DOCSLIB.ORG

DRAFT North Carolina Shrimp Fishery Management Plan Amendment 2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DRAFT North Carolina Shrimp Fishery Management Plan Amendment 2 DRAFT –DRAFT SUBJECT TO CHANGE North Carolina Shrimp Fishery Management Plan Amendment 2 By North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries 3441 Arendelli Street P. O. Box 769 Morehead City, NC 28557 DRAFT – SUBJECT TO CHANGE This document may be cited as: NCDMF (North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries). 2021. North Carolina Shrimp Fishery Management Plan, Draft Amendment 2. North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City, North Carolina. 316 p. Disclaimer: Data in this Fishery Management Plan may have changed since publication based on updates to source documents. i DRAFT – SUBJECT TO CHANGE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Amendment 2 to the North Carolina (NC) Shrimp Fishery Management Plan (FMP) was developed by the NC Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF) under the auspices of the NC Marine Fisheries Commission (NCMFC) with the advice of the Shrimp Advisory Committee (AC). Deserving special recognition are the members of the Shrimp AC and the NCDMF Plan Development Team (PDT) who contributed their time and knowledge to this effort. Shrimp Advisory Committee John Costner Ward Ellis Frederick Harris Donald Ipock Dr. Wilson Laney Bruce MacLachlan Gary Nowell Clyde Phillips Shrimp Plan Development Team Alan Bianchi Kevin Brown Anne Deaton David Dietz Meghan Gahm Kimberlee Harding Daniel Ipock Cameron Luck Tina Moore (Mentor) Trish Murphey (APNEP) Jason Rock (Co-lead) Ami Staples Chris Stewart (Co-lead) Jason Walker Carter Witten Daniel Zapf (Co-lead) The following division staff were also invaluable in assisting with the development of this document: Kathy Rawls, Catherine Blum, Katy West, Corrin Flora, Thom Teears, and the many reviewers of the multiple drafts of this plan. Also grateful for the administrative support from Deborah Manley, Jennifer Lewis, Dana Gillikin, Mike Griffin, and Patricia Smith. ii DRAFT – SUBJECT TO CHANGE TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................ II TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... III LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ VI INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 7 FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN HISTORY ........................................................................ 7 MANAGEMENT UNIT ............................................................................................................... 7 GOAL AND OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................................... 8 DESCRIPTION OF THE STOCK .............................................................................................. 8 BIOLOGICAL PROFILE ........................................................................................................... 8 STOCK STATUS ........................................................................................................................ 9 DESCRIPTION OF THE FISHERIES .................................................................................... 11 COMMERCIAL FISHERIES ................................................................................................... 11 SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC IMPACT OF COMMERCIAL SHRIMP FISHING ............ 18 RECREATIONAL FISHERY................................................................................................... 20 SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC IMPACT OF RECREATIONAL SHRIMP FISHING ......... 22 BYCATCH ................................................................................................................................ 22 ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION AND IMPACTS .................................................................... 23 FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS ....................................................................................... 24 COASTAL HABITAT PROTECTION PLAN ...................................................................... 24 THREATS AND ALTERATIONS ........................................................................................... 27 RESEARCH NEEDS .................................................................................................................. 28 SHRIMP AMENDMENT 2 MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ................................................. 28 LITERATURE CITED .............................................................................................................. 29 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 38 APPENDIX 1. SHRIMP TRAWL BYCATCH ASSESSMENT ............................................. 38 APPENDIX 2. ISSUE PAPERS ............................................................................................... 57 APPENDIX 2.1. MANAGEMENT OF SHRIMP TRAWLING FOR PROTECTION OF CRITICAL SEA GRASS AND SHELL BOTTOM HABITATS .......................................... 57 APPENDIX 2.2. SHRIMP MANGEMENT IN SPECIAL SECONDARY NURSERY AREAS………….. ................................................................................................................. 96 APPENDIX 2.3. REDUCING SHRIMP TRAWL BYCATCH THROUGH AREA CLOSURES THAT INCREASE CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN CLOSED AREAS ........ 121 APPENDIX 2.4. MANAGING EFFORT AND GEAR IN THE NORTH CAROLINA SHRIMP FISHERY TO REDUCE BYCATCH................................................................... 219 APPENDIX 3. MAPS OF CURRENT AREA CLOSURES ................................................ 298 APPENDIX 4. COMMERCIAL, BAIT, AND RECREATIONAL SHRIMP TRAWL REGULATIONS FOR SOUTH ATLANTIC AND GULF STATES MAY 2021 .............. 310 iii DRAFT – SUBJECT TO CHANGE APPENDIX 5. SUMMARY OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND NCDMF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ISSUE PAPERS IN THE AMENDMENT 2 OF THE SHRIMP FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN ..................................................................... 317 iv DRAFT – SUBJECT TO CHANGE LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Comparison of brown shrimp commercial landings in the months of June and July to the brown shrimp Estuarine Trawl Survey index of relative abundance in May and June (number per station), 1999-2019. .......................................................... 10 Figure 2. Comparison of white shrimp commercial landings in October to the relative abundance (number per station) of white shrimp in the Estuarine Trawl Survey in June, 1999-2019. ................................................................................................... 11 Figure 3. Schematic of otter trawl components. ................................................................... 12 Figure 4. Schematic of skimmer trawler components. ......................................................... 13 Figure 5. Schematic of channel net components. ................................................................. 14 Figure 6. Schematic of shrimp pound (A) and shrimp pot (B) components. ....................... 15 Figure 7. North Carolina annual shrimp commercial landings (pounds) and value ($), 1950- 2019....................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 8. Annual number of commercial trips reported for all three species by area, 1994- 2019. Data from the NCDMF Trip Ticket Program. ............................................ 17 Figure 9. Annual commercial shrimp landings (pounds) by area for all three shrimp species combined in North Carolina, 1994-2019. Data from the NCDMF Trip Ticket Program. ................................................................................................................ 17 Figure 10. Economic impact estimates to the state of North Carolina from commercial shrimp harvest, 2008-2019. Estimates are generated using IMPLAN economic modelling software, data from NOAA’s Fisheries Economics of the U.S. Reports, and NCDMF Trip Ticket data. Income impacts represent the total additional income generated in NC by the commercial shrimp industry (includes wages, benefits, and proprietor income). Value-added impacts represent the total value of the commercial shrimp industry’s economic production to NC. Sales impacts represents the output value of the commercial shrimp industry and is the closest proxy of the industry’s contribution to NC’s annual gross domestic product (value added through the production of goods and services). These various impact estimates are not additive and should be considered independently. Note: expenditure data from NOAA’s “Fisheries Economics of the U.S.” is only available beginning in 2008. ................................................................................. 19 Figure 11. The number of Recreational Commercial Gear License (RCGLs) issued 2001- 2019....................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 12. Annual number of shrimp harvested and trips taken from cast nets and seines for recreational purposes, 2012-2019. ........................................................................ 22 Figure 13. Effects of threats and alterations on water quality and coastal habitats and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Seafood Watch Seafood Report: Crabs Blue Crab
    Seafood Watch Seafood Report: Crabs Volume I Blue Crab Callinectes sapidus Writer/Editor:AliceCascorbi Fisheries Research Analyst Monterey Bay Aquarium Additional Research: Heather Blough Audubon Living Oceans Program Final 14 February 2004 Seafood Watch® Blue Crab Report February 14, 2004 About Seafood Watch® and the Seafood Reports Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch® defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the long- term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch® makes its science-based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be downloaded from the Internet (seafoodwatch.org) or obtained from the Seafood Watch® program by emailing [email protected]. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important ocean conservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans. Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood Report. Each report synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this information against the program’s conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of “Best Choices”, “Good Alternatives” or “Avoid.” The detailed evaluation methodology is available upon request. In producing the Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch® seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewed journals whenever possible. Other sources of information include government technical publications, fishery management plans and supporting documents, and other scientific reviews of ecological sustainability.
    [Show full text]
  • Shrimp: Oceana Reveals Misrepresentation of America's
    Shrimp: Oceana Reveals Misrepresentation of America’s Favorite Seafood October 2014 Authors: Kimberly Warner, Ph.D., Rachel Golden, Beth Lowell, Carlos Disla, Jacqueline Savitz and Michael Hirshfield, Ph.D. Executive Summary With shrimp, it is almost impossible to know what you are getting. Shrimp is the most commonly consumed seafood in the United States and the most highly traded seafood in the world. However, this high demand has led to many environmental and human rights abuses in the fishing, farming and processing of shrimp. Despite the popularity of shrimp, as well as the associated sustainability, human rights and environmental concerns, U.S. consumers are routinely given little information about the shrimp they purchase, making it nearly impossible to find and follow sound sustainability recommendations. Oceana’s previous studies have shown that species substitution, a form of seafood fraud, is common in the U.S. Last year, Oceana found that one-third of the more than 1,200 fish samples it tested nationwide were mislabeled, according to Food and Drug Administration guidelines. We have now turned our attention to shrimp, American’s most popular seafood, to investigate mislabeling as well as the information that consumers are given about the products they purchase. Consumers may wish to choose their shrimp more carefully for many important social and ecological reasons. For instance, consumers may wish to avoid shrimp caught in fisheries that are not responsibly managed, that have high rates of waste or discards, or that are associated with human rights abuses. At the same time, consumers may wish to avoid farmed shrimp due to health and environmental impacts.
    [Show full text]
  • 14862 Federal Register / Vol
    14862 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2001 / Rules and Regulations Authority: Section 1848 of the Social DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE environmental consequences of the gray Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w–4). whale harvest. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance National Oceanic and Atmospheric NOAA completed a draft EA on Program No. 93.774, Medicare— Administration January 12, 2001 and solicited public Supplementary Medical Insurance Program) comments. NMFS is currently preparing Dated: March 8, 2001. 50 CFR Part 230 a final EA. NOAA set the 2000 quota at Brian P. Burns, [Docket No. 001120325-1053-02, I.D. zero (65 FR 75186) and is now setting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Information 122800B] the 2001 quota at zero pending Resources Management. completion of the NEPA analysis. RIN 0648-AO77 [FR Doc. 01–6310 Filed 3–13–01; 8:45 am] Dated: March 5, 2001. BILLING CODE 4120–01–P Whaling Provisions: Aboriginal William T. Hogarth, Subsistence Whaling Quotas Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries [FR Doc. 01–6350 Filed 3–13–01; 8:45 am] FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and BILLING CODE 3510–22–S COMMISSION Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. 47 CFR Part 73 ACTION: Aboriginal subsistence whaling DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE quota. [DA 01–333; MM Docket No. 98–112, RM– National Oceanic and Atmospheric 9027, RM–9268, RM–9384] SUMMARY: NMFS announces the 2001 Administration aboriginal subsistence whaling quota for Radio Broadcasting Services; gray whales. For 2001, the quota is zero 50 CFR Part 622 Anniston and Ashland, AL, and gray whales landed, but may be revised College Park, GA later in the year.
    [Show full text]
  • Pandalus Jordani Range: Pink Shrimp Are Known to Inhabit Southeast
    Fishery-at-a-Glance: Pink (Ocean) Shrimp Scientific Name: Pandalus jordani Range: Pink Shrimp are known to inhabit Southeast Alaska to San Diego, California, and most abundant off the coast of Oregon. Habitat: Pink Shrimp dwell in deep waters,150 to 1,200 feet (45.7 to 365.8 meters), aggregating near the bottom during the day in well-defined areas of muddy habitat called beds and ascending into the water column at night to feed. Size (length and weight): Pink Shrimp are fast-growing. Individual growth rates vary by sex, location, year class, season, and age. Mean carapace length for 1-, 2-, and 3-year- old shrimp ranges from 0.5 to 0.7 inches (13 to 17 millimeters), 0.7 to 1.0 inches (18 to 25 millimeters), and 1.0 to 1.1 inches (25 to 29 millimeters), respectively. Life span: Pink Shrimp are short-lived at approximately 5 years. In California, few shrimp survive beyond the fourth year. Reproduction: Pink Shrimp are protandric hermaphrodites, changing sex from males to females after approximately the first year and a half. Mating occurs during September to October. Prey: Pink Shrimp feed on zooplankton, including copepods and krill. Stomach contents have also included diatoms, sponges, polychaetes, amphipods, and isopods. Predators: Many commercially important fish species, including Pacific Hake (Merluccius productus), Arrowtooth Flounder (Atheresthes stomia), Sablefish (Anoploploma fimbria), Petrale Sole (Eopsetta jordani), Spiny Dogfish (Squalus acanthias), and several species of rockfish and skates prey on Pink Shrimp. Fishery: There is only a commercial fishery for Pink Shrimp. Point Conception divides the northern and southern management regions.
    [Show full text]
  • Forage Fish Management Plan
    Oregon Forage Fish Management Plan November 19, 2016 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Marine Resources Program 2040 SE Marine Science Drive Newport, OR 97365 (541) 867-4741 http://www.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/ Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife 1 Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 6 Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................................................... 6 Federal action to protect Forage Fish (2016)............................................................................................ 7 The Oregon Marine Fisheries Management Plan Framework .................................................................. 7 Relationship to Other State Policies ......................................................................................................... 7 Public Process Developing this Plan .......................................................................................................... 8 How this Document is Organized .............................................................................................................. 8 A. Resource Analysis ....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Decline of Atlantic Cod – a Case Study
    The Decline of Atlantic Cod – A Case Study Author contact information Wynn W. Cudmore, Ph.D., Principal Investigator Northwest Center for Sustainable Resources Chemeketa Community College P.O. Box 14007 Salem, OR 97309 E-mail: [email protected] Phone: 503-399-6514 Published 2009 DUE # 0757239 1 NCSR curriculum modules are designed as comprehensive instructions for students and supporting materials for faculty. The student instructions are designed to facilitate adaptation in a variety of settings. In addition to the instructional materials for students, the modules contain separate supporting information in the "Notes to Instructors" section, and when appropriate, PowerPoint slides. The modules also contain other sections which contain additional supporting information such as assessment strategies and suggested resources. The PowerPoint slides associated with this module are the property of the Northwest Center for Sustainable Resources (NCSR). Those containing text may be reproduced and used for any educational purpose. Slides with images may be reproduced and used without prior approval of NCSR only for educational purposes associated with this module. Prior approval must be obtained from NCSR for any other use of these images. Permission requests should be made to [email protected]. Acknowledgements We thank Bill Hastie of Northwest Aquatic and Marine Educators (NAME), and Richard O’Hara of Chemeketa Community College for their thoughtful reviews. Their comments and suggestions greatly improved the quality of this module. We thank NCSR administrative assistant, Liz Traver, for the review, graphic design and layout of this module. 2 Table of Contents NCSR Marine Fisheries Series ....................................................................................................... 4 The Decline of Atlantic Cod – A Case Study ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to Oregon Fisheries
    A Guide to Oregon Fisheries A short guide to some of the commonly caught commercial seafood species in Oregon. by Jamie Doyle and Amanda J. Gladics Last updated 5/13/2020 with 2019 landings data from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitat & Life History • Ocean fish that swim in large schools • Migrate across the ocean • Top predators • Warm blooded • Broadcast spawners Albacore Tuna • Live 11 to 12 years Gear & Fishing • Trolling (pulling hooks and lines Management through the water) Inter-American Tropical • Jigs Tuna Commission • Individually landed and bled Season Pounds & Value 2019 ~July-Sept depending on when • Oregon: 6,566,851lbs the tuna arrive off Oregon worth $10,846,389 Fun Facts • Swim in schools up to 19 miles wide • Caught young, so have low levels of mercury Habitat & Life History • A “flat fish” that lives near on the bottom of the ocean • Oregon is the edge of their range, most are in British Columbia and Alaska Pacific Halibut Gear & Fishing • Long-lines Season Management June-July (very short- 1 or 2, • International Pacific Halibut 1-day openers) Commission • 32-in minmum size to protect Fun Facts juvenile halibut • The left eye switches to the right side while the fish grows! Only 1 in 20,000 Pounds & Value 2019 are lefties • Oregon: 252,096lbs worth $ 1,249,953 Habitat & Life History • After a planktonic larval stage, crab settle to the bottom • They are scavengers • They molt to grow larger, and can molt up to 6 times a year when young • Live up to 10 years, harvested at 4 years Dungeness Crab Gear &Fishing • Crab pots Management Season • 3 S’s: • Dec 1 – Aug 14, bulk of the • Size – Their carapace must be over 6.25” landings are Dec-Feb • Sex – Only males can be kept, allowing females to carry eggs and reproduce Fun Facts • Season – December through August, • A female crab can carry up to 2.5 with most caught in the first 8 weeks million eggs! • Limited entry (set number of permits) • Oregon has a “State Crustacean” It’s and pot limits up to 500 pots the Dungeness Crab.
    [Show full text]
  • Generic Amendment for Addressing Essential Fish Habitat Requirements in the Following Fishery Management Plans of the Gulf of Mexico
    Generic Amendment for Addressing Essential Fish Habitat Requirements in the following Fishery Management Plans of the Gulf of Mexico: < Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, United States Waters < Red Drum Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico < Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico < Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources (Mackerels) in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic < Stone Crab Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico < Spiny Lobster in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic < Coral and Coral Reefs of the Gulf of Mexico (Includes Environmental Assessment) Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council 3018 U.S. Highway 301 North, Suite 1000 Tampa, Florida 33619-2266 813-228-2815 October 1998 This is a publication of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Award No. NA87FC0003. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TITLE ................................................................................................................... 1 ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................... 10 CONVERSION CHART ....................................................................................... 12 GLOSSARY .......................................................................................................... 13 1.0 PREFACE ..................................................................................................... 20 1.1 List of Preparers ........................................................................... 20 1.2 List of Persons and Agencies
    [Show full text]
  • September 2, 2002 Volume 26, No. 9 SHRIMP OPTIONS the Shrimp
    COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE Mecairie,Louisiana70003 (504)838-I170 Fax:(504)838. I 175 Website: www.a_ccr.lsu.edu Agricultureandi_oresrry Community Leadership i_ 0 6640 REcoivenrsoimdeicDriDvee,velopmSuitee20nt0 Family and Consumer Sciences ___I EXTENSION PRO RAMS 4-H Youth Development LOUISIANA N_=uralResources b _j_/_j___ _ Environmental Sciences L__._ September 2, 2002 Volume 26, No. 9 SHRIMP OPTIONS The shrimp industry of the Gulf and South Atlantic states is easily the region's most valuable commercial fishery, but it is financially stressed. While some years are better than others, the long-term trend in prices has been downward. Texas A & M Uni- versity Extension Service economists and biologists have studied the current conditions facing the shrimp industry and reviewed suggestions on how the industry can compete in the market with shrimp imports. The scientists focused their study on the Texas offshore shrimp industry, as standardized data was available for this fishery for a longer period of time. This fleet catches primarily brown shrimp. Catches and prices were reviewed over a 37 year pe- riod. Biologically, the shrimp stocks are healthy, but since local weather patterns, such as rainfall and temperature, play such a large role in the size of each year's crop, yearly harvests could be off of the long-term average by a large percentage. Prices on the other hand were not. The graph on the left shows what has happened to the price per pound received by "_ shrimpers. The figures are ad- ._ justed (to 1982 dollars) to re- move the effects of inflation. ,_.® Looking at the big picture is even more dismal.
    [Show full text]
  • Wasted Catch: Unsolved Problems in U.S. Fisheries
    © Brian Skerry WASTED CATCH: UNSOLVED PROBLEMS IN U.S. FISHERIES Authors: Amanda Keledjian, Gib Brogan, Beth Lowell, Jon Warrenchuk, Ben Enticknap, Geoff Shester, Michael Hirshfield and Dominique Cano-Stocco CORRECTION: This report referenced a bycatch rate of 40% as determined by Davies et al. 2009, however that calculation used a broader definition of bycatch than is standard. According to bycatch as defined in this report and elsewhere, the most recent analyses show a rate of approximately 10% (Zeller et al. 2017; FAO 2018). © Brian Skerry ACCORDING TO SOME ESTIMATES, GLOBAL BYCATCH MAY AMOUNT TO 40 PERCENT OF THE WORLD’S CATCH, TOTALING 63 BILLION POUNDS PER YEAR CORRECTION: This report referenced a bycatch rate of 40% as determined by Davies et al. 2009, however that calculation used a broader definition of bycatch than is standard. According to bycatch as defined in this report and elsewhere, the most recent analyses show a rate of approximately 10% (Zeller et al. 2017; FAO 2018). CONTENTS 05 Executive Summary 06 Quick Facts 06 What Is Bycatch? 08 Bycatch Is An Undocumented Problem 10 Bycatch Occurs Every Day In The U.S. 15 Notable Progress, But No Solution 26 Nine Dirty Fisheries 37 National Policies To Minimize Bycatch 39 Recommendations 39 Conclusion 40 Oceana Reducing Bycatch: A Timeline 42 References ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank Jennifer Hueting and In-House Creative for graphic design and the following individuals for their contributions during the development and review of this report: Eric Bilsky, Dustin Cranor, Mike LeVine, Susan Murray, Jackie Savitz, Amelia Vorpahl, Sara Young and Beckie Zisser.
    [Show full text]
  • Fishery Circular
    » '««fp JAPANESE, SOVIET, AND SOUTH KOREAN FISHERIES OFF ALASKA DEVELOPMENT AND HISTORY THROUGH 1966 t^^ibiff- ^^^ "V^ltlNiT^^^^ DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE MftSS. I WuoUS riU lL, BUREAU OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES Circular 310 '< ' ^l' • V } UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service BUREAU OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES Japanese, Soviet, and South Korean Fisheries off Alaska Development and History Through 1966 By PHILIP E.CHITWOOD UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE CIRCULAR 310 Washington. D.C. January 1969 CONTENTS Page Introduction 1 Japanese fisheries 2 Eastern Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands groundfish trawl fishery 4 Fish meal and oil 4 Freezing operations 6 Gulf of Alaska trawl fishery 7 Eastern Bering Sea king crab fishery 9 Central Bering Sea shrimp fishery II High-seas salmon fishery 12 Chukchi Sea salmon fishery 15 Whaling 15 Longline fishery 18 Soviet fisheries 19 Flounder fishery 21 Herring fishery 22 Pacific ocean perch fishery . 23 Gulf of Alaska 24 Aleutian Islands 25 Bering Sea 26 King crab fishery 26 Shrimp fishery . ., 28 Whaling 29 Halibut and sablefish fishery 31 South Korean fisheries 32 Acknowledgments 32 List of references 33 111 Japanese, Soviet, and South Korean Fisheries off Alaska Development and History Through 1966 By PHILIP E.CHITWOOD Foreign Fisheries Analyst Bureau of Commercial Fisheries Office of Enforcement and Surveillance Juneau, Alaska 99801 ABSTRACT The history of fisheries off Alaska by a nation from across the Pacific Ocean dates back to 1930. In that year Japan dispatched a king crab expedition into the eastern Bering Sea. Japanese exploitation of the eastern Bering Sea fishery resources was expanded in 1933 when a groundfish fishery was initiated.
    [Show full text]
  • 200407 NWMB Ltr to Min DFO Arctic Cod Bycatch Limits Shrimp Fishery
    April 7, 2020 The Honourable Bernadette Jordan Minister of Fisheries, Oceans, and the Canadian Coast Guard 15th Floor, Centennial Towers 200 Kent Street Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0E6 Dear Minister Jordan: Re: Arctic cod bycatch limits in the northern and striped shrimp fishery within and adjacent to the settlement areas NWMB Decision On February 2020, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (the Department) submitted a request for decision and recommendation to the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (NWMB or Board) on Arctic cod bycatch limits within the Nunavut Settlement Area and adjacent to the Nunavut Settlement Area and in the Nunavik Inuit Settlement Area. Arctic cod is a common bycatch species in the northern shrimp fishery. The Department provided two options for the Board’s consideration: (1) a bycatch limit of the greater of 5% by weight of catch of shrimp or 200 kg, averaged over the previous six tows, in all areas and (2) a bycatch limit of the greater of 10% by weight of catch of shrimp or 200 kg, averaged over the previous six tows, in all areas. The first option is the recommendation of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Resource Management division; the second option is a joint response submitted by all industry stakeholders from Shrimp Fishing Area 1 (SFA-1), the Western Assessment Zone (WAZ), and Eastern Assessment Zone (EAZ). The NWMB considered this request during its In-Camera Meeting (IC001-2020) on March 12, 2020, along with a joint industry position, and the Science Advisory Report and made the following resolutions: RESOLVED that, pursuant to section 5.6.48 of the Nunavut Agreement, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board establishes an Arctic cod bycatch limit of the greater of 5% by weight of the catch of shrimp or 200 kg averaged over the previous six tows, for the Northern shrimp fishery, within the Nunavut Settlement Area in the Management Units Nunavut-East and Nunavut-West.
    [Show full text]