ARTICLE IN PRESS

Marine Policy 33 (2009) 40– 48

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Policy

0308-59

doi:10.1

� Pres

Departm

E-m

jlevesqu

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Characterization of the southeastern US black sea bass (Centropristis striata)pot commercial fishery and implications for western North Atlantic rightwhale (Eubalaena glacialis) management and policy

Juan C. Levesque �

Levesque Environmental and Fisheries Research, 8021 Quail Hollow Boulevard, Wesley Chapel, FL 33544, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 4 March 2008

Received in revised form

5 April 2008

Accepted 6 April 2008

Keywords:

Black sea bass

Centropristis striata

Pot fishery

Western North Atlantic right whale

Eubalaena glacialis

ALWTRP

Whale management

Mortality

Entanglement

7X/$ - see front matter & 2008 Elsevier Ltd. A

016/j.marpol.2008.04.007

ent address: Geo-Marine, Inc., Environmen

ent, 2201 Avenue K Suite A2, Plano, TX 7507

ail addresses: shortfin_mako_shark@yahoo.co

e@geo-marine.com (J.C. Levesque).

a b s t r a c t

A vital component of marine policy is the conservation and management of diverse marine resources. In

the southeastern US, commercial fishermen target black sea bass (Centropristis striata) with pots from

North Carolina to Cape Canaveral, Florida. During the fall through spring fishing season, western North

Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) distribution overlaps the black sea bass commercial pot fishery.

Fishermen interviews revealed that the number of pots set ranged from 3 to 240 and the number of pots

set per trawl ranged from 1 to 18. Generally, the amount of gear increased from south to north.

& 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The implementation of marine policy in the coastal environ-ment is increasingly, multifaceted and challenging. Among manyissues, marine policy managers are challenged with managingdifferent aspects of marine resources, species, essential habitats,fishing effort, destructive gear, bycatch, and economic markets.One such issue is the relationship between commercial fisheriesand marine mammals. Evaluating and describing commercialfishing operations in relation to federally protected marinemammal populations is important for conservation and marinefisheries management [1]. In the United States, western NorthAtlantic right whales continue to be injured and killed incommercial fisheries [2]. On 10 August 2007, the National MarineFisheries Service (NMFS) published a Final Environmental ImpactStatement (FEIS) that analyzed management alternatives toreduce commercial fishery interactions and Atlantic large whales[3]. Among the fisheries to be regulated under the federal

ll rights reserved.

tal Division, Marine Science

4, USA. Tel.: +1972 423 5480.

m,

rulemaking process was the black sea bass trap/pot fishery. TheNMFS evaluated various management measures and decided thatthe overall approach to reduce fishery interactions for trap/potfisheries was to modify vertical lines and reduce the verticalground line profile.

Trap/pot fisheries operating along the US east coast have beenimplicated in various marine mammal injuries and mortalities[4,5]. Although the southeastern US black sea bass fishery hasnever been implicated in any whale entanglement; vertical andfloating ground lines used in the northeastern US lobster fisheryhave been involved in various whale entanglements [6,7]. Unlikethe southeastern US black sea bass pot fishery, the amount of gear,soak time, and overall fishing effort in the northeastern lobstertrap/pot fishery is considerably greater [3]. Nonetheless, it isimpossible to estimate the risk associated to the western NorthAtlantic right whale by black sea bass pot gear.

Section 118 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)mandates that the NMFS publish an annual List of Fisheries (LOF)that classifies each US commercial fishery into one of threecategories based on the level of serious injury and mortality ofmarine mammals that occurs incidental to that fishery—frequent(Category I), occasional (Category II), or a remote (III) likelihood ofor no known incidental mortality or serious injury of marinemammals. The black sea bass pot fishery is classified as a Category

ARTICLE IN PRESS

J.C. Levesque / Marine Policy 33 (2009) 40–48 41

II fishery [3] as part of ‘‘Atlantic mixed species trap/pot fisheries.’’Section 118 of the MMPA defines a Category II fishery as a fisheryin which the annual mortality and serious injury of a marinemammal stock in a given fishery is greater than 1% and less than50% of the potential biological removal (PBR) level. To reducemarine-mammal injury or mortality from commercial fisheries,the MMPA specifies that NMFS develop and implement takereduction plans, and fishermen participating in a Category I or IIfishery are required to comply. The black sea bass pot fishery istherefore subject to the requirements of the Atlantic Large WhaleTake Reduction Plan (ALWTRP) [8].

In the United States, black sea bass (Centropristis striata) are aneconomically important recreational and commercial serranidranging from New England to Florida [9]. Although black sea bassare typically caught incidentally in otter trawl gear [10],commercial fishermen primarily target black sea bass with fishtraps or pots from Massachusetts to Florida. Two stocks of blacksea bass have been recognized north and south of Cape Hatteras,North Carolina, USA [11]. However, current genetic researchindicates that there is stock mixing; thus, it is unknown whetherthere is one or more black sea bass stocks [12]. The northern blacksea bass stock migrates seasonally as water temperatures vary. Inthe winter, most fish are found along the continental shelf edge inthe southern part of the Mid-Atlantic Bight. In the spring, fishmovement is inshore and northward, where spawning occurs inJune through October [13–15]. In contrast, the southern black seabass stock does not appear to seasonally migrate. In the south-eastern US, black sea bass are found near live-bottom areasbetween Cape Hatteras, North Carolina [15], and Key West, Florida[16]. The southern black sea bass stock begins spawning inFebruary and peak spawning occurs in April or May [14].

Western North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) arean endangered species [17] that range from Canada to Florida[18,19]. Calving occurs during the winter in coastal waters offGeorgia and northeastern Florida. Migrating and wintering rightwhales are found in the coastal waters from North Carolina toFlorida from November to April with primary areas located offnortheastern Florida (Fig. 1) [18–23]. During those months, rightwhale distribution overlaps that of the commercial black sea basspot fishery.

At one time, North Atlantic right whales were abundant in boththe eastern and western regions of the North Atlantic Ocean [24].Today, North Atlantic right whales are one of the world’s mostendangered mammals, at risk of extinction in the foreseeablefuture [25–28]. Kraus et al. [29] estimated the population at 291individuals and Knowlton et al. [30] estimated the population at295 individuals. In the United States, right whale management isprimarily based on the annual NMFS marine mammal StockAssessment Report (SAR). The 2006 SAR reported that theestimated minimum right whale population was 306 individualsin 2001; however, the population estimate did not incorporaterecent birth rates [2]. Today, although the right whale populationis likely slightly higher, incorporating recent birth rates, seriousthreats continue to threaten the population.

Collisions with ships and entanglement in commercial fishinggear are the two greatest threats [2,31]. It has been estimated thatat least a third of right whale mortalities each year are a directresult of human activities [32], and several researchers havestated that more than half of the remaining right whales in thewestern North Atlantic Ocean have experienced at least one shipstrike or net entanglement [32]. Other large whale species are alsosubject to mortality and serious injury from gear entanglement,with a total of 42 in the western North Atlantic Ocean during 1999through 2003 [33]. Overall, right whales had the highestproportion of entanglements and ship strikes of any species. Ofthe 50 reports involving right whales, 31 were confirmed

entanglements, 5 resulting in serious injury and 3 resulting inmortalities.

Given the mounting concern about the status of the rightwhale population in the western North Atlantic and the continuedthreat by commercial fishing operations, the purpose of thisinvestigation is to describe the black sea bass pot fishery insoutheastern US waters. The goals are to characterize the south-eastern US black sea bass pot fishery in terms of gear, methods,and effort in order to assist fishery policy managers withdeveloping appropriate conservation and protective managementmeasures for the recovery of the western North Atlantic rightwhale.

2. Material and methods

Between January and May 2004, interviews were conductedwith fishermen and fish dealers from major fishing ports in NorthCarolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. On numerous occasionsthroughout the study period, commercial fishermen were inter-viewed and gear was evaluated by NMFS commercial fisheryliaison personnel. In addition, fishermen phone interviews wereconducted by NMFS fishery biologists.

Based on NMFS Southeast Regional Office managementjurisdiction (southeastern waters: North Carolina to Florida), fourareas were defined for comparison: northern North Carolina,southern North Carolina (with the separation at Cape Look, NorthCarolina), South Carolina, and Georgia. In each area of the fourareas, the amount of pot gear and methods were graphed,evaluated, compared, and summarized. The calculated meannumber of pots and trawls were normally rounded (round up ordown to the next whole number). A non-parametric Kruskal–-Wallis one-way analysis of variance on ranks was used to test fordifferences among areas in the total number of pots fished, potsset per trawl, and ground line diameter. Mann–Whitney post hoc

comparison tests and the evaluation of Box and Whisker plotswere used to determine specific significant differences amongmediums. All statistical analyses were conducted using Micro-softs Excel and results were considered significant at the Po0.05level.

3. Results

Between January and May 2004, 42 fishermen were inter-viewed from 14 different southeastern US fishing ports acrossthree US states. Overall, cooperation of fishermen with NMFSrepresentatives was excellent throughout the investigation.Southeastern US fishing ports were categorized under fourspecific geographical areas (Fig. 2): (1) northern North Carolina(Wanchese, Cape Hatteras, Beaufort, and Cape Carteret);(2) southern North Carolina (Sneads Ferry, Topsail Sound,Topsail Beach, Wrightsville Beach, and Carolina Beach); (3) SouthCarolina (Little River, Murrells Inlet, Georgetown, and CapeRomain Harbor); and (4) Georgia (Sapelo). Seven fishermen(17%) interviewed were from northern North Carolina ports, 17(40%) fishermen were from southern North Carolina, 16 (38%)were from South Carolina, and two (5%) fishermen were fromGeorgia.

3.1. Fishing gear

The words ‘‘pot’’ and ‘‘trap’’ are used interchangeably to meanbaited boxes set on the ocean floor to catch various fish andshellfish. The gear can be circular, rectangular, or conical in shape.In the southeastern US, commercial fishermen use fish traps

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 1. Seasonal western North Atlantic right whale migration pattern [18–23,44].

J.C. Levesque / Marine Policy 33 (2009) 40–4842

(pots) to capture black sea bass. Black sea bass pots are similar tolobster traps in shape (usually rectangular or cylindrical),construction, and size. Generally, black sea bass pots are set intrawls attached to a ground line along the ocean bottom, which issometimes called a string. Strings are anchored on each end and avertical line is attached to a buoy, buoy/flag combination, orhighflyer. Based on interviews, fishermen reported that black seabass pots were generally constructed using three different mesh

sizes depending on fishermen preference: (1) 3.8�3.8 cm(1.5�1.5 in.) square mesh, (2) 3.8 cm (1.5 in.) hexagonal mesh(PVC-coated or chicken wire), or (3) 5�5 cm (2�2 in.) mesh.Because of durability in the marine environment, coated nylon,cotton, or hemp was more common, while coated chicken wirewas the least common material used for mesh construction. Somefishermen also reported using even a smaller mesh sizes in beliefthat it created a dark ‘‘cave-like’’ effect which would be more

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 2. Major southeastern US commercial black sea bass pot fishing ports and grounds [18–23].

J.C. Levesque / Marine Policy 33 (2009) 40–48 43

tempting for fish to enter, until small mesh sizes were prohibitedbeginning 21 September 2006. To minimize the impacts of lostgear ‘‘ghost gear’’, federal regulations require all pot hinges andfasteners to be constructed with degradable material; each potrequires two escape vents, and each pot requires an identificationtag attached.

Fishing practices varied among fishermen and geographicalarea. Overall, the number of pots set ranged from 3 to 240 (Fig. 3)and the number of pots set per trawl ranged from 1 to 18 (Fig. 4).Generally, the number of pots set and the number pots set pertrawl increased from southern to northern geographical areas.Southern and northern North Carolina fishermen significantly set

ARTICLE IN PRESS

J.C. Levesque / Marine Policy 33 (2009) 40–4844

more pots than fishermen in Georgia or South Carolina(Kruskal–Wallis test, Po0.001). However, no significant differ-ences were found between the number of pots set in Georgia orSouth Carolina. In southern North Carolina, fishermen set fewerpots than in northern North Carolina (Kruskal–Wallis test,Po0.001). Also, the number of pots per trawl in northern NorthCarolina was significantly greater than for any other area(Kruskal–Wallis test, Po0.001); however, no significantdifferences were detected in the number of pots per trawl amongthe other geographical areas (southern North Carolina, SouthCarolina, Georgia).

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Number of Pots

Fre

quen

cy

200

Fig. 3. Number of black sea bass pots set by southeastern US fishermen. Trend line

depicts moving average.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17Number of Pots

Fre

quen

cy

18

Fig. 4. Number of black sea bass pots set per trawl.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Northern North Carolina

A

Mea

n N

umbe

r of

Pot

s pe

r T

raw

l

Southern North Carolina

Fig. 5. Mean number of black sea bass pots set per trawl by area. Vertical

Overall, slightly more fishermen (57%) reported using a buoy/flag combination for marking gear than buoys alone. Buoy linediameter was 1/4 in. (6.4 mm), 5/16 in. (7.9 mm), or 3/8 in.(9.5 mm). After data transformation, an ANOVA test showed thatthere were significant differences in mean line diameter amongareas (Po0.005). Buoy line diameter used in North Carolina wassignificantly greater in size than what was used in South Carolinaor Georgia. Most fishermen (60%) reported using line constructedof polypropylene with the remainder indicating that a combina-tion of polypropylene or Dacron was used.

In northern North Carolina, the number of pots per trawlranged from 1 to 10 and the mean number of pots per trawl wasfive (Fig. 5). The relationship between the mean number of potsper trawl set from northern North Carolina to Georgia wasdescribed by the following linear regression: y ¼ �1.4x+6(r2¼ 0.89). The total number of pots fished ranged from 20 to

50 and the mean number of pots was 41 (Fig. 6). The relationshipbetween the mean number of pots set from northern NorthCarolina to Georgia was described by the following linearregression equation, but was not significant: y ¼ �13.7x+74.5(r2¼ 0.31). Every fishermen interviewed indicated that a buoy

and flag combination system was used for marking gear on eachend. The average fishing depth ranged from 8 to 125 m(25–400 ft), with most fishermen (57%) setting gear in 6–22 m(20–70 ft). The buoy line length ranged from 47 to 188 m(150–600 ft), with most fishermen using buoy line lengthsbetween 47 and 94 m (150–300 ft). For fishermen using morethan one pot per trawl, the ground line length between each potranged from 3.1 to 6.3 m (10–20 ft). Most fishermen used groundline lengths between 3.1 and 4.7 m (10–15 ft), and the majority ofbuoy line (57%) was either 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) or 5/16 in. (7.9 mm)diameter polypropylene line. Interviews indicated that theaverage distance from shore to the fishing grounds ranged from16 to 64 km (10 and 40 miles).

Fishermen from southern North Carolina indicated that thenumber of pots per trawl ranged from 1 to 18 and the meannumber of pots per trawl was 3, with most fishermen using either1 or 2 pots per trawl (Fig. 5). The total number of pots fishedranged from 20 to 240 and the mean number of pots was 81(Fig. 6). Every fisherman interviewed indicated using a buoy andflag combination system for marking gear. Fishermen indicatedthat fishing depth ranged from 9 to 38 m (30–120 ft), with mostfishermen setting gear in 13–31 m (40–100 ft). Buoy line lengthranged from 16 to 56 m (50–180 ft), and most fishermen usedbuoy line lengths between 19 and 38 m (60–120 ft). For fishermensetting more than one pot per trawl, the ground line lengthbetween each pot ranged from 6 to 19 m (20–60 ft), with most

y = -1.4x + 6

r2 = 0.89

reaGeorgiaSouth Carolina

bars depict standard error, while trend line depicts linear regression.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

y = -13.7x + 74.5

r2 = 0.31

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Area

Mea

n N

umbe

r of

Pot

s

Northern North Carolina GeorgiaSouth CarolinaSouthern North Carolina

Fig. 6. Mean number of black sea bass pots set by area. Vertical bars depict standard error, while trend line depicts linear regression.

J.C. Levesque / Marine Policy 33 (2009) 40–48 45

fishermen using ground line lengths between 8 and 13 m(25–40 ft). Regardless of the number of pots per trawl set, allbuoy lines were constructed of 3/8 in. (9.5 mm), 5/16 in. (7.9 mm),or 1/4 in. (6.4 mm) polypropylene or Dacron. Interviews indicatedthat the average distance from shore to fishing grounds rangedfrom 16 to 64 km (1 and 40 miles).

In South Carolina, every fishermen interviewed indicated usingonly one pot per trawl (Fig. 5). The total number of pots fishedranged from 3 to 30 and the mean number of pots was 21 (Fig. 6).Six fishermen indicated using a buoy and flag combinationsystem, and eight fishermen indicated using only buoys formarking gear on each end. The average fishing depth ranged from14 to 38 m (45–120 ft), with most fishermen setting gear in16–34 m (50–110 ft). The buoy line length ranged from 23 to 50 m(75–160 ft), but most fishermen (50%) used buoy line lengthsbetween 23 and 47 m (75–150 ft). Since all the fishermen usedsingle traps, no ground lines were used. All buoy line used wasconstructed of 5/16 in. (7.9 mm) polypropylene or 1/4 in. (6.4 mm)Dacron. Interviews indicated that the average distance from shoreto the fishing grounds ranged from 19 to 72 km (12 and 45 miles).

Similar to South Carolina fishermen, the two fishermeninterviewed from Georgia indicated using only one pot per trawl(Fig. 5). The total number of pots fished ranged from 6 to 30 andthe mean number of pots was 18 (Fig. 6). Both fishermen indicatedusing a buoy and flag combination system for marking gear oneach end. The average fishing depth ranged from 18 to 48 m(70–150 ft). The buoy line length ranged from 38 to 63 m(120–200 ft). Both fishermen did not use any ground lines andindicated using buoy line constructed of 5/16 in. (7.9 mm)polypropylene. The average distance from shore to the fishinggrounds was between 32 and 65 km (20 and 40 miles).

3.2. Fishing methods

Fishermen used two different methods for targeting black seabass in southeastern US waters. The primary technique was‘‘target setting’’ and the second technique was ‘‘scattered setting.’’Fishermen reported using the ‘‘target setting’’ technique to catchwinter sessile black sea bass aggregations located on hard-bottomhabitats. To locate hard-bottom areas, fishermen either used on-board electronics or set numerous pots in clusters over extendedareas. Gear was typically set any where from 3 to 5 m (10–15 ft) to5 to 8 km (3–5 miles) apart. With this technique, pots were set andretrieved frequently, depending on fishing success.

In contrast, fishermen that used the "scatter setting" targettedwinter migratory black sea bass instead of sessile aggregations.

With this technique, fishermen set many pots over a wide areaand gear was set in rows or scattered. With this technique, potswere set for extended periods with the intention of attracting fishto the pot. Unlike target setting, scattered setting was notdependent upon bottom habitat type.

Regardless of the deployment method, fishermen either setand retrieved gear exclusively during the day or allowed gear tosoak. In northern North Carolina, four (50%) of the fishermeninterviewed indicated that gear was set and retrieved only duringthe day and no gear was set overnight. However, in southernNorth Carolina, 10 (59%) fishermen interviewed indicated thatgear was set overnight and retrieved during the day. In SouthCarolina, fishermen indicated that no pots were set overnight;however, in Georgia, both fishermen interviewed indicated thatpots were set overnight and gear was retrieved during the day.Interviews also revealed that if fishermen set gear during the day,then all pots were tended, but if gear was set overnight, then gearwas unattended. On average, fishermen from all regions indicatedthat fewer pots were set during the winter than during thesummer periods. During the summer, when fish were morescattered, fishermen were inclined to set more gear and increasesoak times. However, during the winter, less gear was set and soaktimes were shorter, with pots hauled two to three times a day.Overall, soak time were dependent on gear amount and weatherconditions. If fishermen set single pots, then soak times wereshort; however, if gear was set in trawls, then soak times werelonger.

3.3. Fishing season

Overall, the southeastern US black sea bass fishery wasregularly prosecuted during winter through spring, and at variouslocations, fishermen reported seeing whales on occasion in thevicinity of gear during this period. In northern North Carolina, five(57%) fishermen set gear from January through April, while theother two fishermen interviewed indicated setting gear through-out the year. In southern North Carolina, 14 (82%) fishermen setgear either in the fall, winter, both seasons or throughout the year.In South Carolina and Georgia, every fisherman interviewedindicated setting gear only during the fall through winter seasons.

3.4. Fishing effort

Fishing effort was unable to be quantified or estimated throughfishermen interviews. The majority of fishermen indicatedparticipating in various fisheries and overall effort was dependent

ARTICLE IN PRESS

J.C. Levesque / Marine Policy 33 (2009) 40–4846

on fishing success, economic markets, or weather conditions, sothe number of days fished per year varied. Although, fishermenare federally required to register the number of black sea basspots, estimating effort was difficult because many snapper-grouper permit holders maintained black sea bass endorsements,though they are not actively involved in the pot fishery. As aresult, the number of fishermen permitted to fish with pots ismuch higher than the actual number that are fishing. Moreover,fishermen tend to set only a portion of their pots while storing theremaining pots to replace any losses during the season [12]. In2003, the total number of black sea bass pot tags was 3720 [2].There were 130 pot tags issued in Florida (includes both east andwest coast), 45 tags issued for Georgia, 920 tags issued for SouthCarolina, and 2625 tags issued for North Carolina. Landinginformation indicated that 66.8% or 159,939 kg (351,864 lb) werelanded in North Carolina; the remainder was landed in SouthCarolina (7.6%) and other areas (4.8%).

Today, there are no black sea bass fishery observer programrequirements to facilitate gathering fishery data and the black seabass pot fishery is not ‘‘limited access’’ either; however, the SouthAtlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) did set a controlback-date of 23 April 1997. By setting a control date, the SAFMCcould decide to implement a limited access program at a latertime. If so, fishermen entering the fishery after the control datewould no longer be authorized. Based on the final ruleimplementing various new regulations for several species,including black sea bass [34], the SAFMC considered, decidednot to restrict the number of sea bass pots fishermen could deploy.Moreover, the SAFMC considered, but also decided not to requirefishermen to return to the dock with all pots after each trip.Instead, the SAFMC decided to implement a black sea bass quotaof 216,364 kg (477,000 lb) which was expected to restrict thenumber of pots set per year once the quota was met.

4. Discussion

This study did not interview every black sea bass pot fishermenfrom every southeast geographical area or fishing port; however,according to local seafood dealers and commercial fishing supplycompanies, interviews were conducted with commercial fishingindustry leaders from most of the major southeastern US fishingports. Thus, these results should be representative of the overallblack sea pot fishery in terms of gear characteristics, fishingmethod, and fishing season. This investigation revealed that theblack sea bass pot fishery in southeastern US waters was primarilyprosecuted during the fall and winter months and the geographi-cal areas (nearshore waters) when western North Atlantic rightwhales are migrating from the north to south. Although whalesighting information could not be quantified, some fishermenreported observing whales in the vicinity of gear during the falland winter months. From this investigation, it was difficult todifferentiate which geographical area had the most fishing effort;however, based on interviews, it appeared most fishermen setmore gear off North Carolina waters than off South Carolina orGeorgia waters, where more western North Atlantic right whalesreside during the winter through spring months. However, morefishermen were interviewed in northern areas than in southernareas, possibly biasing the results; nonetheless, interviewsindicated that the distribution of fishermen interviewed correctlyreflected that of the fishery in terms of effort. Overall, findingsappear beneficial for seasonal right whale movements; however,limited information is available regarding right whale migrationpatterns within North Carolina waters during the fall and winterperiods. In general, the amount of gear increased from southernfishing areas to northern fishing areas. More importantly, fisher-

men revealed that soak times and the distance between pots inthe winter months were less than in the summer months, whichactually could increase the threat to right whales. However, noinformation is available to determine whether more traps in asmaller area reduces or increases the risk to right whales, so it isdifficult to speculate either way. Lastly, the study found that mostfishermen used ‘‘floating’’ polypropylene line and almost everyfisherman used a buoy/flag configuration to mark the ends of thegear. Without any verification studies available, but based onamendments to the ALWTRP, it is a standard management beliefthat polypropylene line is a greater threat to whales than sinkingline. In the southeast, interviews discovered that most fishermenuse polypropylene line because it is less probable to becomeentangled with hard-bottom habitats.

As previously stated, it is difficult to ascertain the threat of blacksea bass pot fishery gear to right whales in US southeastern waters.Thus, fishery managers held public meetings, reviewed publiccomments, and evaluated various alternatives for reducing threatsto large whales [35]. Based on these outcomes, the NMFS decided,among other things, to implement Seasonal Area Management(SAM) regulations for the southeastern US black sea bass pot fishery[2]. In the near future, conservation management measures willconsist of the requirement to use sinking and/or neutrally buoyantground line, extending the universal buoy line requirements (whichprohibit any portion of the buoy line floating at the surface), andrequiring that pot gear employ weak links on all floatation and/orweighted devices attached to the buoy line.

Incorporating weak links into buoy lines has been a long-standing accepted theory by NMFS and others as a method forreducing entanglements and serious injury to large whales [2].The operational theory is based on the idea that the whale’sforward motion will pull the buoy line through the whale’s mouthuntil the buoy and weak link catch beside the baleen, then thecombination of the whale’s momentum and the weight of the gearon the lower end of the buoy line will cause the weak link to break[35]. While this theory has never been tested due to the difficultyof experimenting on large whales; nonetheless, the NMFSconsiders adding a weak link on all devices attached to the buoyline will increase the likelihood that a line sliding through awhale’s mouth will break away quickly at the buoy before thewhale begins to thrash and become more entangled. To betterunderstand fishery interactions, the NMFS has convened variousentanglement workshops and evaluated various fisheries; how-ever, at this time, NMFS believes that the gear requirements statedabove are the only alternative measures available to reduce largewhale entanglements.

In addition to the conservation and protected measuresimplemented under the ALWTRP, recent regulations for the blacksea bass fishery [34] should have secondary conservation benefitsfor right whales, since it is probable that the black sea bass quotawould be met early in the year thereby prohibiting gear andfishing effort during the period when western North Atlantic rightwhales are regularly migrating to southern waters. In thiscircumstance, both of these regulations will likely assist withthe conservation and management of several marine resources;however, this is unusual for the fishery management process.Typically, conservation management measures for one speciesmay actually unintentually negatively affect another species,especially marine mammals (e.g. sea lions and salmon). Histori-cally, as fisheries and technologies were established, fisheryinteractions with marine mammals have increased. Today, manymarine mammal populations have been negatively impacted bycommercial fisheries, since many marine mammal diets consist ofthe same fisheries targeted by fishermen [36].

Although, federal fishery managers have excellent marineresource management intentions, regulatory processes often do

ARTICLE IN PRESS

J.C. Levesque / Marine Policy 33 (2009) 40–48 47

not allow for effective fast decision making, which can sometimestake many years (J. Levesque, pers. obs.). For long-lived species(e.g. marine mammal, sea turtles, sharks, and abalone), usuallymanagement measures are implemented after a species hasalready severely declined and probably will never recover becauseof either life history traits or competing fishery managementpriorities [37]. As with the western North Atlantic right whale,many marine mammal populations continue to decline due tocontinuing commercial fishery interactions [7], even though largewhale management measures for commercial fisheries have beenin place for many years [8]. As previously stated, ship strikes arethe leading cause of death to right whales [24,38]; however, morestringent management measures under the NMFS Ship StrikeReduction Strategy were not proposed until recently [39]. Withless than 400 right whales remaining, it is obvious that currentmanagement approaches to reducing threats to right whales arefailing.

5. Conclusions

Western North Atlantic right whale management has beenextremely challenging. The NMFS must balance the requirementsof the MMPA, the ESA, and the Magnuson–Stevens ConservationAct while promoting the growth of fisheries and managingbycatch. With the difficulty of conducting open-ocean experi-ments on large animals, researchers are often restricted in theirabilities to test new technologies. Thus, in the absence of reducingfishing effort and closing fisheries, the NMFS is attempting toreduce whale–fishery interactions by implementing the ‘‘bestavailable’’ information. Nonetheless, the new NMFS managementmeasures imposed on the southeastern US black sea bass potfishery may actually negatively affect right whales by creatingadditional vertical lines in the water column by fishermenswitching from multiple pots to single pots in northern NorthCarolina waters. It is probable that some fishermen will fearsetting pot gear on or adjacent to hard bottom areas with the newsink ground line requirement in belief they will lose gear.However, since the majority of the fishery already deploys singlepots, as pointed out by this study, it is anticipated that the NMFSmeasures should not significantly influence effort, fishing seasons,or techniques. Further, it is anticipated that the recent black seabass fishery quota should benefit right whale conservation.Therefore, any potential negative effects imposed by the newsink line requirement for ground lines from fishermen settingsingle pots instead of multiple pots may not arise, since the blacksea bass quota is expected to be met early in the year, therebyclosing the fishery before right whales migrate through the area.

The success of implementing right whale conservation mea-sures will be difficult to assess considering fishery interactiondeterminations of large whales with commercial fishing gear areoften vague or best judgment speculation. Currently, there is nocriteria developed for measuring marine mammal managementsuccess; thus, all injuries and mortalities are often pooled andevaluated against the MMPA’s PBR level definition or in the case ofthreatened or endangered species the ESA’s jeopardy definition.Many management decisions are often subjective and based upona policy maker’s ability to interpret what level of decline warrantsaction, since risk analysis and probability modeling are mostlylacking. This approach to assessing population declines hasrecently been evaluated by Taylor et al. [40]. In this study, theresearchers evaluated the current approaches used to detectdeclining trends in marine mammal populations and conclusivelydetermined that it was apparent that the current system was notappropriate for detecting precipitous marine mammal abundancedeclines. Thus, changes in the current system should beconsidered.

In order for fishery policy managers to make suitableconservation and protective management decisions, cooperativesupport from the commercial fishing industry, increased monitor-ing effort for marine mammals, and new analytical methods fordetecting marine mammal population declines are cruciallyneeded. It is important for whale biologists and industry fishingrepresentatives to have the ability to test new theories andtechnologies without extended regulatory delays imposed by therequirements of the MMPA, the ESA, the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act, and the Data Quality Act. Although, the NMFS doesconvene workshops to gather information, often scientific in-formation is nonetheless lacking; thus, to facilitate the imple-mentation of fitting whale management actions and in a timelyfashion, the current system needs to be streamlined and faster, sothat fishery policy makers can adequately evaluate quality,appropriate, and relevant information.

Results from a recent review of marine governance by Hilbornet al. [41] found that the current fishery management approachesand systems repeatedly create many of the problems (discards,marine mammal fishery interactions, bycatch) associated withproposed fishery solutions (regulations). The review revealed thatmarine resources benefited from incentives to individuals, whichultimately led to conservation consistent behavior [41]. In theUSA, currently there are no incentives for fishermen to developand test gear for reducing marine mammal fishery interactionsbesides the threats of fishery closures. As highlighted by thisstudy, although black sea bass pot fishermen were extremelycooperative with fishery managers throughout this study, noincentives were available. In fact, additional regulations wereimposed on the fishery. Generally, fishery closures often occurwhen fishery populations have already collapsed or when marinemammal interactions increase to levels above PBR, so the onlyincentive for fishermen is to ‘‘race-to-fish’’ or to ‘‘catch all youcan’’ before fisheries close or new regulations are imposed. Ascompetition increases for limited resources among competingfisheries and marine mammals for prey [1], it is imperative thateffective ecosystem management approaches be developed assoon as possible. Nonetheless, some researchers cautioned againstmoving forward with the ecosystem management approach, sincethere are already many uncertainties with using the current singlespecies management approach [40]. In summary, the precau-tionary principle [42,43] to promoting or closing new fisheriesmust be continued to be used and more importantly although theNEPA public process is important, the system needs to be morestreamlined, so that marine resources (e.g. fishery stocks, marinemammals) receive the proper protection before it is to late.

Acknowledgments

This paper is dedicated to my friend, the late Mr. Chesley‘‘Parks’’ Lewis, who served as the NMFS Southeast Regioncommercial fishery liaison from September 2004 through July2006. P. Lewis was invaluable during this investigation and ingathering and relaying information on various marine mammaland fishery issues between the commercial fishing industry andNMFS. A sincere appreciation is extended to the dedicated NMFSNortheast Regional Office Protected Resources, Marine MammalDivision staff, and the Southeast Regional Office ProtectedResources, Marine Mammal Division staff (B. Baker, D. Bernhard,S. Carlson, L. Englby, and B. Zoodsma). I specifically would also liketo thank V. Cornish, now with the Ocean Conservancy, for herencouragement in pursing data collection for the black sea basspot fishery. In addition, I thank K. Gibbs for reviewing and editingan early manuscript draft. I thank P. Gehring for producing the GISgraphics and I especially thank R. Kenney for critical suggestions

ARTICLE IN PRESS

J.C. Levesque / Marine Policy 33 (2009) 40–4848

that greatly improved this manuscript. Finally, I particularly thankall the fishermen who participated in the interviews.

References

[1] DeMaster DP, Fowler CW, Perry SL, Richlen MF. Predation and competition:the impact of fisheries on marine mammal populations over the next onehundred years. Journal of Mammalogy 2001;82(3):641–51.

[2] Waring GT, Josephson E, Fairfield CP, Maze-Foley K, editors. US Atlantic andGulf of Mexico marine mammal stock assessments 2006. NOAA technicalmemorandum NMFS-NE-201. Woods Hole, MA: National Marine FisheriesService; 2007. 388pp.

[3] NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Final Environmental ImpactStatement for Amending the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan:Broad-Based Gear Modifications, Publ. August 10, 2007.

[4] Read AJ. Interactions between cetaceans and gillnet and trap fisheries in thenorthwest Atlantic. Report of the International Whaling Commission, SpecialIssue 15, 1994, p. 133–47.

[5] Noke WD, Odell DK. Interactions between the Indian River Lagoon blue crabfishery and the bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus. Marine MammalScience 2002;18(4):819–32.

[6] Johnson A, Salvador G, Kenny J, Robbins J, Kraus S, Landry S, et al. Fishing gearinvolved in entanglements of right and humpback whales. Marine MammalScience 2005;21(4):635–45.

[7] Waring G, Josephson K, Fairfield C, Maze-Foley K. US Atlantic and Gulf ofMexico marine mammal stock assessments 2005. NOAA technical memor-andum NMFS-NE-194. MS: National Marine Fisheries Service; 2006. 346pp.

[8] NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Final Rule. Taking of MarineMammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Atlantic Large WhaleTake Reduction Plan Regulations, Publ. 64 FR 7529, February 16, 1999.

[9] Kendall AW. Biological and fisheries data on Black Sea Bass, Centropristisstriata (Linnaeus). Technical series report, No. 7. NOAA, United StatesDepartment of Commerce, 1977, 29pp.

[10] Shepherd GR, Terceiro M. The summer flounder, scup and black sea bassfishery of the Middle Atlantic Bight and Southern New England waters. NOAAtechnical report NMFS 122. MA: National Marine Fisheries Service; 1994.13pp.

[11] Cupka DM, Robert KD, Tucker J. Biology of the black sea bass, Centropristisstriata (Pisces: Serranidae), from South Carolina waters. Charleston, SC: SouthCarolina Wildlife & Marine Resources; 1973. 93pp.

[12] SAFMC (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council). Report of black seabass stock assessment workshop, Beaufort, NC. Prepared for the SouthAtlantic Fishery Management Council, Charleston, SC, February 14, 2003.

[13] Musick JA, Mercer LP. Seasonal distribution of black sea bass, Centropristis striata,in the Mid-Atlantic Bight with comments on the ecology and fisheries of thespecies. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 1977;106:12–25.

[14] Mercer LP. The reproductive biology and population dynamics of black seabass, Centropristis striata. Ph.D. dissertation. College of William and Mary,Williamsburg,VA, 1978, 196pp.

[15] Kendall AW, Mercer LP. Black sea bass Centropristis striata. In: Grosslein MD,Azarovitz TR, editors. Fish distribution, p. 82–83. MESA NY Bight AtlasMonograph, vol. 15. Stony Brook, NY: New York Sea Grant Institute, StateUniversity New York; 1982. 182pp.

[16] Hood PB, Godcharles MF, Barco RS. Age, growth, reproduction, and the feedingecology of black sea bass, Centropristis striata, (Pisces: Serranidae) in theeastern Gulf of Mexico. Bulletin of Marine Science 1994;54:24–37.

[17] NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Final Rule. Listing of the NorthernRight Whale under the Endangered Species Act, Publ. 35 FR 8495, June 2,1970.

[18] Winn HE, Price CA, Sorensen PW. The distributional biology of the right whale(Eubalaenea glacialis) in the western North Atlantic. Reports of the Interna-tional Whaling Commission, Special Issue 10, 1986, p. 129–38.

[19] Kenney RD, Mayo CA, Winn HE. Migration and foraging strategies at varyingspatial scales in western North Atlantic right whales; a review of hypotheses.Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 2001;Special Issue 2:209–23.

[20] McLellan WA, Lefler KM, Jones G, Hardcastle K, Pabst DA. Winter right whalesurveys from Savannah, Georgia to Chesapeake Bay, Virginia, February–March2001. Final report to NMFS under contract number 40WCNF1A0249, 2001,36pp.

[21] Glass AH, Taylor CR, Cupka DM. Monitoring North Atlantic right whales offthe coasts of South Carolina and Georgia 2004–2005. Final report to NationalFish and Wildlife Foundation, 2005, 16pp.

[22] Clark CW. Application of passive acoustic methods to detect migrating rightwhales in New England and Mid-Atlantic waters. Final report to NMFS undercontract number WC133F-04-CN-0060 2006, 71pp.

[23] Keller CA, Ward-Geiger LI, Brooks WB, Slay CK, Taylor CR, Zoodsma BJ. NorthAtlantic right whale distribution in relation to sea surface temperature in thesoutheastern United States calving grounds. Marine Mammal Science2006;22(2):426–45.

[24] Ward-Geiger LI, Silber GK, Baumstark RD, Pulfer TL. Characterization of shiptraffic in right whale critical habitat. Coastal Management 2005;33:263–78.

[25] Clapham PJ, Young SB, Brownell RI. Baleen whales: conservation issues andthe status of the most endangered populations. Mammal Review 1999;29:35–60.

[26] Fujiwara M, Caswell H. Demography of the endangered North Atlantic rightwhale. Nature 2001;414:537–41.

[27] Kraus SD, Brown MW, Caswell H, Clark CW, Fujiwara M, Hamilton PK, et al.North Atlantic right whales in crisis. Science 2005;309:561–2.

[28] Elvin SS, Taggart CT. Right whales and vessels in Canadian waters. MarinePolicy 2007; doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2007.08.001.

[29] Kraus SD, Hamilton PK, Kenney RD, Knowlton A, Slay CK. Reproductiveparameters of the North Atlantic right whale. Journal of Cetacean Researchand Management 2001;Special Issue 2:231–6.

[30] Knowlton AR, Kraus SD, Kenney RD. Reproduction in North Atlantic rightwhales (Eubalaena glacialis). Canadian Journal of Zoology 1994;72:1297–305.

[31] Knowlton AR, Kraus SD. Mortality and serious injury of North Atlantic rightwhales (Eubalaena glacialis) in the North Atlantic Ocean. Journal of CetaceanResearch and Management 2001;Special Issue 2:193–208.

[32] Reeves RR, Smith BD, Crespo EA, di Sciara GN, compilers. Dolphins, Whalesand Porpoises: 2002–2010 Conservation Action Plan for the World’sCetaceans. IUCN/SSC Cetacean Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerlandand Cambridge, UK, 2003.

[33] Cole T, Hartley D, Merrick R. Mortality and serious injury determinations forlarge whale stocks along the eastern seaboard of the United States,1999–2003. NEFSC Ref. Doc. 05-08.Woods Hole, MA: National MarineFisheries Service; 2005. 20pp.

[34] NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf ofMexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery Off the SouthernAtlantic States; Amendment 13C, Publ. 71 FR 55096, September 21, 2006.

[35] NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Draft Environmental ImpactStatement for Amending the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan:Broad-based Gear Modifications,February 25, 2005.

[36] Friedlaender AS, McLellan WA, Pabst DA. Characterizing an interactionbetween coastal bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) and the spot gillnetfishery in southeastern North Carolina, USA. Journal of Cetacean Research andManagement 2001;3(3):293–303.

[37] Levesque JC. International fisheries agreement: review of the InternationalCommission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. Case study—sharkmanagement. Marine Policy 2007.

[38] Vanderlaan ASM, Taggart CT. Vessel collisions with whales: the probability oflethal injury based on vessel speed. Marine Mammal Science2007;23(1):144–56.

[39] NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Endangered Fish and Wildlife;Proposed Rule to Implement Speed Restrictions to Reduce the Threat of ShipCollisions with North Atlantic Right Whales, Publ. 71 FR 36299, June 26, 2006.

[40] Taylor BL, Martinez M, Geerodette T, Barlow J, Hrovat Y. Lessons frommonitoring trends in abundance of marine mammals. Marine MammalScience 2007;23(1):157–75.

[41] Hilborn R, Orensanz JM, Parma AM. Institutions, incentives and the future offisheries. Philosophical Transactions B 2005;360:47–57.

[42] Thompson G. The precautionary principle in North Pacific groundfishmanagement. Summary paper. NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 1997.

[43] Gable F. A large marine ecosystem approach to fisheries management andsustainability. Linkages and concepts towards best practices. NOAA technicalmemorandum NMFS-NE-184, 2004, 94pp.

[44] Department of the Navy. Marine Resource Assessment for the NortheastOperating Areas: Atlantic City, Narragansett Bay, and Boston. Naval FacilitiesEngineering Command, Atlantic; Norfolk, Virginia. Contract No. N62470-02-D-9997, Task Order No. 0018. Prepared by Geo-Marine, Inc., Newport News,Virginia, 2005.