Download OCTOPUS - The Safina Center

OCTOPUS
Octopus vulgaris (Common Octopus), Eledone cirrhosa (Horned Octopus), Eledone moschata
(Musky Octopus), Enteroctopus dofleini (Giant Octopus), Octopus cyanea (Day Octopus)
Sometimes known as Tako
SUMMARY
Although Octopus are wide-ranging and have short lifespans, some populations are declining due
to heavy fishing pressure. Most Octopuses are caught using bottom trawls, causing habitat
damage and bycatch of unwanted wildlife. Management and monitoring of Octopus fisheries are
weak in many countries. In almost any situation Argentine or Longfin Squid can be a great
substitute for Octopus. Squid however does not need nearly as much time to cook as Octopus.
Squid does remarkably well with a quick grill or a minute under the broiler. It pairs well with the
Mediterranean flavors often combined with octopus.
Criterion
Points
Final Score
Life History
2.75
2.40 - 4.00
Abundance
1.75
1.60 - 2.39
Habitat Quality and Fishing Gear Impacts
0.75
0.00 - 1.59
Management
1.50
Bycatch
0.75
Final Score
1.50
Color
Color
LIFE HISTORY
Core Points (only one selection allowed)
If a value for intrinsic rate of increase („r‟) is known, assign the score below based on this value.
If no r-value is available, assign the score below for the correct age at 50% maturity for females
if specified, or for the correct value of growth rate ('k'). If no estimates of r, age at 50% maturity,
or k are available, assign the score below based on maximum age.
1.00
Intrinsic rate of increase <0.05; OR age at 50% maturity >10 years; OR growth rate
<0.15; OR maximum age >30 years.
2.00
Intrinsic rate of increase = 0.05-0.15; OR age at 50% maturity = 5-10 years; OR a growth
rate = 0.16–0.30; OR maximum age = 11-30 years.
3.00
Intrinsic rate of increase >0.16; OR age at 50% maturity = 1-5 years; OR growth
rate >0.30; OR maximum age <11 years.
Most species of Octopus are short-lived, having life spans from 6 months to five years
(Conners and Jorgensen 2006, Norman et al. 1996). The Common Octopus, the main
species caught, usually matures between 12 and 18 months and can live up to 24 months
(Case 1996, 1999). The intrinsic rate of growth is estimated to be >0.16 (Cephbase 2006).
The Horned Octopus matures at 1 year of age (MarLIN 2001b) and can live up to 3 years,
although most only live for two years. The Giant Octopus matures between two and three
years of age and can live for up to six years (Golden and McCrae 1994).
Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed)
-0.25 Species has special behaviors that make it especially vulnerable to fishing pressure
(e.g., spawning aggregations; site fidelity; segregation by sex; migratory bottlenecks;
unusual attraction to gear; etc.).
Some species of Octopus form spawning aggregations which may be easily targeted by
commercial fisheries (Arreguin-Sanchez et al. 1999). Other species exhibit migration
patterns that can be predicted by fishermen (Case 1999, Tsangridis et al. 2002). Brooding
behavior may also make Octopus easy to target.
The Common Octopus undergoes seasonal migrations (Case 1999, Tsangridis et al.
2002), moving to coastal waters at the beginning of the year (Quetglas et al. 1998) and
congregating in shallow waters to spawn. Fisheries take advantage of spawning
aggregations; this is reflected in the seasonal peaks of catch (Hernandez-Garcia et al.
1998). Giant Octopus migrate as well. Alaska populations inhabit deep waters during
mating season from July to October and move to shallow waters between October and
July to spawn (Conners and Jorgensen 2006). Off Japan, medium to large Giant Octopus
migrate inshore between October and November, return to deeper waters from February
to March, travel inshore again in late April, and migrate back to deeper waters in August
and September (Golden and McCrae 1994). Migration patterns can be predicted and used
by fisheries to target Giant Octopus and other species. Horned Octopus migrate
vertically, their position in the water column varying by season. Location in the water
column can be anticipated and taken advantage of by fisheries (Salman et al. 2000).
Female Octopi brood their eggs, jetting water past them during the development period to
keep them oxygenated and clean until they hatch. Most species do not eat while spawning
and brooding, and die soon after the eggs hatch. Incubation periods generally range from
one to five months, but in some species can last up to a year, depending on water
temperature. (Norman et al. 1996) Because females stay in one location while brooding
and rarely leave their eggs, they can be easily targeted by fisheries. The Common
Octopus, which broods in shallow water, is especially easy to target (Case 1999). In the
West Indian Ocean, Day Octopus brood year round, but spawning peaks from June
through August. At this time, the species is easily targeted (IUCN).
Outside of the spawning season, Octopi are generally solitary, shy, shelter-seeking
animals (Arreguin-Sanchez et al. 1999).
-0.25 Species has a strategy for sexual development that makes it especially vulnerable to
fishing pressure (e.g., age at 50% maturity >20 years; sequential hermaphrodites;
extremely low fecundity).
-0.25 Species has a small or restricted range (e.g., endemism; numerous evolutionarily
significant units; restricted to one coastline; e.g., American lobster; striped bass; endemic
reef fishes).
-0.25 Species exhibits high natural population variability driven by broad-scale
environmental change (e.g. El Nino; decadal oscillations).
The size of Octopus populations changes from year to year (Conners and Jorgensen
2006). The Canary Islands artisanal Common Octopus fishery has witnessed strong
fluctuations in catch. Peaks that occurred in 1982 and 1984 may have been caused by
warm-cold climate episodes like El Nino (Hernandez-Garcia et al. 1998). Alternatively,
these fluctuations could indicate an overexploited fishery. Similarly, from 1986 to 1995
Horned Octopus populations exhibited fluctuations of 4.5 kg/km2 to 65.1 kg/km2
(ADRIAMED 2008a). In other areas, CPUE fluctuates with amount of runoff from rivers;
and wet and dry seasons influence recruitment success (Relini et al. 2006).
Environmental conditions can influence the lengths of spawning and brooding seasons,
changing the age structure of populations (Belcari et al. 2002b). Under favorable
conditions Octopi may grow more quickly and reach sexual maturity earlier than usual,
altering a population's normal age structure (Silva 2004).
+0.25 Species does not have special behaviors that increase ease or population consequences of
capture OR has special behaviors that make it less vulnerable to fishing pressure (e.g.,
species is widely dispersed during spawning).
+0.25 Species has a strategy for sexual development that makes it especially resilient to
fishing pressure (e.g., age at 50% maturity <1 year; extremely high fecundity).
Octopus spawn only once, then die (Conners and Jorgensen 2006). A Common Octopus
female may lay from 100,000 to 500,000 eggs (Case 1999). Fecundity of Giant Octopus
is believed to be 75,000 eggs per year (MSAP). In the Gulf of Cadiz, Musky Octopus
have a mean fecundity of 443 eggs per female (Silva 2004). This is a moderate fecundity
so no points are added.
+0.25 Species is distributed over a very wide range (e.g., throughout an entire hemisphere
or ocean basin; e.g., swordfish; tuna; Patagonian toothfish).
Octopus species are found throughout the world (Norman et al. 1996).
The Common Octopus is a wide-ranging, common in the Eastern Atlantic, Pacific,
Mediterranean, and Indian Oceans (Wilson 2006, Quetglas et al.1998, ARKive 2008a,
Case 1999). The Horned Octopus is also widely distributed, occurring in the northeast
Atlantic and the Mediterranean Sea. It can also be found along the coast of Britain
(ADRIAMED 2008a, ARKive 2008b). The Musky Octopus can be found along the
Atlantic coasts of Portugal and Spain and throughout the Mediterranean Sea (Belcari et
al. 2002b, ADRIAMED 2008b). The Day Octopus occurs throughout the tropical and
sub-tropical Indo-Pacific (Waikiki Aquarium). The Giant Octopus can be found in the
north Pacific from southern California to the northwest of the Americas and to Japan
(Scheel 2001)
+0.25 Species does not exhibit high natural population variability driven by broad-scale
environmental change (e.g., El Nino; decadal oscillations).
2.75 Points for Life History
ABUNDANCE
Core Points (only one selection allowed)
Compared to natural or un-fished level, the species population is:
1.00
Low: Abundance or biomass is <75% of BMSY or similar proxy (e.g., spawning
potential ratio).
2.00
Medium: Abundance or biomass is 75-125% of BMSY or similar proxy; OR
population is approaching or recovering from an overfished condition; OR
adequate information on abundance or biomass is not available.
Abundance values were not available. The Common Octopus is considered to be a
common and widespread species (ARKive 2008a), and is abundant at least in the
Mediterranean Sea (Tsangridis et al. 2002). One population south of Mauritania is
recovering from an overexploited condition (FAO 1997). The Horned Octopus is also
considered to be common and widespread (ARKive 2008b), and is considered abundant
in the Mediterranean Sea (Belcari et al. 2002b, Relini et al. 2006). A previously
overexploited population in the South Adriatic Sea is recovering (Relini et al. 2006). The
Musky Octopus is also common, particularly in the Northern Adriatic Sea (ADRIAMED
2008b).
3.00
High: Abundance or biomass is >125% of BMSY or similar proxy.
Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed)
-0.25 The population is declining over a generational time scale (as indicated by biomass
estimates or standardized CPUE).
While studies conducted in the 1990's indicate a slight increase or stability in some
Mediterranean Sea and Atlantic Ocean Octopus populations, more recent studies show
declining abundances (Salman et al. 2000, Belcari et al. 2002b, Hernandez-Garcia et al.
1998). For example, the Mauritania catch dropped from 9,000 tons in 1993 to 4,500 tons
in 2001 despite an increased fishing effort in 2001 (Humber et al. 2006). Catches of
Mediterranean Horned and Musky Octopus, which are in danger of becoming overfished,
have dropped drastically since the 90's (Reuters 2005).
Although fluctuations in CPUE and catch size may be also related to fishing strategies
and changes in gear (Belcari et al. 2002b) points were subtracted because some
populations are shrinking in size
-0.25 Age, size or sex distribution is skewed relative to the natural condition (e.g.,
truncated size/age structure or anomalous sex distribution).
Some Octopus populations in the Mediterranean Sea exhibit a skewed sex distribution
with more females than males. Other populations have been skewed with more males
than females. However, non-fished populations of octopus can deviate from a 1:1 sex
ratio (Silva 2004). Additionally, depending on time of year, size distributions may be
skewed (Katsanevakis and Verriopoulos 2004). This is due to naturally occurring mass
die-offs of mature adults after spawning (Conners and Jorgensen 2006).
Because skewed sex and size distributions occur in non-fished populations, no points
were subtracted.
-0.25 Species is listed as "overfished" OR species is listed as "depleted", "endangered",
or "threatened" by recognized national or international bodies.
The Octopus fishery in the Mediterranean Sea was thought to be fully exploited in 1997.
Octopi in Mauritanian fisheries (Africa, Atlantic Ocean) have been overexploited (UNEP
2002). Fisheries in the Southwest Pacific were considered moderately exploited in 1997
(FAO 1997).
The Common Octopus is not listed as a threatened species (ARKive 2008a) but there is
potential for it to become overfished. One population south of Mauritania is recovering
from an overexploited condition. Another population off Northwest Africa is considered
fully exploited (FAO 1997). Fluctuations in the Canary Islands artisanal fishery catch
indicates that the fishery may be overexploited (Hernandez-Garcia et al. 1998).
Horned and Musky Octopus are not threatened, but populations in the Mediterranean Sea
are in danger of becoming overfished, and catches have dropped drastically since the 90's
(Reuters 2005).
Fluctuations have been observed in Horned Octopus catches (Belcari et al. 2002b), and in
the 1990's the species was overexploited in the South Adriatic Sea. CPUE was
dramatically reduced, and populations are now recovering (Relini et al. 2006).
The Giant Octopus is not threatened (Eisenberg 1999).
While none of the species being reviewed are listed as threatened or endangered, some
populations are overexploited. No points were subtracted.
-0.25 Current levels of abundance are likely to jeopardize the availability of food for other
species or cause substantial change in the structure of the associated food web.
+0.25 The population is increasing over a generational time scale (as indicated by biomass
estimates or standardized CPUE).
+0.25 Age, size or sex distribution is functionally normal.
+0.25 Species is close to virgin biomass.
+0.25 Current levels of abundance provide adequate food for other predators or are not known
to affect the structure of the associated food web.
1.75 Points for Abundance
HABITAT QUALITY AND FISHING GEAR IMPACTS
Core Points (only one selection allowed)
Select the option that most accurately describes the effect of the fishing method upon the habitat
that it affects
1.00
The fishing method causes great damage to physical and biogenic habitats (e.g.,
cyanide; blasting; bottom trawling; dredging).
Bottom trawls are the primary gear type used to catch Octopus (Tsangridis et al. 2002).
Trammel nets, beach seines, set nets, fyke nets, pots, and traps are also used (Tsangridis
et al. 2002, Weeber 2005, Belcari et al. 2002a,b, Relini et al. 2006, Katsanevakis and
Verriopoulos 2004, Hernandez-Garcia et al. 1998, Quetglas et al. 1998). In the West
Indian Ocean, Octopus are caught by snorkeling along reefs or walking along reef flats at
low tide (IUCN).
In two Mediterranean fisheries (Kavala and Limenas), bottom trawls make up over 67%
of the Octopus catch, fyke nets make up 30%, beach seines compose a small fraction of
the catch, and trammel net catch is negligible (Tsangridis et al. 2002). In another
Mediterranean fishery (Vilanova) trawls make up 49% of the Octopus catch while pots
make up 46%.
Trawls, which are wide-mouthed nets towed by a boat (Weeber 2005), are dragged along
the ocean bottom to catch sedentary species like Octopus. Bottom trawling is detrimental
to benthic habitats, ripping up plants and disturbing sediment as well as catching targeted
and non targeted fish (Sewell et al. 2006, FAO 2001). Excessive bottom trawling in the
Gulf of Gabes in Tunisia has resulted in environmental damage and caused a drop in
Octopus population and catch sizes (Ezzedine and El Abed). Bottom trawling for
Octopus occurs on stone, sand, and muddy bottoms (Relini et al. 2006, Quetglas et al.
1998).
Set nets, or nets anchored in one position, are used to catch some Octopus (Weeber 2005,
Belcari et al. 2002a,b, Relini et al. 2006). Set nets sometimes drag along the ocean floor
causing damage. They can also be damaging if they become lost; drifting for years and
entangling fish (FAO 2, Sewell et al. 2006).
Fykes nets (net bags with hoops inside) and jigs (barbed hooks) are less harmful methods
of fishing and are used in some Common Octopus fisheries (Weeber 2005). Fyke nets are
selective and in the Mediterranean are usually used in shallow water (Tsangridis et al.
2002).
Pots and baited traps are also used, often on rocky substrate (Katsanevakis and
Verriopoulos 2004, Belcari et al. 2002ab, Hernandez-Garcia et al. 1998, Relini et al.
2006, Quetglas et al. 1998). Pots are made of clay and are attached by the thousands to
string webs that cover vast areas of the ocean floor (Quetglas et al. 1998). In one Spanish
fishery (Vilanova), pots are left for a whole season and are checked daily for Octopus
(Tsangridis et al. 2002). In Alaska, pots rest on the sea floor until an Octopus enters, then
are pulled up (Eisenberg 1999). Traps and pots cause far less damage than other gear, but
if lost they can continue to trap animals for years (Sewell et al. 2006).
Octopus are also hand-caught in some places using SCUBA (Fisheries and Oceans
Canada).
Because the majority of Octopus are caught using bottom trawls, a score of 1 was
awarded.
2.00
The fishing method does moderate damage to physical and biogenic habitats (e.g., bottom
gillnets; traps and pots; bottom longlines).
3.00
The fishing method does little damage to physical or biogenic habitats (e.g., hand
picking; hand raking; hook and line; pelagic long lines; mid-water trawl or gillnet; purse
seines).
Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed)
-0.25 Habitat for this species is so compromised from non-fishery impacts that the ability of the
habitat to support this species is substantially reduced (e.g., dams; pollution; coastal
development).
-0.25 Critical habitat areas (e.g., spawning areas) for this species are not protected by
management using time/area closures, marine reserves, etc.
Although some Octopus populations benefit from marine protected areas in parts of the
USA (WDFW 2007), Australia (GWA Department of Fisheries 2005), Madagascar (Heid
and Steets 2006) and Bermuda (Pierce and Wood), the majority of Octopus fisheries do
not protect critical habitat.
-0.25 No efforts are being made to minimize damage from existing gear types OR new or
modified gear is increasing habitat damage (e.g., fitting trawls with roller rigs or
rockhopping gear; more robust gear for deep-sea fisheries).
Bottom trawling has resulted in environmental damage in some regions of the
Mediterranean Sea (Ezzedine and El Abed) and no efforts to minimize this damage have
been reported.
-0.25 If gear impacts are substantial, resilience of affected habitats is very slow (e.g., deep
water corals; rocky bottoms).
+0.25 Habitat for this species remains robust and viable and is capable of supporting this
species.
+0.25 Critical habitat areas (e.g., spawning areas) for this species are protected by management
using time/area closures, marine reserves, etc.
+0.25 Gear innovations are being implemented over a majority of the fishing area to minimize
damage from gear types OR no innovations necessary because gear effects are minimal.
+0.25 If gear impacts are substantial, resilience of affected habitats is fast (e.g., mud or
sandy bottoms) OR gear effects are minimal.
Bottom trawls are generally used on mud or sandy bottoms (Relini et al. 2006, Belcari et
al. 2002, Quetglas et al. 1998).
0.75 Points for Habitat Quality and Fishing Gear Impacts
MANAGEMENT
Core Points (only one selection allowed)
Select the option that most accurately describes the current management of the fisheries of this
species.
1.00
Regulations are ineffective (e.g., illegal fishing or overfishing is occurring) OR the
fishery is unregulated (i.e., no control rules are in effect).
2.00
Management measures are in place over a major portion over the species' range but
implementation has not met conservation goals OR management measures are in
place but have not been in place long enough to determine if they are likely to
achieve conservation and sustainability goals.
While management exists for Octopus fisheries in many parts of their range, there is no
management in other areas. When management exists, it may be unenforced or
ineffective.
Japan has one of the largest Octopus fisheries (Russo 2004). A Governors' License is
required to fish for Octopus in Japan. Fishing is prohibited in some areas and seasons,
and restrictions regarding vessel horsepower and tonnage are enforced. Additionally, the
number of nets and mesh size are regulated for trawlers in the East China Sea and the
Yellow Sea (Asada 1983).
Mediterranean nations have their own regulations for commercial Octopus fisheries. In
Greece, it is necessary to have a license to trawl for Octopus in one region (FAO 3). In
the province of Kavala, there is a closed season for trawling from June through
September and minimum mesh sizes are set at 28 mm (Tsangridis et al. 2002). Gear
restrictions are also in effect. Throughout Greece, it is illegal to catch or sell Octopus
weighing less than 500 grams (European Commission: Fisheries). In the Vilanova fishery
of Spain, artisanal boats fishing with nets may use only 1500 m of net per fisherman.
There are no regulations for fishing Octopus with pots (Tsangridis et al. 2002). In
Majorca, trawling for Common Octopus in water deeper than 50 m is illegal (Quetglas et
al. 1998). In Morrocco, a summer fishing quota for 2007 was set at 10,000 tons (Josupeit
2007). Trawls targeting juvenile Octopus in certain areas of the Eastern Ligurian Sea are
illegal (Relini et al. 2006). In Italy there are restrictions on towed fishing gear like trawls.
This gear cannot be used in coastal areas less than 50 m deep or within 3 nautical miles of
a coastline. There are seasonal closures for trawlers (FAO 2005). While these restrictions
affect Octopus fisheries, they are not directly aimed at these fisheries. In a document
listing fishing laws by country, no laws specific to Octopus were listed for Italy
(European Commission: Fisheries). Similarly, no regulations specific to Octopus fisheries
were listed for France (European Commission: Fisheries). Laws in Tunisia regarding
Octopus fisheries include a ban on fishing for Octopus weighing less than 1 kilogram
between mid-May and mid-October. The specific dates can be adjusted. Unfortunately,
many juvenile Octopus are still caught in the off-season and excessive pressure is put on
Octopus populations outside of fishing season despite regulations (Ezzedine and El
Abed). In Malta, bottom trawling is limited. The Octopus bottom trawling fishery occurs
within a 25 nautical mile area, and usually occurs just 3 to 4 nautical miles from shore.
Trawling is undertaken in areas with muddy or clay bottoms that are 150 to 200 m deep
(University of Malta). While there are extensive laws governing Octopus fisheries in
various Mediterranean countries, there are not adequate regulations for fishing with
artisanal gear (Tsangridis et al. 2002).
In African, various nations are instituting Octopus fishery regulations. There are
regulations in Mauritania, but most fishermen and boats do not comply with regulations
and there is an overall lack of enforcement. This has led to continued over-exploitation,
and Octopus catches have fallen by 50% (UNEP 2002). Other nations have been more
successful in regulating Octopus fisheries. A rotating no-take zone in Tanzania resulted
in an increase in Octopus catch size (Heid and Steets 2006). Another no-take zone has
been implemented in Madagascar and has achieved similar results. This zone was set up
around Nosy Fasy island and operated from November 2004 to June 2005 (Heid and
Steets 2006, BlueVentures 2006). There was one violation of the closed area during this
time (Heid and Steets 2006). When the zone was re-opened for fishing, Octopus weight
had doubled and catch size nearly doubled. These increases lasted for one month. The
area was closed to Octopus fishing again from December 2005 to April 2006. This
closure resulted in quadrupled catch size and average Octopus weight.
3.00
Substantial management measures are in place over a large portion of the species range
and have demonstrated success in achieving conservation and sustainability goals.
Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed)
-0.25 There is inadequate scientific monitoring of stock status, catch or fishing effort.
Although there have been increasing numbers of Octopus studies over the last few years,
more studies are necessary to fully understand their biology and determine effective
management practices (Tsangridis et al. 2002, Belcari et al. 2002a). While the Common
Octopus is one of the best known and widely studied species (Belcari et al. 2002a,
Katsanevakis and Verriopoulos 2004), many studies were done in the laboratory
(Tsangridis et al. 2002) and field studies have been limited to a few areas (Belcari et al.
2002a).
This lack of basic knowledge of Octopus biology is compounded by a lack of adequate
reporting of catches and population assessments. It is difficult to conduct population
assessments on Octopus because of their solitary, reclusive nature and their abilities to
camouflage themselves (Russo 2004). With such limited information, it is difficult to
properly manage Octopus fisheries (Russo 2004).
In most regions, Octopus catches are either not monitored or poorly monitored (Guerra
1991). In areas where catches are monitored, they are not monitored by species but are
reported in lumped groups. For example, catches may be reported as 'Cephalopod,'
'Octopus,' or 'Common Octopus.' Several Octopus species are often reported in a „mixed
group' (Belcari et al. 2 2002, Quetglas et al. 1998, Conners and Jorgensen 2006). This
makes it impossible to keep track of population status of individual species. Lack of
specific reporting contributes to the lack of information that in turn restricts the ability to
implement effective management (Belcari et al. 2002b). It is unlikely that reliable
population assessments are being conducted in most regions because basic catch and
effort data are so inadequate. Octopi are also sold in mixed groups, so it is difficult for
the consumer to know exactly which species is being bought and/or consumed (Weber
1998).Even where catches are monitored, not all catches are reported. One study
estimated that about 40% of Common Octopus landed in Spain's artisanal fishery were
unreported. However, regional bodies occasionally collaborate in the assessment of
Cephalopod fisheries (El Afia 1991). For example, the Fishery Committee for the Eastern
Central Atlantic (FAO 1997) and the International Council for the Exploration of the
Seas (ICES) (Guerra 1991) both established working groups to evaluate major
Cephalopod resources in their respective management areas.
-0.25 Management does not explicitly address fishery effects on habitat, food webs, and
ecosystems.
As there is no adequate management in place, fishery effects on habitat, food webs, and
ecosystems are not explicitly addressed.
-0.25 This species is overfished and no recovery plan or an ineffective recovery plan is in
place.
Although catches of Common, Horned and Musky Octopus have dropped (Reuters 2005,
ARKive 2008a, ARKive 2008b) and there are indicators that other populations are being
overexploited (Tsangridis et al. 2002, IUCN), none of the species on which this report
focuses are considered overfished. Thus, no points were subtracted.
-0.25 Management has failed to reduce excess capacity in this fishery or implements subsidies
that result in excess capacity in this fishery.
+0.25 There is adequate scientific monitoring, analysis and interpretation of stock status, catch
and fishing effort.
+0.25 Management explicitly and effectively addresses fishery effects on habitat, food webs,
and ecosystems.
+0.25 This species is overfished and there is a recovery plan (including benchmarks, timetables
and methods to evaluate success) in place that is showing signs of success OR recovery
plan is not needed.
+0.25 Management has taken action to control excess capacity or reduce subsidies that result in
excess capacity OR no measures are necessary because fishery is not overcapitalized.
1.50 Points for Management
BYCATCH
Core Points (only one selection allowed)
Select the option that most accurately describes the current level of bycatch and the
consequences that result from fishing this species. The term, "bycatch" used in this document
excludes incidental catch of a species for which an adequate management framework exists. The
terms, "endangered, threatened, or protected," used in this document refer to species status that is
determined by national legislation such as the U.S. Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Marine
Mammal Protection Act (or another nation's equivalent), the IUCN Red List, or a credible
scientific body such as the American Fisheries Society.
1.00
Bycatch in this fishery is high (>100% of targeted landings), OR regularly includes
a "threatened, endangered or protected species."
Bottom trawling, the most common Octopus fishing method, is known to catch high
numbers of unwanted wildlife. It should be noted that in several Octopus trawl fisheries,
they are not the only target species (Conners and Jorgensen 2006, Sanchez et al. 2003,
Silva 2004, Quetglas et al. 1998).
Some Octopus trawl fisheries, like the Canadian fishery, produce only limited bycatch
(Fisheries and Oceans Canada), while other fisheries catch a lot of bycatch. For example,
Octopus account for <10% of total catch in some Mediterranean Octopus fisheries
(Sanchez et al. 2003).
Other gear types used in octopus fishing, such as fyke nets, traps, and pots, are more
selective (Tsangridis et al. 2002, Fisheries and Oceans Canada). Diving and handcatching methods are also selective.
2.00
Bycatch in this fishery is moderate (10-99% of targeted landings) AND does not
regularly include "threatened, endangered or protected species" OR level of bycatch is
unknown.
3.00
Bycatch in this fishery is low (<10% of targeted landings) and does not regularly include
"threatened, endangered or protected species."
Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed)
-0.25 Bycatch in this fishery is a contributing factor to the decline of "threatened, endangered,
or protected species" and no effective measures are being taken to reduce it.
-0.25 Bycatch of targeted or non-targeted species (e.g., undersize individuals) in this fishery is
high and no measures are being taken to reduce it.
-0.25 Bycatch of this species (e.g., undersize individuals) in other fisheries is high OR
bycatch of this species in other fisheries inhibits its recovery, and no measures are
being taken to reduce it.
The Horned Octopus is sometimes caught in European lobster and crab fisheries
(Quetglas 1998, Relini et al. 2006) and sold for export to Mediterranean countries (Relini
et al. 2006). The Musky Octopus is caught in Gulf of Cadiz trawl fisheries and is usually
thrown away because of its low commercial value (Silva 2004). The Giant Octopus is
occasionally caught in the Alaska Pacific cod fishery (Bush and Brewer).
Octopus are also caught as bycatch in the Bering Sea Crab pot fishery and the Hawaii and
Pacific Islands lobster pot fisheries (PCFFA).
-0.25 The continued removal of the bycatch species contributes to its decline.
+0.25 Measures taken over a major portion of the species range have been shown to reduce
bycatch of "threatened, endangered, or protected species" or bycatch rates are no longer
deemed to affect the abundance of the "protected" bycatch species OR no measures
needed because fishery is highly selective (e.g., harpoon; spear).
+0.25 There is bycatch of targeted (e.g., undersize individuals) or non-targeted species in this
fishery and measures (e.g., gear modifications) have been implemented that have been
shown to reduce bycatch over a large portion of the species range OR no measures are
needed because fishery is highly selective (e.g., harpoon; spear).
+0.25 Bycatch of this species in other fisheries is low OR bycatch of this species in other
fisheries inhibits its recovery, but effective measures are being taken to reduce it over a
large portion of the range.
+0.25 The continued removal of the bycatch species in the targeted fishery has had or will
likely have little or no impact on populations of the bycatch species OR there are no
significant bycatch concerns because the fishery is highly selective (e.g., harpoon; spear).
0.75 Points for Bycatch
REFERENCES
ADRIAMED 2008a. Eledone cirrhosa. Scientific Cooperation to Support Responsible Fisheries
in the Adriatic Sea (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Italian Ministry of
Food, Agriculture, and Forestry Policies. Available at: http://www.faoadriamed.org/html/Species
/EledoneCirrhosa.html
ADRIAMED 2008b. Eledone moschata. Scientific Cooperation to Support Responsible Fisheries
in the Adriatic Sea (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Italian Ministry of
Food, Agriculture, and Forestry Policies. Available at: http://www.faoadriamed.org/html/Species
/EledoneMoschata.html
ARKive 2008a. Common Octopus Octopus vulgaris. Available at: http://www.arkive.org/species
species/ARK/invertebrates_marine/Octopus_vulgaris/more_info.html
ARKive 2008b Curled Octopus Eledone cirrhosa Common Octopus Octopus vulgaris. Available
at: http://www.arkive.org/species/ARK/invertebrates_marine/Eledone_cirrhosa/more_info.html
Arreguín-Sánchez, F., M.J. Solís-Ramírez and M.E. González de la Rosa. 1999. Population
dynamics and stock assessment for Octopus maya (Cephalopoda: Octopodidae) fishery in the
Campeche Bank, Gulf of Mexico.
Asada, Y. 1983. Licence limitation regulations: The Japanese system. Papers presented at the
expert consultation on the regulation of fishing effort (fishing mortality). Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Fisheries Department. Available at: http://www.fao.org/
docrep/005/AC750E/AC750E09.htm
Belcari, P., Cuccu, D., Gonzalez, M., Srari, A., and Vidoris, P. 2002a. Distribution and
abundance of Octopus vulgaris Cuvier, 1797 (Cephalopoda: Octopoda) in the Mediterranean
Sea. Scientia Marina. 66 (Suppl. 2): 157-166.
Belcari, P., Tserpes, G., Gonzalez, M., Lefkaditou, E., Marceta, B., Manfrin, G., and Souplet, A.
2002b. “Distribution and abundance of Eledone cirrhosa (Lamarck: 1798) and E. moschata
(Lamarck, 1798) (Cephalopoda: Octopodidae) in the Mediterranean Sea. Scientia Marina. 66
(Suppl. 2): 143-155
Blue Ventures. 2006. New study shows how marine protected areas can increase productivity of
fishing industry. Blue Ventures at: http://blueventures.blogspot.com/2006/12/new-study-showshow-marine-protected.html
Blue Ventures 2. Madagascar‟s First Community Run, Self-Sustaining Marine Protected Area.
Available at: http://www.globalgiving.com/pfil/1236/projdoc.pdf
Bush, Karla L (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). and Brewer, Reid (University of Alaska
Fairbanks). Octopus Gear Study. Available at: http://www.faculty.uaf.edu/ffrsb/research/gear.
html
Case, R.J. 1996 (online). Octopus vulgaris, Common octopus. Available at http://animaldiversity
.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/octopus/o._vulgaris$narrative.html.
Case, R. 1999. "Octopus vulgaris" (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. Accessed August 01, 2007
at http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Octopus_vulgaris.html.
Cephbase 2006. Database for cephalopods. Available at :http://www.cephbase.utmb.edu/
Conners, Elizabeth and Jorgensen, Elaina. 2006. “GOA Octopus Complex: Appendix D.” Alaska
Fisheries Science Center, NPFMC Gulf of Alaska SAFE.
Eisenberg, T. 1999. "Enteroctopus dofleini" (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. Accessed August
01, 2007 at http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Enteroctopus_
dofleini.html.
El Afia, C. 1991. Mauritania: Octopus and Cephalopod Production and Outlook. Pp. 125-128 in
Proceedings of the 2nd World Cephalopod Conference: Squid 91 Madrid, Hotel Castellana,
Madrid, Span, 11-13 November.
European Commission: Fisheries. Fact Sheet: Summary of national and regional laws concerning
both technical measures and special fisheries. at: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/fact
sheets/legal_texts/section_d.pdf
Ezzeddine, Soufia and El Abed, Amor. Potential biological and environmental influences on the
Octopus vulgaris population of the Gulf of Gabes (south-eastern Tunisian coast). MedSedMed
Technical Documents No. 2 Institut National des Sciences et Technologies de la Mer.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2005. Fishery Country Profile.
Available at: http://www.fao.org/fi/fcp/en/ITA/profile.htm
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Fisheries and Aquaculture Department
(FAO). 2001. Bottom Otter Trawls. Available at : http://www.fao.org/fi/website/FIRetrieve
Action.do?dom=geartype&fid=306
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Fisheries and Aquaculture Department
(FAO2). Retrieval of Lost Gear. Available at : http://www.fao.org/fi/website/FIRetrieveAction.
do?dom=topic&fid=14833
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Fisheries and Aquaculture Department
(FAO3). Fishery and Aquaculture country profile - Greece. Available at : http://www.fao.org/fi/
website/FIRetrieveAction.do?dom=countrysector&xml=FI-CP_GR.xml〈=en
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 1997. Review of the state of
world fishery resources: Marine Fisheries. UN/FAO, FAO Fish Cir. 920, FIRM/C920(En).
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 1997a (online). Review of the state of world fishery
resources: Marine fisheries. UN/FAO, FAO Fish Cir. 920, FIRM/C920(En). Available at http://
www.fao.org/docrep/003/w4248e/w4248e00.htm.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Pacific Region. “Octopus Fishery - Pacific Region.” Fisheries
Management. Available at: http://www.pac.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/ops/fm/shellfish/octopus/default_e.
htm
Golden, J. and J. McCrae. 1994. Oregon Developmental Species: Giant Octopus, Octopus
dofleini.
Guerra, A. 1991. Cephalopod Resources of the World: A Present Day View. Pp. 1-14 in
Proceedings of the 2nd World Cephalopod Conference: Squid 91 Madrid, Hotel Castellana,
Madrid, Span, 11-13 November.
GWA Department of Fisheries 2005. “Cowarump Reef Protected Area.” Available at:
http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/docs/pub/RPACowaramup/index.php?0502
Heid, Elisabeth and Steets, Julia. 2006. Partnership for community-run marine protected areas in
Madagascar in Case studies of the 2005 Seed Award Recipients.
Hernandez-Garcia, V.; Hernandez-Lopez, J.L.; Castro, J.J. 1998. “The octopus (Octopus
vulgaris) in the small-scale trap fishery off the Canary Islands (Central-East Atlantic). Fisheries
Research. 35: 183-189.
Humber, F., Harris, A., Raberinary, D., Nadon, M. 2006. Seasonal Closures of No-Take Zones to
promote A Sustainable Fishery for Octopus Cyanea (Gray) in South West Madagascar. Blue
Ventures Conservation Report. Available at: http://www.blueventures.org/research/BV%20
report%20Frans%20Octopus_web.pdf
IUCN: The World Conservation Network. Octopus and Sea Cucumber fisheries. In: Managing
Marine Protected Areas: A Toolkit for the Western Indian Ocean. Available at: http://www.
wiomsa.org/mpatoolkit/Themesheets/I6_Octupus_and_sea_cucumber_fisheries.pdf
Josupeit, Helga. 2007. “Octopus Market Report - June 2007.” FAO Globefish 2007. Available at:
http://infofish.org/marketreports/octopus0607.html
Katsanevakis, Stelios and Verriopoulos, George. 2004. “Abundance of Octopus vulgaris on soft
sediment. Sientia Marina 68 (4): 553-560
Marine Life Information Network for Britain and Ireland (MarLIN). 2001a (online). Common
octopus, Octopus vulgaris. Available online at http://www.marlin.ac.uk/demo/reprod_
Octvul.htm
Marine Life Information Network for Britain and Ireland (MarLIN). 2001b (online). Curled
octopus, Eledone cirrhosa. Available online at http://www.marlin.ac.uk/demo/adult_gen_Elecir.
htm.
MSAP (Marine Species with Aquaculture Potential). “Octopi.” Marine Resource Management,
Oregon State University. Available at: http://hmsc.oregonstate.edu/projects/msap/PS/masterlist/
inverts/octopus.html
Norman, M.D., F.G. Hochberg and K.M. Mangold. 1996 (online). Octopodidae. Available at
http://phylogeny.arizona.edu/tree/eukaryotes/animals/mollusca/cephalopoda/coleoidea/octopodif
ormes/octopoda/incirrata/octopodidae/octopodidae
PCFFA (The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen‟s Associations). International Agreements
Requiring or Recommending Observer Programs. Available at: http://www.pcffa.org/obs.htm
Pierce, Melissa L. and Wood, James B. “The Common Octopus: Octopus vulgaris.” Bermuda
Institute of Ocean Sciences. Available at: http://www.thecephalopodpage.org/MarineInvertebrate
Zoology/Octopusvulgaris.html
Quetglas, Antoni; Alemany, Francesc; Carbonell, Aina; Merella, Paolo; Sanchez, Pilar.1998.
“Biology and fishery of Octopus vulgaris Cuvier, 1797, caught by trawlers in Mallorca (Baltic
Sea, Western Mediterranean).” Fisheries Research. 36: 237-249.
Relini, L. Orsi; Mannini, A. Fiorentino, F. Palandri, G., Relini, G. 2006. “Biology and fishery of
Eledone cirrhosa in the Ligurian Sea. Fisheries Research. 78: 72-88
Reuters. 2005. “EU Fails to Tighten Rules for Mediterranean Fishing.” Available at: http://www.
planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/32587/story.htm
Russo, Julie Zeidner. 2004. “In the Octopus‟s Garden.” NOAA‟s Undersea Research Program.
Available at: http://www.nurp.noaa.gov/Spotlight/Octopus.htm
Salman, Alp; Katagan, Tuncer; and GuGu, Ali Cemal. 2000. The distribution and fishing of two
Mediterranean Eledone spp. (Octopoda: Cephalopoda) in the Aegean Sea. Turk. J. Zool. 24: 165171.
Sanchez, P.; Demestr, M.; Martin, P. 2003. Characterisation of the discards generated by bottom
trawling in the northwestern Mediterranean. Fisheries Research. 67: 71-80.
Scheel. 2001. Giant Octopus: Fact Sheet. Alaska Pacific University. Available at: http://marine.
alaskapacific.edu/octopus/factsheet.html
Sewell, J., Jefferson, R., & Oakley, J.A., 2006. Marine Life Topic Note. Commercial Fishing.
Marine Life Information Network [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the
United Kingdom. Available from http://www.marlin.ac.uk/learningzone/
Silva, Luis; Ramos, Fernando; Sobrino, Ignacio. 2004. “Reproductive biology of Eledone
moschata (Cephalopoda: Octopodidae) in the Gulf of Cadiz (south-western Spain, ICES Division
IXa). J. Mar. Biol. Ass. U.K. 84, 1221-1226
Tsangridis, Alexis; Sanchez, Pilar; Ioannidou, Despina. 2002. Exploitation patterns of Octopus
vulgaris in two Mediterranean areas. Scientia Marina. 66 (1): 59-68.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2002. “Well managed fisheries vital for
environmentally friendly development in poor parts of the globe.” UNEP News Centre.
Available at: http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=241&
&ArticleID=3026
University of Malta. “The Maltese Fisheries Management Zone (FMZ).” University of Malta,
Faculty of Science, Department of Biology. Available at: http://home.um.edu.mt/biology/11_
researchPJS4c.html
USFWS Threatened and Endangered Species System (TESS). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/StartTESS.do
Waikïkï Aquarium: “Hawaiian Octopus.” Marine Life Profiles. Available at: http://www.
waquarium.org/MLP/root/html/MarineLife/Invertebrates/Molluscs/Octopus.html
WDFW 2007. Marine Protected Areas within Puget Sound. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/
fish/mpa/puget_sound/restrict.htm
Weber, M.L. 1998. A global assessment of major fisheries at risk, relevant management regimes,
and non-governmental organizations. A report of the Pew Charitable Trusts. February.
Weeber (2005) Best Fish Guide 05 - Part Two: Criteria for ecological rankings of New Zealand
commercial fisheries. Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand, November
2005.
Wilson, E., 2006. Octopus vulgaris. Common octopus. Marine Life Information Network:
Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme [on-line]. Plymouth: Marine
Biological Association of the United Kingdom. [cited 23/07/2007]. Available from
http://www.marlin.ac.uk/species/Octopusvulgaris.htm
Norman, M.D., F.G. Hochberg and K.M. Mangold. 1996 (online). Octopodidae. Available at
http://phylogeny.arizona.edu/tree/eukaryotes/animals/mollusca/cephalopoda/coleoidea/octopodif
ormes/octopoda/incirrata/octopodidae/octopodidae.html.
Roper, C.F.E., M.J. Sweeney and C.E. Nauen. 1984. FAO species catalogue. Vol. 3.
Cephalopods of the world. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of species of interest to
fisheries. FAO Fish. Synop., (125) Vol. 3:277
U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 1997a (online). Review of the state of world
fishery resources: Marine fisheries. UN/FAO, FAO Fish Cir. 920, FIRM/C920(En). Available at
http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w4248e/w4248e00.htm.
Weber, M.L. 1998. A global assessment of major fisheries at risk, relevant management regimes,
and non-governmental organizations. A report of the Pew Charitable Trusts.