National Academies Press: OpenBook

The Bering Sea Ecosystem (1996)

Chapter: 5 Human Use - Fisheries

« Previous: 4 Biology of Higher Trophic Levels
Suggested Citation:"5 Human Use - Fisheries ." National Research Council. 1996. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5039.
×
Page 156
Suggested Citation:"5 Human Use - Fisheries ." National Research Council. 1996. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5039.
×
Page 157
Suggested Citation:"5 Human Use - Fisheries ." National Research Council. 1996. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5039.
×
Page 158
Suggested Citation:"5 Human Use - Fisheries ." National Research Council. 1996. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5039.
×
Page 159
Suggested Citation:"5 Human Use - Fisheries ." National Research Council. 1996. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5039.
×
Page 160
Suggested Citation:"5 Human Use - Fisheries ." National Research Council. 1996. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5039.
×
Page 161
Suggested Citation:"5 Human Use - Fisheries ." National Research Council. 1996. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5039.
×
Page 162
Suggested Citation:"5 Human Use - Fisheries ." National Research Council. 1996. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5039.
×
Page 163
Suggested Citation:"5 Human Use - Fisheries ." National Research Council. 1996. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5039.
×
Page 164
Suggested Citation:"5 Human Use - Fisheries ." National Research Council. 1996. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5039.
×
Page 165
Suggested Citation:"5 Human Use - Fisheries ." National Research Council. 1996. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5039.
×
Page 166
Suggested Citation:"5 Human Use - Fisheries ." National Research Council. 1996. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5039.
×
Page 167
Suggested Citation:"5 Human Use - Fisheries ." National Research Council. 1996. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5039.
×
Page 168
Suggested Citation:"5 Human Use - Fisheries ." National Research Council. 1996. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5039.
×
Page 169
Suggested Citation:"5 Human Use - Fisheries ." National Research Council. 1996. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5039.
×
Page 170
Suggested Citation:"5 Human Use - Fisheries ." National Research Council. 1996. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5039.
×
Page 171
Suggested Citation:"5 Human Use - Fisheries ." National Research Council. 1996. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5039.
×
Page 172
Suggested Citation:"5 Human Use - Fisheries ." National Research Council. 1996. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5039.
×
Page 173
Suggested Citation:"5 Human Use - Fisheries ." National Research Council. 1996. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5039.
×
Page 174
Suggested Citation:"5 Human Use - Fisheries ." National Research Council. 1996. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5039.
×
Page 175
Suggested Citation:"5 Human Use - Fisheries ." National Research Council. 1996. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5039.
×
Page 176
Suggested Citation:"5 Human Use - Fisheries ." National Research Council. 1996. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5039.
×
Page 177
Suggested Citation:"5 Human Use - Fisheries ." National Research Council. 1996. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5039.
×
Page 178
Suggested Citation:"5 Human Use - Fisheries ." National Research Council. 1996. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5039.
×
Page 179
Suggested Citation:"5 Human Use - Fisheries ." National Research Council. 1996. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5039.
×
Page 180
Suggested Citation:"5 Human Use - Fisheries ." National Research Council. 1996. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5039.
×
Page 181
Suggested Citation:"5 Human Use - Fisheries ." National Research Council. 1996. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5039.
×
Page 182
Suggested Citation:"5 Human Use - Fisheries ." National Research Council. 1996. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5039.
×
Page 183
Suggested Citation:"5 Human Use - Fisheries ." National Research Council. 1996. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5039.
×
Page 184
Suggested Citation:"5 Human Use - Fisheries ." National Research Council. 1996. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5039.
×
Page 185
Suggested Citation:"5 Human Use - Fisheries ." National Research Council. 1996. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5039.
×
Page 186
Suggested Citation:"5 Human Use - Fisheries ." National Research Council. 1996. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5039.
×
Page 187
Suggested Citation:"5 Human Use - Fisheries ." National Research Council. 1996. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5039.
×
Page 188
Suggested Citation:"5 Human Use - Fisheries ." National Research Council. 1996. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5039.
×
Page 189
Suggested Citation:"5 Human Use - Fisheries ." National Research Council. 1996. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5039.
×
Page 190
Suggested Citation:"5 Human Use - Fisheries ." National Research Council. 1996. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5039.
×
Page 191
Suggested Citation:"5 Human Use - Fisheries ." National Research Council. 1996. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5039.
×
Page 192
Suggested Citation:"5 Human Use - Fisheries ." National Research Council. 1996. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5039.
×
Page 193
Suggested Citation:"5 Human Use - Fisheries ." National Research Council. 1996. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5039.
×
Page 194
Suggested Citation:"5 Human Use - Fisheries ." National Research Council. 1996. The Bering Sea Ecosystem. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5039.
×
Page 195

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

HUMAN USE—FISHERIES 156 5 Human Use—Fisheries This chapter provides a brief history of commercial and subsistence fisheries on invertebrate, fish, and mammal populations in the Bering Sea region, including interactions of indigenous peoples with the marine ecosystem. Because the states of knowledge and the histories of exploitation are so different for the eastern and western Bering Sea, exploitation and management are described separately for those two regions. Note that some fishery data may be inaccurate because of underreporting of landings. Although examples of underreporting likely occur in all nations, recent studies suggest that underreporting is especially prevalent in fishery data from the former Soviet Union (Izvestiia, 1994; The Guardian, 1994). FISH AND INVERTEBRATES Eastern Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, and Aleutian Basin Finfish Landings of commercially valuable fish in the eastern Bering Sea range from 1 to 2 million t annually. Before the establishment by the United States of an exclusive economic zone beyond the former 3- and 12-mile limits, a large international fishery existed in this area. Countries other than the United States that had major trawling and harvesting operations during this time included the former Soviet Union, Japan, Germany, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, China, and Poland. The discussion below examines fisheries from the perspective of the historical effort expended in the eastern half of the Bering Sea. Salmon. The earliest fisheries for salmon in the eastern Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands were likely native subsistence fisheries. Salmon, which are anadromous, return to their natal streams to spawn. Coastal peoples often established villages or temporary fishing camps at the mouths

HUMAN USE—FISHERIES 157 of rivers and along streams to take advantage of this annual event. The importance of salmon to native peoples of the Bering Sea is reflected in their culture, art, and song. Figure 5.1a shows total salmon and sockeye salmon catch of fish originating in watersheds of western Alaska (essentially salmon originating in streams and lakes that empty into the eastern Bering Sea) from 1910 to 1993. Francis and Hare (1994) showed that salmon production, as reflected bycatch in all three major regions of Alaska (western, central, and southeastern), tends to vary on both interannual and interdecadal time scales. In particular, they showed that there are very significant and coherent links between relatively sudden interdecadal shifts in northeast Pacific atmosphere and ocean physics and Alaska salmon production (discussed further in Chapter 6). Sockeye salmon from the Bristol Bay area have always dominated the eastern Bering Sea salmon catch and continue to do so. There have been record-setting catches of sockeye salmon since the late 1970s, although some fluctuation in catch has occurred annually. The Bristol Bay catch for all salmon species in 1993 totaled approximately 42 million fish. Sockeye salmon comprised 41 million of that total, the largest sockeye catch on record, exceeding the previous high of 37 million fish in 1983. A fundamental problem of the Bering Sea salmon fishery, like almost all salmon fisheries, is known as the gauntlet problem. It occurs because different species and stocks tend to mix in the ocean and because salmon migrate from the high seas back to their natal streams in highly aggregated and linear fashions. As a result, coastal ocean salmon fisheries tend to target mixed stocks. In the 1950s to 1970s, Japanese high-seas salmon fisheries created great concern for coastal Alaska communities and fishermen. However, high-seas salmon interceptions have been essentially eliminated in recent years through international agreements (Figure 5.1b). More recently, it has become known that salmon destined for the Bering Sea may be incidentally captured by fishers who are attempting to exploit stocks destined for their own areas. Recent concerns over the decline of western Alaska salmon stocks, particularly chum salmon stocks associated with the Yukon-Kuskokwim area, have forced managers to take action to reduce the interception of these salmon by fishers in other areas. The June salmon fisheries on the south side of the Alaska Peninsula, commonly called the False Pass fishery, have been a subject of controversy since nearly the time of their inception in the early 1900s. Tagging studies indicate that most of the sockeye salmon caught in this fishery are bound for rivers in Bristol Bay. For this reason, managers have been obligated to manage the fishery in a very conservative manner (Rogers, 1992), as is evidenced in the historically high abundance of sockeye salmon over the past 10 years. Perhaps even more controversial is the recent increase in incidental catch of nonlocal chum salmon, in particular those originating in the Yukon-Kuskokwim area. This issue has forced managers to institute a chum salmon cap on the predominantly sockeye fishery in the False Pass region. Groundfish and Halibut. The earliest fisheries for groundfish in the eastern Bering Sea region were probably native subsistence fisheries. Although the subsistence fisheries did not represent

HUMAN USE—FISHERIES 158 Figure 5.1a,b Western Alaska total and sockeye salmon fishery production; western Alaska sockeye salmon in-area catch and interceptions (R. Francis, Personal Communication).

HUMAN USE—FISHERIES 159 a food source as accessible as the returning salmon, native peoples quickly learned to utilize those marine fishes that were common to their area. These fish were an important part of the life of native people, and dependence on demersal species may have been critical to their survival during those seasons when other sources of food were scarce or lacking. Fishing for such species as cod, halibut, and rockfish occurred in near shore waters. These small-scale subsistence fisheries have continued to the present time. The first commercial venture for bottomfish occurred in 1864, when a single schooner fished for Pacific cod in the Bering Sea (Cobb, 1927). The cod fishery did not commence on a regular annual basis until 1882. Catches were relatively low until World War I, when the demand for cod-liver oil stimulated greater effort. Between 1915 and 1920, as many as 24 vessels operated and produced 12,000 to 14,000 t annually (Pereyra et al., 1976). This domestic fishery continued until 1950, when demand for cod declined and economic conditions caused the fishery to be discontinued (Alverson et al., 1994). Fishing areas in the eastern Bering Sea ranged from north of Unimak Island and the Alaska Peninsula to Bristol Bay (Cobb, 1927). Halibut were reported in the Bering Sea by U.S. cod vessels as early as the 1800s. However, Bering Sea halibut did not reach North American markets until 1928 (Thompson and Freeman, 1930). Small and infrequent landings of halibut from the Bering Sea were made by U.S. and Canadian vessels between 1928 and 1950, but catches were not landed every year until 1952 (Figure 5.2) (Dunlop et al., 1964). The catch by North American setline vessels increased sharply between 1958 and 1962 (exceeding 3,300 t), then fell to a low of 130 t by 1973 before recovering to a high in 1987, and then declined slowly. Following a six-year down cycle, Bering Sea halibut catches began to increase in 1982. The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC), established in 1923 by convention between Canada and the United States to preserve the halibut fishery of the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea, issued the opinion that the reduced halibut abundance was the result of a combination of factors: the North American setline fishery, the Japanese setline fishery, incidental catches of juvenile halibut in foreign trawl fisheries, and adverse environmental conditions (S.H. Hoag, personal communication). Exploitation of groundfish resources in the eastern Bering Sea and along the Aleutian Islands changed dramatically in 1959 (Figure 5.3). Following several years of prospecting, foreign fleets from Japan and the Soviet Union (USSR) began harvesting yellowfin sole (on the eastern Bering Sea shelf) and other flatfish, and Pacific Ocean perch (in the Aleutian Islands, and Gulf of Alaska) and other slope rockfish. Harvest of eastern Bering Sea shelf flatfish peaked in 1961 at nearly 700,000 t, and harvest of the Aleutian Island and Gulf of Alaska slope rockfish complex peaked in 1965 at over 450,000 t (NPFMC, 1993). Between 1959 and 1964, over 1.8 million t of yellowfin sole was taken from the eastern Bering Sea shelf; between 1962 and 1968, almost 1.7 million t of slope rockfish (primarily Pacific Ocean perch) was taken from the eastern Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, and Gulf of Alaska (as far south as southeastern Alaska). In the mid 1960s, some non-U.S. fishers switched their target species to pollock and Pacific cod, and catches quickly grew to more than 2 million tons (primarily eastern Bering Sea pollock) per year by 1971. Catch by non-U.S. fishermen peaked at approximately 2.25 million tons in 1972 before declining again (Figure 5.3). By that time, other nations and additional vessels were joining the fleet in increasing numbers. Between 1864 and 1960, most commercial groundfish fisheries of the Bering Sea used hook-and-line techniques. With the advent of fisheries for flatfish and rockfish in the late 1950s,

HUMAN USE—FISHERIES 160 Figure 5.2 Northeast Pacific halibut catch in the Bering Sea and Aleutians, 1929–90 (IPHC, 1994). Figure 5.3 Groundfish catches in the eastern Bering Sea and the Aleutians, 1954–93 (R. Francis, personal communication).

HUMAN USE—FISHERIES 161 fishermen began using benthic trawl gear. Since 1960, a combination of hook-and-line, trawl (both benthic and pelagic nets), and pots has been routinely used, with trawl being the predominant method. With the implementation of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act (FCMA) in 1977 (later renamed the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act [MFCMA]), a major change occurred in U.S. fishery policy, which would later result in shift of Bering Sea resources away from foreign fishers and to a growing fleet of American fishers. This federal law established the United States' rights to manage fishery resources and set priorities for U.S. citizens. In many ways, it mirrored the extended jurisdiction laws being adopted by most other maritime nations at that time. With its approval, the United States had for the first time a national policy for fisheries and institutionalized criteria for use in management decisions. A key element of the FCMA was the government's acceptance of stewardship over the adjacent fishery resources and responsibility to stimulate growth and economic viability of the U.S. fishing industry. In the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands region, this meant that foreign fleets, which before 1976 could fish freely beyond 12 miles of the Alaska coast, would now have to conduct their operations under approval of the U.S. federal government. Beginning in 1978 and until the present time, the annual catch of all groundfish species in the eastern Bering Sea has averaged about 1.5 million tons annually (Figure 5.3). After implementation of the MFCMA, foreign fisheries were allowed to continue for another decade. A milestone was reached in 1978 when the first joint-venture operation was formed whereby a domestic catcher vessel delivered its catch to a foreign processing ship. These joint-venture operations were viewed by U.S. government as a way to transfer fishing technology and experience to domestic fishermen, who up to that time had little real experience in fishing for most groundfish species in the Bering Sea. The government supported the growth of joint ventures and the domestic industry by instituting a preferential policy whereby available fish resources were first allocated to wholly domestic operations (i.e., U.S. catching and processing), then available surpluses were allocated to joint ventures, and finally any remaining surpluses to were allocated to totally foreign operations. This latter allocation was often made to a foreign nation following a review to determine its level of support of domestic operations. Soon joint ventures became a major factor in the overall harvest. In 1981, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) developed its Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Groundfish Fishery Management Plan, and placed an overall catch limit for the Bering Sea at 2 million tons beginning with the 1984 season. With the help of its allocation policy and with a significant increase in the market price of whitefish in the next few years, joint ventures, and hence U.S. harvesting capacity, continued to grow. As a result, foreign fisheries were reduced and eventually phased out entirely by 1988. The strong markets, the technology transfer, and the federal government's willingness to finance capitalization of the fishery continued to stimulate the domestic industry and resulted in a complete phase-out of all remaining joint-venture fishing by 1990. Two significant developments occurred in the Bering Sea pollock fishery in recent years (Wespestad, 1993). The first was the initiation of pollock fisheries in the central Bering Sea (Aleutian Basin) outside of the U.S. and Russian exclusive economic zones (commonly referred to as the ''donut hole"). The second was the development of a U.S. fishery for deep water spawning pollock in the area of Bogoslof Island in the southeastern Aleutian Basin. Reported

HUMAN USE—FISHERIES 162 catches peaked at over 1.4 million t in 1989 in the donut hole, and at over 260,000 t in 1991 near Bogoslof Island. Both of these fisheries had virtually disappeared by 1992. These fisheries raised significant issues about the relationships between pollock populations inhabiting the deep Aleutian Basin and those of both the eastern and western Bering Sea shelves. The 1992 eastern Bering Sea (including the Aleutian Islands area) groundfish catch was approximately 1.8 million t, with pollock (1.4 million t), Pacific cod (163,000 t), and yellowfin sole (147,000 t) comprising over 90 percent of the total (NPFMC, 1993). These figures now include the incidental and discarded catches (known as bycatch), which could be sizable, and until recently were not included in the fishery statistics. Herring. Pacific herring of the Bering Sea were first used by native peoples inhabiting the coastal perimeter. During spawning, herring are present near shore in massive schools, and early inhabitants took advantage of this readily available fishery resource (Wespestad, 1991). Native fishers caught these fish, which preserved well because of their high oil content. Today, herring continues to be an important food in many native villages along the Bering Sea coast, especially in villages between the Yukon and Kuskokwim rivers, where alternative food resources (e.g., salmon and moose) are absent or in low abundance. The largest catches of herring occurred all along the coast of Alaska in the 1930s, and during the foreign herring fishery in the eastern Bering Sea in the late 1960s (Figure 5.4). Foreign catch in the eastern Bering Sea offshore Alaska peaked in 1969 at more than 145,000 t. After a slow start in the mid-1960s and 1970s, coastal herring roe fisheries rose in response to exclusion of Japanese fisheries from the Soviet and U.S. exclusive economic zones and the resultant increases in Japanese imports of herring roe. The roe fishery occurs in May and June along the entire U.S. Bering Sea coast as far north as Norton Sound. Predominant gear types are gill net north of Bristol Bay and purse seine (manned primarily by fishermen from central and southeastern Alaska and Washington) in Bristol Bay. Since the early 1980s, Bering Sea landings have averaged around 25,000 t (Figure 5.5). Excellent recruitment from the 1988 year class has caused recent stock levels to increase (ADF&G, 1993). Invertebrates Commercial fisheries for king and Tanner crabs in the eastern Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands have long been among the world's most important sources of crabs (Otto, 1981; 1990). While landing statistics are impressive, these (and central Gulf of Alaska) crab fisheries have undergone radical changes over their decades of existence, particularly since the late 1970s. Whereas in 1978 red king crab made up over 90 percent of the king crab landings of the eastern Bering Sea and Aleutians, by 1988 red king crab landings were no longer dominant among king crabs (Figure 5.6). Similarly, Tanner crab fisheries were developed in the late 1970s by exploiting primarily C. bairdi, and C. opilio (snow crab).

HUMAN USE—FISHERIES 163 Figure 5.4 Herring catches from all Alaska herring fisheries, 1930–92 (with the projected 1993 catch) (ADFG, 1993).

HUMAN USE—FISHERIES 164 Figure 5.5 Alaska herring sac roe take harvests from all areas, 1978–92 (with the projected 1993 sac roe take) (ADFG, 1993). Figure 5.6 Relative contributions of red king crab, blue king crab, and golden king crab to landings of king crabs from the eastern Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (Otto, 1990).

HUMAN USE—FISHERIES 165 King Crab. Commercial king crab fishing in the eastern Bering Sea began with the Japanese in 1930 and continued until 1940. Japanese king crab vessels using tangle nets returned to the Bering Sea in 1953 and remained until 1974. U.S. fishermen entered the king crab fishery with trawl gear in 1947. Effort and catches declined in the 1950s and then underwent a period of fluctuating low catches through 1966 before expanding to the current, full-scale fishery. The Soviet king crab fleet operated in the eastern Bering Sea from 1959 through 1971. During the late 1960s catches ranged from 1 million lb in 1966 to 10.4 million lb in 1969 (Figure 5.7a). During the 1970s, catches grew further from 12.9 million lb in 1971 to about 108 million lb in 1979. An all-time high catch of 130 million lb was landed in 1980 by American fishermen in the eastern Bering Sea (i.e., Bristol Bay). This large catch was taken by a record 236 vessels using pot gear. Trawl gear and tangle nets had been prohibited in the 1960s, when management established a males-only catch policy and the commercial marketplace demanded whole, live, undamaged crab. In 1981, the eastern Bering Sea king crab catch crashed from its all-time high to a little more than 33 million lb. By 1982, only 3 million lb of king crab were caught, and in 1983 there was no commercial fishery allowed because of low stock abundance of adult, sexually mature males and females, and no apparent sign of recruitment into the fishery of smaller size crabs. In terms of poundage and value, this fishery grew rapidly during 1971–81 to become an important fishery. In less than half that time it crashed, and it has yet to recover to catch levels seen in the 1970s. A similarly timed decline occurred in the red king crab resource and fishery around Kodiak Island (Blau, 1986). Considerable research was undertaken during this period to determine the cause for the king crab decline. A list of possible causes, including overfishing, cod predation, disease, and handling mortality, were all shown to have the potential, either alone or in combination, to have caused such a disastrous effect on crab populations (Otto, 1986; 1990). However, it cannot be denied that, in addition to fishing, the climatic shift that occurred in the late-1970s may have been a significant factor. Since 1984, when the abundance of adult, sexually mature male and female crabs increased to permit a fishery, red king crab catches have ranged from 4.2 million lb to 18 million lb (Figure 5.7a). The eastern Aleutian Islands provided good red king crab fishing in the 1960s. An all- time high catch was achieved in 1966–67, when 33 million lb were landed. However, since that period the catch has fluctuated widely, declining to a low of 9 million lb in 1970, rebuilding to a peak in 1976, and then crashing again. The eastern region near Unalaska Island has been closed to commercial red king crab fishing since 1983. The western region, toward Adak Island, has continued to produce catches at relatively low levels (less than 1 million lb annually). The blue king crab fishery is situated close to the Pribilof Islands, where the species is most abundant. The fishery was developed by the Japanese in the late 1960s. The U.S. fishery began in 1973 between St. Paul and St. George islands as an interim activity between red king crab seasons. The first reported catch was 1.2 million lb taken by eight vessels. In 1974, 70 vessels participated and more than 7 million lb were landed (Figure 5.7c). At that point, catch per unit effort began to decline even though total catch averaged about 6 million lb for the next 10 years. In 1988, the Pribilof blue king crab fishery was closed due to low stock abundance, and it has remained closed ever since.

HUMAN USE—FISHERIES 166 Brown (or golden) king crab is a deep water crab and the smallest of the three king crab species. Commercial fishers began utilizing this species as an incidental catch to red king crab. Few landings were recorded before 1981. Most brown king crab have been taken along the Aleutian Island chain, along steep canyon walls. The western portion of the chain (Adak) has historically produced the most catch, with an all-time high of 8 million lb in 1984. Since 1988, catches have been less than 2 million lb annually. Tanner Crab. Tanner crab from Alaska comprise two species, Chionoecetes bairdi and C. opilio. In the commercial marketplace they are most often referred to as Tanner crab or snow crab. C. bairdi is the larger of the two species, and therefore fishing this species became an attractive supplement to king crab fishing. When both Bering Sea king crab and bairdi stocks crashed in the early 1980s, C. opilio became the predominant target. Unfortunately, these stocks followed a similar pattern of decline. The Bering Sea C. bairdi fishery began in 1974, at which time the first reported C. opilio catch was taken. C. bairdi catches quickly grew from 5 million lb in 1974 to 66 million lb in 1978 (Figure 5.7b). In that year, scientists began forecasting a decline based on survey estimates, and the catch fell to 42 million lb in 1979, 11 million lb by 1982, and 3 million lb in 1985. Managers closed the commercial fishery until 1988 when it appeared that some stock recovery had occurred. In 1990 the catch had increased to 24.5 million lb and by 1993 the catch was over 30 million lb. Assessment surveys indicate a declining trend beginning in 1994. The smaller but more abundant C. opilio crab has filled an important market niche as king crab and C. bairdi crab have become less abundant. C. opilio catches initially were incidental to king and C. bairdi fisheries but began in earnest in 1979, when more than 32 million lb were landed (Figure 5.7d). In 1981 more than 52 million lb were landed. A small decline in catch then followed after which the level increased again. An all-time record catch was taken in 1992, when about 316 million lb were taken. Since then C. opilio populations have undergone a decline, reflected in both the surveys and catch. Shrimp. The Bering Sea shrimp fishery began in 1960, when Japanese mothership operation targeted pink shrimp and humpy shrimp near the Pribilof Islands. The fishery peaked rapidly to nearly 66 million lb in 1963, then declined just as rapidly and has since been inconsequential since 1967. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Japanese and Russian fleets exploited shrimp stocks in the Gulf of Anadyr and in the north-central Bering Sea as well (Balsiger, 1981). At that time, humpy shrimp provided the major share of the catch from the Gulf of Anadyr and along the Koryak coast of the western Bering Sea (Balsiger, 1981). Since 1967, shrimp stocks in the eastern Bering Sea have remained depressed, despite the lack of a directed fishery since 1967. Little is known about the stock of pandalids in the western Bering Sea. Historically, most of the shrimp catch from Alaskan waters has come from the Gulf of Alaska, particularly around Kodiak Island and the Alaska Peninsula. The shrimp fishery in the Gulf of Alaska began in southeastern Alaska near Petersburg in 1915. The fishery principally targeted pink shrimp which were cooked, hand peeled, and frozen for special markets. The

HUMAN USE—FISHERIES 167 Figure 5.7a,b,c,d, U.S. crab landings in millions of pounds and abundances of legal or total crab, by species and region, 1966–93 (catch per unit effort as crabs per pot) (estimated from NMFS trawl surveys, AFSC Processed Report 93-14, report to industry on the 1993 eastern Bering Sea crab survey) (Stevens et al., 1993).

HUMAN USE—FISHERIES 168 fishery gradually expanded, and annual landings of 1.2 to 3.0 million lb occurred from 1945 to the mid-1950s (Gaffney, 1981). In 1957, the mechanical peeling machine was introduced in Wrangell, Alaska; and in 1958, a fishery developed using the mechanical peeling process to harvest the large stocks of shrimp located in lower Cook Inlet and Kodiak. The Gulf of Alaska fishery grew rapidly from 7.9 million lb in 1958 to 15.1 million lb in 1963. Growth slowed when shore plants and fishing vessels were badly damaged by the 1964 earthquake, but then grew rapidly to 128.8 million lb in 1976. Soon thereafter, however, populations in many historical production areas in western Alaska began showing signs of stress. By 1978 (the first year of precipitous decline in catches), catches had declined to 73.2 million lb. Gulf-wide totals dropped to 30 million lb in 1980, 4.6 million lb by 1986, and 2.0 million lb in 1989 (Savikko and Page, 1990). Since 1990, the Alaskan shrimp resource has been conservatively managed, with only limited catches being authorized. To date, however, there has been little evidence of stock recovery in either the Bering Sea or Gulf of Alaska. General Management Issues A number of large-scale issues have influenced fisheries management and the fish populations in the eastern Bering Sea in a major way. For example, there has been a tremendous increase in fishing capacity (D. L. Anderson, personal communication), and that increased capacity (usually referred to as overcapitalization of the fleet) has affected fishing regulations and distribution of fishing effort in space and time. For example, the halibut fishery has become a so-called "derby fishery," in which many boats race to fish for a few hours during an abbreviated open season, no matter what the weather is like (Hoag et al., 1983; IPHC, 1982, 1983; NRC, 1994a). Other fisheries have been affected by similar factors, and those changes in the fisheries have biological effects as well, such as changes in population age structure and distribution. Another problem complicating fishery management has been allocation problems, primarily questions concerning competition between inshore and offshore interests. Thus, Marasco and Aron (1991) described the explosive growth in both inshore and offshore capital investment—also related to the overcapitalization problem —and the "intense competition between these two segments of the industry for shares of the limited pollock catch." Huppert (1991) also discussed this problem, pointing out that there can be a tendency to favor Alaskan shore-based processors at the expense of factory trawlers and motherships because they provide direct employment and local economic benefits to Alaskans. As a result, state and federal interests do not always necessarily coincide. Western Bering Sea Russian colonization of the Bering Sea region in the 1800s was followed by the growth of fishing and maritime hunting, including takings for commercial purposes (Alexeev, 1982). Nevertheless, until the 1950s, fishing in the western Bering Sea was small-scale and mostly a

HUMAN USE—FISHERIES 169 coastal enterprise. The species targeted were salmon and herring of the northwestern Bering Sea and eastern Kamchatka (see Figure 5.8 for locations mentioned in the text below). Systematic research of Bering Sea biology by Soviet scientists began in the 1930s (History of Regional Research—, 1982). In 1932–33, oceanographic research and fish stock assessment studies were conducted in the western and northern Bering Sea by the Soviet Pacific Complex Expedition (Andriyashev, 1935; Investigations of the Seas, 1937; Stepanova, 1937). This expedition located spawning areas of cod and collected data on distribution of pollock and flatfish. However, no large fish populations that could serve as a basis for the deployment of a trawling fleet were discovered at the time. These studies assessed the eastern Bering Sea as more commercially promising than the western Bering Sea. As a result, Soviet research efforts since the mid-1930s and commercial fishing activities (which began in the 1960s) focused primarily on the eastern Bering Sea until access was restricted in the 1980s, with 10 to 12 Soviet research vessels working in the central and eastern Bering Sea and in the Gulf of Alaska (Ethnical History of the Northern People, 1982). Detailed data on the biology and distribution of flatfish, herring, Pacific Ocean perch, and commercial invertebrates was provided by the 1958–64 Bering Sea Fishery Expedition (Mesheryakova, 1964, 1970a; Neiman, 1963), the 1961–65 Bering Sea Herring Expedition (Mesheryakova, 1970b), and the 1969–72 Bering Sea trawling survey (Ethnical History of the Northern People, 1982). Beginning in the 1960s, Soviet academic science no longer participated in this research. Instead, research was shifted from studies of biological productivity and structure of fish populations to surveys of selected fish stocks, at the request of the Soviet commercial fishing industry. The applied research effort was followed by the development of an ambitious program of Soviet high-seas fleet expansion. In the 1950s, the policy of the former Soviet Union was oriented to the rapid development of ocean activities and the economies in its border areas. The rate of budget investments for fisheries in the Far East exceeded that of other regional capital investments. Immense capital infusions were aimed at developing national ocean power of strategic importance. This period was characterized by a peak of research effort, mainly in the eastern Bering Sea, improved harvesting technologies, expansion of the distant water fishing/processing capacities and oceangoing auxiliary fleet, and later, an increase of joint-venture operations. For several years the expansion in Soviet landings and processing capacities was accompanied by a corresponding increase of catch from the eastern Bering Sea shelf and Gulf of Alaska. A large Soviet fleet entered the eastern Bering Sea in 1959 to catch slope rockfish (primarily Pacific Ocean perch complex fish), flounders, and king crabs. Trawling in the Gulf of Alaska began in 1962. Newly organized fishing on the eastern Bering Sea shelf and in the Gulf of Alaska provided 600,000 t of Pacific Ocean perch, yellowfin sole, herring, pollock, cod, crabs, and shrimps by the mid-1960s (Zilanov et al., 1989). After a few years, most of these species were overfished. Thus, the strategy of the Soviet fisheries was to expand the exploitation of a targeted species until it decreased, and then shift the effort to what appeared to be the next most abundant species. Coastal resources of the Soviet Union/Russia (except for salmon, herring, and flatfish) were studied and exploited to only a limited extent. Landings in the western Bering Sea peaked for herring in 1966 at 118,300 t, for crabs (mainly the three king crab species mentioned earlier) in 1961 at 8,970 t, and for Pacific Ocean perch in 1965 at 6,970 t. However, by the end of the 1960s, fishing had caused significant depletion of these targeted fish and crab stocks, resulting

HUMAN USE—FISHERIES 170 Figure 5.8 Locations of geographic features mentioned in the text (modified from Hood and Kelly, 1974).

HUMAN USE—FISHERIES 171 first in the total decline of regional landings, and then in substantial changes in the structure and composition of regional fish populations. Not all of this was a direct result of fishing, however. More than a twofold downward shift in the zooplankton biomass was observed in the western Bering Sea in the 1950s and 1960s (Naumenko et al., 1990), which was then followed by a change in the structure of macrofauna. Along with the decline in productivity of herring, capelin, saury, halibut, and Kamchatka and blue crabs (Shuntov and Dulepova, 1991), there was a considerable rise in the abundance of pollock, cod, flatfish, and Tanner crab. Dynamics of pollock in the western Bering Sea in the 1970s was literally described as an ''explosion" (Fadeev, 1988). Since that time, pollock has been the mainstay of the Soviet/Russian fishing effort in the western Bering Sea. The worldwide extension of fishery jurisdictions by expansion of economic zones severely affected the operations of the Soviet distant-water fleet. Almost immediately, Soviet fishers lost access to the resources of the U.S. exclusive economic zone, which resulted in a temporary decline in Soviet national catches. In addition, many Soviet/Russian fishing vessels, barred from other regions of the world, began fishing in the western Bering Sea, which nearly tripled the overall fishing effort in the area. With the change in the international regime of the oceans, the level of exploitation of the western Bering Sea rose substantially: from 359,010 t in 1975 to 1,685,390 t in 1988 (see Table 5.1). Since most of the Soviet vessels were constructed for large-scale high-seas fishing, their deployment in the western Bering Sea produced a dramatic increase in exploitation of the ecosystem. In recent assessments by Russian scientists (which are based on observations over 50 years, and several models for the relationship between primary and fishery production), total potential fishery productivity of the Russian exclusive economic zone in the Bering Sea has been estimated at 3.8 to 4.8 million t, depending on pollock fluctuations (Markina and Khen, 1990) (Table 5.2). Pelagic communities support two-thirds of the total fish production in the western Bering Sea. Composition, structure, and dynamics of these communities were not well known before the beginning of the western Bering Sea commercial industry. However, the exploitation methods described above indicate that the compositions of western Bering Sea pelagic communities have undergone radical changes. Finfish Salmon. The most valuable species group in the region are salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.). Originating from the rivers of Kamchatka and Chukotka, these five salmon species1 swim up to 2,000 miles through the central Bering Sea (Aleutian Basin) during their oceanic phase. Concentrations of high-seas salmonids in the central Bering Sea are explained by food abundance and favorable hydrology. As for the fish from the eastern Bering Sea, the oceanic phase is an extremely important part of the salmon's life cycle and uncontrolled fishing during this phase 1 Pink (O. gorbuscha), chum (O. keta), sockeye (O. nerka), chinook (O. tshawytscha), and silver (O. kisutch).

HUMAN USE—FISHERIES 172 Table 5.2 Assessment of Bering Sea productivity Fish Production Ichthyomass (million t) with Annual P/ Lower 2 Upper Limits of (million t raw mass) B Coefficientsb of:— Fish Productivity (t/km-2) Areaa 0.5 0.4 Shelf Up to 200 m 9.7 - 7.7 19.4 - 15.4 24.3 - 19.3 14.5 - 22.9 200–1000 m 0.5 - 0.4 1.0 - 0.8 1.3 - 1.0 7.0 - 11.5 More than 1,000 m 4.1 - 3.2 8.2 - 6.4 10.3 - 8.0 5.6 - 9.0 Russian EEZ shelf 3.1 - 2.5 6.2 - 5.0 7.8 - 6.3 18.0 - 28.0 Entire EEZ 4.8 - 3.8 9.6 - 7.6 12.0 - 9.5 10.0 - 17.1 American EEZ shelf 6.6 - 5.3 13.2 - 10.6 16.5 - 13.3 13.6 - 21.1 Entire EEZ 5.2 - 7.3 18.4 - 14.6 23.0 - 18.3 10.3 - 16.3 "Donut hole" 0.3 - 0.2 0.6 - 0.4 0.8 - 0.6 2.0 - 3.9 Bering Sea in general 14.3 - 11.4 28.6 - 22.8 35.8 - 28.5 9.8 - 15.5 aEEZ, exclusive economic zone bP/B coefficient = summary production/total biomass Source: Markina and Khen (1990).

HUMAN USE—FISHERIES 173 (whether targeted or incidental) can greatly affect the overall population (Birman, 1985; Naske and Slotnick, 1987; see also NRC, 1996 for a discussion of salmon declines in the Pacific Northwest). The effects of removals outside the Bering Sea on the overall western Bering Sea populations are not known. Soviet/Russian fishing for salmonids operates mainly in estuarine and coastal areas. There have been extensive fluctuations in annual catches of Russian salmon. Since 1965, these stocks have been depleted. In the 1980s, stocks of Russian salmon fell below 50 percent of the stock abundances measured 50 years ago; Kolmogorov and Sinelnikov (1984) also found that there appeared to be a shortage of male fish, the most valuable catch, at the spawning sites. Many small populations disappeared, whereas the structure of large populations has changed. Pink salmon now comprise more than 80 percent of the catch, while in the 1940s and 1950s half of the catch was chum salmon (Gritsenko, 1994). Rapid enhancement of salmon production at the more than 350 Japanese breeding hatcheries now probably affects the size of wild populations in the region (see NRC, 1996 for a discussion of hatchery effects on wild salmon populations). There is considerable controversy on the roles of people and the environment in both short-term and long- term fluctuations of salmonids. One view regards the depression of Asian salmon stocks in the 1960s and 1970s as attributable to the Japanese high-seas fishery (Kolmogorov and Sinelnikov, 1984; Zilanov et al., 1989). It is also tempting to connect the most recent decline of Russian salmon to the extraordinary scale of poaching by both national and foreign fishermen. In Russian assessments, illegal catch of Asian salmon exceeds 20,000 t a year (Sovetsky Rybak, 1992). Another factor of growing importance is pollution of coastal waters by oil and chemical waste, and community sewage waste. In the Anadyr Bay, for instance, all communal wastes are discharged to the sea without any treatment (Report on the Environmental Situation…, 1993). Several years ago the Special Environmental Commission discovered that the oil pollution in Chayanskaya Bay exceeds the Russian government's total permissible concentration by 8 to 10 times (Klimenko, 1992). However, scientists from the Soviet/Russian Hydromet (hydrometeorological agency) assess the Bering Sea ecosystem in general as stable and pristine, that is, as comparatively clean, healthy, populated by active biota, and unaffected by direct anthropogenic pressure (Research in the Seas, 1990). The long-term dynamics of catches attests to cyclical variations in salmon abundance correlating with long-term trends in solar activities, climate changes, and changes in atmospheric circulation (Birman, 1985; Chigirinsky, 1993). Research by these specialists showed a primary correlation between salmon abundance and global and local environmental changes, and, secondarily, with fishing effort. Currently, salmon stocks of the western Bering Sea are at average or depressed levels (State Report, 1994). According to TINRO (Tikhookeansky Nauchno-Issledovatel'sky Institute Rybnogo Khoziastvai Okeanographh [Pacific Ocean Institute of Scientific Research in Fisheries and Oceanography]) assessments, the total salmon biomass could support a maximum-sustained-yield catch of 95,400 t in 1991 and 37,600 t in 1993 (Shuntov, 1994a). If declines are related to the abundance of plankton, the current state of food resources for these species could promote their recovery (Klyashtorin and Smirnov, 1992). However, some Russian researchers have correlated declines of solar activity in the 1990s with a radical change of atmospheric and hydrological processes. They suggested that these large-scale environmental processes could cause declines in salmon abundance (Shuntov, 1986). A correlation between salmon abundance

HUMAN USE—FISHERIES 174 in the eastern Bering Sea and climate change is mentioned earlier in this chapter, and the correlation is further analyzed in Chapter 6. Herring. Herring was the basis of Soviet regional fisheries in the 1950s and 1960s, when several populations were simultaneously targeted (in the southwest portion of the western Bering Sea, and the shelf of Olutorsky Bay, Korfa Bay, and adjacent area—along the northern part of the Kamchatka Peninsula). In the second half of the 1960s, up to 35 to 50 percent of the total herring population was taken annually by commercial fishing (Naumenko et al., 1990). In all cases, after a few years of fishing, the stocks were depleted. Since the 1970s, Korfa-Karagin area herring lost its commercial importance. During the 1970s and 1980s, even under a regime of stock conservation, average catches did not exceed 14,000 t. Exploitation of herring stocks, though at a lesser scale, was resumed in the mid-1970s, when the abundant year class of 1971 became available. In the 1980s, catches were stabilized at 25,000 to 30,000 t, while in the 1990s they declined abruptly. This decline of stocks resulted from the combined impact of the overfishing and change of natural spawning conditions (Naumenko et al., 1990). The status of Pacific herring is still very low (State Report, 1994). Although Russian experts expect a considerable increase of its biomass in the second half of the 1990s (Shuntov and Radchenko, 1994), the maximum sustainable yield for this species for 1994 was not even determined. Pollock. Since the 1970s, the pelagic communities of the western Bering Sea have become dominated by pollock,2 which make up 85 to 90 percent of the total biomass taken. According to ichthyoplankton surveys and virtual population models, western Bering Sea pollock production has averaged between 1.3 and 2.3 million t a year (assessments of P. Balykin, TINRO, personal communication). Different assessments by Soviet and Russian scientists on the dynamics of pollock and its role in the ocean ecosystem are explained by the absence of initial data on pollock abundance before the start of commercial fishing, as well as by inadequate knowledge of pollock biology. Russian scientists hold various views on the seasonal distribution of pollock. Some consider its life cycle adapted to the shelf and slope waters where this species is concentrated (Fadeev, 1988). Other research has shown that shelf and slope waters are inhabited only by juveniles, whereas large adults actively use food resources from the whole basin of the Bering and Okhotsk seas, forming concentrations even in deep water basins (Shuntov et al., 1988; Sobolevsky et al., 1989). Reproduction of pollock in the Russian exclusive economic zone takes place in Olutorsky Bay and adjacent areas of the northern half of the Kamchatka Peninsula. Older fish move to the Komandorsky Basin, where they are mixed with pollock of American origin, and in small quantities then migrate to open areas of the Bering Sea. After spawning, some pollock of American origin migrate into the Russian exclusive economic zone (see discussion of pollock population and stock structure in Chapter 4). Pollock-spawning in the Bogoslof Island area is widely distributed in the Aleutian (both east and west of 176°) and Komandorsky Basins. Pollock coming from the Pribilof-Unimak Island area migrate to the north 2 Pollock are usually considered to be groundfish, because they are often taken with bottom trawls. However, they are also caught in mid-water (pelagic) trawls because they occupy both pelagic and demersal communities.

HUMAN USE—FISHERIES 175 and are found in the Navarin area. Russian scientists disagree about what part of the total Bering Sea pollock stock comes from Asian spawning aggregations. Some claim only 10 percent (Fadeev, 1991), while others consider it to be closer to 40 percent (Shuntov et al., 1990). Russian commercial fishing for walleye pollock in the western Bering Sea is concentrated in the Navarin and Olutorsky areas, as well as in Ozerny and Korfa-Karaginsky bays. More than 60 percent of the harvest has been usually taken in the Navarin area adjacent to the U.S. exclusive economic zone (Fadeev, 1991). After peaking at 1,291,700 t in 1988, pollock catches in the Russian exclusive economic zone are reported to be in a steep decline. This trend is explained by a drop in the pollock biomass, which, in the opinion of Russian experts, is connected with reduced numbers of fish in the area (rather than smaller fish) and environmental changes (Shuntov and Dulepova, 1991; Shuntov and Radchenko, 1994). Forage Fish. Although no specialized research has ever been done on capelin, this species seems to be present practically everywhere in the western Bering Sea, being especially abundant in Karagin, Olutorsky, and Anadyr bays and near-island groups (Naumenko, 1986). Specialized fishing for capelin has not been developed for several reasons, including low prices and the instability of populations, with huge interannual variations. However, with the development of appropriate technology, capelin might become a useful reserve for the Russian industry. Other potentially exploitable area resources include light-ray lantern fish, black smelts, argentine, and squid, which has a biomass assessed in excess of 6 million t (Ilinsky, 1990). Summary (Pelagic Fish Community). The historical composition of the pelagic fish community of the western Bering Sea has been classified into three periods by Naumenko and others (1990): 1. The 1950s and early 1960s. Herring was the dominant species of the pelagic fish community at this time. Its biomass of 3.5 million t in 1953 may have been close to what the region could support. However, by the mid-1960s herring biomass dropped to 800,000 t. During this period, smelt biomass (100,000 t) was high, capelin biomass (80,000 t) was considered average, and pollock biomass (800,000 t) was low. 2. The transitional period, from the mid-1960s to 1973. There was no single dominant species in the pelagic community, and the status of herring was unstable. From 1968 to 1970, herring and pollock stocks appeared to be close to their historically minimum levels, while capelin biomass was suddenly and substantially boosted. In the beginning of the 1970s, the amounts of herring and pollock became equal, while biomass of pollock was more than twice that of herring. Meanwhile, stocks of smelt dropped to 40,000 t. 3. Most recent period. The period beginning in 1973 could probably be called the "pollock period." During this time, pollock comprised more than 85 percent of the commercial pelagic biomass. Stocks of this species had been on the rise until 1981, when it reached 3.5 million t. Since then, declines have set in. Numbers and biomass of herring, capelin, and smelt

HUMAN USE—FISHERIES 176 have stabilized at the historically minimum levels of 319,000 t, 48,000 t, and 20,000 t, respectively. These dynamics of western Bering Sea pelagic communities might be connected with both human-induced and climatic/oceanographic conditions. Table 5.3 shows corresponding changes in temperature of water, surface, and other climatic parameters of the area, whereas Table 5.4 shows average catches of the main commercial species for these periods. One can see that the first (herring) period was by most parameters the inverse of the third (pollock) period. The former was characterized by abnormally low water temperatures during spring and summer seasons, relatively mild winters, and cool summers, whereas the latter is characterized by the opposite conditions. During the second (transitional) phase, climatic and oceanographic conditions were close to average perennial parameters. Demersal Communities. Demersal communities of the western Bering Sea are less abundant and less surveyed than whose of the eastern part. A relatively complete range of observations exists only for the eastern Kamchatka shelf and several areas of the continental slope. Detailed surveys of demersal species composition in the western Bering have been conducted only since 1980s. The numbers of demersal species in the area range from 40 species in Olutorsky and Karagin Bays to 16 species in the Bering Strait. In most cases, the number of dominant species does not exceed 4 to 9, which account for 70 to 90 percent of the biomass (Borets, 1989). Based on the species proportion in the total community biomass, polydominant communities (Kronotsky Bay, Bering Strait) and monodominant groundfish communities (in most of the bays and shelf areas) can be identified (Table 5.5). In nearly all the areas of continuing demersal fisheries, the most significant species (by biomass) are cod (81.8 percent of the biomass on the Karagin-Olutorsky shelf, 68.8 percent of biomass at the Anadyr shelf) and flatfish. In the 1980s the demersal fish biomass of the western Bering Sea was assessed at 1.3 million t, including 1.1 million t of Pacific cod (Shuntov et al., 1990). Pacific cod is the second largest catch, by volume, of regional species. Its harvest started in 1969 at the shelf of the Olutorsky-Karagin area, later expanded all along the Kamchatka shelf. Catches peaked at 117,650 t in 1984 then after a few years of decline reached 110,000 t in 1992, before declining again. Although the population structure of the western Bering Sea cod is not well understood, the stocks are believed to be in good condition. Flatfish are less abundant in the western Bering Sea than in the eastern part. Total biomass is assessed at 130,000 t (Shuntov et al., 1990). Flounders have been traditionally caught along the Olutorsky shelf and adjacent areas, as well as along the Kamchatka shelf at the depth of 150 to 400 m (Zilanov et al., 1989). Catches have varied considerably, from 8,000 t in 1984, to 39,900 t in 1986. Stock assessments for flounders and halibut are favorable. Russian experts expect relative growth in flounder abundance, a trend that has already been observed on the eastern Kamchatka shelf. Table 5.5 shows that numbers of bycatch fish, such as sculpins (Cottidae), sea poachers (Agonidae), and eelpouts (Zoarcidae), are relatively high in areas where there has been no commercial fishing (Bering Strait).

HUMAN USE—FISHERIES 177 Table 5.3 Dynamics of the main environmental parameters of the western Bering Sea Period Average Average t° of water at the surface °C t° of air Ice Biomass of Station Apuka Station Ossora Station Korf Surface in Zooplankton 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 Western in Olutorsky Bering, Bay (mg/m 2) Jan.–May (thousand km2) 1951–65 660 4.59 6.78 3.51 7.85 5.83 7.81 2,136 1,255 704 Deviance +123 -0.21 -0.17 +0.16 +0.03 -0.11 0.27 -14 -27 +65 from perennial 1966–73 313 4.91 6.98 2.46 7.31 6.05 8.04 2,159 1,246 623 Deviance -224 +0.11 +0.03 -0.89 -0.51 +0.11 -0.04 +9 -6 -16 from perennial 1974–87 555 4.92 7.12 3.69 8.07 6.01 8.39 2,160 1,287 619 Deviance +18 +0.12 +0.17 +0.34 +0.25 +0.07 +0.31 +10 +35 -20 from perennial Average 537 4.80 6.95 3.35 7.82 5.94 8.08 2,150 1,252 639 perennial Note: 1 - t° of water surface in May–June (spring). 2 - t° of water surface in July–Oct. (summer). 3 - a sum of degree-days of frost. 4 - a sum of degree-days of warm weather. Source: Naumenko et al. (1990, p. 56).

HUMAN USE—FISHERIES 178 Table 5.4 Catches of the main commercial species in the western Bering Sea (thousand tons) Species/Periods 1958–65 1966–73 1974–87 1988–93 Pollock - 106.27 20.5 922.8 Herring 131.1 24.0 13.9 9.6 Cod 3.8 8.9 43.3 75.9 Saffron Cod 3.4 4.1 19.0 10.3 Flounder 8.1 13.9 15.9 24.1 Salmon n/aa 15.3 30.3 48.1 an/a, not available Source: Calculated from the data of the VNIRO Department of Fishery Statistics. Fish of the upper part of the continental slope (depths of 200 to 500 m) are usually not included in the Russian analysis of fish community changes. The relatively long history of observations in this region (since 1957), however, demands that these data be used in the analysis of Bering Sea ecosystem dynamics. Catches in different areas of the western Bering Sea slope are limited to a few species. During the last 25 years, the dynamics of catches and predominance of species in two main areas of the continental slope (the Navarin area and eastern Kamchatka) have been asynchronous. Thus, at the slope of the Navarin area, the 1960s' catch was based on sablefish, arrowtooth flounder, grenadier, and Pacific Ocean perch. Skates, cod, arrowtooth flounder, and Greenland turbot comprised 82.8 percent of the 1970s' harvest, whereas during the 1980s, 85 percent of the catch consisted of grenadiers and cod (Ilinsky, 1990). Along the slope of the eastern Kamchatka Peninsula, 76.9 percent of the 1960s' catch was made up skates, liparids, and rock and flathead sole; more than 80 percent of the 1970s' harvest consisted of rock sole, cod, and skates; and in the 1980s, 80 percent of the harvest was made up of cod and skates. Accompanying these asynchronous changes in different areas of the slope since the mid-1960s was a decrease in catches of sablefish, Pacific Ocean perch, and arrowtooth flounder in all regions. This phenomenon might be attributed to intensive fishing in the 1960s, a conclusion that is supported by fishery statistics (see Table 5.1) and data on the appearance of younger generations of targeted species in the catch. The change of dominant species has also been observed in areas not exposed to strong fishing pressure, however, such as along eastern Kamchatka. The impact of fishing on the slope communities of the western Bering Sea therefore does not appear to be substantially different from that attributed to the impact of environmental changes (Ilinsky, 1990).

Table 5.5 Groundfish composition (percent) and biomass at the shelf of the western Bering Sea Areas (years of Average Skates Cods Eelpouts Sculpins Sea Poachers Liparids Flatfish Other Total Surveys) biomass (Rajidae) (Zoarcidae) (Cottidae) (Agonidae) (Liparidae) (Pleuronictidae) (thousand (tons/km2) (percent) tons) Shelf of the 7.70 1.3 54.4 0.3 19.5 0.3 0.2 23.7 0.3 152 Eastern Kamchatka (1984, 1987) Karagin- 17.00 0.2 81.8 1.0 7.6 0.3 0.1 8.7 0.3 615 HUMAN USE—FISHERIES Olutorsky shelf (1983, 1985) Koryak Shelf 2.30 0.9 82.9 + 6.0 + 0.3 9.8 0.1 228 (1985) Anadyr shelf 3.79 5.9 68.8 1.5 11.1 + 0.8 11.9 + 465 (1985) Bering Strait 4.78 3.0 50.5 2.4 11.1 0.7 1.8 28.4 2.1 380 Source: Based on Shuntov et al. (1990). 179

HUMAN USE—FISHERIES 180 Despite the inadequacy of knowledge on the state of stocks before their commercial exploitation, Russian experts still consider demersal communities of the western Bering Sea to be resistant to external impacts. The conclusion that its structure and normal functioning had been irreversibly damaged by fishing is not supported by the available data (Shuntov et al., 1990). Invertebrates Until 1992, shellfish stocks (king crab, Tanner crab, and humpy shrimp) were considered stable in the western Bering Sea, with catches totaling 5,000 or 6,000 t. Russian crab fishing has traditionally been concentrated along the Kamchatka shelf, with the best results in the Olutorsky-Karagin area at 60 to 150 m depth (Zilanov et al., 1989). The most promising area for shrimp has been Anadyr Bay. In 1992, statistics reflected a crucial decline in the catch of crabs (although official statistics may not include the actual catch of crabs), and data for the landings of shrimp were not reported. Western crab-processing facilities have been installed recently in more than a dozen Russian vessels. By the late 1980s, construction was started on vessels especially designed for the catching shrimp, squid, and other nontraditional (for the Russian market) and underfished species. Overall, shellfish catches from the western Bering Sea may be increased in the near future by at least 1,000 t. MARINE MAMMALS (AND BIRDS) Management Systems Hunting of marine mammals in the Bering Sea goes back thousands of years, to subsistence catches by the original indigenous populations. The commercial hunting of certain species dates to the eighteenth century. For about the first 150 years after the Russian discovery of Alaska, there was no government regulation of marine mammal catches. The result was serious depletion of many species. The first attempts at governmental regulations of fur seal hunting were undertaken on a unilateral basis by Russia (1799, 1886, and 1892), Japan (1884), and the United States (the Alaska Statute and 1870 Hutchinson Agreement) (Mirovitskaya et al., 1993). However, numerous unilateral and bilateral attempts to manage the fur seal herds proved inadequate to prevent the depletion of stocks, which by the early 1900s were reduced to a fraction of their initial abundance (Gay, 1987). After 20 years of negotiations, the first multilateral agreement, the Treaty for the Preservation and Protection of Fur Seals and Sea Otters, was signed in 1911 by Russia, Japan, Great Britain (for Canada), and the United States (Loughlin and Miller, 1989). The convention was functionally limited to conservation and management of fur seal stocks at the maximum sustainable yield (the highest level of productivity that a resource can maintain indefinitely). The agreement prohibited pelagic sealing, granted Russia and the United States managerial authority over specific herds (including their exploitation), and established a mechanism for compensating other signatories (Japan and Canada) for their acceptance of the

HUMAN USE—FISHERIES 181 ban. The treaty worked well, resulting in a steady increase in numbers of seals on the Pribilof Islands, while allowing for a moderate catch. This convention, characterized by unique environmental factors and relative simplicity of governmental regulations, not only functioned satisfactorily for all participants for over 70 years,3 but also resulted in restoration of both Asian and American northern fur seal herds (Mirovitskaya et al., 1993). The Fur Seal Treaty is often cited as a most successful landmark in multinational scientific management of shared resources. However, in 1984 the U.S. Senate refused to extend the U.S. participation in the agreement, and the regime collapsed. Another regional marine mammal, the polar bear, is protected in accordance with the 1973 multilateral Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears. This regime has been especially instrumental in managing these highly migratory animals: in the two decades of its existence, the stocks recovered, scientific knowledge about the species improved substantially, and a significant effort was applied to protect critical bear habitats (Stirling, 1988). All species of pinnipeds occur in both the eastern and western Bering Sea, and as such are resources shared by the United States and Russia. Currently there are no international agreements that provide for joint conservation and management of shared stocks, even though the need for such agreements has long been recognized (e.g., Miller, 1984). For example, Fay et al. (1989) provide a detailed description of how the lack of coordinated management has allowed repeated depletions of the Pacific walrus population. Whaling was first controlled in 1931 by the Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. This agreement was of limited effectiveness because it did not sufficiently restrict exploitation and did not include some of the major whaling nations (Japan, the Soviet Union, and Germany). Several international conferences concerning whaling were held during the following years, but it was not until 1946 that a comprehensive agreement was signed. In that year, all the major whaling nations of the world signed the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, which established the International Whaling Commission and a framework for the regulation of all whale hunting. Since then, the commission has dealt with a wide array of issues pertaining to the use and management of whale stocks (see review in Loughlin and Miller, 1989). Bering Sea bird populations, which like fish and marine mammals are shared resources of the area, are also afforded protection through bilateral agreements. These include the 1916 Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds (between Canada and the United States), the 1936 Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Mammals (between the United States and Mexico), the 1972 Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Birds in Danger of Extinction and Their Environment (between the former Soviet Union and Japan), and the 1976 Convention Concerning the Conservation of Migratory Birds and Their Environment (between the United States and the former Soviet Union). These agreements are not limited to the Bering Sea region, but in combination they still form a multilateral regime under which migratory birds of the region that should be protected may be taken or traded. For instance, the 1976 USSR-U.S. agreement obliged parties to identify 3 The treaty lapsed in 1941 and was replaced in 1957 by the Interim Convention on the Conservation of the North Pacific Fur Seals. The Interim Convention remained in effect through several renewals and extensions, but was disbanded in 1988 after the United States decided not to ratify the 1984 extension agreement.

HUMAN USE—FISHERIES 182 and list especially important habitat areas within their territory to the fullest extent possible (Wallace, 1994). Drift nets used in the salmon fishery were subject to regulation, and there were bilateral agreements between Japan and the Soviet Union and a parallel U.S.-Canada-Japan agreement. In 1992, bilateral arrangements were replaced with the Convention for the Conservation of Anadromous Stocks in the North Pacific, which also covers the central Bering Sea area. Drift net fishing is regulated by 1991 U.S. agreements with Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. Relations between two coastal countries are regulated by a series of arrangements. The 1972 U.S.-USSR Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of Environmental Protection included sections on Protection of Nature and the Organization of Reserves (Area V, with special reference to marine mammals), Protection of the Marine Environment from Pollution (Area VI), Arctic and Subarctic Ecosystems (Area X), and Legal and Administrative Measures for the Protection of Environmental Quality (Area XI). The agreement was intended to promote cooperative, comprehensive research on the biotic resources of Beringia and the quality of the marine environment. Resulting from this framework agreement are the 1976 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Birds and Their Environment, the 1989 Agreement Concerning Cooperation in Combatting Pollution in the Bering and Chukchi Seas in Emergency Situations, and several cooperative projects (the 1977 complex program ''Research of the Bering Sea Biology," the 1981 complex expedition that initiated the program of long- term research and monitoring of the Bering Sea, and the 1984 and 1988 joint Soviet-American expeditions for the study of human-inflicted changes in the Bering Sea ecosystem). The 1988 U.S.-USSR Agreement on Mutual Fisheries Relations encouraged cooperation in mutual fishing as well as in many other matters, including protection of marine mammals, management of anadromous species, and scientific research. However, many of the laws and agreements to protect fish, marine mammals, and seabirds in the North Pacific and Bering Sea have proved ineffective, particularly when viewed at the international level (Harrison et al., 1990) or from ecosystem perspectives. All of these agreements are limited functionally and in membership, and do not consider functional interactions within the food web, and thus are not able to mitigate perturbations to the Bering Sea ecosystem. Necessary changes might be brought about through the activities of two recently established institutions, the North Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES) and the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC). PICES has a working group on the Bering Sea, established to promote and coordinate marine scientific research of the area and its living resources, to examine its uses and impacts from human activities, and to promote the collection and exchange of information and data related to marine scientific research (PICES fact sheet, undated). More recently, IASC has begun an effort to examine global change in the Bering Sea region as part of its science agenda (IASC, 1994). A relatively recent occurrence in Alaska has been the development of management regimes by groups of indigenous people (Huntingdon, 1992). These regimes take a variety of forms and are in various stages of development. Perhaps the best developed and most successful is the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, which since 1981 has managed virtually all aspects of bowhead subsistence whaling through a cooperative agreement with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Other co-management and indigenous management efforts deal with Pacific walrus (the Eskimo Walrus Commission), polar bears (the Agreement on Polar Bear

HUMAN USE—FISHERIES 183 Management in the Bering Sea), beluga whales (the Alaska Beluga Whale Committee), and geese (the Yukon- Kuskokwim Delta Goose Management Plan). However, despite an impressive list of cooperative arrangements, thus far the Bering Sea does not have a regime that can guarantee the conservation of the regional interconnected ecosystems, or prevent depletion of common resources and associated stocks that are under the jurisdiction of coastal states. Regional management systems in place are based on a few species and are hampered by the inadequacy of the regional infrastructure. Although there is ample evidence of the interconnection of resource conflicts in the area, no serious attempt at complex regional regulation has yet been undertaken (Mirovitskaya and Haney, 1992). Within the United States, the principal laws affecting marine mammals are the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972 and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. The MMPA applies to all marine mammal species, and establishes a moratorium on all taking (harassment, injuring, or killing) and importation, with provisions for limited exemptions. The principal exemptions are subsistence use by Alaska natives, scientific research, public display, and incidental take in commercial fisheries. All but subsistence take require permits issued by the appropriate management agencies (National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service). A provision of the MMPA requires that species or populations be designated as "depleted" if they are below their "optimum sustainable population range" (a range between the population size at environmental carrying capacity and the size at which the population achieves its "maximum net productivity level"), or if they are classified as "endangered'' or "threatened" under provisions of the ESA. Management agencies are required to be more strict in allowing takings from depleted populations. The MMPA does not allow government agencies to restrict nonwasteful subsistence take of marine mammals by Alaska natives unless a population is declared depleted. The ESA applies only to those marine mammal species that are listed as endangered (likely to become extinct within the foreseeable future) or threatened (likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future). The ESA limits federal actions (or federally permitted actions) that may affect listed species or their habitats. It requires the development and implementation of recovery plans, and provides a framework for programs to identify, mitigate, and monitor impacts of human activities on those species. INTERACTIONS OF INDIGENOUS POPULATIONS WITH MARINE ECOSYSTEMS Native settlement in the Russian and American Bering Sea coastal regions dates back well over 10,000 years, marking what was the great migration of humans from the Asian to the American continents. This region, called Beringia, was the center of the world's most developed coastal cultures (Arutunov and Sergeev, 1975; Krupnik, 1989) and at least for the last two thousand years, these cultures were economically based on maritime hunting (Dikov, 1979). Archeological data attest to the fact that several ancient indigenous cultures emerged, flourished, and coexisted in this area. Currently, the Bering Sea coasts are home to approximately 65,000 Aleut, Koryak, Chukchi, Iñupiat, and Yupik people (I. Krupnik, personal communication). Bering Sea marine mammals and seabirds have been used by indigenous peoples of Alaska and Russia as a subsistence resource for thousands of years (Loughlin and Miller, 1989).

HUMAN USE—FISHERIES 184 In earlier years, meat and blubber were eaten, blubber served as fuel, and skins, bones, organs, ivory, and feathers were used to fashion a wide variety of clothing, tools, and other objects. Although imported materials have replaced marine mammal parts for some of these uses, in many coastal communities marine mammals are still an important source of food and products for handicrafts. These animals and their parts also provide a significant and central cultural and religious aspect to the lives of indigenous peoples. The bowhead whale, walrus, and ringed seal are particularly important animals to the coastal indigenous peoples and their cultures. Subsistence take and its importance were described in a recent report of the National Research Council (NRC, 1994b). In this section, we describe the effects of indigenous peoples on the marine ecosystem and the effects of ecosystem fluctuations—some clearly caused by overexploitation of marine resources—on them. Russia The western part of Beringia is the homeland for several groups of native people. The most coastal-oriented culture is that of the Asian Eskimos, which extends from the Cape of Baranov at the west to Labrador on the east, and Kamchatka to the south (At the Meeting Point of Chukotka and Alaska, 1983). This culture, which is very similar to that of the Alaska Eskimos (Iñupiats and Yupiks), reflects a high level of social adaption to the arctic environment. The culture of the coastal Chukchis who shared (with precisely fixed boundaries) the Bering area with the Eskimos was a direct later succession of the Eskimo culture. The traditional way of life for these people was organized around maritime hunting (bowhead and gray whales, beluga, sea lion, walrus and various seals, and polar bear), fishing, and collecting other sea products. Aleuts (residents of the Aleutian Islands) are somewhat different from Eskimos in language and economics, but these two cultures have common elements of environmental behavior that probably can be attributed to long-standing ethno-cultural contacts (Taksami, 1988) and common knowledge acquired through constant interaction with similar environments. In the permanent interaction of these coastal cultures, a comprehensive system of indigenous self- sustenance was created. The main components of this system have been well described by Russian experts (Vidovin, 1965, 1976; Volfson, 1987; Krupnik, 1984, 1989; Bogoslovskaya, et al., 1984; Pika et al., 1993). It consisted of two economic lifestyles: maritime hunting and nomadic stag breeding. The economy of the local communities was based on the productive and easily accessible resources of the sea and mainland at different trophic levels (marine mammals, shellfish, aquatic plants, fish, and seabirds). Having two cultural/economic traditions, the natives of Chukotka were able to survive through temporary resource degradation both at land and at sea. This was ensured by close contacts between local communities and their diversified character. Even in 1926, more than a third of the indigenous populations were engaged in a complex native economy that included both maritime hunting and stag breeding (Results of the 1926–1927 Census of Northern Borderlands of the Far- Eastern Area, 1929). Environmental changes that were unfavorable for one form of these two economies resulted in increased productivity in the other. Native villages have always been placed at locations with concentrations of at least three types of coastal resources (Krupnik, 1989). The harvesting pressure on the resources was divided by the indigenous populations

HUMAN USE—FISHERIES 185 spatially and over time; this method allowed higher productivity of the food resources, while preventing its disastrous depletion (although localized shortages did occur). Principle 22 of the Rio Declaration holds that "indigenous people and their communities have a vital role in environmental management and development because of their knowledge and traditional practices" (U.N. Conference on Environment and Development, 1992). Formation and development of traditional resource use by indigenous people in Beringia was the result of long-term adaptation to arctic conditions. Accordingly, understanding of the historic, economic and ethical validity of the northern native peoples' experience is by all means essential for sustainable development of the Bering Sea area (Rational Resources Use, 1987). In this regard a difference between the two main aspects of Beringia coastal cultures—their environmental knowledge and their practice of resource use—should be taken into account (Krupnik, 1984, 1989; Pika et al., 1993). Environmental experience, also referred to as "traditional knowledge," is an aggregation of notions and natives' rational knowledge about the connection between humans and nature. This comprehensive wisdom is based on day-to-day empirical observations acquired by generations. Environmental experience is reflected in ethical principles of a community, its religion, and its traditional rituals. General ethical principles of Beringia dwellers as well as most northern natives exclude the senseless destruction of natural resources. Relating to nature as a "large habitation" has always been a characteristic of their personality (Taksami, 1988). The coastal cultures of Beringia incorporated a complex of animalistic perceptions, which were reflected in a number of protective cults and ritual traditions. An extremely careful (nearly sacred) attitude towards food is confirmed by ethnographic sources (Ethnographic materials, 1978; Bogoraz-Tan, 1934) and direct surveys of Russian scholars (Krupnik, 1989). Environmental behavior, or the actual use of resources, does not necessarily reflect acquired environmental experience and sometimes is in serious contradiction to it. Popular belief that indigenous cultures existed in absolute harmony with nature does not have historical support from the western side of Beringia. Natural conditions of the area (climatic cycles, length of time for environmental restoration in cold conditions) can cause instability in the resource base. To counteract that feature, native communities had to adopt a mode of spatial expansion and active exploitation of food sources in order to provide a "reserve of stability" necessary for critical periods. Krupnik (1984, 1989) has shown that their exploitation of natural resources had negative impacts at times. Successful years, when food harvests were two or three times their needs, were often followed by poor hunting seasons with food shortages. Native food supply was affected both by their own exploitation of these resources and by European exploitation. In the late 1700s and early 1800s, after Russian colonization of the area, sea otters and Steller sea lions were depleted and Steller sea cows were exterminated. As many as 35,000 sea otter pelts were traded by Russia between 1746 and 1763, and about 1,500,000 fur seals were killed on the Pribilof Islands in the five-year period from 1798 to 1803 (I. Krupnik, personal communication). Under certain conditions Eskimos and Chukchi communities were able to disturb the local ecosystem balance (see, for example, Simenstad et al., 1978 for an analysis of the population and community effects of prehistoric Aleut hunting of sea otters). In the 1700s and 1800s, both before and after the peak of American whaling, native maritime hunting affected the status of marine mammal populations. Hunters of Greenland whales, walruses, and other pinnipeds usually aimed at the most accessible

HUMAN USE—FISHERIES 186 animals—pregnant or nursing females, and cubs. In the 1920s, for instance, hunting pressure of Chukotka natives on stocks of marine mammals reached a level at which populations were not being replaced, and by the 1930s had significantly exceeded these levels. The history of Beringia shows that to survive under the extremely unstable environmental conditions, native communities had to use all available means of social and technological adaptation. The cultures of Asian Eskimos and coastal Chukchis were historically based upon active, comprehensive, symbiotic, and interchangeable systems of resource use. This system of resource use with specific modes of settlements and lifestyles was consistent, even after Russian colonization of Chukotka dating back to the eighteen century (Essays on the history …, 1974), although natural fluctuations and overexploitation by the indigenous peoples created hardships at times. Substantial changes in the life of local communities were brought about later by the Soviet policy of "socialist reconstruction." In the 1930s, several governmental decrees on social and economic development of the area were adopted, and hundreds of millions of rubles were invested in the creation of industrial enterprises. Huge migrations of new settlers from central Russia and forced collectivization and resettlement of the indigenous populations were reflected in population dynamics, in lifestyle changes, and in a decay of traditional systems of resource use. (As described by Naske and Slotnick [1987], Western contact with indigenous Alaskans had somewhat similar effects.) The Soviet socioeconomic policies brought indigenous people to the edge of depopulation. Once the main ethnic group (99 percent in 1926), Asian Eskimos and Chukchis became minorities in their homeland: in 1989, of 164,800 inhabitants of Chukotka, only 17,400 (10 percent) were native (Numbers and Composition of the Peoples of the North, 1990). Most Chukotka inhabitants are temporary laborers, and over 70 percent of the people live there less than 10 years. Under "socialist reconstruction", the pattern of settlement has been also radically changed. Previously the Russian coastal zone was densely populated and developed; the 1926 census identified 195 native settlements (Results of the 1926–1927 Census of Northern Borderlands of the Far-Eastern Area, 1929). Coastal villages and habitations were located within walking distance from each other, within easy reach of high concentrations of several types of subsistence fish and game. After the famous 1957 decree "On the measures of further development of economics and culture of the people of the North," most of the traditional settlements were liquidated. Natives were forcefully resettled into small towns and multinational settlements specializing in fur farming (Vidovin, 1965). The system of new settlements was not compatible with traditional activities, and the settlements were not in easy reach of bountiful subsistence animals or areas of their families historic traditions. There are few villages left at the coast of the Bering Sea along with several scientific monitoring stations (Krupnik, 1989). These settlements are at a distance of 100 to 150 km from each other and are no longer economically associated. Maritime hunting reached its peak in the 1950s when an industrial basis was established. In accordance with state government plans, the annual production of marine mammal meat by local communities reached 30,000 to 40,000 t. But quite soon maritime hunting became a prerogative of the industrial sector. The use of specialized technology caused a depletion of stocks, and in less than a decade hunting by ships ended (Volfson, 1987). This extremely short period of industrialized maritime hunting negatively affected numbers of marine fauna in the Bering Sea (Pika et al., 1993). At the same time, indigenous people began losing their traditions

HUMAN USE—FISHERIES 187 of hunting and fishing. The number of native maritime hunters diminished from 700 in the early 1960s to 200 in 1985 (History and Culture of Chukchis, 1987), and the numbers of species taken (especially seals) were reduced. Coastal whaling by natives ended in the 1950s. The whales needed by local communities are taken by vessel- factory "Zvezdnyi," while the indigenous people participate only in its transportation to the land. United States-Alaska While the prehistory of Alaska shares many of the same traditions as the Russian native groups, three principal groups of Eskimos inhabit the Bering Sea coast of Alaska. Each may have developed independently over a long period of time from common ancestors. The people referred to as Inuit live on Alaskan lands northeast of the Aleutian Islands all the way up the coast to the North Slope, then across the northern coast to Canada. Based on linguistics, the Inuit who live north of Norton Sound on the Bering Sea belong to the Iñupiat, while the Yupik live to the south (Ivey and Duyan, 1991). The natives living along the Aleutian Island chain are known as Aleuts. The Aleut, Yupik, and Iñupiat have their own separate languages. Historically, village locations were chosen by Alaska natives on the basis of seasonal food gathering (subsistence), the availability of seasonal foods, and trading routes. Western Iñupiat lived primarily on salmon and seals. Arctic coastal Iñupiat lived mostly on whale, seal, and walrus meat. Inland Iñupiat and Indians lived on caribou, birds, and small game. Other food items such as eggs, roots, greens, and berries were collected by all groups (Ivey & Duyan, 1991). Contact with western culture and people first occurred in Alaska in the 1700s and 1800s when Russian explorers and traders came to Alaska. Although Bering's explorations did not establish Russian sovereignty, Siberian fur traders succeeded in eventually forcing their way eastward along the Aleutians to the mainland of Alaska. Hunting in the Aleutians had depleted fox and sea otter which caused expansion of trapping to Kodiak Island by 1762. In 1784, a Russian company was established on Kodiak to provide furs from the Alaskan Islands and mainland. The company, called the Russian-American Company, became a state monopoly in 1799 (Tikhemenev, 1863) and moved its headquarters to Sitka in 1800. Russian expeditions continued up the Alaskan coast to Norton Sound by 1819. Thus, by the middle of the nineteenth century, southwestern Alaska had been generally mapped, and the Alaska native population had become involved in the coastal fur trade. Russian Orthodox missionaries followed the traders and the Eskimo communities had become aware of Christianity through that influence. After 1850 commercial whalers came to the region in large numbers each summer. The whalers traded with coastal natives and many were employed both on the vessels, and at coastal stations. Trade goods such as flour, crackers, tobacco, matches, firearms and molasses were a principal form of local payment. While the United States bought Alaska from the Russians in 1867, its influence on Alaskan life came primarily from interactions with natives due to whaling, mining, and salmon fishing and canning (after 1880). Modern American culture made significant inroads to Iñupiat and Aleut village culture after World War II. In the Bering Sea, commercial exploitation of marine mammals began soon after the voyage of Vitus Bering in 1741. Hunting by Russians, Americans, and Europeans rapidly

HUMAN USE—FISHERIES 188 resulted in the extinction of one species (the Steller sea cow) and the severe depletion of several others (sea otters, fur seals, walrus, and right, bowhead, and gray whales). More recently, some marine mammal species have also been harvested for commercial purposes (see review in Loughlin and Miller, 1989). The effects of Euro-American overexploitation of marine resources were devastating to native populations. For example, according to Igor Krupnik (personal communication), "between 1845 and 1880, American commercial whalers killed some 10,000 bowhead whales in the North Bering Sea-Bering Strait area and the same amount of right whales in the Sea of Okhotsk and the adjacent areas of the Bering Sea." They severely depleted gray whales, and "as a result, the native people of the area [on both sides of the Bering Sea] suffered enormous hardship, with hundreds (if not thousands) perishing through starvation … between 1878 and 1882." Naske and Slotnick (1987) wrote "Whalers, who had been present even during the Russian days, eventually decimated the whales.'' Euro-American hunters also hunted walruses, killing an estimated 200,000 of them between 1860 and 1880 (Naske and Slotnick, 1987), and encouraged the natives to take part. Eventually, "they discarded their age-old practice of killing only those animals needed for food. Their efficiency in slaughter was enhanced by the guns they obtained from the whites. Whole villages were threatened with starvation" (Naske and Slotnick, 1987). The overexploitation of salmon also affected the natives; according to Naske and Slotnick (1987), the annual production of salmon had risen to about 2.5 million cases each containing 48 1-lb cans by 1900, and averaged 4.8 million cases per year during the 1920s and just under 7 million in the mid-1930s. They reported that this intense exploitation resulted serious damage to the cultures of the indigenous peoples of the region, and resulted in many high-level meetings between officials in Washington, D.C. and Alaska on how to resolve the "salmon problem." The most recent human take of marine mammals has been by commercial fishermen. Marine mammals may be caught incidentally in several types of commercial fishing gear (Young et al., 1993). Some have been killed intentionally by fishermen either because the mammals were used for bait or because they were perceived as damaging to fishing gear or stealing fish (Perez and Loughlin, 1991; Alverson, 1992). Accounts of Harvesting by Species and Species-Groups Steller Sea Lion Before 1959, virtually all taking of Steller sea lions was for subsistence. Midden records indicate that use was intense and that hunting pressure may have reduced sea lion numbers in some areas (Interagency Task Force, 1978). Until recently, however, subsistence catches were not systematically documented. Haynes and Mishler (1991) summarized the fragmentary data available at that time and estimated that the total annual catch of 25 communities was probably around 300 to 400 animals. A statewide monitoring program in Alaska, instituted in 1992, estimated the annual take at 548 animals (Wolfe, 1993). Most of these animals were taken in the Aleutian-Pribilof region.

HUMAN USE—FISHERIES 189 Steller sea lions on the Pribilof Islands were apparently heavily exploited beginning in the late 1700s as a result of Russian occupation. Sparse records indicate that many thousands of animals were taken for meat and hides. The once large population was greatly depleted, and relatively few animals were taken after 1990. Small numbers of pups were taken at a rookery on St. Paul Island in 1949 and 1950 (Kenyon, 1962). In 1959, the U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries took 616 animals, principally adult males, from rookeries between Kodiak Island and Unimak Island as part of an experimental harvest (Thorsteinson and Lensink, 1962). Between 1963 and 1972, a reported 45,178 pups were taken at several rookeries in this region (Merrick et al., 1987). Significant takes of sea lions in commercial fisheries probably did not begin until after 1950, when the fisheries off Alaska began a period of explosive growth (Alverson, 1992). Records of the number of animals that may have been taken incidentally in fishing gear and intentionally shot are incomplete. Perez and Loughlin (1991) estimated that over 20,000 animals were incidentally caught in foreign and joint-venture trawl fisheries during 1966 to 1988. Matkin and Fay (1980) estimated that 305 sea lions were shot while interfering with fishing operations in the Copper River salmon gill net fishery in the spring of 1978. In recent years, the levels of both incidental and intentional taking have been considerably lower (Wynne, 1990; NMFS, unpublished data). Alverson (1992) estimated that approximately 140,000 sea lions were killed by all human activities between 1960 and 1990. According to his estimates, most of these were from commercial fishery (45,178), incidental takes and shootings to protect gear in the trawl and salmon fisheries (43,976), and indiscriminate shootings associated with fisheries (34,000). Northern Fur Seal The history of northern fur seal catch has been well documented (Figure 5.9; Lander, 1980; York, 1987). Subsequent to the discovery of the Pribilof Islands, Russians took an average of about 40,000 fur seals on the island rookeries each year using Aleut labor. The numbers taken dropped after 1820, but increased greatly after the purchase of Alaska by the United States in 1867. Unregulated catches resulted in nearly 250,000 fur seals being taken in 1868–69, after which regulations were passed that controlled the catch on the Pribilofs. From 1868 until 1911 over 600,000 animals were taken from the oceans. In 1911 the Treaty for the Preservation and Protection of Fur Seals and Sea Otters ended the pelagic catch and controlled the take on land. The convention was not renewed after it expired in 1984, and since 1985 the only catches have been by Pribilof Island residents for subsistence purposes. Annual catches since 1911 are shown in Table 5.6. Considerable numbers of northern fur seals were incidentally caught in salmon and squid drift nets fished on the high seas beginning in the 1970s. Estimated catches in some years exceeded 2,000 animals (NMFS, 1993a). Fur seals have been caught only occasionally in trawl fisheries (Perez and Loughlin, 1991).

HUMAN USE—FISHERIES 190 Figure 5.9 History of northern fur seal exploitation, Pribilof Islands, Alaska, 1786–79 (data are five-year averages) (York, 1987).

HUMAN USE—FISHERIES 191 Table 5.6 Total number of fur seals taken annually on the Pribilof Islands, 1911–93 Year Total Kill Year Total Kill 1911 11,899 1952 63,870 1912 3,169 1953 66,068 1913 2,406 1954 63,882 1914 2,735 1955 65,453 1915 3,947 1956 122,826 1916 6,466 1957 93,661 1917 8,169 1958 75,797 1918 34,890 1959 58,257 1919 27,790 1960 40,635 1920 26,648 1961 126,046 1921 23,656 1962 97,440 1922 31,152 1963 86,338 1923 15,854 1964 65,432 1924 17,189 1965 52,554 1925 19,839 1966 52,888 1926 22,088 1967 65,816 1927 24,916 1968 58,960 1928 31,061 1969 38,908 1929 40,068 1970 42,241 1930 42,497 1971 31,849 1931 49,516 1972 37,393 1932 49,329 1973 28,482 1933 54,550 1974 33,027 1934 53,468 1975 29,148 1935 57,296 1976 23,296 1936 52,446 1977 28,794 1937 55,180 1978 25,183 1938 58,364 1979 26,113 1939 60,473 1980 24,677 1940 64,856 1981 24,276 1941 95,013 1982 25,177 1942 150 1983 26,268 1943 117,164 1984 22,416 1944 47,652 1985 3,713 1945 76,964 1986 1,439 1946 64,523 1987 1,802 1947 61,447 1988 1,258 1948 70,142 1989 1,521 1949 70,890 1990 1,241 1950 60,090 1991 1,926 1951 60,689 1992 1,676 1993 1,837 Source: NMFS, unpublished data.

HUMAN USE—FISHERIES 192 Harbor Seal From 1927 to 1967 U.S. federal and state governments paid a bounty on seals to encourage catches. Bounty records did not distinguish harbor seals from other species, but assuming that most of the seals submitted for bounty in the southeast and central/southwest Alaska districts were harbor seals, annual kills ranged from about 2,500 to 12,000 during 1927–52 (Wolfe, 1993). In the early 1960s, Alaskan harbor seal skins were sold on the European fur market and catches increased substantially. Estimated yearly catches climbed from between 6,000 and 10,000 before 1963 to over 50,000 in 1965 (Interagency Task Force, 1978). Many of these animals were pups taken at large haulouts such as Bristol Bay. Reduced prices for raw skins resulted in decreased catches (i.e., 8,000 to 10,000 per year). An additional 38,444 seals were reported killed on the Stikine, Taku, and Copper river deltas during 1951 to 1959, in a predator control program (Wolfe, 1993). For the most part, subsistence catches of harbor seals have not been systematically monitored. Estimates of annual catches for the 1970s and early 1980s range from 500 to 2,500 (Hoover, 1988b). A detailed study reported that 2,867 seals were killed by subsistence hunters in Alaska during 1992 (Wolfe, 1993). Fifty-eight percent of the take occurred in southeast Alaska. There is relatively little information on takes of harbor seals by commercial fisheries. Young and other (1993) cited reports of takes of 1,729 in 1978 and 2,800 in 1979, but kills of less than 100 in 1990 and 1991. Matkin and Fay (1980) estimated that about 500 harbor seals were killed or seriously injured in interactions with salmon drift net fisheries in Prince William Sound and the Copper River delta in 1978. Wynne (1990) reported that seal interactions with these fisheries were much less frequent in 1988 and 1989. Apparently harbor seals are only rarely caught in trawl fisheries (Sease, 1992). Ice-Associated Seals In the United States, the only catches of ice-associated seals have been for subsistence purposes. Annual catches for all species through 1972 were estimated to range from about 15,000 to 21,000, consisting of about 65 percent ringed seals, 20 percent spotted seals, 15 percent bearded seals, and a few ribbon seals (Interagency Task Force, 1978). Catches generally declined after 1972. Kelly (1988a) considered that the annual take of ringed seals in Alaska during the mid-1980s probably exceeded 3,000. Burns (1981) estimated the average annual take of bearded seals in Alaska during 1966–77 as 1,784. Soviet/Russian shore and ship-based hunters have taken substantial numbers of ice-associated seals. In the Bering Sea, ship-based fishing began in 1961. Catches of ringed seals in the 1970s and 1980s were generally 1,000 to 2,000 animals in each of the Bering and Chukchi seas (Kelly, 1988a). Shore-based hunters along Chukotka took about 1,000 bearded seals a year, whereas ship-based catches in the Bering and Chukchi seas ranged from about 1,000 to 7,000 per year (Kelly, 1988b). For ribbon seals, ship-based catches averaged 9,971 to 1961 to 1967 and then declined to an average of 2,933 during 1969 to 1982 (Kelly, 1988c). Ship-based catches of spotted seals in the Bering Sea ranged from 1,000 to 5,000 per year during 1969 to

HUMAN USE—FISHERIES 193 1983 (Quakenbush, 1988). Ice-associated seals are seldom taken in commercial fisheries (Young et al., 1993). Walrus Before the introduction of modern weapons and equipment, the subsistence catches of walrus by indigenous peoples of the Bering-Chukchi region were probably quite small. Commercial exploitation of the Pacific walrus population apparently began in the mid-seventeenth century and continued at a relatively low level through the mid-1980s (Fay et al., 1989). Fishing intensified after the purchase of Alaska from Russia, as American whalers pursued bowhead whales in the Bering and Chukchi seas, and averaged more than 12,000 animals per year during 1869–79. These figures do not include animals that were wounded or killed but not retrieved. Catches by whalers virtually ceased after 1880, probably because of scarcity of walrus and declining demand for walrus oil. Catches from 1880 through 1930 were largely unrecorded, although they may have been large enough to have some impact on the population (Fay et al., 1989). Detailed records of Pacific walrus catches by the Soviet Union/Russia and the United States during 1931 to 1989 have been compiled by Fay and Bowlby (1994). The Alaskan take was generally less than 2,000 animals per year through 1974, and somewhat higher after that. The total annual Soviet/Russian catches have varied considerably, from less than 1,000 to over 8,000. However, some estimated 200,000 walruses were killed by Alaska native hunters off the Chukchi Peninsula between 1931 and 1961 (Krylov, 1968). These figures represent only the number retrieved and do not include animals killed but lost. Pacific walrus are occasionally taken incidentally to commercial fishing, especially in bottom trawls (Young et al., 1993). Sea Otter Indigenous people living around the North Pacific rim have taken sea otters for thousands of years. In at least some areas, fishing pressure was apparently great enough to cause local reductions in sea otter numbers and at least temporarily to restructure subtidal biological communities (Simenstad et al., 1978). Intense commercial exploitation of sea otters began in the mid-1700s and continued virtually unregulated until 1911. Records are incomplete, but it is likely that about 500,000 animals were taken over this period (Kenyon, 1969). In 1911, all hunting except that by Alaska natives was prohibited by the Treaty for the Preservation and Protection of Fur Seals and Sea Otters. During 1962 to 1970, the State of Alaska conducted an experimental harvest program that took about 2,500 animals from densely populated islands in the Aleutians (Interagency Task Force, 1978). Since 1972, the only catches have been by Alaska natives for subsistence and production of handicrafts. Catches have increased somewhat in recent years, generally amounting to several hundred animals per year (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unpublished data).

HUMAN USE—FISHERIES 194 Alaskan sea otters are sometimes taken incidentally in commercial fisheries, especially gill net fisheries, but the number taken is relatively small (Young et al., 1993). Whales Bowhead and gray and beluga whales have been hunted by aboriginal people of the Bering Sea region for at least the last 2,000 years (Krupnik, 1984; Stoker and Krupnik, 1993). Bowhead and beluga whales continue to be a valued subsistence resource for Alaska natives, with an average of 23 bowhead whales landed4 each year between 1973 and 1994 at nine major whaling villages (Marine Mammal Commission, 1995). In the 1960s, the USSR began a government hunt of gray whales to provide food for coastal Siberian Eskimos, with an average take of about 165 per year; only a few gray whales are taken each year by Alaska natives (Wolman and Rice, 1979). Commercial hunting of gray whales began in the bays and lagoons along the coast of Baja California in 1845–46 (Henderson, 1984). It is estimated that over 5,000 whales were killed in the lagoons in the 11 hunting seasons beginning in the winter of 1854–55. Because the hunting was conducted in calving areas, a large part of the catch was adult females (calves were not included in catch figures), and thus the population was rapidly depleted. The last significant catches were made in the early 1870s, by which time the major calving lagoons were essentially devoid of whales (Henderson, 1984). Relatively few gray whales were taken by pelagic whaling operations (Reeves, 1984). Commercial exploitation of baleen whales in Alaska began in the mid-1800s, when American whalers discovered abundant stocks of bowheads in the northern Bering Sea, and right whales in the southeastern Bering Sea and western Gulf of Alaska (Bockstoce and Burns, 1993). Bowheads were depleted in the Bering Sea in the first 10 years after their discovery in 1848. By the end of the century, bowheads were greatly reduced in both Bering and Chukchi seas, and right whales were nearly extinct. Limited whaling took place in Alaska during the first half of the twentieth century from a few shore-based stations in the eastern Aleutians and Gulf of Alaska. Following the end of World War II, however, Japanese and Russian pelagic whaling in the North Pacific expanded rapidly, targeting sperm and large baleen whales, particularly blue, fin, sei, and humpback whales. Intensive exploitation of baleen whales began in waters around Japan, spread north along the Kuril Islands to the southwestern Bering Sea, and then spread east along the Aleutians. Rich feeding grounds of whales were discovered in the Bering Sea and eastern Aleutians in the mid-1950s and in the Gulf of Alaska in the early 1960s (e.g., see Figure 4.29), and large catches of fin and sei whales were made (see Figure 4.30). Most whaling ended with international regulation imposed in 1975, by which time stocks of all large whales in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska were severely depleted. Estimated total catches in the North Pacific during the 1950s 4 Approximately 55 percent of bowheads stuck during this period were landed; the proportion has increased in recent years to more than 70 percent. The quota has recently been raised from 52 animals struck and 41 landed per year to 68 struck and 55 landed in 1995; the landings quota will remain at 55 through 1998 but the strikes permitted will decrease to 65 in 1998 (Marine Mammal Commission, 1995).

HUMAN USE—FISHERIES 195 to 1970s included 5,761 blue whales, more than 26,040 fin whales, 74,215 sei whales, and 30,143 humpback whales (NMFS, 1991b). The number, and particularly the biomass, of humpback and blue whales removed was not an insignificant proportion of the total for all baleen whales removed from the northern Gulf of Alaska, Aleutians, and Bering Sea. In addition to baleen whales, sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus ) were heavily exploited in the North Pacific Ocean in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Between 1956 and 1976, more than 210,000 sperm whales were killed in the North Pacific, with many thousands of those killed in the Bering Sea (I. Krupnik, personal communication). Even those killed outside the Bering Sea (as is true with other whales) might have affected the Bering Sea ecosystem (including its human inhabitants) because they are migratory. The net result of this exploitation, which began in earnest in the eighteenth century, has been an enormous reduction in the numbers of whales in the Bering Sea.

Next: 6 Causes and Effects in the Bering Sea Ecosystem »
The Bering Sea Ecosystem Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $85.00 Buy Ebook | $69.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The Bering Sea, which lies between the United States and Russia, is one of the most productive ecosystems in the world and has prolific fishing grounds. Yet there have been significant unexplained population fluctuations in marine mammals and birds in the region. The book examines the Bering Sea ecosystem's dynamics and the relationship between man and the ecosystem, in order to identify potential reasons for the population fluctuations as well as identify ways the Sea's living resources can be better managed by government.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!