CalCOFI Reports, Vol. 11, 1967 - California Cooperative Oceanic ...

6 CAIJFORNIA COOPERATITE OCESNIC FISHERIES INVESTIGATIOTiS(13) These responsibilities inclnde the study of tlie effectsof the present fishery and the inquiries essential to fnturedevelopment and iinderstnnding of other and cxtensiveresources.The .ibove are overly siniplificd statements of a part of alarge and important progrmn. We believe the results of thisprogram can be chnriwterized by stating that new and importantconcepts in the uses of our living oceanic resonrceshave been evolved. These, together with the resources atour door, hare put California ou the threshold of increasinghcr wealth, and perljaps more importantly, of assnmingworld leadership in the scientific iise of pelagic fish resources.This may, in the long run. be n far more valuableasset to Californians than the ccononiic yield of the resourcesthemselves.It TV~S on the basis of the research program describedin the above letter that we had prepared forthe Marine Research Committee, 2 years earlier, anoutline of one possible n-ay to enter this new era.This proposal mas presented to MRC in Blareh, 1964by the CalCOFI Committee which at that time wascomposed of G. I. Murphy, J. D. Isaacs, J. I;. Baxter,and E.H. hhlstroni and appears as Document XI1of the minutes of that meeting. It seems appropriateat this time to publish the proposal for all to study,evaluate, and comment upon. In the following it isquoted essentially verbatim.REQUIREMENTS FOR UNDERSTANDING THE IMPACTOF A NEW FISHERY IN THE CALIFORNIACURRENT SYSTEMOur philosophict~l guide in preparing this discnssion hasbeen simple. We hare asked ourselves, “How should afisherj- be condiicted, 2nd what investigations should beinitiated to give the public guidance of maximuni valuefrom marine science?” Ke would like to regard a newfishery on the sardine-anchovy system as n careful scientificexperiment? in which the effect of a controlled harvestof the anchovy and snrdinc poliidations is explored. We believethis is a new :uiil stimulating point of departure.While we do not propose it to ~OLI as ii necessary courseof action, we hope you will examine it thoughtfully anddecide for yoiirselves the estent to which the scientific reqiiirementsfor siich an experiment are compatible miththe broad needs of society.Background RdsumCThe resiilts of over 40 years of study, including 14 yearsof very intensive inqiiiry can be succinctly snmmarized asfollows : After many years of intensive selective fishing forsardines, the sardine popnlation declined. This decline wasaccompanied by a drnniatic npslirge of :in ecologically siini-Iar species, the anchovy. The decline of the sardine ims apimentlythe result of an intensive fishery together with aseries of years in Tvhicli the eiivironmental regime was unf:m)mbleto tlie sardine. The rise of the anchovy is apimentlythe result of a series of favorable Sears for tli:~tspecies, and nxin’s removal of sardines xvhicli created moreliving space for anrhovim The cvideiice does not allow listo :wive :it a conseiisns :IS to ~hether or not the anchoviesaggressively drove do\vn the sardine population, bot1)iologic:il interaction brtlx-een these ecologically similar slwcies is strongly inclicatcd now by the faihirc of the sardineto resiiond to a recent spectrnm of oceanographic conditionsthat should have been favorable, and conrerscly nnf;ivor.iltleto the :inchovy.Tn :ins- event results of all these stndies sho\v that thereis 110:~ :I Imgc unused popiilation of anchovies. They alsoinfer that there is a real chance that simultaneously reducingthe pressure 011 sardines and imposing pressure onanchovies will reverse the present equilibrium and assistin bringing back the more valuable sardine. This constitutesan exciting opportnnity for marine science to assistsociety in nrcetinp its coml~lcz ntwls.Requirements for the FisheryIn developing this section three factors have been paramoiunt.1. The basis for the suggested experiment while the mostcomplete ever achieved still is not precise enough to foreseeexactly how many anchovies and sardines should ultimatelybe taken. A c;weful, step\%-ise, approach such :ISv-as used in Sonth Africa is the only defensible experiment.2. There :ire time lags in the response of fish populationsto new factors. With respect to sardines and anchovies.their life histories suggest that at least 3 years wonldbe reqnired for tlie responses of the popu1:ltions to be cletectecl,even in a rcyime of favorable environments.3. There are also time lags in scientific analysis, theseare especially significant when dealing ix-ith a new problem.Thus it is necessary to carry out mcnsnrcments thatcan follow events closely, and which vi11 yield results thatars readily interpreted. With these factors in mind theaplironch helow is divided into phases. JVe believe thatthree years is a niinimiim for each lihase.Phnse 1. The objective is to initiate :I conserv;itire fisheryon :rnchovies arid rediice sardine fishing just suffieientlSto prodiicc an o1xerv:rble change in thc system, and justenorigh to improve our preliminnry appraisal of the niagnitudeof the anchovy resource. During this phase a limitof 200,000 tons should be placed on the anchovy fisheryand the sardine fishery should be limited to 10,000 tons.Thirty-five percent of both of these limits shonld be takenoff California and 65 percent off Baja Cxlifornia.1 Fromthe viewpoint of conchicting a controlled experiment, itwodd not be dcsirnble to place n complete moratoriumon s:irdines for two reusons. The fishery is a primary toolfor detecting responses in the sardine population. Werethe fishery terminated this tool would be lost, and we~vonld have to rely entirely on our surveys. Secondly,conip!ete nioratorinm would complicate the experimeiit byintrodiicing two variables at the same time. The limitsuggcsted for the sardine relieves these problems by keepingour “ivindo\v” on the sardine population open, and bgapproximnting the average rate of exploitation prevailingover the past years. If both the sardine fishery and cnin1)etitionfrom michovics are affecting the sartline l>opnlation.the chances of bringing baclr the s:irdine in the shortestpossil)le tinie can be maximized by fishiiig for anchovies andiiot fishing Cor sardines. If this is the objeclive it might bedesiyahle to ha~e n mor:itoriiim on sardine fishing. The recoiiinieiid;i~ioiisof this rc1)ori :ire b:is~d oii the viewpoint ofcondncting as careful :in esl)rriineiit :is Imssible to determinethe fact orx ;iffec.ting Imth s;trdiiic.s and nnchories.Phctse ,?. The :iinoiints to h removed dnring Phase 2and the :irenl distribntion of the limits on each speciesmust nwait the resiilts of I’hnse 1. We can hazard a guessthat tliniiip this l’hnsr thc :iiicliovy qnot;i might l ~ wisctlx:il)out 50 1)c’rcc’iit pi~~vi(liiig t1t:it the Irsiiiir of Phase 1 areiiot v%lelj- different froin our l,relinlinnry expectations.Pitrtxe 3. This cannot lie specified nt all beyond indicatingtlie nltiniate objectivc. ‘Phis is to restore the predeclineb:ilarice lwtwxii sardines and anchovics, and masimizrtlici harvests coiisistcnt \\-it11 nll nses, Le.: food, recreation,etc.C”oiv)u(wt: It is 1 ~ ond 3 oiir NCOJ)C to tlctc~rmine 1:ow siich.trni of ni:iit:i~rmrnt 01: ai! iiiterit:itional retroi,g13.tl1at conserv~l-RECENT DEVELOPMENTSThe 1964 proposal also outlined the basic programsrTThicli should be iinplemrnt,ed if a fishery were initiated.At that, time no fishery for anchovies existed,except for the limited (qlOO-6,OOO t,ons) fishery for1 At the ’21 May 1964 meeting of the LParine Research Committee,CalCOyI rbcorded the following emendation : ‘‘Our recommendationfor Phase 1 included a pro\-ision to distribute thecatch between Alta and Baja California. For the purposes ofthis pro\’ision we specify 31”s latitucle, as this is a naturaloceanographic and faunal boundary.”