joint fishermen and scientists research society - gulf of maine lobster … · 2018. 4. 26. ·...

JOINT FISHERMEN AND SCIENTISTS

RESEARCH SOCIETY - GULF OF MAINE LOBSTER FOUNDATION

LOBSTER SCIENCE WORKSHOP

February 15, 2007 Best Western Glengarry Hotel, Truro, NS

Joint Fishermen and Scientists Research Society– Gulf of Maine Lobster Foundation Lobster Science Workshop

2

Workshop Coordinators/Chairs: Patty King (PMD Services) FSRS General Manager Erin Pelletier, Gulf of Maine Lobster Foundation

Report compiled by: Christine MacKenzie, PMD Services Project Manager Report edited by: Christine MacKenzie, PMD Services Project Manager Patty King (PMD Services) FSRS General Manager

Disclaimer The discussions following the presentations and the breakout group discussions are presented as recorded and interpreted in the rappatours notes. The remarks were not confirmed with or edited by the participants. While every effort was made to ensure accuracy, it is possible that errors or misinterpretations may have occurred.

© Fishermen and Scientists Research Society, 2007

Joint Fishermen and Scientists Research Society– Gulf of Maine Lobster Foundation

Lobster Science Workshop

3

Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction …………………………………………………………... 5 1.1 Agenda ………………………………………………………….. 6 2.0 Presentations ………………………………………………………….. 7 2.1 Lobster Recruitment Index from Standard Traps - Carl MacDonald, Fishermen and Scientists Research Society…………. 7 2.1.1 Presentation …………………………………………….. 7 2.1.2 Summary ………………………………………………... 30 2.1.3 Discussion ………………………………………………. 32 2.2 GOMLF Ventless Trap Survey (VenTS) - Sara Ellis, Gulf of Maine Lobster Foundation ……………………………………………….. 33 2.2.1 Presentation …………………………………………….. 33 2.2.2 Summary ………………………………………………... 45 2.2.3 Discussion ………………………………………………. 47 2.3 Random Stratified Ventless Trap Survey in Massachusetts Bay - Tracy Pugh, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries… 49 2.3.1 Presentation ……………………………………………. 49 2.3.2 Summary ………………………………………………... 59 2.3.3 Discussion ………………………………………………. 60 2.4 Collectors to Assess Deepwater Settlement of the American Lobster - Rick Wahle, Bigelow Laboratory of Ocean Sciences….. 63 2.4.1 Presentation …………………………………………….. 63 2.4.2 Summary ……………………………………………….. 78 2.4.3 Discussion ……………………………………………… 80 2.5 Regional Ventless Trap Survey - Carl Wilson, Maine DMR …… 83 2.5.1 Presentation …………………………………………….. 83 2.5.2 Summary ………………………………………………... 101 2.5.3 Discussion ………………………………………………. 103 3.0 Breakout Groups ………………………………………………………. 105 4.0 Breakout Groups Summary and Conclusions ………………………… 113 4.1 Breakout Groups Summary ………………………………………. 113 4.2 Conclusions ………………………………………………………. 115 5.0 Acknowledgements …………………………………………………… 117


4



5

1.0 Introduction The Fishermen and Scientists Research Society (FSRS) and Gulf of Maine Lobster Foundation (GOMLF) held their third Joint FSRS - GOMLF Lobster Science Workshop on February 15, 2007 at the Best Western Glengarry Hotel in Truro, NS. The workshop built on the success of the workshops held in February 2003 and 2005 as part of the annual cross-boarder exchange. In 2004 and 2006 a lobster workshop was held as part of the Maine Fishermen’s Forum. The objective of the Lobster Science Workshop was to explore the relationship of various lobster recruitment and ventless trap projects and the advantages of the different methodologies. The Fishermen and Scientists Research Society (FSRS) Lobster Recruitment Project and the Gulf of Maine Lobster Foundation (GOMLF) Ventless Trap Survey rely on the efforts of volunteer fishermen. This differs from projects such as the New England Regional and Massachusetts Bay Ventless Trap Surveys which use a highly controlled survey design and provide compensation to fishermen who participate. This workshop explored the relationship of these projects and the advantages of the different methodologies. The workshop also continued the cross-border information sharing and collaboration initiated through previous workshops. The workshop began with presentations on the various projects, including the FSRS Lobster Recruitment Project, GOMLF Ventless Trap Survey, Random Stratified Ventless Trap Survey in Massachusetts Bay, and Regional Ventless Trap Surveys. A presentation was also give on Using Artificial Collectors To Evaluate Post Larval Lobster Settlement and New England Lobster Settlement Index Project Update. These presentations gave participants a good foundation for their breakout group discussions on the advantages of the different methodologies used for the various projects. The breakout groups were given a specific question to respond to - What are the advantages and disadvantages of the methodology of each of the projects and what recommendations, if any, would you make for the project? The following report summarizes the presentations and discussions, as well as the results of the breakout group discussions presented in plenary.


6

1.1 Agenda

Time Topic Speaker 12:00 - 1:00 Registration 1:00 - 1:20 Opening Remarks/Workshop Objectives Patty King, FSRS Erin Pelletier, GOMLF 1:20 - 2:00 FSRS Lobster Recruitment Project and GOMLF Ventless Carl MacDonald, FSRS Trap Survey – Project Overview and Results Sara Ellis, GOMLF 2:00 - 2:30 Random Stratified Ventless Trap Survey in Massachusetts Bay Tracy Pugh, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries 2:30 - 3:00 Using Artificial Collectors To Evaluate Post Larval Lobster Rick Wahle, Bigelow Settlement and New England Lobster Settlement Index Project Laboratory for Ocean Update Sciences 3:00 - 3:15 Coffee Break 3:15 – 3:45 Regional Ventless Trap Surveys Carl Wilson, Maine DMR 3:45 - 4:30 Breakout Groups 4:30 - 5:15 Plenary Sessions – Review Results of Breakout Groups, Chairs – Patty King, FSRS Conclusions and Recommendations and Erin Pelletier, GOMLF 5:15 - 5:30 Closing Remarks Patty King, FSRS Erin Pelletier, GOMLF 5:30 – 6:30 Reception



7

2.0 Presentations 2.1 Lobster Recruitment Index from Standard Traps By Carl MacDonald, Fishermen and Scientists Research Society 2.1.1 Presentation

Fishermen and Scientists Research SocietyLobster Recruitment Index from Standard Traps

B - Trap and Gauge DesignA - Overview of Project

C - Results for Each LFAD - Water Temperature DataE - BaitF - Future Direct ions


8

Overview Lobster Recruitment Index from Standard Traps

•The Project began in the spring of 1999. Continue for at least five years. After reviewing the project’s usefulness, it is scheduled to continue for the foreseeable future.

•The goal is to get an indication on the number of lobsters that will molt into the legal sizes in the coming seasons

•Volunteer fishermen fish standard traps in fixed locations

•The fishermen sex and count the lobsters in 15 size groups using a specially designed gauge (Gauge changed fall 2003)

•Standard traps are wire with one inch mesh, no escape mechanisms

•Participants monitor bottom temperatures with a minilogtemperature gauge in one of their project traps

Lobster Recruitment Index from Standard Traps

40”

14”

Width21’’

9 Lobster Fishing Areas (LFA’s 27 - 34) + 35

Approx. 180 volunteer fishermen involved

Current results summarised on poster

Catch rates vary greatly from LFA to LFA

Temperature data archived at BIO dept. OceanographyMinilog data from the FSRS Lobster Recruitment Project provide a large contribution to coastal temperature monitoringhttp://www.mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/ocean/database



9

Implemented Fall 2003

Added Smaller Groupings

Size 1 (less than 11mm)Size 2 (11mm - 20mm)Size 3 (21mm - 30mm)Size 4 (31mm - 40mm)Size 5 (41mm - 50mm)Size 6 (51mm - 60mm)Size 7 (61mm - 70mm)Size 8 (71mm - 75mm)Size 9 (76mm - 80mm)Size 10 (81mm - 90mm)Size 11 (91mm - 100mm)Size 12 (101mm - 110mm)Size 13 (111mm - 120mm)Size 14 (121mm - 130mm)Size 15 (greater than 130mm)Note: Size groupings 8 and 9 are in 5mm increments to give a clear indication of the number of lobsters just under the legal size limit. The new measuring gauge was designed to reflect smaller and larger size groupings. The USA lobster fishermen are using the same new designed gauge.

Added Larger Groupings

Sharing Lobster Recruitment Index Data

• Confidentially is very important. Data are grouped when presented.

• Fishermen are given a report (their own catch and temperature data)

• Results presented at LFA meetings. (grouped data)

• Raw data available upon approval of written request. (no names)

• DFO Lobster Biologists incorporated FSRS data into stock assessment


10

Fall 2005 - Lobster Recruitment Traps Positions

100 fishermen 248 Science traps used 5,289 trap hauls 25,326 lobsters measured

LFA 33 Depth of Recruitment Trap Hauls Fall 05 - Spring 06

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

< 5.1 5.1 to 10 fm 10.1 to 15 fm 15.1 to 20 fm 20.1 to 30 fm

Depth (fm)

Perc

ent

Fall Spring



11

LFA 34 Depth of Recruitment Trap Hauls Fall 05 - Spring 06

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

< 5.1 5.1 to 10fm

10.1 to15 fm

15.1 to20 fm

20.1 to30 fm

30.1 to40 fm

40.1 to50 fm

> 50 fm

Depth (fm)

Perc

ent

Fall Spring

Catch rates higher in the Fall Season compared to Spring – for these LFA’s

In LFA 33 - Catch rates of recruit lobsters peaked in 2001- (2005 second).

In LFA 34 - Catch rates of recruit lobsters peaked in 2001- (still very high).

Fall Summary of Results

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

<51 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100 >100

19992000200120022003

20042005

LFA 33Fall 99: 1854 Trap Hauls (TH)Fall 00: 2165 THFall 01: 2585 THFall 02: 2459 THFall 03: 2586 THFall 04: 2902 THFall 05: 2826 TH

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

<51 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100 >100

LFA 34Fall 99: 898 Trap Hauls (TH)Fall 00: 1718 THFall 01: 1839 THFall 02: 1643 THFall 03: 1454 THFall 04: 1912 THFall 05: 2463 TH


12

Spring 2005 Lobster Recruitment Trap Positions

B31A

180 fishermen 508 Science traps used 16,790 trap hauls 59,169 lobsters measured

Recruit Trap Hauls By Depth for Each LFA - Spring Seasons

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

27 28 29 30 31A 31B 32

LFA

Per

cent

< 5 fm 5-10 fm 10-15 fm



13

MLS

• Increase in catch rates of lobsters (60 < 70 mm) in 2006.

• Last 4 of seasons increase catch rate of sub-legal lobsters just under the minimum legal size (71-75 mm).

•Increase in catch rate of 81-90mm lobsters (markets) – increase in MLS.

LFA 27 – Recruit Trap Catch Rates

0

40

80

120

160

<51 51-60 61-70 71-75 76-80 81-90 91-100 >100S ize (mm )

Num

ber

per 1

00 h

auls

27 - 199927 - 200027 - 200127 - 200227 - 200327 - 200427 - 200527 - 2006

LFA 271999: 3595 trap hauls (TH)2000: 3574 TH2001: 3808 TH2002: 3447 TH2003: 4234 TH2004: 4538 TH2005: 4156 TH2006: 4428 TH

MLS


•Last 3 season the catch rate of sub-legal lobsters under the minimum legal size (61-80 mm) have increased.

•Last season (2006) increase in the 81-90mm group.

0

40

80

120

160

<51 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100 >100

LFA 301999: 0 Trap Hauls (TH)2000: 319 TH2001: 353 TH2002: 385 TH2003: 380 TH2004: 646 TH2005: 757 TH2006: 611 Data not f inalized


14

31A

0

40

80

120

160

<51 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100 >100

LFA 31a1999: 314 Trap Hauls (TH)2000: 292 TH2001: 328 TH2002: 498 TH2003: 482 TH2004: 452 TH (mls lowered)2005: 437 TH 2006: 634 TH

0

40

80

120

160

200

<51 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100 >100

LFA 291999: only 1 f isherman2000: 595 Trap Hauls (TH)2001: 752 TH2002: 725 TH2003: 665 TH2004: 868 TH2005: 974 TH2006: 1603 TH

LFA’s 29 and 31a showed large increases in recruitment. Recruitment catch rates are now 6 times higher than 2002 in LFA 29. Legal landings are about 6 times higher then in previous years (00,01, 02) in LFA 29.

LFA 31B increased in recruitment 5 fold. Legal landings are about 5 times higher.

Summary of ResultsLFA 29

LFA 31A

6X4X

5X5X



15

0

40

80

120

160

<51 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100 >100

LFA 31b1999: 278 Trap Hauls (TH)2000: 620 TH2001: 700 TH2002: 1176 TH2003: 1256 TH2004: 1010 TH2005: 1141 TH2006: 1271 TH

LFA 31B – Recruit Trap Catch Rates

•Last 3-4 seasons the catch rate of sub-legal lobsters under the minimum legal size (61-70 mm) and (71-8mm) have increased.

•Last 2 seasons (2005& 2006) large increase in the legal size groups.

0

40

80

120

160

<51 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100 >100

LFA 321999: 785 Trap Hauls (TH) 2000: 1057 TH2001: 1050 TH2002: 1212 TH2003: 1348 TH2004: 1424 TH2005: 1517 TH2006: 1783 TH


•Last season (2006) increase in the 71-80mm, 81-90, 91-100 groups. Recruitment higher in East of LFA compared to West.

•In 2005, slight increase in the 71-80mm 81-90 mm group.

• Overall the trend is fairly constant in size less that 71 mm


16

02550

75100125

150

175200225250

275300

<51 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100 >100

LFA 341999: 136 Trap Hauls (TH)2000: 1600 TH2001: 2735 TH2002: 2481 TH2003: 3118 TH2004: 2272 TH2005: 3382 TH2006: 2899 TH


•The catch rate of sub-legal lobsters (61-80 mm) peaked in 2002.•Overall the trend is high in the 71-80mm group. •In 2004, the catch rate in the 71-80mm group was the lowest.The water temperature was the coldest in the spring 2004.

Minilog Temperature Recorder

records bottom temperature in recruitment trap



17

Average Bottom Temperatures For Cape Sable Island 1998 - 2006

0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.0

10.0No

v 26

Dec

07

Dec

18

Dec

29

Jan

09

Jan

20

Jan

31

Feb

11

Feb

22

Mar

05

Mar

16

Mar

27

Apr

07

Apr

18

Apr

29

May

10

May

21

Date

Tem

p (C

)

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-20032003-2004 1998-1999 2004-2005 2005-2006

Ave rage Bottom Te mpe rature s for Port Mouton Fall 99 - 2005 Lobster Re cruitm ent Proje ct

-10

1234

56789

10

No

v 26

No

v 29

Dec

02

Dec

05

Dec

08

Dec

11

Dec

14

Dec

17

Dec

20

Dec

23

Dec

26

Dec

29

Jan

01Ja

n 0

4Ja

n 0

7Ja

n 10

Jan

13

Jan

16Ja

n 19

Jan

22

Jan

25Ja

n 2

8Ja

n 3

1F

eb 0

3F

eb 0

6Fe

b 0

9F

eb 1

2Fe

b 1

5Fe

b 1

8F

eb 2

1Fe

b 2

4F

eb 2

7

Date

Tem

p (C

)

Fall 99 Fall 00 Fall 01 Fall 02 Fall 03 Fall 04 Fall 05


18

Port Mouton Bottom Te mper ature s Spring 1999 - 2006

-1.00.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.0

April

1A

pril

3A

pril

5Ap

ril 7

April

9A

pril

11A

pril

13Ap

ril 1

5A

pril

17A

pril

19Ap

ril 2

1Ap

ril 2

3A

pril

25A

pril

27Ap

ril 2

9M

ay 1

May

3M

ay 5

May

7M

ay 9

May

11

May

13

May

15

May

17

May

19

May

21

May

23

May

25

May

27

May

29

May

31

Date

Tem

p C

Spring 99 Spring 00 Spring 01 Spring 02Spring 03 Spring 04 Spring 05 Spring 06

Avg Temperature (C) for LFA 32 for 1999 to 2006

0.0

1.02.03.04.05.0

6.07.08.09.0

10.0

11.0

19-A

pr21

-Apr

23-A

pr25

-Apr

27-A

pr29

-Apr

01-M

ay03

-May

05-M

ay07

-May

09-M

ay11

-May

13-M

ay15

-May

17-M

ay19

-May

21-M

ay23

-May

25-M

ay27

-May

29-M

ay31

-May

02-J

un04

-Jun

06-J

un08

-Jun

10-J

un12

-Jun

14-J

un16

-Jun

18-J

un20

-Jun

Date

Tem

p (C

)

AVG 1999 AVG 2000 AVG 2001 AVG 2002 Avg 2003Avg 2004 Avg 2005 Avg 2006



19

Avg Temperature for LFA 31B (1999 to 2006)

0.0

1.02.03.04.0

5.06.07.08.09.0

10.0

19-A

pr

22-A

pr

25-A

pr

28-A

pr

01-M

ay

04-M

ay

07-M

ay

10-M

ay

13-M

ay

16-M

ay

19-M

ay

22-M

ay

25-M

ay

28-M

ay

31-M

ay

03-J

un

06-J

un

09-J

un

12-J

un

15-J

un

18-J

un

Date

Tem

p (C

)

Avg 1999 Avg 2000 Avg 2001 Avg 2002 Avg 2003 Avg 2004 Avg 2005 Avg 2006

Bottom Water Temperatures for LFA 31a Spring 1999-2006

0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.0

10.011.012.013.014.0

Apr

29

May

2

May

5

May

8

May

11

May

14

May

17

May

20

May

23

May

26

May

29

June

1

June

4

June

7

June

10

June

13

June

16

June

19

June

22

June

25

June

28

Date

Tem

p (C

)

AVG 1999 AVG 2000 AVG 2001 AVG 2002 AVG 2003

AVG 2004 AVG 2005 AVG 2006


20

Lobster Recruitment Temperatures for LFA 30 Spring 2000 to 2006

0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.0

10.011.012.013.014.015.016.0

19 -

May

21 -

May

23 -

May

25 -

May

27 -

May

29 -

May

31 -

May

02 -J

un04

-Jun

06 -J

un08

-Jun

10 -J

un12

-Jun

14 -J

un16

-Jun

18 -J

un20

-Jun

22 -J

un24

-Jun

26 -J

un28

-Jun

30 -

Jun

02 -

Jul

04 -

Jul

06 -

Jul

08 -

Jul

10 -

Jul

12 -

Jul

14 -

Jul

16 -

Jul

18 -

Jul

20 -

Jul

22 -

Jul

Date

Tem

p(C

)

AVG 2000 AVG 2001 AVG 2002 AVG 2003 AVG 2004 AVG 2005 AVG 2006

LFA 29- Average BottomTemperatures Spring season 2000- 2006

0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.0

10.011.012.013.0

11 -M

ay13

-May

15 -M

ay17

-May

19 -

May

21 -

May

23 -

May

25 -

May

27 -

May

29 -

May

31 -M

ay02

-Jun

04 -J

un06

-Jun

08 -J

un10

-Jun

12 -J

un14

-Jun

16 -J

un18

-Jun

20 -J

un22

-Jun

24 -J

un26

-Jun

28 -J

un30

-Jun

02 -J

ul04

-Jul

06 -J

ul08

-Jul

10 -J

ul

Date

Tem

p(C

)

AVG 2000 AVG 2001 AVG 2002 AVG 2003 AVG 2004

AVG 2005 Avg 2006



21

Got Bait?

Bait Name Salt Redfish Mackerel / RedfishFrozen Mackerel Mackerel/ Herring/ Redfish Frozen Herring / Salt RedfishMackerel Frozen Pollock Salt Herring / Fresh HerringSalt Mackerel None Gaspereau / RedfishFrozen Herring Salt Mackerel/ Redfish Mackerel / Billfish / RedfishHerring Salt Herring/ Redfish Crabs / HerringSalt Herring Salt Mackerel/ Herring/ Flounder Herring / FlounderGaspareau Herring/ Flounder/ Redfish/ Mackerel Salt Herring / Sculpin / RedfishSilver Hake Redfish/ Mackerel/ Flounder Redfish / SculpinFlounder Cuttings Sculpin/ Crabs/ Mackerel Redfish / FlounderRedfish Cuttings Herring/ Crabs/ Mackerel Frozen SalmonSculpins Crabs/ Gaspereau/ Mackeral SalmonCrabs Gaspereau/ Mackerel/ Herring Crabs / SculpinShad Sculpins/ Mackerel/ Herring Flounder / SculpinCod Gaspereau/ Herring Frozen GaspereauPollock Gaspereau/ Herring/ Redfish MenhadenCapelin Salt Herring/ Flounder Redfish / CrabsTurbot Heads Mackeral/ Flounder Redfish / Gaspereau / CrabsSalt Silver Hake Mackerel/ Crab RedfishSalt mackerel/fresh hake Frozen Redfish Saury/ RedfishSalt markerel/fresh gaspereau Salt Herring/ Silver Hake SmeltTrout Gaspereau/ Salt Herring Fish CuttingsMackerel/ Gaspereau Halibut Heads Swordfish/TunaHaddock Frozen Mackeral/ Frozen Herring FlounderPickeral Alfonsino Heads/ Salt Herring Monk FishSalt herring/ fresh mackerel Herring/ Redfish Crab/Silver HakeFrozen mackerel/ Alfonsini head Herring/ Mackeral Frozen/Salt MackerelSalt mackerel/ Frozen mackerel Herring/ Haddock HakeAlfonsino heads Frozen Herring/ Frozen Flounder Mackeral/Alphonse HeadsSalt salmon Salt Herring /Sculpin Pollock/RedfishSalt Mackerel / Herring Perch Herring/Pollock

Over 100 bait types/combinations recorded


22

LFA 34 Fall 2004 Bait Used by Percentage Science Traps

Herring 91%

Other1%

Red Fish3%

Mackerel5%

Herring Mackerel Red Fish Other

LFA 34 Bait Used in Recruitment Traps Fall 05

Crab1%

Herring83%

Mackerel8%

Had, Cod, Pol1%

Flounder3%

Redfish4%

Flounder Herring Mackerel Crab Redfish Had, Cod, Pol



23

LFA 34 Bait Used in the Spring 2005 - Science Traps

Other2%

Sculpin4%

Red Fish7%

Mackerel8%

Herring79%

Herring Mackerel Red Fish Sculpin Other

LFA 34 Bait Used in Recruitment Traps Spring 06

Redfish7%

Flounder2%

Sculpin8%

Mackerel12%

Herring69%

Crab2%

Flounder Herring Mackerel Crab Redfish Sculpin


24

LFA 33 Bait Used in Recruitment Traps Fall 05

Mackerel53%

Flounder1%

Herring26%

Redfish10%

Haddock2%

Crab8%

Haddock Flounder Herring Mackerel Crab Redfish

LFA 33 Bait Used in Recruitment Traps Spring 06

Shad2%

Sculpin2%

Herring25%

Salmon1%

Flounder2%

Crab8%

Haddock2%

Mackerel38%

Redfish13%

Gaspereau7%

Haddock Salmon Flounder Herring Mackerel Crab Redfish Gaspereau Sculpin Shad



25

LFA 32 Bait Used in Recruitment Traps

Crab0%

Flounder1%

Redfish1%

Mackerel82%

Herring14%

Alewife, Gaspereau

2%

Flounder Herring Mackerel Alewife, Gaspereau Crab Redfish

LFA 31B Bait Used in Recruitment Traps

Other (Cr. Her)0%

Mackerel97%

Alewife, Gaspereau

1%Flounder

2%

Flounder Mackerel Alewife, Gaspereau Other (Cr. Her)


26

LFA 31A Bait Used in Recruitment Traps

Crab2% Herring

2%

Mackerel82%

Sculpins2% Flounder

11%Redfish1%

Flounder Herring Mackerel Crab Redfish Sculpins

LFA 30 Bait Used in Recruitment TrapsRedfish

1% Flounder8%

Gaspereau1%

Mackerel46%

Herring31%

Crab13%

Flounder Herring Mackerel Crab Redfish Gaspereau



27


Herring48%

Redfish/Sculpin1%

Mackerel45%

Crab6%

Herring Mackerel Redfish/Sculpin Crab


Herring12%

Capelin0%

Flounder1%

Crab1%

Cunner1%

Mackerel79%

Redfish2%

Gaspereau4%

Cunner Capelin Flounder Herring MackerelCrab Redfish Gaspereau


28

Future Direction• Canada & US (Maine Lobstermen Ass.)

- Participating in the same Recruitment project from Standard Traps

– Compare data and share results via Data Mgt. Working Committee

Possibly extend sampling to outside of the commercial season

• Expand number of participants, and possibly number of LFAs

Future



29

Get me back in the tank

Bye

Any Questions?


30

2.1.2 Summary Written by Alain d’Entremont, FSRS Fisheries Technician The FSRS Recruitment Trap project began in 1999 and was initially scheduled to continue for five years. Following a review of the usefulness of the project it was decided that the project should continue for the foreseeable future. The goal of the project is to have an indicator that shows how many lobsters would be expected to grow into the fishery in the following years. To achieve this, volunteer fishermen fish a specified number of standardized recruitment traps during the regular lobster season. The standardized trap dimensions are 14” by 40” by 21”. These traps are constructed out of one-inch wire mesh and they do not contain escape vents. The difference is that these recruitment traps must be fished in fixed locations during the entire season. This year these fishermen are fishing throughout nine different Lobster Fishing Areas (LFAs 27-35) along the coast of Nova Scotia. Fishermen are required to collect data on the size and sex for each lobster caught in their recruitment traps. To get the size data, fishermen use a measuring device provided by the FSRS that identifies 15 different size groupings. USA lobster fishermen also participate in this recruitment study and are using this same gauge. The original gauge had eight groupings and has been modified to add more larger and smaller groupings since the fall of 2003. Fishermen are permitted to keep and sell the legal size lobsters that they catch in their recruitment traps to offset their cost of purchasing the traps and doing the scientific data collection. The project also involves bottom water temperature monitoring. Each participant is provided with a minilog temperature gauge that they place in one of their recruitment traps. This data is archived at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography’s (BIO) Department of Oceanography and provides a large amount of data to the coastal temperature monitoring project. The data is available at http://www.mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/science/ocean/database/Doc2003/cts2003app.html. To access the website data you have to go to this page first. Then get a password/user name e-mailed to you. Then click on Coastal Time series and enter your user name and password. Then you have all the data at you finger tips. The sharing of data collected is controlled, with confidentiality being the most important part. Fishermen receive their own catch and temperature data, and if results are presented to others they are grouped together in groups of at least three fishermen in order to maintain their individual confidentiality. The raw data is available without names attached with a written request and recently DFO lobster biologists have been using FSRS data in their stock assessments. Interesting statistics for each LFA presented at the conference:

• In Fall 2005, in LFA 33 and 34 there were 100 fishermen fishing 248 recruitment traps. During this time there were 5,289 trap hauls with 25,326 lobsters measured.

• In LFA 33, 20% of trap hauls in the Fall were less than 5 fm. In the Spring,



31

everything was under 15 fm. • In LFA 34, 12% were less than 5 fm and there are traps over 50 fm, even over 90

fm. • In the Fall results for LFA 33 there seems to have been a slight increase in sub-legal

catches. Over the past 7 years of the recruitment study, 2001 saw the largest number of recruits just under the minimum legal size, with 2005 coming second.

• 2001 was also the highest year in the Fall results for LFA 34 with catches still very high overall.

• In spring 2005 there were 180 fishermen fishing 508 recruitment traps. There was 16,790 trap hauls and 59,169 lobsters measured.

• Throughout the LFAs most recruitment traps were fished in depths between 5 fm to 10 fm.

• LFA 27 has shown an increase in the 71-75 mm range that has translated to an increase over time in 81 to 90 mm lobsters. This is thought to be due to the measurement increase in the minimum legal size for this area from 70 mm to 76 mm.

• LFA 30 has been undergoing a pulse of recruitment in the sub-legal sizes over the past 3 years and this has been felt in the area with a larger increase in catches of legal lobsters in 2006.

• LFA 29, LFA 31A and LFA 31B have all shown big increases in recruitment over the past few years with landings of legal lobsters increasing 5 or 6 times what they were in previous years.

• LFA 32 shows a fairly constant recruitment level below 71 mm; there was a slight increase in the 71-80 mm and 81-90 mm group in 2005. In 2006 there was an increase in almost all legal size groupings. Recruitment in this LFA is higher in the east of the LFA compared to the west portion.

• LFA 33 in the Spring shows a constant level of recruitment for the past few years, although the data from 1999 was mostly collected in the western portion of the LFA where it is believed there are more little lobsters.

• LFA 34 in the spring shows 2002 as the big year for recruitment and a real low recruitment in 2004. Water temperatures recorded in 2004 were the coldest by a couple degrees. Although recruitment was down for a bit, it rebounded and was back up in 2006.

• Water temperature data collected in the Spring of 2006 indicated that it was for the most part a warmer than average Spring in every LFA.

The future direction of the project is to continue working with the Gulf of Maine Lobster Foundation and to compare data and share results via the FSRS Data Management Working Group. The possible expansion of the project into out of season sampling and expanding the number of LFAs and participants was also put forward.


32

2.1.3 Discussion Written by Alain d’Entremont, FSRS Fisheries Technician Q: What was the void in the temperature graph from Cape Sable Island? A: The temperature gauge was removed from the water with the trap. Q: How is this year compared to last year temperature wise? A: We haven’t looked at enough data yet. Q: Was there a change of measure in LFA 30 or 31? Why is there an increase in landings? A: There was no change in the measure in LFA 30. We don’t know why there was such an

increase in recruitment. Comment: There was a measurement change in LFA 27 in 2002. You should see a change

four years after. Q: Has anyone looked at a connection between water temperature and catchability? A: Ross Claytor is looking into the temperature data. There has to be some effect when

years are really cold or really warm. Q: What effect did Hurricane Juan have on LFA 34? A: It didn’t have an effect because the hurricane didn’t hit that area. There was an affect

around Sambro, but not a big affect in 34. There is certainly some effect by storms.



33

2.2 GOMLF Ventless Trap Survey (VenTS) By Sara Ellis, Gulf of Maine Lobster Foundation 2.2.1 Presentation

a.k.a.Northeastern U.S.

GOMLF Lobster Recruitment Index from Standardized Ventless Traps

GOMLF Ventless Trap Survey(VenTS)

(NE GOMLF US LRISVT)


34

What is the GOMLF?

• Non-profit research organization• Dedicated primarily to long-term

cooperative research with lobster industry• Representation from commercial

fishermen from Maine, Mass and NH

VenTS Background

• 2000: project started by– Maine Dept. of Marine Resources and New

England Aquarium• 2002: GOMLF took over project• 2003: Standardization with FSRS Lobster

Recruitment project

****Lobstermen volunteer their time***



35

Trap designInitially, lobstermen provided their own ventless traps, by covering vents

Problem: no consistency between traps

Traps were built to match specifications of FSRS recruitment traps, and distributed in time for 2004 season

Methods

• GOMLF maintained existing survey protocol.

• Set at a fixed location throughout the season

• Record data during normal hauling, but at least twice/month

• Set a minimum of 3 traps, standardized ventless, ventless and control


36

Catch per Trap Haul by Trap Type

• Both types of ventless traps are excellent at retaining sublegal lobsters, compared with control traps

Standardized Ventless

Ventless Control

Standardized Gauge

• Adopted by GOMLF in 2004– Size increments match FSRS gauge

Minimum legal size

10 mm incrementsMaximum legal size

5 mm increments

15131 +

14121-130

13111-120

12101-110

1191-100

1081-90

976-80

871-75

761-70

651-60

541-50

431-40

321-30

211-20

1<11

Sizemm



37

Participation

60,7746,70565 individualsTotal

10,6341,2392020068,6241,113182005

11,5341,361252004

2,63528372003

1,845196720026,075747112001

19,4271,766342000# Lobsters# Trap Hauls# ParticipantsYear

• Aim for coverage in all ME zones, plus NH and MA

Maine Lobster Management Zones

A

DC

FE

B

G


38

Participants by Zone and YearAll zones, MA & NH in 2001.

But…..

No NH since 2001

No E since 2004

No C, 2001-04

Zones covered all 6 years = A, D, F, G

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

# Participants

MA

NH

G

F

E

D

C

B

A

Zone

2000200120022003200420052006

Effort:# Trap Hauls by Month (2000-2006)

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Month

Trap

Hau

ls



39

Mean catch rate of sublegal and legal lobsters by month

Sex Ratio(n= 60,774)

• Sex ratio1 M: 1.2 F


40

% Berried Females by Size Class(n = 32,770)

2%

98%

84%

29%16%

71%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Sublegal Legal Oversize

No eggsWith eggs

n = 29, 427 n = 3,329 n = 14

Size Distribution of Berried Females(n = 644 with size info)

• ~half of berried femaleswere sublegal

46% 54%



41

V-notched Females

1%

15%

43%

99%

85%

57%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Sublegal Legal Oversize

No NotchV-Notch

n = 29, 427 n = 3,329 n = 14

• Main goal of VenTS is to look for long-term trends in sublegal population

–To indicate trend in recruitment to the fishery


42

Trend in sublegal lobster CPTH, 3 States (n = 54,582 lobsters)

• Std Ventless tracks Ventless trend very well

• Upward trend 2006

• Note low year in 2001: let’s examine further…

Sublegal Trend by Zone,Ventless traps only

ME, NH, MA

NH and MA both very low in 2001

Maine only

In ME 2001 only low in zone D



43

Comparison of trend in sublegal CPTHMaine only

ME, NH, MAME only

2001 not a low year for ME overall

Take Home Messages

• Patterns seen in Standardized Ventless traps track well with Ventless traps– Validates use of data collected prior to

FSRS/GOMLF standardization (2000-2003)• Upswing in sublegal CPTH 2006• Need to continue long-term sampling to

determine if the start of a new upward trend


44

Issues with VenTS Project• Design

– Uneven participation by zone, state and year• Data/Database

– Use of different gauge prior to 2004• Size class info not currently available 2000-2003

(only legal status)• Still need to standardize the way data were entered prior to

2003• Analyses

- need to improve spatial analyses- how deal with gaps in data?

Next Steps• Seek broader industry participation

– Increase outreach and training– Get feedback on project and data reporting

• Stabilize funding (Increase?)• Add spatial analyses (GIS-based CPTH maps,

as per ME DMR, MA DMF and FSRS)• Continue data sharing among FSRS, DMR and

other organizations• Promote use of data in stock assessments



45

Thank you!

2.2.2 Summary Written by Kate Gardiner, FSRS Fisheries Technician The Gulf of Maine Lobster Foundation (GOMLF), a non-profit research organization, in collaboration with industry, government and volunteer lobstermen from Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire, has been attempting to collect long-term population information through recruitment of sublegal lobsters in Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts. This Ventless Trap Survey (VenTS) originated in 2000 through the Maine Department of Marine Resources and the New England Aquarium, with the GOMLF taking over the work from 2002 to present. In 2003, VenTS became standardized with the FSRS ventless trap survey. Initially, the ventless traps used for the study were non-standardized, with lobstermen covering the escape vents of their own traps to collect the small lobsters. In 2004, the GOMLF switched to standardized traps which met the FSRS specifications. Not only would these traps allow for standardized samples in the various locations, but would also allow the GOMLF to compare their results to those of the long-running FSRS ventless trap survey. Along with standardizing the ventless traps, the measuring gauge size groupings were also standardized to FSRS size increments, with the addition of smaller increments for legal sizes to increase accuracy.


46

The original project design had ventless traps along with regular commercial traps set at specific locations throughout the year in shallow water (<10 fm). Traps were hauled at a minimum of two times per month and all lobsters were measured, sexed, and examined for egg stage and v-notch state when available. The exact location of the traps, depth, bottom type, time and date of haul, soak time, bait and wind speed/direction were also recorded along with a summary of the commercial catch. With the incorporation of the standardized ventless traps, a series of triples were deployed with the commercial (control) trap at the end of the line, followed by the non-standardized ventless trap and finally the standardized ventless trap attached to the buoy line. This set-up allowed for comparison between the catch rates of the non-standardized traps to those of the standardized traps. Initial analysis showed similar trends in catch rates between the two suggesting that data collected prior to 2004 may be compared to the current data. The use of a control commercial trap showed the effectiveness of both kinds of ventless traps at capturing sublegal lobsters. At the start of the project, 34 volunteers throughout all three states (including all seven of Maine’s lobster management zones) participated in the survey, however, the following year, participation dropped to only 11 fishermen and then 7 the subsequent year. This drop is likely due to the amount of additional work required, however, over the past three years, an average of 20-25 fishermen actively participated in the survey. Unfortunately, current participation is patchy, with only Maine lobster zones A, D, F and G surveyed for all six years. Even with this patchiness, approximately 60,000 lobsters have been measured to date. Unlike Canada, the U.S. lobster season is open year round, however, hauls decrease as the weather deteriorates. Even with less hauls, sublegal catches were decent throughout the year. An interesting note, there appears to be nearly a 1:1 ratio of males to females caught with only slightly more females caught than males. Of all the lobsters measured, only 2% of the 30,000 sublegal lobsters examined were determined to be berried, while 16% of the legal sized and 71% of the large lobsters (n=14) were berried. Interestingly, when only considering berried females, nearly half of the lobsters examined were considered sublegal in size, due to the high proportion of sublegal versus legals lobsters that are caught in the ventless traps. The V-notch states were also examined and as expected, the smaller lobsters had less v-notches while the larger lobsters had a great proportion of v-notches. The main purpose of the VenTS project has been to examine recruitment into the lobster population by examining catch rates of sublegal lobsters in an attempt to predict future population trends. Recent data would suggest an upward trend in the number of sublegal lobsters captured in 2006, however, further surveys are required to determine the extent of the increase. In contrast, 2001 appeared to have fewer lobsters than the following years, therefore, each zone was examined individually. With the removal of the low catches from New Hampshire and Massachusetts that year, Maine only had low counts in area D and area F had a peak in lobster numbers.



47

Although the survey produced significant results, there is always room for improvement. More even participation throughout the zones would be useful along with better spatial analysis (similar to FSRS analysis). Finding ways to standardize earlier surveys to current surveys and to deal with gaps in data are also issues requiring attention. Finally, more stable funding may allow for increased participation by aiding volunteer fishermen with some of the expenses they incur from sampling. 2.2.3 Discussion Written by Kate Gardiner, FSRS Fisheries Technician Q: Can the fishermen keep the legal size lobsters from the scientific traps? A: Yes they can, but the fishermen have to use their own trap tags for the science traps. Q: DFO allows recruitment traps as extra traps, does the same thing happen in Maine? A: No. The ventless traps count towards the trap limit. Q: Why do the standardized traps have a little lower yield than the modified ventless traps? A: This is likely due to the smaller size of the standardized traps. Q: Why are there a larger number of sublegal berried lobsters the further south you go? A: Warmer water causes a smaller size at maturity.


48



49

2.3 Random Stratified Ventless Trap Survey in Massachusetts Bay By Tracy Pugh, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries 2.3.1 Presentation

Random Stratified VentlessTrap Survey in Massachusetts

Bay

Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries &

Massachusetts Lobstermen

Cooperative Research


50

Purpose of the Survey DesignImprove the way lobster relative abundance is estimated

Increase size range observedSample across all habitat types

Utilize best aspects of fishery dependent and independent surveys

Random stratified sampling designStatic gearGear targeted toward lobster

Mass Bay Ventless Trap Survey Goals

Characterize lobster relative abundance and size distributionDevelop survey as pilot project for a coastwidesurveyDocument relative importance of bottom type and depth to lobster abundance and distributionInvolve the industry in the scientific process

Improve communications



51

Stratification of Mass Bay

Divide up area of interest and assign characteristics to each division

Grid cellsDepth, bottom type

Each possible combination = “Strata”11 strata, each with many cells

Random Station SelectionRandomly select stations from each strata typeAdjust or re-draw stations if necessary

Navigation channelsToo shallow

80 total stations

7777> 30 m707716 to 30 m77970 to 15 mGravelMudPebbleBoulder


52

Sampling6-pot trawl

3 vented and 3 non-vented trapsEvery trap and every trawl were rigged the sameHaul each trawl twicea month3 to 5 day soak

Details…Sampling stations were permanently assigned

No moving trawls to look for lobstersTraps remain on bottom in between sample periodsNo lobsters were kept from research gear

We’re not “fishing,” we’re conducting research



53

Summary data

442758602Number of lobsters

observed

1069154Number of trawl hauls5620Number of trips

2005 (May – Nov)2004

(Oct-Nov only)


54

Percent size distribution by trap type

Catch in non-vented traps mostly sublegalsVented traps catch more legal sized lobsters

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91 97 103

109

115

121

127

133

139

Carapace length (mm)

Perc

ent

Nonvented Vented

Minimum legal size

Eggers and notched females by depth

Generally more egg-bearing (& notched) females in deeper strata

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

< 15 m (n=19804) 16 to 30 m (n=11566) > 30 m (n=11501)

Perc

ent o

f fem

ales

egg-bearing notched



55

Mean catch per trawl by sediment type

Sub-legal – catch in complex higher than in featureless

Legals – catch in boulder higher than other substrates

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Boulder (n=284) Pebble (n=313) Mud (n=181) Sand/gravel(n=278)

Mea

n ca

tch

per t

raw

l

Sub-legals Legals

Mean catch per trawl by depth

Legal catch similar between 3 depth strata

Sublegal catch differs (α = .05)between 3 depth strata

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

< 15 m (n=393) 16 - 30 m (n=291) > 30 m (n=372)

Mea

n ca

tch

per t

raw

l

Sub-legals Legals


56

Seasonal catch by bottom typeSublegal lobsters

Spring – summer: no change in complex, slight decrease in featurelessSummer – fall: increase over all bottom types

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Spring Summer Fall

Mea

n ca

tch

Boulder Pebble Mud Sand/Gravel

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Spring Summer Fall

Mea

n ca

tch

Boulder Pebble Mud Sand/Gravel

Legal lobstersSpring – summer: slight increase in boulderSummer – fall: increase over all bottom types

Sublegal lobstersSpring - summer: catch decreased in mid and deep strata, but increased in shallowSummer - fall: catch increased in mid and deep, no change in shallow

Seasonal catch by depth

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Spring Summer Fall

Mea

n ca

tch

shallow mid deep

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Spring Summer Fall

Mea

n ca

tch

shallow mid deep

Legal lobstersSpring - summer: catch increased slightly in shallow and mid water, no change in deepSummer - fall: catch increased in deep water



57

Conclusions

Percentage of females with eggs increases in deeper waterLobster relative abundance is higher in complex habitats

Sub-legal lobsters mostly

Sub-legal lobster relative abundance decreases with increasing depth

No difference in legal abundance by depthSeasonal aspects to lobster abundance

Time of year interacts with depth & bottom type

Survey technique conclusionsBoth trap types are necessary to observe a broad size range of lobsters

Permanent sampling stations allow us to observe seasonal changes in habitat use

Implications to timing of surveys

Random selection of stations and the stratified design allow us to use the catch data to estimate relative abundance

Random selection is the best way to represent an area – can scale your data up because you’ve represented both “good” and “bad” lobster habitat (you’ve accounted for the lows and the highs)


58

AcknowledgementsParticipating captains and their crew:

John Barrett – Susan TSusan and Jay Michaud – A

Touch of GreyFred and Wes Penney –

CurmudgeonSkip Ryan – Finest Kind

Funding provided by:

Gulf of Maine Tagging

WATCH FOR YELLOW T-BAR TAGS!!!!CALL IT IN!!!REWARDS!!!

See me for a flyer & details!



59

2.3.2 Summary Written by Tracy Pugh, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries The Massachusetts Bay Ventless Trap Survey was an intensive survey conducted with a large number of sampling stations in a relatively small geographic region. The survey took place from 2004 through 2006, and was conducted by the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (MADMF). Funding for the survey was provided by the Northeast Consortium for survey years 2005 and 2006. Participating lobstermen were paid based on day-rate bids they submitted. MADMF provided lobstermen with the experimental gear and assigned locations (sampling stations) at which to fish the gear. One goal of the ventless trap survey was to improve the way lobster relative abundance is estimated by accounting for depth and bottom type in our survey design. Other goals included the use of this survey as a pilot study for the development of a coastwide ventless trap survey. We used the habitat characteristics of depth and bottom type to stratify our study area, using a grid composed of cells (boxes) that were approximately 2/10 mile by 3/10 mile. Each grid cell had one of 11 possible combinations of depth and bottom type, thus there were 11 “strata.” Each strata had many possible cells, from which we randomly selected our sampling stations. We only adjusted the stations selected if they fell inside navigational channels or in non-navigable waters (too shallow, for example). At each station, we fished one six-pot trawl, with 3 vented and 3 non-vented traps alternating, spaced 150 feet apart. Sampling stations were permanently assigned. We used a soak period of three to five days. Captains were not allowed to keep any lobsters from the research gear. The ventless trap survey was launched in the fall of 2004 as a pilot study with only 40 stations. In 2005 and 2006 the full survey was conducted at all 80 sampling stations. Stations were sampled twice per month in 2005 and 2006, from May through November. Data presented were from the 2005 survey period. The size distribution of lobsters observed differed between trap types. Sublegal sized lobsters made up a higher percentage of the catch in the non-vented traps than in the vented traps. Legal sized lobsters made up a higher percentage of the catch in vented traps versus in the non-vented traps. There was an increase in the percentage of females bearing eggs from shallow to deep water, and the percentage of notched females followed a similar trend. The average catch of lobsters (sublegal and legal) per trawl haul were presented by both bottom type and by depth. The average catch of sublegal lobsters was higher in complex bottom types (boulder and pebble) than in featureless bottom (mud and sand/gravel). The catch of legal sized lobsters was higher in boulder habitat than any other habitat. Sublegal lobster catch decreased as water depth increased, but there was no difference in the average catch of legal lobsters by depth.


60

There were seasonal variations in average catch by both bottom type and by depth. The average catch of sublegal lobsters increased from summer to fall in all bottom types. Sublegal lobster catch by depth increased from spring to summer in shallow water while decreasing in mid and deep water. From summer to fall, sublegal catch increased dramatically in mid and deep water, but stayed the same in shallow water. The average catch in legal lobsters also increased in all bottom types from summer to fall. Legal catch increased slightly in shallow water from spring to summer, then increased in deep water from summer to fall. In general, data from 2005 show that egg-bearing females are more prevalent in deeper water. Lobster relative abundance tends to be higher in complex habitat types, especially for sublegal sized lobsters. Time of year affects the catch of lobsters observed in different habitat types. The use of both vented and non-vented traps was necessary to observe a broad size range of lobsters. The use of permanent sampling stations allowed us to observe seasonal changes in habitat use, and our data suggest that the season in which a survey is conducted will affect the catch. Finally, the random selection of sampling stations within an appropriate stratification scheme allow the data collected to be used as estimates of lobster relative abundance. 2.3.3 Discussion Written by Julie Sperl, FSRS Research Assistant and Tracy Pugh, Massachusetts Division of Marine

Fisheries Q: Where did the original bottom type data come from? A: Massachusetts GIS datalayer, based on work published by Knebel in 1993. Q: Were there commercial traps used in the survey? A: No, all the traps used were experimental, using a design similar to the standard ventless

traps used by FSRS. Q: How many lobsters were caught per trap? A: Our data were presented as average catch per trawl. In some habitat types, we averaged

40 lobsters per 6 trap trawl. Q: How much money do the fishermen get for the survey? A: The amount depends on the fisherman; each fisherman makes a bid (day rate) on doing

their particular part of the survey. Q: Have comparisons been made between this survey data and data collected by the FSRS

survey? A: It’s not been done yet; the study needs to be done longer in order to get a time series to

make year to year comparisons. We haven’t made any comparisons between our survey and others due mainly to the differences in study design.



61

Q: Do both types of traps have the same size entrance ring? A: Yes they both have a 5 inch ring, although we recognize that this may limit the upper

size range of lobsters observed. Q: How did you get the bottom type map? A: A previous study looked at bottom type; there is camera work being done to confirm the

findings of the original study. Q: Do the survey stations remain the same from year to year? A: Yes. Q: Do you use hoop gates? A: No. We use the same traps as Gulf of Maine. Q: The data you presented was a sum of all 6 traps. So each trap haul was 6 traps. So 40 on

the catch axis was 40 lobster/6 traps? A: The data presented were average catch per trawl haul. So a value of 40 in boulder habitat

(for example) meant that the average number of lobsters observed for the entire survey year was 40 lobsters per trawl haul. Some individual traps could have quite a few lobster, the maximum number of lobster in one ventless trap was about 80. We have some concerns regarding trap saturation, which we will examine in future work.

Q: How did you choose your fishermen? A: We contract fishermen based on a competitive bid process. They bid and we grade the

bids on vessel capacity, price and safety features, among other criteria. Q: Where did you get the map of bottom type for stratification? A: Bathymetry data (depth) came from a USGS GIS datalayer. The sediment data came

from a datalayer produced by MassGIS based on data published by Knebel. We are currently verifying the sediment data using an underwater camera.

Q: What about salinity as an explanation for depth difference? A: I don’t think this is important because there were shallow sites that were not estuarine (in

this area depth and salinity not related). The shallow water stations were not confined to areas that would tend towards estuarine conditions.


62



63

2.4 Collectors to Assess Deepwater Settlement of the American Lobster

By Rick Wahle, Bigelow Laboratory of Ocean Sciences 2.4.1 Presentation

Collectors to Assess Deepwater Settlement of the American lobster

Richard A. WahleBigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences

NEAq


64

Overview

• Why a post-larval collector?– Post-larval collectors in Spiny Lobster Forecasting

• American lobster Settlement Index– Diver Surveys

• Post-larval collector for the American lobster – A fisherman-scientist collaboration

larva

postlarva

Settlement

Spiny Lobster Life

Cycle

adult in +3 years

postlarva



65

Witham collector

Source: http://www.reefball.com/

Postlarval Collectors Caribbean spiny

lobster

UNC

Collectors in ForecastingWestern rock lobster

Photo: WA Fisheries

Photo: CSIRO Marine Research

Photo: B. Phillips


66

Collectors in Forecasting Western Rock Lobster

American Lobster: The Enigma

Boom & Bust

New England Lobster Landings

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Met

ric T

ons

MaineMassachusettsRhode IslandConnecticutNew Hampshire



67

ADULTS

• Suction sampling

• Trawl surveys• Ventless Trap surveys

LARVAE

hatch

NEAq

Pelagic Processes

POSTLARVAEtransport

NEAq

BenthicProcesses

JUVENILEsettle

Grow & migrate (5 – 9 yr)

American Lobster: Linking Life Stages

• Postlarvalcollectors


68

ME

NB

NH

MA

RI

Lobster Settlement

New England-wide Settlement Index 2000-2003

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Beaver Hbr W, NB (2)

Jonesport, ME (4)

Mt. Desert Is., ME (4)

Outer Pen Bay, ME (9)

Mid-coast, ME (8)

Casco Bay, ME (4)

York, ME (4)

Salem, MA (3)

Boston Hbr, MA (6)

Cape Cod Bay, MA (3)

Buzzards Bay, MA (6)

Rhode Island (6)

Density (N/m2)

2000200120022003

65 sites/13 regions

Mid-coast Maine

y = 0.4076x + 0.4984R2 = 0.6636p = 0.0004

y = 0.9388x 0.3568

R2 = 0.7052p = 0.0002

0.0

1.0

2.0

0.0 1.0 2.0Age 0+

Settlement - Mid-coast, ME

0.0

1.0

2.0

1988 1993 1998 2003

Set

tlem

ent (

N/m

2 )

Settlers

1 yrolds

?

Following cohorts through time:Mid-coast Maine



69

Mid-coast Maine:Projected versus Observed Fishery Recruitment

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Proj

ecte

d Re

crui

tmen

t Ind

ex

0

10

20

30

Obs

erve

d Ca

tch

per 2

0 min

Tow

Projected

Observed Recruits (80-89 mm)

Comparison of Projected Recrui tment Trend (Assuming 50% recruited at age 7 yr )

to Observed Trawl Sur vey Catch in Area I

R2 = 0.86(no 2005)

Postlarval collectors for the American LobsterA fisherman-scientist collaboration

(Wahle-Wilson-Parkhurst)

Northeast Consortiumproject development award

Advantages• Access to new locations• Uses standard fishing gear• Inexpensive


70

0

2

4

6

Damariscove Island West Fisherman's Island

N /

m2

CollectorSuction

NS

NS

Project Development

Settlement in Collectors =Settlement in Natural cobble

0

2

4

6

8

Seeded Natural settlement

N /

colle

ctor

UnscreenedScreened

NS

NS

Project Development

No Losses on the Haulback



71

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

CW (mm)

Freq

uenc

y

Carapace length (mm)

Project Development

Lobster sizes

Young of

Year Older

Epinephelus niveatusSnowy grouperNeoliparis atlanticusSea snailMyoxocephalus spp.Sculpin

Hyas sp.Spider CrabUlvaria subbifurcataRadiated shannyCancer borealisJonah CrabPholis gunnellusRock gunnelCancer irroratusRock Crab

TautogolabrusadspersusCunner

Scientific NameCommon nameScientific NameCommon name

CrabsFish

Project Development

Associated Fauna


72

Preliminary Trials

A ton-o-Cunnerjuv. Snowy grouper !

Associated Fauna

Impact of fish on lobster settlement

y = -0.0419x + 2.4468R2 = 0.0383

01

23

45

6

78

0 10 20 30 40Fish per collector

YoY

lobs

ter p

er c

olle

ctor

Impact of crabs on lobster settlement

y = 0.0471x + 1.8712R2 = 0. 0151

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 5 10 15 20

Crabs per collector

YoY

lobs

ter p

er c

olle

ctor

Project Development



73

What’s Next? NEC Project 2007-2008

SNEO’Leary

CentralGOM

Parkhurst

EastGOM

Lemieux

• 3 Collaborating fishermen• 3 Regions

- oceanographically distinct• 3 Depth strata

- 5- 80 m• eMolt

- Temperature loggers

• Canadian participation - pending

NBRochette

(UNB)

NSTremblay

(DFO)

Recap

• Preliminary trials successful.• Ready to launch deepwater collectors. • Canadian component would add geographic scope.


74

Me DMR, Ma DMF, RI DEM

Thanks!

Northeast Consortium

Sidescan Sonar Surveys

NB

ME

NH

MA

RI

Lobster Habitat Mapping

0% 50% 100%

shoreshallow

deepshore

shallowdeep

shoreshallow

deepshore

shallowdeep

shoreshallow

deepshore

shallowdeep

shoreshallow

deepshore

shallowdeep

MDI

MC

CBYK

NSCC

BBB

RI

Percent of Area

Tot cobb/bldrTot ledgeTot soft

8 regions

Av 1066 ha mapped per

region



75

Following cohorts through time: Rhode Island

Rhode Island - Settler to 1yr oldy = 0.5274x0.3869

R2 = 0.4569p = 0.011

0.0

0.5

1.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

Settlers at t = 0 (n/m2)

1-y

r-o

lds

at

t =

1 y

r (n

/m2)

Rhode Island Settlement

0.0

1.0

2.0

1989 1994 1999 2004

Settl

emen

t (N

/m2)

Settlers

1 yrolds

(from Wahle et al. 2004)

Pr o je c te d R e c r u itm e n t Tr e n dA s s u m i n g 5 0 % re c ru i te d a t ag e 6 y r

0 .0

0 .2

0 .4

0 .6

0 .8

1 .0

1 99 8 1 99 9 2 00 0 200 1 200 2 200 3 2 00 4 2 00 5 2 00 6 2 00 7 2 00 8

Ye a r

Rec

ruit

men

t in

de

x

Projec ted Recruitment TrendAs s uming 50% recruited at ag e 7 yr

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Ye ar

Rec

ruitm

ent i

nde

x

Pro jected Recru itment TrendAss uming 50% recruited at age 8 yr

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Ye ar

Rec

ruitm

ent i

ndex

Settlement - Mid-coast, ME

0.0

1.0

2.0

1988 1993 1998 2003

Set

tlem

ent (

N/m

2 )

Proportion Le gal S ize at Age

0.0

0.5

1.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12Age (Years)

Age 6Age 7Age 8

R50

Projecting to the Future


76

American Lobster Geographic Range

SeaWifs

Gardner, C., Frusher, S.D. et al. (2005)Source: Univ Tasmania

barwonbluff.com.au/

Postlarval Collectors Southern rock lobster



77

Linking Life Stages in Complex Life Cycles

Eggs

Lar

vae

Larvae

Juve

nile

s

Juveniles

Adu

lts

Egg

s

Adults

PelagicPre-settlement

Processes

Post-settlementBenthic

Processes

Egg ProductionLarval Settlement

EggsLarvae

Juveniles Adults


78

Western Rock LobsterSettlement strength determines harvest

?‘86-87

Tota

l Cat

ch (m

illio

n kg

)

0

10

0

200

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985

PostlarvalSettlement Index

PL Settlement

Cat

ch

2.4.2 Summary – Rick Wahle’s Presentation Written by Nell den Heyer, FSRS Project Officer Lobster have a complex life cycle which includes a waterborne larval stage and the more familiar benthic stage. For several species of spiny and rock lobster, including Caribbean lobster, passive collectors have been used to monitor the abundance of waterborne post-larvae, and in the case of Australia’s western rock lobster they have even been used to forecast catches. Closer to home, an American lobster Settlement Index is showing promising signs that it will have predictive power along the New England Coast. The monitoring of post-larval settlement in American lobster also complements the ventless or recruitment trap survey data on the abundance of undersized or juvenile lobster. Dr. Wahle presented examples of the use of lobster settlement in fisheries management. First, he spoke of the spiny lobster which has an 11-month planktonic or waterborne stage. Larval transport and survival during this stage appears to be important in determining the population dynamics as post-larval settlers have been used to forecast commercial catches. For example, Australia’s western rock lobster larvae have been collected on fibrous, pompom-like collectors since the 1960’s. Settlement indices translate to landings with a lag of 3-4 years. And, the peaks in settlement reflect cycles of the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) that are manifested by changes in average sea level height.



79

Understanding the processes that determine lobster abundance is a focus of Dr. Wahle’s research. The fishery in Canada and the US, which is dominated by catches in Maine, has a boom and bust cycle. He asks, is this boom and bust cycle related to pelagic processes that determine larval survival or post-larval settlement? Also, the geographic range of American lobster spans a dramatic environmental and biogeographic gradient. Do the processes that influence lobster abundance change over the geographic range? Dr. Wahle presented estimates of lobster settlement from diver-based suction sampling at 65 sites in 13 regions along New England coast. The regions with the longest time series in mid-coast Maine, Rhode Island and New Bruswick were initiated in 1989, 1990 and 1992 respectively. Sampling explanded to other parts of Maine and Massachusetts more recently. Displaying a snapshot of data collected between 2000 and 2003 for all regions, Wahle illustrated that while there were consistent regional differences in the abundance of newly settled lobster, the annual fluctuation among the 13 regions were quite synchronous. Such large scale spatial coherence suggests oceanic processes that operate on a similar scale. He has shown that the lobster Settlement Index may be a useful forecasting tool. In Rhode Island after accounting for increased mortality due to disease in lobster, there is quite a good match between the model predictions and the abundance of pre-recruit lobsters caught in the state’s nearshore trawl survey. Similarly, in Maine he showed a strong correlation between settlers and the trawl abundance between 2000 and 2006, with the exception of 2005, a year in which the Settlement Index severely underestimates the catch of new recruits in the trawl survey. However, after just having seen the talk by Sara Ellis on the ventless traps from Maine, Dr. Wahle noted that the trends predicted from the Settlement Index appear to match the trends in the ventless trap data, and that he would like to look into this index of abundance, as well as the trawl survey data. Unfortunately, studying post-larval settlement of American lobster is not as easy as it is for spiny lobster. The floating fibrous Witham and pompom-like collectors do not work for American lobster. Suction sampling, used for the Settlement Index discussed above, does provide data on abundance of American lobster settlers, but it requires SCUBA divers, which are expensive and can only work in a limited depth range. To solve this problem, Dr. Wahle has worked with fishermen to develop a new post-larval collector for American lobster. These passive collectors are essentially flattened lobster traps containing rocks and a fine mesh bottom that are deployed for 2-3 months. However, unlike a conventional trap, planktonic postlarval lobsters settle through the wire mesh among the rocks, rather than entering through a trap head. The collectors are standardized in size, shape and materials and are relatively inexpensive to construct. They also have the advantage of being able to sample where suction sampling by SCUBA divers is not possible. Dr. Wahle has tested these passive collectors. Abundance estimates from passive collectors and suction sampling in two cobble sites off the Coast of Maine are comparable. Dr. Wahle also investigated the potential loss of newly settled lobster when the collectors are hauled to the surface. There was no difference in the abundance of hatchery-reared post-larval lobster stocked into the collectors with and without an extra layer of screening after being deployed and hauled. There was also no difference in the numbers of naturally settling lobsters found


80

in collectors that were covered and not covered by divers just before being hauled at the end of the settlement season. The collectors do catch some small fish including cunners, rock gunnels, sculpins, and even an exotic snowy grouper, but there was no evidence that the fish captured by the collectors impacted post-larval abundance. Similarly, the abundance of crab (rock, Jonah and spider) was not correlated with the abundance of settled lobster. In the summers of 2007 and 2008 Dr. Wahle plans to deploy collectors to monitor lobster settlement in Eastern Gulf of Maine, Central Gulf of Maine and Southern New England. The collectors will be deployed at 3 depths and at the shallow sites suction sampling will be done to compare the methods. He is also hoping to collaborate with John Tremblay and Rémy Rochette, to extend the settlement survey into Canadian waters. There were several questions from the audience about the deployment of the collectors and the fish and crab species also captured by the collectors. One fisherman wanted to know if there were any green crab caught in the collectors, while another wanted to know why the fish, particularly the cunners and sculpins which are known to eat lobster, were not having an impact on the abundance of lobster in the collectors. Dr. Wahle pointed out that the collectors were in 7-10 m of water which is a little deep for green crab in the area he works. And, Dr. Wahle suggested that perhaps the size and behaviour of the cunners, sculpins, and newly settled lobster may explain the lack of evidence for impact. It may be that newly-settled lobster are not preyed upon by the small cunners and sculpins caught in the collectors. Another fisherman asked if the suction sampling and collectors would be comparable in other bottom types, not just cobble. And finally, there was a question about what might drive settlement variability from year to year. Dr. Wahle pointed to some preliminary analyses he is conducting that suggest the position of summer high pressure systems over the eastern US and Canada might be important, but that more multi-disciplinary research would be needed to address that question. 2.4.3 Discussion Written by Nell den Heyer, FSRS Project Officer Q. Did you catch green crab? A. No, collectors were in 7-10m of water. Not many green crab at that depth where we had

the collectors. Q. In the test areas where you compared the suction sampling to the collectors, how similar

was the habitat? Could bottom type or growth influence the suction sampling and collector comparison?

A. No influence of growth, and the habitats we looked at were very similar. Q. How close was the bottom type to the material used in the collector? A. Almost identical. Q. Are you sure that cunner and sculpin in the traps had no effect on the catch? A. No evidence in the data. The size range of lobster and fish was very limited. It may be



81

that lobster at this size are not susceptible to the cunner and sculpin of this size. Q. Did you say that cunners and sculpins did not eat any larvae? A. In the collectors the number of cunners didn't significantly affect the number of larvae. Q. What determines a good year of settlement? A. There is some information that is starting to show that when summer high pressure

systems (e.g., Bermuda Highs) are centered over New England we have a good year of settlement.


82



83

2.5 Regional Ventless Trap Survey By Carl Wilson, Maine DMR 2.5.1 Presentation

Regional Ventless Trap SurveyStates of:

MaineNew Hampshire (kind of)

MassachusettsRhode Island

ConnecticutNew York

Funding provided byLogistical Support by


84

The US Lobster Fishery

Maine through VirginiaInterstate Management– ASMFC– National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS)Stock Assessment– Approx every 5 years– Stock Status– Reference Points

Gulf of MaineGeorges Bank

Southern New England

Stock AssessmentArea



85

New Assessment Framework for US Lobster

Stock Indicators: Traffic Light– Common sense stock indicators– Used to corroborate model

results and provide additional information

New Reference Points– Abundance– Fishing Mortality

Gulf of Maine : Traffic Light

1981 ----------------------------------------------------------------- 2003

Good Neutral Poor

Mortality

Abundance

Fishery


86

Bad Bad MortalityGood Abundance

GoodGood MortalityBad Abundance

Fish

ing

Mor

talit

y

AbundanceLow Average HighLo

wA

vera

geH

igh

Limit

Threshold

New Reference Point Guide

The American lobster resource presents a mixed picture:

– Stable abundance for the Georges Bank stock and much of the Gulf of Maine stock

– Decreased abundance and recruitment, yet continued high F for the Southern New England stock and Area 514 of the Gulf of Maine stock.

The primary limitation on the ability to manage is limited data rather than choice of models.

Peer Review Report



87

Need to collect consistent data

Need for common fishery independent programMost states have a sea sampling programDiverse conditions impact what survey could be chosen

Connecticut: Nuclear Power Monitoring

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

Year

Num

ber p

er to

w (d

elta

mea

n)

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

Num

ber p

er T

rap

Hau

l(d

elta

mea

n)

Long Island Sound TrawlMillstone Ventless Trap


88

Regional Ventless Trap Survey

RVTS : Project Objectives

Characterize relative abundance Maine through New York. Develop coast wide fishery independent monitoring programFoster an improved relationship between the commercial lobster industry and fisheries scientists



89

Connecticut

Massachusetts

New Hampshire

Maine

New

York

Rhode Island

511

512

513

514

538539611

Sampling Design

144 Traps per Statistical AreaThree depth strata8 sites per strata6 traps per site

– 3 Ventless– 3 Vented

Baited for two hauls each month Three night soaksThree month survey (June-August)


90

Trap Design

Similar to FSRS traps5” entry hoopsSet as 6-trap trawls or triples10-fathom between traps

20’’

16”

Industry Participants Selection

Competitive bid processScored by category– Vessel Rate– Capacity– Speed



91

Thre

e Mile

Line

Land

0-20

21-40

41-60

Site Selection

One Nautical Mile Grid


92

Each Grid Assigned a Depth (75%)

Sampling Area was Constrained“State Waters”



93

Grids were Randomly Selected

Final site selection

Thre

e Mile

Line

Land

0-20

21-40

41-60


94

KM – 5/15/06

3 – 20 meters (10 – 66 ft)

21 – 40 meters (67 – 131 ft)

41 – 60 meters ( 132 – 197 ft)

> 60 meters (>198 ft)

Central (sampled 2006)Eastern

WLIS Trap Survey

Long Island Sound– 2006 random sites

Sampling Intensity Varies by Area



95

Regional Trend

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

511 512 513 514 538 539 611

Statitistical Area (North to South)

Catc

h Pe

r Tra

p (a

ll lo

bste

r)

Ventless

Vented


96

Same figure, different scales

0

5

10

15

20

511 512 513 514 538 539 611

Statistical Area (North to South)

CPTH

(Ven

tless

)

0

1

2

3

CPTH

(Ven

ted)

VentlessVented

511

512

513

514



97

538

611

513

514

538

Patterns of catch with depth

02468

101214161820

0-55-1515

-2525

-35 0-55-1515

-2525

-35 0-55-1515

-2525

-35 0-55-1515

-2525

-35 0-55-1515

-2525

-35 0-55-1515

-2525

-35 0-55-1515

-2525

-35

Depth (fathoms)

Catc

h pe

r Tr

ap

511 538514513512 539 611


98

Competition : In and around traps

Is the catch limited by other species and traps?

Selectivity of Gear

Are traps and trawls sampling the same population?Problems with gearCompetition with nearby commercial gearAccessible habitatBehavior of lobsters



99

Gulf of Maine Traps vs. Trawl

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%50 54 58 62 66 70 74 78 82 86 90 94 98 102

106

110

114

118

122

126

Carapace Length

Prop

ortio

n of

cat

ch

TrapTrawl

Rhode Island Traps vs. Trawl

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

50 54 58 62 66 70 74 78 82 86 90 94 98 102

106

110

114

118

122

126

Carapace Length

Prop

ortio

n of

cat

ch

TrapTrawl


100

Points of discussion

Regional differences observedIntensity of samplingBy-catch (crabs and fish)Selectivity of trapExpensive Survey ($150K each stat area)



101

2.5.2 Summary Written by Aaron Retzlaff, FSRS Assistant Data Analyst The Regional Ventless Trap Survey is a collaboration of Maine, New Hampshire (though recent sampling has not included them), Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York. All of the collaborators share a common interest in the lobster populations located off their respective coasts. This project is intended to track relative abundance and define populations of sub-legal sized lobsters off of the eastern seaboard of the United States. The aims of the Regional Ventless Trap Survey (RVTS) are to characterize abundance of lobster from Maine to New York and to produce a fishery independent monitoring program while improving the relationship between the commercial lobster industry and fisheries scientists. The sampling program relies on a variation of a fully random and a random stratified sampling methodology. The area between Maine and Virginia is broken into three stock assessment areas (Figure 1) which are further subdivided into seven regional management areas.


102

In addition to stock assessment models, a traffic light approach is used as a multiple indicator tool for stock assessment in the US, with indicators grouped by measures of abundance, fishing mortality and fishery performance. The most recent US lobster stock assessment has found mixed results regarding stock status. In Georges Bank and the Gulf of Maine abundance is relatively static. However, abundance and recruitment have been reduced in New England and area 514 of the Gulf of Maine. The major limitation on analysis has been found to be a scarcity of consistent data rather than predictive capacity and choice of models describing the US lobster resource. This lack of consistent sampling is largely due to variability in fishing conditions and local rules in the areas that the RVTS covers. Not every survey type can be applied to each area of the survey and results of the RVTS are variable depending

on what type of gear is used. For example, trawl surveys in long island found differing relative quantities of small lobster than did ventless traps. It is likely that non-standard sampling methodologies could lead to erroneous interpretation of abundance and recruitment data. Currently, data are collected by fishermen who are compensated for their work. The RVTS uses a competitive bidding process which seeks the best combination of vessel rate, vessel speed, and vessel capacity for use in the survey. Compensation is thought to be necessary because of the large time and labor investment required from the fishermen. The trapping methodology includes 144 traps per statistical area with three depth strata and eight sites for each stratum. For each of the eight sites there are six traps consisting of three vented and three ventless traps. The traps are baited twice per month and are left for a soak time of three days. Sampling is conducted from June to August. The traps have a 5” hoop diameter and are similar to those used by the Fishermen and Scientists Research Society in Nova Scotia. The traps are set as either triples or six trap trawls with ten fathoms between each trap. In order to select sites randomly but also in a manner that results in specific depths, a grid with sections of one nautical mile is overlaid on the area of interest and each square of the matrix is assigned a depth classification. The grid is constrained to those waters within state

Figure 1. Stock Assessment Areas for the Re-gional Ventless Trap Survey.



103

boundaries (three nautical miles from shore) and then sections of the grid are selected at random. The fishermen are allowed to choose a site that is within a half mile of the selected site. An issue with this methodology is that despite there being equal numbers of traps in each area, because of the varying size of each area, there is not necessarily equal trapping effort being put forth for each area. The sampling has found several general trends with lobster catches. Firstly, there is a reduction in catch in more southerly sampling areas. Both the vented and ventless traps seem to follow this general trend. Sampling has secondarily found patterns of trapping abundance with depth that also vary with latitude which are attributed to temperature differences. In northern areas during the trapping period, the warmer shallow waters are optimal for lobster and so northern latitudes see a greater number of lobster in shallower traps. However, in southern latitudes where shallow waters are above the optimal temperature for lobster, more are found in deep traps. Some interesting questions have arisen from the RVTS such as whether other species found in lobster traps could be influencing lobster catchability, and whether either the trapping or trawling is selective in some manner. Several points of discussion regarding the RVTS exist including why regional differences in results are found, what the required intensity of the RVTS is, what trap selectivity means to the program, and whether bycatch represents significant data. The expensive nature of the program is also a point of discussion. 2.5.3 Discussion Written by Aaron Retzlaff, FSRS Assistant Data Analyst Q: Is trap saturation a factor during the RVTS? A: Yes. More commercial traps in an area represent more feeding stations for the lobster.

It is possible that using vented and ventless traps may not be required. Q: More lobster are found in deep water for this survey because it is done during the

summer. Why not do a fall survey to find out what the variability is seasonally? A: There is an interest in studying seasonal effects however currently funding is limited. A: Massachusetts wants to expand to the fall to get a better assessment. Q: What is the effect of the mobile fleet on bycatch? A: Because the RVTS is limited to a 3 mile limit the mobile fleet does not affect bycatch. Q: Are there a lot of lobster getting in and out of the traps? Is there any video footage of

the lobster trap efficiency? A: We do want to do some video work but trap efficiency is probably not as bad as the

97% inefficiency some have speculated.


104

Q: Will you repeat the same stations in consecutive years? A: No. New stations will be randomly selected. We may test trawls versus single traps.



105

3.0 Breakout Groups

Participants were divided into six breakout groups and were given a specific question to respond to and were asked to complete a worksheet summarizing the pros and cons of the projects and their recommendations. The results of the group discussions are highlighted in this section. Each group presented the results of their group’s discussions in a plenary session; a summary of the main points from these presentations and the conclusions are included in the next section. Breakout Group Discussion Worksheet What are the advantages and disadvantages of the methodology for each of the projects and what recommendations, if any, would you make for the project? FSRS Lobster Recruitment Project Pros Group 1:

• Inexpensive. • More fishermen involved. • Number of traps consistent in LFA, same number of traps in each. • Anonymous (grouped data when presented). • Increased sampling frequency.

Group 2: • Consistent data. • Can keep lobsters. • Leaving traps in same location from year to year gives a predictive

idea of the future. • Traps are consistent within each LFA and in the States.

Group 3: • Fishermen involvement/buy-in. • Feedback to fishermen, catch and temperature reports. • Standardized traps.

Project Pros Cons Recommendations

FSRS Lobster Recruitment Project

GOMLF Ventless Trap Survey

Regional Ventless Trap Surveys


106

• Relatively low cost. • Fishermen incentive – get to keep legal lobsters. • Feedback through meetings.

Group 4: • Willful data collection. • Fishermen more reliable when not paid. • Good outreach. • Good coverage area. • Time. • Standardized gear and protocol. • FSRS contributes to DFO data. • Inexpensive. • Fishermen do the work.

Group 5: • All same trap. • Good outreach. • Large spatial coverage. • Feedback to fishermen. • Standardized traps. • Fisherman incentive – keep legal lobsters. • Based on large voluntary effort. • Inexpensive/low cost.

Group 6: • Large spatial coverage. • More participation. • Cheap. • Participants get to see their data.

Cons Group 1:

• Some areas low participation, others high. • Seasonal fishery, different in LFAs. • Fishery dependent.

Group 2: • LFAs can’t move the gear, aren’t getting the whole picture of what’s

going on in other areas. Missing certain areas that aren’t being fished.

• Inconsistency in bait type and soak times. • Guys give up the traps because of the time involved in measuring and

data collection. Group 3:

• Bait not standardized. • No stratification, by depth or substrate. • Some movement of traps in some areas. • No standardized soak time.



107

Group 4: • Size selective. • Not standardized bait.

Group 5: • Size selective for small not large. • Unclear that traps are fixed or moved. • Not as independent from fishery. • Limited to fishing season. • Not standardized for bait or soak time. • Not recognized effort. • Limited to fishery areas. • Not stratified.

Group 6: • Seasonality a problem. • Non-assigned stations. • Limitations with timing of survey.

Recommendations Group 1:

• LFA participation (add new LFAs) • Compensation. • Year round.

Group 2: • More funding to hire more technicians.

Group 3: • Evaluate the effect of soak time. • Remove wind direction and speed. • Add bottom type. • Remove unnecessary details from logs, such as time of day.

Group 4: • Find out if non-standardized bait has an influence.

Group 5: • Expand temporal scale with selected locations to determine seasonal

information. • Soak times. • Hire technician to sample commercial traps. • Edit logbook, add bottom type.

Group 6: • Look at out-of-season sampling in select locations. • Assign stations to deal with variability in how stations are selected. • Find appropriate timing for comparative purposes with other studies.


108

GOMLF Ventless Trap Survey Pros Group 1:

• Inexpensive. • Year-round fishing. • Now using standardized traps. • Long-term study.

Group 2: • Traps are consistent within each LFA and in the States.

Group 3: • Same pros as FSRS. • Low habitat impact compared to the trawl surveys.

Group 4: • Adds to data. • Inexpensive. • Standard trap.

Group 5: • Large temporal scale. • Inexpensive. • Traps not standardized in past, now they are. • Low habitat impact.

Group 6: • Cheap.

Cons Group 1:

• Not many fishermen involved. • Three traps used for one “standardized ventless trap”. • Participants were once using any trap they wanted. • Fishery dependent.

Group 2: • Cannot keep legal lobsters. • Guys give up the traps because of the time involved in measuring and

data collection. • Inconsistent measuring between fishermen.

Group 3: • Uneven participation. • Lower level of participation. • The same as the FSRS cons.

Group 4: • Small sample size. • Low participation.



109

Group 5: • Limited spatial. • Not many participants. • Not standardized trap. • Not fixed stations. • Uneven/low participation.

Group 6: • Lack consistency in participation.


• Incentives – increase number of trap tags or money. • Standardize soak time.

Group 2: • Add more stations and add more volunteers.

Group 3: • Remove wind direction and speed. • Add bottom type. • Remove unnecessary details from logs. • Consider removing vented traps.

Group 4: • Outreach. • Reduce soak time to reduce work.

Group 5: • Standardize soak times. • Add more volunteers. • More training. • Remove/edit information not needed on the logbook.

Group 6: • Assign stations to deal with variability in how stations are selected. • Find appropriate timing for comparative purposes with other studies.

Regional Ventless Trap Surveys Pros Group 1:

• Fishery independent. • Standardized design. • Maine to New York, totally standardized spatially. • Randomized sites. • Overall pro – trap types for all projects same or very similar.

Group 2: • More data availability.


110

Group 3: • Stratified random. • Fine detail is on size. • Standardized soak time. • Standardized bait. • Generally more detailed information (shell disease, egg condition,

etc.). Group 4:

• Geographic range. • GIS integration. • Scientist on board. • Consistent.

Group 5: • Large spatial scale. • More data available. • Design is stratified random. • Exact details on lobsters with calipers. • Standard soak time. • More information on survey on by-catch, disease.

Group 6: • Put traps in areas where wouldn’t put commercial traps.

Cons Group 1:

• Expensive. • Three months only. • Short-term study. • Study not as localized.

Group 2: • Cannot keep legal lobsters. • Not enough density (75 traps/100 miles). • The cost of hiring technicians. • No historical information because of moving gear to different areas

each year. Group 3:

• High cost. • Questionable future due to cost. • Lower fishermen involvement.

Group 4: • Cost.

Group 5: • Limited temporal coverage. • Very expensive. • Short. • Cannot keep legal lobsters.



111

• Not enough density. • No historic information because of moving stations. • Low fishermen involvement.

Group 6: • Expensive. • Lower involvement.


• Expand sampling season. • Funding needed to continue study long-term.

Group 2: • Add more stations

Group 3: • Remove vented traps.

Group 4: • General Comments - Same comparison methodologies, ie: trap or

trawl. Need to be in for the long-haul. Industry should be able to come together.

Group 5: • Secure long-term funding. • Identify funding for research.

Group 6: • Increase depth. • Find appropriate timing for comparative purposes with other studies.


112



113

4.0 Breakout Groups Summary and Conclusions 4.1 Breakout Groups Summary The previous section of this report provides details on the breakout group discussions. The Breakout Groups session was followed by a plenary session where each group presented the results of their discussions. The following summarizes the main points from these presentations. Pros FSRS Lobster Recruitment Project

$ Inexpensive. $ Large number of participants. $ Long-term data. $ Consistent data. $ Keep legal lobsters. $ Good area coverage and time. $ Leaving traps in one area (except in LFA 34 where there is some movement by

those fishing the offshore area). $ Outreach. $ Feedback to fishermen (temperature and catch reports). $ Standardized traps. $ Willful data collection may make better data. $ Contributes to DFO data.


$ Same as FSRS. $ Inexpensive. $ Year-round fishery $ Standardized traps. $ Long-term study. $ Leave traps in one spot. $ Low habitat impact.


$ Random – fishery independent. $ Maine to New York. $ More data available. $ Stratified. $ Data Collected is fine detail.


114

$ Standard bait (not in Maine). $ Standard soak time. $ GIS integration. $ Using same trap. $ Putting traps is areas no one is fishing. $ One sampler on board.

Cons FSRS Lobster Recruitment Project

$ Seasonal fishery in LFAs. $ Fishery dependent. $ Missing areas not fished. $ Inconsistent bait and soak times. $ Lack of commercial data to match. $ Bait not standardized. $ Whole survey not stratified. $ Variability of site selections. $ Some move traps in LFA 34. $ Traps are size selective.


$ Not enough participation. $ Three trap tags are used to get information from one trap. $ Inconsistent measuring among fishermen. $ Lack of consistency with participants. $ Variability in site selections.


$ Very expensive (hire technicians). $ Only three months. $ End date based on funding. $ Can’t keep legal lobsters. $ Not enough density. $ No historical information due to moving gear. $ Questionable costs. $ Lower number of fishermen involved.



115

Recommendations FSRS Lobster Recruitment Project

$ Incorporate new LFAs. $ Somehow continue year round. $ More funding to hire more technicians. $ Evaluate effective soak times. $ Remove unnecessary information from log sheets, add bottom type. $ Look at bait data on size of lobsters. $ Choose sites. $ Find time to go over the data together with GOMLF.


$ Extra trap tags. $ Standardize soak times. $ Add more training. $ Remove wind and speed or other data not used. $ Remove vented traps. $ Better outreach. $ Choose sites. $ Find time to go over the data together with FSRS.


$ Secure funding for long-term. $ Expand sampling season. $ Add more stations. $ Increase depth range, deeper water.

4.2 Conclusions The FSRS Lobster Recruitment Project and GOMLF Ventless Traps Survey are very similar in their methodologies, with many aspects, such as trap design, measuring gauge and key information on the data sheets, being standardized. The two projects share many of the same pros and cons and recommendations for improvement. In comparison, the Regional Ventless Trap Surveys have a different methodology, which is also considered to have its pros and cons and recommendations for improvement. The spatial and temporal coverage of the projects vary. The FSRS Lobster Recruitment Project and GOMLF Ventless Traps Survey operate during the lobster season in select lobster fishing areas, whereas the Regional Ventless Traps Surveys cover an area from Maine to New York, however, are only done during specific short periods. It was


116

recommended that all projects expand their sampling timeframes in an effort to get year-round sampling. Fishermen’s participation is an important part of all the projects. The FSRS Lobster Recruitment Project has the highest level of fishermen’s participation. It was recommended that the other projects should increase the level of fishermen’s participation. Outreach was also identified as important, with each project being successful in doing this to varying degrees. A major difference between the Regional Ventless Trap Surveys and the other two projects is sampling site location. The Regional Ventless Trap Surveys use a random stratified design while the FSRS and GOMLF projects allow the fishermen to pick the location. The variability in site selection for the FSRS and GOMLF projects was considered a con and it was recommended that these two projects review how site selection is done. It was recommended that the Regional Ventless Trap Surveys add more sites. The FSRS Lobster Recruitment Project and GOMLF Ventless Traps Survey are inexpensive to operate and rely on the volunteer efforts of fishermen. It is important that the value of this contribution be recognized. The Regional Ventless Trap Surveys are costly to operate. Funding is a challenge for all the projects and stable long-term funding needs to be identified. It was noted that it is desirable to use the same analysis for the projects, whether done by trawl or trap, so results can be compared. The FSRS Data Management Working Group is one proposed avenue through which this can be discussed, where the projects can come together to determine what analysis needs to be done, how it should be done, and how it should be presented. It was recognized that each of the projects have their strengths and that it is important that they all be continued. They all contribute to improving our understanding of the lobster resource. It is important that the dialogue and collaboration between the projects continues, that we continue to learn from each other and share our data and analysis.



117

5.0 Acknowledgements The workshop would not have been possible without the cooperation of the Fishermen and Scientists Research Society and the Gulf of Maine Lobster Foundation and the financial support of our sponsors. We would like to gratefully acknowledge the following organizations and companies for their support and financial contributions:

Director's Office, Science Branch, Maritimes Region, Fisheries & Oceans Canada Nova Scotia Fisheries and Aquaculture – Lobster Science Fund Nova Scotia Fisheries and Aquaculture Darden Restaurant, Inc. The Lobster Advisory Council AMIRIX Systems Inc. (VEMCO Division) Encana Corporation Prospect Area Fulltime Fishermen’s Association Atlantic Electronics AVC Lobster Science Centre Halifax West Commercial Fishermen’s Association Eastern Nova Scotia 4X Community Management Board Guysborough County Inshore Fishermen’s Association Scotia Harvest Seafoods Maritime Aboriginal Aquatic Resources Secretariate Scotia Fundy Inshore Fishermen’s Association

Wade Company Limited We would also like to gratefully acknowledge the following individuals: Guest Speakers:

Carl MacDonald, Fishermen and Scientists Research Society Sara Ellis, Gulf of Maine Lobster Foundation Tracy Pugh, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Carl Wilson, Maine DMR Rick Wahle, Bigelow Laboratory of Ocean Sciences

FSRS Staff:

Nell den Heyer Alain d’Entremont Kate Gardiner Jeff Graves Carl MacDonald Aaron Retzlaff Julie Sperl

The breakout group chairs, recorders and presenters. And of course all those who attended the workshop. Thank You


118

joint fishermen and scientists research society - gulf of maine lobster … · 2018. 4. 26. ·...

Documents