1999 

 OUR LIVING OCEANS 



LIngcod. 



proximately ^4, ()()() t in 1997. Several major stocks 

 such as Dover sole, sablcfish, and widow rockfish 

 contributed to this decline (Figure 15-3) as the 

 stocks were fished down and year classes entering 

 the fisheries were estimated to be at low levels 

 (PFMC, 1997).'nible 15-1 documents the recent 

 average yield (1995-97) for those species that con- 

 tributed substantially to the landings, or were iden- 

 tified with a specific landings target (acceptable 

 biological catch and/or harvest guideline) b\ the 

 PFMC. 



ISSUES AND PROGRESS 



Balancing Between Competing Users 



Management ot the Pacific coast groundfish 

 fisheries involves old and new allocation issues. 

 1 lie Pacific whiting available yield is allocated first 

 between the United States and Canada and then 

 between shoreside and at-sea deliveries within the 

 United States. The two countries have not come 

 to lull agreement on any allocation scheme. I hus, 

 the United States now sets its harvest guideline at 

 80% of the overall acceptable biological catch, and 

 Canada sets its harvest guideline such that it will 

 be 30% ol the combined harvest guidelines. Fhis 

 resulting overharvest h.is contributed to the stock's 

 decline in recent years. 



I he sablefish harvest guideline is allocated be- 

 tween a Native American fishery, an open access 

 fishery, limited entry trawl, and limited entry fixed 



gear. The allocation between limited entrv and 

 open access is by a fixed percentage lor each spe- 

 cies as established in the fisherv management plan, 

 but the level ot allocation to open access has the 

 potential to become more contentious for lingcod 

 and some rockfish. Direct allocation between rec- 

 reational and commercial fisheries has not oc- 

 curred; however, management actions on black 

 rockfish have been designed to preserve recre- 

 ational fishing opportunities for this species. Re- 

 cent lingcod management has reduced both the 

 commercial and recreational catches to achieve the 

 increasingly lower total harvest allowed. 



Indirect allocation between high capacity and 

 low capacity participants affects many manage- 

 ment issues. For Pacific whiting, the direct alloca- 

 tion between a brief at-sea fishery and a protracted 

 fisherv tor shoreside deliveries is partly a conse- 

 quence ot this issue. For fixed-gear sablefish, the 

 debate in recent years has been between an ever- 

 shortening derby-style fishery, movement to an 

 individual transferable quota fishery (which could 

 favor high capacity participants), or movement to 

 a protracted trip-limit fishery (which could favor 

 low capacity participants). For trawlers, the de- 

 cline in trip limits over the past decade has had 

 the greatest impact on the vessels that alreadv in- 

 vested in advanced harvesting capability, yet did 

 not greatly deter other vessels from increasing their 

 c.ipabilitv. 



Bycatch considerations have not much entered 

 into allocation arguments, partly because the lack 

 ot a comprehensive at-sea observet program has 

 hindered collection of data on the magnitude of 

 b\catch. For example, past arguments over trawl 

 versus fixed gear allocation ot sablefish hinged on 

 intractable questions regarding whether sablefish 

 was a target fishery for trawlers or an imavoidable 

 bycatch as they targeted other species. More re- 

 ceiitK', .in estimate ot Pacific halibut bycatch in 

 the groundfish trawl fishery has increased the po- 

 teiuial for this to become a new allocation issue. 

 Both ot these issues need better estimates ot the 

 amount of discards .xni^l the survival rate ot dis- 

 carded fish. 



180 



