also provides for mandatory specific modifications of halibut nets designed to allow whales to more easily break free from the net.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

The advent of monofilament webbing not only made fishing easier for the industry, it also created long lasting problems with nets that are lost or discarded by fishermen. Monofilament material is non-biodegradable, and a lost or discarded net will continue to fish for a very, very long time. The longer the net is on the bottom, or floating, the more animals it entangles. As the net entangles animals, even more animals such as scavengers are attracted and entangled. The result is a self-perpetuating death trap.

NON-TARGET SPECIES INCIDENTAL CATCH

Gill nets are, by design, a non-selective fishing technique. The net will entangle anything that it comes in contact with that is equal to, or larger than, the mesh size. There has been growing concern over the ecological damage this non-selective technique causes in the marine environment. There are also very little data to support this hypothesis. However, the amount of incriminating data is growing each year. Some of the observations done to date are included below. Although the included data focus primarily on work done in California, similar studies with similar results have been done in other areas of the country.

Observations of the monofilament gill net halibut fishery in Monterey Bay, California exhibit the non-selective nature of gill nets. Keating (1986) recorded catches of the halibut and white croaker fisheries in this area. Results indicate that the halibut fishery is much more non-selective than the white croaker fishery. This study concluded that as mesh size increases, non-target species catch also increases. The halibut fishery had a target species catch of 11.2%, and a discard rate of 67.8%. The discard rate is the numerical volume of the total catch that is not kept by the fishermen, and is returned to the water. In contrast, the croaker fishery was more effective as capturing the target species, which constituted 60% of the total catch. Although the target species efficiency was considerably higher in the croaker fishery, there was still a 40% non-target species catch. The dominant species caught in the halibut fishery were various seabirds at a rate of 16 birds per net.

Wild (unpub. manuscript) monitored the gill net trammel net fishery in Sonoma and San Mateo Counties, CA. during the 1983 season. A total of 46 monofilament nets were observed, and catch rates of 7.7 halibut per net,

15.2 seabirds per net, and 0.13 marine mammals per net were reported. In comparison, the Monterey Bay catch rates were 9.1 halibut per net, 15.7 seabirds per net, and 0.2 marine mammals per net.

Gill and trammel nets were also monitored in the vicinity of Morro Bay, Ca. during 1983 and 1984, and also demonstrated the non-selectivity of the gill net fishery (Bishop, 1985). Eighty-six percent of the nets observed in this study operated in water less than 15 fathoms deep. Non-marketable species accounted for 72% of the total catch. The study also indicated that most catches of marine mammals are not documented by strandings. A total of 56 marine mammal mortalities were observed. Species included were sea otters (5), harbor seals (16), harbor porpoise (6), California sea lion (28), and one unidentified seal. Fifteen of these mortalities were tagged and released at sea, and according to NMFFS and USFWS data, none were recorded as strandings.

The CDF&G documented nearshore gill net catch compositions of the halibut, white seabass, Pacific angel shark, soupfin shark, yellowtail, white croaker, perch and other associated kelp fisheries during 1985, Collins et al, 1986). A compilation of all fisheries catch rates is included in this proposal, labeled as Table 5. These data again support the non-selective nature of the gill net fishery. This is an incredible list of wasted animals. These data include figures that reflect in many cases a significant number of animals that were released alive. In my experience observing gill nets, and from personal communication with individuals in the fishing industry, this is not a common practice, especially with sharks, It is more common for fishermen to kill many live animals to ease removal from their net. It is my belief that these data are not representative of normal fishing operations.

In comparison, there is very little data concerning the drift net fishery at this time. The CDF&G reported drift net observations made between May 1984, and January 1985 (Hanan, 1986). Incidental catches are included in Table 3, and marine mammal catches are included in Table 4. In addition to recording catches, net lengths and mesh sizes of observed nets were documented. The results show that "the drift gill net fleet appears to be changing rapidly. Longer nets are being used, with over 60% of the observed nets longer than 900 fathoms in 1984 and only 38% longer than 900 fathoms in 1983. Mesh sizes are also increasing (there is no mesh size restriction in the drift net fishery), with a 1984 observed range of mesh sizes of 14-22 inches, averaging 17 inches, and a 1983 observed range of 10-19 inches, averaging 16 inches. Obviously, the more net that is in the water the greater the total catch, and therefore the non-target species catch, will be. Between 600 and 1200 California sea lions were estimated killed in the drift net fishery during September 1980-September 1981 in California (Miller et al 1983). This estimate may not reflect the actual numbers of sea lions taken due to biases in observation methodology, and the small sample sizes used in the study. The CDF&G has the authority to board fishing vessels unannounced, but does not in an attempt to maintain the cooperation of the fishermen. Dates and times that observers will board are prearranged with the fishermen. This procedure allows the fishermen the opportunity to schedule their fishing locations in areas where, from experience, they know that they will catch the smallest numbers of marine mammals. The CDF&G also inspects log books of fishermen. However, it is likely that these records do not reflect all catches of marine mammals at times when CDF&G observers are not on board.

The CDF&G reports an estimated statewide mortality, in all fisheries, of 2200 California sea lions, and 1900 harbor seals during the 1985-1986 fishing season (CDF&G, 1987). The status of the harbor seal population is uncertain at this time. Results of the 1985 statewide census document 57% of the statewide population occurring north of San Francisco, which coincides with previous year's results. However, the population inhabiting waters around the Channel Islands continues its decline noticed since 1982 (Hanan, 1986). No data was included in the report concerning the number of mortalities in the area of the Channel Islands, but given the declining population in this area, continued gill net mortalities will very likely affect the population around the Channel Islands.

Northern fur seals are also taken in gill nets in the north Pacific. I have been unable to obtain estimates of the number of mortalities, but the animals are observed frequently enough in gill nets to warrant concern. The northern fur seal population has been declining for the past few years, and reasons for this are unknown at this time (NMFS, pers comm.).

During the 1986-1987 migration season of gray whales, 15 animals were observed entangled in gill nets in Los Angeles and Orange Counties, California. Four of these resulted in mortalities observed to be stranded on beaches in the two counties. This represents a large increase in the numbers of gray whales entangled over previous years. This is primarily due to a shift in the fishing effort. The traditional halibut grounds in the Southern California Bight are located in an area known as "Huntington Flats" off of Orange County. During the 1986-1987 fishing season, the fishing effort was shifted from this area to major promontories off Southern California and the result was an increased number of entangled gray whales. It has been noted that the data collected by CDF&G does not entirely correspond with data from strandings in Southern California (Heyning & Lewis, in prep.). The diversity of species taken is greater in the stranding data than the CDF&G data. The CDF&G data does not reflect the takes of gray whales, and several species taken are unknown population sizes. The most frequently taken marine mammal species has been common dolphins.

The primary problems of declining marine mammal populations are limited to the harbor porpoise, sea otter, and possibly harbor seal. Harbor porpoise have been taken in considerable numbers in central and northern California. Approximately 300 animals are taken annually in the gill net fishery (Szczepaniak & Webber, 1985). There have been very few reliable population estimates of harbor porpoise world wide. The most widely used estimate in northern California is approximately 3,000 animals present in autumn, 2,000 in spring, 1,900 in winter, and 1,600 in summer. Nearly two-thirds of these animals are found north of Pt. Arena (Dohl et al i983). Using this population estimate, it is possible that 10% of the harbor porpoise population is taken in gill nets each year. This has been of great concern to government agencies, and closures have been instituted to attempt to alleviate the problem. However, it is still unknown if these measures will be effective in reducing the take of harbor porpoise. The situation is very similar with sea otters in central California. Closures have been established, but results are uncertain.

BIASES IN OBSERVATIONAL DATA

The observation effort in both the set net and drift net fisheries has not been sufficient to accurately assess the incidental catch problem. Data to present indicates a serious problem. However, the problem may be much worse than the data indicates; the observations made by the CDF&G may contain several biases. Fishermen are required by law to allow announced or unannounced observations of their net pulls. However, the unannounced observers rarely board vessels. This is an attempt by the CDF&G to maintain the cooperation of the fishermen. Observers are allowed at the fishermen's discretion, sometimes resulting in biased data. Some fishermen probably only agree to permit on-board observers when they fish areas that, from experience, insure low marine mammal takes. Others refuse to allow observers at any time.

The sampling effort does not cover many areas that may result in significant marine mammal catches. There has been little or no effort in the waters surrounding San Nicolas Island, Santa Barbara Island, San Clemente Island, and San Miguel Island.

Stranding records also underestimate the total marine mammal take, due to the high probability that the majority of entangled marine mammals never wash up on beaches.

In the past, government agencies have only used incidental catches of marine mammals to assess the problem with non-target species takes in the gill net industry. Data available to date indicates that from a population standpoint, with the exceptions stated above, marine mammals are not the most serious concern. The widespread non-target catch of fishes, invertebrates, and seabirds should be a major factor in evaluating the ecological damage caused by gill nets.

ALTERNATIVE GEAR

It is clear that gill nets cannot continue to be used by the fishing industry, or there will soon be dramatic changes in the marine environment. The Marine Mammal Commission sponsored a workshop in 1986 that I attended on behalf of ACS. The workshop was designed to investigate the problems with incidental takes of marine mammals, and to propose solutions to these problems. The workshop was organized into several working groups, each dealing with a specific area of concern. The working group I attended investigated the possibilities of alternative gear types and methods that could be implemented in place of gill nets. The working group came up with 2 high priority gear types. The highest priority was given to a gear type called a Danish or Scottish seine, which is in use in the Eastern North Atlantic to catch sole and other flatfish. It is similar to a combination of purse seine and gill net. The advantages of this gear are that it can be worked from a small boat similar to boats already using gill nets, there would be minimal modifications necessary to convert a gill net boat to the new gear, the net can be worked in a small confined area such as a small sand patch in between reefs, and the gear is tended by the fisherman. This last advantage is very important in decreasing incidental catches of not only marine mammals, but also other non-target species. Gill nets are generally left in the water for at least a 12 hour period. There is a definite correlation between the number of non-target species caught and the "soak time". The soak time is the amount of time the net is actually in the water; the greater the soak time, the greater the non-target catch. The gear also brings up fish and non-target animals alive. Therefore, the non-target mortality rate is reduced, and the value of the catch at market to the fishermen is increased. There are also disadvantages to this gear type. The gear is more expensive to purchase than a standard set gill net, costing about $15,000-$25,000. It is also uncertain if the gear can be retrieved fast enough to catch halibut. One fisherman who attended the workshop had used the seine, and said that it could be done; however, it took him over 6 months to learn how to use the gear well enough to make a living.

The other gear type studied is called a pair seine or pair trawl, and is actually a combination of a trawl net and a purse seine. It requires 2 boats to work the gear, which pull the net through the water. The only problem that could be seen with this gear is that 2 skippers would have to work together, and one would have to be in charge. The fishermen attending thought this could be a problem. Currently, the Vietnamese fishery in central California is trying this method, and apparently having some success.

Some fishermen favor returning to the use of twine material in gill nets, claiming that the incidental take of marine mammals is less with this type of net, and the twine nets require expertise to repair that many fishermen lack. Theoretically, this would automatically restrict and limit the fishery. An additional advantage to twine is the return to biodegradable material, limiting the potential destructive nature of lost nets.

PROPOSED POLICY

Data collected to date indicate that gill nets are highly nonselective, and cause a great deal of ecological damage to the marine environment. It is my opinion that unless a program is begun to eliminate gill nets as a commercial fishing technique within the next 5-10 years, we will begin to see dramatic, and possibly irreparable, changes in the marine environment.

During 1987 an effort to place a bill before the California State Legislature which would have placed a ban on all gill and trammel nets from shore out to 75 miles was unsuccessful. Subsequently, the same sportfishing interest that proposed the 75 mile ban is now proposing a 3 mile ban along the entire California coast and all islands. I was, and remain, opposed to legislation of this type. While the goal is identical with mine, the methods used to achieve that goal are drastically different. A complete and immediate ban does not take into account the ramifications of an action of this type on the remainder of our society, nor does it take into account the position of the fishermen. It is my belief that gill nets must be eliminated, but the solution must be one that is workable within the parameters of our society. A complete and immediate ban would bring the bulk of the fishing industry to an abrupt halt, which would have tremendous ripple effects throughout numerous industries, and could cause serious problems in many areas of our economy. Neither is this approach politically feasible. It is highly unlikely that any politician will back a piece of legislation that will put numerous fishermen out of work, and have dramatic economic effects on our society.

I am proposing that ACS adopt a policy that includes:

1. A gradual elimination of coastal commercial gill nets over a 5 year period to allow fishermen time to switch to an alternative gear type.
2. Urging state and federal governments to subsidize with low-interest loans those fishermen who switch to alternative gear types so that they can purchase new gear and learn to operate it well enough to earn a living. We should also encourage language that would prohibit fishermen from taking advantage of the program while under these subsidies.
3. Encouraging the fishing industry to develop alternative fishing methods and gear types.
4. Encouraging state and federal governments to increase funding to state and federal wildlife agencies for the purpose of increasing the number of observers on board commercial gill net vessels.
5. Adoption of a moratorium on fines levied for incidental takes of marine mammals, in conjunction with increased observer effort, during this 5 year elimination period.
6. Encouraging continued closures of known high incidental catch rates of marine mammals, especially those populations to which a threat is suspected, during the 5 year period.

REFERENCES CITED

• Bishop, James B. 1985. Summary Report Of Gill and Trammel Net (Set-Net) Observations In The Vicinity Of Morro Bay, California. U.S. Marine Mammal Commission.
• California Department of Fish and Game. 1987. Monthly Report. Marine Resources Div. June 1987.
• Collins, Robson A., Marija M. Vojkovich, Rhonda J. Reed, and Kathryn A. Heib. 1986. Progress Report, Southern California Nearshore Gill And Trammel Net Study, 1985. State of California Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game.
• Dohl, T. P., R. C. Guess, M. L. Duman, R. C. Helm. 1983. Cetaceans Of Central And Northern California, 1980-1983: Status, Studies, contract #14-12-0001-29090.
• Hanan, Doyle A. 1986. California Department of Fish and Game, Coastal Marine Mammal Study, Annual Report For The Period July, 1984-June 30, 1985. NMFS-SWFC Admin. Report No. LJ-86-25C.
• Heyning, J. E. and T. D. Lewis. (in prep.). 1987. Gill Net Entanglements of Cetaceans In Los Angeles And Orange Counties, California. Presented to the Southern California Academy of Sciences Annual Meeting, 1987.
• Keating, Thomas M. 1986. Catch Composition Of Two Monofilament Gill Net Fisheries In Monterey Bay, California. San Francisco State Univ. Masters Thesis.
• Miller, D. J., M. J. Herder, and J. P. Scholl. 1983. California Marine Mammal Fishery Interaction Study, 1979-1981. NMFS SWFC Admin. Report No. LJ-83-13C.
• Szczepaniak, I. D. and M. A. Webber. 1985. Status of The Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) In The Eastern North Pacific With An Emphasis On California. Cal. Acad. Sciences.
• Wild, Paul W. 1983. Summary Of Gill And Trammel Net Fishing Observations Within California Fish And Game (District 10 Sonoma-Mendocino County Line to Pedgeon Point, San Mateo County). Cal. Dept. of Fish & Game, Marine Resources Branch, Monterey, CA.