The Importance of Loca0on and Timing of Fishing Effort for Bycatch Avoidance in the BSAI Non- Pollock Groundfish Trawl Fishery

Transcription

1 The Importance of Loca0on and Timing of Fishing Effort for Bycatch Avoidance in the BSAI Non- Pollock Groundfish Trawl Fishery Joshua Abbo* Arizona State University Alan Haynie NOAA Fisheries AFSC Ma*hew Reimer University of Alaska, Anchorage Funded by NOAA FishSET: SpaJal Fisheries Economic Toolbox Award # NA10NMF

2 How? A story of muljple margins These margins have all been validated by interviews with captains 1. Large scale choice of fishing ground The choice of sock drawer 2. ReacJve spajal avoidance 3. ReducJons in night fishing

3 Margin 1: ProacJve large- scale spajal avoidance

4 Large scale spajal avoidance: Jan - Apr -

5 = Large scale spajal avoidance: Jan - Apr

6 Large scale spajal avoidance: May - Aug

7 Large scale spajal avoidance: Sep - Dec No discernable large scale pa*ern of avoidance Consistent with a late- season relaxajon of avoidance efforts a^er uncertainty over mulj- species quota scarcity is resolved

8

9 Margin 2: ReacJve spajal avoidance

10 SelecJvity Margin 2: ReacJve spajal avoidance Halibut bycatch is driven by extreme hot spot events 10% of hauls account for ~55% of total halibut bycatch Avoiding even a few such hot spot events could significantly reduce the average halibut/target rajo QuesJons Can relajvely small movements away from hot spots reduce halibut bycatch? Did coop members engage in such avoidance behavior more than their non- coop compejtors?

11 Does moving help?

12 Does moving help? We regress change in halibut as a share of total catch (STC) on Dummy variables for different movement thresholds (base<1nm) Full suite of vessel, spajal (STAT6) and month fixed effects (dummy variables) Samples restricted to hauls with 2-5%, 5-10% and >10% halibut in previous haul

13 Halibut as share of total catch

14 Did coop members move in reacjon to high halibut bycatch events more than their common pool compejtors?

15

16 Coop members

17 Common- pool members

18 Margin 3: Reduced night fishing

19 SelecJvity Margin 3: Reduced night fishing Species exhibit different pa*erns of behavior (foraging, gear avoidance, etc.) based on the Jme of day Interviews with skippers suggest Vessels are shi^ing processing acjvijes and travel to nighlme hours This is o^en a bycatch avoidance mechanism We want to know What is the effect on catch composijon (including bycatch) of fishing at night? How much effort shi^ed away from nighlme hours?

20 How did night fishing behavior change?

21

22

23 How does night fishing affect catch composijon?

24 Catch rates: night & day Factors that alter catch rates aren t randomly assigned over night and day Our approach compares haul- level catch rates for individual vessels using variajon within narrow regions of Jme and space for a given vessel FEs defined by intersecjon of day, vessel, and spajal zone

25 incidence rate = exp( ) Night Jme YFS per halibut - =. 899/1.604=0.56 of dayjme rate!

26 Caveats

27 The takeaway

28 1. IncenJves ma*er! Bycatch is essenjally an input to the producjon of target fish Market prices communicate the scarcity of many fishing inputs (i.e. fuel) and shape behavior accordingly In the absence of prices, management insjtujons rajon bycatch But the implied shadow prices may fall well short of desired levels If fishermen can subsjtute between target and bycatch species then muljspecies ITQs make sense

29 2. SelecJvity is (parjally) behavioral Fishing is a process of (non- random) sampling CondiJoned on gear, abundance, etc. Management and economic condijons shape the sampling scheme The realized selecjvity of a gear in the field is shaped by the totality of these incenjves Poten0al Catch Composi0on Actual Catch Composi0on Management Ins0tu0ons

30 3. Expect latent flexibility The margins used to enhance selecjvity were known well before Amendment 80 (Abbo* & Wilen 2010, 2011) They were mostly short run in nature and didn t require fundamental changes to gear But fishermen had weak incenjves to adopt them unilaterally Nature and technology must cooperate, BUT Poor incenjves likely bias our percepjons of gear selecjvity

31 Acknowledgments Jason Anderson (ASC), John Gauvin, Bill Orr, Dave Wood, Robert Hezel Ron Felthoven, Steve Kasperski, Jim Wilen

32 Thanks!