ANNEX 3 



Opening Address 



by 



Philip M. Roedel 



Director, National Marine Fisheries Service 



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 



U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 



Mr. Chairman, Mayor Kimura, distinguished guests, participants in the 

 First International Billfish Symposium. It is a great pleasure to be with you 

 today, for the opening of what I am sure will be a most eventful Symposium. 



I want first to bring you greetings from the Administrator of the National 

 Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Dr. Robert M. White, who asked 

 that I extend his best wishes to all of you. 



This is a particularly happy occasion for me. I have many pleasant 

 memories of Hawaii, extending back to the Pacific Tuna Biology Conference 

 held in Honolulu in 1961 and including the Hawaii Governor's Conference on 

 Central Pacific Fishery Resources in Hilo in 1966 in which, I recall, Mayor 

 Kimura participated. There have been others as well, but these two meetings 

 illustrate the importance attached to fishery resources both by officials of the 

 State of Hawaii and by the Federal Government. The Symposium we are 

 opening today is, I believe, a worthy successor to its forerunners. 



This is the first scientific Symposium sponsored by the National Marine 

 Fisheries Service since its founding nearly 2 yr ago. I think it is especially ap- 

 propriate that the subject is a group of fishes of primary concern in the 

 United States to sport fishermen. I say this because of the origin of NMFS, 

 which was formed in 1970 as a component of the National Oceanic and At- 

 mospheric Administration (pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970, 84 

 Stat. 2090). The constituent parts of the new service came primarily from the 

 former Bureau of Commercial Fisheries in the Department of the Interior. 

 The service also includes, however, the migratory marine game fish program 

 of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, and this gives the new 

 organization a far different role from that of its chief predecessor. The Sym- 

 posium helps emphasize this: The concern of NMFS for the resource as a 

 whole, and its responsibility to all user groups, be they sportsmen, commer- 

 cial fishermen, or someone else. 



The idea of an International Billfish Symposium actually dates back to the 

 late 1960's when Richard Shomura was stationed at our Honolulu 

 Laboratory. He maintained his interest when he transferred to the mainland 

 in 1970, and he organized a workshop on billfishes which was held at the 

 Tiburon (California) Fisheries Laboratory in 1971. Final plans for the Sym- 

 posium were developed at that workshop. 



The Symposium agenda is comprehensive and substantive, and I want to 

 congratulate Mr. Shomura, who served as Chairman of the Organization 

 Committee, and the other committee members, Messrs. Iversen, Squire, 

 and Williams, for a job well done. 



I want at the same time to express my appreciation to the cosponsors (the 

 County of Hawaii, the Hawaiian International Billfish Tournament, and the 

 State of Hawaii) for all they have done to make this event possible, and to the 

 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations for its support. 



Why a symposium? There are two primary reasons. First, billfish research 

 in most parts of the world is a by-product of other activities primarily in areas 

 where there is an active tuna research program. Scientific study of the 

 billfishes has thus been relatively limited. Most of what we know about the 

 size and distribution of stocks, and effects of fishing upon them must be in- 

 ferred from catch statistics from the fishing nations, primarily Japan. 



Because of this generally secondary role, communication among scientists 

 on a worldwide basis has been something less than adequate. This Sym- 

 posium is a step in the right direction toward meeting what we regard as an 

 urgent need for scientists to exchange ideas and viewpoints. Second, and of 

 equal importance, the Symposium will permit interaction, also on a 

 worldwide basis, between scientists and sport Fishermen with respect to a 

 major high-seas fishery, something that appears to be both unique and long 

 overdue. 



Let me turn now to the fishery. While man has harvested billfish since 

 before recorded history and has taken them recreationally for many decades, 

 the total catch has been relatively small until fairly recently. 



We have, since World War n. seen a marked expansion of longline fishing 

 for hitherto relatively unexploited high-seas stocks. Before that time, billfish 

 had been harvested lightly, primarily because they are nonschooling species 

 scattered over wide areas, and hence were not taken efficiently before the ad- 

 vent of longline gear. 



The most recent statistics published by the Food and Agriculture 

 Organization of the United Nations show that the global commercial catch in 

 1970 was about 101 thousand metric tons (Table 1). Of this, about 70 thou- 

 sand were taken in the Pacific Ocean, 20 thousand in the Atlantic Ocean, and 

 10 thousand in the Indian Ocean. While some 20 nations reported billfish 

 catches in 1970, Japan continued to dominate with some two-thirds (67 thou- 

 sand metric tons) of the total. Taiwan ranked second, with over 15 thousand. 

 Canada, in third place, took under 5 thousand. The United States was 



eighth, with about 700 metric tons. The U.S. commercial fishery is relatively 

 insignificant; it is sport fishing that is the critical item in this country. The 

 total sport fishing catch is unknown, but it unquestionably adds considerably 

 to the total harvest. 



Sport fishing for billfishes takes place in many parts of the world: East 

 Africa, Australia, American Samoa, Hawaii, California, the Pacific Ocean 

 waters of Mexico, the Gulf of Mexico, and several areas in the Atlantic 

 Ocean. Commercial fishing is even more widespread but it is basically a high- 

 seas fishery. The sportsmen generally operate much closer to shore. This is 

 not to say there is not or has not been conflict for there has, particularly off 

 the west coast of Mexico and in the Gulf of Mexico, where the longline fishery 

 did intrude into some prime big-game fishing grounds. The big-game anglers 

 watched this incursion and noted the reports of increased catches of 

 billfishes. They understandably became alarmed for the future of their sport, 

 and indeed for the future of the resource itself. 



What about economics? Hawaii offers a good example of the relative 

 magnitude of sport versus commercial fishing for billfishes in the United 

 States. In 1968 some 35 charter boats earned an estimated $700,000 in charter 

 fees. The commercial value of billfishes landed by the small longline fleet 

 operating in Hawaii that year was about $225,000. In 1970, the value of com- 

 mercial landings of billfishes was about $290,000, but in 1971 it fell to less 

 than $150,000. In 1971, the charter boats numbered about 48, and the earn- 

 ings from sport fishing for billfishes were about $1.3 million. Obviously in 

 Hawaii, revenue from recreational fishing for billfishes far exceeds the 

 economic gains from conventional commercial fishing enterprises. Similar 

 circumstances likely prevail elsewhere. (The marinas and vessels supporting 

 a charter fishery are also commercial enterprises, but they are not identified 

 as commercial fishing enterprises in the usual sense of that term.) 



We are thus dealing with a group of oceanic fishes prized equally by 

 sportsmen and by commercial fishermen. They comprise a resource of un- 

 known size, but the rapid growth of the global fishery in itself is enough to 

 give us cause for concern. Through this Symposium, we hope to get a better 

 fix on the present state of knowledge and where we should devote our major 

 efforts in the next few years, if we are to understand the dynamics of these 

 several species. 



Assuming we have or can soon attain sufficient knowledge of the status of 

 the stocks to permit rational recommendations for management, what then? 

 If analyses of available data indicate a need for reduction in fishing effort on 

 some or all of the stocks, how does one proceed? We are faced with the need to 

 understand some extremely complex biological systems, and with the equally 

 difficult matter of solving political and social problems of allocation among 

 nations and among user groups within nations. Except in the Atlantic Ocean, 

 where billfishes are included in the frame of reference of the International 

 Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), no mechanism 

 for international action exists. 



There is, of course, a Law of the Sea Conference (LOS) scheduled for 

 Geneva in 1973. A number of preliminary meetings have been held, and as a 

 matter of fact, a preparatory meeting is now taking place there with strong 

 representation by knowledgeable fisheries people. On the U.S. side, industry 



Table 1.— World catch of billfishes by waters, 1970. 



Indian 

 Species Pacific Atlantic Ocean Total 





Sailfish 



9.1 



1.0 1.1 



11.2 



Blue marlin ~\ 

 Black marlin ) 









18.8 



3.0 4.1 



25.9 









Striped marlin 



22.1 



3.1 



25.2 



White marlin 







1.0 



1.0 



swordfish 



20.4 



15.7 2.2 



38.3 



Total 



Tn.4 



20.7 10.5 



101.6 



Source: FAO Fisheries Yearbook 1970 



24 



