Marine Resource
Issues
Poaching Pressures on Northern California's Abalone
Resource
The following paper was presented at the
3rd Annual
Abalone Symposium in October 1997 in Monterey, CA. This paper has since
been accepted for publication in a special edition of the
Journal of Shellfish
Research.
In
press.
Proceedings of the Third International Abalone
Symposium.
Journal of
Shellfish Research
Rocky Daniels & Rand Floren
Sonoma County Abalone Network
email: rocky@sonic.net
Poaching Pressures on
Northern California's Abalone Resource
ABSTRACT An examination of
poaching pressure on red abalone (Haliotis rufescens) in northern
California based on anecdotal accounts, courtroom testimony, newspaper reports,
and situation assessments by resource professionals revealed a major threat to
abalone resources and demonstrated the effectiveness of community involvement
in resource management.
KEY WORDS abalone, poaching,
northern California, HoJo
Introduction
The abalone fishery off central and southern
California is in a state of collapse. A harvesting moratorium has been in
effect for black abalone (Haliotis cracherodii) since August 1993.
Harvesting of green (H. fugens), pink (H. corregata), and white
(H. sorenseni) abalone ceased in January of 1996. The red abalone (H.
rufescens) fishery was placed under an emergency closure in May of 1997
following a full season when less than 87 metric tons were landed commercially
(Karpov, 9/28/97 personal communication). The situation is entirely different
in northern California where less than 14% of the state's potential abalone
habitat yields annual recreational fishery landings of red abalone estimated to
exceed 900 metric tons (Karpov & Haaker, 1997). The northern fishery
flourishes and, assuming no major environmental changes, California resource
managers expect that current harvest levels can be sustained indefinitely.
The stage was set for this study to contrast two
adjacent fisheries of the same state almost 50 years ago by regulations which
split California at San Francisco. Commercial abalone harvesting in northern
California was banned in 1949 and, in 1952, use of SCUBA gear for recreational
harvesting north of San Francisco was also prohibited (California Department of
Fish and Game, 1995). Those regulations established de facto reserves in
waters too deep or too remote for most recreational breathhold divers to reach.
Estimated to encompass as much as 40% of total stocks (Karpov & Haaker,
1997) the resulting refuge population may well be responsible for replenishing
abalone taken from more accessible waters.
From about 1971, the economic value of abalone
landings approximately doubled every six years (Lundy, 1997) while the
commercially exploitable central and southern California fisheries steadily
declined. Before the May 1997 closure, red abalone were worth as much as $50
apiece at the dock (California Department of Fish and
Game, 1995). In northern California, where it is easy to take 100 abalone per
SCUBA tank, the one-day, tax-free earning potential of an unrestrained poacher
easily exceeds $3,000. One result of these financial incentives is that abalone
poaching in northern California is common enough to be seen by any interested
observer. Law enforcement officials close to the situation estimate 4,800
abalone per diveable day are being poached from northern California waters
(Sacramento Bee, 12/22-26/97).
Sport Violations
The most obvious poaching in northern California
consists of recreational harvesters committing violations of fish and game
regulations involving undersized, over limit, or illegal possession of abalone
out-of-shell. The California Department of Fish and Game periodically sets up
roadside checkpoints. United States constitutional law requires that the
location and times of these checkpoints be advertised in advance and that a
randomizing method for vehicle selection be determined in advance. The
occupants of each stopped vehicle are asked whether they have taken any
abalone. If the answer is no and there is no evidence to the contrary, the
vehicle is sent on its way. These checkpoints are neither intended nor expected
to detect an alert or wary poacher. But they do provide some insight into the
extent of sport violations. For example:
¨ A 1990 Sonoma
County checkpoint inspected approximately 400 vehicles resulting in 36
citations and 120 warnings plus seizure of 175 abalone (Santa Rosa Press
Democrat, 6/25/90).
¨ The June 1997
Sonoma County roadside checkpoint inspected 200 vehicles, issued 28 citations,
and confiscated 73 abalone (Santa Rosa Press Democrat, 6/23/97).
The overall impact of sport violations is
generally limited to an increase in pressure on stocks already subject to
recreational harvesting. When there is no financial incentive involved, petty
poaching would be a minor concern except for the apparently large numbers of
sport harvesters involved.
Commercial to Commercial
Poaching
At the other extreme of visible poaching activity
is a small and elusive segment of the commercial diving industry that takes or
creates opportunities to illegally harvest abalone in northern California.
Though well out-of-sight, the existence of this type of poaching is known and
easily illustrated. Beginning in 1985, northern California was the focus of a
boom/bust cycle in commercial sea urchin fishing. Most of the abalone
permittees from southern California also have commercial sea urchin permits
that enable them to move north and work central California for abalone and
northern California for sea urchin. Landing records from the mid- to late-1980s
document that some dual-permit divers were making landings of up to 564 abalone
per vessel day and averaging three times the catch per unit effort compared to
central California operators (California Department of Fish and Game, 1/95).
Suspicious boats were targeted for surveillance that resulted in the 1990
seizure of two commercial boats for north coast poaching violations. Landing
data available from as late as 1993 suggests that other operators continued
with similar illegal activities (Karpov, 9/28/97 personal communication).
Recently publicized cases further bolster assertions that commercially licensed
divers continue to be involved in abalone poaching. For example:
¨ Fish and game
wardens arrested a Half Moon Bay commercial abalone diver in January of 1996
following observations that he was diving in Fitzgerald Marine Reserve, a
no-take preserve, during the closed month of January. Agents monitoring his
movements became suspicious when one SCUBA tank stayed in the back of his truck
while others were being refilled in a local dive shop. When the agents moved
in, they found a SCUBA tank with a false bottom perfect for hiding the seven
abalone found inside.
¨ Two Santa Barbara
commercial divers were arrested in August of 1996 for landing 46 abalone at
Sonoma County's Fort Ross (Santa Rosa Press Democrat, 11/6/96). Using radios to
maintain contact with a third accomplice, these poachers used SCUBA gear for
their illegal activities (Sonoma County Superior Court, 8/22/96). An earlier
encounter with northern California law enforcement officers indicates the
August foray was not their first. For one of the commercial divers, the Sonoma
County arrest and conviction landed him in state prison for two years when his
probation was revoked by a southern California court that had sentenced him
earlier the same month for fish and game violations (Halsey, 9/30/97 personal
communication).
¨ Investigation of
a Point Arena bed and breakfast lodging that appeared to cater only to
commercial sea urchin divers and tenders led to prison for those involved in
what turned out to be an abalone for heroin operation. (Hee, 9/23/97 personal
communication)
With the May 1997 closure shutting down the
commercial abalone fishery throughout the State of California, concern over
poaching by commercially licensed divers has been substantially reduced. The
presence of more than sport quantities of abalone aboard any boat now
constitutes prima facie evidence of commercial poaching that can lead to loss
of boat and equipment; abalone poaching in northern California has been too
easy to risk valuable assets unnecessarily. Even so, sufficient evidence
continues to accumulate to justify ongoing, close scrutiny of the commercial
diving fleet working northern California waters.
Sport to Commercial
Poaching
Of much greater current concern to resource
professionals and legitimate stake holders is the black market in poached
abalone and those occasions where it has led to large-scale commercial
operations. There has historically been an underground trade involving local
restaurants and seafood markets willing to purchase or barter for abalone
landed by individuals having nothing more than a sport fishing license. For
example:
¨ The owner of a
San Francisco seafood market was arrested on July 14, 1996, when she bought 20
kilograms of abalone from an undercover game warden after driving 100
kilometers to take delivery in a parking lot meeting place. (Santa Rosa Press
Democrat, 7/15/96)
¨ A San Francisco
Chinatown fish market owner was arrested on May 29, 1997 in possession of 75
kilograms of abalone on his business premises. The only available records to
indicate where the abalone had been purchased were bank drafts made out to
"cash." (San Francisco Chronicle, 10/4/97)
¨ Two Fort Bragg
restaurants in business for decades, one under the same owner, were
successfully prosecuted based on information obtained from a poacher. When that
same poacher was released from prison months later, he was again caught
poaching abalone and he revealed that one of the two restaurants was back in
the business of buying poached abalone. The follow-up investigation led to a
second round of arrests and the discovery of more abalone than could be
accounted for by undercover transactions preceding the arrests. (Hee, 9/23/97
personal communication)
¨ In 1996, an East
Bay resident came under suspicion when it became obvious he was diving for
abalone on a daily basis. A background check revealed that he was residing more
than 150 kilometers from the diving locations, driving a new vehicle, and had
no obvious source of income. The investigation that led to his arrest revealed
he was taking his four abalone per day, processing his landings to maximize the
value, and making daily deliveries to local sushi restaurants. A search of the
individual's home turned up an additional 129 abalone. (Hee, 9/23/97 personal
communication)
More than 24 seafood markets and restaurants have
been successfully prosecuted for northern California abalone violations during
the past 18 months with more cases pending (Hee, 9/23/97 personal
communication). Some of these relate to the traditional black market while
others are associated with a new class of poachers. These new participants make
almost daily appearances at the coast, take their sport limits, and return to
homes 150 to 300 kilometers away. While more wary poachers tend to work alone,
some of the newcomers have been observed traveling together in caravans with up
to six people per vehicle.
¨ Thirty-five
suspects were arrested August 9, 1995, when approximately 70 individuals were
detected illegally working Fort Ross Terrace in the middle of the night (Santa
Rosa Press Democrat 9/23/95). Having similar San Francisco home addresses plus
common employers in the garment and hotel industries suggest the defendants
were part of an organized group (Halsey, 9/30/97 personal communication). Five
of the defendants had a total of 23 prior citations that included commercial
poaching (more than seven times sport limit), undersized, and out-of-shell
violations (Santa Rosa Press Democrat, 1/18/96; Sonoma County Superior Court,
12/10/96).
¨ Four individuals
were arrested north of Mendocino County's Navarro Beach on July 11, 1995, in
possession of 309 abalone. About 90% were under legal size including some that
were less than half the legal size minimum. (Santa Rosa Press Democrat,
7/14/95)
¨ Eight people were
arrested June 5, 1996, in possession of 70 abalone taken from Fisk Mill Cove.
They used SCUBA gear, camouflaged equipment, lookouts, and worked in relay
teams to land the abalone (San Francisco Examiner, 6/9/96). This group had one
dive shop refuse to rent them dive gear when it became clear they intended to
use it for north coast poaching activities; they went forward with their plans
in spite of being told by dive shop employees the consequences of getting
caught (Sonoma County Superior Court, 11/6/96).
¨ Surveillance of
one Mendocino location during a middle-of-the-night low tide in August 1997
resulted in the arrest of 24 poachers. In the middle-of-the-night two weeks
later, nine more individuals were arrested at a different site (Morse, 10/8/97
personal communication).
In some cases, small scale operations have tied in
with international businesses involving millions of dollars in abalone poached
from northern California waters.
¨ The HoJo poaching
ring began in the late summer of 1993 with two individuals selling part of
their sport landings to local restaurants. Within a few month's time, more than
a dozen individuals were involved and a San Diego commercial fisherman was
offering to buy as much abalone as the group could land. By the end of 1993,
the San Diego contact had the poaching ring set up with a safe house near the
coast, bought the equipment needed to properly pack and freeze the product, and
established air freight and money exchange procedures to efficiently ship the
product south. On receipt in San Diego, the abalone would be immediately
transferred to another receiver in a chain that led to the orient or the US
eastern seaboard. When free diving methods proved too inefficient to meet
demand, he convinced the group to switch to the illegal use of SCUBA equipment
that made it possible to remove and shuck 80 to 100 abalone per tank (Sonoma
County Superior Court, 7/24/96). This group of poachers ended up removing at
least 20 metric tons of red abalone from five locations along a 10 kilometer
stretch of coastline during the less than one year they were in operation.
¨ During pretrial
interviews in the Van Howard Johnson case, statements were made about a larger
operation that included the involvement of 12 commercial sea urchin boats based
in Sonoma and Mendocino Counties (Halsey, 9/30/97 personal communication).
Those statements in 1994 eventually led to the May 1997 arrest of a Los Angeles
seafood processor and two of his associates following buys of abalone from a
fish and game agent posing as a north coast sport diver (Santa Rosa Press
Democrat, 5/30/97, 6/3/97; San Francisco Examiner, 6/8/97; San Francisco
Chronicle, 5/31/97). One of the participants in that illegal southern
California seafood processing business made statements to an undercover agent
that they were paying commercial sea urchin boats in Bodega Bay as much as
$45,000 per load for northern California abalone (Sacramento Bee, 6/9/97). More
than 3,000 abalone, almost one metric ton of sea cucumber, and $20,000 cash
were confiscated during the raid of their illegal processing plant (Hee,
9/23/97 personal communication). Bookkeeping records seized during the arrests
document traceable business transactions totaling millions of dollars since
1994 (Halsey, 9/30/97 personal communication).
Countermeasures
Building concern over the blatant rise in poaching
led to direct public involvement that, in turn, spurred increased attention on
the problem by government agencies at the local, state, and federal levels. The
results have been impressive though not necessarily publicized. Quietly
processing cases through the legal system lessens the attention drawn to
focused law enforcement efforts and potentially makes defendants more useful
during follow-up investigations.
¨ The commercial
boat seizures in 1990 led to the first use of felony conspiracy charges in
cases involving misdemeanor fish and game violations. Convictions for felony
conspiracy carry maximum sentences of up to three years in state prison
compared to one year in county jail for a misdemeanor. In 1996, 16 felony
convictions were obtained in Sonoma County abalone cases resulting in two
three-year and one two-year state prison sentences as well as numerous county
jail sentences.
¨ The 1990 seizures
also resulted in legislation that increased abalone poaching fines to $30,000.
With penalty assessments tacked on, financial exposure for commercial poaching
convictions now exceeds $80,000.
¨ Groups of as many
as 45 recreational harvesters have demonstrated the importance of the poaching
issue by sitting through courtroom hearings involving abalone poaching
cases.
¨ Fines for petty
sport violations in Sonoma County have been standardized at $500 for a
violation involving one abalone with $250 added for each additional abalone;
e.g., four undersized abalone equates to a $1250 fine (Halsey, 7/24/97
presentation). If violations are associated with sport to commercial poaching,
punishment for first time offenders has resulted in jail time with fines
starting at $3,000.
¨ Virtually
nonexistent during eight of the last 10 years, state funding has been made
available for law enforcement efforts that focus on abalone poaching. More than
200 court cases have been filed during the past 18 months involving the illegal
commercialization of northern California abalone (Hee, 9/23/97 personal
communication).
¨ Businesses found
to be purchasing poached abalone are now beginning to face civil suits for
engaging in unfair business practices. Compared to criminal prosecutions, civil
actions require a much lower standard of proof and the "fines" have no
ceiling.
¨ Successful
prosecution at the local level draws stepped up scrutiny by federal tax,
customs, and marine enforcement agencies.
¨ Grassroots
stewardship efforts have sprung up to educate recreational harvesters and build
on peer pressure against petty poaching.
¨ Legislation that
includes an annual fee on recreational harvesters as a means of funding abalone
research and law enforcement projects received widespread and active support
from the scientific and recreational communities and was signed into law
October 8, 1997.
Conclusion
Abalone poaching in northern California has been a
serious concern for decades and the escalating value of abalone provides good
reason to expect it will continue. The public and private sectors have
responded with a number of deterrents and have had some limited success. The
question for the future is whether the resolve needed to counter the plundering
of public resources can be maintained.
Verbal Communications
Halsey Jr. B, Deputy District Attorney, Sonoma
County, 7/24/97 presentation at Sonoma County Abalone Network general
meeting
Halsey Jr. B, Deputy District Attorney, Sonoma
County, 9/30/97 telephone conversation
Hee M., Patrol Captain, Abalone Enforcement
Coordinator, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. 9/23/97
telephone conversation
Karpov K., Associate Marine Biologist, California
Department of Fish and Game, Fort Bragg 9/28/97 telephone conversation.
McNulty O., Lifeguard, California State Parks,
Sonoma County, 10/6/97 telephone conversation.
Morse S., Lieutenant, Wild Life Protection,
California Department of Fish and Game, Fort Bragg 10/8/97 telephone
conversation.
Sonoma County Superior Court, 7/24/96, courtroom
testimony before Judge Bryan Jamar
Sonoma County Superior Court, 8/22/96, courtroom
testimony before Judge Frank Passalacqua
Sonoma County Superior Court, 11/6/96, courtroom
testimony before Judge Mark Tansil
Sonoma County Superior Court, 12/10/96, courtroom
testimony before Judge Rex Sater
References Cited
California Department of Fish and Game, 1/95, Kelp
Forest - Newsletter of Northern California Fish & Game's Sport Finfish and
Shellfish Projects, No. 3, Poached Abalone - Recipe for Disaster, pg.
3
California Department of Fish and Game, 1995.
Draft Environmental Document - Pink, Green, and White Abalone Fishery
Closure, pg. 3-77
California Department of Fish and Game, 1995.
Draft Environmental Document - Pink, Green, and White Abalone Fishery
Closure, pgs A-41 & A-48
Karpov K., Haaker P., California Department of
Fish and Game, 1997, Kelp Forest - Northern California Marine Sport Fishing and
Diving Newsletter, No. 5 April 1997, A Decline Without Refuge? The Red
Abalone Biology and Status of Populations in California, pg. 7
Lundy, A., 1997. The California Abalone
Industry - A Pictorial History, Best Publishing Company, pgs. 173 to
175
Sacramento Bee, 12/22-26/96, "The Pacific Blues"
series
Sacramento Bee, 6/9/97, "State touts big catch in
war on sea poachers"
Santa Rosa Press Democrat, 6/1/97, "82 abalone
found in car trunk near Ukiah"
Santa Rosa Press Democrat, 6/25/90, "Illegal
abalone found in 10% of cars stopped"
Santa Rosa Press Democrat, 7/14/95, "Officials
seize 309 abalone"
Santa Rosa Press Democrat, 9/23/95, "35 face trial
on poaching charges"
Santa Rosa Press Democrat, 1/18/96, "Poacher
jailed, fined"
Santa Rosa Press Democrat, 7/15/96, "Bait nets 2
in abalone sting"
Santa Rosa Press Democrat, 11/6/96, "Poachers
plead no contest"
Santa Rosa Press Democrat, 5/30/97, "Ton of Sonoma
County abalone seized in poaching sting"
Santa Rosa Press Democrat, 6/3/97, "Abalone
suspects' bail increased to $500,000"
Santa Rosa Press Democrat, 6/23/97, "On poaching
patrol along Hwy. 1"
San Francisco Examiner, 6/9/96, "Poachers ran a
tight ring say wardens"
San Francisco Examiner, 6/8/97, "Wardens poach a
big subject"
San Francisco Chronicle, 5/31/97, "Officials
uncover ton of abalone"
San Francisco Chronicle, 10/4/97, "Fishmonger
guilty of lax abalone records"
In
press.
Proceedings of the Third International Abalone
Symposium.
Journal of
Shellfish Research |
