Orange roughy

Overall: “yield estimates are unrealistic in that they are derived using deterministic recruitment and maintaining an exact level of fishing intensity. More realistic estimates of long-term yield, such as those derived from a management strategy evaluation, would likely be lower.”

For ORH 1: “An assessment of the Mercury-Colville box in 2001 indicated that biomass had been reduced to 10-15% B_0.” “In other areas of ORH 1 the status of the constituent stocks is unknown. … without any indication of current abundance, there is no way to determine if this level of fishing is in fact sustainable or if current feature limits will avoid overexploitation of localised areas.”

ORH2A, 2B and 3A: East Cape – “B₂₀₀₃ was 24%B₀, which was Unlikely to be at or above the target (30%Bo).” “The most recent assessment (2003) is now 11 years out-of-date. In recent years, the ability of stock assessment models that assume deterministic recruitment for orange roughy stocks to reflect current or projected stock status has been called into question.” “At the current catch limit, the stock is projected to increase slowly over the next 5 years but still be below the soft limit in 2019. The minimum rebuild period to reach 30%B₀ with 70% probability is estimated to be 21 years with no catch.”

East Coast North Island – “B₂₀₁₄ was estimated to be 14%B₀ Very Unlikely to be at or above the lower end of the management target range (30-40% Bo).”

For ORH 3B: NW– “B₂₀₁₄ was estimated at 37% B₀. Likely to be at or above the lower end of the management target range (30-40% Bo). Biomass reached its lowest point in 2004 and has increased consistently since then.” “Fishing intensity decreased sharply from 2010 to 2011 and has remained well below the overfishing threshold since then.” But lower stock status when M was estimated.

NE and South Chatham Rise – “B₂₀₁₄ was estimated to be 30%B₀ About as Likely as Not to be at or above the lower end of the management target range.” “The spawning biomass is estimated to have been slowly increasing over the last four years.” But much lower stock status when M was estimated: “current stock was estimated (22%Bo) well below the biomass target range.”

Puysegur – “the point estimate of biomass from this assessment [1998] is probably below B_MSY, [7%] but it is uncertain”.

Other areas – “substantial declines in commercial catches and nominal catch rates for Bounty, Priceless, Pukaki and other areas in the sub-Antarctic since about 2007-08” “No stock assessment could be carried out.”

Challenger (ORH 7A): “B₂₀₁₄ was estimated to be 42% B₀ Very Likely to be at or above the lower end of the management target range and About as Likely as Not to be at or above the upper end of the management target range”. “The spawning biomass is estimated to have been steadily increasing since just before the fishery closure in 2000–2001.” “Biomass is expected to increase at [a 500 tonne] TACC or decrease slightly over the next 5 years at annual catches of up to 2100 tonne.” But lower stock status when M was estimated.

West Coast (ORH 7B): “B₂₀₀₄ was estimated to be 17% B₀, Very Unlikely to be at or above the target.” (MPI, 2016, p688-690, 699, 720-723, 750-755, 767-769 and 775-776).