The Spot Prawn Fishery: A Status Report - Earth Economics

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Spot Prawn Fishery: A Status Report Management Options — Commercial Fishery Discussions concerning the future management direction of the spot prawn trap fishery have covered further input controls; e.g., trap reductions, trap quota transfers, rotational fisheries, as well as output controls like individual quota systems. The Prawn Sectoral Committee (advisory committee to Fisheries and Oceans elected by six licenseholder organizations) prepared a report in 1999 discussing the various management options available. The industry agrees that conservation limits should continue to be set through the spawner index and measures taken to control the expansion of fishing effort. There is, however, no agreement on how this objective is best achieved. Some fishers want to retain a competitive fishery, others want to see the introduction of a quota management system (Boutillier and Bond 1999b). Fisheries and Oceans is considering expanding the extent of spawner index sampling so that data can be collected when the fishery is closed. These additional data would allow a better determination of the egg incubation period and ensure that mortality rates coincide with those deemed sustainable by the spawner index model. A 25% higher spawner index will be used in determining closures in Howe Sound and other areas with high concentrations of recreational effort. A slightly higher spawner index will also be applied coastwide in determining in-season closures. Research by Boutillier and Bond (1999b) suggests that a higher index may result in increased production and, therefore, enhanced harvests. (See “Spawner Index System” box for a more detailed discussion of this.) Beginning with the 2001 fishery, fishers and license-holder representatives will have the opportunity to develop the prawn commercial harvest plan. Issues to be addressed include conservation requirements, First Nations’ access to the fishery, enforceability issues, funding management, and stakeholder buy-in and participation in management. Management Options — Recreational Fishery The recreational fishery has grown exponentially in recent years. In some areas, particularly near cities, recreational effort is probably greater than commercial. Fisheries and Oceans say that “with this kind of effort severe overfishing can occur and a management strategy needs to be implemented to address the issue of the sport fishery’s impact on conservation” (Fisheries and Oceans 1999a). The lack of information regarding total effort and catch is one of the most critical issues facing the recreational component of the fishery. Additional problems include: •trap identification regulations •ability to accurately assess catch limits in the field •lack of minimum mesh size regulations •lack of a minimum size limit for catch •lack of seasonal closures to protect eggbearing females •lack of spawner index monitoring when the commercial fishery is closed The Groundfish and Shellfish Subcommittee of the Sports Advisory Board has recommended changes in the management of the recreational fishery that would effectively address these issues. These recommendations include improved trap identification, limits on the number of traps that can be set per bottom line, and changing catch limits to a piece rather than weight basis. Regulatory changes reflecting these suggestions are in progress. A recently revised recreational advisory document encourages the use of larger mesh on traps, a reduction of trap limits in conservation areas, the release of egg-bearing females, and conservation-oriented gear-deployment practices. Spawner index surveys (fall and winter) in areas with high levels of recreational activity are being discussed. Decisions need to be made regarding appropriate actions if surveys find that index levels are approaching conservation targets. Fisheries and Oceans presently is in the process of putting together a vessel-based monitoring system for the recreational fishery (Boutillier, Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Pers. comm., October 2001). Funding Management in 2001 and Beyond License-holders began paying fees for management in 1995. Originally this fee was set at C$1,170/ license (±US$820) and was paid in addition to the license fee. Management fees were increased to C$1,470 (±US$1030) per year in 1998 and were estimated to pay over 70% of management costs. In 2000, commercial license-holders paid a C$320 (±US$225) license fee and the C$1,470 (±US$1030) management fee. The management fee agreement expired 31 March 2001. It will not be renewed. The decision not to renew management fees was based on a Depart- 23
The Spot Prawn Fishery: A Status Report ment policy that states that only license fees for access should be regulated. Fees for additional management services will be provided voluntarily by fishers through Joint Project Agreements between representative industry associations and the Department (Boutillier, Fisheries and Ocean Canada. Pers. comm., June 2001). Commercial fishers will pay a C$320 (±US$225) license fee for the 2001 fishery. As a pre-condition of license, the fisher will be responsible for securing third-party services to provide trap tags, inseason hail services, on-board gear inspections, and biological sampling. The cost is estimated at C$1,700–2,000 (±US$1,200–1,400) per vessel, depending on whether the vessel is on a singleor double-license status. Only vessels active in the fishery must make arrangements for these services. Fisheries and Oceans will be seeking funding from the industry for stock assessment and additional management activities. Bootleggers, Poaching, and Illegal Prawn Sales The purchase of out-of season fresh prawns in bars and restaurants is well known. The illegal sale of prawns is a big concern in British Columbia, despite the fact that the value of spot prawns is higher in the export market than in the illegal market, and the fact that the majority (95%) of spot prawn product is legally caught and adequately reported. Poaching is a conservation concern, particularly where it is concentrated in areas that are closed for ecological or conservation reasons. Illegal activity of this nature is difficult to quantify, let alone investigate and prosecute. The Department believes that bootleggers—individuals who catch prawns using a recreational license, then sell the catch privately—are largely those responsible for the illegal supply of spot prawns. WASHINGTON SPOT PRAWN FISHERY Biological Status of the Spot Prawn There has been virtually no ecological research on the spot prawn in Washington. Information regarding the biological status of spot prawns, and of Washington pandalid shrimp stocks in general, is limited (Therese Cain, WDFW. Pers. comm., March 2001). Spot prawns are found in Washington’s offshore (coastal) and inshore (Puget Sound and Northern Straits of San Juan de Fuca) waters. Much of the portion of Puget Sound that is between 40 and 50 fathoms (240–300 feet) deep is believed to support spot prawn populations (Mark O’Toole, WDFW. Pers. comm., June 2001). It is likely that spot prawn life-history characteristics vary depending on whether the population is in enclosed waters, such as Puget Sound, or open waters, such as the Washington coast. Both inshore and offshore distribution is believed to be patchy. Existing management systems are grounded in area-specific knowledge of historical harvests. The size, genetic structure, number and/or location of the different stocks, and the interactions between them are virtually unknown. Recruitment to the fishery is also an unknown; it is unclear whether larvae are transported from one area to another, or whether an area provides its own recruitment. It is speculated that, “given the complex current patterns and topography of the area . . . there are several genetically distinct sub-populations” (Lowry 2000). The offshore topography at spot prawn depth is complex, and the shelf break comprises several submarine canyons. These canyons tend to contain counterclockwise eddies that may serve as larval retention devices. Canyons tend to be are as of greater upwelling, and as such could provide abundant food supplies and enhanced levels of productivity (Hickey 1995, 1997; Klinck 1996). Larval retention could lead to genetically distinct populations in each of the canyons. Even if this is not the case, it is believed that certain marine areas serve as larval sources, others as sinks (Lowry, University of Washington School of Fisheries. Pers. comm., May 2001). Complex geography and currents dominate the inshore Puget Sound region and could similarly limit larval transport and constrain gene flow. The Sound forms a part of a large fiord system made up of a number of distinguishable terrestrial and marine features that effectively divide it into distinct regions. Tides, wind, and terrestrial runoff govern water transport. Inshore areas like the Whidbey Basin or Hood Canal Basin exhibit slow turnover times (Ebbesmeyer, C.C. et al. 1984). The combination of these factors may reduce passive larval transport and enhance the retention of larvae in the basins where they hatch. Gene flow between basins would be negligible under these conditions. Washington Sea Grant is currently funding a three-year program, Spot Prawn Stock Structure 24
Page 1 and 2: THE SPOT PRAWN FISHERY A STATUS REP
Page 3 and 4: THE SPOT PRAWN FISHERY: A STATUS RE
Page 5 and 6: Existing Management and Regulatory
Page 7 and 8: for marine sustainability and fishe
Page 9 and 10: The Spot Prawn Fishery: A Status Re
Page 29: The Spot Prawn Fishery: A Status Re

The Spot Prawn Fishery: A Status Report - Earth Economics

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?