establishment and closure of the directed florida whiting (menticirrhus americanus) fishery and...
TRANSCRIPT
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Marine Policy 33 (2009) 233–247
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Marine Policy
0308-59
doi:10.1
� Pres
Geo-Ma
E-m
(J.C. Lev
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol
Establishment and closure of the directed Florida whiting (Menticirrhusamericanus) fishery and implications for North Atlantic right whale(Eubalaena glacialis) conservation and management
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 28 May 2008
Accepted 2 July 2008
Keywords:
Whiting
Southern kingfish
Menticirrhus americanus
North Atlantic right whale
Gillnet
Commercial fishing
Northeastern Florida
Southeast US Restricted Area
Eubalaena glacialis
7X/$ - see front matter & 2008 Elsevier Ltd. A
016/j.marpol.2008.07.003
ent address: Environmental Resources Division
rine, Inc., 2201 Avenue K, Suite A2, Plano, TX 750
ail addresses: [email protected]
esque).
a b s t r a c t
Today, ocean and coastal marine resource management is extremely complex. Marine resource
managers are charged with conserving and managing many diverse species. Southern kingfish
(Menticirrhus americanus), commonly known as whiting, are found from southern New England to
Florida. During the fall through winter, western North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) are
primarily found in the coastal nearshore waters off South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, overlapping the
whiting’s range and habitat.
In January 2006, a right whale calf was discovered dead, as a result of gillnet entanglement, in close
proximity to the Florida commercial whiting fishing grounds; thus, to assist the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) with developing appropriated right whale conservation management
measures, this study evaluated the newly established commercial Florida whiting fishery. Findings
revealed that the whiting fishery was established in 2004 and the fishery was prosecuted during the
time and area where right whales were found. Moreover, the study found that whiting landings, market
value, catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE), dealers, and fishing effort significantly increased during 2000
through 2005. As a result of the right whale calf mortality and threat of gillnet gear to whales, the NMFS
prohibited the use of gillnet gear in the US southeastern waters, which inevitably closed the newly
established whiting fishery.
& 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Ocean and coastal marine resource management is extremelycomplex. Marine resource managers are responsible for managingand conserving many diverse species. Among the variousenvironmental statutes in the United States, the National MarineFisheries Service (NMFS) is required to implement and oversee thestatutory requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act(MMPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) whilepromoting the growth of fisheries and managing bycatch. Ascompetition increases for limited marine resources and fishermencontinue to explore new fisheries, techniques, and gears, themanagement of marine resources is becoming more multifacetedand challenging. Fishery policy managers are responsible forconserving and managing various types of marine resources
ll rights reserved.
, Marine Science Department,
74, USA. Tel.: +1972 423 5480.
consisting of diverse habitats, marine mammals, sea turtles,sharks, and fish.
In the United States, whiting are found from southern NewEngland to Florida. In Florida waters, there are three differentspecies of whiting: the Gulf kingfish (Menticirrhus littoralis), thesouthern kingfish (Menticirrhus americanus), and the northernkingfish (Menticirrhus saxatilis) [1]. Southern kingfish are the mostabundant kingfish species in Florida [2]. Southern kingfish,commonly called whiting, are an inshore bottom dwelling fishclassified under the Croaker (Sciaenidae) family [3]. Southernkingfish are primarily found in estuaries, coastal sounds, near-shore ocean waters, and along sandy beaches over a variety ofsubstrates from mud to sand and mud mixtures [4].
During the fall through winter it is speculated that whitingeither migrate to southern waters or offshore to deeper (37 m)warmer waters [4,5]. Southern kingfish exhibit a prolongedspawning period from April through September, with peakspawning occurring in April and May [4]. Southern kingfish area short-lived species [1], and Smith and Wenner [4] reported thatmales and females are sexually mature by age 2 (260–280 mm)and may live to age 4 (361 mm). Southern kingfish feed on avariety of benthic infauna and epifauna such as polychaetes,crustaceans, and mollusks [6,7].
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.C. Levesque / Marine Policy 33 (2009) 233–247234
Both commercial and recreational fishermen harvest whitingthroughout the species’ range. In commercial fisheries, whitingare a bycatch of the shrimp trawl and the gillnet fisheries.Historically, whiting landings have been difficult to estimatebecause the state of Florida has never separated whiting landingsby species. Nonetheless, based on commercial port samplingrecords, southern kingfish were the primarily kingfish specieslanded from Florida east coast waters [1]. Armstrong and Muller[1] evaluated commercial Florida whiting landings and found thatlandings ranged from 228,750 kg (503,250 pounds) to 558,115 kg(1,230,433 pounds) during 1986–1995 and most landings (50%)occurred in Duval County in northeastern Florida. Also, the studyfound that whiting catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) averaged 11.3 kg/trip and whiting size ranged from 150 to 280 cm TL (age 1) [1].
Western North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis)movement patterns extend from Canada to Florida [8,9,39].Western North Atlantic right whales are primarily found in thecoastal nearshore waters off South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida,USA during the fall through spring (Fig. 1; [8–13]). During thosemonths (November–April), their distribution overlaps that of thewhiting’s range and habitat. Today, the North Atlantic right whaleis one of the most severely depleted large whale species in theAtlantic Ocean [14]. In 1992, using sightings (i.e., photo-identifi-cation) data (1980–1992), Knowlton et al. [15] estimated theminimum population at 295 individuals while Kraus et al. [16]estimated the North Atlantic right whale population between 299and 437 animals in 1998 using an updated data set (1980–1998).Researchers have predicted extinction of the species within 200years [17] and Rosalind et al. [18] suggested that long-termstudies showed that the reproductive parameters and survival
Fig. 1. Location of designated North Atlantic right whale critical habitat, Southeast
US Restricted Area, right whale carcass location, Florida whiting fishing grounds,
and historical right whale sighting data. (November–April) [8–13].
rates for the North Atlantic right whale continue to decline.Clapham [19] stated that if declining trends continued, thenrecovery may be threatened.
Various researchers have estimated that at least a third ofNorth Atlantic right whale mortalities each year were a directresult of human activities [20]. The two greatest threats to NorthAtlantic right whales are collisions with ships and entanglementin commercial fishing gear [21,22]. Some researchers assume thatmore than half of the living North Atlantic right whales in thewestern North Atlantic Ocean have experienced at least one ship-strike or net entanglement in their lifetime [20]. According to Coleet al. [23], a total of 408 mortality and serious injury determina-tions were reported during 1999–2003. The study highlightedthere were 173 entanglement and 37 ship strike events for largewhales. Of the large whales, North Atlantic right whales had thehighest proportion of entanglements and ship strikes. In addition,Cole et al. [23] found that of the 50 events involving North Atlanticright whales, 31 were confirmed entanglements, 5 resulted inserious injuries, and 3 resulted in mortalities. In total, there were18 verified North Atlantic right whale mortalities over the 5-yearperiod. In another study, Knowlton and Kraus [21] documented 56North Atlantic right whale human-related serious injuries andmortalities from 1970 to 1999, 31 were attributed to entangle-ments in fishing gear.
The North Atlantic right whale was listed as endangered underthe ESA in 1973 due to the declining stock status as result of shipstrikes and entanglements with commercial fishing gear [24]. InJune 1994, the NMFS designated the following North Atlantic rightwhale critical habitat areas [25]: (1) Great South Channel, (2) CapeCod Bay, and (3) the southeastern US (NMFS, 1994). In thesoutheast, designated critical habitat extends from 3111500N(approximately the mouth of the Altamaha River, GA) to3011500N (approximately Jacksonville, FL) from the coast out to15 NM (nautical miles) offshore; the coastal waters between3011500N and 2810000N (approximately Sebastian Inlet, FL) from thecoast out to 5 NM. Presently, the southeastern designated criticalhabitat area is the only known North Atlantic right whale calvinghabitat.
2. Background
2.1. Mortality event
According to United States Coast Guard (USCG) records, areport was made at 10:30 h on Sunday, 22 January 2006, by amember of the public that a floating whale was spotted offshore ofJacksonville Beach, FL, USA. At approximately 11:00 h, a FloridaFish and Wildlife Commission (FWC) aerial survey team con-firmed the whale species, location, and photographed the carcass.Based on reconnaissance, the FWC aerial survey team identifiedthe whale as a North Atlantic right whale calf, and photos showedthe calf as having one large wound along the midline and varioussmaller lesions around the base of its tail. Following reconnais-sance, the North Atlantic right whale calf was towed to shore fromthe location of 30114.40N lat., 81104.20W long. (Fig. 1), which wasapproximately 1 NM outside of designated North Atlantic rightwhale critical habitat, but within the NMFS Southeast USRestricted Area [26].
On 23 January 2006, a specialized large whale necropsy team,which consisted of various federal and state government repre-sentatives and university and non-profit marine mammal specia-lists, performed a thorough necropsy of the whale in order todetermine the probable cause of death. Based on the necropsyreport [27], the investigators confirmed a variety of lesionsincluding numerous small lesions around the tailstock and a
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.C. Levesque / Marine Policy 33 (2009) 233–247 235
single large dorsal lesion. The North Atlantic right whale also hada complex array of wounds around its tailstock, including woundsidentified as small shark bites. However, the necropsy report [27]stated that those wounds had been seen in aerial photos of thecalf as early as 30 December 2005. The investigators pointed outthat most of the remaining wounds formed straight-line, ‘‘V’’, anddiamond-shaped patterns. The report indicated these smalllesions appeared to be pre-mortem, and were caused by a finecutting edge such as monofilament net, which correspondedto the characteristic ‘‘V’’ and diamond shapes of gillnet gear.Moreover, the gross examination revealed the North Atlantic rightwhale was post-mortem scavenged by sharks and had an unusuallarge wound splitting open most of its back. The investigatorsindicated the wound appeared to have occurred post-mortem andwas not the result of a vessel strike. Moore et al. [27] indicated theedges of the middle of the wound were clean-cut, while the endswere ragged, but could not determine the probable cause of thelarge wound. Ultimately, the results of the investigation did notreveal the immediate cause of death of the whale (e.g. drowning,dehydration, infection); nonetheless, using all available informa-tion NMFS policy managers, in consultation with others, deter-mined and concluded that the entanglement was caused by sometype of gillnet gear and injury to the whale led to the death of theanimal [26].
2.2. Fisheries
In Florida waters, the use of run-around gillnets dates back tothe early 1970s [28]. On 8 November 1994, Florida voters passed aState constitutional amendment prohibiting the use of monofila-ment gillnets in all Florida state waters (o3 NM on the east coastand o9 NM on the west coast). The amendment became effective1 July 1995. Although monofilament gillnets were prohibitedwithin state waters, gillnets were still authorized gear in federalwaters (43 NM offshore on the east coast and 49 NM offshore onthe west coast), provided all federal regulations were met. Today,fishermen continue to use nets (monofilament or nylon) to targetcoastal migratory fish, inshore fish, and sharks. In federal watersoff Florida, southeast Atlantic gillnet fishermen typically targetpompano (Trachinotus carolinus), mullet (Mugil spp.), bluefish(Pomatomus saltatrix), Spanish (Scomberomorous maculates), andKing mackerel (Scomberomorous cavalla). Historically, Floridafishermen primarily used surface or mid-water monofilamentgillnets constructed of 64–70 mm (21
42234
00) stretch mesh that
were 366 m (400 yards) long and 12.5 m (3–8 ft) deep to targetinshore species. Typically, fishing depths ranged from 1 to 3 m(3–9 ft), soak times were relatively short (a few hours), and netswere set during daylight hours. Fishermen also have targetedinshore sharks species with gillnet gear in Florida; however, gearand techniques are considerably different than gear used forinshore finfish. Although nets vary greatly, because they are oftenpieced together from other nets of various specifications, sharkdriftnet gear is typically 275–1800 m long and 3.2–4.1 m deep.Nets are constructed of two or three panels, and each panelusually has a different stretched mesh size (12.7–27.9 cm) [29].Nylon twine sizes range from #21 (1.65 mm diameter) to #36(2.16 mm diameter) for multifilament and #208 (0.52 mmdiameter) and #277 (0.57 mm diameter) for monofilament. Netsare weighted with 0.6–0.8 kg/m of leadline and floats 7.6–15.2 cmlong�7.6–15.2 cm diameter are placed every 0.6–1.1 m [29].
In 2005, NMFS personnel received information, indicatingfishermen were starting to target whiting using sink gillnetgear in offshore northeastern Florida waters within theSoutheast US Restricted Area and during the restricted period(November–April) of the North Atlantic right whale calving season(Levesque, personal observation). Given the great conservation
risk to right whales by commercial fisheries operating offnortheastern Florida during the North Atlantic right whale season(November–April) and the recent right whale mortality event theobjectives of this study were to investigate and describe theFlorida commercial whiting fishery in order to assist federalfishery policy managers with developing appropriate conservationand protective measures for the North Atlantic right whale.
3. Material and methods
Between November 2005 and March 2006 commercial fishingindustry leaders and fish dealers from North Carolina and Floridawere interviewed face to face and commercial fishing gear wasinspected on numerous occasions by NMFS commercial fisheryliaison personnel. In addition, commercial fishermen, NMFSenforcement, USCG personnel, and FWC marine patrol wereinterviewed over the phone by NMFS Southeast Regional Officemarine mammal fishery biologists.
Commercial fisheries landings and fishing effort data havebeen collected by the state of Florida since November 1984.Florida law (Chapters 370.021, 370.06(2)(a), 370.07(6)(a), andAdministrative Code 68E-5.002) requires that all sale of seafoodproducts from the waters of Florida must be reported on a FloridaMarine Fisheries Trip Ticket (FMFTT) at the time of sale. FMFTTincludes information about the harvester, the wholesale or retailfish dealer purchasing the product, the date of the transaction, thecounty where the species was landed, time fished, and pounds ofeach species landed for each trip. Completed tickets are mailed tothe FWC, where they are processed and maintained in the FMFTTdatabase. Since 1992, wholesale or retail fish dealers have beenrequired to code the county where vessels landed and offloadedsaltwater products rather than the location where products weresold. Typically, it is in the same county where the products weresold to the dealer, but occasionally the location is a different area.Wholesale or retail fish dealers are also required to report areafished or area the fishermen reported catching saltwater productsto FMFTT. Area fished is based on the historical NMFS shrimpstatistical grid system. Areas are defined by degrees of latitude onthe Florida Atlantic Coast until reaching the Florida Keys, wherearea is then defined in degrees of longitude (Fig. 2).
For the purposes of these analyses and to protect theconfidentiality of wholesale and retail Florida fish dealers(less than three dealers reporting catch in a given area, month,and year), data were aggregated into three regions correspondingto counties reported as the location where fish were landed.The three aggregated regions were the following: Region 1(Nassau-Flagler Counties); Region 2 (Volusia-Brevard Counties);and Region 3 (Indian River-Miami-Dade Counties). The westernNorth Atlantic right whale management area, the Southeast USRestricted Area, corresponds to three specific FMFTT areas: Area722 (Jacksonville), Area 728 (St. Augustine), and Area 732(Cape Canaveral). FMFTT Area 722 is designated from 301000Nlat. to the GA–FL border (301430N lat.), FMFTT Area 728 isdesignated from 291000N lat. to 301000N lat., and FMFTT Area732 is designated from 281000N lat. to 291000N lat. Furthermore,geographical areas were aggregated by sub-region. Sub-region 1consisted of Nassau-Brevard Counties (FMFTT Areas 722, 728, 732)and Sub-region 2 consisted of Indian River-Miami-Dade Counties(FMFTT Areas 736, 741, 744).
To examine and validate fishermen interview responses,annual and monthly whiting gillnet landings (1986–2007) data(landings, percent composition of landings, CPUE, market value,number of trips, number of dealers) by region and sub-regionwere graphed, evaluated, and compared. If commercial whitingdata were unavailable at the regional or sub-regional level
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 2. Florida Marine Fisheries Trip Ticket (FMFTT) Fishing Area Code Map. FMFTT Area 722 is designated from 301000N lat. to the GA–FL border (301430N lat.), FMFTT Area
728 is designated from 291000N lat. to 301000N lat., and FMFTT Area 732 is designated from 281000N lat. to 291000N lat. [39].
J.C. Levesque / Marine Policy 33 (2009) 233–247236
because of confidentiality concerns, total landings, CPUE, marketvalue, number of trips, and the number of wholesale retailersreporting whiting landings were estimated by calculating themean of the percent whiting landings by region from availableyears (2000–2007) and using the corresponding total landings.For the purposes of these analysis, the assumption was madethat the calculated ‘‘averaged’’ estimated values and percentlandings by region and sub-region were likely reasonable sincethe true values were only omitted from state of Florida data whendealer or wholesale reporting records were provided by less thanor equal to three wholesale or retail dealers. Thus, since in allcases, dealer or retail reporting was greater than the omitted statedata in years prior and subsequently, then the calculated‘‘averaged’’ estimated landings values were likely similar to theactual data. To differentiate between the overall Florida east coastgillnet landings and gillnet landings within the Southeast USRestricted Area, the two sub-regions were graphed, evaluated, andcompared.
To determine whether parametric or non-parametric testsshould be applied, the datasets were initially tested for normality(Kolmogorov–Smirnov test) and homoscedacity (Bartlett test). Ifthese initial tests passed, then a one-way analysis of variance(ANOVA) was used to determine sources of variance in annualtotal Florida gillnet landings, annual and monthly whiting land-ings, CPUE, number of trips, number of dealers reporting whitingcatches, and market value between region and sub-region areas.Otherwise, the data were either log-transformed [log(X+1)] tomeet the underlying assumptions of ANOVA or the non-para-metric Kruskal–Wallis analysis of variance by ranks test wasapplied [30]. CPUE was defined as whiting landings weight inkg/trip. In the presence of significance at the 95.0% confidencelevel for the omnibus ANOVA test, a post-hoc Tukey multiplecomparison test was used to perform pairwise comparisons. Sub-regional whiting CPUE, value (price/lb), and the overall number ofwhiting trips were further evaluated by linear regression analysis.Whiting landings were converted to number of individuals by
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.C. Levesque / Marine Policy 33 (2009) 233–247 237
using the medium commercial Florida whiting size of 215 mmTL [1] and the estimated [4] length–weight relationship: log10
Wt(g) ¼ �5.32+log10 3.15 TL (mm).Summary descriptive statistics were calculated for commercial
landings data and all statistical analyses were conducted usingMicrosofts Excel and WINKS SDA Software (Texasoft, Cedar Hill,TX). Regional and sub-regional annual and monthly landings,CPUE, market value, trips, and number of dealers arithmeticmeans used in this analysis were presented with associatedstandard errors or standard deviations.
4. Results
Overall, cooperation of fishermen with NMFS representativeswas excellent throughout the investigation. The Florida whitingfishery began in the fall of 2002 with several North Carolinacommercial fishermen exploring new fishing grounds off Floridawaters; but the fishery was not fully established until the fall of2003 based on 16 interviews with commercial fishermen industryleaders, NMFS enforcement, USCG personnel, and FWC marinepatrol.
4.1. Fishing gear
Interviews pointed out that gear used to capture whitingconsisted of monofilament sink gillnets, constructed of #208monofilament 67–70 mm (25
82234
00) stretch mesh with each panel
1.13 m (3.7 ft) in deep and 274 m (899 ft) in length. Each net wasconstructed of multiple panels. The total amount of nettingranged from 457 to 2743 m (1500–9000 ft) in length. Floats wereplaced about every meter on the top of the net and the bottom ofthe net was weighted by a lead core line weighing 39 kg (86 lb) per183 m (600 ft).
4.2. Fishing techniques
Fishermen indicated sink gillnet gear was set in a straight linealong the bottom and anchored at depths ranging from 12 to 18 m(40–60 ft) using standard Danforth anchors. Unlike most surfacegillnet gear, no buoy, radar reflector, or any other vertical lineswere secured to the sink gillnet gear. Also unlike other fishingmethods, sink gillnet fishing was not correlated with any
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
2000
Land
ings
(lb)
Shark King MBluefish WhitingTotal 2 per.
2001 2002 20
Fig. 3. Total annual Florida east coast gillnet landings during 2000–2007. Data for 2007
January 2008. Mean71 S.E. are plotted and solid line depicts the moving average of th
particular moon phase, but rather was weather dependent. Sinkgillnet gear was retrieved by grapple using GPS location informa-tion. Soak time varied between trip and vessel with soak timesranged from a few hours between dawn and dusk to 10–14 h whennets were set overnight. Sink gillnets were typically set andretrieved during daylight hours; however, if the weather wasunexpectedly rough due to wind and sea conditions, then netswere set overnight and retrieved the next day.
4.3. Fishing fleet
Sink gillnet vessels ranged in size from 8 to 18 m (25–40 ft) andeach vessel was operated by a captain and crew of one or two.Because of vessel size and lack of storage space, only one or twosets were made per trip. The fishing fleet size ranged fromapproximately one or two vessels in 2003 to around 15 vesselsoperating in the waters off northeast Florida during 2005.Nevertheless, based on the previous successful years, fishermeninterviews indicated that it was anticipated that the fishing fleetmay expand by an additional 10–20 vessels in 2006. The fishingfleet consisted of fishermen from North Carolina and Florida;however, the majority of fishermen were from North Carolina.
4.4. Fishing season and grounds
Fishermen targetted whiting from October or November toMarch or April. Interviews indicated sink gillnet vessels deployedfishing gear in the waters (3–15 NM) off Mayport, Florida withinthe designated North Atlantic right whale critical habitat andwithin the Southeast US Restricted Area (Fig. 1). The catchprimarily consisted of whiting with little to no bycatch of otherspecies; however, for this investigation, catch was unable to beverified or observed.
4.5. Whiting fishery
The overall total Florida whiting landings during 1986–2007were dominated by those of the east coast with landingsrepresenting 99.5% of the total whiting landings. Total annualFlorida east coast gillnet whiting landings during 1986–2007ranged from 50,515.8 kg (111,391 lb) in 1989 to 524,953 kg(1,157,559 lb) in 1990 and the overall mean annual whiting
ackerel Spanish MackerelOther species
Mov. Avg. (Total)
03 2004 2005 2006 2007∗
are preliminary and incomplete, reported on marine fisheries trip tickets as of 23
e total catch.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.C. Levesque / Marine Policy 33 (2009) 233–247238
landings were 269,892.6 kg (595,132.5 lb) (S.D.7103,201.8 kg or277,567.4 lb) (Fig. 3). Total east coast whiting landings increased59% or 148,238.7 kg (326,877 lb) from 2004 to 2005 and decreased39% or 219,506.2 kg (484,027 lb) from 2005 to 2007. A one-wayANOVA showed that the mean total whiting landings during1997–2007 were significantly different [F(10, 121) ¼ 2.5,P ¼ 0.01]. The greatest number of whiting landings occurred in2005. In the presence of significance for the omnibus ANOVA test,a post-hoc Tukey multiple comparison test showed, in ascendingorder, that mean total whiting landings, during years 2002, 2007,2001, 1998, 2004, 2006, 2000, 1997, 1999, and 2005 were equaland years 2003, 2002, 2007, 2001, 1998, 2004, 2006, 2000, 1997,1999 were equal.
4.6. Annual whiting landings
The annual whiting landings in Region 1 (Nassau-FlaglerCounties) during 1997–2007 increased 73% from 83,925.2 kg(185,061 lb) in 2003 to 315,419.2 kg (695,522 lb) in 2005 (Fig. 4).The mean annual whiting landings were 153,999.1 kg (339,579 lb)(S.E.719,506.8 kg or 43,014 lb) and the total cumulative whitinglandings from 1997 to 2007 were 1,693,990.7 kg (3,735,371 lb).
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Who
le W
t. (lb
s)
Nassua-FlaglerVolusia-BrevardIndian River - Miami-Dade
Fig. 4. Florida east coast whiting landings during 1986–2007. Data for 2007 are prelimin
Mean71 S.E. are plotted.
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
Land
ings
(lb)
Nassau-Brevard (Areas 722-732)Total
2000 2001 2002 20
Fig. 5. Florida east coast commercial whiting landings during 2000–2007. Data for 200
January 2008. Mean71 S.E. are plotted.
The annual whiting landings in Region 2 (Volusia-BrevardCounties) during 1997–2007 decreased 89% from 10,878.1 kg(23,987 lb) in 2003 to 99,833.9 kg (220,141 lbs) in 1999 (Fig. 4).The mean annual whiting landings were 46,815.7 kg (103,232 lb)(S.E.78055.5 kg or 17,763 lbs) and the total cumulative whitinglandings from 1997 to 2007 were 514,970.6 kg (1,135,547 lb). Theannual whiting landings in Region 3 (Indian River-Miami-DadeCounties) during 1997–2007 decreased 94% from 2427.6 kg(5353 lb) in 2003 to 38,525.3 kg (84,951 lb) in 1997 (Fig. 4). Themean annual whiting landings were 10,172.9 kg (22,432 lb)(S.E.73159.5 kg or 6967 lb) and the total cumulative whitinglandings from 1997 to 2007 were 111,903.8 kg (246,756 lb). A one-way ANOVA showed that the mean whiting landings acrosscategories of region (by county landed) during 1997–2007 werestrongly significantly different [F(2, 285) ¼ 273.47, Po0.001]. Inthe presence of significance for the omnibus ANOVA test, a post-
hoc Tukey multiple comparison test showed that mean totalwhiting landings were greatest in Region 1 (Nassau-FlaglerCounties) followed by Region 2 (Volusia-Brevard Counties) andRegion 3 (Indian River-Miami-Dade Counties).
The annual whiting landings in sub-region Nassau-Brevard(FMFTT Areas 722–732) during 2000–2007 increased 99% from
199519
9619
9719
9819
9920
0020
0120
0220
0320
0420
0520
06
2007
∗
Year
ary and incomplete, reported on marine fisheries trip tickets as of 23 January 2008.
Year
Indian River-Miami-Dade (Areas 736-744)2 per. Mov. Avg. (Total)
03 2004 2005 2006 2007∗
7 are preliminary and incomplete, reported on marine fisheries trip tickets as of 23
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.C. Levesque / Marine Policy 33 (2009) 233–247 239
3381.7 kg (7457 lb) in 2002 to 238,019 kg (524,850 lb) in 2005(Fig. 5). The mean whiting landings during 2000–2007 were61,177.2 kg (134,900 lb) (S.E.727,896.8 kg or 61,514.5 lb). Theannual whiting landings in sub-region Indian River-Miami Dade(FMFTT Areas 736–744) during 2000–2007 increased an esti-mated 90% from 596.4 kg (1315 lb) in 2003 to 6573.9 kg (14,496 lb)in 2006 (Fig. 5). The mean whiting landings during 2000–2007were 3032.1 kg (6686 lb) (S.E.7899.5 kg or 1983.4 lb). A prelimin-ary test for equality of variance indicated that the variances of thetwo groups were significantly different. Therefore, a two-samplet-test was performed that did not assume equal variances. Themeans of the two groups were strongly significantly different[t-test, t(14) ¼ 4.27, P ¼ 0.001]. Mean annual whiting landingswere greatest in sub-region Nassau-Brevard (FMFTT Areas 722–732).
4.7. Monthly whiting landings
The mean monthly east coast whiting landings during1986–2007 ranged from 6851 kg (15,107 lb) (S.D.7789.4 kg or
Janu
ary
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
Febr
uary
Mar
ch
Apr
il
May
Land
ings
(lb)
1986 1987 1988 1989 1991997 1998 1999 2000 200
Fig. 6. Mean Florida east coast monthly commercial whiting landings during 1986–200
tickets as of 23 January 2008.
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
January
Land
ings
(pou
nds)
Whiting Shark King Mackere
MayMarch
Fig. 7. Mean monthly Florida east coast gillnet landings during 2000–2007. Data for 200
January 2008. Mean71 S.E. are plotted.
1740.6 lb) in September to 47,492.3 kg (104,724.5 lb) (S.D.77783.1kg or 17,162.2 lb) in March (Figs. 6 and 7). Mean east coast whitinglandings increased 29% or 13,961.5 kg (30,786 lb) from January toMarch and increased 82% or 32,289.2 kg (71,200 lb) from Septem-ber to December. A one-way ANOVA showed that the meanmonthly whiting landings during 1997–2007 were stronglysignificantly different [F(11, 252) ¼ 11.5, P ¼ 0.001]. The greatestwhiting landings occurred in March. In the presence of signifi-cance for the omnibus ANOVA test, a post-hoc Tukey multiplecomparison test showed that the mean monthly total whitinglandings, in ascending order, during September, August, October,July, May, and June were equal and the monthly whiting landingsduring January, April, December, and March were equal.
The mean monthly whiting landings in Region 1 (Nassau-Flagler Counties) during 1997–2007 increased 88% from 3083.5 kg(6799.4 lbs) (S.D.71166.9 kg or 2573.3 lb) in September to26,566.9 kg (58,581.9 lb) (S.D.717,677.2 kg or 38,979.6 lb) inJanuary. A one-way ANOVA showed that the mean whitinglandings across categories of region (by county landed) during
June
July
Aug
ust
Sep
tem
ber
Oct
ober
Nov
embe
r
Dec
embe
r
Month
0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 19961 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 ∗2007
7. Data for 2007 are preliminary and incomplete, reported on marine fisheries trip
Month
l Spanish Mackerel Bluefish Other Spp.
July September November
7 are preliminary and incomplete, reported on marine fisheries trip tickets as of 23
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.C. Levesque / Marine Policy 33 (2009) 233–247240
1997–2007 were strongly significantly different [F(11, 120) ¼ 7.2,Po0.001]. Overall mean monthly whiting landings were greatestduring January. In the presence of significance for the omnibusANOVA test, a post-hoc Tukey multiple comparison test showedthat mean monthly whiting landings, in ascending order, duringSeptember, August, June, October, May, November, February,April were equal. Also, monthly whiting landings in November,February, April, March, December, and January were equal. Themean monthly whiting landings in Region 2 (Volusia-BrevardCounties) during 1997–2007 increased 79% from 1265.9 kg(2791.4 lb) (S.D.7743.6 kg or 1639.7) in September to 6103.3 kg(13,458.3 lb) (S.D.76870.3 kg or 15,149.4) in December. A one-wayANOVA showed that the mean whiting landings across categoriesof region (by county landed) during 1997–2007 were weaklysignificantly different [F(11, 120) ¼ 2.25, P ¼ 0.02]. Overall meanmonthly whiting landings were greatest during December. In thepresence of significance for the omnibus ANOVA test, a post-hoc
Tukey multiple comparison test showed that mean monthlywhiting landings, in ascending order, were September, August,October, July, April, March, February, June, January, May, andDecember. The mean monthly whiting landings in Region 3(Indian River-Miami-Dade Counties) during 1997–2007 increased86% from 297.7 kg (656.4 lb) (S.D.7247.5 kg or 545.8 lb) in Januaryto 2168.7 kg (4782.1 lb) (S.D.72914.7 kg or 6427.2 lb) in June.A one-way ANOVA showed that the mean whiting landings acrosscategories of region (by county landed) during 1997–2007 wereweakly significantly different [F(11, 120) ¼ 2.62, Po0.05]. Overallmean monthly whiting landings were greatest in June. In thepresence of significance for the omnibus ANOVA test, a post-hoc
Tukey multiple comparison test showed that mean monthlywhiting landings, in ascending order, during January, November,October, December, March, April, February, September, August,May, July, and June were equal. Also, monthly whiting landings inSeptember, August, May, July, and June were equal. Due toconfidentiality concerns, no monthly whiting landings data wereavailable for any sub-regional areas.
4.8. Species composition
Total Florida east coast gillnet and trammel net landing forall fish species during 2000–2007 ranged from 577,003.5 kg(1,272,334 lb) in 2003 to 1,150,886.8 kg (2,537,788 lb) in 2001.The cumulative Florida east coast gillnet and trammel netlandings during 2000–2007 were 6,975,921.1 kg (15,382,406 lb).Total landings during 2000–2007 were comprised shark (39%),Spanish mackerel (39%), other species (8%), whiting (7%), bluefish
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
CPU
E (lb
per
trip
)
Shark King MWhiting Bluefi
2001 2002 2003
Fig. 8. Total annual Florida east coast gillnet CPUE (pounds/trip) estimates during 2000
trip tickets as of 23 January 2008. Mean71 S.E. are plotted.
(5%), and King mackerel (2%) (Fig. 7). Total east coast whitinglandings ranged from 1% of the total landings in 2001 and 2002 to24% in 2005. A Kruskal–Wallis test did not show any differences inannual (2000–2007) whiting percent composition of the totalcatch (P ¼ 0.43). In comparison to the other species landed (shark,Spanish mackerel, other species, bluefish, and King mackerel),whiting landings averaged fifth and sixth in the rankings during2000–2003 and third during 2004 and 2005. A one-way ANOVAshowed that the mean annual percent composition amongspecies during 2000–2007 were strongly significantly different[F(5, 42) ¼ 46.3, Po0.001]. Overall, Spanish mackerel dominatedthe overall catch. In the presence of significance for the omnibusANOVA test, a post-hoc Tukey multiple comparison test showedthat mean annual percent composition, in ascending order, forKing mackerel, whiting, bluefish, and other species were equal.Also, annual percent composition for shark, King mackerel, andwhiting were equal.
4.9. Fishing effort
The monthly east coast whiting CPUE (kg/trip) during1986–2007 ranged from 9.97 kg/trip (22.0 lb/trip) in February2003 to 262.1 kg/trip (578.0 lb/trip) in February 2005 and themean whiting CPUE was 52.2 kg/trip (115.1 lb/trip) (S.E.736.5 kgor 80.4 lb). Annual east coast whiting CPUE during 2000–2007increased 94% from 13.5 kg/trip (29.7 lb/trip) in 2003 to 214.3 kg/trip (472.3 lb/trip) in 2005 (Fig. 8). Nonetheless, a one-way ANOVAshowed that the mean annual whiting CPUE during 2000–2007were not significantly different [F(7, 88) ¼ 1.89, P ¼ 0.08]. Themonthly whiting CPUE in Region 1 (Nassau-Flagler Counties)during 1986–2007 ranged from 18.1 kg/trip (40.01 lb/trip) in June2003 to 462.2 kg/trip (1019.2 lb/trip) in February 2005 and themean annual whiting CPUE was 76.8 kg/trip (169.3 lb/trip)(S.E.73.8 kg or 8.4 lb). A one-way ANOVA showed that the meanannual whiting CPUE in Region 1 (Nassau-Flagler Counties) during2000–2007 were not significantly different [F(7, 88) ¼ 1.82,P ¼ 0.09]. The monthly whiting CPUE in Region 2 (Volusia-BrevardCounties) during 1986–2007 ranged from 3.2 kg/trip (7.01 lb/trip)in April 1992 to 176.9 kg/trip (390.1 lb/trip) in December 1987 andthe mean annual whiting CPUE was 30.4 kg/trip (67.1 lb/trip)(S.E.71.5 kg or 3.3 lb). A one-way ANOVA showed that the meanannual whiting CPUE in Region 1 (Nassau-Flagler Counties) during2000–2007 were strongly significantly different [F(7, 88) ¼ 3.57,Po0.001]. In the presence of significance for the omnibus ANOVAtest, a post-hoc Tukey multiple comparison test showed that meanannual whiting CPUE, in ascending order, during 2007, 2002,
Year
ackerel Spanish Mackerelsh Other species
2004 2005 2006 2007∗
–2007. Data for 2007 are preliminary and incomplete, reported on marine fisheries
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.C. Levesque / Marine Policy 33 (2009) 233–247 241
2005, 2004, 2006, 2001, and 2000 were equal. Also, mean annualwhiting CPUE in 2003, 2007, 2002, 2005, and 2004 were equal.Overall, the whiting CPUE was greatest in 2000. The monthlywhiting CPUE in Region 3 (Indian River-Miami-Dade Counties)during 1986–2007 ranged from 0.80 kg/trip (1.77 lb/trip) inDecember 2002 to 118.9 kg/trip (262.1 lb/trip) in May 1994 andthe mean whiting CPUE was 40.18.5 kg/trip (85 lb/trip) (S.E.71.3kg or 2.8 lb). A one-way ANOVA showed that the mean annualwhiting CPUE in Region 3 (Indian River-Miami-Dade Counties)during 2000–2007 were significantly different [F(7, 88) ¼ 2.5,P ¼ 0.02]. In the presence of significance for the omnibus ANOVAtest, a post-hoc Tukey multiple comparison test showed that meanannual whiting CPUE, in ascending order, during 2007, 2003, 2001,2005, 2002, 2006, and 2000 were equal. Also, mean annualwhiting CPUE in 2004, 2007, 2003, 2001, 2005, 2002, and 2006were equal. The whiting CPUE was greatest in 2000. A one-wayANOVA showed that the mean annual regional whiting CPUEvalues during 2000–2007 were strongly significantly different[F(7, 285) ¼ 144.9, Po0.001]. In the presence of significance forthe omnibus ANOVA test, a post-hoc Tukey multiple comparisontest showed that mean total whiting landings were greatestin Region 1 (Nassau-Flagler Counties) followed by Region 2(Volusia-Brevard Counties), and Region 3 (Indian River-Miami-Dade Counties).
The annual whiting CPUE in sub-region Nassau-Brevard(FMFTT Areas 722–732) during 2000–2007 increased 94%from 13.2 kg/trip (29 lb/trip) in 2003 to 241.6 kg/trip(532.8 lb/trip) in 2005 (Fig. 9). The mean whiting CPUE during2000–2007 was 85.8 kg/trip (189.1 lb/trip) (S.E.729.9 kg/tripor 66.01 lb/trip). The annual whiting CPUE in sub-regionIndian River-Miami Dade (FMFTT Areas 736–744) during2000–2007 increased an estimated 78% from 8.6 kg/trip(18.9 lb/trip) in 2004 to 39.9 kg/trip (87.9 lb/trip) in 2005(Fig. 9). The mean whiting CPUE during 2000–2007 was23.7 kg/trip (52.2 lb/trip) (S.E.73.6 kg/trip or 7.9 lb/trip). A pre-liminary test for equality of variance showed that the variancesof the two groups were significantly different. Therefore,a two-sample t-test was performed that did not assumeequal variances. The means of the two groups were weaklysignificantly different [t-test, t(14) ¼ 2.26, P ¼ 0.048]. The meanannual whiting CPUE was greatest in sub-Region Nassau-Brevard (FMFTT Areas 722–732). The sub-region whiting CPUEduring 2000–2005 was explained by the following linear relation-ship: y ¼ 90.55x�74.012 (r2
¼ 0.8304).
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
CPU
E (lb
per
trip
)
Nassau-Brevard (Areas 722-732)
2000 2001 2002 2003
Fig. 9. Annual Florida east coast whiting CPUE (pounds/trip) during 2000–2007. Data fo
of 23 January 2008. Mean71 S.E. are plotted.
The number of monthly whiting trips during 1986–2007ranged from 91 trips in September 2004 to 1118 trips in March1991 and the mean annual number of whiting trips was 452.9(S.E.713.3 trips) (Fig. 10). Annual Florida east coast whiting tripsduring 2000–2007 increased 74% from 295 in 2003 to 1140 in2005. A one-way ANOVA showed that the mean number of annualwhiting trips during 2000–2007 were significantly different[F(7, 88) ¼ 3.71, P ¼ 0.01]. In the presence of significance for theomnibus ANOVA test, a post-hoc Tukey multiple comparison testshowed that mean annual whiting trips, in ascending order,during 2007, 2001, 2006, 2005, and 2000 were equal. Also, meanannual whiting trips in 2003, 2004, 2002, 2007, 2001, 2006, and2005 were equal. The greatest number of whiting trips occurred in2000. Overall, the annual number of whiting trips was explai-ned by the following linear relationship: y ¼ �2.064x+726.41;r2¼ 0.5456. The annual number of whiting trips in Region 1
(Nassau-Flagler Counties) during 1986–2007 ranged from 53 inFebruary 2007 to 567 in March 1992 and the mean annual Floridanumber of whiting trips was 211.3 (S.E.75.8). A one-way ANOVAshowed that the mean annual Region 1 (Nassau-Flagler Counties)number of whiting trips during 2000–2007 were significantlydifferent [F(7, 88) ¼ 3.47, P ¼ 0.01]. In the presence of significancefor the omnibus ANOVA test, a post-hoc Tukey multiple compar-ison test showed that mean annual whiting trips, in ascendingorder, during 2000, 2003, 2001, 2002, 2006, 2004, and 2005 wereequal. Also, mean annual whiting trips in 2007, 2000, 2003, 2001,and 2002 were equal. The greatest number of whiting tripsoccurred in 2005. The annual number of whiting trips in Region 2(Volusia-Brevard Counties) during 1986–2007 ranged from 16 inMay 1996 to 513 in January 1990 and the mean number ofwhiting trips was 153.9 (S.E.75.2). A one-way ANOVA showedthat the mean annual number of whiting trips in Region 2(Volusia-Brevard Counties) during 2000–2007 were stronglysignificantly different [F(7, 88) ¼ 3.9, Po0.001]. In the presenceof significance for the omnibus ANOVA test, a post-hoc Tukeymultiple comparison test showed that mean number of whitingtrips, in ascending order, during 2002, 2007, 2006, 2001, 2005, and2000 were equal. Also, mean number of whiting trips in 2004,2002, 2007, 2006, 2001, and 2005 were equal. Furthermore, meannumber of whiting trips in 2003, 2004, 2002, 2007, 2006, and2001 were equal. The greatest number of whiting trips occurredin 2000. The annual number of whiting trips in Region 3(Indian River-Miami-Dade Counties) during 1986–2007 rangedfrom 1 in September 2004 to 344 in April 1991 and the mean
YearIndian River-Miami-Dade (Areas 736-744)
y = 90.552x - 74.012R2 = 0.8304
2004 2005 2006 2007∗
r 2007 are preliminary and incomplete, reported on marine fisheries trip tickets as
ARTICLE IN PRESS
0
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
3000000
3500000
4000000
4500000
2000Year
Valu
e ($
)
Shark King Mackerel Spanish Mackerel Bluefish Whiting
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Fig. 11. Total annual Florida east coast gillnet market value during 2000–2007. Data for 2007 are preliminary and incomplete, reported on marine fisheries trip tickets as of
23 January 2008. Mean71 S.E. are plotted.
y = -2.0641x + 726.41R2 = 0.5456
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
Who
le W
t. (lb
s)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
No.
of T
rips
Whole wt. (lbs) No. of Trips Linear (No. of Trips)
Fig. 10. Florida east coast whiting landings and number of trips during 1986–2007. Data for 2007 are preliminary and incomplete, reported on marine fisheries trip tickets
as of 23 January 2008.
J.C. Levesque / Marine Policy 33 (2009) 233–247242
number of whiting trips was 87.7 (S.E.74.5). A one-wayANOVA showed that the mean annual whiting trips in Region 3(Indian River-Miami-Dade Counties) during 2000–2007 weresignificantly different [F(7, 88) ¼ 3.02, P ¼ 0.01]. In the presenceof significance for the omnibus ANOVA test, a post-hoc Tukeymultiple comparison test showed that mean annual number ofwhiting trips, in ascending order, during 2007, 2000, 2001, 2005,and 2006 were equal. Also, mean annual number of whiting tripsduring in 2003, 2002, 2004, 2007, 2000, 2001, and 2005 wereequal. The greatest number of whiting trips occurred in 2006.A one-way ANOVA showed that the mean annual regional numberof whiting trips during 2000–2007 were strongly significantlydifferent [F(7, 285) ¼ 188.89, Po0.001]. In the presence ofsignificance for the omnibus ANOVA test, a post-hoc Tukeymultiple comparison test showed that mean total whitinglandings were greatest in Region 1 (Nassau-Flagler Counties)followed by Region 2 (Volusia-Brevard Counties) and Region 3(Indian River-Miami-Dade Counties).
The annual number of whiting trips in sub-region Nassau-Brevard (FMFTT Areas 722–732) during 2000–2007 increased 75%from 250 trips in 2003 to 985 trips in 2005. The mean numberof whiting trips during 2000–2007 was 575.3 (S.E.781.2).
The annual number of whiting trips in sub-region Indian River-Miami Dade (FMFTT Areas 736–744) during 2000–2007 increasedan estimated 85% from 33 trips in 2004 to 215 trips in 2006. Themean number of whiting trips during 2000–2007 was 107.3(S.E.722.7). A preliminary test for equality of variance indicatedthat the variances of the two groups were significantly different.Therefore, a two-sample t-test was performed that did not assumeequal variances. The means of the two groups were stronglysignificantly different [t-test, t(14) ¼ 6.48, P ¼ 0.001]. The meanannual number of whiting trips was greatest in Nassau-Brevard(FMFTT Areas 722–732).
4.10. Whiting market value
The annual Florida east coast whiting market value during1986–2007 ranged from $5178 in February 1993 to $156,755in March 1994 and the mean market value was $37,935.2(S.E.7$1794.3) (Fig. 11). The annual whiting market value during2000–2007 increased 98% from $8773 in 2003 to $538,477 in2005. A one-way ANOVA showed that the mean annualwhiting market value during 2000–2007 were not significantlydifferent [F(7, 88) ¼ 2.01, P ¼ 0.06]. Overall, the mean market
ARTICLE IN PRESS
00.20.40.60.8
11.21.41.61.8
2
Year
Valu
e (p
rice
per l
b)
Shark King Mackerel Spanish Mackerel Bluefish Whiting
y = 0.101x + 0.691R2 = 0.8861
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Fig. 12. Mean Florida east coast value during 2000–2007. Data for 2007 are preliminary and incomplete, reported on marine fisheries trip tickets as of 23 January 2008.
Mean71 S.E. are plotted.
J.C. Levesque / Marine Policy 33 (2009) 233–247 243
value (price/lb) during 2000–2005 was explained by the followinglinear relationship (Fig. 12): y ¼ 0.101x+0.691; r2
¼ 0.8861. Theannual whiting market in Region 1 (Nassau-Flagler Counties)value during 1986–2007 ranged from $2499 in February 1993 to$145,366 in March 1992 and the mean annual whiting marketvalue was $27,507.2 (S.E.7$1659). A one-way ANOVA showedthat the mean annual whiting market value in Region 1(Nassau-Flagler Counties) during 2000–2007 were not signifi-cantly different [F(7, 88) ¼ 1.24, P ¼ 0.29]. The annual whitingmarket value in Region 2 (Volusia-Brevard Counties) during1986–2007 ranged from $406 in June 2003 to $36,396 inDecember 1987 and the mean annual Florida east coast whitingmarket value was $7296.3 (S.E.7$6573.2). A one-way ANOVAshowed that the mean annual whiting market value in Region 2(Volusia-Brevard Counties) during 2000–2007 were stronglysignificantly different [F(7, 88) ¼ 6.60, Po0.001]. In the presenceof significance for the omnibus ANOVA test, a post-hoc Tukeymultiple comparison test showed that mean annual whitingmarket value, in ascending order, during 2007, 2005, 2006, 2001,and 2000 were equal. Also, mean annual whiting market value in2004, 2002, 2007, 2005, 2006, and 2001 were equal. Furthermore,mean annual whiting market value in 2003 and 2004 were equal.Whiting market value was greatest in 2000. The annual whitingmarket value in Region 3 (Indian River-Miami-Dade Counties)during 1986–2007 ranged from $3.00 in September 2004 to$29,093 in June 1995 and the mean annual Florida east coastwhiting market value was $3131.82 (S.E.7$323.87). A one-wayANOVA showed that the mean annual whiting market value inRegion 3 (Indian River-Miami-Dade Counties) during 2000–2007were strongly significantly different [F(7, 88) ¼ 3.91, Po0.001]. Inthe presence of significance for the omnibus ANOVA test, a post-
hoc Tukey multiple comparison test showed that mean annualwhiting market value, in ascending order, during 2007, 2003,2002, 2001, 2005, 2000, and 2006 were equal. Also, mean annualwhiting market value in 2004, 2007, 2003, 2002, and 2001 wereequal. The greatest market value for whiting was in 2006.A one-way ANOVA showed that the mean annual regional marketvalues during 2000–2007 were strongly significantly different[F(7, 285) ¼ 270.91, Po0.001]. In the presence of significance forthe omnibus ANOVA test, a post-hoc Tukey multiple comparisontest showed that mean total whiting market value were greatestin Region 1 (Nassau-Flagler Counties) followed by Region 2(Volusia-Brevard Counties) and Region 3 (Indian River-Miami-Dade Counties).
The annual whiting market value in sub-region Nassau-Brevard (FMFTT Areas 722–732) during 2000–2007 increased
98% from $7904.42 in 2003 to $451,371.00 in 2005. The meanwhiting market value during 2000–2007 was $130,191(S.E.7$54,939). The annual whiting market value in sub-regionIndian River-Miami Dade (FMFTT Areas 736–744) during2000–2007 increased an estimated 95% from $784.98 in 2004 to$14,351.84 in 2006. The mean whiting market value during2000–2007 was $6163.91 (S.E.7$1782.65). A preliminary testfor equality of variance indicated that the variances of the twogroups were significantly different. Therefore, a two-sample t-testwas performed that did not assume equal variances. The means ofthe two groups were strongly significantly different [t-test,t(14) ¼ 4.46, P ¼ 0.001]. The mean whiting market value wasgreatest in Nassau-Brevard (FMFTT Areas 722–732).
4.11. Fish dealer reporting
The monthly Florida east coast dealers reporting whiting catchduring 1986–2007 ranged from 14 September 2006 to 55 inDecember 1996 and the mean annual number of dealers reportingwhiting catch was 35.3 (S.E.70.52). The annual Florida east coastnumber of dealers reporting whiting catch during 2000–2007increased 70% from 3 in 2001 and 2003 to 10 in 2005 (Fig. 13).A one-way ANOVA showed that the mean annual number ofdealers reporting whiting catch during 2000–2007 were signifi-cantly different [F(7, 88) ¼ 3.54, P ¼ 0.01]. In the presence ofsignificance for the omnibus ANOVA test, a post-hoc Tukeymultiple comparison test showed that mean annual number ofdealers reporting whiting catch, in ascending order, during 2005,2004, 2001, 2002, and 2000, in ascending order, were equal. Also,mean annual number of dealers reporting whiting catch in 2007,2006, 2003, 2005, 2004, 2001, and 2002 were equal. The numberof dealers reporting whiting catch was greatest in 2000. Theannual number of dealers reporting whiting catch in Region 1(Nassau-Flagler Counties) during 1986–2007 ranged from 8 tripsin September 2006 to 22 trips March 1999 and the mean annualFlorida east coast number of dealers reporting whiting catch was14.4 (S.E.70.86). A one-way ANOVA showed that the mean annualdealers reporting whiting catch in Region 1 (Nassau-FlaglerCounties) during 2000–2007 were significantly different[F(7, 88) ¼ 3.63, Po0.01]. In the presence of significance for theomnibus ANOVA test, a post-hoc Tukey multiple comparison testshowed that mean annual number of dealers reporting whitingcatch, in ascending order, during 2003, 2005, 2001, and 2000 wereequal. Also, mean annual number of dealers reporting whitingcatch in 2007, 2006, 2004, 2002, 2003, 2005, and 2001 wereequal. The annual number of dealers reporting whiting catch in
ARTICLE IN PRESS
y = 0.3365x + 13.766R2 = 0.56
0
5
10
15
20
25
Year
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Num
ber o
f Dea
lers
Nassau Duval St. Johns PutnamFlagler Volusia Brevard Indian RiverSt. Lucie Martin Palm Beach BrowardMiami-Dade Linear (Duval) Linear (Volusia)
Fig. 13. Number of Florida fish dealers reporting whiting landings during 1986–2007. Data for 2007 are preliminary and incomplete, reported on marine fisheries trip
tickets as of 23 January 2008.
J.C. Levesque / Marine Policy 33 (2009) 233–247244
Region 2 (Volusia-Brevard Counties) during 1986–2007 rangedfrom 3 in September 2006 to 24 in November 1989 and themean annual Florida east coast dealers reporting whiting catchwas 13.4 (S.E.70.29). A one-way ANOVA showed that the meanannual number of dealers reporting whiting catch in Region 2(Volusia-Brevard Counties) during 2000–2007 were stronglysignificantly different [F(7, 88) ¼ 3.9, Po0.001]. In the presenceof significance for the omnibus ANOVA test, a post-hoc Tukeymultiple comparison test showed that mean annual dealersreporting whiting catch, in ascending order, during 2002, 2007,2006, 2001, 2005, and 2000 were equal. Also, mean annualnumbers of dealers reporting whiting catch in 2004, 2002, 2007,2006, 2001, and 2005 were equal. Furthermore, mean annualnumber of dealers reporting whiting catch in 2003, 2004, 2002,2007, 2006, and 2001 were equal. The number of dealers reportingwhiting catch was greatest in 2000. The annual number of dealersreporting whiting catch in Region 3 (Indian River-Miami-DadeCounties) during 1986–2007 ranged from 1 in September 2004 to18 in March 1997 and the mean annual Florida east coast dealersreporting whiting catch was 8.7 (S.E.70.19). A one-way ANOVAshowed that the mean annual number of dealers reportingwhiting catch in Region 3 (Indian River-Miami-Dade Counties)during 2000–2007 were significantly different [F(7, 88) ¼ 3.02,P ¼ 0.01]. In the presence of significance for the omnibus ANOVAtest, a post-hoc Tukey multiple comparison test showed that meanannual number of dealers reporting whiting catch, in ascendingorder, during 2007, 2000, 2001, 2005, and 2006 were equal. Also,mean annual numbers of dealers reporting whiting catch 2003,2002, 2004, 2007, 2000, 2001, and 2005 were equal. The greatestnumber of dealers reporting whiting catch was in 2006. A one-way ANOVA showed that the mean annual regional number ofdealers reporting whiting catch during 2000–2007 were stronglysignificantly different [F(7, 285) ¼ 188.89, Po0.001]. In thepresence of significance for the omnibus ANOVA test, a post-hoc
Tukey multiple comparison test showed that mean number ofdealers reporting whiting catch was greatest in Region 1 (Nassau-Flagler Counties) followed by Region 2 (Volusia-Brevard Counties)and Region 3 (Indian River-Miami-Dade Counties).
The annual number of dealers reporting whiting catch in sub-region Nassau-Brevard (FMFTT Areas 722–732) during 2000–2007
increased 70% from 3 dealers reporting whiting catch in 2001 and2003 to 10 dealers reporting whiting catch in 2005. The meannumber of dealers reporting whiting landings during 2000–2007was 5.8 (S.E.70.94). The annual number of dealers reportingwhiting catch in sub-region Indian River-Miami Dade (FMFTTAreas 736–744) during 2000–2007 increased an estimated 80%from 1 dealer reporting whiting catch in 2003 to 5 dealersreporting whiting catch in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006. The meannumber of dealers reporting whiting landings during 2000–2007was 3.8 (S.E.70.56). A two-sample t-test was performed that didnot assume equal variances. The test showed that the meansof the two groups were not significantly different [t-test,t(14) ¼ 1.73, P ¼ 0.106].
5. Discussion
In the United States, marine fisheries prosecuted in federalwaters are managed by the NMFS under the MSA, and othergoverning statutes such as the ESA and MMPA. In developingFishery Management Plans, NMFS fishery managers work co-operatively with Regional Fishery Management Councils, AdvisorTeams, and with Take Reduction Teams when fishery issues aremarine mammal related. On 23 September 2002 [31], the NMFSprohibited setting gillnets in a straight line at night in south-eastern US waters during the North Atlantic right whale calvingseason (November–March). Under the regulations implementingthe Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP), theNMFS imposed this prohibition in order to reduce any additionalrisks to North Atlantic right whales in US southeastern waters. Atthe time, fishermen were targeting coastal migratory species(Spanish and King mackerel) using surface or mid-water gillnetsduring daylight hours using a ‘‘strikenet’’ deployment method[31]. The NMFS prohibited fishermen from using the straight setmethod, believing the ‘‘strikenet’’ method did not pose a threat towhales because fishermen visually set gear on fish stocks byencircling them; consequently, if a whale were spotted, fishermenwould be able to avoid entangling the animal.
As new technologies and gears are introduced, fisherymanagers must be able to adapt conservation and management
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.C. Levesque / Marine Policy 33 (2009) 233–247 245
measures. With time, many bycatch species often become targetspecies once gear and techniques, or technologies, and marketsare established (Levesque, personal observation). Thus, althoughwhiting was primarily a bycatch of the Florida trawl and gillnetfisheries, North Carolina fishermen had specifically targetedwhiting in North Carolina and South Carolina waters since theearly 1990s (P. Lewis, personal communication, December 2005).In 2005, NMFS personnel were informed that fishermen fromNorth Carolina had introduced new methods for targetingwhiting, a previously underutilized Florida species, off Florida’snortheastern waters. Since sink gillnet fisheries had never been amethod or gear of choice for Florida fishermen, no fundamentalfishery regulations were in existence, which added to the ease forfishermen to enter the fishery. As fishermen adapt and pursuenew strategies to exploit underutilized fisheries, the sharing oftechnology and methods will continue to occur. As pointedout by this investigation, North Carolina fishermen transferredthe use of sink gillnet gear to target whiting in the waters offnortheastern Florida during the fall of 2002. The recent economicsuccess of using sink gillnet gear to target whiting off north-eastern Florida during winter season demonstrates how fisher-men often use fish life history biology knowledge to economicallycapitalize.
Based on the success of the fishery, coupled with the generaldecrease in landings, value, and number of trips for some fishspecies, commercial fishing data demonstrated that landings,CPUE, market value, and number of whiting trips increased innortheastern Florida after the establishment of the whiting fisheryand significantly decreased after the closure of the fishery. Overall,Florida commercial whiting landing analysis supported fishermeninterview results in regards to landings, value, number of trips,and CPUE; commercial whiting data generally dramaticallyincreased in northeast Florida during 2000–2005 and decreasedfrom 2005 to 2007. Thus, it is apparent from this study that thedirected Florida whiting fishery was fully established by 2004. Asindicated through fishermen interviews, commercial data showedthat whiting landings mostly occurred in northeastern Floridawaters. In addition, monthly whiting commercial landingsshowed that the majority of the landings occurred during the fallthrough spring season (November–March). Overall, this studypointed out the whiting fishery was prosecuted in the samegeographical area and season as when North Atlantic right whaleswere located.
Due to the North Atlantic right whale mortality event, theNMFS initially temporally prohibited the use of gillnet gear insoutheast waters on 16 February 2006 [26] and then convened ameeting on 11 and 12 April 2006 of the ALWTRT’s mid-Atlantic/southeastern subgroup (the SE subgroup) to seek input regardingfuture right whale management. Attendees of the SE subgroupmeeting included representatives of the southeastern US, NorthAtlantic right whale scientists, environmentalists, MarineMammal Commission, fishery management organizations, andstate and federal resource management agencies [32]. Accordingto the NMFS Environmental Assessment [33], the NMFS updatedthe SE subgroup on: (1) the ALWTRP as it relates to thesoutheastern US (including modifications proposed in NMFS[34]); (2) the right whale calf necropsy findings; (3) thetemporary rule restricting gillnetting in the Southeast USRestricted Area from 16 February 2006 through 31 March 2006[26]; (4) right whale population status; (5) habitat and divecharacteristics of right whales in the southeastern US; (6)southeastern US gillnet fisheries; and (7) existing gillnet-relatedstate and federal regulations. At the meeting, the SE subgroupdiscussed various gillnet fishery management options for thefisheries operating in the Southeast US Restricted Area during therestricted period.
Based on the proposed rule prohibiting gillnet gear in south-eastern US waters during the North Atlantic right whale calvingseason [26], gear and operational restrictions for gillnet fishing inthis area were discussed by the SE subgroup, such as limiting netsto less than 76 mm (3 in) stretched mesh and no more than 25meshes deep, using weak links, and prohibiting night time sets.However, the SE subgroup believed these measures were notoperationally effective to adequately reduce the risk to NorthAtlantic right whales since large amounts of net would still beallowed to be used. Also, the SE subgroup was concerned thatfishing for whiting was not subject to any Federal FMP whichcould be used for restricting future increases in fishing effort orlandings. Moreover, the SE subgroup could not determine whetherthe use of weak links in gillnets, as required under the ALWTRP formost Atlantic gillnet fisheries, would release young North Atlanticright whale calves if entangled [32].
Prior to the January 2006 right whale mortality event, therewere no previously documented and confirmed interactions of theNorth Atlantic right whale with gillnet fisheries in southeasternUS waters [22,23]. Nonetheless, the NMFS did have evidence thatthe North Atlantic right whale has previously interacted withgillnet gear [35] and although the agency was unable to confirmthe fishery, the NMFS clearly did determine that the January 2006right whale calf was entangled and killed as a result of gillnet gear.Therefore, based on the increased Florida whiting fishing effort,landing data, the location of the whiting fishing grounds, fisheryenforcement challenges, and historical North Atlantic right whalesighting data [8–13], the SE subgroup recommended to the NMFSthat additional conservation and protection measures for USsoutheastern waters were warranted [32]. Subsequently, based onpreliminary gillnet fishery information presented at the SEsubgroup meeting [32], the Florida North Atlantic right whalemortality event, North Atlantic right whale stock status, historicalNorth Atlantic right whale sightings data, the summary results ofthe public SE subgroup meeting, and the public commentsreceived on the proposed rule to prohibit the use of gillnet gearin designated North Atlantic right whale critical habitat during 15November–31 March [26], and more importantly the primarygoals of the MMPA and ESA, the NMFS decided to permanentlyprohibit the use and possession of gillnet gear in the Southeast USRestricted Area during the annual the North Atlantic right whalecalving season (November–April) [36]. However, based onhistorical North Atlantic right whale sighting data, limitedexemptions to the fishing prohibitions were provided for gillnetfishing targeting sharks and Spanish mackerel south of 291000Nlat. [26]. Although gillnets are still authorized gear, south of theSoutheast US Restricted Area, it is unexpected that fishermen willtarget whiting in south Florida since the proximity of the GulfStream current is much closer and depths are much greater thanwaters off northeastern Florida. Nonetheless, catch data demon-strated that whiting continue to be landed, but at a much lowerlevel so it is unlikely that gears that pose a threat to right whalesare being used near the management boundary since oceano-graphic conditions (i.e. Gulf Stream Current) do not allow for theuse of sink gillnet gear.
6. Conclusions
As new fishery regulations and gear restrictions are imple-mented, fishermen will continue to explore new areas, technol-ogies, methods, gears, and species to exploit. Various investigatorshave documented such activities. Levesque and Kerstetter [37]reported that adaptations of gear and techniques from both theistiophorid billfish recreational fishery and the artisanal Cubanlongline fishery helped recreational swordfish anglers become
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.C. Levesque / Marine Policy 33 (2009) 233–247246
more proficient in targeting swordfish off southeastern Florida. InNortheastern Brazilian waters, Hazin et al. [38] reported on thetransfer of longline technology and techniques and found thatfishermen were always searching to improve and explore newfisheries and areas.
To implement proper fishery and conservation managementplans, it is important that fishery managers and the commercialfishing industry work cooperatively. In this case, Florida and NorthCarolina whiting fishermen worked cooperatively with fisherymanagers in order to reduce threats to endangered whalesthroughout this investigation; however, the current statutoryrequirements of the MMPA and ESA did not allow for anyexperimental fisheries to be prosecuted without full assuranceto the NMFS that the experimental fishery would not pose a threatto endangered North Atlantic right whales. Although an explora-tory fishing permit (EFP) could not be pursued in this case, attimes, the NMFS does allow the prosecution of new fisheries orexploratory fisheries through an EFP process. If fisheries are to bemanaged effectively it is vital that federal agencies continue toseek assistance and work cooperatively with the fishing industry,as well as with academic researchers.
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 to July 2006.He was instrumental during this investigation and especially ingathering and relaying information on various marine mammaland fishery issues between the commercial fishing industry andNMFS. I would like to thank G. Salvador, the NMFS NortheastRegional Office (NERO) fishery liaison, who also assisted withgathering information on the whiting fishery and reviewing anearly manuscript draft. A sincere appreciation is extended to theNMFS Southeast Regional Office Protected Resources MarineMammal Division staff (B. Zoodsma, S. Carlson, K. Baker,D. Bernhart, and V. Cornish). In addition, I thank P. Gehring andK. Knight for providing GIS support, K. Gibbs, D. Bernhart, and twoanonymous reviewers for suggestions that greatly improvedthis manuscript. Also, I would like to thank A. Richardson forreviewing the statistical approaches and I especially thankJ. O’Hop and S. Brown from the FWC for providing summarizedcommercial gillnet landing data, suggesting formal changes to themanuscript, and overall cooperative support. Furthermore, aboveall I would like to thank all the North Carolina fishermen whoparticipated in the interviews and assisted fishery managersthroughout the federal rulemaking process. I have a great respectfor the industry leaders who assisted with the federal processeven though the outcome closed the fishery. Through out theprocess, industry representatives were extremely professional andtruly demonstrated how industry and government can workcooperatively.
References
[1] Armstrong M, Muller R. A summary of biological for Southern Kingfish,Menticirrhus americanus, Gulf Kingfish, Menticirrhus littoralis, and NorthernKingfish, Menticirrhus saxatilis, in Florida waters. Report to the Florida MarineFisheries Commission, 1996. 26pp.
[2] Florida Marine Research Institute. Fisheries Independent Monitoring Program(FIM) 1995 annual report, St. Petersburg, FL, 1996. 409pp.
[3] Hoose HD, Moore RH. Fishes of the Gulf of Mexico: Texas, Louisiana andadjacent waters. College Station, TX: Texas A & M University Press; 1977.327pp.
[4] Smith JW, Wenner CA. Biology of the Southern Kingfish in the SouthAtlantic Bight. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 1985;114:356–66.
[5] Beresoff D, Schoolfield J. Migration patterns of the kingfish (Menticirrhus spp.)in near-shore ocean waters of southeastern North Carolina. North CarolinaFisheries final report, 2003. 16pp.
[6] McMichael R. Utilization of the surf zone of a northern Gulf Coast barrierisland by the Menticirrhus complex (Pisces: Sciaenidae). MS thesis, Universityof Southern Mississippi, 1981. 86pp.
[7] Sikora WB, Sikora JP. Habitat suitability models. Southern Kingfish. USDepartment of Interior. USFWS, Biological Services Program and Division ofEcological Services, 1982. 30pp.
[8] 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 1986;10:129–38.
[9] 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 Special Issue 2001;2:209–23.
[10] 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, 2002.36pp.
[11] 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.
[12] 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.
[13] Keller CA, Ward-Geiger LI, Brooks WB, Slay CK, Taylor CR, Zoodsma BJ. NorthAtlantic right whale distribution in relation to seasurface temperature inthe southeastern United States calving grounds. Marine Mammal Science2006;22(2):426–45.
[14] 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.
[15] Knowlton AR, Kraus SD, Kenney RD. Reproduction in North Atlantic rightwhales (Eubalaena glacialis). Canadian Journal of Zoology 1994;72:1297–305.
[16] Kraus SD, Hamilton PK, Kenney RD, Knowlton A, Slay CK. Reproductiveparameters of the North Atlantic right whale. Journal of Cetacean Researchand Management Special Issue 2001;2:231–6.
[17] Fujiwara M, Caswell H. Demography of the endangered North Atlantic rightwhale. Nature 2001;414:537–41.
[18] Rosalind R, Hunt K, Kraus S, Wasser S. Assessing reproductive status of rightwhales (Eubalaena glacialis) using fecal hormone metabolites. General andComparative Endocrinology 2005;142(3):308–17.
[19] Clapham PJ, editor. Report of the working group on survival estimation forNorth Atlantic right whales. National Marine Fisheries Service, NortheastFisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA, 2002. 52pp.
[20] Reeves RR, Smith BD, Crespo EA, di Sciara GN (compilers). Dolphins, whalesand porpoises: 2002–2010 conservation action plan for the world’s cetaceans.IUCN/SSC Cetacean Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cam-bridge, UK, 2003. 139pp.
[21] Knowlton AR, Kraus SD. Mortality and serious injury of North Atlantic rightwhales (Eubalaena glacialis) in the North Atlantic Ocean. Journal of CetaceanResearch and Management Special Issue 2001;2:193–208.
[22] 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. National Marine Fisheries Service, Woods Hole,MA, 2007. 388pp.
[23] Cole TN, Hartley DL, Merrick RM. Mortality and serious injury determinationsfor large whale stocks along the eastern seaboard of the United States,1999–2003. NEFSC Ref. Doc. 05-08. National Marine Fisheries Service, WoodsHole, MA, 2005. 20pp.
[24] NMFS. Final rule. Listing of the northern right whale under the EndangeredSpecies Act. Publ. 35 FR 8495, 2 June 1970.
[25] NMFS. Final rule. Designated critical habitat; northern right whale. Publ. 59FR 28793, 3 June 1994.
[26] NMFS. Temporary rule. Taking of marine mammals incidental to commercialfishing operations. Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP) andEndangered Species Conservation; Restriction of Fishing Activities. Publ. 71FR 8223, 16 February 2006.
[27] Moore M, Barco S, Costidis A, Dodd M, Farina L, Floyd R, et al. Draft rightwhale necropsy report. Draft report to NMFS Southeast Regional OfficeProtected Resources Division, 2006. 61pp.
[28] Shaefer C, Barger L, Kumpf H. The driftnet fishery in the Fort Pierce-PortSalerno area off southeast Florida. Marine Fisheries Review 1989;51(1):44–9.
[29] Trent L, Parshley DE, Carlson JK. Catch and bycatch in the shark drift gillnetfishery off Georgia and east Florida. Marine Fisheries Review 1997;59(1):19–28.
[30] Zar JH. Biostatistical analysis. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall; 1984. 718pp.[31] NMFS. Final rule. Taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing
operations. Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan Regulations. Publ. 67 FR59471, 23 September 2002.
[32] Ellenberg Associates Inc. Key outcomes for the southeast subgroup of theAtlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team (11–12 April 2006, St. Augustine,FL). Prepared for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast RegionalOffice, St. Petersburg, FL, 2006. 25pp.
[33] NMFS. Environmental assessment. Taking of marine mammals incidental tocommercial fishing operations. Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.C. Levesque / Marine Policy 33 (2009) 233–247 247
(ALWTRP) and Endangered Species Conservation; Restriction of FishingActivities, 2006. 30pp.
[34] NMFS. Final rule. Taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishingoperations. Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan. Publ. 70 FR 35894, 21June 2005.
[35] 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.
[36] Armstrong M, Muller R. A summary of biological for Southern Kingfish,Menticirrhus americanus, Gulf Kingfish, Menticirrhus littoralis, and NorthernKingfish, Menticirrhus saxatilis, in Florida waters. Report to the Florida MarineFisheries Commission 1996. 26p
NMFS. Final rule. Taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishingoperations. Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan. Publ. 71 FR 34632, 25June 2007.
[37] Levesque JC, Kerstetter D. First observations on the re-established southeastFlorida recreational swordfish tournament fishery. Florida Scientist 2007;70(3):284–96.
[38] Hazin FH, Broadhurs MK, Hazin HG. Preliminary analysis of the feasibility oftransferring new longline technology to small artisanal vessels off northeastBrazil. Marine Fisheries Review 2000;62(1):27–34.
[39] FWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). The MarineFisheries Trip Ticket Program, http://www.floridamarine.org/features/view_article.asp?id=23423, Accessed 12 July 2007.