DOCSLIB.ORG

Annual Report of the Marine Mammal Commission : a Report To

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Annual Report of the Marine Mammal Commission : a Report To FISHERY STATISTICS A UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OF THE U^ PUBLICATION UNITED STATES 1970 ''ft,, o» • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service ^^^S^mtt.. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Frederick B. Dent, Secretary NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION Robert M. White, Administrator s^^" NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE ^1)6 MT 0\ '^° Robert W. Schoning, Director Woods Hole OoeRnonrgohfc fnstftution STATISTICAL DIGEST 64 . ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The data in this edition of "Fishery Statistics of the United States" were collected in co- operation with the various States and tabulated by the staff of the Statistics and Market News Di- vision under the direction of HoytA. Wheeland. The material was prepared for publication by Thelma I. Bell and Susan Flint. Field surveys were supervised by the various regional and area offices. Program leaders in charge of field surveys were: Francis Riley for the New England, Middle Atlan- tic, Chesapeake, Great Lakes, and northern Mississippi River States; George Snow for the South Atlantic, Gulf, and southern Mississippi River States; James R. Bybee, California; Victor J. Samson, Washington an,d Oregon; Henry Jimmie, Alaska; and Robert Iverson, Hawaii. The cooperation of the many contributors is gratefully acknowledged. Contributors are given credit for their information in the section of the report in which the data appear. PREFACE This report contains a review of the fishery statistics for the year 1970. These statistics include data on the volume and value of landings of fishery products, employment in the fisheries, quantity of gear operated, number of fishing craft employed in the capture of fishery products, in- formation on the volume and value of the production of processed fishery products, data on freez- ings and cold storage holdings , and on foreign trade in fishery commodities Data on employment of fishermen, fishing craft and gear in the fisheries, and on the land- ings of fish, shellfish, and other aquatic plants and animals, are shown for States having commer- cial fisheries. There is also information on the pack of canned tuna and industrial products for Puerto Rico and American Samoa included in the processed products tables. In Section 11, Puerto Rico landings data are also shown. In all of the landings tables in this report, except the one on page 42 entitled, "U.S. Land- ings, 1970-Live Weight Basis," the volume of fish, crustaceans, and such moUusks as squid is shown in round (live) weight. However, the weights shown for univalve and bivalve mollusks (cohchs, clams, oysters, scallops, etc.) represent the weights of meats, excluding the shell. The weight of shells omitted from the catch in 1970 amounted to about 1.2 billion pounds . It should be noted, however, that the data in the table on page 43 "World Landings of Fish, Crustaceans, Mollusks, etc. , by Countries" are shown on a live weight basis. All appropriate records collected by the various State fishery agencies were used in assem- bling data on the fisheries. In certain areas, information complete enough to be used by the sta- tistical agents was available from State agencies, and in these States, only partial surveys were conducted. Information on the means of collecting the data and an explanation of terms used may be found in Section 13 of this publication. Complete statistical surveys covering the fisheries of the United States were conducted in all areas for 1970. The first complete survey of the fisheries of the United States was made by the Bureau of the Census for 1908. Others were made by the Bureau of Fisheries and the Fish and Wild- life Service for the years 1931, 1950, 1954-60, and 1962-69. FISHERY STATISTICS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1970 Statistics and Market News Division CONTENTS Page SECTION 1. - GENERAL REVIEW 4 U.S. summaries H U.S. landings off foreign coasts 33 U.S. landings for human and industrial use 34 Relative volume of the landings, by species 39 Relative value of the landings, by species 40 Seed oyster fishery 41 U.S. landings, live weight basis 42 World landings of fish, crustaceans, mollusks, etc., by countries 43 Processed fishery products 44 Canned fishery products 57 Industrial fishery products 69 Packaged fishery products 74 Fish sticks and portions 77 Frozen fishery trade 78 Foreign fishery trade 87 SECTION 2. - NEW ENGLAND FISHERIES 94 Sectional summaries ,. 99 Maine HO New Hampshire 113 Massachusetts 115 Rhode Island 121 Connecticut 125 SECTION 3. - MIDDLE ATLANTIC FISHERIES 128 Sectional summaries 132 New York 140 New Jersey 144 Delaware 148 Supplementary survey - Hudson River shad fishery 150 SECTION 4. - CHESAPEAKE FISHERIES 151 Sectional summaries 155 Maryland 161 Virginia 165 Landings by waters 171 Supplementary survey - Potomac River shad and alewife fishery 174 SECTION 5. - SOUTH ATLANTIC FISHERIES 175 Sectional summaries 179 North Carolina 188 South Carolina 193 Georgia 195 Florida, east coast 197 Supplementary surveys: Florida, operating units by districts 202 Florida, landings by districts 203 South Atlantic shrimp fishery 205 SECTION 6. - GULF FISHERIES 207 Sectional summaries 211 Florida, west coast 221 Alabama 226 Mississippi 228 Louisiana 231 Texas 235 Supplementary survey - Gulf shrimp fishery 237 CONTENTS - Continued Page SECTION 7. - PACIFIC COAST FISHERIES 244 Sectional summaries 251 Alaska 263 Washington 270 Oregon 280 California 285 Supplementary surveys: Landings of halibut fleet at Seattle, Washington 300 Whaling 301 Fur seal industry of the Pribilof Islands 302 SECTION 8. - GREAT LAKES FISHERIES 304 United States and Canadian landings 306 Sectional summaries 309 Operating units and fishing effort, by gear 322 Landings of catch by lake. State, and gear 328 SECTION 9. - MISSISSIPPI RIVER FISHERIES 337 Sectional summaries 338 Operating units and landings by States and waters 351 Supplementary survey - Great Lakes and Mississippi River landings by State and species 378 SECTION 10. - HAWAII FISHERIES 380 Sectional summaries 382 Operating units by island and gear 385 Landings by islands 387 Landings by gear 390 SECTION 11. - PUERTO RICO FISHERIES 395 SECTION 12. - REVIEW OF CERTAIN MAJOR FISHERIES 397 U.S. cod fishery 398 Atlantic coast haddock fishery 400 Pacific coast halibut fishery 401 Atlantic ocean perch fishery 402 Pacific coast salmon fishery , 403 Atlantic coast tuna fishery 413 Pacific tuna fishery 414 Landings of tuna by U.S. flag vessels, by ocean of capture and species, 1960-70 . 417 U.S. menhaden fishery 418 U.S. clam fishery 422 U.S. crab fishery 426 U.S. oyster fishery 434 U.S. shrimp fishery 440 U.S. fish otter trawl fleet 445 SECTION 13. - STATISTICAL SURVEY PROCEDURE 450 Local and special surveys 455 Practices and terms 457 Conversion factors 458 SECTION 14. - GLOSSARY 462 SECTION 15. - PICTORIAL SECTION 469 SECTION 16. - STATISTICAL PUBLICATIONS 487 SECTION 1 - GENERAL REVIEW The commercial fisheries of the United States yielded a harvest of 4.9 billion pounds worth a record $613.1 million —an increase of 580.4 million pounds (13 percent) and $86.6 million (16 percent) compared with 1969. Landings were the best since 1962, the record year. There were record landings of Gulf menhaden, shrimp, yellowfin tuna. Pacific anchovies, surf clams, Dun- geness and snow crabs, American (northern) and spiny lobsters; and near-record landings of alba- core tuna. Landings of Atlantic menhaden, salmon, spot, and blue crabs also increased signifi- cantly compared with 1969. Declines occurred, however in landings of alewives , haddock, sea herring, jack mackerel, mullet, and sea scallops. Fishermen took 898. 3 million pounds of shellfish worth$286.1 million, anaverage of near- ly 32 cents per pound — slightly less than in 1969 . Shellfish accounted for 47 percent of the value, but only 18 percent of the volume of U.S. landings. The value of shellfish exceeded the value of finfish in the New England, Middle Atlantic, Chesapeake, South Atlantic, and Gulf States. Disposition of landings . In 1970, as in the previous year, landings for human food (2.5 billion pounds) exceeded the quantity taken for industrial products (2.4 billion pounds). NMFS statisti- cians estimate that the 1970 landings were used as follows: 2,537 million pounds (round weight) for human food--of which 1,479 million were used fresh and frozen, 987 million were canned, and 71 million were cured; and 2,380 million pounds for industrial purposes —of which 115 million were used fresh or frozen, 163 million were canned, and 2,101 million were reduced into meal, oil, and solubles. In addition to the latter items, the quantity processed into industrial products includes fish used for bait, fed to fur-bearing animals and pets, and manufactured into such items as shell buttons, and pearl essence and novelties. Per capita consumption . The per capita consumption of commercially caught fish and shellfish in the United States was 11.8 pounds (edible weight) --compared with 11.2 in 1969. Per capita consumption of commercially caught fish and shellfish, 1961-70 (Edible weight) Year Pounds Year Pounds 1961 10.7 1966 10.9 1962 10.6 1967 10.6 1963 10.7 1968 11.0 1964 10.5 1969 11.2 1965 10.9 1970 11.8 Note:--Data have been revised for 1963, 1966, 1967, and 1969. — Principal States . Louisiana again led the Nation in volume of landings with 1. 1 billion pounds 23 percent of the U.S. landings. California was next with702.7 million pounds, followed by Vir- ginia, 550.6 million; Alaska, 545.3 million; Mississippi, 301.0 million; and Massachusetts, 286.9 million pounds. These six States had 71 percent of the U.S. landings. Alaska led all States in exvessel value of landings with $96.1 million--16 percent of the value of the Nation's landings. California was next with $86.4 million, followed by Louisiana, $62.5 million; Texas, $53.6 million; Massachusetts, $47.0 million; and Florida, $43.3 million.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Local Catch Roundtable NOAA Science Center Monday, May 7, 2012
    Local Catch Roundtable NOAA Science Center Monday, May 7, 2012 PARTICIPANTS Thomas Hymel, Marine Extension Agent, Louisiana Sea Grant Kim Chauvin, Owner, Mariah Jade Seafood Company Amber Von Harten, Marine Fisheries Specialist, South Carolina Sea Grant Madeleine Hall­Arber, Marine Anthropologist, MIT Sea Grant Peter Philips, President of Philips Publishing Group Pete Granger, Program Leader‐Marine Advisory Services, Washington Sea Grant Jack Thigpen, Extension Director, North Carolina Sea Grant Sara Mirabilio, Fisheries Specialist, North Carolina Sea Grant Karen Willis Amspacher, Director, Core Sound Waterfowl Museum and Heritage Center Fen Hunt, USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture Josh Stoll, NOAA Fisheries Office of Policy Katie Semon, NOAA Fisheries Office of Communications Galen Tromble, Chief of Domestic Fisheries, NOAA Fisheries Office of Sustainable Fisheries Leon Cammen, Director, National Sea Grant College Program Gene Kim, Program Director for Aquaculture at the National Sea Grant Office Ayeisha Brinson, Economist, NOAA Fisheries Office of Science and Technology, Economics and Social Analysis Division Additional attendees: Wendy Morrison, NOAA Fisheries, Office of Sustainable Fisheries Chris Hayes, NOAA National Sea Grant Office Mike Liffmann, NOAA National Sea Grant Office Amy Painter, NOAA National Sea Grant Office Emily Susko, NOAA National Sea Grant Office Wan Jean Lee, NOAA National Sea Grant Office Amy Scaroni, NOAA National Sea Grant Office OPENING REMARKS Leon Cammen, Director of the National Sea Grant College Program Leon welcomed the round table participants, expressing appreciation for the work that they do to maintain economic well‐being and a traditional way of life in coastal communities. Sea Grant programs around the country are working to help fishermen generate revenue, and to survive in what is now a global seafood market.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effectiveness of Fishery Cooperative Institutions Pjaee, 17 (4) (2020)
    THE EFFECTIVENESS OF FISHERY COOPERATIVE INSTITUTIONS PJAEE, 17 (4) (2020) THE EFFECTIVENESS OF FISHERY COOPERATIVE INSTITUTIONS Lis M. Yapanto¹, Dahniar Th. Musa², Funco Tanipu³, Arfiani Rizki Paramata⁴, Munirah Tuli⁵ 1,4,5Faculty of Fisheries and Marine, State University of Gorontalo. Indonesia 2Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Tanjungpura University Pontianak, Indonesia 3Department of Sociology, Faculty of Social Sciences, State University of Gorontalo. Indonesia Correspondence author: [email protected] Lis M. Yapanto, Dahniar Th. Musa, Funco Tanipu, Arfiani Rizki Paramata, Munirah Tuli. The Effectiveness Of Fishery Cooperative Institutions-- Palarch’s Journal Of Archaeology Of Egypt/Egyptology 17(4), 1329-1338. ISSN 1567-214x Keywords: Cooperatives, Fisheries, Institutions, Welfare, Economic Actors ABSTRACT This research was conducted based on a literature study of several articles and books, carried out from July 2020 to September 2020. The writing of this article was done by collecting information from various sources, analyzing and then concluding. The existence of fisheries cooperatives is very helpful in meeting the needs of its members and the surrounding community such as basic assistance, capital, credit, or borrowing, sales, fishermen's needs in fishing and so on. The existence of cooperatives also provides benefits in other fields, such as education, development of community infrastructure, health and various community activities, especially fishermen. INTRODUCTION Many problems faced, the fisheries sector. such as physical damage to coastal and aquatic ecosystem habitats, decreasing water quality, overfishing, low handling and processing of fishery products, unstable prices for production factors, increasingly fierce market competition, poverty and capital problems. In addition, the low quality of human resources and mastery of technology also adds to the problem of fisheries development.
    [Show full text]
  • An Evaluation of the Business Peliormance of Fishery Cooperative
    An Evaluation of the Business JANUARY 2007 225 providing genuine support to fishers. The present study is conducted in ... Peliormance of Fishery Vasai taluka of Thane district, Maharashtra to evaluate the performance and their role in fishery cooperatives in terms of their business activities. Ratio analysis technique was used to evaluate the business performance Cooperative Societies .in Vasai or primary fishery cooperatives of Vasai taluka. Result $howed ~hat gross profi ratio and operating ratio of majority of societies are unsatTstactory Taluka of Thane District) whereas net profi ra:~lo and efficiency ratio are satisfactory In most of the cases. Maharashtra Introduction Fishermen community in India is amongst the weakest sections of the community. Illiteracy, poverty, and lack of knowledge of latest technologies are major contributing factors to their retarding socio-economic growth. This vicious circiL is further strengthened by lack of institutional & SMITHA R. NAIR, S.K. PANDEY" ARPITA SHARMA support both in infrastructure and finance. Consequently, middlemen who SHYAM S. SALlM* act as money iendersftraders subject fishermen tp explo;ta;tion. Fishermen discovered thatt.he cooperattlves could save them from the exploitation and Imp rov~ thei r sQcio··economic cQnditlons. The fishery cooperatives have made impressive progress particularly after introduction of Five Year Plans. There had been remendous growth In establishment of different levels of cooperative societies, in India. The most common structure of fishery coopergtives in different states of India is three tier, starting from primary cooperatives at village level, central federations of district/regional level, apex federation at state level and FISHCOPFED at national level (Mishra, 1997).
    [Show full text]
  • Supporting Statement Alaska Cooperatives in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Omb Control No.: 0648-0401
    SUPPORTING STATEMENT ALASKA COOPERATIVES IN THE BERING SEA AND ALEUTIAN ISLANDS OMB CONTROL NO.: 0648-0401 INTRODUCTION National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) manages the groundfish fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI). The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. (Magnuson-Stevens Act) as amended by Public Law 109-479. Regulations implementing the FMP appear at 50 CFR part 679. On October 21, 1998, the President signed into law the American Fisheries Act, 16 U.S.C. 1851 (AFA) which imposed major structural changes on the BSAI pollock fishery. Amendment 84 proposes a management program, called the salmon bycatch reduction inter- cooperative agreement (ICA), which would enable the pollock fleet to utilize its internal cooperative structure to reduce salmon bycatch. If Amendment 84 is approved and implemented, salmon savings area closures would not apply to vessels that operate under a salmon bycatch reduction ICA. BACKGROUND Pacific salmon are caught incidentally in the BSAI trawl fisheries, especially in the pollock fishery. Of the five species of Pacific salmon, Chinook salmon (Onchorynchus tshawytscha) and chum salmon (O. keta) are most often incidentally caught in the pollock fishery. Pacific salmon are placed into two categories for purposes of salmon bycatch management: Chinook and non- Chinook. The non-Chinook category is comprised of chum, sockeye (O. nerka), pink (O.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Based Fishery Management in Hyogo Prefecture
    IIFET 2004 Japan Proceedings COMMUNITY BASED FISHERY MANAGEMENT IN HYOGO PREFECTURE, SETO INLAND SEA1 Ruangrai Tokrisna, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand, [email protected] ABSTRACT Seto Inland Sea plays a significant role in Japanese coastal fisheries. The successful development coastal community based fishery management contributes in sustainable fisheries. Hyogo Prefecture has a long history of coastal fisheries and has been selected as the study site. Community based fishery management in Japan reduces monitoring and enforcement cost. Fishermen comply rules and regulations settled by them, bottom up not top down. Participation from fishermen in adopting fishery management plan is the key factor. There can be transaction costs involve in adopting the Fisheries Coordination Scheme. Nevertheless this can be paid off by the long run benefit from the greater resource abundance and the optimum utilization of the available fishery resources. Fishermen can equally participate in community fishery management through being members of corresponding fishery cooperatives. They have the common goal of optimum utilization fishery resources. The fishing right granted to fishery cooperative is fairly distributed among the members, transparently. System of election at each step supports this factor of equity. Coastal fisheries in Seto Inland Sea - Hyogo Prefecture is sustainable. Fishermen collaborate in maintaining the ecological system (example is the management in Sika-no-Se Area) and sustainable fishery development. This is mainly due to the granted fishing right, equity in right sharing system, and effective coordination among stakeholders. Keywords: community based fishery management; coastal fisheries; Seto Inland Sea INTRODUCTION Community based fishery management has been recommended as an effective management scheme for tropical fisheries which are often multi-species and multi-gear.
    [Show full text]
  • Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology (SBRM)
    DRAFT _ Northeast Region Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology An Omnibus Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans of the Mid-Atlantic and New England Regional Fishery Management Councils April 2013 This page intentionally left blank. SBRM Amendment Amendment 4 to the Atlantic Bluefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP); Amendment 2 to the Atlantic Herring FMP; Amendment 2 to the Atlantic Salmon FMP; Amendment 12 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP; Amendment 1 to the Deep-Sea Red Crab FMP; Amendment 17 to the Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish FMP; Amendment 3 to the Monkfish FMP; Amendment 15 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP; Amendment 1 to the Northeast Skate Complex FMP; Amendment 4 to the Spiny Dogfish FMP; Amendment 17 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP; Amendment 16 to the Surfclam and Ocean Quahog FMP; and Amendment 3 to the Tilefish FMP Including a Draft Environmental Assessment, a Regulatory Flexibility Act Assessment, and a Regulatory Impact Review April 2013 Prepared by the New England Fishery Management Council Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 50 Water Street, Mill 2 Suite 201, 800 N. State St Newburyport, MA 01950 Dover, DE 1990100 National Marine Fisheries Service National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Regional Office Northeast Fisheries Science Center 55 Great Republic Drive 166 Water Street Gloucester, MA 01930 Woods Hole, MA 02543 Draft EA Prepared: Draft EA Adopted by MAFMC: Draft EA Adopted by NEFMC: Final EA Submitted to NMFS: i Public Hearing DRAFT SBRM Amendment This page intentionally left blank. ii April 2013 Public Hearing DRAFT SBRM Amendment Executive Summary This is a public draft of the omnibus amendment to the fishery management plans (FMPs) of the Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Value Chain and Its Impact on Rural Households' Income
    sustainability Article Fish Value Chain and Its Impact on Rural Households’ Income: Lessons Learned from Northern Ethiopia Abebe Ejigu Alemu 1 and Hossein Azadi 2,3,4,* 1 College of Business and Economics, Department of Management, Mekelle University, P.O.Box 231 Mekelle, Ethiopia; [email protected] 2 Department of Geography, Ghent University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium 3 Department of Engineering Management, University of Antwerp, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium 4 Research Group Climate Change and Security, Institute of Geography, University of Hamburg, 21073 Hamburg, Germany * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +32-09-264-4695; Fax: +32-09-264-4985 Received: 12 August 2018; Accepted: 10 October 2018; Published: 18 October 2018 Abstract: These days, one of the global challenges is the growing demand for food. To be more specific, seafood bases play a key role in filling the nutritional requirements of human beings. In Africa (Ethiopia) the public expenses to improve productive capacity in aquatic food are increasing. Additionally, the expenses in dams and in fishers’ capacity building have increased households’ engagement in the fishery sector in Ethiopia. Cooperatives’ productive capacity has been strengthened by the government and other non-government organizations with the supply of fishing boats, refrigerators, fish nets and other office supplies. However, the effect of such public expenses in bringing changes in the households’ livelihood and welfare has never been assessed in this study area. This paper aims to investigate what motivates the households to fish and assess the effect of fisheries on the households’ livelihood and welfare. A structured survey consisting of 313 rural households was administered using trained enumerators in two kebeles located close to the Tekeze dam, Northern Ethiopia.
    [Show full text]
  • Circular 155. Organizing and Operating Fishery Cooperatives In
    ORGANIZING AND OPERATING FISHERY COOPERATIVES IN THE UNITED STATES , --- FISHERY COOPERATIVE -- --- - - -=-=;;- UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF' THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES WASHINGTON 25, D. C. CIRCULAR 155 f OL vS Foc uS focUS rO(0~ FoGS UNITED STATES DEPARTM ENT OF THE L TERI R, St wart L. 'd 11 FISH A:-':D WILDLIFE ERYICE, larenc F. Pautz l'. om TTl , ;on., BlRE.\l' OF Co;\-nfERCr\L Fr HERr E,>, Donald L. \lcKernan, D".<1o, ORGANIZING AND OPERATING FISHERY COOPERATIVES by Leslie D. McMullin CIRCULAR 155 Washmgton, D.C. June 1 Q63 FOREWORD The main purpose of this publication, Organizing and Operating FIshery Cooperatives, is to present the basic information needed to organize a fishery cooperative and begin operations. The new publIcation will appear as Circular 155 and will continue the general plan and aim of the earlier pUblications entitled Organizing and Incorporating Fishery Cooperative Marketing Associations. The new Circular updates the basic information from two earlier publications on fishery cooperatives. The original material was rewritten for clarity and brevity. In addition, several new features have been included plus two new sections on important legal and tax matters. The first publication on this subject, written by Leonard C. Salter, appeared in 1936. It was issued as U. S. Bureau of Fisheries, Fishery Circular No. 22. A revision of Fishery Circular No. 22 was prepared in 1948 by the late Richard A. Kahn, formerly Chief of the Branch of Economics, Division of Industrial Research, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Harriet A. Denton, Editorial Clerk, Branch of Economics, edited the material for thi s publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Practical Aquaculture Literature : a Bibliography
    Historic, Archive Document Do not assume content reflects current scientific knowledge, policies, or practices. 0,-2 ^/KS partment of PrdClICd I Aquaculture Bih'innr,Tohies and L of Literature Number 35 A Bibliography Practical Aquaculture Literature A Bibliography Compiled by Bille Hougart, USDA Aquaculture Coordinator James E. Miller, Extension Service, NR&RD Unit Wallace C. Olsen, Formerly with the National Agricultural Library In Cooperation With Fish & Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior National Sea Grant College Program) U.S. Department of Commerce Bibliographies and Literature of Agriculture Number 35 United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Library Beltsville, Maryland 20705 August 1985 Table of Contents Preface Page Publications With Practical Applications 5 Aquaculture Planning and Economics 5 Bait 8 Brine Shrinnp and Daphnia 9 Catfish 9 — Budgeting and Finance 12 —Processing and Marl<eting 13 Clams and Oysters 14 Crawfish 14 Diseases, Parasites and Predators 15 Eels and Frogs 18 Handling, Processing and Transportation 19 Ponds 20 —Construction and Maintenance 20 —Water Quality and Management 22 —Aquatic Vegetation Control 24 Salmon 24 Shrimp and Prawns 25 Sportfish 26 Trout 27 "How-To" Periodicals and Newsletters 29 Related Bibliographies 32 Cooperative Extension and Marine Advisory Contacts 34 Fish and Wildlife, USDI Extension Coordinators and Cooperators 41 Preface The purpose of this bibliography is to provide a source of information for those interested In the application of available knowledge to aquaculture, or fish farnning, and fisheries nnanagennent. The intended audiences include aquaculturists, fish farnners, extension educators, and other involved in tech- nology transfer, technical and financial assistance personnel, and private groups anticipating aquaculture enterprises.
    [Show full text]
  • Fisheries in Japan
    DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT B: STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES FISHERIES FISHERIES IN JAPAN NOTE This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Fisheries. AUTHOR Irina POPESCU, Toshihiko OGUSHI Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies European Parliament E-mail: [email protected] EDITORIAL ASSISTANCE Virginija KELMELYTE LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN ABOUT THE EDITOR To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe to its monthly newsletter please write to: [email protected] Manuscript completed in December 2013. © European Union, 2013. This document is available on the Internet at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies DISCLAIMER The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorized, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy. DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT B: STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES FISHERIES FISHERIES IN JAPAN NOTE Abstract Japan is one of the world's most important consumers of fishery products. Fisheries traditionally play a considerable role in its food supply and form a key element of the regional economies in coastal areas. Japan has developed its own set of values and habits in terms of fisheries practices, along with an elaborate fisheries management system. This note provides an overview of fisheries activities in Japan and reviews some specific aspects of this highly complex sector. IP/B/PECH/NT/2013-04 December 2013 PE 529.044 EN Fisheries in Japan CONTENTS CONTENTS 3 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 5 LIST OF TABLES 7 LIST OF FIGURES 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 11 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Cooperation Among Fishermen in Norway and Methods 6Y Which the Government Has Assisted the Organizations
    FISKERIDIREKTORATETS SKRIFTER Serie: Fiskeri Vol. IV. No. 2 Published by the Director of Fisheries COOPERATION AMBNG FISHERMEN IN NORWAY ARNENORDSET Business Organization and Management of Fishery Cooperatives in JVOrway ASLAKAASBØ A General Surug of the Development of Cooperation among Fishermen in Norway and Methods 6y which the Government has assisted the Organizations 1959 A/S JOHN GRIEGS BOKTRYKKERI, BERGEN FOREWORD Il, is felt convenient to present a publication in English dealing with cooperation in the fishingindustry of Norway as a hand-out to foreigners and others who are interested in performing studies in this field. The two documents in this publication Constituted the basis for special worlring papers which were submitted to the Technical Meeting on Fishery Cooperatives arranged by FAO and ILO at Naples 12-21 May 1959. Bergen, March 1959. Director of Fisheries. Business Organization and Management of Fishery Cooperatives in Norway ARNENORDSET Consultant Directorate of Fisheries, Norway CONTENTS Page 1. Introduction ......................................................... 9 2 . General C/~aracteristicsof Fishery Industries in Norway ........................ 10 2.1 Fishermen. Boats and Gear ....................................... 11 2.2 Processing and Marketing ........................................ 11 2.3 Organized Trade ............................................... 11 2.4 Price Formation ................................................. 12 2.5 Equalization Funds ............................................. 13 2.6 State
    [Show full text]
  • Fisheries Self-Governance: New Directions in Fisheries Management
    1 Fisheries self-governance: new directions in fisheries management R. Townsend Ministry of Fisheries PO Box 1020 Wellington 6140, New Zealand [email protected] R. Shotton1 Fisheries and Aquaculture Department Food and Agriculture Organization Rome, Italy 1. INTRODUCTION This volume brings together 32 case studies of industry self-governance of their fisheries. These cases occur within the context of very different national governance structures for fisheries, types of fisheries and geographical areas. That self-governance has appeared widely across the world suggests some powerful common underlying forces. We hope that presenting these experiences in a single volume will increase the visibility of this important (and perhaps under-appreciated) institutional option for fisheries management and assist in identifying what these forces are. The widespread emergence of self-governance raises interesting and important questions. Most of the self-governance cases in this volume are of relatively recent development. Have there been policy or institutional changes that have enabled or empowered industry self-governance on this global basis? Although this volume describes some remarkable successes of self-governance, self-governance has emerged in relatively few of the world’s fisheries. Are there factors that are limiting the development of fisheries self-governance? If governments wish to promote self- governance, what steps might they take? We hope that this volume will prompt fisheries managers and researchers to explore why governance of the fisheries described here has been so successful and what are the institutional characteristics that have enabled it to happen. 2. DEFINING SELF-GOVERNANCE The institutions that we call “self-governance” here are often subsumed within the broader category of “co-management”.
    [Show full text]