DEMERSAL FINFISH FIN& REPORT for the Contract

DEMERSAL FINFISH FIN& REPORT for the contract for Technical Services for Staffing the Marine Science and Fisheries Center

Funded by the Omani-American Joint Commission as Project Number 272-0101.1-1

Prepared by Steven R. Hare Oregon State University/CIFAD*

*cIFm:THE CONSORTIUM FOR ~NTERNAT~ONALFISHERIES AND AQUACULTUREDEVELOPMENT. MEMBERINST~TU~IONS a:UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT PINE BLLJFF, UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII, MICH~GANSTATE UNIVERISTY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, OREGON STATE UNIVERS~~Y. Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary of Activities and Results ...... 1 I1. Introduction and Section Ovewiew ...... 3 A.Mission...... 3 B. Section Objectives ...... 3 C. Duties of the Section Head ...... 4 D . General Description of Demersal Finfish Resources and their Importance ...... 4 1. Demersal Trawl (Commercial) Fishery ...... 4 a)Fishery ...... 4 b) Recent Catch Levels ...... 5 c) ManagemenVDeveIopment Concerns ...... 5 2. Artisanal Demersal Fishery ...... 6 &)Fishery ...... 6 b) Recent Catch Levels ...... 6 c) ManagemenVDevelopment Concerns ...... 7 E. Research Situation at Start of Project ...... 7 1. Summary of previously completed research ...... 7 2. AvaiIable Data Sources ...... 7 3. Limitations of available information and research: situation and abilities at start of project ...... 7 F. Summary of Research Situation at the End of the Project ...... 8 111 . Summary of Activities ...... 9 A. Direction of Research ...... 9 B. Brief Description of Projects ...... 9 C . Brief Description of on the job or other training. with examples of changes in Omani staff capabilities ...... 11 IV . Specific Research Projects ...... 12 A. Training of Data Collectors to Work On Board Commercial Trawlers ...... 12 1. Introduction ...... 12 2. Methods ...... 13 3. Results and Discussion ...... 14 4. Snmmary of Findings ...... 17 5 . Recommendations ...... 18 B. Operation of On Board Data CoIlection Program ...... 19 1. Introduction ...... 19 2. Methods ...... 19 3. Results and Discussion ...... 22 4. Summary of Findings ...... 25 5. Recommendations ...... 25 C. Demersal Finfish Data Processing System ...... 31 1. Introduction ...... 31 2.Methods ...... 31 3. Results and Discussion ...... 33 4. Summary of Findings and Recommendations ...... 33 Demersai Finfish Find Reprt

Table of Contents. conk

D. Analysis of Trawl Data from Commercial Fishery ...... 1. Introduction and Methods ...... 2.Results ...... 3.Discussion ...... 4 . Summary of Findings ...... 5. Recommendations ...... a) Recommendations for Management ...... b) Recommendations for Future Research ...... E. Establishment of Database on Biological Characteristics of Principal Demersal Fishes Taken in Artisanal Fishery ...... 1. Summary of Activities ...... 2. Recommendations ...... a) Recommendations for Management ...... b) Recommendations for Future Research ......

V.0therActivities ...... A. Assistance with FA0 Research Vessel RmtreUiger ...... C . Publications and Reports ...... VI . Summary of Recommendations Resulting from Project Activities ...... A. Recommendations for Management ...... B . Recommendations for Future Research ...... VII . Literature cited in Final Reprt ...... Demersal Finfish Final Report

Table of contents, cont.

WII. AF'PENDICES

Final Examination for On Board Data Collectors

Hare, S.R. 1990a. Sampling Manual for Data Collectors Aboard Demersal Trawlers. Oman Marine Science and Fisheries Center, Special Report No. 1 - 1st Revision. 96 pp. NOTE THAT THIS IS BOUND UNDER SEPARATE COVER

Hare, S.R. 1989b. Preliminary Results from Biological Sampling Aboard Demersal Trawlers Operating off the Coast of Oman: On Board Data Collection Program Cruises 1-5. Oman Marine Science and Fisheries Center, Research Brief 89-1. September 1989. 48 pp.

Hare, S.R. 1989c. Preliminary Results from Biological Sampling Aboard Demersal Trawlers Operating off the Coast of Oman. [In] Papem Presented by MSFC Staff at the International Symposium on, Agriculture and Fisheries. MSFC Special Report 89-2. October, 1989

Hare, S.R. 1989d. Preliminary Results from Biological Sampling Aboard Demersal Trawlers Operating off the Coast of Oman: On Board Data Collection Program Cruises 6-10. Oman Marine Science and Fisheries Center, Research Brief 89-6. December 1989.48 pp.

Hare, S.R. 1990b. Preliminary Results from Biological Sampling Aboard Demersal Trawlers Operating off the Coast of Oman: On Board Data Collection Program Cruises 11-15, Oman Marine Science and Fisheries Center, Research Brief 90-1. December 1989.53 pp.

Trianni, M.S. 1990. A Report on the Sampling and Living Conditions Aboard the Demersal Trawlers Operating off the Coast of Oman. Oman Marine Science and Fisheries Center, Special Report No. 3.34 PP. Note: The 0.S.U.lC.I.F.A.D Final Report consists of the following which are bound separately.

Summary Final Report Large Pelagics Final Report Small Pelagics Final Report SheIlfish/Demersal Final Report Demersal Finfish Final Report Aquarium Final Report Seafood Technology Final Report Library Final Report Demersal Finfish Final Report

I. Executive Summary of Activities and Results

Recognition of the need for increased scientific support for the management of Oman's demersal finfishes led to the addition of a Demersal Finfish Section at the Marine Science and Fisheries Center in January, 1989. Demersal stocks are har- vested by both a commercial (industrial) and artisanal fishery, with an unknown level of competition between the two. A fleet of eight trawlers, restricted to an offshore area between Masirah Island and the Kuria Muria Islands, comprises the commercial trawl fishery, while the artisanal fishery takes place in shallower waters along the entire coast of Oman.

The intensive nature of trawling and the fact that little was known concerning the commercial catches, this despite their harvest from Omani waters since 1976, provided the impetus for formation of an "On Board Data Collection Program". The intent of this program was to train Omani biologists to live and work aboard the trawlers, collecting the data required to provide a scientific basis for management of the fishery. The entire project, including salaries, supplies and data computerization, was paid for by the project. By the end of the project, eight months of trawler data (representing 1989 sampling) had been analyzed and preliminary recommendations on needed management measures made. To provide management input four specific projects were carried out:

- Training of Data Collectors to work On Board Commercial Trawlers

- Operation of On Board Data Collection Program

- Development of a Demersal Finfish Data Processing System

- Analysis of Demersal Trawl Data

A corps of 10 Data Collectors (DCs) were selected from among 36 candidates and intensively trained (three months of classroom work followed by three weeks at sea) in biological sampling aboard large freezer trawlers. The course was patterned after the U.S. NMFS Observer Programs, but modified for the situation in Oman. A sampling manual and specialized fish identification keys were developed especially for the program. Despite having only a high school education and no previous sea experience, the 10 DCs developed into excellent samplers.

Working in pairs, the DCs spent approximately every other month at sea. Through the end of 1989, 15 sampling cruises had been completed (totalling 386 at sea days), yielding catch information on more than 4,000 individual trawl hauls. The data included time, position, depth and size of each haul, species composition of the discarded and retained catch, size distributions and biological parameters of predominant species, factory production rates and gear size. Physical harassment by crew members while sampling in trawler factories was encountered during several of the cruises, which was resolved only by intervention at the highest levels of the Directorate General of Fisheries.

To handle the large quantity of data collected from the DC Program, a microcom- Dernersal Finfish Final Report puter data processing system was developed. The system organized data entry, provided extensive error checking capability and produced initial data summaries on each cruise. Training in use of computers was provided to all DCs, who assumed much of the responsibility for data entry and error checking. The results from each cruise were published quarterly in MSFC Research Briefs.

A complete picture of the demersal trawl fishery began to emerge by the end of the first year of sampling. The annual catch was characterized by compositional, seasonal and areal variation. Several causes for concern in the fishery were identified and recommended Ministerial actions suggested. The most immediate problems are: consistently high discard rate resulting from use of small mesh nets and high- grading2 of the catch; overcapacity in the fleet in terms of harvesting the declared annual quota; concentration of fishing effort on three small, highly productive grounds; seasonally high incidental catch of turtles; consistent violation of regulations concerning gear type and depth and area limits; and the apparently accelerat- ing trend of significant species composition change in the fishery from one domimt- ed by breams to one dominated by the much lower valued hairtail.

These findings suggest that the current management regime is not adequate for protecting the demersal resource. A management system, based on timelarea closures is recommended for adoption. The benefits from such a system are numerous, and can be at least as easily enforced as the older measures. Other recommendations are that the trawl fleet be maintained at no larger than its present size, the mesh size law be rigidly enforced, fishing effort be more evenly distributed, and fishing north of Masirah island (outside the current Concession Area) be allowed on a trial basis.

The DC Program should continue as long as the trawlers operate in Oman, in order to continue providing high quality data on the trawler catches. In addition to what is presently collected, additional studies are recommended on food habits and different mesh size yields. To accomplish these tasks, an Omani counterpart, with a B.Sc. and strong English language skills, must be assigned to the Demersal Section.

Sampling of the artisanal demersal finfish catch was conducted on a sporadic basis during the mid six months of 1989. With expansion of the trawl fleet in late 1989, all artisanal research was suspended. In order to better determine the relationship between the artisanal and commercial fishery, more research efforts need to be directed at the artisanal fishery. Initial research should concentrate on mapping the demersal catch, similar to what has been done with the industrial catch, and examin- ing size distributions of predominant species.

Other activities of the Demersal Finfish Section included extensive involvement with the FA0 R/V Rastrell&r, participation in an International Fisheries Symposium and team teaching of a course at the Sultan Qaboos University. The DCs assisted all other Sections at the MSFC during their periods on land.

Highgrading refers to the practice of maximizing the value of the product retained on board the vessel. Besides the low valued species, many marketable species are also discarded because one species is significantly more valuable than all other catch. This is typical aboard shrimp trawlers; in Oman highgrading occurs when cuttlefish catch is high. Uemersal Finfish Final Report

11. Introduction and Section Overview

A. Mission:

The demersal finfish stocks support two distinct, though possibly competitive, fisheries - a highly variable (by season and area) unmanaged artisanal fishery, and an commercial trawl fishery subject to numerous management regulations. Together, they account for 10-20% of Oman's total annual fish catch (Barwani et al., 1989). Little biological information exists for either fishery, despite continuous trawler presence since 1976. The Demersal Finfish Section was established first and foremost to provide a scientific basis for management of the commercial trawl fleet, which is likely to continue operations in Oman into the foreseeable future. A corps of specially trained Omani Data Collectors (DCs) live and work aboard the trawlers, collecting data on all aspects of trawler operations. The DC Program was established and funded for 18 months by the project and was taken over by the Ministry in June 1990. In order to properly manage and conserve the demersal fishery, both the commercial and artisanal fisheries, as well as the interrelationships between them, need to be better studied. The long term goal of demersal fisheries research is to obtain reliable estimates of sustainable harvest levels.

B. Section Objectives

Section Objectives evolved between the original authorizing document (in the revised Implementation Plan of August 1988, written six months before the Demersal Finfish Section became operational) and the end of the project (June 1990). The objectives as stated in the revised Implementation Plan of October 1989 are:

Provide comprehensive sampling coverage of the commercial trawl fleet operating in Omani waters

Enter commercial and artisanal data into standardized databases allowing easy retrieval for analysis

Characterize commercial catch including catch quantity and composition, discards, catch rates, size frequencies for major species and biological data for stock assessment studies

Provide baseline data on the biology of the artisanal stocks to allow for future determination of the relationship between the commercial and artisanal fishery

Participate in FA0 vessel trawl survey of fish stocks in Omani waters

Formulate preliminary demersal finfish resource management plan

Note: Due to Ministerial expansion of the trawl fishery in 1989, studies on the artisanal fishery were scaled back in mid 1989 to allow concentration on the commercial fishery. Demersal Finfish Final Report

C. Duties of the Section Head

The primary duty of the Section Head (Steven R. Hare) is to work towards the aforementioned objectives and establish a sustainable, directed demersal finfish research program. A secondary duty is to provide the Omani staff with a set of tangible skills allowing them to assume greater responsibility within the Demersal Finfish Section. By necessity, the Section Head personally designed and operated the On Board Data Collection Program throughout the entire period of the project. This included preparation of a sampling manual; DC selection and training (both classroom and at sea); handling all program logistics such as gear purchase, interaction with vessel and company personnel, placement and removal of DCS on vessels; and establishment of a computerized system for data processing. When the DCs were between sampling trips, the Section Head supervised their activities, allocating them among other MSFC Sections when possible. The DCs were trained by the Section Head in personal computer use, including data entry and Arabic word processing. Also, upon request, the Section Head provided management advice to Ministry officials.

D. General Description of Demersal Finfish Resources and their Importance

1. Demersal Trawl (Commercial) Fishery

a) Fishery

1989 was a transition year for the demersal trawl fishery. The modern fishery began in 1976 with a fleet of four large Japanese stern trawlers and three small New Zealand-built stern trawlers. The Japanese trawlers departed in 1977, the small trawlers ceased operations in 1978. In 1978, the Korea Overseas Fishing Company (KOFC) signed the first of a series of concession agreements (first with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, later with the Oman National Fishing Company) authorizing limited trawling operations in exchange for a percentage (usually 38%) of the catch. From 1981 until 1988, the fleet held steady at 7-8 vessels. No restrictions were placed on the quantity of fish caught (or discarded) and KOFC paid a set amount, in the form of a royalty to the government, for every ton of retained catch (a substantially higher amount was paid for the high value cuttlefish, Sepia pharaonis). In March of 1989, the fleet was reduced to three vessels, two 350 GRT KOFC vessels, and a 240 GRT Italian-built dragger belonging to the Oman Sea Company (which had operated only sporadically since its arrival in Oman in 1987). Following imposition of a new management scheme in April (see part c below), five companies were awarded demersal quotas. By the end of 1989, three companies were operating a total of eight demersal trawlers, with additional trawlers likely to arrive in 1990.

The trawlers operate in the region between Masirah Island to the north (21Â° longitude) and the Kuria Muria Islands (appx. 16'30'N) to the south. A crew of 30- 35 is carried on most of the vessels, which usually fish 24 hours a day. The catch is mostly frozen whole and marketed in the Far East. A typical fishing voyage is one month in duration, and the trawlers must unload their catch at the Port Qaboos in Muscat. Demersal Finfish Final Report

At least 250 species are routinely encountered in the annual trawler catches, more than half of which are discarded. In 1989, 90+% of the retained catch was comprised of eight families - Trichiuridae, Sparidae, Sepiidae, Lethrinidae, Nemipteridae, Carangidae, Sciaenidae and Serranidae. There is evidence that the composition of the retained catch has changed over the course of the fishery, though the unreliability of older statistics makes such an assertion tentative at present. The discard is similarly dominated by a few families, principally Ariidae, Synodontidae, Dwdontidae, Haemulidae, Balistidae, rays and sharks, Carangidae and Sphyraenidae.

b) Recent Catch Levels

The true catches of the trawler fleet have been a matter of uncertainty for many years. Until 1989, the Ministry had little choice but to accept the catch figures as reported by the fishing companies, usually given in the form of a semi-annual Catch Report. The Reports provide a breakdown of the retained catch by day and area, but do not contain any information (e.g., quantity, composition) on the discarded portion of the catch. Sampling by the DC Program in 1989 showed a yearly average discard rate of 39.1%, and this average has been used in the table below to estimate discard from 1985-1989. It should also be noted that these figures include all catch, both demersal and non-demersal species. Depending on demersal/pelagic classification (e.g., trevallies, barracudas) demersals constitute 90% of the trawler catch.

Trawler catch (in mt), 1985-1989

-Year Retained Discarded Total Catch 1985 13,368 8,954 21,962 1986 13,353 8,585 21,938 1987 13,807 8,876 22,683 1988 17,910 11,514 29,424 1989 11,260 7,239 18,499

Previous reports (Moussalli and Bouhlel, 1989) have suggested the increased catch in 1988 actually reflects improved reporting of catch, and that catch was systematically underreported in prior years. The drop in 1989 can be traced to the reduction in fleet size during the year.

c) Management/Development Concerns

Management of the commercial trawl fishery is rendered difficult by the trawlers' mode of operation. They fish remote, difficult-to-patrol, grounds and come into port on the average only once a month. The vessels operate around the clock, with enough crew for two shifts. They are efficient, processing up to 24 tons of fish a day; however, they are also fish "dirty", discarding as much as 50% of what they catch. The vessels are subject to a number of regulations, most of which are beyond the capability of the Ministry to enforce: fishing must be conducted outside 10 miles from land or waters deeper than 50 m (occasionally 100 m), whichever is further from shore; catch records must be kept (and provided to the Ministry following every voyage), including position, time and quantity of every haul; mesh Uemersal Finfish Final Report size must be greater than 110 mm inside stretch mesh, among others.

In April 1989, a new management measure - the use of annual catch quotas - was unveiled for the demersal trawl fishery (as well as the small and large pelagic fisheries). A conservative quota of 18,000 mt was initially set for the demersal trawl fishery and distributed among five major Omani fishing companies as follows: Oman Fishing Company - 10,000 mt; Oman Sea Company - 2,000 mt; Gulf of Oman Fishing, Int. - 2,000 mt; Protein Products, Int. - 2,000 mt; Sadah Marine - 2,000 mt. In effect, an ITQ (Individual Transferable Quota) system was established as the companies were free to use, trade or sell their quotas. Importantly, the quotas referred to total catch amounts, not retained catch. Implementation of such a scheme increases information requirements, particularly concerning the discard component of the catch. On Board Data Collectors are essential for collecting this, as well as much other, information.

The trawler companies applied for, and received, permission to bring in eight trawlers. One other company has yet to utilize their quota. There is no doubt that the annual catching capacity of the trawler fleet far exceeds the available quota. Based on 1989 catch rates, total catch in 1990 by an unrestrained fleet would be greater than 30,000 mt. Obviously, this fishery needs to be very closely monitored if it is to be preserved for the future. Omanisation is probably at least 5-10 years away, more than enough time to drastically change or destroy the fishery.

2. Artisanal Demersal Fishery

a) Fishery

Demersal fish stocks are distributed all along Oman's coast. Demersal fish are exploited by local fishermen from virtually every fishing village. Depending on the season, and other fisheries in the area, the demersal fishery may be the major fishery, or simply a backup or secondary fishery. Most demersal species are caught via two methods: handlining from small outboard-powered fiberglass skiffs or with fish traps. The variety of demersal species is at least as great as for the commercial fishery, since it includes many shallow water species. Within this diversity, 6 or 7 families contribute a substantial portion of the catch, and are the most highly sought market species: Serranidae, Sparidae, Lethrinidae, Lutjanidae, Haemulidae, Sciaenidae and Nemipteridae. Several of the more important individual species are also targeted by the commercial fishery, thus providing an unknown level of competition.

b) Recent Catch Levels

According to the Annual Reports filed by the Statistics Department of the Ministry, artisanal demersal landings, by region, for 1985-1988 were: Dernersal Finfish Final Report

North South National -Year Batinah Caoital Sharkia Sharkia Dhofar Musandam Landings 1985 650 1,239 4,218 399 6,065 1,002 13,573 1986 727 1,165 1,119 1,560 6,065 1,157 11,793 1987 2,929 901 1,743 1,367 449 1,765 9,154 1988 2,835 567 1,890 11,719 1,796 94 18,901

c) ManagementJDevelopment Concerns

Biologically, very little work has been done on any aspect of this fishery. There is no management for any species in the demersal complex. Whether the artisanal fishery can be expanded, or is currently producing at or near its maximum sustained level cannot presently be determined, though this question is tied in with the commercial fishery. Landing sites for the fishery are sparsely distributed making collection of samples more difficult. To gain some understanding of this fishery requires a systematic sampling regime be instituted to lay the foundation for catch analysis and stock assessment.

E. Research Situation at Start of Project

1. Summary of previously completed research

Refer to Demersal/Shellfish Final Report which summarizes all work done on demersal finfish prior to creation of this Section January 1, 1989.

2. Available Data Sources

The foreign companies operating trawlers in Oman have supplied monthly catch data as required by Concession agreements. The quality of this data is highly suspect: its use in catch analyses, stock assessment, etc is, and should he, very limited. Two FA0 sponsored cruises (1976, 1983) provided survey data and a limited set of biological data. The total number of demersal trawls operating within the current commercial fishing grounds was small, and mostly limited to waters shallower than 100 m. No biological data exist for the artisanal fishery.

3. Limitations of available information and research: situation and abilities at start of project.

The dubious nature of the company provided data did not allow for rational fishery management decisions. Due to the at-sea nature of the commercial fishery, only data collected aboard the vessels while in operation could serve management needs. Very basic information on the fishery was lacking.

The 10 Omani Data Collectors selected for the DC Program had completed a secondary school education, but had no experience in fisheries. The nature of the trawl fishery: 10-20 haulslday, 1-4 mt in size, high species diversity, posed a serious challenge for inexperienced on board samplers. The design of the sampling Demersal Finfish Final Report program required that the DCs receive several months of training before actual sampling could commence. Added to this was the piecemeal manner in which the Demersal Finfish project was authorized. Initial project life was 8 months, two subsequent Amendments extended the project to 12, then 18 months. Correspondingly, project goals grew and developed over time, rather than follow a rigorous set of predetermined objectives.

For reasons discussed in detail in the Specific Research Activities section, a decision was made to have the DCs work in pairs aboard the trawlers. This limited the number of trawlers that could be sampled, as well as hindered artisanal sampling capabilities. Finally, no Omani counterpart was assigned to the Demersal Finfish Section, requiring that the Section Head oversee even the most mundane of day to day activities.

F. Summary of Research Situation at the End of the Project

As of June 1990, detailed catch and biological data on the commercial trawl fishery have been collected for 13 consecutive months of trawler operations. Temporal and spatial variation in the catches have been documented, permitting basic analyses of the current management regime and initial determination of current fishery viability. These initial analyses demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the current management/regulatory regime and suggest that a new system, based on timelarea closures, be implemented. While it is still too early to conduct a rigorous stock assessment, the foundation has been laid to achieve this goal should the project receive continued support.

A computerized data management system provides rapid summarization of sampling data and allows close monitoring of the fishery's progress towards its allocated quota. One of the most notable research results has been the characterization of the trawler discard, particularly the small average size of discarded fish, and seasonally high incidence rate of turtles.

While some basic length frequency data has been collected on predominant species in the artisanal fishery, a larger scale sampling program needs to be instituted. With the trawler fleet apparently leveling off in size, the Demersal Finfish section is poised to devote more effort to the artisanal fishery.

The original corps of 10 Omani DCs remain committed to the program, and exhibit an unanticipated enthusiasm for their work. In addition to sharpening their biological sampling skills, they have become an integral part of the data entry and processing system, with significant computer skills. They have also provided reliable information on trawler activities, including vessel disregard of management regulations. Demersal Finfish Final Report

111. Summary of Activities

A. Direction of Research

From the beginning of the project, research activity emphasis was directed towards the commercial fishery, as it was (is) far more intensively exploited than the artisanal fishery. Initially, the DCs were trained in species composition sampling techniques so that the true trawler catches (retained and discarded species) could be determined. As they became more proficient, their duties were gradually increased in scope: length and length-weight frequencies were taken on target species, haul sizes were independently estimated, vessel supplied data verified, and factory production rates measured. To handle the rapidly accumulating data - i.e., entry, error checking, storage - a user-friendly processing system was designed that the DCs were quickly able to master. As the program was constantly facing termination deadlines, preliminary data summaries and analyses were produced detailing trawler catches every quarter. All reports were written by the Section Head, however the role the DCs played in moving data through to the analysis stage was substantial. With some of the early findings, more specific research priorities were established and the DCs directed on how to further focus their sampling. Upon request, the Section Head provided materials and advice on management measures, coordinating research with information requirements of Ministry divisions (particularly Fisheries Affairs~Enforcementand Statistics).

B. Brief Description of Projects

Training of Data Collectors to Work On Board Commercial Trawlers: This activity was the first undertaking of the newly created Demersal Finfish Section. Despite the presence of foreign trawlers in Oman for 15 years, very little reliable information existed about the off shore demersal catches. The first step in understanding and managing this fishery was to train a corps of Omani On Board Data Collectors (DCs) to work and live aboard the trawlers during their month long voyages. As a basic format, a training course was patterned after the US. NMFS Foreign and Domestic Observer Programs, but tailored to suit the situation existent in Oman. Available personnel in Oman were expected to (and, in fact, did) have a low educational standard, with no biological sampling experience. Principal training occurred during three months of classroom work and three weeks of at-sea instruction. A field sampling manual, and species identification keys were developed especially for the program. The training emphasized five major activities which would provide the minimum detail required for assessment of the demersal trawl fishery. As they improved in skill, additional duties were added. Eight DCs undertook and completed classroom training, two DCs were subsequently added for a total corps of 10, all of whom remained through the end of the project. As time and opportunity arose, the DCs assisted personnel in other MSFC Sections, thus broadening their skills.

Operation of On Board Data Collection Program: Following completion of DC training, the majority of the Section Head's time was involved with this activity. Ideally, this activity was to be handed over to Omani staff to allow the Section Head to concentrate on analysis of the accumulating data. A shortage of trained staff, Demersal Finfish Final Report

however, precluded this option. To smooth the overall operation of the DC Program, a logistical system needed to be established that included coordination among Ministry, MSFC and company personnel. To protect the DCs, and ensure better sampling results, the DCs were placed in pairs aboard trawlers. The pairs, and the sampled vessels were continuously rotated. Twice a week the DCs were communicated with via radio to monitor their sampling and living conditions on board. Immediately prior to, and following, each cruise a meeting was held with company personnel to review problems that had arisen. A debriefing process was instituted to provide standardized information on each vessel and Cruise Reports, written in Arabic, were written and distributed within the Ministry. After 10 months of operation, a consultant was brought in to verify DC sampling routines and prepare a sampling plan for each trawler. The consultant found that the DCs performed at a level exceeding what would normally be expected from samplers of their educational background. He also believes they are capable of expanding their present duties.

Demersal Finfish Data Processing System: The On Board Data Collection Program, once operational, began yielding large amounts of data. It was imperative that a data processing system be instituted as rapidly as possible to handle the influx. A primary goal was to integrate the Omani DCs into the data handling process, which was expected to result in error free data ready for retrieval and analysis by the Senior Scientist. The data flow was divided into three steps: entry, error correction and storage. A user-friendly interface was created by the Senior Scientist to shield the DCs from having to learn database programming tools. Data were entered into five temporary databases, one for each of the major forms, with processing occurring on an individual cruise basis. Once entered, the data were run through a battery of error checking tests, that produced printouts pinpointing probable errors. In learning how to track down mistakes, the DCs improved their form completion skills. Once all errors had been removed, the data were appended to the major databases and run through summary programs to produce catch and sampling analyses. Copies of data from all cruises exist on several media: the original paper forms, computer printouts, 5!4" and 3%" floppies, streaming tape and working copies on harddisk.

Analysis of Demersal Trawl Data: The DC Program was extended from eight to twelve months and, eventually, to 18 months duration. Nearly one year's worth of data was collected by the end of the project, of which the first 8 months (1989 data) were analyzed. The first objective was to characterize the catch, particularly the discarded portion for which there existed no historical record. The analyses were broadened with project extensions. Area and seasonal target fisheries were identified, with the catch composition, catch and discard rates each quantified. Verification of trawler company-supplied catch reports was made by comparing them with DC Program sampling results. Input was provided on management measures, particularly relating to trawler fishing patterns. Destructive fishing techniques were identified, and recommendations made for limiting their impact. The current quota and depth limit management regime was found to be ineffective and a new management system, based on seasonal and area closures, recommended. Some of the current problems that can be alleviated are: high discard rate, overfishing of certain productive regions, inshore fishing, high turtle incidence rate Demersal Finfish Final Report

and preservation of grounds for the artisanal fishery. A preliminary analysis of historical catch and effort data was made to determine the demersal trawl fishery yield. The results suggest that the fleet should not be expanded beyond the current size of eight vessels.

Baseline data on biology of artisanal stocks: The impact of the demersal trawl fishery on the artisanal demersal fishery is of an unknown magnitude. An original goal of the Demersal Finfish section was to collect parallel data for the two fisheries in order to determine the extent to which the two fisheries were competitive. During the middle of 1989, when the trawler fleet was reduced to three vessels, a series of sampling trips were conducted along the coast to assess the needs of an artisanal sampling program. Approximately six months of data on 12-18 predominant species were collected. When the trawler fleet expanded to eight vessels, artisanal sampling was dropped due to time and personnel constraints. This should be a major focus of future work on demersal finfish.

Other demersal finfish research projects: The Demersal Finfish Section took a lead role in MSFC cooperation with the FA0 research vessel Rastrelliger. The Section Head worked with the Senior Project Leader, Per Sparre, in choosing and refining data processing software. The Section Head also participated in the first Rastrelliger cruise as chief biologist, establishing the sampling design and methodology. On subsequent research cruises, at least one DC participated in every cruise. In order to directly compare survey catches with trawler catches, the DCs complete DC Program forms on each haul, which are later processed in the same manner as trawler data forms. Throughout the project, the Section Head provided management advice upon request to Ministry personnel. Specific information and recommendations were given concerning discards, turtle catch, illegal fishing and catch quota utilization. The Section participated in team teaching a Fisheries Biology course for a class of Sultan Qaboos University students.

C. Brief Description of on the job or other training, with examples of changes in Omani staff capabilities

Specific training received by, and present capabilities of, Omani staff in the Demersal Finfish Section are covered in Specific Research Projects A, B and C, but are summarized here.

Biological skills:

- The ability to identify, on the basis of Latin names, more than 200 different species of demersal and pelagic fishes.

- The ability to randomly sample a large quantity of fish so as to provide statistically valid data on species composition and length frequencies. This includes the recording of this data on plastics forms, which is later transferred to paper logs. A great deal of accuracy is required for this task. Demersal Finfish Final Report

Shipboard skills:

- Navigation, including use and reading of radar, sonar, depth and fish finders. Plotting of position on charts via triangulation method.

- Able to perform full range of sampling duties under adverse conditions, including dangerous factories, rough seas and hostile crewmen.

- Use and maintenance of biological sampling gear and sea survival equipment.

Computer skills:

- Familiarity with basic personal computer operations: knowledge of operating system, file transfers with floppy and harddisk, printer and mouse use.

- Able to independently use two software packages: dBase IV for DC Program data entry and correction and A1 Kaatib for Arabic word processing.

Miscellaneous skills:

- Able to work and live while operating in a foreign culture (Korean) as a minority (30 Koreans to 2 Omani DCs)

- Greatly improved mathematics and English skills, and a polished writing ability in Arabic.

- General knowledge of work in other MSFC Sections, such as the Library, Seafood and Aquarium Sections.

IV. Specific Research Projects

A. Training of Data Collectors to Work On Board Commercial Trawlers

1. Introduction

A succession of relatively large foreign trawlers (350-1,200 GRT) have been operating in Omani coastal waters since the mid 1970's, including vessels from Japan (Yesaki, 1978), Thailand and Korea (Christensen and McEntire, 1987). The principal target for the trawlers is the offshore (> 50 m depth) demersal fishery, but some pelagic species are taken as well. At least two Omani fishing companies have also deployed small-to-medium commercial size trawlers in recent years. Despite this wealth of activity, very little was actually known about either the current state of the fishery or its potential. Analyses of company supplied reports revealed that much of the provided information had been falsified, suspiciously repeated and/or fabricated. Government representatives were carried aboard the trawlers, but were not sufficiently trained to recognize, and put a stop to, these transgressions.

In recognition of the need for accurate, systematically collected data, an "On Board Demersal Finfish Final Report

Data Collection Program (hereafter DC Program) was initiated for the purpose of monitoring and assessing the trawler catches. The first 18 months of the DC Program were funded by an Omani-American Joint Commission Project Grant (No. 272-0101.1-1, later extended by two Amendments), and administered by the Oregon State University. The DC Program was originally slated to commence in August 1988, however various delays resulted in a January 1989 start. The DC Program was placed under the newly created Demersal Finfish Section at the Oman Marine Science and Fisheries Center, and initially staffed with a Senior Scientist and 8 trainees.

2. Methods

The success or failure of any on board sampling/observer program ultimately depends on the quality of the samplers. In order to find the best available personnel, 36 applicants were interviewed. The minimum requirement was completion of a secondary school education. Emphasis was placed on basic math ability, English language capability and sea experience. Ten candidates were offered positions, however two of them turned down the offer. The eight trainees began working at the MSFC in December 1988, awaiting arrival of the Section Head. Actual classroom training began January 1989 and ended with a final examination on April 8, 1989. At-sea training was conducted between May 20 and June 6, 1989.

Previous experience with observer-type programs in developing countries has shown that traditional teaching methods are usually ineffective in developing the necessary sampling skills. The life and work aboard the foreign trawlers is so alien to anything most of the trainees have ever experienced that classroom lectures alone cannot convey what is required. The U.S. NMFS Foreign Fisheries Observer Program was used as a model for developing the On Board Data Collection Program, however many training tactics were changed.

A manual (Hare 1989a, 1990a), written by the Section Head prior to his arrival in Oman, served as the basis for classroom training, and as the authoritative sampling reference at sea. Training sessions were organized around the manual so the DCs would know where to look when encountering difficulties. Late in the project, the manual was translated into Arabic, and copies distributed around the Ministry.

One problem with training at sea samplers is covering the wide variety of sampling situations that can be encountered. It is, of course, preferable to teach the theory of sampling, and expect that the sampler will make necessary adaptations to ensure valid samples. The DCs showed themselves to be more adept at memorization than extrapolation from examples, and the course was therefore restructured. In addition to much visual material (films, slides), two techniques were extensively used to augment lectures: repetition and situation creation.

With repetition, the trainees' memorization capability was taken advantage of. Problems were repeatedly assigned with each varying slightly from the others. By this method, as many sampling situations as could be imagined by the Section Head were presented to the trainees. Problem sets also grew over time as they incorporated more of the types of work expected from them. The situation creation Uemersal Iintisn final Keport

aspect was designed to help them better visualize their future work. Full scale fish bins were constructed and area and volume estimates taken. Dozens of varieties of beans were mixed together to simulate fish diversity in a codend, from which samples were taken to estimate composition. The class was taken to the local fish market and challenged to name as many species as possible (Latin name only!).

To help acclimate the trainees to life at sea (several had never even been on a boat), numerous at sea activities were arranged. The trainees participated in fishing trips, on vessels between 7 and 15 meters in length, learning to use gear and handle fish while overcoming seasickness. On a larger vessel (25 m), several trainees assisted a marine ecologist collect water samples. Also, they were given sea survival training and were required to pass a timed test in survival suit use.

Weekly exams were administered to the DCs testing their ability to accurately complete the Data Forms. Successive exams included more of the forms and longer, more realistic problems. The final exam incorporated the paper work for a typical sampling day. A copy of the final exam is included as Appendix DEM1.

To complete training, an at-sea practicum was considered necessary. As it would have been too time consuming, as well as logistically unfeasible, for the Section Head to accompany all trainees, two teams were selected for direct training aboard the trawlers. These trainees would, in turn, train the others during their first voyage. Resistance from the companies involved delayed the start of at-sea sampling until May 20th. The Section Head spent 10 days and seven days aboard two different trawlers working with the sampling teams.

The ninth and tenth Data Collectors were added in July and August. An abbreviated training was held for them, however, most of their training came from on the job experience under the tutelage of other trainees.

Following the completion of at least one cruise by each of the trainees, a ceremony was held on 9 September to present each with a diploma, certifying them as MSFC Data Collectors.

3. Results and Discussion

The desired result of the DC Program training was to produce a corps of trained samplers to place aboard the trawlers, capable of working independently and accurately. A necessary compromise was made in terms of the amount of work that could reasonably be demanded. The decision to send the DCs in pairs, rather than individually, was mandated by several factors, most notably the high species diversity and 24 hour operational mode of the trawlers. For the young DCs, the experience of living aboard a Korean vessel for 4-6 weeks at a stretch was made easier by having someone to share the experience with. Physical and psychological intimidation efforts by vessel crews were less effective when the two DCs could motivate each other to continue their work. Finally, in a developing country with relatively low wages and a high value foreign fishery, corruption is often an inevitable development; however this could be forestalled by sending the DCs out in ever changing pairs. While more complete details may be found in the sampling manual (Hare 1990a), the five basic sampling tasks and Data Forms are summarized here, with expected results and difficulties. A daily logbook is also maintained by the DCs where they provide details on their sampling and vessel activities.

Trawl Data Form

This Form consolidates basic information on every retrieved haul while the DCs are on board. The Form is usually completed by vessel officers and the data verified by the DCs. Hauls are numbered sequentially (the major link between the different forms) with date, time, location, depth, fishing speed and direction recorded, along with estimates of retained catch size and total catch.

The information on the Trawl Data Form is crucial if temporal and spatial analyses of the catch are to be performed. Unfortunately, the large number of hauls per day (10-20) and sensitivity of some of the parameters (esp. fishing depth and position) makes this Form a source of conflict between the DCs and vessel officers. Though the DCs ostensibly have no enforcement role, the data they collect can provide serious evidence on violations of fishing regulations.

Species Composition Form

The DCs sample approximately one-third of the hauls for species composition. Two basic methods are utilized, usually in combination - basket sampling and whole haul sampling. In basket sampling, 4-6 baskets are filled with randomly collected fish from the haul. The number and weight of each species is recorded, along with whether that species was retained or discarded in that haul. Certain species, due to their size, value or scarcity, are whole haul sampled, i.e., all individuals from a haul are removed, counted and weighed. The species composition is then extrapolated to the entire catch, forming the basis of retained and discarded catch estimates.

The DCs received their most extensive training in species composition sampling, in part because an early focus of the DC Program was to determine the actual composition of the catch, particularly the discarded portion. Collection of these data, however, also creates certain problems with trawler personnel, in this case the processing crew. The factories on the trawlers are small, with little spare room. The DCs slow operations because they need to collect their samples prior to sorting or discarding of the catch. Often, their work takes longer than processing of the catch, and the crew must wait for the DCs to finish their work before they can process those fish. This problem is particularly acute during cuttlefish (Sepia pharaonis) season, when vessel captains occasionally try to prohibit DC sampling.

Length Freauenw Form

At least once every other day, a length frequency (14) sample is taken on one of the predominant species in the catch. The proportion of 1-f samples among species should roughly reflect their importance in the retained caSch (no discarded species 1-fs are taken at present). To collect fish for an 1-f sample, the important consideration is that the fish represent their distribution within the haul. The usual method is to collect 100 consecutive fish off the conveyor belt, provided the fish Demersal Finfish Final Report

appear to be randomly mixed, and not stratified by size. In general, this is the simplest of their tasks, though problems are encountered during the cuttlefish season when factory crewmen want to process all cuttlefish as rapidly as possible. Sexing of fish for 14s is generally not possible since most are frozen whole.

Collection Form

On alternate days (i.e., off days for 14samples), a sample of fish is collected for a variety of measurements. During the first year of the program, the DCs collected just length and weight measurements (sex if possible), however, the Collection Form is designed for additional detail such as age, fecundity, stomach contents, etc. The system for collecting the fish is the same as for 1-fs, though just 50 fish are usually taken.

Product Recovery Form

As a means of verifying factory production, two tests are performed and reported on the Product Recovery Form. Several of the larger species are often processed in some manner, generally headed and gutted. We are interested in the whole weight of the fish caught by the trawlers, not just the product weight. It is necessary, therefore, to determine the relation of product weight to whole weight. The "product recovery ratio" is product weight divided by whole weight. To estimate whole weight from product weight, one divides product weight by the product recovery ratio. The second test is known as a "unit weight" test. Virtually all retained catch on the trawlers is packaged into frozen blocks. The average, or unit, weight of these blocks is critical to the determination of total catch. Vessel personnel count the number of blocks and multiply that number by the unit weight. An underestimate of unit weight results in underreporting of total catch. Perhaps understandably, factory personnel become somewhat agitated when these two tests are being performed.

In learning to do the work listed above, the DCs have acquired a number of new skills, as well as sharpened others. One of the most impressive feats was mastering the identification of more than 250 species taken in the demersal trawl fishery. They use specialized keys, developed just for the DC Program, in differentiating among similar species on the basis of characteristics such as fin ray and gill raker counts. Equally impressive is their ability to recite the Latin name for all of the species. The collection of species composition samples requires them to work quickly and accurately, besides working at all different hours of the day or night. Once their factory work is finished, they must complete the paper work - an area where they they've shown great improvement over time. A typical cruise results in 125 pages of data, so neatness and accuracy are crucial. Their math skills have been sharpened through the many necessary calculations they perform to complete the data forms. During the training course, the DCs were periodically assigned to other Sections at the MSFC. Thus, they acquired a variety of other skills, such as: seafood processing, market sampling, library organization and maintenance of the Aquarium.

The training of the DCs will continue as long as the DC Program is operational. Demersal Finfish Final Report

There is much additional information to be collected (stomach contents, oceanographic data, etc.) and the DCs have shown themselves capable of absorbing new duties. According to reports filed by a consultant hired to assess their at sea work, the DCs possess excellent work habits and are well trained for the work they do. It is important, however, to bear in mind the limitations imposed on the DCs by their lack of advanced education. They require a great deal of supervision, particularly in the editing of their data.

At the time of this report, the DCs have been with the program for 16 months. All the original eight, plus the two later additions, have stayed on, in spite of the demanding work. This exceeds expectations at the time of organizing the Program. Three factors are at least partially responsible for this situation. First, the DCs were hired and paid out of the project contract, not by the Ministry. In effect, the DCs worked as OSU staff and, unlike permanent Ministry hires, could be laid off or fired for poor performance. Secondly, the DCs were given varied and increasing work to perform, rather than continuously doing the same job. At sea, they rotate among the vessels, on land they work at computers or go out in the field. Third, interest and recognition for their work was expressed, not only by the Section Head, but also by the Ministry and OAK.

In June 1990, the DCs become permanent Ministry workers. Initially, they have the job title of "Inspector", however they have been assigned to the MSFC. One stipulation of their employment is that they assume extra duties similar to those performed by the Inspectors. It is expected that the DCs will convert to the job title of "Data Collector" after one year of Ministry work. What impact being permanently employed by the Ministry will have on their working habits remains to be seen. It is the opinion of the Section Head that they will remain highly motivated workers, though increasingly less enthusiastic about spending extensive time at sea. The DCs deserve the chance to better themselves through education, and should be sent overseas as are other Ministry staff. Their experience in the DC Program has prepared them for successful completion of a more advanced degree.

4. Summary of Findings

This Project occupied the first four months of the Demersal Finfish Section. A corps of eight trainees were selected and received three months of classroom training in at sea sampling methodology. The course was patterned after the U.S. NMFS Foreign and Domestic Observer Programs, but significantly tailored to the situation as it existed in Oman. The relatively low educational standard of the DCs, plus the complicated nature of the demersal fishery, in part dictated the sampling design and training methods. A field manual and specialized identification keys were developed by the Section Head for the Program. Initially, the DCs were trained to accomplish five particular tasks, which were expanded as they acquired experience. Following classroom training, the Section Head spent three weeks at sea providing practical training to the four most promising DCs, who then transferred this experience to the other DCs in subsequent cruises. Two additional DCs, for a total corps of ten, were later added.

The five initial tasks were as follows: (1) Trawl Data - date, time, position, depth, Uemersal UnIish Final Report

fishing speed and direction, and total catch size recorded for every haul retrieved while on board; (2) Species Composition - sample a percentage of the hauls to determine species composition of the retained and discarded portions of the catch, and average fish weights; (3) Length frequencies - collect length distributions on the target species in rough proportion to their occurrence in the catch; (4) Special collections - collect a variety of additional information on target species, e.g., weight, sex, age, etc.; (5) - Factory production - estimate unit weight of product and recovery ratio of processed fish.

All 10 DCs have remained through the end of the project, and were rewarded with a permanent job with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries in June 1990. They have displayed a surprising enthusiasm for their work and are to be commended. The switch to a permanent job with the Ministry will have unknown consequences, but it is believed that they have incorporated excellent work habits that they will continue to utilize.

5. Recommendations

At the MSFC, much emphasis has been placed on overseas training of personnel. In certain circumstance, however, this approach may be inappropriate or premature. In the case of the On Board Data Collectors, a training program was brought to the trainees, rather than vice versa, with highly positive results. Training was task specific with a minimum of overhead and extraneous material. The skills acquired by the Omani DCs were immediately useful and helped to provide the fishery management regime with concrete information. While the training could have taken place overseas, the choice of arranging it in Oman was correct. Future short term training courses, with similar limited. specific objectives, should be considered for in- country arrangement..

A major benefit of this training has been the opportunity to closely monitor the progress, and assess the potential, of the DCs. By being an integral component of the creation and operation of a task specific research program, the DCs have acquired experience comparable to that of the current Research Assistants at the MSFC. The DCs have amply demonstrated their interest and commitment to work in fisheries.

The DC Program has been extended for a further 12 months until August 1991, at which time a reorganization will likely take place. It is recommended that the most promising of the DCs be sent overseas to acquire a more formal fisheries education after August 1991. Those with adequate English speaking capability should be considered for placement in a 4-year degree program in the U.S. or Great Britain. Other DCs would benefit from a 2-year program in an Arabic speaking country, such as Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. Formal training would provide the DCs with the theory to complement their already substantial practical experience. It is believed that the DCs will prove to be a valuable asset in the eventual Omanization of fisheries research and management in Oman. The Section Head, who is remaining in Oman until August 1991, is prepared to assist in identifying candidates near the end of the DC Program. B. Operation of On Board Data Collection Program

1. Introduction

At the time the DC Program was created, the trawler fleet numbered eight vessels - the same size it had been for several years, and was the basis for deciding upon a corps of 10 DCs. Midway through DC training, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries elected not to renew the contracts for five of the trawlers. As part of a demersal fisheries management plan, catch quotas were established and awarded to five Omani-owned fishing companies2. By the end of 1989, the fleet had grown again to seven trawlers, and an eighth was added in early 1990. At present, it appears that the fleet will not exceed 10 vessels in the near term future.

During the 17 months that the Demersal Finfish Section existed within the OAJC contract, the largest portion of the Section Head's time was occupied with operation of the DC Program. Unfortunately, no Omani counterpart was assigned to the Demersal Finfish Section to assist with this task. Once training of the DCs was completed, setting up the program structure became top priority. The logistics involved were substantial, and complicated by the DC Program's placement within the MSFC. Within the Ministry, there already existed an "Observer" or "Inspector" program that placed Omanis aboard the trawlers. The goals of that program werelare very different from that of the DC Program, hut many Ministry and company personnel were confused by the arrangement. That the entire DC Program (including the Omani DC salaries) was funded by the OAJC, not the Ministry, led at least one company to raise legal issues. The company first stated they need only carry one Government representative (implying that the DCs were not true government employees) and later, having lost that argument, stated their insurance would not cover DCs on board the trawlers. After three weeks' delay, all legal hurdles were cleared.

The problems of establishing the DC Program were solved and refined over the course of one year. For the purposes of this report, the operational aspects have been broken down into major components in order to describe the methods used and problems encountered. In this report, "operation" of the DC Program has been considered to include all personnel matters (with the DCs, Ministry, companies), logistics (placement of DCs, tracking of vessels) and handling of sampling and the resultant data up to the point of computerization.

2. Methods

Interaction with company and vessel personnel

The eight trawlers currently active in the fishery belong, or are leased, to three companies (Table 1). The Ministry forwarded a Section request that each company designate a single person with whom the Demersal Section Head should discuss matters concerning the DC Program. Within all three companies, the local area

See Management/Development concerns for the trawl fishery above. Uemersal C lntish cinal Report manager was the person so designated. From the beginning of the program, attempts were made to establish an informal relationship with the managers. This made it possible for us to attempt to resolve difficulties without having to go through the Ministry every time. Nonetheless, on several occasions, it was deemed necessary to file a complaint against the companies, resulting in meetings with the Directorate General of Fisheries. Very close tabs were kept on trawler activity through the managers, with whom the Section Head generally spoke 3-4 times per week.

Conflicts between vessel personnel and DCs represent the greatest source of potential problems for the DC Program. Beginning with the first cruise, and continuing to the present, the Section Head sat down with the captain, chief officer and the two DCs both before, and immediately following, each cruise. By establishing with vessel personnel the Section Head's (and, therefore, the Ministry's) strong concern for the well being of the DCs, serious problems have been averted. The captains were also informed that they would be held personally responsible for any trouble. By visiting the trawlers every time they arrived in port, a rapport was established with many of the crew; this also probably helped cut down on problems.

Placement of DCs on Vessels and Communications

DC Program Cruises consist of 2 DCs boarding a trawler in Mina Qaboos and remaining on board until that trawler returns from fishing grounds. The average duration of a cruise in 1989 was 25.7 fishing days, with another 3 days spent in transit (Table 2). In deciding which DCs boarded which trawler, several rules were used as guidelines:

1 - To promote fellowship among the DCs, the sampling pairs were constantly rotated, i.e., each DC made a cruise with each of the other DCs, rather than working with a particular one every time. This also had the effect of spreading knowledge among the corps, and curbing development of poor work habits.

2- To the extent possible, the DCs were not sent to the same ship twice until they had been aboard all the other vessels. As rule 1 was more important, this rule could not be as closely followed.

3 - As the fleet grew, the DC Program sampled an increasingly smaller proportion of the vessels. In general, vessels are sampled every other voyage, beginning with their maiden voyage. The exception to this, which is made clear to the vessel captain and company manager, is when the DCs experience sampling, or other, problems aboard a vessel. In that case, the vessel is forced to continue carrying DCs until the problems cease.

Presently, seven of the eight trawlers are in daily contact with their Muscat office via single side band radio. Twice a week, the company radio was used to speak to DCs aboard the vessels. This allowed the Section Head to monitor their sampling activities and request changes, as well as providing a measure of security for the DCs. A fellow DC was always brought along so any problems with vessel personnel could be stated over the radio in Arabic. Uemersal Fintish Final Report

Following completion of a Cruise and the subsequent debriefing (see below), the DCs were given paid leave according to how long they had been aboard the vessel. Through the end of the project, time off averaged one working day per week at sea.

After their time off, the DCs spent three to four weeks on land before returning for another cruise. During this period they performed a variety of duties, the most important of which was data entry (see Specific Research Project C). Other work included artisanal field sampling trips, both for the Demersal and other fish Sections, computer training, and assisting in the Library, Aquarium and Seafood Sections.

A wide variety of gear is required for sampling aboard the trawlers3. During the project, all equipment was purchased by Oregon State University. Due to the conditions aboard the trawlers, there was a high turnover of equipment, abetted by poor maintenance by the DCs and willful destruction by factory crew. All equipment was put aboard a trawler just before sailing and removed upon return. Though more cumbersome than keeping a set aboard each trawler, this method preserved equipment for the longest time. The DCs were required to meticulously clean and repair all gear upon return. Replacement gear was generally purchased when stocks fell below the amount required for five sampling teams.

Debriefing of Data Collectors

Upon return from a Cruise, DCs immediately underwent debriefing by the Section Head. Debriefing was an important process in standardizing the DC Program. The debriefing sequence and purpose was as follows:

1 - DCs picked up at vessel, brief discussion held with vessel captain to ascertain if any major problems occurred. If necessary, a list of complaints was drawn up and a meeting held with the local manager. This meeting determined whether the matter was considered settled or was taken to the Ministry.

2 - Formal debriefing held at MSFC. The DCs provided verbal answers to six questions, which the Section Head recorded on a Debriefing Report and kept on file. The six questions:

A. Discuss ship and Data Collector estimates of retained catch, and adjusting the ship's estimates for discarded quantity.

B. How was species composition sampling accomplished?

C. Describe how length frequencies, special projects and product recovery rates were collected.

see Sampling Manual (Hare 1990a) for a complete list of equipment Uemersal Finfish Final Report

D. Discuss interaction with the captain and crew.

E. Discuss potential violations, problems and other things you think the MSFC and/or the Ministry should know about.

F. Other miscellaneous remarks.

3 - Data forms reviewed by the Section Head, and obvious errors marked for correction.

4 - The DCs write a Cruise Report describing all aspects of their cruise. The Report is written in Arabic, typed in an Arabic word processor (Al-Kaatib) using a standardized format, and copies of the report then distributed to various Sections of the Ministry.

3. Results and Discussion

Sampling results

During 1989, Data Collectors made 15 Cruises aboard demersal trawlers between May 20 and December 31. The fleet fished a total of 1129 days during the year4, of which 386 days (34.2%) were sampled by the DC Program. Months with the highest sampling coverage (once sampling started) were June and July with loo%, while the lowest coverage was during December at 10.4%. The low December rate resulted from unclear signals concerning the future of the DC Program. Most of the DCs remained ashore in December awaiting approval of an Amendment to extend the Program until June 15, 1990. All December sampling took place during the last two weeks of the month.

An impressive amount of data was collected during the 15 Cruises of 1989 (Table 4). A total of 4,070 hauls were retrieved during the cruises. Trawl data (location, time, depth, catch quantity) were collected from all 4,070 hauls. Species composition samples were taken from 899 hauls (22.1%), length frequency samples from 167 hauls (4.1%), lengthlweight frequencies from 116 hauls (2.9%) and product recovery/unit weight data from 52 hauls (1.3%).

Once the trawler fleet had expanded to eight vessels and the DC Program had been operational for 10 months, a crosscheck on DC sampling methodology was deemed necessary. A consultant, with several years experience in on board sampling, spent three weeks aboard the trawlers in March and April, 1990. His mission was to observe the DCs in action and prepare a standardized sampling plan for each trawler. His report is contained in the Appendix (Trianni, 1990) and is being translated into Arabic. His findings confirmed the validity of data collected by the

If the vessel, Oman Sea One is included, the total number of fishing days rises to 1339. The Oman Sea One is treated as a special case due to its smaller size (35 m, 800 hp vs >SO m, >2000 hp and much lower catch rate (one-fifth that of the other trawlers in 1989). The DC Program did not sample aboard this vessel during 1989. Uemersal fintlsh Final Report

DCs as he favorably compared their work with that of U.S. NMFS observers. Future sampling checks and debriefings will reference his work to continue to improve the quality of collected data.

Samolino interference

On several occasions, the DCs experienced harassment and/or interference in their attempts to sample in the factory. These problems are discussed in detail in the three MSFC Research Briefs describing the 1989 DC Program sampling results (Hare 1989b, 1989d, 1990b). The most serious problems occurred during 5 cruises aboard two vessels: Cruises 2, 8 and 11 aboard the Kum Bong 501 and Cruises 10 and 13 aboard the Sea Queen I. The problems fell into three categories:

1 - Physical intimidation in the factory. In one instance a crewman suddenly started up a conveyor belt when a DC stepped on the belt, causing him to fall and fracture his wrist. Spraying the DCs with water and throwing fish at them were other tactics employed by the crews.

2 - Sampling interference. On several occasions, the DCs were prevented from sampling, usually by order of the factory manager, supported by the captain. This occurred primarily during cuttlefish season, when slowing of factory production - for any reason, DC related or not - caused tempers to soar and even further DC harassment.

3 - Vessel officers provide DCs with falsified Trawl Data Form information. This is a rather routine occurrence, but is significantly worse on one particular vessel, the Sea Queen 1.

Most of the problems were dealt with by the Section Head, but it was periodically necessary for the Ministry to demonstrate its support for the DC Program. The Section Head requested strong Ministry assistance on two occasions, once to deal with Kum Bong 501, once with Sea Queen 1, personnel. The meetings, held with the Directorate General of Fisheries and MSFC Director, proved effective deterrents for 3-4 months before problems once again resurfaced. For the DC Program to continue its successes, pressure must be brought upon company and vessel personnel to cease their harassment activities.

Time at Sea for the DCs

Over the course of the project, the DCs spent an average of 50% of their time aboard the trawlers. It is the conclusion of the Section Head that this represents the maximum amount of sea time that can be demanded of the DCs. Attempting to increase the percentage of their time on board the trawlers would likely result in personnel turnover, with subsequent loss of experience.

For the first year of the project, the DCs were relatively enthusiastic about going to sea. The experience was new, and they received bonus pay for every sea day (which amounted to approximately 25% of their base salary). Each vessel promised a different experience, as did pairing up with each of the other DCs. Now, 15 months Uemersal Finfish Final Report after they began going to sea, the novelty has worn off and sea time is something to endure. On the positive side, the DCs appear to work harder, saying that it helps the time passes more quickly. If the DC Program is extended another year, it is strongly urged that the sea time for the DCs be increased, but perhaps even decreased slightly, with shore duties varied as much as possible.

Use of DC Cruise Reports for Enforcement Purposes

From the outset, it was decided that the DC Program would be a biological sampling program, without enforcement responsibilities. Over time, however, this distinction broke down, with some unfortunate results. That the trawler fleet was guilty of repeated violations of the law was never questioned; providing court- admissible proof, however, was not easily accomplished without the help of the law enforcement agencies. The Inspectors, deployed for years aboard the trawlers by the Enforcement Division were poorly educated, and produced little in the way of evidence. As the DCs became more experienced, they began writing more thorough, and readable, Cruise Reports. Eventually, these became noticed at higher levels within the Ministry.

The major purpose of the Cruise Reports was to provide a complete account of the events that affected sampling and data validity during that cruise. The reports for each vessel are read by the DCs prior to sailing to help them work at overcoming previous obstacles. Many factors affect sampling, including some that break the law. The more a vessel cheats, in terms of fishing location or depth, or handling of the catch, the more likely vessel personnel will conduct activities to affect sampling. These activities are well noted by the DCs in their Reports and later noted by Ministry officials, who are concerned for different (namely, enforcement) reasons.

During the life of the DC Program, all three companies have been reprimanded by the Ministry for violations reported by the DCs in their Cruise Reports. The three most serious Ministerial concerns were: discard of valuable fish (during the cuttlefish season), use of small mesh nets, and fishing illegally inside 10 miles. Despite attempts to mask the source of the incriminating evidence, company personnel quickly recognized the DC Program's responsibility.

It is the belief of the Section Head that information contained in the Cruise Reports must continue to remain honest and complete. It is also his belief that this information cannot continue to be used in such an open enforcement manner without undercutting the sampling base of the DC Program. Once the DCs are viewed as little different than Fisheries Inspectors, they will lose what cooperation they have, and the data will suffer. Presently, the companies still see a sharp distinction between the Inspector and DC programs. They also recognize that in the case of a serious violation, the DCs must enlist Ministry assistance.

It may be possible to preserve the DC Program's independence, yet provide some assistance to the Enforcement Division. One method would be to use DC Reports only as confirming, not primary, evidence of violation. Illegal fishing, for instance, would have to be reported by another party. If a DC was on board, his comments concerning their fishing activities could then be used. The important point is that

Demersal Finfish Final Report vessel personnel do not see the DCs as just more law enforcement officers on board. There is ample evidence from observer-type programs around the world that the biological aspect of a program loses its integrity as enforcement duties are increased.

4. Summary of Findings

The first DCs were placed on trawlers in May 1989, after objections by company personnel were resolved. A logistical system was established to coordinate the activities of eight trawlers, three companies and 10 DCs. A total of 15 sampling cruises, averaging a month in duration, were completed by the end of 1989. During several cruises, the DCs were physically and verbally harassed, and their sampling work interfered with. These problems continue to surface periodically, though two vessels in particular (Kum Bong 501 and Sea Queen I) have been consistently problematic. A debriefing system has helped to standardize the program by providing uniform information following each cruise. Verification of DC sampling methodologies was conducted by a consultant experienced in US. on board sampling programs. The consultant also provided a detailed sampling report for each vessel to serve as blueprints for future sampling cruises.

The amount of data compiled by the Program is impressive and of the highest quality. Detailed information has been collected on the composition of the catch (retained and discarded), length and weight distributions of predominant species, and on factory production rates. Additionally, the DCs file comprehensive Cruise Reports (written in Arabic) detailing vessel activities that are distributed to several divisions within the Ministry. Several enforcement issues, related to regulation violations, have resulted from these Cruise Reports.

5. Recommendations

The On Board Data Collection Program has been successfully established as a viable tool for sampling the demersal trawler catch. The corps of 10 DCs is sufficient for the present fleet size, though perhaps inadequate for sampling the artisanal fishery as well. In order for demersal finfish research to begin to make significant progress, it is imperative that Omani staff be added to the Section for the purpose of handling program logistics. Only cursory analysis of the data has been possible to date, given the large time demands of program operation. Supervision of the DC Program would be an ideal job for an Omani with a minimum of a four year college education (not necessarily in fisheries) and good English language skills. It is @ recommended that one of the DCs be promoted to this position, for several reasons. First, none has the experience or maturity to interact with company and Ministry personnel on an equal basis. Secondly, none have sufficient English ability at present. Last, the best of the DCs should be sent overseas for formal college education, after which they might be capable of overseeing such a program.

The only protection the DCs have while aboard the trawlers is the threat of punishment to those abusing the DCs. That is also the only means of insuring that the vessels (and their companies) provide accurate information concerning their ~ernersa~nnlish Nnal Report

catches. Systematic problems have occurred on at least two of the trawlers. While Ministerial action has been taken, it has been of a "chastising", not disciplinary, nature. Firm Ministerial action must be taken against trawler and company personnel when DC harassment. or data misreporting, occurs. This action could take the form of a fine, holding a vessel in port, or revoking a fishing license. Serious problems continue to arise, and will do so, until the involved personnel perceive that the Ministry has the will, and ability, to impose penalties for violation of regulations.

Though it is probably very tempting to combine the two, it is a certain requirement that biological sampling and enforcement programs must remain separate for either to be effective. Extensive experience in many countries around the world has demonstrated this fact. The situation in Oman is no different. There are certain Ministerial pressures to have the DC Program become more extensively involved in fisheries enforcement work. To do so will only adversely impact the biological sampling program and do little to assist with current enforcement difficulties. recommended the Ministry recognize the DC Program as a biologically oriented program. and retreat from present attempts to increase its role in enforcement. It is understood that the DCs will witness numerous violations merely by their presence aboard the trawlers. To prosecute trawler personnel for violation of fisheries regulations, primary evidence must come from the true enforcement agencies. It may be possible for DC information (logbooks, data forms) to be used as supporting or circumstantial evidence in such a situation. Year Vessel Company/Partner Commissioned GRT Horsepower Length (m) Width (m) Draft (m) I ! ...... , ...... Kurn Bong 501 Oman Fisheries Co./Korea i 1974 351.18 52.99 9.00 I 5.73 Overseas Fisheries Co. Kum Bong 503 Oman Fisheries CoKorea 1973 I 365.28 ...... Overseas Fisheries Co. i ,...... Kurn Bang 505 Oman Fisheries CoJKorea $ 1974 ! 389.76 ...... Overseas Fisheries Co. Aurola 7 Oman Fisheries Co/Korea 1974 379.00 Overseas Fisheries Co. ! ...... "...... " ...... Oman Sea One Oman Sea CompanyIOman Sea i 1985 225.00 Company Sea Queen 1 Oman sea Cornpanyk'cung San 1974 355.01 ...... Fisheries, Lld. Sea Queen 2 Oman sea CompanyiPcung San 1976 393.83 ...... Fisheries, Ltd. Peonia No.1 Gulf of Oman Fishing, Int.1- j 1961 1597.00 Samwon Co.

Table 1. The eight trawlers currently (June 1990) licensed for operation in the commercial demersal finfish fishery. Demersal Finfish Final Report

General Information, Cruise 1-1 5

Juma AI-Qartubi

Yasir AI-Busaidi

AIi Al-Mashrafi Yasir Al-Busaidi

14 November 12 1 Sea Queen 2 ; Nasser Al-Azri 14 October - 1 32 Bakr Al-Saadi 18 November

Khalifa Al-Kalbani 30 December - Mohammed Al-Beiushi 31 December

Table 2. General Information on DC Program Cruises 1-15. Demersal Finfish Final Report

DC Program Sampling Coverage in 1989

Effort (In days) 1200 -

Fishing Day Sampling Days 1000 - ......

800 -....

600

400 - ...

200 - ...

0 01 02 03 04 TOTAL

Figure 1 Quarterly summary of trawler coverage (for vessels greater than 350 GRT).

FISHING DAYS SAMPLING DAYS PERCENT >350 GRT <350 GRT TOTAL >350 GRT <350 GRT TOTAL >350 GRT <350 GRT TOTAL JAN 161 14 175 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% FEB 171 6 177 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

. -.~ ~. Ql TOTAL 1 396 51 447 1 0 0 o I 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% APR 42 1 43 1 0 0 0 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% MAY 34 0 34 9 0 9 26.5% ERR 26.5% JUN 51 30 81 51 0 51 100.0% 0.0% 63.0% 02 TOTAL 127 31 158 60 0 60 47.2% 0.0% 38.0% JUL 55 23 78 55 0 55 100.0% 0.0% 70.5% AUG 76 20 96 54 0 54 71.1% 0.0% 56.3% SEP 91 22 113 63 0 63 69.2Â°/ 0.0% 55.8Vo Q3 TOTAL 222 65 287 1 72 0 172 77.5% 0.0% 59.9% OCT 121 28 149 89 0 89 73.6% 0.0% 59.7%

DEC 144 18 162 1 15 0 15 1 10.4% 0.0% 9.3% Q4 TOTAL 1 384 63 447 1 1 54 0 154 1 40.1% 0.0% 34.5V I I I I I YR TOTAL 1129 .... -. ... 210 13391386.. - .-- . 0- .383 . 34.2% ..... 0.0% 28.8%!-...

Table 3. Monthly DC Program coverage of demersal trawlers in 1989. Demersal Finfish Final Report

Summary of DC Program Sampling, Cruises 1-1 5

Total I 4,070 I 4,070 I 899 I 167 I 116 I 52

Table 4. Summary of DC Program sampling, Cruises 1-15 Demersal Finfish Final Report

C. Demersal Finfish Data Processing System

1. Introduction

The end product of a smoothly operating On Board Data Collection Program is a large amount of data that must be prepared for analysis. The advent of powerful micro (personal) computers and sophisticated database software made it possible to design a computing system that could process the trawler data. On the downside, the system had to be programmed from the bottom up for use by DCs with no previous computing experience. Equally important, due to the inexperience of the DCs - combined with the complicated nature of trawler sampling - the data were usually full of errors that required correction before the data could be added to a permanent database for analysis.

Coding for the myriad of programs and the database structures for all files are on record in the Section Head's office, but are not reproduced here. Rather, the logic, operation and output of the programs are detailed. Serious effort has been made to make the data processing system interactive, yet foolproof. However, rather than completely shield the users (DCs) from the idiosyncracies of personal computers, efforts were made to train them in their use, particularly in regards to the operating system (MS-DOS).

2. Methods

For the purposes of computerizing the DC Program data, the PC software package, dBase IV was chosen. This choice was made because of its widespread use and the likelihood that future personnel would have experience with dBase software. The computers used for the project were two IBM compatible AT-class machines. One of these was used exclusively by the Section Head, the other for data entry and error checking by the DCs. Both were equipped with 640K RAM and 40 MB harddisks. Late in the project, the Section Head obtained a computer with a 80386 coprocessor, 90 MB harddisk and math coprocessor. With the increasing size of the DC Program databases, a computer of this size became a requirement.

Data processing consisted of running three separate, consecutive suites of dBase IV programs: entry, error checking and archival. The first two processes were taught to, then operated by the DCs, the third conducted solely by the Section Head. The entire set of programs were written over a four month period by the Section Head between June and September 1989.

Data Entry

For the DC Program data, initial data entry is done into five temporary databases, each corresponding to one of the five major Data Forms (see Specific Project A for a description of the five forms). A temporary database is called up on the screen, and the data entered by DCs, usually working in pairs. Once all the data for a particular form from a particular cruise are entered, the database is given a new name that identified the data. For example, Trawl Data from Cruise 12 are contained in a file named TRWL012.DBF, Species Composition data in a file Demersai Finfish Final Report

named SCOM012, etc. These data base files are backed up on floppy disk, with all the files from a particular cruise contained on a single disk. Copies of the floppies are then made as a backup5. Some error checking is accomplished at this point, as the DCs note mistakes and irregularities (such as an incorrect species code) and correct the errors. Any changes to the original data are marked in red pencil on the original data forms and noted in a Data Processing logbook. Once all the forms for a cruise are entered, the error checking programs are then run.

To find and correct errors in the data, the data files are run through a set of 11 programs written in the dBase IV programming language. As the DCs have no knowledge of programming, comprehensive error messages are generated to help the DCs track down the errors. A user-friendly menu driven interface was created to assist the DCs (see Figure 1). Each of the data files are first checked for internal data consistency. For example, latitude and longitude positions on the Trawl Data Form are checked to see if they occur within Omani waters; species codes on the Species Composition Form are compared against a master list; length frequencies are checked for unusually large or small fish. Over 200 error checks and corresponding messages are coded into the programs. Following the internal checks, cross checks are made between forms: Do haul numbers match dates across forms; does the total catch quantity on the Trawl Data Form match the quantity on the Species Composition Form, etc.

When running these programs, the cruise data files are copied to temporary files on the harddisk, where they remain until all errors are removed, at which point they are copied back to floppy disk. The final error checking printouts, showing no computer detected errors were hand checked by the Section Head and filed with the original data forms. All changes to data forms are marked in red and recorded in the log.

Data archival

The error free data files are run through a last set of programs that append the data to master databases containing data from all DC Program cruises. At the same time, several summary printouts are made on the catch and catch sampling characteristics from that cruise. These data summaries form the basis for the DC Program Research Briefs. The summaries include information such as species composition and discard rates by fishing area, night vs day catch composition and catch rate differences, monthly length frequency distributions and statistics on sampling effort. These catch summaries are printed out and maintained in separate notebooks for each cruise, allowing quick reference to individual cruises. Following the addition of each cruise's data to the master databases, all databases are backed up on streaming tape.

The data files, as well as hard copies of the data, are maintained at the MSFC, available to qualified Ministry personnel. uemersal HntiSh Final Report

In addition to the DC Program data, all Catch Reports submitted by the vessels are also entered into computerized databases. Similar backups and summaries are produced on the Catch Report data, and permitted detail comparisons of sampling and vessel-reported catch information.

3. Results and Discussion

Establishment of the procedures described above has resulted in several large databases containing sampling data on the trawler catch. These data are preserved on several media and are easily accessible for analysis. Documentation of database structures and processing techniques would permit an incoming analyst to acquaint himherself with the data very rapidly.

Under the present system, a typical cruise (30 sampling days, 100 completed data forms) can be processed in 7-10 working days, depending on the skill of the DCs. Certainly, data entry is the most time consuming and tedious aspect. At least as many errors are made during data entry as during the original work to complete the data forms. Because it is crucial that the data be consistent, and as the amount of data is accumulating rapidly, the developed system is deemed necessary to insure against loss or corruption of the data. Short of a major change in the data processing system, it is doubtful this turnaround time can be reduced. As data entry generally does not commence until at least a month following the end of a cruise, the data summaries are usually not available until a full two months after return of the DCs.

Involvement of the DCs in data processing has contributed significantly to an improvement in their Data Form completion aboard the trawlers. Entering their (and other DCs) data has shown them the wide variety of mistakes that are commonly made. They have also gained an appreciation for the amount of time that is added to processing of a cruise when it is mistake-filled.

The DCs recognize their newly acquired computer capabilities as among the most valuable of the skills acquired during their involvement with the DC Program. They have frequently provided computer assistance to other MSFC personnel. As they spend approximately every other month at sea, however, their computer training is sporadic, and all have unequal amounts of experience and expertise. They are anxious to continue upgrading their computer skills.

4. Summary of Findings and Recommendations

In at least one other observer-type program around the world (New Zealand), on board data collectors are using portable computers, rather than paper forms, as the initial storage media for sampling data. When work is completed in the factory, the data is entered into form-like databases and hard copy printouts made. The printouts preserve the original data in the event of computer breakdown or data Uemersal Finfish Final Report

corruption. Regular Data Forms are taken to sea as a backup. It is recommended that the use of portable computers for at-sea data entw be adopted if the On Board Data Collection Program is continued. Estimated initial cost for five portable computers, printers and one year's supplies is $17,600 (Table 1). With annual recurrent costs, and replacement of the computers (after two years), the annual cost of maintaining at sea data entry capability would be roughly the same amount.

Balanced against this expense would be the reduction in turnaround time for the sampling data. Immediately upon return from sea, the cruise data could be run through the error checking programs and initial summaries produced. Data entry would take place during the time presently reserved for completing the paper forms. An immediate printout of entered data would preserve the data. The DCs themselves would benefit from continued use of computers. Their logbook entries and Cruise Reports could be computerized at sea, cutting down on debriefing time. Finally, their use of computers would become continuous and they would rapidly improve their computer skills. Of course, taking computers to sea poses certain risks to the equipment, however with the proper safeguards, it is likely that the risks can be minimized.

Maintenance of the DC Program data processing system is in itself a nearly full time job. The work of the DCs requires oversight and the status of each cruise's data as it moves through the system must be tracked. It is recommended that an Omani staff member. at the level of a Research Assistant, be assiened to the Demersal Finfish Section to supervise data urocessinp. This person, with proper training, could combine this role with supervision of the DC Program logistics. Demersal Finfish Final Report

Figure 1. Menu-driven user interface for the DC Program error checking programs. The user can get and backup files from floppies, access and modify data in files, and run each program from this opening menu.

Appx... cost No. of units Total rn per item re~uired

Laptop computer $2,500 5 (IBM XT-compatible, w120 MB harddisk)

Portable printer $500 5

Software $300 5

Floppy disks $0.50 100

Printer paper ------

Misc, incl. repairs --- --.

Table 1. Estimated initial cost to equip DC Program with at sea data entry capability.

35 Demersal Finfish Final Report

D. Analysis of Trawl Data from Commercial Fishery

1. Introduction and Methods

The establishment and operation of the On Board Data Collection Program were described in the preceding sections of this final report and are not, therefore, repeated here. The purpose of this section is to present initial analyses of data collected aboard the trawler fleet. Previously released MSFC Research Briefs (Hare 1989b, 1989d and 1990b) provided quarterly summaries of trawler activity, and the same basic format is followed here. The Research Briefs, as well as the paper presented at the International Symposium (Hare, 1989c) should be consulted for additional detail on recommended management measures.

Due to the time lag involved in processing the data as well as receiving company reports, only 1989 data is included in this analysis. Ideally, one year's worth of data could have been analyzed, however, it would not have been possible to complete the Final Report until several months past the deadline. Since DC Program sampling did not begin until May, it was necessary to utilize vessel reported data in certain instances to complete 1989 summaries.

2. Results

The demersal trawl fishery, despite taking place in a relatively small area (Figure I), is a highly diverse and seasonal fishery. More than 250 individual species were identified in the trawl catches, while many others were classified only to genus or family. Most of the catch is composed, however, of a much smaller number of species. A complete list of species identified in the demersal catches (commercial and artisanal fisheries) is contained in the sampling manual.

Fishing catch and effort

A total of 11 different vessels participated in the demersal trawl fishery in 1989 (Table 1). Four of the trawlers departed after March, reducing the fleet to three vessels. New trawlers were added beginning in July, and the total number reached seven by December. One of the trawlers - the Oman Sea One - is not in the same class as the other trawlers, and for this reason, its figures are usually kept separate from trawler totals. Total fishing effort, monthly retained catch and monthly variation in average daily retained catch are illustrated in Figure 2. Over 160 fishing days were recorded in January and February, decreased to a low of 34 days in May and ended at 144 days in December. The two trawlers that operated year round averaged 288.5 fishing days.

Total trawler catch in 1989 (including discards) was estimated at 18,499.11 MT. The retained portion of the catch amounted to 11,260.31 MT, while discard accounted for 7,238.80 MT (39.13% of total catch). These are discussed separately. Retained catch

The retained catch declined in 1989, reversing a five year trend of increasing catches (Figure 3). Two factors must be considered, however. Earlier figures represent the catch reported by the trawler companies. Underreporting of catch has long been suspected, and the increasing catch over the past few years may simply be the result of closer monitoring. Secondly, the catch decrease in 1989 is primarily due to the removal of all but two trawlers (and the Oman Sea One) for the mid 5 months of the year.

Average daily retained catch varied from a high of 12.404 mtlday during January to a low of 6.829 mt/day during May. There appears to be two seasonal peaks in catch rate, one during the summer, corresponding to the southeast monsoon, the other during the winter hairtail fishery around Masirah Island (Figure 2). Rates during spring and fall were between 7 and 8 mtlday. Over the course of 1989, the average catch rate was 9.609 milday. The smaller Oman Sea One averaged 1.960 mtlday (appx. 20% of the larger trawlers' rate) during 210 fishing days.

It should be noted that daily retained catch rate is more useful as a means of determining vessel, rather than fishery, production, for a couple of reasons. First, the vessels do not retain a large portion of what they catch. The amount discarded varies depending on season and target species. Secondly, during certain seasons, especially the Masirah Island hairtail fishery, the vessel retained catch is limited by the on board freezing capacity. The vessels are able to capture the amount they are capable of processing in just a few hours. If processing was not an impediment, the daily catch rate could go as high as 20-25 mt. A more accurate measure of catch rates is catch per trawling hour, which is discussed below.

It is convenient to divide the annual catch among three geographically distinct regions: Kuria Muria Islands (Areas 750-754), Ras Madrakah and Ras ad Duqm (Areas 755-765) and Masirah Island (Areas 768-773). The retained catch by month and area is given in Table 2. The Ras Madrakahmuqm region is the backbone of the demersal trawl fishery. Fishing in the Kuria Muria region is important only during the monsoon months - July through September in 1989 (Figure 4). The Masirah Island region is fished during the winter months if permission is granted by the Ministry. Traditionally, the trawler fleet is permitted to fish up to 21Â° latitude, however, recently licenses have been issued limiting the trawlers to 20Â° latitude. In 1989, 65.1% of retained catch came from the Ras MadrakahDuqm region, 20.6% from Masirah Island and 13.7% from Kuria Muria (0.7% was caught in unknown areas).

The retained catch was divided among 89 species representing 25 families (Table 3). The two dominant families were hairtails (Trichiuridae) and breams (Sparidae). Over 66% of the catch was composed of just four species (Figure 5): Trichiurus lepturus (largehead hairtail), Cheimerius nufar (santer seabream), Sepia pharaonis (pharaoh cuttlefish) and Lethrinus nebulosus (spangled emperor).

The single most abundant species, with 44.55% of the retained catch, was the largehead hairtail. The hairtail fishery was seasonal, with 85% of the hairtail catch occurring in the winter months, January-February (off Ras Madrakah) and November-December (Masirah Island). The santer seabream catch also showed a strong seasonal and regional variation. The catch peaked in August and September, occurring principally in the Kuria Muria Islands region. The highly sought cuttlefish was found in largest quantities immediately following the monsoon. More than 85% of the cuttlefish catch came from the Ras Madrakah region, of which 70% was taken in September and October. The spangled emperor catch was the most consistent of the four predominant species. Peak months were October, November, July and January. The monthly and regional variation in the catch of the predominant species is illustrated in Figure 6.

Discarded catch

Data on trawler discards exists for only the last eight months of 1989, dating from the start of the DC Program. To calculate total discards for 1989, the average discard rate from the last eight months was applied to the first four months. This is probably reliable since the majority of fishing occurred in the Ras Madrakah region throughout the year.

The total estimated discard of 7,238.801 mt was divided among at least 175 species representing 56 families (Table 4). Due to other sampling priorities, nearly 23% of the discard was unidentified to species, though it likely reflects the identified portion. Among identified families, seven constituted at least 5% of the discard: Ariidae (ocean catfish) - 17.36%; Synodonfidae (lizardfish) - 9.37%; Diodonfidae (porcupinefishes) - 9.35%; Haemulidae (grunts) - 8.06%; Balisfidae (triggerfishes) - 6.99%; rays - 6.20% and Carangidae (trevallies and scads) - 5.22%.

Discard rates fluctuated broadly throughout the year by month and region (Table 5 and Figure 7). The highest average discard rates occurred during June (53.8% of the catch), the lowest during August (18.6%). The biggest influence on discard appears to be region, thus discard in the three major regions is described separately.

Kuria Muria Islands

The Kuria Muria monsoon fishery produced the cleanest trawl catches. Average discard rates for the last eight months of 1989 was 20.0%, however during the peak fishing month (August) discard was just 14.2% of the total catch. The principal discarded species in the Kuria Muria catch (Figure 8) are porcupine fish, threadfin breams (Nemipteridae), lizardfish, sharks and rays, and bigeyes (Riacanthidae).

Ras Madrakah/Duqm

The largest discards occur with catches off Ras Madrakah and Ras ad Duqm, with a yearly discard average of 47.9%. Table 5 shows that the four areas (761-764) off the two Ras's have almost equal discard rates of 48.0%. Discard peaks just prior to, and immediately following the Kuria Muria monsoon season, with more than half the total catch discarded. Major discarded species are ocean catfish, lizardfish, sharks and rays, porcupinefish and triggerfish. Mention should be made concerning the propensity of trawler crews to discard a much greater variety of species during the monsoon season. Most everything except breams and cuttlefish are discarded during this period. Demersal Fintish Final Report

Masirah Island

Discard in the Masirah Island fishery is intermediate between the two other fisheries. During the three months for which discard data are available, 26.7% of the total catch was discarded. The major discards were grunts, lizardfish, scads and trevallies, ocean catfish and sharks and rays.

Turtle catch

The coastline of Oman serves as a major nesting location for several species of sea turtles (Ross and Barwani, 1979). As such, turtle catch is an issue of great concern in Oman. Estimated total turtle catch, based on DC Program sampling, in the 1989 demersal trawl catch was 586 individuals. Turtle catch for the first four months of 1989 was estimated using the average turtle catch for the last eight months of the year. It is possible, therefore, that actual turtle catch may have been higher or lower than this estimate. The turtles were mostly unidentified to species or sex, as the utmost concern was to return them to the sea as rapidly as possible. The Data Collectors estimate that 50% of the turtles were either dead, or had no chance for survival, upon return to the sea.

Turtle catch was highly variable, though a major peak in turtle incidence occurred in October in the area off Ras Madrakah. Incidence rates, in number of turtles per MT retained catch, for areas with turtle catch are given in Table 6. In October, an average of 0.242 turtles per mt retained catch were taken in Area 762. This increased to 0.348 individuals in November. The highest incidence rate was found in Area 768 (south Masirah Island), however, the total retained catch was small during this period. The high turtle incidence rate off Ras Madrakah coincides with the post monsoon cuttlefish season.

Catch per trawling hour

One means of assessing present fishery yield in terms of past yield is by comparing capture rates. Catch per trawling hour is the most basic measure of catch per unit effort. The demersal trawlers in Oman generally utilize nets with a head rope length of 50 meters, resulting in a net opening of 15-20 meters horizontally by 5 meters vertically. Mesh size ranges from 180 mm inside stretch measure in the wings to less than 80 mm in the codend. This net size is comparable to that deployed during the research cruises in Oman in 1973 (Mardela, 1975) and 1983 (Stromme, 1986).

The catch rates produced in the 1989 fishery appear to better historical highs in Oman. The fishery wide average for the last eight months of 1989 was 824.22 kg retained catch per trawling hour (Table 7). The total catch rate (including discards) was 1,354.08 kg/hour. These are much higher than the 1973 figures of 450 and 800 kg/hour and the 1983 figures of 539 and 962 kg/hour. The highest catch rates were produced during the Masirah Island hairtail fishery with 1,657.58 kg/hour retained (2,286.42 kg/hour total) during December. In the Kuria Muria region, August and September were most productive, with retained catch rates of over 780 kg/hour. Best month in the Ras Madrakah region was December, though most of the catch was also hairtail. Demersal Finfish Final Report

Vessel-reoorted and DC Program data comparisons

One of the more unexpected, though welcome, results from DC Program sampling was the close match between program sampling estimates and vessel (company)- reported retained catch composition. Direct comparison of individual species amounts is rendered difficult by the vessels' use of species codes that often lump several different species. We divided the catch into seven major species groups, then compared the results (Figure 9). Measured as a percentage of the total retained catch, only cuttlefish and breams showed differences larger than 2%. DC Program sampling estimated breams at 25.3% and cuttlefish at 7.3% of total catch, compared to vessel-reported figures of 22.7% and 9.6%, respectively. Hairtail was estimated at 44.6% and reported at 45.8%.

On a finer scale, there was evidence of "species manipulation" occurring during at least two DC Program sampling cruises (see Hare, 1989b). Species manipulation is the practice of reporting catch of one species under the name, or code, of another. This practice usually involves one high value and one low value species (e.g., hairtail and threadfin bream), or two species that are split between company partners (cuttlefish and soldierbream). The second situation is one of two possible explanations for the higher vessel-reported percentage of cuttlefish which, as the highest value demersal product, one would expect to see underreported. During the post monsoon cuttlefish season in 1989, a pattern emerged during several consecutive DC sampling cruises. For each voyage, vessel reports showed 30-50 mt more cuttlefish and 30-50 mt less bream catch than sampling figures. In the joint venture arrangement between KOFC and OFC, all cuttlefish go to KOFC. In most instances, the bream also go to KOFC, unless there is not enough "OFC fish" to cover their 38% share. To prevent loss of bream to OFC, therefore, the bream could have been reported as cuttlefish. The second, and probably more likely explanation, is that cuttlefish were underrepresented in DC samples due to vessel interference. As noted in several Cruise Reports, vessel captains prohibited DCs from sampling when the catch of cuttlefish was extremely high. As breams were the other major component of the catch during cuttlefish season, their percentage would rise as the cuttlefish percentage dropped.

The other major comparison that can be made with vessel reported data concerns fishing area. In this category as well, there was generally good agreement between the two figures. On the regional scale, the vessel reports list 12.6% of the catch taken in Kuria Muria (vs 13.7% from DC figures); 63.1% in Ras Madrakah (vs 65.1%) and 22.6% in Masirah (vs 20.6%), with 1.7% taken in unknown areas. One major difference in reported catch concerned the relative amounts taken in the four Areas off Ras Madrakah and Ras ad Duqm. Areas 761 and 763 are nearshore and are almost entirely inside the 50 m depth contour (which defines the legal fishing grounds), while Areas 762 and 764 straddle the contour. DC results show a total of 547.915 MT taken in Areas 761 and 763, compared to the vessels' reported catch of 292.643 MT. The actual misreporting by area was probably substantially larger; the DCs noted almost continuous inshore fishing by the trawlers despite their reports of fishing outside 50 m and 10 miles. The 24 hour fishing mode does not allow more than occasional verification of true fishing positions by the on board DCs.

In addition to the above described data, a considerable amount of other data have Demersal Finfish Final Report

been collected. The most important of these data are the length and lengthlweight frequencies. Analysis on eight months of length frequencies would yield little useful information. As the data accumulate, however, they will become extremely helpful in determining the state of the fishery in general, and of the predominant species in particular. Extension of the DC Program will permit extensive analysis of the length frequency data. The factory production data collected by the DCs was examined in an earlier report (Hare, 1989~).Results at that time showed that the vessels may have been underreporting their retained catch by as much as 6% by using a lower than actual block weight. Additional data exist, however they have not yet been analyzed. It is suspected that the same pattern has continued.

Sustainable yield

One final investigation was conducted on the sustainable yield of the fishery. The multispecies nature of tropical demersal fisheries is a well known impediment to accurate predictions of yield (Marten and Polovina, 1982). The lack of data greatly limited the choice of available models. For the purpose of providing a very rough, first order approximation of sustainable yield, available catch and effort data were analyzed using the well known Schaefer and Fox surplus production models (Schaefer, 1954 and Fox, 1970 respectively). The limitations of these models are substantial (Pauly, 1984), however their use as rough first indicators of MSY has been widespread (Sparre et al, 1989.).

To use the two models, times series of catch and effort data are required. For the trawl fishery, semi reliable figures were obtained for the years 1976-77 and 1986- 1989. For each model, four sets of catch data were used:

(1) original company provided retained catch

(2) total catch adjusted from original company data using 1989 discard rate

(3) retained catch figures adjusted upwards by 25% for the years prior to 1988

(4) total catch figures adjusted upwards by 25% for the years prior to 1988

As discussed earlier, underreporting of catch by the trawlers has along been suspected. The effort figures are probably fairly accurate, since the arrival and departure of the trawlers in the port is closely monitored. If, in fact, catch in earlier years had been underreported, it is an important factor to take into account in the estimate of yield.

The resulting plots of yield per unit effort versus effort and fishery yield versus effort are illustrated in Figures 10 (data sets 1 and 2) and 11 (data sets 3 and 4). The best fits (highest r2) came from the adjusted data. For all four data sets, the Fox model suggested higher MSYs and f(MSYs), and are shown below: Demersal Finfish Final Report

Data Catch MODEL TYPE Source Figure SCHAEFER FOX

MSY fMSY MSY (mt) (days) (nit) Retained ORIGINAL Catch (set 1) 19,970

DATA Total Catch (set 2) 32,426

Retained ADJUSTED Catch (set 3) 19,676

DATA Total Catch (set 4) 32,209

Using the original company-supplied data, the maximum sustained yield under the Schaefer model is approximately 20,000 mt retained and 32,000 mt total catch. The Fox model estimates each figure at 4,000 mt higher. Adjustment of earlier catch amounts for underreporting had little impact on MSY estimates. The effort levels associated with the MSYs, however, were greatly impacted. Original data supplied effort estimates of 3,800 days (Schaefer) and 6,100 days (Fox). Using adjusted data resulted in corresponding figures of 3,070 and 4,750 days. The impact, therefore, of underreporting catch in earlier years is to squeeze the yield parabolas toward the origin without raising the height (MSY). If earlier catch figures are even higher, the effort figures for attaining MSY would decrease further. Note that average number of fishing days between 1986-1988 (representing a stable fleet of eight trawlers) was slightly less than 2,000.

3. Discussion

The April 1989 decision to implement a quota system for the demersal trawl fishery represented an attempt to create a rational management system for the fishery. The initial quota of 18,000 MT was purposefully conservative and designed to maintain the catch at recent levels, until sounder scientific studies could determine the annual allowable catch. As the first step, the On Board Data Collection Program has begun to provide the required scientific data. Though only eight months worth of data have been analyzed, several important factors have been elucidated.

The most immediate item of concern is the high rate of discard in the fishery, which surpasses the most pessimistic previous estimates. With the current 40% discard rate, the annual retained catch would have to be held at 10,800 MT to limit total catch to the 18,000 MT quota. The current fleet of 7 large trawlers (plus the Oman Sea One), at 1989 catch rates, will take 30,800 MT total catch in 1990 if allowed to fish year round (Hare, 1990b). The 18,000 MT limit will be reached before the end of July.

The high discard rate and its causes were previously examined (Hare, 1989d). The major factor was found to be trawler utilization of very small mesh nets that resulted in low escapement rates. Use of double and even triple lined codends has been consistently reported by the Data Collectors. An update to that study has shown that the average weight of discarded fish is 218 g, as compared to an average weight of 731 g for retained fish. Information from the post monsoon cuttlefish fishery has shown that vessels will discard large quantities of valuable fish when cuttlefish catch is high, including virtually all other fish except for breams.

Some amount of discard is inevitable in a tropical demersal fishery such as that in Oman. Measures can, and should be, taken, however, to limit the discard rate. First, the most obvious measure is to enforce the present mesh size law (110 mm inside stretch measure). This could easily be accomplished by inspection of nets both in the port and at sea. Secondly, perusal of Table 4 shows significant discard quantities of many valuable families of fish, particularly rays, trevallies, sharks, barracudas, threadfin breams and, possibly, ocean catfish. A prohibition against discarding these families, while not easily enforced, would help to lower the discard. Finally, time and area closures could also be instituted when discard rates are above a certain preset level. This would require rapid turnaround of sampling data, perhaps by reporting weekly results via radio.

A second item of concern is the concentration of fishing effort and catch in a small number of Areas. In 1989,72.4% of the total retained catch was taken in just three Areas: 762 (Ras Madrakah), 764 (Ras ad Duqm) and 771 (north Masirah Island). Each of these areas is 30' latitude by 30' longitude in size. The obvious danger is that these small fishing grounds will be decimated by this intense fishing pressure. A number of other problems also occur in Areas 762 and 764 that would be eased by decreasing fishing pressure:

1) The highest annual discard rates are found in Areas 762 and 764, particularly during the post monsoon cuttlefish season.

2) More than two-thirds of the turtle catch takes place in Areas 762 and 764, most during the cuttlefish season.

3) These areas contain fishing grounds both shallower than 50 m and within 10 miles of land, thus tempting the trawlers to fish illegally.

4) These areas are part of a major zone of interaction and conflict between artisanal fishermen and the trawler fleet.

The cuttlefish catch may be strong circumstantial evidence of shallow water fishing by the trawlers. Evidence in the literature, as well as early reports from Japanese trawlers operating in Oman, show that spawning concentrations of cuttlefish are found in waters much shallower than 50 m. Added to this is the high turtle incidence rate corresponding to the cuttlefish season. Turtles generally feed in shallow waters: if the trawlers restricted their activities to deeper than 50 m, it is likely they would only catch turtles while the gear was moving down to, or up from, Demersal Finfish Final Report the bottom fishing depth. In shallow water, turtles are constantly at risk from a bottom trawl.

The trawler companies will likely argue that they have explored other fishing grounds within the present concession area and cannot sustain their catches if they are removed from the Ras Madrakah and Ras ad Duqm areas. One solution to this is to open new fishing grounds. The most promising presently appears to be the region north of 21Â° latitude, i.e., north of Masirah Island. This region is outside an unpopulated stretch of coastline where the Wahaiba sands are located. No artisanal demersal fishery presently exists there. The major catch would likely be hairtail, a species of little value in Oman. Ideally, the time to close Areas 762 and 764 would be the post monsoon period. The loss to the trawlers would be major since that is where they catch most of their cuttlefish. However, the behavior of the trawlers (besides factors mentioned in this Activity, see Part B for information on DC harassment) during this period more than justifies the move.

A third item of concern is the inadequacy of the present regulatory system to implement demersal management regulations. The three major management measures: quotas, depth restriction, area limitations are all consistently violated by the trawler fleet. The management, by its very structure, requires a strong and efficient enforcement presence. This capability does not currently exist, nor is it likely to appear in the near future. For these and other reasons given in this report, I believe that a change in management of the commercial demersal fishery is required.

The system I propose for the future is one utilizing time and area openings and closures. It is beyond the scope of this report to fully describe such a system, though this should be a primary task in future Demersal Finfish research. There are numerous advantages to a timelarea closure system, a few of which are included below:

1 - Threatened areas can be closed off, either on short notice or on a prearranged basis. This allows the management regime to respond to problems as they arise. For instance, if turtle incidence, or discard rates, reach certain levels, the trawlers can be shut out of an area.

2 - Experimental grounds can be established allowing trawlers limited access to resources until their viability is known. Valuable scientific data can also be collected in this manner.

3 - The quota system can be abolished, and the fishery controlled by effort, an inherently simpler system.

4 - Enforcement and monitoring and made simpler. The rules are straightforward: if a trawler is seen in a closed area, it is in violation and subject to seizure.

Another strong concern is the change in composition of the annual demersal trawl catch. While the historic figures provided by the trawler companies are suspect, there use may be justified on the basis of 1989 sampling data showing that the Demersal Finflsh Final Report

companies appear to have accurately reported their catch composition. The change in catch by major species group between 1976 and 1989 is illustrated in Figure 12. While it may be too early to draw conclusions, it appears that hairtail is becoming an ever more important component of the catch, mainly at the expense of the bream catch. This would be a logical development in a long exploited fishery, since breams are slow growing, long-lived species, in contrast to the fast growing, relatively short-lived hairtail. The high catch rates (both catchlday and catch/hour) noted earlier are primarily due to the hairtail catch, though the use of small mesh trawls plays a role. Cuttlefish, also a short-lived, fast growing organism, has also expanded in importance to the fishery. If, in fact this is an emerging situation, it reduces the probability that the offshore demersal fishery will be "Omanized" in the near future due to the unattractiveness of hairtail to the Omani market. This is another argument in favor of restricting the Ras Madrakah fishery, which is still largely a bream fishery, and opening north Masirah to the trawlers, for what would likely be a hairtail fishery.

The two surplus yield models described earlier suggest that the trawl fishery is not presently exploited to produce its maximum sustainable yield. Such a conclusion should be viewed with extreme caution. The data used for the model are highly suspect and the middle eight years (1978-1985) are not included for lack of effort data. The unreliability of catch data contributes to the weakness of the model. This point was reemphasized by the higher correlation coefficient produced with the adjusted data. If we do suppose, however, that the models are fairly accurate, it is still questionable whether the trawler catch should be allowed to rise to MSY. One result, as predicted by the model, would be a sharp decline in the catch per fishing day. The decline would be as much as 50% compared to present rates. Depending on the model chosen, 2-8 new trawlers would be required to reach the fMSY level. These additional trawlers would exacerbate the aforementioned problems concerning enforcement, discard, turtle catch, etc. Finally, the change in species composition in the fishery will occur more rapidly with increased fishing pressure.

The models can be used as predictive tools, translating effort levels to sustained yields. Expected yield per fishing day can then be calculated. Sustained yield, and yield per day, at increasing levels of effort are given in Table 8. The four data sets described earlier were used for input. The models provide one further piece of evidence that the fleet size should be restrained at its current size. The fleet of 8 trawlers, if allowed to fish freely, will total more appx. 2100 days. The expected yield will drop to 7.4-8.4 mtlday retained and 12-15 mtlday total catch, corresponding to a fishery yield of 15-17,000 and 25-29,000 mt, respectively.

4. Summary of Findings

For the 1989 trawl fishery, certain analyses can be made based on the eight months of data collected under the DC Program. Total catch for the year was estimated at 18,499.11 metric tons, of which 11,260.31 mt (60.87%) was retained and 7,238.80 mt (39.13%) was discarded. The retained catch represented a decrease of over 6,000 mt from 1988, principally the result of a reduction in fleet size. Average daily retained catch was 9.609 mt, with a range of 6.829 mtlday (May) to 12.404 mtlday (January). Demersal Finfish Final Report

The fishery takes place in three distinct areas, with the catches in each exhibiting different characteristics. The Masirah Island region yields mainly hairtail catches during the winter months. The best catch rates, in mtltrawling hour, are found around Masirah. Discard accounts for a little more than 25% of the catch. The Kuria Muria Islands region is fished only during the southwest monsoon season. Predominant in the catch are breams, emperors and cuttlefish, while discard is very light (appx. 20%). The backbone of the yearly trawl fishery is the Ras MadrakahRas ad Duqm region. Catches are highly diverse, with half the catch usually discarded. The annual cuttlefish fishery takes place off Ras Madrakah following the end of the monsoon.

Over the entire year, 89 different species were retained by the trawlers. Four major species - largehead hairtail, santer seabream, pharaoh cuttlefish and spangled emperor -accounted for two-thirds of the total. The discarded catch was extremely diverse, being composed of more than 175 species. Principal families were ocean catfish, lizardfish, porcupinefish and grunts, however large quantities of valuable species were also discarded. Turtle catch was highly variable, with a high incidence rate noted during the Ras Madrakah cuttlefish fishery.

Catch rates, in mtltrawling hour were found to be at historical highs, though these results should be viewed with caution. The large catch of hairtail (a densely schooling fish), combined with the use of small mesh trawls, inflate the figure. The trawlers are also undoubtedly fishing nearshore, evidenced by the high turtle and cuttlefish catch.

A large percentage (>70%) of the annual catch is concentrated in three small 30' by 30' statistical blocks, one each off of Ras Madrakah, Ras ad Duqm and north Masirah Island. The obvious danger to these fishing grounds that this level of fishing pressure presents is added to the several other problems noted for Ras Madrakah and Ras ad Duqm.

It appears that a significant change is occurring in the composition of the trawler catch. Historically a bream fishery, hairtail has increased in percentage each of the past five years - while bream has declined at roughly the same rate. This trend is predictable when one considers the type of fish involved: a fast growindshort lived species (hairtail) replacing slow growing/long lived species (breams). Omanization of the fishery will be postponed if such a trend continues due to the undesireablility of hairtail in Oman.

The current management regime is considered insufficient for the trawl fishery, in large measure because the measures require an active enforcement capability which does not exist, and is not likely to arise in the future. A new regime, utilizing time/area openings and closures is recommended. Numerous benefits can be expected from such a system, which would also have lower monitoring requirements.

Available historical catch and effort data were analyzed using two surplus production models (Schaefer and Fox). These models suggest that the maximum sustained yield is between 20,000 and 24,000 mt retained catch (32,000-39,000 mt retained catch). Attaining this yield, however, would require an increase in fleet size which would, in turn result in a greatly decreased catch per fishing day (up to a Demersal HnIish Hnal Report

50% drop). Present fleet size and catch should be maintained at no higher than present levels.

5. Recommendations

a) Recommendations for Management

The management recommendations resulting from this analysis of the demersal trawl fishery are as follows:

1) Maintain trawler fleet at no larger than present size (8 vessels). While there are indications that the fishery could sustain increased effort, there are a number of present and potential concerns that need to be further addressed. The most important of these is the apparent shift in species composition from a fishery once dominated by high value breams to one experiencing a rapidly increasing percentage of hairtail (Trichiurus lepturus). This change would insure that the commercial fishery would not be Omanized in the near future, and may have an impact on the artisanal fishery in regions where they overlap (e.g., Ras Madrakah). Increased fishing effort would also lower the individual vessel catch per day, and increased the already sizable amount of catch that is discarded.

2) Implement a new management regime utilizing time and area openings and closures to replace the current ineffective system. Presently, the fishery is supposed to be limited to a total catch of 18,000 mt. The current fleet, at 1989 catch and effort rates, will top 30,000 mt (including discarded catch) in 1990. The fleet is also subject to depth and area restrictions. None of these measures can be enforced by the Ministry, a situation unlikely to change soon. By implementing a system of opening and closing broad areas to fishing, the catch and activities of the trawlers can be more easily and effectively controlled. The Demersal Finfish Section stands prepared to assist in designing a rational system. Currently identified measures that should be immediately implemented are:

3) Prohibit fishing in arealseasons that exhibit high discard rates. The Ras Madrakah post monsoon fishery was the worst in this regard in 1989. Part of the impetus behind the high discard rate is the relatively high value of cuttlefish to the trawler companies vis-a-vis the other demersal species. The trawler companies can be warned that discard rates above a set percentage will result in their being banned from that area.

4) Distribute the fishing catch and effort to protect the highlv productive eons. The tendency of the trawler fleet to fish in a concentrated group over the same grounds will result in decimating those grounds. As the trawler companies have little regard for the future condition of the demersal fishery, steps should be taken to preserve these productive grounds.

5) Reduce the incidental turtle catch. Oman is a major breeding area for five species of turtles. The trawler concession zone parallels the major nesting beaches. Current estimates are that half the turtles trawled up do not survive upon return to the sea. For much of the year, incidental catch of turtles is fairly Uemersal Finfish Final Report

low. Data for 1989 showed that the majority of the turtles were caught in two small regions in October and November. Not coincidentally, the areas and times in question match the Ras Madrakah cuttlefish fishery. The turtle catch can be greatly reduced by shutting the Ras Madrakah, or other regions, when incidence rates rise too high.

6) Enforce the 110 mm inside stretch measure law. Of all regulations, this should be the simplest to enforce, yet it rarely is done. The small mesh nets play a large role in the high discard rate associated with the trawl fishery, through the capture of both small "trash fish" and of juveniles of valuable fish. The worst abuse of this law also occurs during the Ras Madrakah cuttlefish fishery.

7) Expand the northern boundary of the present concession grounds. to allow fishine north of Masirah Island. Implementation of the above management recommendations will reduce the amount of fish available to the trawler fleet. This can be partially alleviated by opening new fishing grounds. The most promising appears to be the region north of Masirah Island. The trawlers are likely to find mainly hairtail, and there is currently no artisanal fishery for demersal fishes in the region. As the region lies outside the Wahaiba sands, there will be little interaction between the trawlers and artisanal fishermen.

b) Recommendations for Future Research

The management recommendations resulting from this analysis of the demersal trawl fishery are as follows:

1) Continue On Board Data Collection Program for as lone as trawlers operate in Omani waters. One year's worth of data has provided valuable information on the fishery, but a time series is required to test some of the early findings. Continuous data is also needed to monitor trends in the fishery. This will also permit research on the other topics listed below. The Ministry must, however, demonstrate its support for the program by hiring the Data Collectors as permanent Ministry personnel. Without this step, the program cannot continue.

2, Investigate mesh size impact on yield of multispecies fisheries. The use of small mesh nets has an unknown, though certainly not positive, impact on the future yield of marketable fishes. Several mesh size models have been developed for multispecies fisheries, and they should be investigated for applicability to Oman. It would be possible to authorize the use of smaller mesh nets by one of the trawlers to determine the difference in catch, and extrapolate to future yield.

3) Incorporate food habits studies on the maior demersal fishes into the DC Program. As a multispecies fishery, many factors affect the fishery. One of the more important may be the ecological makeup of the species complex. Understanding "who eats who or what" can help predict the impact of targeting on particular species, and in understanding the changing composition of the demersal community. The DC Program can undertake the necessary sampling if the program is continued. uemersal rmtisn final Report

4) Determine growth. parameters on major demersal species. A large database on length and lengthlweight frequencies has already been collected on many of the predominant demersal species in the trawler catches. This data should be analyzed and collection continued. This will provide insights to the extent of competitiveness between the artisanal and commercial fisheries and the health of the stocks of these species.

5) Establish the distribution of maior species bv depth strata. This will help determine 1) what effect regulations on depth limits will have on the trawler fleet, 2) the degree of inshore fishing by the trawlers, and 3) the degree of competitive interaction between the commercial and artisanal fisheries.

6) Analyze research data from FA0 vessel Rasfrelliser to see if other fishing grounds can be opened to the trawler fleet. The management proposals listed above will impact the trawler fleet by limiting the fishing grounds available to them. It is possible that other unexploited grounds may he suitable for commercial trawling, particularly in deeper water. The north Masirah grounds were suggested above, but the Rastrelliger database should also be examined. Demersal Finflsh Final Report

I I 52' 54O 56' 58' 6( Figure 1. Legal fishing zone and statistical regions for the dernersal trawl fishery.

50 Demersal Finfish Final Report

Monthly catch and effort

Metric tons No. days -- 2500 1- i 250

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Fishing Days -Retained catch

- - Catch and effort of Oman Sea One not included

Monthly variation in average daily catch

MT retained catch/day 14 1

1- 1- Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

+ Avg. catchlday

- Catch and effort of Oman Sea One not included

Figure 2. Monthly variation in 1989 trawler catch, effort and average daily retained catch. Retained Catch in the Trawl Fishery, 1976-1989

Thousands of mt .- *O r

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 Figure 3. Reported retained catch in the demersal trawl fishery, 1976-1989. Demersal Finfish Final Report

Regional Distribution of Retained Catch by catch quantity

Metric Tons retained catch 2500 t

Maslrah island r Ras Madrakah/Du~m i Kuria Muria islands 1 1 I I

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sen Oct Nov Dec

Regional Distribution of Retained Catch by catch percentage

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Ho\ Dec

Figure 4. Regional and monthly variation in 1989 demersal trawl catch. Demersal Finfish Final Report

Predominant Species in 1989 Trawl Catch by catch quantity

Metric tons retained catch 2500 I ! a Other Lethrlnus nebuloaua Sepia pharaonls Cheimerlua nufar

" Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Predominant Species in 1989 Trawl Catch by catch percentage

- .- Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 5. Monthly variation in the 1989 demersal trawl catch of the four predominant retained species. Demersal Finfish Final Report

Predominant Retained Species

Masirah Island

, , Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jut Aug Sep Oct Nov Dai Ras Madrakah/Duqm

fit

Jan FÃ§ Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sec Oct New Dec

Kuria Muria Islands

Metric tons

Figure 6. Regional variation in the 1989 trawler catch of the four predominant retained species. Demersal Finfish Final Report Demersal F'inflsh Final Report

Predominant Discarded Species

Masirah Island

Jan Feb Mar Apt May Jun Ju! Aua Sep Oct Nov Dei

Ras Madrakah/Duqrn

Metric tons

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jui Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Kuria Muria Islands

Figure 8. Regional variation in the major discarded species in the 1989 trawler catch.

57 Retained Catch Composition Comparison

other 6.6% .. . other 5.8% puf ferfish ~ufferfish3.1% croakers 3182 croakers 3.8% trevallies 4.4% trevallies 3.9% emperors 5.7% emperors 5.3% cuttlefish 7.3% cuttlefish 9.6%

breams 25.3%

hairtail 44.6%

DC Program Vessel-reported

Figure 9. Comparison of DC Program estimated and vessel-reported catch composition in the 1989 demersal trawl fishery. a Demersal Finfish Final Report Demersal Finfish Final Report Demersa! Finfish Final Report

Species Composition variation, 1976-1989 by catch quantity

Thousands of MT 20 7 Breams Halrtall ilQroupers Sweetllpa E!- Cuttlefish 0 Trevallles as her A

Species Composition variation, 1976-1989 by catch percentage

Figure 12. Apparent shift in species composition of the trawler catch between 1976 and 1989. The trend towards increased hairtail composition has accelerated since 1984. Demersal Finfish Final Report - Vessel Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Get Nov Due Total Kum Bong 202 Catch (MT) 347.53 289.50 637.03 No. of days 23 26 49 MT per day 15.1l0 81.135 13.wk Klim Bong 501 Catch (MT) 1. 224.99 iW.00 87.00 143.06 250.56 360.44 290.22 234.88 184.90 241.36 174.86 2,459,361 No. of days 16 23 23 16 25 26 24 24 29 28 25 27 284 MT per day 10.504 9.782 8.652 6.214 5.723 9.637 10.852 12.093 8.099 6.604 9.654 6.476 8.660 ppppp Kum Bong 503 Catch (MT) 295.99 152.36 360.00 267.38 89.10 255.18 289.16 331.20 219.50 177.34 265.60 315.36 2.918.17 No. of days 26 24 27 28 9 25 2fi 25 25 23 26 27 293 MT pcs day 1.384 6-38 9.630 9.549 9.900 10.207 11.122 13.248 8.780 7.094 10.215 I1680 9.960 Kam Bong 505 Catch (MT) 275.68 153.54 101.~ 1.88 266.36 288.12 1.166.~ No. of days 22 l* 13 24 27 12fi MT per day I.1 6.970 7.220 6.298 11.098 10.671 9.m Kum Bong 801 Catch (MT) 270.64 ~54.77 525.4, No. of days 22 26 a MT per day 12.302 9.799 10.946 Kum Bong 808 Catch (MT) 270.36 219.85 490.21 No. of days 23 u 47 MT per day 11.755 9.160 10.430 Auroln 1 Catch (MT) 36s.7~ 270.38 639.16 No. of days 25 26 51 MT per day 14.751 10.39 12.533 Aurola 7 Catch (MT) 82.12 182.12 No. of days 13 13 MT per day 14.009 14.009 Sen Queen 1 Catch (MT) 30.99 147.92 222.90 305.74 707.55 NO. of days 9 31 21 25 86 MT per day 3. 4.772 10.614 12.230 8.227 Sen Queen 2 Catch (MT) 9.51 261.96 154.28 198.93 202.41 286.05 1.123.14 No. of days 5 27 28 24 23 25 132 MT per day 3. 9.702 5.510 8.289 8.801 11.442 8.509 Oman Sea 1 Catch (MT) 23.74 54.00 54.12 16.72 114.46 53.44 54.92 40.30 411.70 No. of days ~4 I 30 w 20 22 28 n 18 210

Table 1. Catch and effort data for 1989 demersal trawlers. Note that the first total includes data for the Oman Sea One, the second total excludes that data.

Table 3. Distribution of retained catch by family and month - all figures except pet are in kg. Ã 13a Demersal Finfish Final Report

Table 4. Distribution of discarded species by family and month. Demersal Finfish Final Report

Demersal Finfish Final Report

RAS MADRAKAHIDUQM CATCH RATES No. of Kgltrawlig hi Kgltrawiing hr 1 VreaIRegion Month hours retained catch total catch 755 5 6.25 3.20 118.40

755 12 42.50 545.88 1,194.82 WATOTAL 49.58 468.30 1,039.06 758 10 1.18 0.00 0.00 4REA TOTAL 1.18 0.00 0.00 759 7 29.13 315.79 440.39 759 9 2.67 0.00 0.00 WATOTAL 31.80 289.31 403.46 761 6 177.25 589.56 1.061.21

761 11 87.20 643.23 968.69 VREA TOTAL 536.03 553.58 1,061.46 762 5 79.42 623.17 1,313.33

762 11 122.97 816.48 1,094.61 WATOTAL 1,491.65 655.19 1,241.68 7 63 9 42.03 321.17 934.26 763 10 31.63 815.28 1,143.73 WEA TOTAL 73.67 533.35 1,024.21 764 5 58.92 730.69 1,327.64

Table 7. Catch rates for Ras MadrakahIDuqm demersal fishery by month. The difference between retained and total catch per hour is the discard. Demersal Finfish Final Report

KURIA MURIA CATCH RATES 1 No. of Keltrawline- - hr Keltrawline- - hr AreaIRegion Month hours retained catch total catch 750 7 218.35 551.87 601.79 750 8 343.92 796.70 888.88 750 9 74.50 619.19 973.69 AREA TOTAL 636.77 691.98 800.36 75 1 6 4.25 0.00 0.00 75 1 7 1.33 0.00 0.00 75 1 8 93.38 964.73 1,073.00 75 1 9 170.90 874.78 1,352.84 AREA TOTAL 269.87 887.81 1,228.01 752 8 326.03 718.33 892.24 752 9 13.42 494.16 775.90 752 10 5.92 1,859.15 2.018.03

MASIRAH ISLAND CATCH RATES 768 10 7.08 992.47 2,151.53 AREA TOTAL 7.08 992.47 2,151.53 770 10 9.98 669.12 1,422.37 AREA TOTAL 9.98 669.12 1,422.37 77 1 11 217.85 1,333.49 1.762.22

Table 7, Cont. Catch rates for Kuria Muria and Masirah Island regions, and for entire fishery for last eight months of 1989. Fishery total figures are weighted by monthly catch and sampling effort. SCHAEFER MODEL FOX MODEL Set 1 - retained 1 Set 2 - total 1 Set 3 -retained 1 SO 4 - total 1 Set 1 - retained 1 Set 2 - total [ Set 3 - retained 1 Set 4 - total , I Fishery Daily Fishery Daily Fishery Daily Fishery Daily Fishery Daily Fishery Daily Fishery Daily Fishery Daily Effort yield yield yield yield yield yield yield yield yield yield yield yield yield yield yield yield (days] (mi) (mi) (mt) (4 (mi) (mt) (mi) (mi) (mi) (m9 (mi) (mi) (mt) (W (4 (mi) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 250 -499 10.00 4,155 16.62 3,048 12.19 5,058 20.23 2,530 10.12 4,207 16.83 3,095 12.38 5,148 20.59 500 4,831 9.66 8,026 16.05 5,840 11.68 9,683 19.37 4.858 9.72 8,069 16.14 5,877 11.75 9,762 19.52 750 6,997 9.33 11,621 15.49 8,376 11.17 13,878 18.50 6,997 9.33 11,607 15.48 8,370 11.16 13,885 18.51 1,000 8,995 9.00 14,912 14.91 10,655 10.66 17,640 17.64 8,958 8.96 14R42 1434 105% 1060 17554 17.55

2,250 16,481 7.32 27,145 12.06 18,205 8.09 29,977 13.32 16,455 7.31 27,085 12.04 18,391 8.17 30,273 13.45 2.500 17.477 6.99 28.737 11.49 18,945 7.58 31,149 12.46 17,556 7.02 28,860 11.54 19,401 7.76 31,894 12.76 2,750 18,306 6.66 30,044 10.93 19,429 7.07 31,890 11.60 18,544 6.74 30,444 11.07 20,262 7.37 33,266 12.10 3,000 18,968 6.32 31.066 10.36 19,657 6.55 32,199 10.73 19,425 6.48 31,850 10.62 20.986 7.0 34,410 11.47 4.000 19,946 4.99 32,308 8.08 18,004 4.50 29,117 7.28 22,020 5.51 35,917 8.98 22,736 5.68 37,086 9.27 5,000 18,253 3.65 28,993 580 12,248 2.45 19.128 3.83 23,400 4.68 37,972 7.59 23,093 4.62 37,473 7.49 6,000 13,887 2.31 21,121 3.52 2.390 0.40 2,233 0.37 23,873 3.98 38,539 6.42 22,517 3.75 36,349 6.06 7,000 6,848 0.98 8,692 1.24 0 0.00 0 0.00 23,679 3.38 38,027 5.43 21,345 3.05 34,279 4.90 8.000 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 23.007 2.88 36.757 4.59 19.821 2.48 31,668 3.96 9,000 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 22.005 2.45 34,974 3.89 18,119 2.01 7,8,798 3.20

3 Table 8. Estimated yields under the Schaefer and Fox surplus production models for the demersal trawl fishery. Four datasets were used as input for is the models, and are described in the text. Datasets 1 and 3 estimate retained catch, while datascts 2 and 4 estimate total (is., retained and discarded) $ catch. 3. Demersal Finfish Final Report

E. Establishment of Database on Biological Characteristics of Principal Demersal Fishes Taken in Artisanal Fishery

1. Summary of Activities

During the 17 months of the Demersal Finfish Project, only limited research effort was devoted to the artisanal fishery. The major cause of this was the expansion of the trawl fishery and the perceived immediacy of research concentration on that fishery. The artisanal fishery appears at present to be underexploited, depending on other fisheries in the region. In other words, demersal fishes rarely form the basis of a directed fishery, but serve as a backup fishery due to seasonal closures for other fisheries (e.g., lobster), poor weather, etc. There exist no management measures for the artisanal demersal fishery, and there does not appear to be a immediate need for any. This situation is likely to change in the future as the other fisheries approach their maximum sustainable yields, and more effort is directed at demersal fish.

Six months of length frequency data on 15-20 of the most predominant demersal fishes in the artisanal fishery were collected in mid 1989. Samples were taken from six landing sites between Musandam and Duqm. Artisanal sampling was curtailed when the trawler fleet began expanding in September. The data are entered into databases similar to those described for the DC Program (Specific Activity C).

Though little analysis was conducted, it was noted that the artisanal and commercial fisheries take many of the same species. The level of interaction between the two fisheries is of an unknown magnitude, however it is likely considerable in the region around Ras Madrakah. The greatest threat to the artisanal fishery, in fact, comes from the trawler fleet, not the artisanal fishermen.

2. Recommendations

a) Recommendations for Management

There are no present recommendations for management measures until the research activities stated below have been implemented to assess the state of the resource.

b) Recommendations for Future Research

As the desired sampling coverage of the commercial fishery has been achieved, it is now urgent that similar coverage commence on the artisanal fishery. A primary goal of the research should be to determine the extent to which the artisanal fishery is impacted by the commercial fishery. Research should initially concentrate on the following topics:

1) Map out artisanal demersal catch, similar to what has been done with the commercial catch, and determine the amount of overlap between the two fisheries. If possible, attempts should be made to determine catch by depth strata. Demersal Finfish Final Report

2) Monthly length frequency data need to be collected from the major demersal landing sites on the predominant species. A sampling system can be established that links up with the Statistics Department samplers. In this manner, length frequency samples can be easily extrapolated to total catch.

3) Examine the differencelsimilarity in size distributions for species important to both (artisanal and commercial) fisheries.

This is the most basic research that can be conducted on a fishery. As no previous work has been done, however, it is both necessary and will yield important information. More intensive work can be attempted further in the future including research on topics such as food habits, ecological interactions and determination of standing stock and sustainable yields.

It is hoped that the Data Collectors will be able to incorporate artisanal sampling as one of their duties. Current plans, should the Demersal Finfish Section be extended, are to reduce sampling coverage of the trawler fleet in order to increase artisanal sampling.

V. Other Activities

A. Assistance with FA0 Research Vessel Kastrelliger

The Demersal Finfish Section has been at the forefront of MSFC cooperation with the FA0 R/V Rastrelliger. The Section Head worked with the FA0 Project Leader (Per Sparre) to choose and test data processing software for use by Rastrelliger scientists. The Section Head participated in the initial cruise as chief biologist, establishing the catch sampling methodology. During all subsequent cruises, at least one Data Collector accompanied the vessel, assisting on board biologists in sampling the catches. The DCs also maintained a separate set of Data Forms similar to those utilized in the DC Program. This allows direct comparison of catch data between the trawler fleet and the Rastrelliger. One anticipated result is the identification of alternative fishing grounds for the trawler fleet.

B. Seminars and Other Training

The Section Head presented a paper entitled "Preliminary Results from Biological Sampling Aboard Demersal Trawlers Operating off the Coast of Oman" at the International Symposium on Agriculture and Fisheries Development in Oman (Hare 1989~). The Symposium was held at Sultan Qaboos University between the 15th and 19th October, 1989. The Section Head assisted in the preparation of management recommendations resulting from the Symposium.

A one-day seminar at the Marine Science and Fisheries Center was conducted by the Section Head on "The Use of Computers in Data Management". The purpose of the seminar was to introduce staff to the major software packages used for microcomputers and provide examples of their usefulness. Demersal Finfish Final Report

The Section Head participated in team teaching a Fisheries course for Sultan Qaboos University students. A three hour seminar was presented on the demersal fish of Oman, including laboratory identification of demersal fish and life history characteristics of several species.

The Section Head assumed a lead role in installation and early use of a satellite surface temperature system acquired late in the project. In May 1990, he trained Nashwa Al-Harthy, from the Oceanography Section in use of the system.

On an informal basis, the Section Head installed, tested and maintained much of the computer equipment at the MSFC. This included research, purchase and demonstrations of new equipment, assistance with recovery of lost data, advice on preparation of tables and figures, and contacting service companies for repairs.

During the project, the Section Head participated in numerous meetings concerning management of the demersal fishery. Upon request he provided information and analyses on the trawler catches. Two subjects in particular were given sustained attention by the Ministry: trawler discard and violation of regulations. Concerning discard, the Section Head prepared tables illustrating discard quantities and rates by month, area and vessel. Following these discussions, directives were issued to the companies on trawler discard policy. As on hoard witnesses, the DCs frequently encounter trawler violations of fisheries regulations. The most consistent violations were of area and depth limitations, and use of small mesh nets. In addition to DC reports, the Section Head provided biological proof of illegal fishing activities. C. Publications and Reports

Major publications and reports are listed below and are included as accompanying documents to this final report.

Hare, S.R. 1989a. Sampling Manual for Data Collectors Aboard Foreign Fishing Vessels. Oman Marine Science and Fisheries Center, Special Report No. 1. April 1989. 93 pp.

Hare, S.R. 1989c. Preliminary Results from Biological Sampling Aboard Demersal Trawlers Operating off the Coast of Oman. [In] Papers Presented by MSFC Staff at the International Symposium on, Agriculture and Fisheries. MSFC Special Report 89-2. October, 1989

Hare, S.R. 1990a. Sampling Manual for Data Collectors Aboard Demersal Trawlers. Oman Marine Science and Fisheries Center, Special Report No. 1 - 1st Revision. 96 pp.

Hare, S.R. 1990b. Preliminary Results from Biological Sampling Aboard Demersal Trawlers Operating off the Coast of Oman: On Board Data Collection Program Cruises 11-15. Oman Marine Science and Fisheries Center, Research Brief 90-1. December 1989. 53 pp.

Trianni, M.S. 1990. A Report on the Sampling and Living Conditions Aboard the Demersal Trawlers Operating off the Coast of Oman. Oman Marine Science and Fisheries Center, Special Report No. 3. 34 pp.

Also prepared, but not included:

Fact Finding Aboard a Fish Factory, article published in the Oman Observer newspaper, 27 September 1989.

Demersal Finfish Species Identification Keys, Vols. I-IV. Specialized keys on 200 of the most commonly encountered species in the commercial and artisanal demersal fisheries.

The 25 most commonly discarded species in the demersal trawl fishery. Prepared for a Ministry meeting 12 February 1990. Demersal Finfish Final Report

VI. Summary of Recommendations Resulting from Project Activities

A. Recommendations for Management

Future short term training courses, similar to that conducted for the DC Program, with limited, specific objectives, should be considered for in-country arrangement.

It is recommended that the most promising of the DCs be sent overseas to acquire a more formal fisheries education after August 1991.

In order for demersal finfish research to begin to make significant progress, it is imperative that Omani staff be added to the Section for the purpose of handling program logistics.

Firm Ministerial action must be taken against trawler and company personnel when DC harassment, or data misreporting, occurs.

It is recommended the Ministry recognize the DC Program as a biologically oriented program, and retreat from present attempts to increase its role in enforcement.

It is recommended that the use of portable computers for at-sea data entry be adopted if the On Board Data Collection Program is continued.

It is recommended that an Omani staff member, at the level of a Research Assistant, be assigned to the Demersal Finfish Section to supervise data processing.

Maintain trawler fleet at no larger than present size (8 vessels).

Implement a new management regime utilizing time and area openings and closures to replace the current ineffective system.

Prohibit fishing in area/seasons that exhibit high discard rates.

Distribute the fishing catch and effort to protect the highly productive regions.

Reduce the incidental turtle catch by closing areas with high incidence rates.

Enforce the 110 mm inside stretch measure law.

Expand the northern boundary of the present concession grounds to allow fishing north of Masirah Island. uemersai rintish Mnai Keport

B. Recommendations for Future Research

Continue On Board Data Collection Program for as long as trawlers operate in Omani waters.

Investigate mesh size impact on yield of multispecies fisheries.

Incorporate food habits studies on the major demersal fishes into the DC Program.

Determine growth parameters on major demersal species.

Establish the distribution of major species by depth strata.

Analyze research data from FA0 vessel Rastrelliger to see if other fishing grounds can be opened to the trawler fleet.

Map out artisanal demersal catch, similar to what has been done with the commercial catch, and determine the amount of overlap between the two fisheries. If possible, attempts should be made to determine catch by depth strata.

Monthly length frequency data need to be collected from the major demersal landing sites on the predominant species. A sampling system can be established that links up with the Statistics Department samplers. In this manner, length frequency samples can be easily extrapolated to total catch.

Examine the differencelsimilarity in size distributions for species important to both (artisanal and commercial) fisheries. Demersal Finlish Final Report

VII. Literature cited in Final Report

Christensen, G. and S. McEntire, 1987. Observations on the Operations of the Korean Trawl Fleet. Resource Development Associates Contribution #3-87. Directorate General of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Sultanate of Oman, 26 pp.

Barwani, M., R. Dudley, J.A. Dorr 111, S.R. Hare and D.W. Johnson. 1989. The Extent of Fisheries Resources in Oman Stock Assessments and the Potential for New Resources. [In] Papers Presented by MSFC Staff at the International Symposium on Agriculture and Fisheries. MSFC Special Report 89-2.

Fox, W.W. Jr. 1970. An exponential surplus-yield model for optimizing exploited fish populations. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., 99:80-8

Hare, S.R. 1989a. Sampling Manual for Data Collectors Aboard Foreign Fishing Vessels. Oman Marine Science and Fisheries Center, Special Report No. 1. April 1989. 93 pp.

Hare, S.R. 1990a. Sampling Manual for Data Collectors Aboard Demersal Trawlers. Oman Marine Science and Fisheries Center, Special Report No. 1 - 1st Revision. 96 pp.

Mardela International, Ltd. 1975. Marine Resources Development Program. Sultanate of Oman. Final Report, Book 11, Volume 11. Marten, G.G. and J.J. Polovina. 1982. A comparative study of fish yields from various tropical ecosystems, p. 255-289. In D. Pauly and G.I. Murphy (eds.) Theory and management of tropical fisheries. ICLARM Conference Proceedings 9, 360 p.

Moussalli, E. and M. Bouhlel. 1989. Fisheries Statistics. 1988 Annual Report. Resource Development Associates Contribution #89/2. Department of Statistics and Data Processing, Directorate General of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Sultanate of Oman.

Pauly, D. 1984. Fish Population Dynamics in Tropical Waters: A Manual for Use with Programmable Calculators. ICLARM Studies and Reviews 8, 325 p. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Manila, Philippines.

Ross, J.P. and M.A. Barwani. 1979. Review of Sea Turtles in the Arabian Area. In Bjorndal, K.A. [Ed.], Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles.

Schaefer, M. 1954. Some aspects of the dynamics of populations important to the management of commercial marine fisheries. Bull.IATTC/Bol.CIAT, 1(2):27- 56

Sparre, P.; Ursin, E. and S.C. Venema. 1989. Introduction to tropical fish stock assessment. Part 1. Manual. FA0 Fisheries Technical Paver. No. 306.1. Rome, FAO. 1989. 337 p.

Stromme, T. 1986. Pelagic and Demersal Fish Resources of Oman - Results of the R/V Dr. Fridtjof Nansen Surveys in Oman, 1983-84. UNDPIFAO Programme GLO/82/001. Institute of Marine Research, Bergen. 123 pp.

Trianni, M.S. 1990. A Report on the Sampling and Living Conditions Aboard the Demersal Trawlers Operating off the Coast of Oman. Oman Marine Science and Fisheries Center, Special Report No. 3. 34 pp.

Yesaki, M. 1978. An Analysis of the Taiyo Fishery Company Operations off the Southeast Coast of Oman during 1976 and 1977. Report prepared for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Petroleum and Minerals. Sultanate of Oman. 38 pp.

Demersal Finfish Final Report

VIII. APPENDICES

Final Examination for On Board Data Collectors

Hare, S.R. 1990s. Sampling Manual for Data Collectors Aboard Demersal Trawlers. Oman Marine Science and Fisheries Center, Special Report No. 1 - 1st Revision. 96 pp. NOTE THAT THIS IS BOUND UNDER SEPARATE COVER

Trianui, M.S. 1990. A Report on the Sampling and Living Conditions Aboard the Demersal Trawlers Operating off the Coast of Oman. Oman Marine Science and Fisheries Center, Special Report No. 3.34 PP. Appendix DEM1 Demersal Finfish Final Report

FINAL EXAMINATION

for Onboard Biological Data Collectors April 8, 1989

SPECIES IDENTIFICATION

1. Give the species codes for four fish in the family HAEMULIDAE:

2. Write the family name for the following species:

Parupeneus rubescens

Caranx sexfasciatus

Acanthopagrus bifasciatu.~

Umbrina ronchus

3. Give as many species codes for SCOMBRIDAE fish as you know (maximum of ten): GENERAL QUESTIONS CONCERNING DATA COLLECTOR DUTIES

1. What do you do if a turtle or lobster is caught by your vessel?

2. Describe three good methods to collect basket samples for species composition.

3. What is one difference between a demersal fish and a pelagic fish?

4. Describe two ways in which your species composition sample can be biased.

5. What are some things you should do during your first few days onboard a vessel?

6. How often should you sample for species composition?

7. How often should you sample for product recovery rates?

8. What should you do if you see the captain commit a violation? ONE DAY OF TYPICAL ON-BOARD DATA COLLECTION (SAMPLING)

You board your fishing vessel, the Kum Bong No. 503 (Vessel Code KN01) on 7 April 1989. You measure the fish bin and calculate the area (assume 1 crn = 1 m).

Write the area here

The next day, 8 April, you begin sampling,

Haul No. 1

Net on bottom: 0450, Net off bottom: 0615; Retrieval position: 20Â°11'N59'11'W; average fishing depth: 115 m (bottom trawl); boat speed: 3.8 knots; no fishing problems. RETAINED CATCH: 2.34 MT. You do not sample this haul.

Haul No. 2

Net on bottom: 0720, Net off bottom: 0905; Retrieval position: 20Â¡30'N59'10'W; average fishing depth: 104 m (bottom trawl); boat speed: 3.6 knots; no fishing problems. RETAINED CATCH: 3.45 MT. You sample this haul.

Depth of fish in bin (in meters): 0.64, 0.71, 0.58, 0.63, 0.45, 0.72, 0.55 You then take a species composition sample, using 8 baskets to collect your sample

Species name Number Weiaht

Lethrinus lentjan Carangoides ferdau Pomadasys stridens Saurida tumbil BALISTIDAE sp. Sphyraena acutipinnis Anyperodon 1eucogrammicu.s Mugil cephalus Arius thalassinus SCARIDAE Scams sp.

You then take a length frequency sample for one species (you must determine which species):

~8780012345678601a34~

Ill M Ill It Ill Ufl Ufl 1111 Ill II I II Ill I I I II 1111 1111 UK UK Ill I UK II II I1 M F II

u II I II

Finally, you take a product recovery sample: Species and product Lethrinus lentian - Skinless fillets (random sample)

No. of Fish Weight before Weight after

Later, you weigh 10 blocks of fillets: 9.7; 9.9; 10.2; 10.3; 10.2; 10.1; 9.8; 9.7; 9.9; 10.2. The captain tells you his ship uses a PRR figure of 0.35 for this product and the average unit weight is 10.0 kg. Since the fillets are put in boxes, there is no container weight. Haul No. 3

Net on bottom: 1120, Net off bottom: 1523 - Net hung up on bottom, subtract 115 minutes; Retrieval position: 20Â°01'N5Y00'W; average fishing depth: 84 m (bottom trawl); boat speed: 3.8 knots. RETAINED CATCH: 1.22 MT. You sample this haul.

Depth of fish in bin (in meters): 0.38; 0.41; 0.40; 0.42; 0.39; 0.39

You take a species comp sample, using 6 baskets to collect the basket sample species

Species name Number Weiaht

Thunnus tonggol 12 269.0 Panulirus versicolor 3 6.5 Alopias auperciliosus 1 150.0 BALISTIDAE 345 136.2 Gems acinaces 64 29.3 Rhabdosargus sarb,a 95 71.4 Pterygotrigla guezei 11 19.86 SILLAGANIDE Sillago sp. 3 4.1 Terapon puta 1 1.02 Ilisha melastoma 1 1.12 Mu$ cephalus 1 0.45 Kyphosus cinerascens 1 0.77 Coral 1 0.05

You then take another length frequency sample: Haul No. 4

Net on bottom: 1730, Net off bottom: 1915; Retrieval position: 20Â°40'N59O06'W; average fishing depth: 104 m (bottom trawl); boat speed: 4.1 knots; no problems. RETAINED CATCH: 3.45 MT. You do not sample this haul for species composition, but you make a data collector's estimate and take a product recovery sample.

Depth of fish in bin (in meters): 0.25; 0.33; 0.31; 0.29; 0.33; 0.26; 0.25

Your product recovery sample:

Species and product Lethrinus lentian - Skinless fillets (random sample)

&n& No. of Fish Weight before Weight after

You also weigh some more frozen blocks: 9.9; 10.1; 10.2; 10.3; 10.1; 10.2; 9.4; 9.8; 9.7; 10.1; 10.2; 10.3; 10.1; 9.9; 9.8. Since the fillets are put in boxes, there is no container weight.

Haul No. 5

Net on bottom: 2120, Net off bottom: 2355; Retrieval position: 21Â°12'N59"59'W, average fishing depth: 103 m (bottom trawl); boat speed: 3.2 knots; no problems. RETAINED CATCH: 0.67 MT. You sample this haul.

Depth of fish in bin (in meters): 0.11; 0.09; 0.12; 0.03; 0.13; 0.09; 0.08; 0.10

You take a species composition sample, whole hauling for all species.

Â¥speciename Number Weiaht

Sepia pharaonis ? ? Odonus niger 56 23.9 Thenus orientalis 1 70.0 OPHIDIDAE 13 16.2 Leiognathus fasciatzis 4 9.9 Rhabdosatgus sarba 2 1.04 Terapon jarbua 1 0.66 Nematalosa arabica 21 13.77 Mu@ cephalus 1 0.45 Acanthopaps bifasdatus 1 2.13 You collect five baskets of the target species, Sepia pharaonis:

You have finished sampling for the day and there are no other hauls.

Complete all the data forms very neatly. Check your answers, including all calcualtions. Points will be subtracted for every incorrect number. Appendix DEM3 Demersal Finfish Final Report

Sultanate of Oman

Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Directorate General of Fisheries Marine Science and Fisheries Center

Oman Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89-1 Preliminary Results from Biological Sampling Aboard Demersal Trawlers Operating off the Coast of Oman: On Board Data Collection Program Cruises 1-5

September 1989

Steven R. Hare

Demersa! Finfish Biologist

P.O. Box 467 Muscat TABLE OF CONTENTS

.. List of Figures ...... 11 List of Tables ...... 111

Executive Summary ...... 1

Introduction ...... 2

Methods ...... 3

Results and Discussion ...... 4

INDIVIDUAL CRUISE RESULTS

CRUISENO.l ...... 8

GeneralComrnents ...... 8

CRUISE NO . 2 ...... 15

Generalcomments ...... 15

CRUISE NO. 3 ...... 22 Generalcomments ...... 22

CRUISE NO. 4 ...... 29

GeneralComments ...... 29

CRUISE NO . 5 ...... 36 GeneralComments ...... 36

Literature Cited ...... 43

Appendix I .List of Bony Fish Identified in Demersal Trawls ...... 44

Appendix I1 .List of Invertebrates and Other Species Identified in Demersal Trawls . 48 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. A comparison of DC Program estimates of trawler catch composition with vessel reported figures ...... 6

Figure 2. Average catch rates (in kg per trawling hour) aboard vessels carrying Data Collectors ...... 7

Figure 3. Total catch and fishing effort by area, Hum Bong 503, 23 May . 14 June. 1989 ...... 9

Figure 4. Total catch utilization and species composition of the retained and discarded portions of the catch, Hum Bong 503, 23 May - 14 June, 1989 . . 10

Figure 5. Total catch and fishing effort by area, Hum Bong 501, 1 June - 26 June, 1989...... 16

Figure 6. Total catch utilization and species composition of the retained and discarded portions of the catch, Hum Bong 501, 1 June .26 June, 1989 ... 17

Figure 7. Total catch and fishing effort by area, Hum Bong 503, 20 June . 11 July, 1989 ...... 23

Figure 8. Total catch utilization and species composition of the retained and discarded portions of the catch, Hum Bong 503, 20 June - 11 July, 1989 . . 24

Figure 9. Total catch and fishing effort by area, Sum Bong 501, 2 July - 26 July, 1989 ...... 30

Figure 10. Total catch utilization and species composition of the retained and discarded portions of the catch, Hum Bong 501, 2 July - 26 July, 1989 ... 31

Figure 11. Total catch and fishing effort by area, Hum Bong 503, 17 July . 11 August, 1989 ...... 37 mure 12. Total catch utilization and species composition of the retained and discarded portions of the catch, Hum Bong 503, 17 July - 11 August, 1989 . 38 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Catch Report from Data Collector Cruise No. 1 ...... 11

Table 2. The 20 most common species, or species groups, retained from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 1 ...... 12

Table 3. The 20 most common species, or species groups, discarded from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 1 ...... 13

Table 4. The 20 most common species retained by the vessel, as officially reported by the vessel's company during Data Collector Cruise No. 1 . . . . 14

Table 5. Catch Report from Data Collector Cruise No. 2 ...... 18

Table 6. The 20 most common species, or species groups, retained from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 2 ...... 19

Table 7. The 20 most common species, or species groups, discarded from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 2 ...... 20

Table 8. The 20 most common species retained by the vessel, as officially reported by the vessel's company during Data Collector Cruise No. 2 . . . . 21

Table 9. Catch Report from Data Collector Cruise No. 3 ...... 25

Table 10. The 20 most common species, or species groups, retained from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 3 ...... 26

Table 11. The 20 most common species, or species groups, discarded from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 3 ...... 27

Table 12. The 20 most common species retained by the vessel, as officially reported by the vessel's company during Data Collector Cruise No. 3 . . . . 28

Table 13. Catch Report from Data Collector Cruise No. 4 ...... 32

Table 14. The 20 most common species, or species groups, retained from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 4 ...... 33

Table 15. The 20 most common species, or species groups, discarded from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 4 ...... 34

Table 16. The 20 most common species retained by the vessel, as officially reported by the vessel's company during Data Collector Cruise No. 4 . . . . 35

... fit LIST OF TABLES, cont.

Table 17. Catch Report from Data Collector Cruise No. 5 ...... 39

Table 18. The 20 most common species, or species groups, retained from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 5 ...... 40

Table 19. The 20 most common species, or species groups, discarded from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 5 ...... 41

Table 20. The 20 most common species retained by the vessel, as officially reported by the vessel's company during Data Collector Cruise No. 5 .... 42 Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89.1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Despite the long term presence of demersal trawlers in Oman, little is known about the trawler catches, particularly concerning the discarded portions of the catch.

In January 1989, an "On Board Data Collection Program", funded through the Omani- American Joint Commission, was initiated for the purpose of better assessing the catches and fishing activities of the demersal trawlers.

Data collected by the Program include species composition of the retained and discarded portions of the catch; fishing location, depth and time; size distribution of target species; and factory processing methods.

Five Data Collection Program cruises were made between mid-May and mid-August, covering approximately 85% of trawler activity during that period.

Four of the cruises were in the Ras Madrakah region. Target species were hairtail, cuttlefish, breams, meagres and trevallies. Total catch for the four cruises was estimated at 1950.00 mt, of which 49.6% (970.84 mt) was discarded. The major discarded species were catfish, sharks, rays and lizardfish.

The fifth cruise occurred in the Kuria Muria Bay region during the onset of the southwest monsoon season. Species composition differed significantly from the Ras Madrakah cruises, with breams dominating the catch. Out of a total catch of 293.43 mt, discard accounted for less than 10% of the total catch.

Over the five cruises, Program sampling results agreed fairly closely with official catch data provided by the vessel companies. There is some evidence of misreporting of species during Cruises Nos. 2 and 3.

The average catch rate for all species was 1,165.4 kg per hour. Retained species catch rate was 647.5 kg/hour. These figures are higher than the rates recorded by the research vessel Dr. Fridtjof Nansen in 1983-84, but lower than those from four Japa- nese trawlers operating in Oman in 1976-77.

The small mesh size, and lined ccdends, utilized by the vessels appears responsible for the large discard rate. It is suggested that enforcement of the current mesh size limit would greatly reduce the discard rate, and not seriously impact the retained species catch rate.

A total of 31 turtles are estimated to have been caught during the 5 cruises, half of which were dead when returned to the sea.

The standard unit weight figure of 10.0 kg per tray of fish utilized by the vessels may be too low, resulting in underreporting of retained catch by the vessel companies. Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89.1

INTRODUCTION

A succession of relatively large (> 350 GRTj foreign-owned trawlers have operated off the coast of Oman since the mid 1970's. Four Japanese vessels conducted operations for two years before departing in 1977 (Yesaki, 1978). The Korea Overseas Fishing Company (KOFC) negotiated a concession agreement in 1977 (subsequently extended several times) and has deployed as many as 8 trawlers. At the time of this report, the KOFC was operating two trawlers, but expected to expand the fleet to four trawlers by the end of 1989. Two Omani- owned companies have also operated trawlers, with one company (Oman Sea Company) currently deploying a fleet of three vessels. The vessels are restricted to bottom trawling in waters deeper than 50 meters, between 17'N and 2WN longitude. A crew of 30-35 is carried on most of the vessels, which operate 24 hours a day. The catch is presently frozen whole, processing being limited to sorting by size and species. A typical fishing cruise is one month in duration, and the trawlers are restricted to loading and unloading cargo in the Capital Area port of Mina Qaboos.

Despite the long term presence of the vessels, very little is known about the trawler catches. By law, the vessels are required to provide Catch Reports following every cruise, detailing species catch by area and day. While the Catch Reports are tallied and published as the official trawler catch totals, the supplied data has often been incomplete, inconsistent and, to an unknown extant, systematically fabricated. The Catch Reports provide no information on discards, nor biological data (length, weight, etc.) on targeted species.

In January 1989, an "On Board Data Collection Program" (hereafter, DC Program) was initiated for the purpose of monitoring and assessing the catches aboard commercial fishing vessels operating in Oman's territorial waters. This attempt follows earlier efforts that were disbanded due to the lack of trained on board samplers (Christensen and McEntire, 1987). The first 12 months of the DC Program were funded by an Omani-American Joint Commission Project Grant (No. 272-0101.1-I), and administered by the Oregon State University. A corps oE 10 Data Collectors received four months of training in at-sea sampling, and began accompanying the vessels in May 1989. The DC Program was modeled after the US. National Marine Fisheries Service's highly successful Foreign Fisheries Observer Program (French et al., 1982).

This Research Brief presents sampling results from the first five Data Collector Cruises. The purpose of these reports is to provide, on a timely basis, basic information on the catches by the commercial vessels. For each cruise, several types of information are presented. Because of the historical lack of knowledge on trawler discards, the DC Program, in its early stages, has concentrated on characterizing the size and composition of the discarded catch as well as the retained catch. Four tables are presented for each cruise: a Catch Report (fishing times, areas and effort), retained and discarded catch composition and catch rates, and the retained catch reported by the vessel. For illustration purposes, a map showing fishing effort and catch distribution, and pie charts showing catch by species group have also been included. Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89-1

METHODS

As in most tropical demersal trawl Fisheries, catch diversity in Oman is usually very high, with more than 60 species of fish and invertebrates in a typical codend (see Appendices I and I1 for a list of species encountered in the trawl catches). This diversity presents several obstacles for the on board sampler1. Data Collectors board the vessels in pairs and sample the catch for the duration of the cruise. All aspects of the fishing operations are monitored, including location, depth and duration of each trawl; species composition of selected codends; discard composition; size distribution of predominant species; and factory processing methods.

The Data Collectors are selectively placed on the vessels so as to provide comprehensive sampling coverage. With a fleet of seven vessels, approximately 50% of the trawler fishing effort can be covered by the DC Program.

An average of 12-18 hauls are made every day, three or four of which are sampled for species wmposition by the Data Collectors. Depending on the size and diversity of the haul, the Data Collector has several sampling methods to choose from, including basket, whole baul and partial-whole haul sampling. Two or more methods may be utilized within a single baul for different species. Basket sampling is the most commonly used method, however, large species (sharks, rays, turtles) cannot be adequately sampled via basket sampling. Basket sampling consists of collecting a subsample (usually 200-300 kg) of unsorted fish, then sorting, counting and weighing each species or group. For sampled hauls, total catch size is determined by calculating an "adjustment factor" for that haul's total product (or retained) weight, based on the Data Collector's sample2.

Weight of all species in sample Adjustment Factor = ...... Weight of retained species in sample

Unsampled hauls are adjusted by multiplying each haul's retained catch by an 'Adjustment Factor for the Day", calculated by weighting the sampled hauls' Adjustment Factors. Total species wmposition for the cruise is calculated by extrapolating sampling data to each arealmonth combination. Areas are defined by 10' x 10' blocks (this Research Brief, however, reports results in 30' x 30' blocks). In the case that no samples were collected from an areatmonth combination, that catch amount was added to the "Unsampled/Unidentified" species category. This method was chosen to avoid assigning the composition from one area, or one month, to a different area or month, as spatial and temporal variation have been noted to be very substantial.

For a discussion of sampling difficulties encountered on demersal trawlers and techniques adopted by the On Board Data Collection Program, see: Hare, S.R. 1989.

Note that the use of two sampling methods, such as a whole haul sample and a basket sample, result in a more complicated formula. Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89-1

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The first five DC Program cruises have provided a wealth of data on the demersal trawl fishery. From the beginning of the first cruise to the end of the fifth (20 May - 11 August, 1989), more than 85% of total trawler activity was monitored by the DC Program. The first four cruises all took place in roughly the same area: along the 50 meter depth contour between Ras ad Duqm and Ras Madrakah (i.e., between 19' and 20" N latitude). The last cruise occurred during the onset of the southwest monsoon, resulting in a change in fishing grounds (to Kuria Muria Bay, south of 18"N) and a radically different catch composition.

The vessel companies officially reported a retained catch of 1278.38 mt for the five cruises. This is 28 mt more catch than vessel personnel reported to the Data Collectors while they were on board. The percentage reported for each species group within the total, can be directly compared with DC Program data (which is independently collected via sampling), to determine whether systematic misreporting is being conducted by the vessel companies.

Target species for the four cruises off Ras Madrakah were hairtail, cuttlefish, breams, meagres and croakers. No single species accounted for more than 10% of the total catch. In Kuria Muria Bay, the santer seabream constituted more than 45.5% of the total catch.

Analyzed together, the catch wmposition estimations from the five cruises agree remarkably well with the data provided by the vessel companies for the same set of cruises (Figure 1). Vessel Catch Reports list breams (32.2%), hairtail (26.3%) and meagres/croakers (11.4%) as the three major retained species groups. DC Program sampling showed the same three major groups dominating the catch, but with slightly different percentages: breams - 37.3%, hairtail - 23.2% and meagres 8.6%. Thus, on a broad basis, it appears that the vessels are reporting, at least for the vessels carrying Data Collectors, their catch fairly accurately. There is some evidence that "species manipulation" may have occurred for DC Program cruises 3 and 4 (see General Comments section, pgs. 29 and 36). Species manipulation is the practice of reporting the catch of one species (usually a high value species) under the category of a second species (usually a low value species). The question of species manipulation for Cruises 3 and 4 involves threadfin bream (the high value species) and hairtail.

As previously mentioned, the vessels are not required to report the size or composition of their discards. Prior to the DC Program, sampling for discards was conducted on a few occasions (Christensen and McEntire, 1987), but the data covered only a few days of fishing, and limited areas. During the four cruises off Ras Madrakah, discards accounted for just under 50% of the total catch (970.84 mt out of 1957.00 mt). The giant catfish (Ark thalassinus) accounted for more than half of the discards, with 513.82 mt. Sharks and rays (109.63 mt) and lizardfish (69.11 mt) were also major discards. Cruise No. 5, in the Kuria Muria Bay region resulted in a total discard of just 29.29 mt, or less than 10% of the total catch.

The nets deployed by the two vessels sampled by the DC Program had a head rope length of 50 m, with a horizontal opening of 18 m and a vertical opening of 5 m. Mesh size Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89-1 varied from 180 mm in the net wings to less than 80 mm in the codend. Further, the vessel used a double (or lined) codend resulting in a much smaller effective mesh size opening. With the exception of hairtail and the Japanese threadfin bream (Nemiptem japonicw), the fishes retained by the vessel generally averaged more than 1 kg in weight. Conversely, except for sharks and rays, all of the major discard species averaged less than 1 kg (and usually less than 0.5 kg) in weight. This suggests that the small mesh size used in fishing contributes significantly to the high discard rate. Further, it also appears that the catch rate of retainable species would not drop significantly with an increased mesh size. It should be noted that the legal mesh size limit in Oman is 110 mm stretch mesh, with only a single codend allowed.

An illustration of the catch rates attained during each of the cruises is given in Figure 2. For the five cruises, the average total catch rate was 1,165.4 kg per hour. Retained species catch rate, obviously much lower due to the amount of discard, averaged 647.5 kgihour. The best catch rates were encountered during Cruise No. 3, when the vessel averaged 1,437.5 kg per hour of trawling. The catch rate for retained species was 766.6 kghour. The lowest catch rate for retained species was during Cruise No. 2 at 541.4 kgihour.

These catch rates can be compared with previous calculations. The Dr. Fridtjof Namen survey, in 1983-4, using a net of similar size averaged 784 kgihour total catch (Stromme, 1986). This figure excludes small pelagics, however, during the five DC Program cruises, small pelagics accounted for less than 5% of the total trawler catch. All else being equal (trawling power, biomass quantity, etc.), one would expect the trawler catch rate to be higher than the survey catch rate since the trawlers concentrate on areas with the highest fish densities. In February 1987, a catch rate of 413 kghour of retained species was documented on a larger KOFC trawler (1500 GRT) in waters of 50-75 m depth (Christensen and McEntire, 1987). During the two year period when Japanese vessels fished in Omani waters (on virgin grounds, using nets half again as large as those currently used by the KOFC vessels), the average retained species catch rate was 902 kg/hour.

Turtle catch is an issue of some sensitivity in Oman. A total of 31 turtles are estimated to have been caught during the 5 cruises. This amounts to an incidence rate of 0.014 per mt of total catch, or roughly 1 turtle per 72.59 mt of total catch (per 40.33 mt of retained catch). Based on an annual retained species harvest of 10,000-15,000 mt per year (McClure and Moussalli), total turtle catch can be estimated at 248-372 individuals. It is too early to tell if the incidence rate observed during these five cruises is representative of the yearly rate. The Data Collectors estimated that 50% of the turtles were returned alive to the sea.

On 20 occasions, Data Collectors conducted "unit weight" tests on factory products. The vessel companies utilize a standard figure of 10.0 kg per tray of fish. Catch amounts are calculated by adding the number of trays and multiplying that figure by 10 kg. Therefore, if the average block weight were greater than 10.0 kg, the true catch weight would be higher than actually reported. In 11 of the 14 tests, the unit weight of 10 randomly collected trays was greater than 10.0 kg. Average weight of the 140 trays weighed was 10.6 kg. If 10.6 kg is an accurate average tray weight, then reporting 10.0 kg per tray results in an underestimation of retained catch by 6%. This subject will be explored in greater detail in upcoming DC Program cruises. RETAINED CATCH COMPARISON

-. - other spp. 11.3% other spp. 11.4% sweetlips 4.5% sweetlips 4.0% trevallies 7.6% trevallies 6.1% cuttlefish 7.5% cuttlefish 8.6% meagres 8.6% meagres 11.4%

hairtail 23.2% hairtail 26.3%

breams 37.3% breams 32.2%

DC Program Vessel Reported (total=l250.300mt) (tolal=l2783 0 mt)

Figure 1. A comparison of DC Program estimates of trawler catch composition with vessel reported figures. Data are for DC Program Cruises Nos. 1-5. TRAWLING EFFICIENCY

CRUISE 1 CRUISE 2 CRUISE 3 CRUISE 4 CRUISE 5 (23 May-14 June) (1 June-26 June) (20 June-11 July) (2 July-26 July) (17 July-11 Ann)

R - cuttlefis R - breams R - hairtail R - meagres R - trevallies R - other a D - catfish D - other

Figure 2. Average catch rates (in kg per trawling hourjaboard vessels carrying Data Collectors. In the legend, 'R' indicates the species is retained by the vessel, 'D' that it is discarded. meScience and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89-1

GENERAL COMMENTS, Cruise No. 1

This was the inaugural cruise for the On Board Data Collection Program. The Omani Data Collectors were Abdulla Al-Sheedi and Salim Al-Gazali. The author also spent 10 days aboard the vessel (Kum Bong 503), assisting in species identification and sampling duties. The vessel spent the majority of its time fishing off the coastline just north of Ras Madrakah (WN, 58OE, Figure 2). Fishing was conducted parallel to the 50 meter depth contour, though the Data Collectors reported frequent activity closer to shore. In 23 days of operation, the vessel made 281 hauls, trawling a total of 381.5 hours for a total catch of 439.74 metric tons (mt). Nearly 50% of the total catch (211.4 mt, Figure 4) was discarded, of which the giant catfish, Ark thalassinus, wnstituted 88.5 mt (20.13% of total catch). Average catch rates were 1.153 mt per hour and 19.119 mt per day (Table 1).

Among targeted (retained) species, no individual species comprised more than 10% of the total catch (Table 1). The largehead hairtail, Trichiurus leptunis, at 8.96% (39.4 mt) was the principal product. However, more than l/3rd (13.3 mt) of the hairtail catch came from a single codend, probably made at about 30 meters depth. The pharaoh cuttlefish (Sepia pharaonis), a highly valued and sought after species, constituted 6.22% of the total catch (27.3 mt). Most of the other targeted species belonged to one of four species assemblages: breams and seabreams (families Sparidae and Nemipteridae - 12.19% of total catch), trevallies and pompanos (large Carangidae - 7.75%); meagres and croakers (Sciaenidae - 5.28%); grunts and sweetlips (large Haemulidae - 4.88%).

After catfish, the following five groups comprised most of the discarded species (from Table 2): rays and sharks (principally Dasyatidae, Carchatinidae and Rhinobatidae - 4.55% of total catch); triggerfishes (Balisadae - 4.46%); grunts and piggies (small Haemulidae - 4.32%); scads (small Carangufae - 3.75%); lizardfishes (Synodontidue - 3.37%). The grunts (Pomadasys maculahim, P. olivaceum and P. stridens) and the scads (Decapterus russelli and Trachurus indicus) were discarded primarily due to their small size (< 25 cm).

Two species of turtles were observed in trawl catches, the Pacific green (Chelonia mydas agasizii) and the Pacific Ridley (Lepidochyles olivacea (kempi)). Total catch was estimated at 6 greens and 4 Ridleys, for a combined incidence rate of 0.023 per ton of total catch (or 1 turtle approximately every 43 tons of catch). Half the turtles were judged to be alive upon return to the sea.

A comparison of the reported catch by the vessel with Data Collector estimates shows a generally good agreement on catch quantities by species (Table 4). Hairtail retained catch was reported at 40.5 mt, compared to the DC estimate of 39.4 mt. The vessel reported 6.2 mt more catch of cuttlefish and 4.0 mt more of king soldierbream, while DC estimates were higher for longnose trevally (by 2.2 mt) and many of the less common species. The retained catch quantities recorded by the Data Collectors and those reported by the vessel by 11.08 mt. This discrepancy results from a change by vessel personnel in the amounts reported at sea to the Data Collectors, and what was subsequently reported to the Ministry following the cruise. I have decided to utilize the at-sea retained catch figure, because catch verification was performed periodically at sea, but not when the catch was removed from the vessel at the port. iiinne science an0 risnenes center Kesearch Hnef 89-1

Figure 3. Total catch and fishing effort by area, Kum Bong 503, 23 May - 14 June 1989. Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89-1 Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89-1

CATCH REPORT

VESSEL: Kum Bong 503 Data Collector Cruise No. 1

Fishing Dates: 23 May - 14 June, 1989

AREAS FISHED:

CATCH (in MT) Region Name Re~ionNo. Retained -Total

JazdSawqirah 755 -6 0.02 0.74

Ras Madrakah (far) 76 1 3 1 20.35 41.82

Ras Madrakah (near) 762 172 145.53 280.84

Ras ad Duqm 764 72 62.44 116.34

GENERAL INFORMATION:

Total Vessel Catch (MT): 439.74 Total Retained Catch (MT): 228.34 Percent Retained: 51.90 Total Discarded Catch (MT): 211.40 Percent Discarded: 48.10

Total No. of Fishing Days: 23 Total No. of Fishing Hauls: 281 Total No. of Fishing Hours: 381.52

Average Fishing Time per Day (hrs): 16.59 Average Duration per Haul (hrs): 1.36

CATCH RATES:

MT per day MT per haul MT per hour

Total Catch 19.119 1.565 1.153

Retained Catch 9.928 0.813 0.599

Discarded Catch 9.191 0.752 0.554

Table 1. Catch Report from Data Collector Cruise No. 1.

11 Marine science ana fisheries center Research Brief 89-1

Species Retained from Catch, Cruise No. 1 KG (MT) Per -No. Scientific name Common name Number Percent1

1 Trichiurus lepturus largehead hairtail 94,892 39.418 8.96 103.3

2 Sepia pharaonis Pharaoh cuttlefish 31,672 27.348 6.22 71.7

3 Carangoides chrysophrys longnose trevally 10,776 27.195 6.18 71.3

4 Argyrops spinifer king soldierbream 24,071 24.467 5.56 64.1

5 Argyrosomus spp. meagre 6,741 14.543 3.31 38.1

6 Cheimerius nufar santer seabream 9,748 12.482 2.84 32.7

7 Plectorhinchus schotaf minstrel sweetlips 2,909 10.725 2.44 28.1

8 Lethfinus nebulosus spangled emperor 4,646 10.554 2.40 27.7

9 Nemipterus japonicus Japanese threadfin bream 49,451 9.866 2.24 25.9

10 Otolithes ruber tigertooth croaker 12,505 8.606 1.96 22.6

11 Pomcidasys atgenteus silver grunt 4,632 8.209 1.87 21.5

12 Sphyraena spp. barracudas 10,332 7.597 1.73 19.9

13 Pagellus affinis Arabian pandora 27,439 6.043 1.37 15.8

14 Scomberomorus commerson n. barred Spanish mackerel 1,173 4.780 1.09 12.5

15 Plectorhinchus pictus trout sweetlips 1,140 2.441 0.56 6.4

16 Psettodes erumei Indian spiny turbot 1,063 2.079 0.47 5.4

17 Carangoides malabaricus Malabar trevally 4,164 1.773 0.40 4.6

18 Trachinoais spp. pompanos 592 1.691 0.39 4.4

19 Gnuthonodon speciosus golden trevally 386 1.590 0.36 4.2

Table 2. The 20 most common species, or species groups, retained from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 1.

' This is the percent by weight this species contributed to the vessel's @ catch (i.e., retained and discarded catch combined).

12 Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89-1

Species Discarded from Catch, Cruise No. 1 KG (MT) per -No. Scientific name Common name Number Percent1 a

1 Arius thalassinus giant catfish 230,883 88.514 20.13 232.0

3 unsampledlunidentified unsampled/unidentified --- 18.234 4.15 47.8

4 Saurida spp. lizardfihes 25,699 14.815 3.37 38.8

5 rays, unidentified rays, unidentified 7,158 14.070 3.20 36.9

6 Trachurus mdicus Arabian scad 71,939 12.251 2.79 32.1

7 Pomadasys olivaceum olive grunt 47.61 1 7.392 1.68 19.4

8 Pomadasysshidens striped piggy 52,737 7.015 1.60 18.4

9 Pomadasys maculatum saddle grunt 33,607 4.568 1.04 12.0

10 Neobythites spp. cusk eels 11,180 4.350 0.99 11.4

11 sharks, unidentified sharks, unidentified 2,905 4.174 0.95 10.9

12 Decapterus russelli Indian scad 32,49 1 4.121 0.94 10.8

13 Gems filamentosus whipfin silver-biddy 15,384 2.661 0.61 7.0

14 Drepane sup. sicklefishes 1,249 1.769 0.40 4.6

15 Trichiurus lepturus largehead hairtail 2,746 1.418 0.32 3.7

16 Rhinobatidae guitarfishes 834 1.041 0.24 2.7

17 Loliginidae squids 16,732 1.006 0.23 2.6

18 Dasyatidae stingrays 19 0.729 0.17 1.9

19 Sphyraena barracudas 2,070 0.593 0.14 1.6

20 Other discarded spp. miscellaneous --- 2.637 0.56 7.0 ------*------TOTAL 211.400 48.07 554.1

Table 3. The 20 most common species, or species groups, discarded from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 1.

' This is the percent by weight this species contributed to the vessds catch (is., retained and discarded catch combined).

13 Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89-1

Retained Catch Quantites Reported by Vessel, Cruise No. 1

"Korean code" Common name w largehead hairtail s pharaoh cuttlefish

D3 king soldierbream c (large) trevallies

K2 meagres (Argyosomus genus)

Dl santer seabream

K3 tigertooth croaker

NO (silver) grunts

M sweetlips

H (spangled) emperors

J Japanese threadfin bream

B barracudas

P Arabian pandora

B3 narrow barred spanish mackerel

E groupers (Epinephelus genus) v Indian spiny turbot

12 squids

Cl golden trevally

RC Malabar trevally

-- Other retained spp.

TOTAL

Table 4. The 20 most common species retained by the vessel, as officially reported by the vessel's company, during Data Collector Cruise No. 1.

This is the percent by weight this species contributed to the vessel's retained catch only, since commercial vessels do not report their discard.

14 Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89-1

GENERAL COMMENTS, Cruise No. 2

The Omani Data Collectors for this cruise were Nasser A-Azri and Yasir A-Busaidi. The author participated in the first 7 days of this cruise, before disembarking at Masirah Island. There was a considerable number of problems during this cruise, particularly in regards to sampling. The factory design creates sampling problems, which were further exacerbated by the actions of the crew and captain. Sampling was generally limited to two times per day for species composition and once per day for length-frequency and length- weight studies.

The vessel (Kum Bong 501) operated off Ras Madrakah for the duration of the cruise (Figure 5). During the first few days of the cruise, the vessel fished outside of 50 meters, but was reported to be well inside the 50 meter contour during the last two weeks.

In 26 days of fishing, the vessel made 302 hauls, trawling 431.4 hours for a total catch of 581.95 mt. Of significant note here, is the 60% discard rate (Figure 6), easily the highest encountered in the first five DC Program cruises. Catch rates were 1.349 mt total catch per hour and 22.383 mt per day (Table 5).

No single species dominated the retained portion of the catch (Table 6). Largehead hairtail, Japanese threadfin bream and pharaoh cuttlefish were the major target species, accounting for 9.65%, 7.27% and 4.06% of the total catch, respectively. Other important retained groups include the croakerlmeagre family (Sciaenidae, 3.57%), trevallylpompano (large Carangdae, 3.78%) and grunts/sweetlips (Haemulidae, 2.41%).

A total of 348.55 mt of fish were caught and discarded during this cruise (Table 7). The giant catfish constituted 23.36% of the total catch, and 38.99% of the discard. Other major discards included rayslsharks (32.742 mt, 5.63% of total catch), lizardfishes (31.971 mt, 5.50%) and grunts (small Haemulidae, 24.129 mt, 4.15%).

No turtles were encountered in actual species composition samples. On two occasions, though, a sizable number of turtles were observed in the codends. On the 4th of June, in a night tow four turtles were captured. Two nights later, again in a late night tow, six turtles were brought up. Both hauls occurred outside of Ras ad Duqm, probably in fairly shallow water (though the vessel claimed to be fishing at 55 m depth).

A comparison of the Data Collector extrapolated figures for retained catch, and the figures reported by the vessel shows some sizable discrepancies (Table 8). Several factors may account for this. First, the vessel personnel reported only 233.4 mt of catch during actual fishing operations. Following the voyage, they reported a total retained catch of 250.56 mt. Increasing the Data Collector figures proportionally brings the two totals closer in line. Secondly, due to the interference encountered by the Data Collectors, particularly from the factory crew, sampling bias may have occurred. Finally, the grouping of several species under one product code, and the partial confusion by factory personnel over certain codes, further obscure direct species comparisons. Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89-1

Figure 5. Total catch and fishing effort by area, Kum Bong 501, 1 June - 26 June 1989. Fishing Location; Ras Madrakah Distribution of Retained Species

breams & seabre

CATCH UTILIZATION

Retained from catch 2334(rnt) /\ grunts S sweetlips

meagres & croakers revallies S pompano 20,796(mt) 21.986(ml)

Distribution of Discarded Species catfish 135 9081rntl. .

other sop 74.993(ml)

----- rays & sharks 17 766(m1) Figure 6. Total catch utilization and species composition 47.809lrnl) of the retained and discarded portions of the catch. Kum Bong No. 501, 1 June - 26 June, 1989. Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89-1

CATCH REPORT

VESSEL: Kum Bong 501 Data Collector Cruise No. -2

Fishing Dates: 1 June - 26 June, 1989

AREAS FISHED:

CATCH (in MT) Region Name Region No. Retained -Total

Ras Madrakah (far) 76 1 -35 17.82 40.61

Ras Madrakah (near) 762 116 85.25 197.53

Ras ad Duqm 764 151 130.33 343.81

GENERAL INFORMATION:

Total Vessel Catch (MT): 581.95 Total Retained Catch (MT): 233.40 Percent Retained: 40.11 Total Discarded Catch (MT): 348.55 Percent Discarded: 59.89

Total No. of Fishing Days: 26 Total No. of Fishing Hauls: 302 Total No. of Fishing Hours: 43 1.40

Average Fishing Time per Day (hrs): 16.59 Average Duration per Haul (ha): 1.43

CATCH RATES:

MT per day MT per haul MT per hour

Total Catch 22.383 1.927 1.349

Retained Catch 8.977 0.773 0.541

Discarded Catch 13.406 1.154 0.808

Table 5. Catch Report from Data Collector Cruise No. 2.

18 Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89-1

Species Retained from Catch, Cruise No. 2

-No. Scientific name Common name Number Percent'

1 Trichiurus leprurus largehead hairtail 81,486 9.65

2 Nemipterus japonicus Japanese threadfin bream 221,105 7.27

3 Sepia pharaonis Pharaoh cuttlefish 33,287 4.06

4 Carangoules chrysophrys longnose trevally 6,892 2.32

5 Otolithes tuber tigertooth croaker 13.527 2.17

6 Argyrops spinifer king soldierbream 12,172 2.11

7 Cheimerius nufar santer seabream 6,872 1.65

8 Lagocephalus spp. pufferfishes 16,838 1.60

9 Pomadasys argenteus silver grunt 3,459 1.30

10 Lethrinus nebulosus spangled emperor 4,910 1.30

11 Argyrosomus heinii Arabian sea meagre 6,044 1.26

12 Trachinotus spp. pompanos 2,374 0.93

13 PomacUtsys spp. grunts 1,294 0.76

14 Pagellus affmis Arabian pandora 16,060 0.53

15 Sphyraena spp. barracudas 1,733 0.44

16 Gnathanodon specwsus golden trevally 632 0.43

17 Scomberomorus comma-son n. barred Spanish mackerel 434 0.38

18 Psettodes etumei Indian spiny turbot 1,310 0.37

19 Haemulidae grunts/sweetlips 277 0.17

20 Other retained spp. miscellaneous --- 1.41 TOTAL

Table 6. The 20 most common species, or species groups, retained from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 2.

This is the percent hy weight this speeies contributed to the vessel's catch (i.e., retained and discarded catch combined).

19 Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89-1

Species Discarded from Catch, Cruise No. 2 KG (MT) per -No. Scientific name Common name Nnmber Percent1

1 Anus thalassinus giant catfish 341,150 135.908 23.36 315.0

2 rays, unidentified rays, unidentified 14,298 32.742 5.63 75.9

3 Saurida spp. lizardfishes 53,200 31.971 5.50 74.1

4 unsampledlunidentified unsampledlunidentified --- 31.054 5.34 72.0

5 Pomadasys stridens striped piggy 137,091 17.643 3.03 40.9

6 Balislidae triggerfishes 112,670 15.974 2.75 37.0

7 Rhinobatidae guitarfishes 8,875 11.828 2.03 27.4

8 Trachurus Wus Arabian scad 57,561 9.670 1.66 22.4

9 Neobythites spp. cusk eels 16,498 8.368 1.44 19.4

10 Decapterus russelli Indian scad 37,451 7.029 1.21 16.3

11 Bothidae spp. lefteye flounders 21,831 5.334 0.92 12.4

12 Pomadasys olivaceum olive grunt 31,295 4.584 0.79 10.6

13 Pterygotrifla pei Mauritius gurnard 36,849 4.446 0.76 10.3

14 Trachinoms spp. pompanos 14,026 3.714 0.64 8.6

15 Trichiurus lepums largehead hairtail 6,219 3.328 0.57 7.7

16 sharks, unidentified sharps, unidentified 2.378 3.239 0.56 7.5

17 Diodonridae porcupinefishes 43,440 2.517 0.43 5.8

18 Cociella crocodila crocodile flathead 7,692 2.123 0.37 4.9

19 Carangoides chrfsophrfs longnose trevally 1,752 2.051 0.35 4.8

Table 7. The 20 most common species, or species groups, discarded from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 2.

This is the percent by weight this species contributed to the vessel's catch (i.e., retained and discarded catch combined). Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89.1

Retained Catch Quantites Reported by Vessel, Cruise No. 2

"Korean code" Common name percent'

w largehead hairtail 25.27

s pharaoh cuttlefish 14.38

J Japanese threadfin bream 10.92

D3 king soldierbream 6.83

c (large) trevallies 6.23

K3 tigertooth croaker 5.80

K2 meagres (Areyrosomus genus) 5.48

Dl santer seabream 5.12

NO (silver) grunts 3.40

M sweetlips 3.18

H (spangled) emperors 3.12

KF pufferfishes 2.81

B barracudas 2.40

v Indian spiny turbot 0.95

D2 soldier bream 0.85

E groupers (Epinephelus genus) 0.79

B3 narrow barred Spanish mackerel 0.55

RC Malabar trevally 0.54

Cl golden trevally 0.48

-- Other retained spp. 0.90 .------TOTAL 100.00

Table 8. The 20 most common species retained by the vessel, as officially reported by the vessel's company, during Data Collector Cruise No. 2.

' This is the percent by weight this species contributed to the vessel's retained catch only, since commercial vessels do not report their discard.

21 Marine science and hshenes Center Research Brief 89-1

GENERAL COMMENTS, Cruise No. 3

The Data Collectors on this cruise were Juma Al-Qartubi and Bakr Al-Saadi. Nasser Al-Azri spent one week on board, assisting them in species identification. The vessel (Km Bong 503) began fishing well south of Ras Madrakah (Figure 7), but left after a series of "water" tows. Most of their activity was concentrated near, and occasionally inside, the 50 m depth contour between Ras Madrakah and Ras ad Duqm.

In 22 days of fishing, the vessel caught 493.86 mt of fish from a trawl effort of 343.57 hours. Discards accounted for 46.70% of the total catch (Figure 87). Catch rates were high, in comparison to the other four cruises examined in this report: 1.437 mt per hour, 22.448 mt per day (Table 9).

Three species groups dominated the retained portion of the catch (Table 10). Hairtail catch was estimated at 97.297 mt (19.71% of total catch). The Japanese threadfin bream catch was 76.665 mt (15.53%) and meagreslcroakers accounted for 45.114 mt (9.13%).

As with the other Ras Madrakah area cruises, the major discard species was Arius thalassinus, the giant catfish, of which the vessel caught 157.652 mt (31.93% of total catch). Rayslsharks were second most frequently caught discard at 26.713 mt (5.41%), followed by lizardfishes (12.415 mt, 2.52%) and Scomberoides commersonn~,the taland queenfish (7.799 mt, 1.58%). The queenfish is somewhat surprising considering its absence in the catches of the other Madrakah area cruises. The average weight for the queenfish was quite large, at 6.78 kg.

A total of nine turtles were estimated to have been caught. One of the Data Collec- tors stated that the vessel handled the turtles roughly at times, increasing the possibility that the turtles do not survive capture by trawl.

Following the first two cruises, where the total catch estimates had differed significantly, the amount reported to the Data Collectors during the voyage, and the amount subsequently reported to the Ministry differed by less than 2 mt (Table 12). There was considerable variation in the percentages by species, however. The vessel reported 110.3 mt of hairtail and only 58.46 mt of threadfin bream, compared to Data Collector estimates of 97.28 mt of hairtail and 76.67 mt of threadfin bream. The two potential explanations for this major discrepancy are: sampling variance, or deliberate misreporting by the vessel. Concerning the possibility of sampling variance, this was the first sampling cruise by the two Data Collectors, and they may not have sampled as randomly as theoretically possible. An 18 mt difference in estimates, while possible, is unlikely if sampling is properly conducted. On the possibility of misreporting, it should be noted that hairtail must be kept by the KOFC, hut threadfin bream catch (considerably more valuable) goes to their Omani counterpart, the Oman Fishing Company. Short of a complete inventory of the hold product before shipment overseas, this form of misreporting (commonly called "species manipulation") cannot be 100% verified; Data Collector sampling can only point out the possibility. Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89-1

Gulf of Oman

LEGEND

OMAN Masirah /+-

Figure 7. Total catch and Fishing effort by area, Kum Bong 503, 20 June - 11 July 1989. Fishing location: Ras Madrakah Distribution of Retained Species

CATCH UTILIZATION

Retained from catch .-Ã‘-Ã‘Ã‘Ã 263.

Distribution of Discarded Species

catfish 157 652(mt)

Figure 8. Total catch utilization and species composition of the retained and discarded portions of the catch, Kum Bong No. 503, 20 June - 11 July, 1989, Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89-1

CATCH REPORT

VESSEL: Kum Bong 503 Data Collector Cruise No. 3

Fishing Dates: 20 June - 11 July, 1989

AREAS FISHED:

CATCH (in MT) Region Name Region No. Retained -Total

Kuria Muria Bay 75 1 -4 0.00 0.00

Ras Sawqirah (far) 755 1 0.00 0.00

Ras Madrakah (far) 76 1 81 68.16 107.91

Ras Madrakah (near) 762 101 107.76 220.12

Ras Ad Duqm 764 -56 87.31 165.83

GENERAL INFORMATION:

Total Vessel Catch (MT): 493.86 Total Retained Catch (MT): 263.23 Percent Retained: 53.30 Total Discarded Catch (MT): 230.63 Percent Discarded: 46.70

Total No. of Fishing Days: 22 Total No. of Fishing Hauls: 243 Total No. of Fishing Hours: 343.57

Average Fishing Time per Day (hrs): 15.617 Average Duration per Haul (hrs): 1.414

CATCH RATES:

MT per day MT per haul MT per hour

Total Catch 22.448 2.032 1.437

Retained Catch 11.965 1.083 0.766

Discarded Catch 10.483 0.949 0.671

Table 9. Catch Report from Data Collector Cruise No. 3. Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89-1

Species Retained from Catch, Cruise No. 3 KG (MT) Per No. Scientific name Common name Number Percent' -hour

1 Trichiurus lepturus largehead hairtail 159,662 97.297 19.71

2 Nemiptems japonicus Japanese threadfin bream 385,998 76.665 15.53

3 Otolithes mber tigertooth croaker 38,562 25.493 5.16

4 Argyrosomus spp. meagres 9,138 17.592 3.56

5 Awops spinifer king soldierbream 2,969 5.654 1.15

6 Sepia pharaonis pharaoh cuttlefish 4.547 5.149 1.04

7 CheimerWs nufar santer seabream 3,075 4.894 0.99

8 Carangoides chrysophrys longnose trevally 2,048 4.690 0.95

9 Plectorhinchus spp. sweetlips 820 3.418 0.69

10 Trachinom spp. pompanos 1,589 3.144 0.64 9.2

11 Sphyraena spp. barracudas 1,828 3.050 0.62 8.9

12 Acanthopagrus spp. seabreams 2,556 2.578 0.52 7.5

13 Pomadasys spp. grunts 261 2.419 0.49 7.0

14 Argyrosomus heinii Arabian sea meagre 3,225 2.029 0.41 5.9

15 Lethrinusnebulosus spangled emperor 1,468 1.915 0.39 5.6

16 Pomadasys argenteus silver grunt 784 1.649 0.33 4.8

17 Psenodes erumei Indian spiny turbot 405 0.792 0.16 2.3

18 unsampled/unidentified unsampled/unidentified --- 0.640 0.13 1.9

19 Aqyrops filamentosus soldierbream

20 Other retained spp. miscellaneous TOTAL

Table 10. The 20 most common species, or species groups, retained from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 3.

' This is the percent by weight this species contributed to the vessel's catch (i.e., retained and discarded catch combined).

26 Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89-1

Species Discarded from Catch, Cruise No. 3 KG Per -No. Scientific name Common name Number -hour

1 Ark thalassinus giant catfish 429.503 458.9

2 rqs, unidentified rays, unidentified 11,695 71.3

3 Saurida spp. lizardfishes 15,766 36.1

4 Scornber. commersonnianus taland queenfish 1,151 22.7

5 Decapterus russelli Indian scad 28,416 15.1

6 Trichiurus leptums largehead hairtail 7,955 11.4

7 unsampled/unidentitled unsampled/unidentified --- 11.4

8 Balisadae triggerfishes 20,638 8.6

9 Pomadasys olivaceurn olive grunt 11,912 5.1

10 Pomadasys maculatum saddle grunt 9,363 4.3

11 Pomadasys stridens striped piggy 10,247 3.5

12 Rhinobaadae guitarfishes 1.301 3.4

13 Potynemus spp. threadfins 7,539 3.1

14 sharks, unidentified sharks, unidentified 614 3.0

15 Drepane spp. sicklefishes 482 2.1

16 Plotosus spp. stinging catfishes 1,504 1.8

17 Bothidae lefteye flounders 1,997 1.6

18 Platycephalidae flatheads 1,694 1.3

19 Sphyraena spp. barracudas 393 1.2

20 Other discarded spp. miscellaneous --- 5.3 ---*-*------TOTAL

Table 11. The 20 most common species, or species groups, discarded from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 3.

' This is the percent by weight this species contributed to the vessel's @ catch (i.e., retained and discarded catch combined).

27 Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89-1

Retained Catch Quantites Reported by Vessel, Cruise No. 3

MT "Korean code" Common name percent'

w largehead hairtail 42.13

J Japanese threadfin bream 22.33

K3 tigertooth croaker 12.42

K2 meagres (Anyrosomus genus) 4.56

D3 king soldierbream 3.58

c (large) trevallies 3.25

s pharaoh cuttlefish 2.80

Dl santer seabream 1.76

NG (silver) grunts 1.48

M sweetlips 1.31

H (spangled) emperors 0.77

Cl golden trevally 0.66

RC Malabar trevally 0.63

DS seabream (Acanthopaps genus) 0.61

E groupers (Epinephelus genus) 0.43

B barracudas 0.37

v Indian spiny turbot 0.34

KF pufferfishes 0.22

ST black pomfret 0.14

-- Other retained spp. 0.21

TOTAL

Table 12. The 20 most common species retained by the vessel, as officially reported by the vessel's company, during Data Collector Cruise No. 3.

This is the percent by weight this species contributed to the vessel's retained catch only, since commercial vessels do not report their discard.

28 Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89.1

GENERAL COMMENTS, Cruise No. 4

Abdulla Al-Sheedi (2nd cruise) and Khalifa Al-Kalhani (1st cruise) were the Data Collectors this cruise. Beginning with this cruise, at least one of the two Data Collectors had had one previous sampling trip, increasing the accuracy and value of their data samples. The vessel (ffim Bong 501) fished almost exclusively outside Ras ad Duqm this cruise (Figure 9). A scant 20 tows were made south of Ras Madrakah, resulting in poor catches. The Data Collectors reported that the vessel confined its activities to well offshore, generally in waters greater than 70 m depth.

The vessel's total catch of 441.45 mt was taken during 369.77 hours of trawling over 25 days of fishing. Of this total, 261.19 mt were retained (59.17%) and 180.26 mt discarded (40.83%) (Figure 10). Average catch rates were 1.194 mt per hour and 17.658 mt per day (Tahle 13).

The retained portion of the catch was dominated by two species, the largehead hairtail and Japanese threadfin hream, together accounting for 178.468 mt (41.11% of total catch, 68.3% of retained catch). Five other retained species constituted more than 1% of total catch (Tahle 14): African pompano (Trachinotus afncanus) - 3.95%, tigertooth croaker (Otolifhes ruber) - 3.13 %, silver grunt (Pomadasys argenteus) - 2.56%, longnose trevally (Carangoides chrysophrys) and the pharaoh cuttlefish (Sepia pharaonis) - 1.19%.

Among the discarded species (Tahle IS), giant catfish again dominated, accounting for 131.744 mt, or 29.84% of total catch (73.08% of total discard). Other sizable discards were raystsharks (15.097 mt), lizardfishes (9.912 mt) and triggerfishes (5.869 mt).

A total of four turtles were estimated to have been taken during the cruise. This translates to an incidence rate of 0.009 per ton, or 1 turtle for every 110.36 tons total catch.

Of the first 5 DC Program cruises, this cruise had the greatest discrepancy between vessel reported figures and sampling results (Tahle 16). Most of the difference, however, concerns only the relative amounts of the two predominant species, hairtail and threadfin hream. Among species constituting less than 5% of the catch, the Data Collector and vessel figures agree quite well. It is more than curious, therefore, that the vessel reports a hairtail catch of 121.78 mt and a threadfin hream catch of only 47.18 mt, compared to Data Collector estimates of 97.03 mt hairtail and 84.44 mt threadfin bream. In other words, the company (KOFC) claims 25 mt more hairtail and 27 mt less threadfin hream were caught than calculated by the DC Program. This sort of discrepancy was found in Cruise No. 3 as well, though to a lesser extent, and possible explanations were given. This cruise, however, involved an experienced Data Collector, and it is highly doubtful that the difference in composition figures is due to sampling error. Figure 9. Total catch and fishing effort by area, Kum Bong 501, 2 July - 26 July 1989. Fishing Location: Ras Madrakah Distribution of Retained Species

revallies & pompano 20.211(mt)

rneagres S croak CATCH UTILIZATION 15.282(rnt)

cuttlefish 8. other Retaineo 261 grunts 8 sweetlip breams a seabreams 92 641lrnt)

Distribution of Discarded Species

catfish

from c !6(mt)

Figure 10. Total catch utilization and species composition of the retained and discarded portions of the catch, Kum Bong No. 501, 2 July - 26 July, 1989. Manne kience and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89-1

CATCH REPORT

VESSEL: Kum Bong 501 Data Collector Cruise No. -4

Fishing Dates: 2 July - 26 July, 1989

AREAS FISHED:

CATCH (in MT) Region Name Region No. Retained -Total

Ras Madrakah (south) 759 -20 9.20 12.83

Ras ad Duqm 764 228 251.99 428.62

GENERAL INFORMATION:

Total Vessel Catch (MT): 441.45 Total Retained Catch (MT): 261.19 Percent Retained: 59.17 Total Discarded Catch (MT): 180.26 Percent Discarded: 40.83

Total No. of Fishing Days: 25 Total No. of Fishing Hauls: 248 Total No. of Fishing Hours: 369.77

Average Fishing Time per Day (hrs): 14.79 Average Duration per Haul (hrs): 1.49

CATCH RATES:

MT per day MT per haul MT per hour

Total Catch 17.658 1.780 1.194

Retained Catch 10.448 1.053 0.706

Discarded Catch 7.210 0.727 0.487

Table 13. Catch Report from Data Collector Cruise No. 4. Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89-1

Species Retained from Catch, Cruise No. 4 KG (MT) per -No. Scientific name Common name Number Percent1 1 Trichium lepturus largehead hairtail 169,636 97.026 21.98 262.4

2 Nemipterus japonicus Japanese threadfin bream 425,937 84.442 19.13 228.4

3 Trachinotus africanus African pompano 8,322 17.452 3.95 47.2

4 Otolithes ruber tigertooth croaker 23,092 13.812 3.13 37.4

5 Pomadasys argenteus silver grunt 4,021 11.294 2.56 30.5

6 Carangoides chrysophrys longnose trevally 3,531 9.792 2.22 26.5

7 Sepia pharaonis pharaoh cuttlefish 4,293 5.268 1.19 14.2

8 Lethrinus nebulosus spangled emperor 2,079 4.219 0.96 11.4

9 Lagocephalus spp. pufferfishes 4,106 3.418 0.77 9.2

10 Argyrops spinifer king soldierbream 1,311 3.381 0.77 9.1

11 Cheimerius nufar santer seabream 2,487 2.783 0.63 7.5

12 Acanthopagrus spp. seabreams 1,805 1.818 0.41 4.9

13 Argyrosomus spp. meagres 1,701 1.470 0.33 4.0

14 Psettcdes erumei Indian spiny turbot 667 1.352 0.31 3.7

15 Scomberomorus commerson n. barred Spanish mackerel 293 1.147 0.26 3.1

16 Parastromateus niger black pomfret 771 0.644 0.15 1.7

17 Carangoides malabaricus Malabar trevally 1,086 0.523 0.12 1.4

18 Sphyraena spp. barracudas 45 1 0.323 0.07 0.9

19 Epinephelus chlorostigma brownspotted grouper 100 0.314 0.07 0.9

Table 14. The 20 most common species, or species groups, retained from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 4.

' This is the percent by weight this species contributed to the vessel's catch (i.e., retained and discarded catch combined).

33 Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89-1

Species Discarded from Catch, Cruise No. 4 KG (MT) per -No. Scientific name Common name Number Percent1 1 Arius thalassinus giant catfish 312,565 131.744 29.84 356.3

2 rays, unidentified rays, unidentified 6,422 11.672 2.64 31.6

3 Saurida spp. lizardfishes 20,929 9.913 2.25 26.8

5 Trachums indicus Arabian scad 22,703 4.313 0.98 11.7

6 unsampledlunidentified unsampled/unidentified --- 3.573 0.81 9.7

7 sharks, unidentified sharks, unidentified 982 2.099 0.48 5.7

8 Pomadasys stndens striped piggy 13,903 1.735 0.39 4.7

9 Pomadusys olivaceum olive grunt 11,946 1.449 0.33 3.9

10 Trichiurus leptums largehead hairtail 4,487 1.391 0.32 3.8

11 Pomadasys maculatum saddle grunt

12 Rhinobaridae guitarfishes

13 Lologinidue squids

14 Sciaenidae croakers

15 Platycephalidae flatheads 3,522 0.638

16 Nemiptems japonicus Japanese threadfin bream 2,177 0.467

17 Dasyatidae stingrays 6 0.382

18 Pterygomgla guezei Mauritius gurnard 3,316 0.339

19 Sphyraenu spp. barracudas 121 0.270

Table 15. The 20 most common species, or species groups, discarded from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 4.

' This is the percent by weight this species contributed to the vesseys catch (i.e., retained and discarded catch combined).

34 r r mu isnenes center Kesearch net XY-1

Retained Catch Quantites Reported by Vessel, Cruise No. 4

"Korean code" Common name percent'

w largehead hairtail 46.76

J Japanese threadfin bream 18.12

K3 tigertooth croaker 12.00

c (large) trevallies 5.44

D3 king soldierbream 3.32

s pharaoh cuttlefish 3.07

K2 meagres (Arsyrosomus genus) 2.55

Dl santer seabream 1.84

H (spangled) emperors 1.63

NG (silver) grunts 1.47

KF pufferfishes 1.18

DS seabreams (Acanthopagrus genus) 0.55

RC Malabar trevally 0.53

M sweetlips 0.52

v Indian spiny turbot 0.28

B3 n. barred Spanish mackerel 0.28

E groupers (Epinephelus genus) 0.22

ST black pornfret 0.09

B barracudas 0.08

*- Other retained spp. 0.07

TOTAL

Table 16. The 20 most common species retained by the vessel, as officially reported by the vessel's company, during Data Collector Cruise No. 4.

This is the percent by weight this species contributed to the vessel's retained catch only, since commercial vessels do not report their discard. 35 Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89-1

GENERAL COMMENTS. Cruise No. 5

The two Data Collectors this cruise were Salim Al-Gazali (2nd cruise) and Yahya Al- Hadidi (1st cruise). This voyage differed from the first four Data Collector cruises in that the vessel (Kim Bong 503) fished near in Kuria Muria bay, rather off Ras Madrakah (Figure 11). Historically, the trawler fleet moves south with the onset of the southwest monsoon. Upwell- ing associated with monsoon has a strong impact on fishing patterns and activities, both for the trawler fleet and artisanal fishermen from Masirah Island to Salalah.

In 26 days of fishing, a total catch of 293.43 mt was made during 404.85 hours of trawling. Remarkably, discarded species accounted for less than 10% of the total catch (Figure 12). Average catch rates were 0.725 mt per hour and 11.286 mt per day (Table 17).

Species composition of the catch for this cruise differed greatly from that of the first four DC Program cruises. The vessel was able to target quite successfully on santer seabream (Cheimerius nufar) which totalled 133.639 mt, accounting for 45.54% of total catch (Table 18). The spangled emperor (Lethrinus nebulosus) catch was second at 39.043 mt (13.31%), pharaoh cuttlefish catch was 32.073 mt (10.93%) and pufferfish (Lagocephalus spp.) catch was 17.156 mt (5.85%).

Discarded catch amounted to only 29.29 mt (Table 19). Approximately half of the discard was unidentified to species by the Data Collectors. In part, this was done to allow more time to collect biological data on the targeted species. Moontail bullseye (Priacanthus hamrur) and lizardfshes (Saunda spp.) both accounted for slightly more than two tons of discard.

No turtles were observed in any of the sampled or unsampled hauls.

Total catch reported by vessel personnel to the Data Collectors differed by only 2 mt from the catch later officially reported to the Ministry by the vessel's company. There were, however, some differences in the allocation of catch among different species. Data Collector estimates for santer seabream were 17 mt lower and pufferfish 11 mt lower than the vessel reported figure, but 12 mt higher for spangled emperor and 8 mt higher for pharaoh cuttlefish. This appears to be the result of sampling variation, since there would be little advantage in manipulating the species composition in this manner. The KOFC retains three of the four species involved (emperors go to Oman Fishing Company). The three KOFC species are, presently, the top three most valuable species taken in the demersal trawl fishery (personal communication, KOFC). Manne xience anu mnenes center Kesearch n"ef 89.1

! -

Gulf of Oman

LEGEND

Figure 11. Total catch and fishing effort by area, ffim Bong 503, 17 July - 11 August 1989, Mmne science and Fisheries Cenler Rwarch Mef 89.1 CATCH REPORT

VESSEL: Kum Bong 503 Data Collector Cruise No. -5

Fishing Dates: 17 July - 11 August, 1989

AREAS FISHED:

CATCH (in MT) Region Name Region No. Retained -Total Kuria Muria Bay (west) 750 -299 247.83 273.83 Kuria Muria Bay (east) 751 -7 5.49 6.05 Ras ad Duqm 764 -6 10.82 13.55

GENERAL INFORMATION:

Total Vessel Catch (MT): 293.43 Total Retained Catch (MT): 264.14 Percent Retain& 90.02 Total Discarded Catch (MT): 29.29 Percent Discarded: 9.98

Total No. of Fishing Days: 26 Total No. of Fishing Hauls: 312 Total No. of Fishing Hours: 404.85

Average Fishing Time per Day (hrs): 15.571 Average Duration per Haul (hrs): 1.298

CATCH RATES:

MT per day MT per haul MT per hour

Total Catch 11.286 0.940 0.725

.Retained Catch 10.159 0.847 0.652 Discarded Catch 1.127 0.094 0.072

Table 17. Catch Report from Data Collector Cruise No. 5. Manne Smence and F~shencsCenter R-rch Bnd 89.1

Species Retained from Catch, Cruise No. 5 KG (MT) per -No. Scientific name Common name Number Percent1 &r

2 Leth~usnebulosus spangled emperor 25,676 39.043 13.31 %.4

3 Sepia phuraoniv pharaoh cuttlef~h %m 32.073 10.93 79.2

4 Lagocephalus spp. puffertishes 20,391 17.156 5.85 42.4

5 Nemiptew japonims Japan- threadfin bream 63,714 10.449 3.56 25.8

6 Aqyops spinger king soldierbream 3,635 9.091 3.10 22.5

7 Argyrops jilamentosus soldierbream 8,W 4.W 1.39 10.1

8 Epinephelus chiorostipu brownsptted grouper 1,135 3.418 1.16 8.4

9 Argyrosomus spp. meagra 1,510 3.234 1.12 8.1

10 Pugellus ufik Arabian pandora 9,787 3.137 1.07 7.7

11 Atule mate yellowtail scad 2,637 2.832 0.98 7.1

Sphyruena spp. barracudas

Carangoides chpsop@s longnose trevally

Acunthopagius bifasciatus twobar seabream

Siganus spp. spinefoot

Pomadays qenteus silver grunt

Plectorhinchus pictus trout sweetlips

Epinephelus diacunthus thomycheek grouper

unsampled1unidentiEied unsampled/unidentified

Other retained spp. miscellaneous ------* ------.- - * - TOTAL

Table 18. The 20 most common species, or species groups, retained from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 5.

' This is the percent &weight this species contributed to the vessel's catch (i.e., retained and discarded catch combined).

40 Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89.1

Species Discarded from Catch, Cruise No. 5

(MT) -No. Scientific name Common name Number

1 unsampledlunidentified unsampledlunidentified --- 13.258

2 Mcanthus hamrur moontail bullseye 12,550 2.887

3 Saurida spp. lizardfisha 6,669 2.711

4 Balistidae spp. triggerfisha 11,275 1.818

5 rays, unidentified rays, unidentified

6 Trachurus indicus Arabian scad

7 Rhinobah&e spp. guitarfishes

8 A& thalassinus giant catfish

9 Dasyutidae spp. stingrays

10 Trichiurus lepturus largehead hairtail

11 Decapterus russelli Indian scad

12 sharks, unidentified sharks, unidentified

13 Pterygomgla guezei Mauritius gumard

14 Carcharinkfae spp. requiem sharks 4 0.366

15 Pomadnsys stridens striped pim 754 0.137

16 Pageilus umis Arabian pandora 207 0.117 0.04 0.3

17 Sca&e spp. parrotfisha 48 0.098 0.03 0.2

18 Sigunus spp. spinefoot 109 O.OY1 0.03 0.2

19 Epinepheius &canthus thornycheek grouper 176 0.065 0.02 0.2

Table 19. The 20 most common species, or species groups, discarded from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 5.

This is the percent by weight this species contributed to the vessel's p&! catch (i.e., retained and discarded catch combined).

41 Manne Science and fisheries Center Research Bnef 89 1

Retained Catch Quantites Reported by Vessel, Cruise No. 5

"Korean code" Common name

Dl santer seabream

KF pufferfishes

H (spangled) emperors s pharaoh cuttlefish

J Japanese threadtin bream

D3 king soldierbream

P Arabian pandora

D2 soldierbream c (large) trevallies

K2 meagres (Argyrosomus genus)

E groupers (Epinephelus genus)

B barracudas

NG (silver) grunts

Ql spinefoot

Gl goldlined seabream

Kl fusca croaker M sweetlips

K3 tigertooth croaker

SM striped bonito

-- Other retained spp.

TOTAL

Table 20. The 20 most common species retained by the vessel, as officially reported by the vessel's company, during Data Collector Cruise No. 5.

' This is the percent by weight this species contributed to the vessel's retained catch only, since commercial vessels do not report their discard.

42 Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Bnef 89-1

LITERATURE CITED

Christensen, G. and S. McEntire. 1987. Observations on the Operations of the Korean Trawl Fleet. Resource Development Associates Contribution # 3-87. Directorate Gene- ral of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Sultanate of Oman, 26 pp.

French, R., R. Nelson, Jr. and J. Wall. 1982. Role of the United States Observer Program in Management of Foreign Fisheries in the Northeast Pacific Ocean and Eastern Bering Sea. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 2122-131.

Hare, S.R. Sampling Manual for Data Collectors Aboard Foreign Fishing Vessels. Oman Marine Science and Fisheries Center, Special Report No. 1. April 1989. 93 pp.

McClure, R.E. and E.I. Moussalli. 1988. Fisheries of the Sultanate of Oman. 1987 Annual Report. Resource Development Associates Contribution # 2-88. Directorate General of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Sultanate of Oman.

Stromme, T. 1986. Pelagic and Demersal Fish Resources of Oman - Results of the RN Dr. Fridtjof Nansen Surveys in Oman 1983-84. UNDPFAO Programme GLOl821001. Institute of Marine Research, Bergen. 123 pp.

Yesaki, M. 1978. An Analysis of the Taiyo Fishery Company Operations off the Southeast Coast of Oman during 1976 and 1977. Report prepared for the Ministry of Agri- culture, Fisheries, Petroleum and Minerals. Sultanate of Oman. 38 pp. APPENDIX I

List of Bony Fish Identified in Demersal Trawls

Korean Family Species Name Common Name

ALBULIDAE Albula glossodonta B2 Roundjaw bonefish ARIIDAE Arius thalassinus CT Giant catfish ARIOMMIDAE Ariomma indica Indian ariomma BALISTIDAE Odonus niger Red-toothed triggerfish BALISTIDAE Sufflamen fraenatus Masked triggerfish BELONIDAE Ablennes hians Flat needlefish BELONIDAE Strongylura leiura Banded needlefish BELONIDAE Tytosurus acus melanotus Agujon needlefish BOTHIDAE Bothidae Lefteye flounders CAESIONIDAE Caesio lunaris CP Blue fusilier CARANGIDAE Alectis ciliaris CB Afican pompano CARANGIDAE Alepes djedaba Shrimp scad CARANGIDAE Alepes vari Herring scad CARANGIDAE Atule mate R Yellowtail scad CARANGIDAE Carangoides bajad c Orangespotted trevally CARANGIDAE Carangoides chrysophrys c Longnose trevally CARANGIDAE Carangoides ferdau Blue trevally CARANGIDAE Carangoides malabaricus RC Malabar trevally CARANGIDAE Caranx ignobilis c Giant trevally CARANGIDAE Caranx sem c Blacktip trevally CARANGIDAE Caranx sexfasciatus c Bigeye trevally CARANGIDAE Decapterus russelli R Indian scad CARANGIDAE Elagatis bipinnulata Rainbow runner CARANGIDAE Gnathanodon speciosus C1 Golden trevally CARANGIDAE Megalaspis cordyla C3 Torpedo scad CARANGIDAE Parastromateus niger ST Black pomfret CARANGIDAE Pseudocaranx dentex White trevally CARANGIDAE Scomberoides commersonnianus Taland queenfish CARANGIDAE Scomberoides lysan Doublespotted queenfish CARANGIDAE Scomberoides to1 Needlescaled queenfish CARANGIDAE Seriola rivoliana Almaco jack CARANGIDAE Selar crumenophthalmus R Bigeye scad CARANGIDAE Seriolina nigrofasciata C2 Blackbanded trevally CARANGIDAE Trachinotus africanus C African pompano CARANGIDAE Trachinotus baillonii C Smallspotted dart CARANGIDAE Trachinotus blochii Snubnose pompano CARANGIDAE Trachinotus russelii Largespotted dart CARANGIDAE Trachurus indicus Arabian scad CARANGIDAE Uraspis secunda RCB Cottonmouth jack CHANIDAE Chanos chanos Milkfish CHIROCENTRIDAE Chirocentrus nudus CH Whiiefin wolf-herring CLUPEIDAE Ilisha melastoma Indian ilisha CLUPEIDAE Nematalosa arabica Arabian gizzard-shad CLUPEIDAE Sardinella longiceps Indian oil-sardinella CORYPHAENIDAE Coryphaena hippurus Common dolphinflsh CYNOGLOSSIDAE Cynoglossus spp Tonguesoles DACMOPTERIDAE Dactyloptena spp Dactyloptena spp. Manne science ana tisnenes teenier Kesearcn anet W-I

List of Bony Fish Identified in Demersal Trawls, cont.

Korean Species Name !&&- Common Name

DIODONTIDAE Diodontidae Porcupinefishes DREPANIDAE Drepane punctata DR Spotted sicklefish ECHENEIDAE Echeneidae spp. Remoras ELOPIDAE Hops machnata Tenpounder ENGPAUUDAE Stolephorus heterolobus Shorthead anchovy FISTULARIDAE Fistularia commersonii Bluespotted cornetfish FISTULARIDAE Fistularia petimba Red cornetfish GERREIDAE Gerres acinaces Longtail silver-biddy GERREIDAE Gerres filamentosus Whipfin silver-biddy GERREIDAE Gerres oyena GR Common silver-biddy HAEMUUDAE Diagramma pictum M Painted sweetlips HAEMUUDAE Plectorhinchus flavomaculatus M Lemon sweetlips HAEMUUDAE Plectorhinchus pictus Trout sweetlips HAEMUUDAE Plectorhinchus schotaf Minstrel sweetlip HAEMUUDAE Plectorhinchus sordidus Sordid rubberlip HAEMUUDAE Pomadasys argenteus Silver grunt HAEMUUDAE Pomadasys argyreus Bluecheek silver grunt HAEMUUDAE Pomadasys maculatum Saddle grunt HAEMUUDAE Pomadasys multimaculatum Cock grunt HAEMUUDAE Pomadasys olivaceum Olive grunt HAEMUUDAE Pomadasys stridens Striped piggy HEMIPAMPHIDAE Hemiramphus far Black-barred halfbeak HOLOCENTRIDAE Sargocentron rubrum Redcoat ISTIOPHORIDAE Istiophorus platypterus Sailfish KYPHOSIDAE Kyphosus cinerascens Blue sea chub LEIOGNATHIDAE Leiognathus equulus Common ponyfish LEIOGNATHIDAE Leiognathus fasciatus Striped ponyfish LETHRINIDAE Lethrinus crocineus Yellowtail emperor LETHRINIDAE Lethrinus elongatus Longface emperor LETHRINIDAE Lethrinus lentjan Redspot emperor LETHRINIDAE Lethrinus nebulosus Spangled emperor LETHRINIDAE Lethrinus ramak Yellow banded emperor LETHRINIDAE Lethrinus semicinctus Reticulated emperor LUTJANIDAE Lutjanus bengalensis Bengal snapper LUTJANIDAE Lutjanus coccineus Humphead snapper LLJTJANIDAE Lutjanus coeruleolineatus Blueline snapper LUTJANIDAE Lutjanus ehrenbergi Ehrenberg's snapper LUTJANIDAE Lutjanus lutjanus Bigeye snapper LUTJANIDAE Lutjanus madras Indian snapper LUTJANIDAE Lutjanus malabaricus Malabar blood snapper LUTJANIDAE Lutjanus quinquelineatus Five-lined snapper LUTJANIDAE Pristipomoides filamentosus Bluespotted jobfish MOLIDAE Mola mola Ocean sunfish MONACANTHIDAE Stephanolepsis sp. Filefishes MUGIUDAE Liza subviridis Greenback mullet MUGIUDAE Mugil cephalus Flathead mullet MUGIUDAE Valamugil buchanani Blue-tail mullet MULLIDAE Parupeneus indicus Indian goatfish MULLIDAE Parupeneus rubescens Rosy goatfish MULLIDAE Upeneus sulphureus Sulphur goatfish WLLIDAE Upeneus vittatus Striped goatfish Marine xience ana nsrienes (-enter Research Bnef 89-1

List of Bony Fish Identified in Demersal Trawls, cont.

Korean Familv Species Name Q&..-. Common Name

MURAENESOCIDAE Muraenesocidae Pike congers NEMIPTERIDAE Nemipterus bleekeri Delagoa threadfin bream NEMIPTERIDAE Nemipterus japonicus J Japanese threadfin bream NEMIPTERIDAE Nemipterus peronii J Peron's threadfin bream NEMIPTERIDAE Parascolopsis eriomma J3 Rosy dwarf monocle bream NEMIPTERIDAE Scolopsis bimaculatus J3 Thumbprint monocle bream NEMIPTERIDAE Scolopsis ghanam J1 Arabian monocle bream NEMIPTERIDAE Scolopsis taeniatus J3 Banded monocle bream OPHIDIDAE Neobythiies sp. Cusk eels OSTRACIIDAE Tetrosomus gibbosus Hunchback boxfish PLATYCEPHALIDAE Cociella crocodila Crocodile flathead PLATYCEPHALIDAE Grammoplites suppositus Spotfin flathead PLOTOSIDAE PlOtOSUS spp Stinging catfishes POLYNEMIDAE Polynemus spp Threadfins POMATOMIDAE Pomatomus sakatrix N Bluefish PRIACANTHIDAE Cookeolus boops Blackfin bullseye PRIACANTHIDAE Priacanthus hamrur A Moontail bullseye PSETTODIDAE Psettodes erumei v Indian spiny turbot RACHYCENTRIDAE Rachycentron canadum Y Cobia SCARIDAE Scaridae z Parrotfishes SCIAENIDAE Argyrosomus heinii K2 Arabian sea meagre SCIAENIDAE Argyrosomus hololepidotus K2 Southern meagre SCIAENIDAE Otoliihes ruber K3 Tigertooth croaker SCIAENIDAE Umbrina ronchus K1 Fusca croaker SCOMBRIDAE Euthynnus affmis Kawakawa SCOMBRIDAE Rastrelliger kanagurta R Indian mackerel SCOMBRIDAE Sarda orientalis SM Striped bonito SCOMBRIDAE Scomberomorus commerson 53 N. barred Spanish mackerel SCOMBRIDAE Scomber japonicus R1 Chub mackerel SCOMBRIDAE Thunnus albacares Yellowfin tuna SCOMBRIDAE Thunnus obesus Bigeye tuna SCOMBRIDAE Thunnus tonggol Longtail tuna SCORPAENIDAE Pterois russellii Plaintail turkeyfish SERRANIDAE Aethaloperca rogaa Redmouth grouper SERRANIDAE Anyperodon leucogrammicus Slender grouper SERRANIDAE Cephalopholis argus Peacock grouper SERRANIDAE Cephalopholis hemistiktos Yellowfin hind SERRANIDAE Ce~halooholiiminiata Vermilion seabass SERRANIDAE ~~ke~h&sareolatus E Areolated grouper SERRANIDAE Epinephelus caeruleopunctatus E White sbotted grouper SERRANIDAE Epinephelus chlorostigma E Brownspotted grouper SERRANIDAE Epinephelus diacanthus E Thornycheek grouper SERRANIDAE Epinephelus epistictus E Broken line grouper SERRANIDAE Epinephelus fasciatus E Rebanded grouper SERRANIDAE Epinephelus guaza E Dusky grouper SERRANIDAE Epinephelus latifasciatus E Banded grouper SERRANIDAE Epinephelus malabaricus Malabar grouper SERRANIDAE Epinephelus radiatus E Oblique banded grouper SERRANIDAE Epinephelus stoliczkae E Epaulet grouper SERRANIDAE Epinephelus tauvina E Greasy grouper SERRANIDAE Plectropomus maculatus Spotted coral trout Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89.1

List of Bony Fish Identified in Demersal Trawls, cont.

Korean Family Species Name Code Common Name

SIGANIDAE Siganus argenteus Streamlined spinefoot SIGANIDAE Siganus canaliculatus Q1 White spotted spinefoot SIGANIDAE Siganus javus Streaked spinefoot SIWGINIDAE Sillago siharna Silver sillago SOLEIDAE Pardachirus mannoratus Finless sole SPARIDAE Acanthopagrus berda Picnic seabream SPARIDAE Acanthopagrus biiasciatus DS Twobar seabream SPARIDAE Acanthopagrus latus Yellowfin seabream SPARIDAE Argyrops filarnentosus 02 Soldier bream SPARIDAE Argyrops spinifer D3 King soldierbream SPARIDAE Cheimerius nufar Dl Santer seabream SPARIDAE Diplodus sargus capensis White seabream SPARIDAE Diplodus sargus kotschyi One spot seabream SPARIDAE Pagellus affinis P Arabian pandora SPARIDAE Pagellus natalensis P Natal pandora SPARIDAE Polyamblyodon sp. German seabreams SPARIDAE Rhabdasargus sarba GI Goldlined seabream SPHYRAENIDAE Sphyraena acutipinnis B Bigeye barracuda SPHYRAENIDAE Sphyraena forsteri B Big eye barracuda SPHYRAENIDAE Sphyraena obtusata Obtuse barracuda SYNODONTIDAE Saurida tumbil Greater lizardfish SYNODONTIDAE Saurida undosquamis F Brushtooth lizardfish TERAPONIDAE Terapon jarbua Q Jarbua terapon TERAPONIDAE Terapon puta Q Smallscaled terapon TETRAOOONTIDAE Lagocephalus sp. KF Pufferfishes TRIGLIDAE Pterygotrigla guezei Mauritius gurnard TRICHIURIDAE Trichiurus lepturus w Largehead hairtail URANOSCOPIDAE Uranoscopus sp. Stargazers Manne "science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89-1

APPENDIX I1

List of Invertebrates and Other Species Identified in Demersal Trawls

Korean Family Species Name Q& Common Name

ALOPIIDAE Alopias superciliosus Bigeye thresher CARCHARHINIDAE Carcharhinus melanopterus Blacktip reef shark CARCHARHINIDAE Scoliodon laticaudus MI Spadenose shark CHELONIDAE Caretta caretta gigas Pacific loggerhead turtle CHELONIDAE Chelonia mydas agasizii Pacific green sea turtle CHELONIDAE Dermocheiys coriaces Pacific leatherback turtle CHELONIDAE Eretmochyles imbricata bii Pacific hawksbill turtle CHELONIDAE Lepidochyles olivacea (tempi) Pacific ridley turtle DASYATIDAE Himantura uranak DY Leopard stingray DECAPODA Crabs Decapods (crabs etc.) HAUOTIDAE Haliotis sp. Abalone LOUGINIDAE Loligo duvauceli L Indian squid LOUGINIDAE Loliginidae spp 12 Shortfinned squid MOBUUDAE Mobulidae Devil rays MYUOBATIDAE Myliobatidae Eagle rays PANULURIDAE Panulirus homarus RH Scalloped spiny lobster PANULURIDAE Panulirus versicolor Painted spint lobster PENAEIDAE Penaeus monodon Giant tiger prawn PENAEIDAE Penaeus penicillatus Redtail prawn PENAEIDAE Penaeus semisulcatus Green tiger prawn PORTUNIDAE Portunidae sp. RAYS Rays Rays unidentified RHINOBATIDAE Rhinobatus annulatus Guitarfishes RHINOPTERIDAE Rhinoptera javanica Javanese cownose ray RHYNCHOBATIDAE Rhynchobatus djeddensis Whitespotted wedgefish SCYLIARIDAE Thenus orientalis Flathead locust lobster SEPIIDAE Sepia pharaonis S Pharaoh cuttlefish SHARKS Sharks Sharks unidentified SPHYRNIDAE Sphyrna mokarra Great hammerhead SQUAUDAE Squalidae Dogfish sharks TORPEDINIDAE Torpedinidae Electric rays TR1AKIDAE Mustelus mosis Arabian smoothhound TURTLES Turtles Turtles unidentified Appendix 15EM4 Uemersal Finfish Final Report

Preliminary Results from Biological Sampling Aboard Demersal Trawlers Operating off the Coast of Oman

Steven R. Hare

Marine Science and Fisheries Center Box 467 Muscat, Oman

Abstract

Despite the long term presence of demersal trawlers in Oman, little is known about the trawler catches, particularly concerning the discarded portions of the catch. In January 1989, an "On Board Data Collection Program" was initiated for the purpose of better assessing the catches and activities of the demersal trawlers, and to provide input to a demersat fishery management plan. Data collected by the Program include species composition of the retained and discarded portions of the catch; fishing location, depth and time; size distribution of target species; and factory processing methods. Five Data Collection Program cruises were made between mid-May and mid-August 1989, covering 85% of trawler activity during that period.

Two distinct fisheries were sampled: one off Ras Madrakah and another off Kuria Muria Bay. Discard accounted for 50% of the Ras Madrakah catch and 10% of the Kuria Muria catch. Principal target species for the two fisheries were breams, hairtail, meagres, revallies and sweetlips. Principal discarded species were catfish, sharks and rays. Catch rates for the two fisheries were found to be near historical highs. With one possible exception, vessel reported and Program calculated catch quantities were fairly close.

The maior factor in the hieh discard rate is the small mesh size utilized by the vessels.

continue its present success, efforts must be made to support the Data ~ollectorsivithan enforcement branch, without enlisting the Data Collectors for enforcement work.

BACKGROUND

A succession of relatively large (> 350 GRT) foreign-owned trawlers have operated off the coast of Oman since the mid 1970's. Four Japanese vessels conducted operations for two years before departing in 1977 (Yesaki, 1978). The Korea Overseas Fishing Company (KOFC) negotiated a concession agreement in 1977 (subsequently extended several times) and has deployed as many as 8 trawlers. At the time of this report, the KOFC was operating two trawlers, but expected to expand the fleet to four trawlers by the end of 1989. Two Omani-owned companies have also operated trawlers, with one company (Oman Sea Compa- ny) currently deploying a fleet of three vessels. The vessels are restricted to bottom trawling in waters deeper than 50 meters, between 17% and 20Â° longitude. A crew of 30-35 is carried on most of the vessels, which operate 24 hours a day. The catch is presently frozen whole, processing being limited to sorting by size and species. A typical Fishing cruise is one month in duration, and the trawlers are restricted to loading and unloading cargo in the Capital Area port of Mina Qaboos.

as the official trawler catch totals, the supplied data has often been incomplete, inconsistent and, to an unknown extant, systematically fabricated. The Catch Reports provide no information on discards, nor biological data (length, weight, etc.) on targeted species.

In January 1989, an "On Board Data Collection Program" (hereafter, DC Program) was initiated for the purpose of monitoring and assessing the catches aboard commercial fishing vessels operating in Oman's territorial waters. This attempt follows earlier efforts that were disbanded due to the lack of trained on board samplers (Christensen and McEntire, 1987). The first 12 months of the DC Program were funded by an Omani- American Joint Commission Project Grant (No. 272-0101.1-I), and administered by the Oregon State University. A corps of 10 Data Collectors received four months of training in at-sea sampling, and began accompanying the vessels in May 1989. The DC Program was modeled after the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service's highly successful Foreign Fisheries Observer Program (French et al., 1982).

This paper presents sampling results from the first five DC Program Cruises. Data Collectors board the vessels in pairs and sample the catch for the duration of the cruise. All aspects of the fishing operations are monitored, including location, depth and duration of each trawl; species composition of selected codend., discard composition; size diistribu- tion of predominant species; and factory processing methods'. The Data Collectors are selectively placed on the vessels so as to provide comprehensive sampling coverage. With a fleet of seven vessels, approximately 50% of the trawler fishing effort can be covered by the DC Program.

RESULTS

Sarn~lineactivities The first five DC Program cruises have provided a wealth of data on the demersal trawl fishery. A total of 1387 hauls were made during the five cruises. The Data Collec- tors sampled 272 hauls for species composition, 50 for length frequencies on target species, 35 for length-weight frequencies and 14 for factory production rates. From the beginning of the first cruise to the end of the fifth (20 May - 11 August, 1989), more than 85% of total trawler activity was monitored by the DC Program. The first four cruises all took place in roughly the same area: along the 50 meter depth contour between Ras ad Duqm and Ras Madrakah (i.e., between 19 and 20" N latitude). The last cruise occurred during the onset of the southwest monsoon, resulting in a change in fishing grounds (to Kuria Muria Bay, south of 1FN) and a radically different catch composition. These two fisheries, therefore, are treated separately in the following analyses. An illustration of the two fishing areas and total catches from those areas is provided in Figure 1.

Catch diversity and utilization Similar to most tropical demersal trawl fisheries, catch diversity in Oman was found to be very high, with more than 60 species of fish and invertebrates in a typical codend. Over 200 different species have been identified to date in trawl catches. Approximately

For a detailed discussion of sampling duties and methodology, see Hare, 1989. Hare Sampling Aboard Demersal Trawlers Page 3

half of the species are considered desirable fish and retained by the trawlers, while the other half are discarded. In the Ras Madrakah fishery, just over half (986.61 mt of 1954.77 mt) of the total catch was retained (Rgure 2). In Kuria Muria, 90% of the total catch was retained, though this represents a much smaller fishery than Ras Madrakah.

Species composition of retained portion of catch Target species in the Ras Madrakah fishery were hairtail, cuttlefish, breams, meagres, croakers and trevallies (Figure 3). The largehead hairtail, Trichiurus leptwus, was the only individual retained species constituting more than 10% of the total catch (29.4% of retained catch). Principal among the bream species were Japanese threadfin bream (Nemip- tern japonicus), king soldierbream (Areyrops spmifer), santer seabream (Cheimerius nufar) and Arabian pandora (PageUus afiis). The principal meagre in the catch was the Arabian sea meagre (Argyrosomus hemU.Â¥and principal croaker was the tigertboth croaker (Otolithes ruber). Among trevallies, the longnose trevally (Carangoides chrysophrys) constituted the largest percentage. The highly desired pharaoh cuttlefish (Septa pharaonis) totalled 6.2% of the retained catch. Contrasting this diversity, the Kuria Muria fishery was dominated by three species: santer seabream (50.6% of retained catch), spangled emperor (Lethrums nebulosus, 14.8%) and pharaoh cuttlefish (121%). The pufferfish (Lagocephalus sp.) comprised another 6.5% of the catch (Figure 4).

Suedes commition of the discarded nortion of the catch The giant catfish. Arius thalassinus, accounted for more than half of the discarded catch in Ras Madrakah (Figure 5). This species was consistently present during all tows (night and day, and during all months). Sharks and rays formed 11.3% of the discard, with lizardfish (Saunda spp., 7.1%), grunts (small species of the Haemulidae family, 5.3%) and triggerfish (BaUstidae spp., 4.6%) also important components. Discard was relatively minor in the Kuria Muria fishery (Figure 6). More than 50% is listed as other species, however, the majority of this is the pufferfish (Diodontidae spp.). Sharks and rays (14.4%), bigeyes (Riacanthus hawand Cookeohis boops, 9.9%) and lizardfish (9.3%) also contributed to the discard.

Catch rates The nets deployed by the trawlers have a head rope length of 50 meters, resulting in a horizontal opening of 18-20 m and a vertical opening of 5 m. Mesh size varied from 180 mm inside stretch measure in the net wings to less than 80 mm in the codend. Further, the vessel used a double (or lined) codend resulting in a much smaller effective mesh size opening. Catch rates for the four Ras Madrakah cruises averaged 1,280 kg per hour (Figure 7). Among the four cruises, total catch rates varied from 1153 to 1437 kg/hour. The average retained catch rate was 645 kghour, with a range of 541 to 767 kghour. Total catch rate was much lower in Kuria Muria at 725 kg/hour, however, the retained catch rate was higher at 652 kghour. Examination of catch rate data from previous years show that the catch rates encountered thus far in the DC Program are higher than average. For Ras Madrakah, there is survey data from 1983 (R/V Dr. Fridtjof Nansen, Stromme, 1986) and 1973 (R/V Darbat Mardela, 1975), from vessels utilizing similar size gear. In 1983, the total demersal catch rate was approximately 962 kghour, with a retained species catch rate of 539 kg/hour. The Hare Sampling Aboard Demersal Trawlers Page 4

1973 catch rates are even lower (800 and 450 kgibour, respectively). While survey catch rates should be lower than commercial catch rates, this helps to illustrate that the demersal fishery remains viable, at least in the areas presently fished. The situation is similar for the Kuria Muria fishery, though 1989 catch rates are lower than those recorded in 1976. The 1976 data, however, are from four Japanese stem trawlers utilizing gear almost double in size that deployed by the trawlers in 1989 (Yesaki, 1978).

Vessel-reported and DC -ram data comoarisons The vessel companies officially reported a retained catch of 1278.38 mt for the five cruises. This is 28 mt more catch than vessel personnel reported to the Data Collectors while they were on board. The percentage reported for each species group within the total, can be directly compared with DC Program data (which is independently collected ria sampling), to determine whether systematic misreporting is being conducted by the vessel companies. Analyzed together, the catch composition estimations from the five cruises agree remarkably well with the data provided by the vessel companies for the same set of cruises (Figure 8). Vessel Catch Reports list breams (322%). hairtail (26.3%) and meagres- /croakers (11.4%) as the three major retained species groups. DC Program sampling showed the same three major groups dominating the catch, but with slightly different percentages: breams - 37.3%. hairtail - 23.2% and meagm 8.6%. Thus, on a broad basis, it appears that the vessels are reporting, at least for the vessels carrying Data Collectors, their catch fairly accurately. There is some evidence that "species manipulation" may have occurred for at least one DC Program cruise. Species manipulation is the practice of reporting the catch of one species (usually a high value species) under the category of a second species (usually a low value species). The question of species manipulation for one particular cruise involved threadfin bream (the high value species) and hairtail (Figure 9). Data Collector sampling extrapolated a catch of 97.03 mt hairtail and 84.44 mt, while vessel figures were 121.78 mt hairtail and 47.18 mt threadfin bream. On 14 occasions. Data Collectors conducted "unit weight" tests on factory products. The vessel companies utilize a standard figure of 10.0 kg per tray of Bsh. Catch amounts are calculated by adding the number of trays and multiplying that figure by 10 kg. Therefore, if the average block weight were greater than 10.0 kg, the true catch weight would be higher than actually reported. In 11 of the 14 tests, the unit weight of 10 randomly collected trays was greater than 10.0 kg. Average weight of the 140 trays weighed was 10.6 kg. If 10.6 kg is an accurate average tray weight, then reporting 10.0 kg per tray results in an underestimation of retained catch by 6%.

DISCUSSION

In addition to obtaining basic fisheries and biological information on the demersal trawl fishery, the DC Program is expected to provide input for a demersal fishery management plan. With a data collection program in place, various management regulations can be tested and measured, a practice heretofore unfeasible. Hare Sampling Aboard Demersal Trawlers Page 5

The most immediate aspect of the demersal fishery that requires attention is the "discard problem". The two most obvious solutions are: 1) force the vessel companies to retain and market the discard; 2) take measures to reduce the amount of discard in the catch. It is this second option that is addressed here.

Reducing the capture of discarded species can be accomplished in a variety of ways. Fishing areas can be closed if the vessels are unable to avoid the capture of species they do not utilize. In Oman, this is not truly feasible, as the Ras Madrakah grounds support as much as 80% of the yearly trawl fishery. Fishing in the Kuria Muria region, with the low discard rate, is viable only during the 2-3 monsoon months. Without opening new fishing grounds further north or south of the present regulatory area, Ras Madrakah will remain the central fishing area.

The possibility that diel variation might affect trawl catches was explored. The biggest diel influence was on the total catch rate. During daylight hours (i.e., hauls landed between 0630 and 1830) the catch rate was more than double the nighttime catch rate: 1723 kghour to 815 kghour (Figure 10). The retained catch rate was 25 times higher during the day, 916 kghour to 362 kghour. In terms of percentage of the catch discarded, daylight hauls averaged 47% compared to a night discard rate of 56%. Despite the high discard rate and relatively low trawling efficiency, the vessels continue to operate throughout nighttime hours. The reason for this is partially explained by the change in species composition that occurs during night tows (Figure 11). Cuttlefish comprise 14.4% of the retained nighttime catch, more than three times its percentage of daylight tows. Overall, eliminating night trawling is not likely to have much impact on the total discard rate.

One other factor was examined to determine its influence on discard: mesh size. As stated earlier, the vessels utilize a double codend, with an average mesh size of approximately 80 mm inside stretch measure. As a result, a large number of very small species are captured by in the fishery. In Table 1, the average weights of the 28 most common species in the total trawler catch are given. They are divided into two categories for species averaging over 1 kg in weight and those averaging less than 1 kg. Each category is further divided into retained and discarded species.

Of the four subdivisions, discarded species under 1 kg average weight form the largest part of the total catch, with 34.2% The second largest category is retained species averaging over 1 kg in weight. If one equates average weight with body size and shape, some hypotheses can be made concerning the effect of utilizing codends with larger mesh sizes. The first impact would be the decrease in catch percentages of species averaging less than 1 kg in weight.

Examination of the under 1 kg species shows the discarded species to be smaller than the retained species. Therefore, the impact of a larger mesh size would be greater on discarded species than on retained species. With a larger mesh size, the catch percentage of larger species would increase. Among retained species over 1 kg, only the santer seabream and pharaoh cuttlefish average close to 1 kg and might, therefore, suffer some appreciable decrease in catch rate with increased mesh size. The major discarded species over 1 kg ar<- Hare Sampling Aboard Demersal Trawlers Page 6

all marketable species, though not presently retained. If captured in sufficient quantity, or as a larger percentage of the catch, these species might become profitable to retain.

The legal mesh size in Oman is 110 mm inside stretch measure and a single (i.e., unlined) codend. This law is not, and never has been, followed or enforced. If reduction of discard is a management concern, enforcement of the mesh size limit is one method of attaining that goal. One option might be to allow 80 mm mesh (as recommended by FAO), but enforcing the single codend requirement.

CONCLUSIONS

The offshore fishery represents a potential area of expansion for the Omani fishing industry. At the very least, the amount of expansion is equal to the catch of the foreign- owned trawlers. Conceivably, the industry can expand even further. To do so, detailed knowledge of the fishery is required both by government managers and the Omani fishing industry. As an offshore fishery, the demersal trawl fishery has little choice but to deploy on board samplers as a means of collecting realistic data. The results presented in this paper illustrate some of the potential represented by such scientifically collected data.

Experience with observer programs around the world have shown that vessels almost uniformly oppose the presence of on board samplers. In some circumstances, the oppo- sition has led to physical harassment and sampling interference. For the Oman Data Collector Program to continue to thrive, two conditions must be followed. First, the Data Collectors must be protected by a law enforcement branch of the government, including periodic at-sea boarding of the trawlers. Secondly, the role of the Data Collector should remain strictly one of data collection, not enforcement of regulations. It is tempting to employ one person to cany out both tasks, but extensive history has shown that the result is accomplishment of neither purpose. -

f Gulf of Oman

LEGEND

Figure 1. Distribution of catch by vessels carrying Data Collectors, 20 May - 11 August, 1989. CATCH UTILIZATION

90.0% Kuria Muria Bay Fishery (294 43 mt]

Ras Madrakah Fishery (1954,77 mi)

Figure 2. Amount of total catch retained and discarded in the two fisheries sampled by the DC Program. RETAINED CATCH DISTRIBUTION Ras Madrakah Fishery

cuttlefish 6.2% t reval lies other spp. 9.5% 7.7% a"a era Figure 3. Composition of retained portion of the catch, Ras re Madrakah fishery. Total = 986.16 rnt RETAINED CATCH DISTRIBUTION Kuria Muria Bay Fishery

breams

other spp. 4.1?&

groupers

-cuttlefish emperors 12.1% 14.8%

Figure 4. Composition of retained portion of catch, Kuria Muria Bay fishery. Total = 264.14 mt DISCARDED CATCH DISTRIBUTION Ras Madrakah Fisherv

catfish 52.9Yo

other spp. 14.2Yo

iizardf ish triggerfish 7.1Y0 grunts scads 4.6Y0 5.3Yo 4.5Yo 2 Figure 5. Composition of discarded portion of the catch, Ras $3" Madrakah fishery. Total = 968.61 mt - DISCARDED CATCH DISTRIBUTION Kuria Muria Bay Fisherv

lizardfish bigeyes

other spp. 54.0Â°/ Figure 6. Composition of discarded portion of the catch, Kuria Muria Bay Fishery. Total = 29.29 rnt Hare Sampling Aboard Demersal Trawlers RETAINED CATCH COMPARISON- Summary of Cruises 1-5

other spp. 11.4 sweetlips 4.0% trevallies 6.1% cuttlefish 8.6%

cuttlefish 7.5% meagres 11.4% meagres 8.6%

hairtail 26.3% hair tail 23.2%

breams 32.2% breams 37.3%

DC Program Vessel Reported (t0tElIsl250 300 mt) (totaI=1278 3 0 mt)

Figure 8. A comparison of Dc program estimates of trawler catch Composition with vessel reported figures. Data are for DC Program cruises 1-5. Hare Sampling Aboard Dernersal Trawlers Page 15 CATCH RATES Diel variation

/ 71 FRetained species Discarded species 1

... . . Combined Day NlgnI Combined Day Night Ras Madrakah Fishery 2 Kuria Muria Bay Fisherv (TO a in Figure 3iel variation in cat<:h rates~ for.~ two. fisharioc..-.. -a ."". DIEL VARIATION IN RETAINED CATCH Ras Madrakah Fishery

other spp. 7.3% , cuttlefish 4.6% sweetlips 5.3% other spp. 8.0% meagres 7.5% cuttlefish 14.4% trevallies 9.8% sweetlips 6.7% meagres 21.2%

trevallies 8.5% hairtail 31.5% hairtail 15.6%

breams 25.7%

breams 34.0% Night Fishing (269,23mt)

Day Fishing- (716.93mt)

Figure 11. Diet variation in retained portion of the catch, Ras Madrakah Fishery. Hare Sampling Aboard Demersal Trawlers Page 18

AVERAGE WEIGHT COMPARISON of Discarded and Retained Species

CATEGORY 1 CATEGORY 2

A. Retained, ava. wt > 1.0 ka. C. Retained, ava. wt < 1.0 ka. (32.8% of total catch) (27.4% of total catch)

Common name (ave. wt.) % of catch Common name (eve. wt.) % of catch santer seabream (1.04) 9.96 hairtail (0.58) 11.44 pharaoh cuttlefish (1.10) 5.50 threadfin bream (0.20) 8.27 spangled emperor (1.65) 3.62 tigertooth croaker (0.68) 2.23 king soldierbream (1.42) 2.98 pufferfish (0.75) 1.35 longnose trevally (238) 2.13 Arabian pandora (0.24) 0.89 meagres (1.78) 1.35 barracuda (0.86) 0.69 silver grunt (229) 1.23 soldierbream (0.50) 0.47

B. Discarded. ava. wt > 1.0 ka. D. Discarded, avo. wt < 1.0 kd. (5.6% of total catch) (34.2% of total catch)

Common name (ave. wt.) % of catch Common name lave. wt.) 1 of catch rays (9.77) 3.24 catfish (0.39) 19.65 guitarfishes (1.28) 0.63 lizardfish (0.58) 3.34 sharks (1.59) 0.46 triggerfish (0.15) 2.63 queenfish (6.74) 0.39 striped piggy (0.13) 1.03 Arabian scad (0.18) 1.02 Indian scad (0.17) 0.65 olive grunt (0.15) 0.60 cusk eel (0.49) 0.48 hairtail (0.47) 0.40 gurnard (0.12) 0.38

Table I. Average weights of predominant species in the catch. Hare Sampling Aboard Demersal Trawlers Page 19

LITERATURE CITED

Christensen, G. and S. McEntire. 1987. Observations on the Operations of the Korean Trawl Fleet. Resource Development Associates Contribution # 3-87. Directorate General of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Sultanate of Oman, 26 pp.

Hare, S.R 1989. Sampling Manual for Data Collectors Aboard Foreign Fishing Vessels. Oman Marine Science and Fisheries Center, Special Report NO. 1. April 1989. 93 pp.

Mardela International, Ltd. 1975. Marine Resources Development Program. Sultanate of Oman. Final Report, Book II, Volume 11.

Stromme, T. 1986. Pelagic and Demersal Fish Resources of Oman - Results of the R/V Dr. Fndtjof Nansen Surveys in Oman 1983-84. UNDPFAO Programme GLO/82/001. Institute of Marine Research, Bergen. 123 pp.

Sultanate of Oman

Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Directorate General of Fisheries Marine Science and Fisheries Center

Oman Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89-6 Preliminary Results from Biological Sampling Aboard Demersal Trawlers Operating off the Coast of Oman: On Board Data Collection Program Cruises 6-10

December 1989

Steven R. Hare

Demersal Finfish Biologist

P.O. Box 467 Muscat TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures ...... ii ... ListofTables ...... III

Executive Summary ...... 1

Introduction ...... 2

TheFishery ...... 2

Results and Discussion ...... 3

INDIVIDUAL CRUISE RESULTS

CRUISE NO . 6 ......

Generalcomments ...... 13

CRUISE NO . 7 ...... 20

Generalcomments ...... 20

CRUISE NO . 8 ...... 27

GeneralComments ...... 27

CRUISE NO . 9 ...... 34

GeneralComments ...... 34

CRUISE NO . 10 ...... 41

GeneralComments ...... 41

Literature Cited ...... 48 LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. Legal fishing zone and statistical regions for the demersal trawl fishery. . . . 6

Figure 2. Distribution of catch (retained amount only) by vessels carrying Data Collectors, 27 July - 3 November, 1989 (DC Program Cruises 6-10) ...... 7

Figure 3. DC Program estimates of retained catch composition and vessel reporteddata ...... 8

Figure 4. Composition of discarded portion of the catch ...... 9

Figure 5. Average catch rates (in kg per trawling hour) aboard vessels carrying Data Collectors ...... 10

Figure 6. Total catch and fishing effort by area, Kim's Marine 212, 27 July - 27 August, 1989 (DC Program Cruise 6) ...... 14

Figure 7. Total catch utilization and species composition of the retained and discarded portions of the catch, Kin's Man'ne 212, 27 July - 27 August, 1989 ...... 15

Figure 8. Total catch and fishing effort by area, Kurn Bong 503, 18 August - 5 September, 1989 (DC Program Cruise 7) ...... 21

Figure 9. Total catch utilization and species composition of the retained and discarded portions of the catch, Kum Bong 503, 18 August - 5 September . 22

Figure 10. Total catch and fishing effort by area, Kurn Bong 501, 30 August - 29 September, 1989 (DC Program Cruise 8) ...... 28

Figure 11. Total catch utilization and species composition of the retained and discarded portions of the catch, Kurn Bong 501, 30 August - 29 September, 1989 . . . 29

Figure 12. Total catch and fishing effort by area, Kum Bong 503, 11 Septemher - 15 October, 1989 ...... 35

Figure 13. Total catch utilization and species composition of the retained and discarded portions of the catch, Kurn Bong 503, 11 September - 15 October, 1989 . . . 36

Figure 14. Total catch and fishing effort by area, Sea Queen 1, 22 September - 3 November, 1989 ...... 42

Figure 15. Total catch utilization and species composition of the retained and discarded portions of the catch, Sea Queen 1, 22 September - 3 November, 1989 . . . . 43 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. General Information on DC Program Cruises 6-10 ...... 11

Table 2 . Summary of trawler activity and sampling coverage during the period 27 July .3 November. 1989 ...... 11

Table 3 . Breakdown of fishing effort, retained catch and total catch by area and Cruise for the period 27 July .3 November. 1989 ...... 12

Table 4. Catch Report from Data Collector Cruise No . 6 ...... 16

Table 5. The 20 most common species. or species groups. retained from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No . 6 ...... 17

Table 6. The 20 most common species. or species groups. discarded from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No . 6 ...... 18 Table 7. The 20 most common species retained by the vessel. as oflicially reported by the vessel's company during Data Collector Cruise No . 6 .... 19 Table 8. Catch Report from Data Collector Cruise No . 7 ...... 23 Table 9. The 20 most common species. or species groups. retained from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No . 7 ...... 24

Table 10. The 20 most common species. or species groups. discarded from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No . 7 ...... 25 Table 11. The 20 most common species retained by the vessel. as officially reported by the vessel's company during Data Collector Cruise No . 7 .... 26

Table 12. Catch Report from Data Collector Cruise No . 8 ...... 30

Table 13. The 20 most common species. or species groups. retained from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No . 8 ...... 31 Table 14. The 20 most common species. or species groups. discarded from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No . 8 ...... 32 Table 15. The 20 most common species retained by the vessel. as officially reported by the vessel's company during Data Collector Cruise No . 8 .... 33 Table 16. Catch Report from Data Collector Cruise No . 9 ...... 37

Table 17. The 20 most common species. or species groups. retained from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No . 9 ...... 38 LIST OF TABLES, cont.

Table 18. The 20 most common species, or species groups, discarded from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 9 ...... 39

Table 19. The 20 most common species retained by the vessel, as officially reported by the vessel's company during Data Collector Cruise No. 9 .... 40

Table 20. Catch Report from Data Collector Cruise No. 10 ...... 44

Table 21. The 20 most common species, or species groups, retained from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 10 ...... 45

Table 22. The 20 most common species, or species groups, discarded from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 10 ...... 46

Table 23. The 20 most common species retained by the vessel, as officially reported by the vessel's company during Data Collector Cruise No. 10 ... 47 Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89-6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The On Board Data Collection Program successfully completed its second set of five sampling cruises aboard demersal trawlers. The first cruise began 27 July and the last ended on 3 November, 1989. The five cruises totalled 160 fishing days and 1770 individual hauls.

During this period, six trawlers were active in the demersal fishery. Five larger (50 m in length, >350 GRT) trawlers operated for a total of 249 days, retaining 1977.90 mt of fish. The DC Program thus sampled 64.3% (1601249 days) of the large trawler fishing effort. The sixth trawler (< 30 m in length) retained 184.62 mt of fish from 78 days of fishing.

In July and August, fishing occurred primarily around the Kuria Muria Islands, where the target species were breams, cuttlefish and emperors. The fleet moved to the Ras Madrakah area in September, remaining there until late October when the fleet began shifting north to Masirah Island. Cuttlefish was the principal target in Madrakah, though breams comprised the largest part of the catch. Around Masirah Island, the vessels targeted on hairtail.

Reported catch composition by the vessels closely matched sampling results from the DC Program. The major discrepancy involved cuttlefish percent. It is believed this can be traced to vessel prohibition of DC sampling during several days when cuttlefish catch was higher than normal (Cruises 8 and 9).

A total of 741.97 mt of fish, representing 36.26% of the total catch, was discarded during the five DC Program cruises. A wide range of species comprised the discard, headed by porcupinefish, triggerfish, lizardfish, catfish, sharks and rays. Periodically, large quantities of desirable fish (such as trevallies) were discarded when cuttlefish catch was high.

Catch rates for the five cruises averaged 1,033.2 kg/hour total catch and 658.5 kghour retained catch. This compares to figures of 1,165.4 kg/hour and 647.5 kglhour for the first five cruises. These data appear to show that the present fishing grounds remain productive and are probably not, at present, overexploited.

An estimated 46 turtles were captured during the five cruises, amounting to an incidence rate of 1 turtle per 44.48 mt of total catch. This rate is higher than that encountered in the first set of cruises. Based on an annual demersal trawl quota of 18,000 mt, total turtle catch is estimated at 248-405 individuals.

Serious sampling problems and/or misreporting by the vessels were encountered on Cruises 8. 9 and 10. Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 894

INTRODUCTION

This Research Brief represents the second in a series of reports documenting the commercial catch of the demersal trawler fleet operating off the coast of Oman. In 1989, an 'On Board Data Collection Program" (hereafter, DC Program) was initiated to monitor the trawler catch. A corps of 10 Data Collectors (DCs) were trained in early 1989 and began sampling on board the trawlers in May 1989. A summary of DC duties and sampling techniques is provided in the form of a manual (Hare, 1989a). The DCs board vessels for the duration of a fishing "cruise", which generally lasts 4-6 weeks. The purpose of these reports is to provide basic fisheries data on the demersal trawl fishery in a timely manner as an aid to the management of the fishery. To that end, location and catch composition data are presented from every cruise. A yearly summary of the demersal trawl fishery will provide a more detailed analysis, along with specific management recommendations. Results from the first five DC Program Cruises were previously published, along with a more detailed description of the sampling program (Hare, 1989b).

THE FISHERY

The demersal finfishes in Omani territorial waters are the target of both artisanal and commercial-scale fisheries. Over the past several years, the two fisheries have taken roughly equal amounts of fish for a total of 20-30,000 mt (Moussalli and Bouhlel, 1989). It is believed that the fishery can sustain an annual yield of 77,000 mt including species currently discarded (Stromme, 1986). A fleet of stern trawlers constitute the commercial fishery and have operated in Oman since 1976 (Yesaki, 1978). At the end of 1989, there were seven trawlers, from two companies, active in the fishery. Since 1976, the number of trawlers has ranged from a low of three to a high of eight. Most of the trawlers are in the 300-400 GRT class, though the Japanese briefly deployed two trawlers of over 1500 GRT. The commercial fishery is subject to a number of government regulations. The vessels are allowed to operate only between 17O and 21Â N latitude. Additionally, the vessels must remain outside 50 m depth or 10 miles from land, whichever is further. The minimum allowable mesh size in the wdend is 110 mm inside stretch measure. Finally, the vessels must deliver an official Catch Report following each cruise, listing daily catch by species and area. The allowed fishing zone is divided into 30' by 30' blocka and numbered (Figure 1). Each area is further divided into 9 smaller squares of 10' by 10', however that level of detail was considered too fine for the purposes of this report. For the cruises that were not sampled by the DC Program, the vessel Catch Reports were used for totalling the catch by species. Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89-6

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Samoling effort The data herein represent five cruises made aboard four different vessels (Table 1). The first cruise, No. 6, began 27 July and the last cruise, No. 10, ended 3 November. These five cruises totalled 160 fishing days and 1770 individual trawl hauls. In the period between 27 July and 3 November, six trawlers were active in the demersal fishery, fishing a total of 327 days (Table 2). One of the trawlers, the Oman Sea One, is a much smaller vessel than the other trawlers (<30 m length vs 50 m), and is treated herein as a special case. The five larger trawlers totalled 249 fishing days, thus the DC Program sampled 64.3% (1601249) of the fishing effort.

Fishin? effort and retained catch Total retained catch aboard the sampled trawlers was 1304.16 mt, which amounts to 8.15 mtlday. The unsampled retained catch was 673.74 mt, for an average daily catch of 7.57 mt. The Oman Sea One retained 184.62 mt in 78 fishing days for an average of 2.37 mtlday. The overall average for the five large trawlers for sampled and unsampled cruises was 7.94 mtlday amounting to 1977.90 mt. It is important to note that this represents only the catch that is retained on board the vessel. A substantial amount of the total catch is discarded, and this is described in a subsequent section.

Fishing locations and target soecies Fishing activity varied in location and target species during the period (Figure 2). Fishing centered around the Kuria Muria Islands (Regions 750 and 751) in late July and August, during the end of the southwest monsoon season. Commercial trawling in this area generally occurs only during the monsoon season when strong upwelling brings large concentrations of fish. The principal target species in the Kuria Muria Islands are breams (Sparidae), in particular the santer seabream (Cheimerius nufar) which often constitutes 50% or more of the catch. The pharaoh cuttlefish (Sepia pharaonis) and spangled emperor (Lethrinus nebulosus) are also important components of the retained catch. More precise data on the Kuria Muria catch can be found in the Catch Reports of Cruises 7 and 8.

Following the end of the monsoon season, fishing effort shifted north to the Ras Madrakah and Ras ad Duqm regions (19'-2O0N latitude, Regions 760 to 764). This is often known as a good cuttlefish season, and was evidenced this year by the catches during Cruises 9 and 10. Breams, especially Cheimerius nufar, Atprops spinifer and A. flamentosus, form the largest component of the catch, however. Fishing activity is often curtailed during the night as catch rates drop to less than half the daytime rate.

Towards the end of October, some vessels moved further north to the Masirah Island area (regions 768 to 771). The principal target species around Masirah is the largehead hairtail (Trichiurus leptuius). The hairtail, however, is usually pursued only as a last resort by Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89-6 the vessels since its market value has remain depressed for the past several years1. Emperors are sometimes found in sizable concentrations around Masirah. The last Eew days of fishing during Cruise 10 occurred around Masirah Island.

A summary of the catch by fishing area during the five Cruises is given in Table 3. The largest catch retained from any single area was 285.43 mt in Area 762 (Ras Madrakah). Catches between 150 and 250 mt were taken from Areas 750, 751 and 752 (Kuria Muria Islands), 761 and 764 (Ras ad Duqm).

Comparison of sampling results and vessel reported catch One of the major goals of the DC Program is to ascertain the validity of the Catch Reports provided by the fishing companies, particularly for Cruises not sampled by the Program. The retained catch was broken down into seven major categories: breams, cuttlefish, emperors, meagres (Sciaenidae family), trevallies (large Carangutae) and other spp. I compared DC sampling results for the five cruises with the Catch Reports from those same cruises (Figure 3). Both DC Program sampling and the Catch Reports show that breams constituted approximately 45% of the total retained catch. The second most common category was cuttlefish, calculated at 27% from sampling results and reported at 32% by the vessels. This discrepancy may, in part, have resulted from sampling problems encountered by the DCs during two of the cruises (see General Comments, Cruises 8 and 9). Good matches were found in the other categories, with emperors the third largest group (10% composition by sampling vs 9% reported catch), followed by meagres (4% vs 3%) and trevallies (3% vs 2%).

While this settled the question that vessels carrying DCs were accurately reporting their catches, what about those vessels whose catches weren't being observed? In fact, the catch composition reported by the non sampled vessels also matches very well with the sampling results. If we exclude the Oman Sea One catch, the non sampled vessels listed bream catch at 39%, cuttlefish at 31%, emperors at 1376, trevallies at 4% and meagres at 3%. Inclusion of the Oman Sea One catch skews the results as the smaller vessel discards virtually all species other than cuttlefish: bream composition is lowered to 32% and cuttlefish raised to 40% of the catch. Future sampling cruises will be made aboard the Oman Sea One to gain a better picture of its actual catch.

Discarded species A total of 741.97 mt of fish were caught and discarded during the five DC Program cruises. This amounted to 36.26% of the total quantity of fish landed on the vessels. Discard percent ranged from 10.85% (Cruise 7) to 42.87% (Cruise 8). Previous sampling cruises had shown that discards constituted approximately 50% of the catch off Ras Madrakah and 10% off Kuria Muria (Hare, 1989b). It would appear therefore, that the results obtained here are consistent with the earlier findings.

Personal communication, Mr. Hee Myeong Lee, Assistant Manager, Korea Overseas Fishing Company, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman. Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief W-6

The discarded catch was very diverse in composition (Figure 4). Unlike earlier cruises off Ras Madrakah when a single species of catfish comprised 50% of the discard, no species or species group dominated the discard. The porcupinefish (Diodontidae) was the most common component, particularly in the Kuria Muria Islands, and averaged 21.4% of the discard. Triggerfish (Balistidae), lizardfish (Synodontidae) and catfish (Ariidae and Plotosidae) comprised 12.2%. 11.8% and 7.1% respectively. Rays and sharks, potentially marketable species, averaged 9.0% (66.83 mt) of the discard. Trevallies and scads, for which there is a definite market, comprised 4.4% (32.54 mt) of the discard. As detailed in the General Corn- ments section for each cruise, these otherwise desirable Fish are discarded in order to boost the retained quantity of cuttlefish. The remainder of the discard was divided among more than 50 species, including flounders, gurnards, bigeyes, grunts and flatheads.

An estimated 46 turtles were taken during the five cruises, for an incidence rate of 1 turtle per 44.48 mt of total catch (1 turtle per 28.35 mt of retained catch). The first five cruises showed an incidence rate of 1 turtle per 72.59 mt of total catch. Under the proposed commercial trawler quota of 18,000 mt, the turtle catch would be estimated at between 248 and 405 individuals. DC Program personnel previously estimated that about half of the captured turtles are dead when returned to the ocean.

Catch rates The average catch rate for the five cruises was 1,033.2 kghour total catch and 658.5 kg/hour retained catch (Figure 5). This compares with 1,165.4 kghour total and 647.5 kg/hour retained catch during the first five cruises. The best catch rates occurred during Cruise 7 for retained catch (891.9 kg/hour retained catch) and Cruise 8 (1,138.1 kghour total catch). Compared with data previously published (Stromme, 1986; Yeaski, 1978), these rates appear to provide continuing evidence that the present fishing grounds are in a good state and probably not overexploited.

Cruise bv Cruise Information In the following sections, catch and effort data is presented for each cruise. First, a "General Comments" section summarizes fishing and sampling activities and discusses any problems encountered by the on board samplers. A map illustrates the areas fished and quantity of fish taken in each area. The composition of the discarded and retained portions of the catch, in broad species groups, is presented graphically. Four tables follow the figures, providing the most detailed information. The first table is a Catch Report including information on fishing effort and catch rates. The second and third tables list the top 20 retained and discarded species for that cruise, while the fourth table lists the retained catch as officially reported by the vessel. Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89-6 Mdnne Science and t-ishenes Lenter Kcsearch Bnel W-6

LEGEND

Ras A1 Had ...... OF cjpgi"..... 0-...... 10-50 rnt @ 50-100 rnt

100-250 rnt

Figure 2. Distribution of catch (retained amount only) by vessels carrying Data Collectors, 27 July - 3 November, 1989 (DC Program Cruises 6-10). RETAINED CATCH COMPARISON Sampled and reported catch figures

other spp

Ã‘ trevallies

meagres

emperors Ci^S cuttlefish breams

1 - does not include reports of Oman Sea One.

2 - includes reported catch of Oman Sea One.

1 2 DC Program Vessels Vessels Vessels sampling with DCs without DCs without DCs (1304,16 rnt) (1299.56 rnt) (85836 mt)

Figure 3. DC Program estimates of retained catch composition and vessel reported data. Comparisons are made with reports from vessels carrying DCs, and those not carrying them for the period 27 July - 3 November (corresponding to Cruises 6-10). The importance of the Oman Sea One reported catch is explained in the text. DISCARDED CATCH DISTRIBUTION DC Program Cruises 6-10

t reval lies lizard fish & scads . . -. 11.8%

rays & sharks 9.0%

," other spp. 34.1%

Figure 4. Composition of discarded portion of the catch, Cruises 6-10, 27 July - 3 November, 1989. Total = 741.97 mt TRAWLING EFFICIENCY

CRUISE 6 CRUISE 7 CRUISE 8 CRUISE 9 CRUISE 10 (27 ~uiy-27Aug) (18 AUQ - 5 Sep) (30 Auo - 29 SeP) 111 SSP - 15 Oct) (22 Sep - 3 NO")

Figure 5. Average catch rates (in kg per trawling hourlaboard vessels carrying Data Collectors. In the legend, 'R' indicates the species is retained by the vessel, 'D' that it is discarded. General Information, Cruises 6-10

Total - Cruise Vessel Data Collectors Fishing Period Days 6 Kim's Marine 212 Nasser Al-Azri 27 July - 27 August 32 Mohammed Al-Beiushi 7 Kum Bong 503 Yasir Al-Busaidi 18 August - 5 September 19 Bakr Al-Saadi 8 Kum Bong 501 Juma AI-Qartubi 30 August - 29 September 31 Khalifa Al-Kalbani I 9 Kum Bong- 503 Abdullah Al-Sheedi 11 September - 15 October 35 Ali Al-Mashrafi 10 Sea Queen I Yasir AI-Busaidi 22 September - 3 November 42 Yahya Al-Hadidi

Table 1. General Information on DC Program Cruises 6-10.

Fishing and Sampling Summary for the period, 27 July - 3 November

With DCs on board Without DCs on hoard Fishing Retained Catch(mt) Vd Days Catehfmt) per day Kum Bong 501 32 267.54 8.36 Kum Bong 503 54 543.79 10.07 Kum Bong 505 0 0.00 - Kim's Marine 212 31 28626 9.23 Sea Queen 1 43 206.67 4.80 Oman Sea One o o oo - 78 184 62 2 37 TOTAL 160 1304.16 8.15 167 85836 514 TOTAL without Oman Sea One 160 1304.16 8.15 89 673.74 7.57

Table 2. Summary of trawler activity and sampling coverage during the period 27 July - 3 November 1989, corresponding to DC Program Cruises 6-10. Note that the Oman Sea One is a much smaller trawler than the others, therefore the Totals without the Oman Sea One catch should be used for direct comparison of results. Manne Science and ushenes Center Research Brief 89-6

CRUISE NUMBER

Table 3. Breakdown of fishing effort, retained catch and total catch by area and Cruise for the period 27 July - 3 November, 1989. 12 Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief W-6

GENERAL COMMENTS, Cruise No. 6

The two Data Collectors on this cruise were Nasser Ai-Azri (2nd cruise) and Mohammed Al-Belushi (1st cruise). This was the maiden voyage for the Kim's Marine 212 in Omani waters and the experience reflected that fact. The vessel spent a great deal of time searching and fished over a wide area. Approximately 66% of the vessel's effort (192 out of a total of 289 hauls) was expended near Ras Sawqirah, outside the Kuria Muria Islands (Figure 6). The remainder of the hauls were scattered from Ras Madrakah north to Ras ad Duqm.

The vessel fished a total of 481.32 hours over 32 days and averaged a total catch of 0.866 MT per hour (Table 4). There was a marked die1 variation in catch rates by the vessel. Daylight tows (i.e., those retrieved between 0630 and 1830) averaged 1.081 MT per trawling hour compared to 0.608 MT per nighttime trawling hour.

The vessel retained 68.65% of its total catch (417.01 MT, Figure 7). The retained portion of the catch was dominated by breams, cuttlefish and emperors (50.09%, 17.91% and 11.51%, respectively). Pufferfish and meagres constituted a minor portion of the catch. The breakdown of retained catch by individual species is contained in Table 5. Daylight tows had a slightly higher retained catch percentage (70.00%), but there was little variation in the composition of the retained catch from day to night. Among the important retained species, only the Arabian pandora (Pagellus affmis) and spangled emperor (Lethrinus nebulosus) showed a large die1 influence. Pagellus affnis comprised only 1.52% of the daylight versus 7.55% of the nighttime catch. Lethrinus nebulosus showed a higher daytime percentage of 9.04% to 2.74% at night.

Total discard amounted to 130.75 mt (31.35% of the total catch). A majority of the discard (57.67%) was either not identified or contained in an uncommon species group (Table 6). The most commonly identified components of the discard were triggerfish (20.82 mt, 15.93% of discard catch), lizardfish (17.89 mt, 13.68%), and rays and sharks (6.26 mt, 4.79%). The discarded catch composition showed little die1 variation.

No turtles were encountered during Data Collector sampling this cruise.

The official vessel reported catch was nearly 5 mt less than that reported to the Data Collectors while at sea. Data Collector calculated catch breakdown also differed significantly from the species quantities reported by the vessel (Table 7). Almost certainly, some of the difference can be attributed to the lack of knowledge concerning species names by the vessel crew. The crew frequently asked the Data Collectors what the proper code was for particular fish, and often mixed together fish that had different codes. This was a particular problem with the breams (Spandae family). The next cruise aboard this vessel warrants careful monitoring for species manipulation of the catch (i.e., misreporting of species categories). Figure 6. Total catch and fishing effort by area, Kim's Marine 212, 27 July - 27 August, 1989 (DC Program Cruise 6). Fishing Location: Ras Sawairah and Ras Madrakah Distribution of Retained Species

CATCH UTILIZATION

Distribution of Discarded Species

Figure 7. Total catch utilization and species composition of the retained and discarded portions of the catch, Kim's Marine No. 212, 27 July - 27 August, 1989. Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89-6

CATCH REPORT

VESSEL: Kim's Marine 212 Data Collector Cruise No. -6

Fishing Dates: 27 July - 27 August, 1989

AREAS FISHED:

CATCH (in MT) Region Name Region No. Retained -Total

Ras Sawqirah 752 192 234.24 290.99

Ras Madrakah (near) 761 -1 0.43 0.95

Ras Madrakah (far) 762 67 39.42 93.31

Ras ad Duqm 764 29 12.17 31.76

GENERAL INFORMATION:

Total Vessel Catch (MT): 417.01 Total Retained Catch (MT): 286.26 Percent Retained: 68.65 Total Discarded Catch (MT): 130.75 Percent Discarded: 31.35

Total No. of Fishing Days: 32 Total No. of Fishing Hauls: 289 Total No. of Fishing Hours: 481.32

Average Fishing Time per Day (hrs): 15.04 Average Duration per Haul (hrs): 1.67

CATCH RATES:

MT per day MT per haul MT per hour

Total Catch 13.032 1.443 0.866

Retained Catch 8.946 0.991 0.595

Discarded Catch 4.086 0.452 0.272

Table 4. Catch Report from Data Collector Cruise No. 6. Species Retained from Catch, Cruise No. 6

-No. Scientific name Common name Number

1 Cheimerius nufar santer seabream 92,673

2 Sepia pharaonis pharaoh cuttlefish 38,640

3 Lethrinus nebulosus spangled emperor 19,336

4 Arsyrops spinifer king soldierbream 11,334

5 unsampled/unidentified unsampled/unidentified ---

6 Pagellus afJinis Arabian pandora 48,193

7 Trichiurus Upturns largehead hairtail 11,147

8 Ar'gyrops filamentosus soldierbream 13,525

9 Ar'gyrosomus heinii Arabian sea meagre 2,997

10 Lagocephalus spp. pufferfishes 7,147

11 Sphyraena spp. barracudas 3,462

12 Pomadasys arventeus silver grunt 766

13 Epinephelus chlorostignia brownspotted grouper 809

14 Epinephelus guuza dusky grouper 481

15 Carangoides malabaricus Malabar trevally 2,377

16 Plectorhinchus picius trout sweetlips 494

17 Bothidae spp. lefteye flounders 3,479

18 Umbrina ronchus fusca croaker 381

19 Trachinotus spp. trevallies, unidentified 755

20 Other retained spp. miscellaneous ------.- - - - -.-. - - -.- - -..- - - TOTAL

Table 5. The 20 most common species, or species groups, retained from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 6.

' This is the percent by weight this species contributed to the vessel's & catch (i.e., retained and discarded catch combined). Species Discarded from Catch, Cruise No. 6 KG Per -No. Scientific name Common name Percent' -hour

1 unsampledlunidentified unsampled/unidentified 13.62 118.0

2 Balistidae spp. triggerfishes 4.99 43.3

3 Saurida spp. lizardfishes 4.29 37.2

4 Anus thalassinus giant catfish 1.45 12.6

5 Pteryeomgla guezei Mauritius gurnard 1.04 9.0

6 Pagellus affinis Arabian pandora 0.88 7.6

7 rays, unidentified rays, unidentified 0.63 5.5

8 Rhinobatidae spp. guitarfishes 0.58 5.0

9 Lagocephalus spp. pufferfishes 0.48 4.2

10 Priacanthus hamrur moontail bullseye 0.41 3.5

11 Monacanthidae spp. filefishes 0.39 3.4

12 Trachinotus spp. pompanos, unidentified 0.36 3.1

13 Carangoides maiabaricus Malabar trevally 0.31 2.7

14 sharks, unidentified sharks, unidentified 0.29 2.5

15 Pomadasys argenteus silver grunt 0.19 1.7

16 Cociella crocodila crocodile flalhead 0.13 1.2

17 Argyrosomus spp. meagres 0.13 1.2

18 Plotosusspp. stinging catfishes 0.13 1.1

19 Pomadasys stridens striped piggy 0.11 1.0

20 Other discarded spp. miscellaneous 0.94 7.8 - - -.-. ------.- - - - TOTAL

Table 6. The 20 most common species, or species groups, discarded from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 6.

' This is the percent by weight this species wntributed to the vessel's catch (i.e., retained and discarded catch combined).

18 Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Ãˆne 89-6

Retained Catch Quantites Reported by Vessel, Cruise No. 6

"Korean code' Common name

Dl santer seabream

s pharaoh cuttlefish

H (spangled) emperors

w largehead hairtail

D3 king soldierbrearn

D2 soldierbream

P Arabian pandora

KF pufferfishes

F2 croakers

K2 meagres (Argyrosomus genus)

B barracudas

SH-102 lefteye flounders

Cl golden trevally

E groupers (Epinephelus genus)

M sweetlips

J Japanese threadfin bream

NG2 silver grunt

R Indian mackerel

K3 tigertooth croaker

-- Other retained spp.

TOTAL

Table 7. The 20 most common species retained by the vessel, as officially reported by the vessel's company, during Data Collector Cruise No. 6.

This is the percent by weight this species contributed to the vessel's retained catch only, since corn- mercial vessels do not rep, .-t their discard.

19 Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89-6

GENERAL COMMENTS, Cruise No. 7

The Data Collectors for this cruise were Yasir Al-Busaidi (2nd cruise) and Bakr Al-Saadi (2nd cruise). This was a relatively short and highly efficient cruise, taking place at the height of the monsoon season. All fishing was conducted in the vicinity of the Kuria Muria Bay (Figure 8), where upwelling caused by the southwest monsoon is greatest. As mentioned in a previous report (Hare, 1989b), the catch composition of the monsoon period Kuria Muria Bay fishery differs significantly from catches the remainder of the year. A major characteristic of the fishery is the relative purity of the catches. Only 40 different species were encountered during this cruise, as compared to an average of 70-100 in a typical Ras Madrakah area cruise.

The Kum Bong 503 fished a total of 19 days, with 206 nets shot and retrieved (Table 8). Total fishing time amounted to 297.07 hours. Out of a total catch of 297.23 mt, 89.15% (264.98 mt) was retained (Figure 9). This remarkable trawling efficiency confirms the results obtained during a previous Kuria Muria fishery cruise (DC Program Cruise No. 5), which also showed a discard rate of just over 10%. The retained catch rate of 0.892 mt per hour was the highest encountered aboard vessels sampled in 1989. Daytime fishing was almost twice as effective as night fishing: 1.168 mt to 0.591 mt per hour of retained catch.

Breams dominated the catch, accounting for 77.83% (206.23 mt) of the retained catch. The santer seabream (Cheimerius nufar) alone totalled 159.44 mt (60.17%). The spangled emperor (Lethrinus nebulosus) and pharaoh cuttlefish (Sepia pharaonis) comprised minor portions of the retained catch (6.51% and 6.58%, respectively). A breakdown of the retained catch by species is provided in Table 9. Significant die! variation was exhibited only by the spangled emperor (6.86% of day catches vs 2.53% of night catches) and pufferfishes (Lagocephalus spp., 0.67% vs 3.45%).

The principal discard species was the porcupinefish (family Diodontidae), which accounted for 70.61% of total discard (22.72 of 32.25 mt). Lizardfishes (10.51%) and bigeyes (4.12%) were the only other major discards. A listing of discarded species is given in Table 10.

A total of eight turtles (unidentified to species) are estimated to have been taken during this cruise. Average weight of the eight turtles was over 100 kg.

Vessel reported catch composition (Table 11) matched relatively well with Data Collector sampling results. Data Collector sampling extrapolated a total (retained) bream catch of 206.23 mt; the vessel reported 215.72 mt. The greatest difference occurred with spangled emperor: 17.25 mt (sampling result) vs 9.12 mt (vessel figure). Figure 8. Total catch and fishing effort by area, Kum Bong 503, 18 August - 5 September, 1989 (DC Program Cruise ij. Fishing Location: Kuria Muria Bay Distribution of Retained Species

CATCH UTILIZATION

Distribution of Discarded Species

catch

porcupine fishes Figure 9. Total catch utilization and species composition 22.7'/2(rnI; of the retained and discarded portions of the catch, Kum Bong No. 503, 18 August - 5 September, 1989. Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89-6

CATCH REPORT

VESSEL: Kum Bong 503 Data Collector Cruise No. 7

Fishing Dates: 18 August - 5 September. 1989

AREAS FISHED:

CATCH (in MT) Region Name Region No. Retained -Total

Kuria Muria Bay (west) 750 180.76 203.73

Kuria Muria Bay (east) 751 58 84.22 93.50

GENERAL INFORMATION:

Total Vessel Catch (MT): 297.23 Total Retained Catch (MT): 264.98 Percent Retained: 89.15 Total Discarded Catch (MT): 32.25 Percent Discarded: 10.85

Total No. of Fishing Days: 19 Total No. of Fishing Hauls: 206 Total No. of Fishing Hours: 297.07

Average Fishing Time per Day (hrs): 15.635 Average Duration per Haul (hrs): 1.442

CATCH RATES:

MT per day MT per haul MT per hour

Total Catch 15.644 1.443 1.001

Retained Catch 13.946 1.286 0.892

Discarded Catch 1.697 0.157 0.109

Table 8. Catch Report from Data Collector Cruise No. 7. Mdnne Science and Fisheries Center Research Bnef 896

Species Retained from Catch, Cruise No. 7

-No. Scientific name Common name Number

santer seabream 196,186

Argyrops filamentosus soldierbream 70,278

Sepia pharaonis pharaoh cuttlefish 11,450

Lethrinus nebulosus spangled emperor 10,447

Pagellus ajjinis Arabian pandora 58,752

Sphyraena spp. barracudas 8,840

Argyrops spinifer king soldierbream 2,431

Lagocephalus spp. pufferfishes 6,303

Argyrosomus hololepidotus southern meagre 1,090

Carangoides malabaricus Malabar trevally 2,605

Epinephelus chlorostigma brownspotted grouper 527

Otolithes ruber tigertooth croaker 643

Carangoides chrysophrys longnose trevally 713

Umbrina ronchus fusca croaker 220

Seriolina nigrofasciata blackbanded trevally 210

Epinephelus diacanthus thornycheek grouper 139

Seriola rivoliana almaco jack 139

Acanthopagrus berda picnic seabream 144

miscellaneous

Table 9. The 20 most common species, or species groups, retained from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 7.

* This is the percent by weight this species contributed to the vessel's catch (i.e., retained and discarded catch combined).

24 Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89-6

Species Discarded from Catch, Cruise No. 7 KG Per & Scientific name Common name Number -hour

1 Diodontidae spp. porcupinefishes 209,934 76.7

2 Saurida 5pp. lizardfishes 9,370 11.4

3 Priacanthus hanmr moontail bullseye 3,890 4.5

4 turtles, unidentified turtles, unidentified 8 2.8

5 Lagocephalus spp. pufferfishes 1,026 2.6

6 Pterygomgla guezei Mauritius gurnard 4,875 1.9

7 Trachurus indicus Arabian scad 1,031 1.3

8 Balistidae spp. triggerfishes 4,496 1.2

9 Sphyraena spp. barracudas 437 1.2

10 Acanthopaps berda picnic seabream 539 1.1

11 sharks, unidentified sharks, unidentified 146 0.9

12 Decapterus russelli Indian scad 945 0.6

13 Trichiurus lepturus largehead hairtail 81 0.5

14 Uranoscopus spp. stargazers 683 0.5

15 Platycephalidaespp. flatheads 276 0.3

16 Areyrosomus heinii Arabian sea meagre 34 0.3

17 Bothidae lefteye flounders 119 0.2

18 Rhinobatidae spp. guitarfishes 46 0.2

19 Pterois russellii plaintail turkeyfish 291 0.1

20 Other discarded spp miscellaneous --- 0.3 ...... TOTAL

Table 10. The 20 most common species, or species groups, discarded from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 7.

This is the percent by weight this species contributed to the vessel's catch (i.e., retained and discarded catch combined). Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89-6

Retained Catch Quantites Reported by Vessel, Cruise No. 7

"Korean code" Common name

Dl santer seabream

P Arabian pandora

D2 soldierbream s pharaoh cuttlefish

H (spangled) emperors

B barracudas

KF pufferfishes

D3 king soldierbream c (large) trevallies

K2 meagres (Argyrosomus genus)

E groupers (Epinephelus genus)

NO (silver) grunts

Gl goldlined seabream

-- Other retained spp.

TOTAL

Table 11. The 20 most common species retained by the vessel, as officially reported by the vessel's company, during Data Collector Cruise No. 7.

This is the percent by weight this species contributed to the vessel's retained-catch only, since commercial vessels do not report their discard.

26 Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Bncf 89 6

GENERAL COMMENTS Cruise No. 8

The Data Collectors on this cruise were Khalifa Al-Kalbani (2nd cruise) and Juma Al- Qartubi (2nd cruise). The DC Program has previously experienced problems aboard this vessel, and this cruise also proved troublesome for the Data Collectors. Vessel officers are required to provide certain details concerning their catches; frequently they would give erroneous data, or wait several days before completing the data forms. Late in this cruise, cuttlefish (Sepia pharaonis) was caught in large quantities. Processing of cuttlefish is substantially more labor intensive than for other demersal species. As a consequence, the captain prohibited the Data Collectors from sampling in the factory on several occasions. This had the impact of biasing the species composition samples, with the result of underestimating the actual cuttlefish catch.

In 31 days of fishing, the vessel (Kum Bong 501) had a total catch of 468.31 mt made during 411.50 hours of trawling (Table 12). Fishing was almost evenly divided between the Kuria Muria Bay region and the Ras Madrakah region (Figure 10). The vessel spent 15 days in Kuria Muria (204.38 trawling hours during 133 tows) and 16 days in Ras Madrakah (207.12 hours and 168 tows). Fishing rates were higher in Kuria Muria than in Ras Madrakah (0.791 mthour retained catch vs 0.511 mthour) and discard rates lower (38.4% of total catch compared to 48.6%). Overall catch rates for the cruise were 1.138 mihour total catch and 0.650 mtlhour retained catch, and 57.13% of the total catch was retained (Figure 11).

The retained catch composition was dominated by breams (Sparidae and Nemipteridae families, 54.4%) and cuttlefish (23.6%). Emperors, trevallies, meagres and barracudas each comprised between 3% and 6% of the total retained catch. A breakdown of the retained catch by species is provided in Table 13. A large number of species exhibited sizable die1 fluctuation in the catch, particularly santer seabream (Cheimetiu nufar, 16.58% of daytime catch, 10.30% of nighttime catch), Arabian meagre (Argyrosomus heinii, 0.14% vs 5.25%).

Among the discarded species, porcupinefish (Diodonfidae, 34.9%) were most common, followed by sharks and rays (7.9%), lizardfish (6.6%) and triggerfish (5.0%). The 20 most commonly discarded species is given in Table 14. Die1 variation in the discarded portion of the catch was minimal.

A total of 7 turtles (all from the Ras Madrakah region) are estimated to have been taken during trawling operations. In addition, several very large (>1 mt in weight) eagle rays were caught. Handling of these rays is treacherous, disrupts operations and invariably results in the death of the rays.

The official vessel reported figures differed only slightly from the Data Collector estimates of retained catch. The vessel reported 75.42 mt of cuttlefish (Table 15), compared to DC estimate of 63.17 mt. Breams, on the other hand, were reported at 134.68 mt by the vessel and estimated at 145.633 mt. As mentioned above, this discrepancy may have arisen from the prohibition on sampling instituted by the vessel near the end of the cruise when cuttlefish catch was quite high. During that period, the vessel discarded all other species, including several they usually retained. This practice reflects the inflated value of cuttlefish compared to other demersal species. Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research i3rief W-6

Gulf of Oman

>&> LEGEND (SULTANATE \- Ras A1 Had OF OMAN

Figure 10. Total catch and fishing effort by area, Hum Bong 501, 30 August - 29 September, 1989 (DC Program Cruise 8). Fishing Location: Kuria Muria Bav & Ras Madrakah Distribution of Retained Species

CATCH UTILIZATION

Distribution of Discarded Species

atch

Figure 11. Total catch utilization and species composition of the retained and discarded portions of the catch, Kum Bong No. 501, 30 August - 29 September, 1989. Marine Science and Fisheries Cenier Research Brief S9-6

CATCH REPORT

VESSEL: Kum Bong 501 Data Collector Cruise No. -8

Fishing Dates: 30 August - 29 September, 1989

AREAS FISHED:

CATCH (in MT) Region Name Region No. Retained -Total

Kuria Muria Bay (west-) 750 -27 11.80 30.68

Kuria Muria Bay (east) 751 -1M 149.86 231.66

Ras Madrakah (far) 762 -105 47.60 111.39

Ras ad Duqm 764 -63 58.28 94.58

GENERAL INFORMATION:

Total Vessel Catch (MT): 468.3 1 Total Retained Catch (MT): 267.54 Percent Retained: 57.13 Total Discarded Catch (MT): 200.77 Percent Discarded: -42.87

Total No. of Fishing Days: 3 1 Total No. of Fishing Hauls: 301 Total No. of Fishing Hours: 411.50

Average Fishing Time per Day (hrs): 13.27 Average Duration per Haul (hrs): 1.37

CATCH RATES:

MT per day MT per haul MT per hour

Total Catch 15.107 1.556 1.138

Retained Catch 8.630 0.889 0.650

Discarded Catch 6.476 0.667 0.488

Table 12. Catch Report from Data Collector Cruise No. 8. Marine Science and Fisheries Cenlcr Research Brief W-6

Species Retained from Catch, Cruise No. 8

-No. Scientific name Common name Number

Cheimerius nufar santer seabream 88,486

Sepia pharaonis pharaoh cuttlefish 39,466

Pagellus affinis Arabian pandora 156,639

Argyrops fi-lamentosus soldierbream 49,876

Argyrops spinifer king soldierbream 12,320

Lethrinus nebulosus spangled emperor 10,166

Carangoides chrysophiys longnose trevally 8,767

Sphyraena spp. barracudas 10,933

Argyrosomus heinii Arabian sea meagre 9,849

Lagocephalus spp. pufferfishes 10,316

Trichiurus lepturus largehead hairtail 3,033

Psettodes erumei Indian spiny turbot 1,660

Trachinotus afncanus African pompano 428

Argyrosomus spp. meagres 455

Epinephelus chlorostigma brownspotted grouper 520

Acanthopaps berda picnic seabream 1,588

Pomadasys argenteus silver grunt 339

Scolopsis taeniatus banded monocle bream 1,636

Pomadasys spp. grunts 132

Other retained spp. miscellaneous ------TOTAL

Table 13. The 20 most common species, or species groups, retained from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 8.

This is the percent by weight this species contributed to the vessel's catch (i.e., retained and discarded catch combined).

3 1 Marine Science and t-1shcrie-i (.-enter Kesearch i-iriet SY+

Species Discarded from Catch, Cruise No. 8

-No. Scientific name Common name Number

1 unsampled/unid^ntificd unsampled/unidentified -+-

2 Diodontidae spp. porcupinefishes 1,031,940

3 Saurida spp. lizardfishes 22,933

4 Balisiidae spp. trigaerfishes 68,078

5 Arius thalassinus giant catfish 9,254

6 Rhinobatus spp. guitarfishes 5,181

7 Myliobatidae spp. eagle rays 4

8 sharks, unidentified sharks, unidentified 2,772

9 Pterygotrigla guezei Mauritius gurnard 25,820

10 Trachurus indicus Arabian scad 5,120

11 Bothidae spp. lefteye flounders 3,033

12 Plotosus spp. stinging catfishes 2,429

13 Dasyatidae spp. stingrays 443

14 Rhinopteridae sup. wwnose rays 263

15 Priacanthus hamrur moontail hullseye 3,073

16 Lethrinus nebulosus spangled emperor 1,139

17 Platycephalidae sop. flatheads 1,577

18 Torpedinidae spp. electric rays 361

19 Scams spp. parrotfishes 311

20 Other discarded spp. miscellaneous ---

TOTAL

Table 14. The 20 most common species, or species groups, discarded from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 8.

This is the percent by weight this species contributed to the vessel's catch (ie., retained and discarded catch combined). Manne Science and Fisheries Center Research Rnef q9 4

Retained Catch Quantites Reported by Vessel, Cruise No. 8

"Korean code" Common name

Dl santer seabream s pharaoh cuttlefish

P Arabian pandora

D2 soldierbream

H (spangled) emperors

D3 king soldierbream

B barracudas c (large) trevallies

K2 meagres (Argyrosomus genus)

KF pufferfishes w largehead hairtail

NO (silver) grunts

E groupers (Epinephelus genus)

M sweetlips

K3 tigertooth croaker

12 small cuttlefish v Indian spiny turbot

Cl golden trevally

01 goidlined seabream

-- Other retained spp.

TOTAL

Table 15. The 20 most common species retained by the vessel, as officially reported by the vessel's company, during Data Collector Cruise No. 8.

This is the percent by weight this species contributed to the vessel's retained catch only, since commercial vessels do not report their discard. Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89-6

GENERAL COMMENTS, Cruise No. 9

The Data Collectors on this cruise were Abdullah Al-Sheedi (3rd cruise) and Ali Al- Mashrafi (1st cruise). The vessel operated over a wide area during this cruise (Figure 12), but spent the great majority of its time off Ras Madrakah.

In comparison to other DC Program cruises, this was an exceptional cruise in terms of fishing strategy deployed by the vessel. A total of 542 tows were made covering 433.03 hours of trawling over 35 days, resulting in a total catch of 463.53 mt (Table 16). The average duration of a tow - 0.80 hours - was much shorter than the typical 1.3-1.5 hours. Also, the vessel only averaged 12 hours of trawling per day of fishing. This resulted from the habit of resorting to searching when catches were not satisfactory. The Data Collectors reported that the vessel was interested in only one species - cuttlefish (Sepia pharaords). To assist them in capturing this species, a triple codend (three layers of mesh) was deployed.

The percentage of the catch (both retained and total) represented by cuttlefish was higher for this cruise than any other DC Program cruise. The sampling problems encountered when the catch of cuttlefish is high were recounted in the General Comments section of Cruise No. 8. Cuttlefish accounted for 46.2% of the retained catch (Figure 13), and 27.8% of the overall catch. Breams (16.5% of retained catch), emperors (9.0%), trevallies (7.3%), meagres (6.1%) and sweetlips (4.5%) were also important components of the catch. A listing of the 20 most commonly retained species is provided in Table 17. It should be noted that the cuttlefish percentage of the catch would have been less were it not for the fact that many of the other retained species were discarded when cuttlefish were especially prevalent.

A very diverse range of species were discarded from the catch. Porcupinefish (19.8%), triggerfish (17.4%), sharks and rays (16.0%) and catfish (12.1%) were the most common components of the discard (Table 18).

Both the retained and discarded portions of the catch showed a strong die1 pattern of variation. Cuttlefish, for example, comprised 31.97% of the average daytime (total) catch, but only 11.93% of the nighttime catch. Conversely, the southern meagre (Argyrosomus hololepidotus) varied from 2.28% of the daytime catch to 8.26% of the nighttime catch. Among discarded species, those showing the greatest variation were: triggerfish (Balistidae spp., 8.29% day vs 1.66% night), lizardfish (Saurida spp., 2.77% vs 5.85%) and giant catfish (Anus thalassinus, 0.91% vs 8.49%). Turtle catch was estimated at three individuals.

Catch rates also showed a marked daylnight difference. During daylight hours, the vessel averaged 1.313 mt per hour of trawling of which 62.13% was retained. At night, catches averaged 0.761 mthour, of which 55.77% was retained. Overall, the average catch rate was 1.070 mthour, and 60.15% retained.

In what is becoming something of a pattern, vessel reported and Data Collector sampled catch figures differ slightly (Table 19). The vessel reported 141.26 mt of cuttlefish to 128.89 mt calculated by the samplers. Breams, however, were reported at 34.78 mt compared to the calculated figure of 46.11 mt. Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 894

Gulf of Oman

24O

LEGEND

22'

Figure 12. Total catch and fishing effort by area, Kum Bong 503, 11 September - 15 October, ,-- IY~Y(UL rrogram- Cruise 9). Fishing Location: Kuria Muria Bav & Ras Madrakah Distribution of Retained Species

CATCH UTILIZATION

Retained 278

Distribution of Discarded Species

from catch

Figure 13. Total catch utilization and species composition of the retained and discarded portions of the catch, Kum Bong No. 503, 11 September - 15 October, 1989, Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89-6

CATCH REPORT

VESSEL: Kum Bong 503 Data Collector Cruise No. 9

Fishing Dates: 11 September - 15 October, 1989

AREAS FISHED:

CATCH (in MT) Region Name Region No. Retained -Total

Kuria Muria Bay (westJ 750 -4 0.34 1.51

Kuria Muria Bay [east) 751 -1 0.08 0.36

Ras Sawqirah 752 12 6.63 10.41

Ras Madrakah (south) 759 4 0.00 0.00

Ras Madrakah (near) 761 -49 14.75 55.02

Ras Madrakah (far) 762 316 191.89 302.50

Ras ad Duqm 764 -156 65.12 93.73 GENERAL INFORMATION:

Total Vessel Catch (MT): 463.53 Total Retained Catch (MT): 278.81 Percent Retained: 60.15 Total Discarded Catch (MT): 184.72 Percent Discarded: 39.85

Total No. of Fishing Days: 35 Total No. of Fishing Hauls: 542 Total No. of Fishing Hours: 433.03

Average Fishing Time per Day (hrs): 12.37 Average Duration per Haul (hrs): 0.80

CATCH RATES:

MT per day MT per haul MT per hour

Total Catch 13.244 0.855 1.070

Retained Catch 7.966 0.514 0.644

Discarded Catch 5.278 0.341 0.427

Table 16. Catch Report from Data Collector Cruise No. 9. Marine Science and hishcnes Center Kesearch Bnet 89.6

Species Retained from Catch, Cruise No. 9 KG Per -No. Scientific name Common name Number -hour Sepia pharaonis pharaoh cuttlefish 74,455 297.7

Lethrinus nebulosus spangled emperor 34,178 49.7

Argyrosomus hololepidotw southern meagre 10,728 37.1

Cheimerius nufar santer seahream 16,322 36.7

Carangoides chrysophrys longnose trevally 9,739 31.7

Scolopsis taeniatus banded monocle bream 43,663 27.7

Argyrops spinifer king soldierbream 5,692 21.6

Trichiums lepturus largehead hairtail 11,422 18.2

Plectorhinchus pictus trout sweetlips 1,889 11.4

Lagocephalus spp. pufferfishes 7,198 9.0

Argyrops filamentosus soldierbream 7,717 8.9

Plectorhinchus schotaf minstrel sweetlips 1,770 8.7 '

Lethrinus lentjan redspot emperor 9,887 8.0

Epinephelus diacanthus thornycheek grouper 2,993 7.6

P0mada.y argenteus silver grunt 1,013 7.1

Pagellus affinis Arabian pandora 21,084 6.9

Siganus spp. rabbitfishes 4,994 6.2

unsampledlunidentified unsampledlunidentified --- 5.9

Gnathonodon speciosus golden trevally 523 5.4

Other retained spp. miscellaneous --- 38.4 .------TOTAL 643.9

Table 17. The 20 most common species, or species groups, retained from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 9.

" This is the percent by weight this species contributed to the vessel's catch (i.e., retained and discarded catch combined).

38 Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 8-6

Species Discarded from Catch, Cruise No. 9 KG (MT) per -No. Scientific name Common name Number percent1 wr

1 Diodontidae spp. porcupine fishes 355,897 36.593 7.90 84.5

2 Balistidae spp. triggerfishes 176,573 32.099 6.93 74.1

4 Saurida spp. lizardfishes 27,768 18.008 3.89 41.6

5 Rhinobatus spp. guitarfishes 7,523 16.573 3.58 38.3

6 Arias thalassinus giant catfish 22,195 14.038 3.03 32.4

7 Plotosus spp. stinging catfishes 13,620 8.360 1.80 19.3

8 Topdinidae spp. stingrays 2,934 6.153 1.33 14.2

9 Trichiurus lepturus largehead hairtail 4,805 4.837 1.04 11.2

10 sharks, unidentified sharks, unidentified 3,516 4.235 0.91 9.8

11 Pomadasys stridens striped piggy 22,206 2.767 0.60 6.4

12 Pterygotrigia guezei Mauritius gurnard 23,396 2.163 0.47 5.0

13 Decapterus russelli Russell's scad 17,393 2.064 0.45 4.8

14 Rhinopteridae spp. cownose rays 332 1.894 0.41 4.4

16 Trachurus indicus Arabian scad 4,481 1.261 0.27 2.9

17 Neobythites spp. cusk eels 4,317 1.258 0.27 2.9

18 Bothidae spp. lefteye flounders 3,372 1.127 0.24 2.6

19 Polynemus spp. threadfins 1,996 1.120 0.24 2.6

Table 18. The 20 most common species, or species groups, discarded from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 9.

' This is the percent by weight this species contributed to the vessel's catch (i.e., retained and discarded catch combined). Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Rricf W-6

Retained Catch Quantites Reported by Vessel, Cruise No. 9

"Korean code" Common name s pharaoh cuttlefish

H (spangled) emperors

Dl santer seabream

K2 meagres (Argvosomus genus) c (large) trevallies w largehead hairtail

D3 king soldierbream

M sweetlips

D2 soldierbream

E groupers (Epinephelus genus)

KF pufferfishes 01 spinefoot (rabbitfishes)

NO (silver) grunts

P Arabian pandora

B barracudas v Indian spiny turbot

0 octopus

D jobiish

12 small cuttlefish -- Other retained spp.

TOTAL

Table 19. The 20 most common species retained by the vessel, as officially reported by the vessel's company, during Data Collector Cruise No. 9.

GENERAL COMMENTS, Cruise No. 10

The Data Collectors for this cruise were Yasir Al-Busaidi (3rd cruise) and Yahya Al- Hadidi (2nd cruise). This was the first fishing voyage in Oman for this vessel, the captain and the crew. As such, fishing efficiency was rather low, and this cruise lasted 43 days, the longest to date in the DC Program. Fishing operations were conducted along virtually the entire coastline between the north and south fishing limits (Figure 14). By law, the vessel was supposed to operate outside of 100 m depth or 20 miles from shore, whichever was further. In fact, this vessel usually fished within 3-4 miles and in depths of less than 30 meters. While it is somewhat surprising that a new vessel would so blatantly break the laws, this may be partially attributable to the presence of the chief officer, who had spent three years in Oman working on another trawler. Throughout this cruise, the Data Collectors were given falsified information concerning fishing location and depth.

The vessel made a total catch of 400.50 mt during 432 hauls that totalled 357.45 hours of fishing. Retained species accounted for 51.64% of total catch (Figure 15). Due to the vessel's inexperience, and the low catch rates, very little nighttime fishing was attempted. Of the 432 total hauls, 369 were set and retrieved during daylight hours, 63 at night. The day hauls averaged 1.214 mthour (51.82% retained) while night hauls averaged 0.648 mt (49.82% retained). Overall, the catch rates were 1.119 mthour total catch and 0.578 mthour retained catch (Table 20).

Three families dominated the retained catch: cuttlefish (Sepiidae, 41.9%), breams (Spar- idae, 20.5%) and emperors (Lethrinidae, 18.3%). Pufferfish (Tetraodontidae, 4.8%) and meagres (Sciaenidae, 2.9%) were minor components of the catch. A listing of the 20 most commonly retained species is contained in Table 21. During daylight hauls, cuttlefish comprised 22.08% of the total catch, but only 12.06% of the night catch. The spangled emperor, Lethrinus nebulosus, varied from 9.60% of the catch during the day to 1.18% at night.

The discard was evenly distributed among several families (Table 22): lizardfish (Syno- dontidae, 18.0%), porcupinefish (Diodontidae, 15.1%), triggerfish (Balistidae, 13.9%), trevallies (Carangidae, 10.5%), catfish (Anidae and Plotosidae, 8.0%) and sharks and rays (7.7%). The most surprising statistic here is that for trevallies, normally a species highly valued in Oman. As has been the case with several recent cruises, however, the presence of cuttlefish in the catch generally leads to the discard of marginal species. At times, the marginal species are everything except cuttlefish and breams.

A total of 28 turtles, the most for any cruise to date, are estimated to have been taken by the vessel.

Vessel reported and Data Collector calculated figures for the catch do not show great discrepancies (Table 23). The vessel reported a larger catch for cuttlefish than was calculated from sampling, hut this amounted to a difference of less than 20%. It is highly recommended that this vessel be closely monitored in the future considering its activities on its maiden voyage. Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89.6

LEGEND Ras A1 Had\. 0 10 mt a:,:. OF / S) 10-60 rnl

@ 50-100 mt OMAN a 100-260 rnt

Figure 14. Total catch and fishing effort by area, Sea Queen 1, 22 September - 3 November, n-n ,-- .IYUY (u\^ Frogram Cruise 10). Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 90-1 Manne Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 90.1

Ras A1 Had OF

Figure 12. Total vessel catch (retained and discarded) by area, Aurola 7. 19 December - 31 December, 1989 (DC Program Cruise 14). Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 90-1

GENERAL COMMENTS, Cruise No. 14

The Data Collectors on this Cruise were Yahya Al-Hadidi (3rd cruise) and Ali Al-hfashrafi (3rd cruise). This was the maiden voyage in Oman for the Aurola 7, which is now the second largest vessel operating in the demersal trawl fishery, measuring 62.59 m in length, with a 2800 h.p. engine. As this voyage occurred at the end of the year, it was divided into two separate cruises, Nos. 14 and 16. Only data pertaining to the 1989 half of this cruise are reported herein. The two Data Collectors joined this vessel a week after it had begun fishing, thus they were unable to verify some of the vessel reported catch information for that week. This is a problem only insofar as determining areas of fishing and quantity of discards. Discard rates from the sampled days were applied to the nonsampled days and it is probable that this provides the best possible estimate for vessel discard.

Fishing was reported in three areas along the coast (Figure 12): northeast Masirah, Ras ad Duqm and Ras Sawqirah. Total catch tor the 13 days of fishing was 276.1 mt, representing 87 hauls and 116.92 trawling hours. Average retained catch for the three areas was 64.40% (177.83 mt, Figure 13), though the retained percentage varied from 45.69% in Ras Sawqirah to 90.92% northeast of Masirah Island. The purity of the catch in the Masirah Island area surpasses even that encountered during the Kuria Muria cuttlefish season. The average catch rates (2.362 mthour total and 1.521 mt/hour retained catch, Table 18) were extremely high for the demersal trawl fishery in Oman. The high catch rates resulted from targeting on hairtail. Vessel captains have reported that December to March, in the Masirah Island vicinity, is traditionally the hairtail season.

Hairtail constituted 82.0% of the retained catch and 52.81% of the total catch (Table 19). Breams (9.29% of retained catch) and trevallies (3.57%) were the only other important families. The trevallies and breams were mainly caught in the Ras Sawqirah area. The Masirah Island and Ras Madrakah tows generally averaged 90% hairtail with few other retained species.

During this cruise, most of the discard was weighed together and unidentified (see Table 20) so the Data Collectors could concentrate on sampling the retained catch. Among the identified portion, sharks and rays (13.217 mt) formed the largest group, followed by barracudas (4.723 mt) and porcupinefish (1.949 mt).

No turtles were encountered in the catch during this cruise.

The vessel reported catch composition match the Data Collectors' sampling results, which is unsurprising given the relative homogeneity of the retained catch (Table 21). MacScience and Fisheries Center Research Brief 90-1

Retained Catch Quantities Reported by Vessel, Cruise No. 13

"Korean code" Common name w largehead hairlail

D3 king soldierbream

KF pufferfishes

G1 (goldlined) seabreams

J Japanese threadfin bream s pharaoh cuttlefish

NG (silver) grunts K3 tigertooth croaker

P Arabian pandora

Dl santer seabrcam SH tonguesoles

SM striped bonito

K2 meagres (Areyrosomus genus)

v Indian spiny turbot

D2 soldierbream

TOTAL

Table 17. The 20 most common species retained by the vessel, as officially reported by the vessel's company, during Data Collector Cruise No. 13.

' This is the percent by weight this species contributed to the vessel's retained catch only, since commercial vessels do not report their discard.

38 Mane Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 90-1

Species Discarded from Catch, Cruise No.13 KG (MT) per -No. Scientific name Common name Number percent1

1 Pomadasys stridens striped piggy 274,284 31.086 11.05 175.3

2 Saurida spp. lizardfishes 28,620 17.016 6.05 96.0

3 Carangoides chrysophrys longnose trevally 3,869 6.081 2.16 34.3

4 Atule mate yellowtail scad 8,200 5.118 1.82 28.9

5 Pomadasys argenteus silver grunt 4,586 4.031 1.43 22.7

6 Trachurus indicus Arabian scad 23,814 3.978 1.41 22.4

7 Anus thalassinus giant catfis'i 5,527 3.271 1.16 18.4

8 Carangoides malabaricus Malabar trevally 5,952 2.575 0.92 14.5

9 Gerres filamentosus whiph silver biddy 11,298 1.763 0.63 9.9

10 unsampled/unident$ied unsampledJunidentified --- 1.410 0.50 7.9

11 Sphyraena spp. barracudas 2,894 1.371 0.49 7.7

12 Diodontidae spp. porcupinefish 16,449 1.116 0.40 6.3

13 Bothidae spp. flounders 2,662 0.894 0.32 5.0

14 Terapon jarbua jarbua terapon 2,413 0.881 0.31 4.9

15 Loligo spp. squids 16,558 0.692 0.25 3.9

16 Torpedinidae spp. electric rays 610 0.677 0.24 3.8

17 Trachinotus africanus African pompano 717 0.620 0.22 3.5

18 Platycephalidae spp. flatheads 1,873 0.470 0.17 2.6

19 Ariomma Mica Indian ariomma 808 0.426 0.15 2.4

20 Other discarded spp. miscellaneous ------*-- TOTAL

Table 16. The 20 most common species, or species groups, discarded from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 13.

' This is the percent by weight this species contributed to the vessel's catch (i.e., retained and discarded catch combined).

37 Species Retained from Catch, Cruise No. 13 KG per -No. Scientific name Common name Number percent' -hour

1 Trichiurus lepturus largehead hairtail 164,569 33.92 538.1

2 Areyrops spinifer king soldierbream 77,435 19.38 307.4

3 Areyrops filamentosus soldier bream 12,972 5.20 82.5

4 Acanthopaps berda picnic seabream 15,956 2.96 46.9

5 Nemipterus japonicus Japanese threadfin bream 15,785 1.88 29.8

6 Lagocephalus spp. pufferfish 3,654 1.27 20.2

7 unsampledlunidentified unsampledlunidentified --- 1.17 18.5

8 Sepia pharaonis pharaoh cuttlefish 2,192 1.10 17.4

9 Pomadasys argenteus silver grunt 3,618 1.00 15.8

10 Otolithes ruber tigertooth croaker 1,103 0.36 5.7

11 Cheimerius nufar santer seabream 594 0.17 2.7

12 Carangoides malabaricus Malabar trevally 1,182 0.16 2.5

13 Carangoides chrysophrys iongnose trevaily 166 0.14 2.1

14 Argyrosomus heinii Arabian sea meagre 489 0.11 1.8

15 Psettodes erumei Indian spiny turbot 161 0.10 1.4

16 Sarda orientalis striped bonito 270 0.10 1.4

17 Pagellus affinis Arabian pandora 402 0.06 1.0

18 Trachinotus africanus African pompano 191 0.05 0.8

19 Lethrinus nebulosus spangled emperor 76 0.04 0.6

20 Other retained spp. miscellaneous --- 0.07 1.6 ------.- - - - - * - -. ------TOTAL 69.24 1,098.2

Table 15. The 20 most common species, or species groups, retained from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No.13.

This is the percent by weight this species contributed to the vessel's acatch (i.e., retaincd and discarded catch combined).

36 Marine Science and Fisheries Corner Research Brief 90-1

CATCH REPORT

VESSEL: Sea Queen 1 Data Collector Cruise No. -13

Fishing Dates: 10 November - 26 November, 1989

AREAS FISHED:

CATCH (in MT) Region Name Region No. Retained Total

Masirah (northeast) 77 1 137 193.90 280.38

Ras ar Ruways 773 1 0.83 0.85

GENERAL INFORMATION:

Total Vessel Catch (MT): 281.23 Total Retained Catch (MT): 194.73 Percent Retained: 69.24 Total Discarded Catch (MT): 86.50 Percent Discarded: 30.76

Total No. of Fishing Days: 17 Total No. of Fishing Hauls: 138 Total No. of Fishing Hours: 177.32

Average Fishing Time per Day (hrs): 10.43 Average Duration per Haul (hrs): 1.29

CATCH RATES:

MT per day MT per haul MT per hour

Total Catch 16.543 2.038 1.586

Retained Catch 11.455 1.411 1.098

Discarded Catch 5.088 0.627 0.488

Table 14. Catch Report from Data Collector Cruise No. 13.

35 Fishing Location: Masirah Island Distribution of Retained Species

CATCH UTILIZATION

Retained 194,

Distribution of Discarded Species

catch

Figure 11. Total catch utilization and species composition. of the retained and discarded portions of the catch, Sea Queen 1, 10 November - 26 November, 1989. Figure 11. Total vessel catch (retained and discard) by area, Sea Queen 1, 10 November - 26 November, 1989 (DC Program Cruise 13). Marine Sdence and Fisheries Center Research Brief 90-1

GENERAL COMMENTS, Cruise No. 13

The Data Collectors for this cruise were Khalifa Al-KaIbani (3rd cruise) and Ali Al- Mashrafi (2nd cruise). The vessel fished in the vicinity of Masirah Island for the entire cruise (Figure lo), generally targeting on hairtail (Trichiui-us lepturus) with good success. As the vessel burned so little fuel in capturing hairtail, it was forced to return to Mina Qaboos before the freezer holds were filled. For one haul, the vessel fished north of the Concession Area (21' N latitude) but quickly returned to the legal grounds.

Total catch this cruise was 281.23 mt, of which 194.73 mt (69.24%) was retained (Figure 11). A typical trip usually results in a retained catch of 280-290 mt. The vessel made 138 hauls, trawling for a total of 177.32 hours. Daylight tows outnumbered night tows by 109 to 29. The average retained catch rate showed a 100% variation between day (1.271 mthour) and night (0.546 mthour). The combined average catch rates were 1.586 mthour total and 1.098 mt/hour retained catch (Table 14).

The retained catch was dominated by two species groups, hairtail and breams (Table 15). Hairtail accounted for 95.406 mt (49.0% of retained catch), breams (families Spaiidae and Nemipteridae) totaled 83.406 mt (42.8%). Small amounts of pufferfish (Tetraodontidae) and cuttlefish (Sepiapharaonis) were also taken. The retained catch composition showed a strong die1 variation. The three major daytime species were Trichiurus lepturus (39.1% of total daylight catch), Arfyrops spinifer (17.1%) and Argyrops filamentosus (6.0%). At night, the major species were: Argyrops spinifer (34.5%), Acanthopagius berda (7.3%) and Pomadasys argenteus and Sepia pharaonis (each 3.8%).

The discard was more evenly distributed, with several groups accounting for at least 10% of the total (Table 16): grunts (35.117 mt, 40.6%), lizardfish (17.016 mt, 19.7%), trevallies (9.548 mt, 11.0%) and scads (9.476 mt, 11.0%). Several highly valued individual species (at least in the Omani market) were discarded in sizable quantities: Carangoides chrysophrys (longnose trevally, 6.081 mt), Atule mate (yellowtail scad, 5.118 mt), Pomadasys argenteus (silver grunt, 4.031 mt) and Carangoides malabaricus (Malabar tresally, 2.575 mt). It should be noted that this vessel (and the two others from the Oman Sea Company (OSC)) do operate under the same licensing agreements as the four Korea Overseas Fisheries Company trawlers. The OSC vessels can market their entire catch overseas (principally Korea and Japan), and are not obligated to give 38% of their catch to an Omani marketing company. Therefore, there is little incentive to retain Omani market species if they have little overseas market value. The individual species listed above fall into such a category. Hairtail and breams, on the other hand, are 1)easier to catch, 2)easier to process due to uniform size and low species diversity and 3)sold to established markets. Without more rigorous standards concerning discard, the waste of valuable fish will continue. Turtle catch this voyage was very low, with only 3 individuals noted, averaging 51.0 kg in average weight.

Vessel reported catch and Data Collector sampling figures show only one major discrepancy (Table 17), but it concerns the relative amounts of the two principal species groups, hairtail and bream. The vessel reported 105.8 mt of hairtail compared to DC extrapolations of 95.4 mt, while bream catch was reported as 74.14 mt and estimated at 83.406 mt. Numerous problems were reported aboard this vessel during its maiden voyage (see Cruise 10 in Hare, 1989b) and it was suggested that this vessel bore close monitoring. At the time of writing this report, another team of Data Collectors had returned from the next cruise on the Sea Queen 1 (Cruises 15/17) and they experienced consistent harassment from the vessel crew. Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 90-1

Retained Catch Quantities Reported by Vessel, Cruise No. 12

"Korean code" Common name w largehead hairtail

H (spangled) emperors

D 1 santer seabream

D3 king soldierbream s pharaoh cuttlefish

D2 soldierbream

Cl (large) trevallies

KF pufferfishes

K2 meagres (Argyrosomus genus)

M sweetlips

D jobfishes

J Japanese threadfin bream

E groupers (Epinephelus genus)

B barracudas

K3 meagres

c trevallies

F2 croakers

01 (goldlined) seabreams

L squids

-- Other retained spp.

TOTAL

Table 13. The 20 most common species retained by the vessel, as officially reported by the vessel's company, during Data Collector Cruise No. 12

This is the percent by weight this species contributed to the vessel's retained catch only, since commercial vessels do not report their discard.

31 Species Discarded from Catch, Cruise No. 12

-No. Scientific name Common name Number 1 Nemipterus japonicus Japanese threadfin bream 227,135

2 Saurida spp. lizardfishes

3 Balistidae spp. triggerfishes

4 unsampled/unidentified unsampled/unidentified

5 turtles, unidentified turtles, unidentified

6 Arms thalassinus giant catfish

7 Diodontidae spp. porcupinefishes

8 Rhinopteridae spp. cownose rays

9 Decapterus russelli Indian scad

10 Stephanolepsis spp. filefishes

11 Drepane spp. sicklefishes

12 Sphyraena spp. barracudas

13 Dasyatidae spp. stingrays

14 sharks, unidentified sharks, unidentified

15 Priacanthus hamrur moontail bullseye

16 Siganus spp. rabbitfishes

17 Pagellus affinis Arabian pandora

18 Plotosus spp. stinging catfishes

19 Rhinobatus spp. guitarfishes

20 Other discarded spp. miscellaneous ------* * ------TOTAL

Table 12. The 20 most common species, or species groups, discarded from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 12.

' This is the percent by weight this species contributed to the vessel's catch (i.e., retained and discarded catch combined).

30 Manne Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 90-1

Species Retained from Catch, Cruise No. 12 KG (MT) per -No. Scientific name Common name Number percent1

Trichiurus lepiurus largehead hairtail

Lethrinus nebulosus spangled emperor

Argyrops spinifer king soldierbream

Cheimerius nufar santer seabream

Argyrops filamentosus soldierbream

Sepia pharaonis pharaoh cuttlefish

Carangoides chrysophrys longnose trevally

Argyrosomus hololepidotus southern meagre

Lagocephalus spp. pufferfishes

Argyrosomus heinii Arabian sea meagre

Epinephelus chlorostigma brownspotted grouper

Nemipterus japonicus Japanese threadfin bream

Sphyraena spp. barracudas

Plectorhinchus schotaf minstrel sweetlips

Diagramma pictum painted sweetlips

Pristipomoides filamentosus bluespolted jobfish

Scolopsis taeniatus banded monocle bream

Carangoides malabaricus Malabar trevally

Siganus spp. rabbitfishes

Other retained spp. miscellaneous ...... TOTAL

Table 11. The 20 most common species, or species groups, retained from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 12.

' This is the percent by weight this species contributed to the vessel's Q.&j catch (i.e., retained and discarded catch combined).

29 MeSin and Fisheries Center Research Brief 90-1

CATCH REPORT

VESSEL: Sea Queen 2 (formerly Kim's Marine 212) Data Collector Cruise No.

Fishing Dates: 14 October - 18 November, 1989

AREAS FISHED:

CATCH (in MT) Region Name Region No, Retained -Total

Ras Sawqirah 752 25 32.48 49.10

Ras Madrakah (far) 762 -146 127.85 190.62

Ras ad Duqm 764 -33 18.01 38.28

Masirah (northeast) 771 28 80.45 85.49

GENERAL INFORMATION:

Total Vessel Catch (MT): 363.49 Total Retained Catch (MT): 258.79 Percent Retained: 71.20 Total Discarded Catch (MT): 104.70 Percent Discarded: 28.80

Total No. of Fishing Days: 32 Total No. of Fishing Hauls: 232 Total No. of Fishing Hours: 231.12

Average Fishing Time per Day (hrs): 7.22 Average Duration per Haul (hrs): 1.00

CATCH RATES:

MT per day MT per haul MT per hour

Total Catch 11.359 1.567 1.573

Retained Catch 8.087 1.115 1.120

Discarded Catch 3.272 0.451 0.453

Table 10. Catch Report from Data Collector Cruise No. 12. Fishing Location: Ras Qarwaw to Masirah Island Distribution of Retained Species

CATCH UTILIZATION

Retained 258 emperors 45 597Imtl

Distribution of Discarded Species breams & seabreams .",,,,L, ,/-Ã‘Ã‘- catfish

from catch

rays 8 Figure 9. Total catch utilization and species composition sharks 17 974lmtl of the retained and discarded portions of the catch, Sea Queen 2, 14 October - 18 November, 1989. Manne Science and fisheries Center Research Bnef 90-1

Figure 8. Total vessel catch (retained and discarded) by area, Sea Queen 2. 14 October - 18 November, 1989 (DC Program Cruise 12). Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 90-1

GENERAL COMMENTS, Cruise No. 12

The Data Collectors for this cruise were Nasser Al-Azri (3rd cruise) and Bakr Al-Saadi (3rd cruise). This vessel was renamed the Sea Queen 2 (originally the Kim's Marine 212) since the last DC Program cruise. During the majority of this cruise the vessel operated off of Ras Madrakah (Figure 8). A few days of exploratory fishing were done south near the Kuria Muria Islands, and some productive fishing was accomplished north of Masirah Island.

Total catch by the vessel this cruise was 363.49 mt. Approximately 71.20% of the total catch was retained (Figure 9). A total of 232 hauls, representing 231.12 fishing hours, were made during 32 days of fishing (Table 10). The vessel did not fish during the night due to poor catch rates and high discard content. Average catch rates were: 1.573 mtihour total catch and 1.120 mthour retained catch. Fishing north of Masirah Island (with hairtail as target species) yielded average catch rates of 2.325 mthour total and 2.188 mtihour retained.

The retained catch amount of 258.79 mt was divided among a large number of species (Table 11). In all, 55 different species were retained during this cruise. Breams and seabreams (Spuridue and Nemipteridae) constituted 34.08% of the retained amount, followed by hairtail (Trichiuridae, 18.90%) and emperors (Lethnnidue, 17.62%). Trevallies, meagres and cuttlefish were also important components of the catch. The discarded catch of 104.70 mt represented 28.80% of the total catch (Table 12). Diversity was also evident among the discard, with at least 73 different species identified. Major discard groups were breams (17.72 mt, or 16.90% of discard), sharks and rays (12.94 mt, 12.39%) and lizardfish (10.96 mt, 10.47%).

Turtle catch was extremely heavy this cruise, with a total catch of 87 individuals that averaged 75.5 kg in weight. Most of the turtle catch (78 out of 87) occurred off Ras hfadrakah (Area 762). The vessel made a total of 141 hauls in Area 762 resulting in 182.44 mt total catch, of which 126.47 mt were retained. This translates to an incidence rate of 0.427 turtles per mt total catch and 0.617 turtle per mt retained catch. The Ras Madrakah beaches are nesting sites for low numbers of several species of turtles (Ross and Barwani, 1981). More importantly, however, is that one of the migration routes for the large turtle populations that nest on Masirah Island traverses Area 762 from south to north. Therefore, it is likely that many of the captured turtles are mature females heading for nesting sites. The fishery should be closely monitored next year to see if a trend develops. With turtle conservation a major issue, steps should be taken to reduce the trawler impact on the resident and nesting populations.

There was a serious discrepancy between Data Collector extrapolated catch totals and Vessel Reported catch for the species Trichiurus lepturus (hairtail). Sampling results estimated a catch of 48.917 mt compared to the vessel figure of 71.136 mt (Table 13). For most other species, DC figures were greater than vessel figures. The previous sampling cruise aboard this vessel (DC Program Cruise 6) also showed large discrepancies between the estimates, and at that time it was suggested that this vessel bore closer monitoring. That warning is now reiterated, and perhaps a portside inspection of this vessel's cargo is now warranted.

The tendency of trawlers in Oman to fish shallower than legally allowed (50 meters) has long been suspected, with much circumstantial evidence to support the accusation. The high turtle catch should be interpreted as yet more circumstantial evidence. Turtles rarely feed in waters as deep as 50 meters. Therefore, a bottom trawler fishing at greater than 50 m depth would only capture turtles during the few moments the trawl passes through the water column either to or from the fishing depth. If however, a trawler was operating in waters where turtles commonly fed (say 20-30 meters), the turtles would constantly be at risk from the trawlers. Marine Science and Fisheries Cater Research Brief 90-1

Retained Catch Quantities Reported by Vessel, Cruise No. 11

"Korean code" Common name percent' s pharaoh cuttlefish 39.41

H (spangled) emperors 19.35

c (large) trevallies 8.64

w largehead hairtail 8.13

Dl santer seabream 4.53

D3 king soldierbream 3.77

B barracudas 3.46

Ql rabbitfishes 2.09

D jobfishes 1.32

D2 soldierbream 1.28

M sweetlips 1.27

K2 meagres (Argyrosomus)genus 1.13

KF pufferfishes 1.04

Cl golden trevally 0.87

0 octopus 0.84

E groupers (Epinephelus genus) 0.43

NG (silver) grunts 0.41

v Indian spiny turbot 0.33

x flatheads 0.27

-- Other retained spp. 1.43 ------TOTAL 100.00

Table 9. The 20 most common species retained by the vessel, as officially reported by the vessel's company, during Data Collector Cruise No. 11.

This is the percent by weight this species contributed to the vessel's retained catch only, since commercial vessels do not report their discard.

24 Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief W-l

Species Discarded from Catch, Cruise No. 11 KG (MT) per -No. Scientific name Common name Number Wapercent1

1 Diodontidae spp. porcupinefishes 769,469 73.778 13.54 189.6

2 Balisiidae spp. triggerfishes 411,775 49.902 9.16 128.3

3 Anus thalassinus giant catfish 53,020 33.015 6.06 84.9

5 Saurida tumbil greater lizardfish 21,027 13.951 2.56 35.9

6 Pageflus aginis Arabian pandora 79,301 8.261 1.52 21.2

7 Torpedinidae spp. electric rays 3,632 7.886 1.45 20.3

8 Stephanolepsis spp. filefishes 22,534 7.353 1.35 18.9

9 turtles, unidentified turtles, unidentified 41 4.611 0.85 11.9

10 Tetrosomus gibbosus hunchback boxfish 12,117 4.602 0.85 11.8

11 Neobythitesspp. cusk eels 12,626 4.038 0.74 10.4

12 Bothidae spp. lefteye flounders 11,323 3.928 0.72 10.1

13 Plotosusspp. stinging catfishes 7,659 3.626 0.67 9.3

14 Rhinobatus spp. guitarfishes 2,808 3.525 0.65 9.1

15 Pterygomgla guezei Mauritius guruard 29,200 2.991 0.55 7.7

16 Saurida undosquamis brushtooth lizardfish 4,477 2.791 0.51 7.2

17 Scolopsis taeniatus banded monocle bream 9,598 2.068 0.38 5.3

18 Priacanthus hamrur moontail bullseye 4,616 1.698 0.31 4.4

19 Dasyatidae spp. stingrays 1,435 1.680 0.31 4.3

Table 8. The 20 most common species, or species groups, discarded from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 11.

' This is the percent by weight this species contributed to the vesselk catch (i.e., retained and discarded catch combined).

23 Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Hrief 90-1

Species Retained from Catch, Cruise No. 11 KG Per -No. Scientific name Common name Number -hour Sepia pharaonis pharaoh cuttlefish 239.7

Lethrinus nebulosus spangled emperor 125.9

Carangoides chrysophrys longnose trevally 68.1

Argyrops spinifer king soldierbream 38.0

Cheimerius nufar santer seabream 33.2

Scolopsis taeniams banded monocle bream 32.0

Trichiurus lepturus largehead hairtail 31.8

Pristipomoides filamenrosus bluespotted jobfish 20.7

Sphyraena spp. barracudas 17.3

Siganus spp. rabbitfishes 17.1

Argyrosomus spp. meagres 13.3

Plectorhinchus schotaf minstrel sweetlips 12.6

Argyrops filamentosus soldierbream 9.3

Lagocephalus spp. puffertishes 7.4

Gnathonodon speciosus golden trevally 6.6

Psertodes erumei Indian spiny turbot 6.6

Nemipteius japonicus Japanese threadfin bream 6.6

Pomadasys argenteus silver grunt 5.1

Epinepheius chlorosrigrna brownspotted grouper 4.7

Other retained spp. miscellaneous 28.7

TOTAL

Table 7. The 20 most common species, or species groups, retained from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 11.

' This is the percent by weight this species contributed to the vessel's &&& catch (i.e., retained and discarded catch combined).

22 Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 90-1

CATCH REPORT

VESSEL: Kum Bong 501 Data Collector Cruise No.

Fishing Dates: 2 October - 14 November, 1989

AREAS FISHED:

CATCH (in MT) Region Name Region No. Retained -Total

Ras Madrakah (near) 761 -63 30.70 55.30

Ras Madrakah (far) 762 -342 226.44 438.87

Ras ad Duqm 764 -28 8.58 32.59 Masirah (northeast) 771 5 16.22 18.11

GENERAL INFORMATION:

Total Vessel Catch (MT): 544.87 Total Retained Catch (MT): 281.94 Percent Retained: -51.74 Total Discarded Catch (MT): 262.93 Percent Discarded: 48.26

Total No. of Fishing Days: 41 Total No. of Fishing Hauls: 438 Total No. of Fishing Hours: 389.03

Average Fishing Time per Day (hrs): 9.49 Average Duration per Haul (hrs): 0.89

CATCH RATES:

MT per day MT per haul MT per hour

Total Catch 13.290 1.244 1.401

Retained Catch 6.877 0.644 0.725

Discarded Catch 6.413 0.600 0.676

Table 6. Catch Report from Data Collector Cruise No. 11. Fishing L-ocation; Ras Madrakah to Masirah Island Distribution of Retained Species

CATCH UTILIZATION

Distribution of Discarded Species

porcwne Figure 7. Total catch utilization and species composition IIS~S '3 77airnt1 of the retained and discarded portions of the catch, Kum Bong 501, 2 October - 14 November, 1989. Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 90-1

Figure 6. Total vessel catch (retained and discarded) by area, Kum Bong 501, 2 October - 14 November, 1989 (DC Program Cruise 11). GENERAL COMMENTS, Cruise No. 11

The Data Collectors for this cruise were Salim Al-Gazali (3rd cruise) and Mohammed Al-Belushi (2nd cruise). The monsoon season had finished by the time this cruise started, so the vessel operated in the Ras Madrakah area with some exploratory fishing in the Masirah Island region (Figure 6). This period of the year is generally the best cuttlefish season. The vessel frequently operated inside of the 10 mile limit, though always outside of 5 miles.

Because the vessel was targeting on cuttlefish (Sepia pharaonis), a large portion of the catch was discarded, including many species that are retained during other times of the year. The crew is instructed to process just the cuttlefish and breams (Spatidae and Nemiptendae); the other species are processed only if time permits. Due to the large amount of discarded catch (262.93 mt, 48.26% of total catch, Figure 7), the voyage was longer than average. In 41 days of fishing, the vessel made 438 tows, trawling for a total of 389.03 hours. Total catch (discard and retained species) was 544.87 mt. Fishing was usually curtailed at night: only 132 of the hauls were made during darkness. Catch rates were higher during the day than at night, with retained catch almost doubled (0.826 mthour vs 0.493 mthour). The vessel averaged 0.725 mthour retained catch and 1.401 mthour total catch over the entire cruise (Table 6).

Cuttlefish comprised 33.08% of the retained catch (17.12% of total catch, Table 7), followed by breams (17.79% and 9.20%), emperors (17.59% and 9.10%), and trevallies (11.06% and 5.72%). Day catches had higher percentages of cuttlefish (18.05% vs 14.32% of total catch), Lethrinus nebulosus (9.75% vs 5.67%) and Carangoides chrysophrys (5.31% vs 2.20%). Night catches showed higher concentrations of Scolopsis taeniatus (3.44% vs 2.11%), Plecfo- rhinchus schotaf (3.07% vs 0.43%) and Arvyrosomus spp. (2.63% vs 0.26%).

The discard was dominated by two families (Table 8), Diodonfidae (28.06% of discard, 13.54% of total catch) and BaIisfidae (18.98%, 9.16%). The discard showed less die1 variation than the retained species as the same three families (Diodontidae, Balktidue and Ariidae) were the top three components both during the day and at night. Ariidae, however, constituted 8.37% of the night catch vs 2.68% during the day. As mentioned above, the presence of significant quantities of cuttlefish in the catch led to the discard of many valuable species. The most serious ease involved breams and seabreams, of which 11.516 mt were caught and discarded.

Turtle catch was very significant this cruise, with an estimated total of 41 individuals dragged up in hauls. Average weight for the 41 turtles was estimated at 112.5 kg. Most of the turtles (36 of 41) were caught in the Pas Madrakah region (Area 762). The vessel made 223 tows and caught 256.84 mt of fish (total catch). This translates to an incidence rate of 0.144 turtles per mt of catch.

Data Collector sampling results and vessel reported catch showed some sizable discrepancies (Table 9). Vessel reported catch was higher for cuttlefish (112.88 mt vs 93.27 mt), emperors (55.44 mt vs 49.59 mt) and hairtail (23.30 mt vs 12.38 mt), while DC figures were greater for monocle bream (Scolopsis iaeniaius, 12.45 mt vs 0.00 mt) and jobfish (Pristipomoides filamentosus, 8.05 mt vs 3.78 mt). As has occurred in previous cruises, some of the variation may result from the difficulty of sampling when cuttlefish catch is particularly high. The Data Collectors, while not physically barred from sampling, are harassed in a variety of ways that serve to discourage sampling efforts. Turtle catch by Cruise. month. area - 1 Incidence rate MT of fish No. of No./mt No./mt Cruise 1 Month 1 Area 1 Haul; Retained I Total Turtles Av. wt. Retained Total 11 Oct 762-7 89 42.09 1 83.75 19 122.5 0.451 0.227

762-7 762-8

Nov 7624 Nov 762-8 12 Nov 7714 15 13 Nov 771-5 67

Turtle catch - combined month totals

- -- TOTAL -Month. Combined 1 490 I 409.48 1657.50 1131 1 85.5 I 0.320 1 0199

Turtle catch - combined area totals Incidence rate 7 MT of fish No. of No./mt No./mt Craise I Month I Area I Hauls Retained I Total Turtles Av. wt. Retained Total Combined Oct 762 307 223.12 1 377.80 80 96.5 0.359 0.212 Combined INOV I762 57 44 42 61 48 35 65 2 0 788 0 59 TOTAL Area 762 364 267.54 439.28 115 87.0 0.430 0.262 TOTAL Area 764 44 16.63 48.77 11 84.1 0.661 0 226 TOTAL Area 771 82 125.31 169.45 5 56.0 0.W 0.030

TOTAL - Areas Combined 1 490 1 409.48 1 657.50 1 131 1 85.5 1 0.320 1 0.199 1

Table 5. Details of turtle catch during Cruises 11-15. Cruises 14 and 15, which took place in late December, did not result in any turtle catch. Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 90-1

Catch and Effort Distribution, Cruises 11-1 5

CRUISE NUMBER

Table 4. Breakdown of fishing effort, retained catch and total catch by area and Cruise for DC Program Cruises 11-15. Marine Science and Fisheries Center Rdearch Brief 90-1

General Information, Cruises 11-1 5

Total Vessel Data Collectors Fishing Period Days Kim Bong SO! Salim Al-Gazali 2 October - 14 November 4 1 Mohammed Al-Belushi 12 Sea Queen 2 Nasser Al-Azri 14 October - 18 November 32 Bakr Al-Saadi 13 Sea Queen I Khalifa Al-Kalbani 10 November - 26 November 17 Ali AI-Mashrafi 14 Aurola 7 Yahya Al-Hadidi 19 December - 3 1 December 13 Ali Al-Mashrafi 15 Sea Queen I Khalifa Al-Kalbani 30 December - 31 December 2 Mohammed Al-Belushi

Table 2. General Information on DC Program Cruises 11-15.

Fishing and Sampling Summary for the period, 4 November - 3 1 December

With DCs on board Without DCs on board Total Fishing Retained Catch(rnt> Fishing Retained Catch(mt) Retained Catch(rnt) Days Cateh(rnt) per day Days Catch(rnt) per day Days Catch(mt) per day 41 281.84 6.88 40 314.68 7.87 81 Kum Bong 503 Kum Bong SO5 Aurola 7 Sea Queen 2 600.16 Sea Queen 1 503.29 11.70

Table 3. Summary of trawler activity and sampling coverage during the period 4 November - 31 December 1989, corresponding to DC Program Cruises 11-15. The vessel and Data Collector data for Cruises 11 and 12 prior to November 4 are included in this report. The previous DC Program data summary (Hare, 1989d) included all vessel data up to November 3rd. Year

Kum Bone 503 1 Oman Fisheries CoKorea 1973 365.28 2500 56.20 1 9.00 I 5.69 1 Overseas Fisheries Co.

Ku~Bong 505 1 Oman Fisheries Co.Korea 1974 389.76 2700 55.95 9.00 5.54 Overseas Fisheries Co.

Table 1. The eight trawlers currently licensed for operation in the commercial demersal finfish fishery. The Peonia No. 1 did not begin 73 operations until January, 1990. 28 7 TRAWLING EFFICIENCY

CRUISE 11 CRUISE 12 CRUISE 13 CRUISE 14 CRUISE 15 (2 OÃ£ - 14 Nov) (14 Oct - 18 Nov) (10 Nov - 26 Nov) (19 Dec - 31 Dec) (30 Dec - 31 Dec)

R - cuttlefisrn R - breams R - emperor= R - hairtail J R - trevalliesU R - other D - other ....~.R - Average

Figure 5. Average catch rates (in kg per trawling hour)aboard vessels carrying Data Collectors. In the legend, 'R' indicates the species is retained by the vessel, 'D' that it is discarded. DISCARDED CATCH DISTRIBUTION DC Program Cruises 11-15

other spp. 37.8%

Figure 4. Composition of discarded portion of the catch, Cruises 11-15, November 3 - December 31, 1989. Total = 584.40 mt RETAINED CATCH COMPARISON Sampled and reported catch figures

r^l

meagres trevallies emperors cuttlefish breams hairtail

1 - does not include reports of Oman Sea One

2 - includes reported catch of Oman Sea One

3C Program Vessels vessels Vessels 2 sampling with DCs without DCs without DCs (922.51 mt) (930.93 mi) (2,036.37 mi) (2,141.44 mt)

Figure 3. DC Program estimates of retained catch composition and vessel reported data. Comparisons are made with reports from vessels carrying DCsand those not carrying them for the period 4 November - 31 December (corresponding to Cruises 11-15). The Oman Sea One special case is explained in the text. Figure 2. Distribution of catch (retained amount only) by vessels carrying Data Collectors, 4 November - 31 December, 1989 (DC Program Cruises 11-15). Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 90-1

Figure 1. Legal fishing zone and statistical regions for the demersal trawl fishery. Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 9<Ãˆ- the Ras Madrakah area for some part of the year. One solution is to move them north of Madrakah, where there are few fishing villages and no artisanal dcmcrsal fishery.

There is great fluctuation in the turtle incidence rate based on area and season. Any annual estimate of turtle catch would need to factor in the monthly and areal variation. The heavily trawled fishing grounds of Areas 762 (Ras ad Duqm) and 764 (Ras Madrakah) lie directly in the migration path of turtles to the beaches at Masirah Island (Ross and Barwani, 1981). It is highly unlikely that these turtles often feed on the ocean bottom in waters deeper than 50 meters. What is more likely is that the trawlers, again particularly during the cuttlefish season, catch the turtles while operating nearshore, in waters as shallow as 20 meters. The turtle catch would be greatly reduced simply be enforcing the 50 meted10 mile rule that is so frequently ignored by the trawlers, or by moving the trawlers out of the area during the months with high turtle incidence rates.

The Ras Madrakah grounds are the center of the major cuttlefish grounds. In this Brief, as well as in other MSFC Reports, I have stated some of the practices utilized aboard the vessels during the short, hut highly lucrative, cuttlefish season. Many valuable species, kept during other seasons, are discarded to preserve freezer hold space for cuttlefish. All territorial and depth restrictions are ignored as the vessels chase the cuttlefish schools along the coast. Finally, the crews - under heavy company pressure to produce a top notch product - effectively prevent sampling activities by the On Board Data Collectors. Without a greatly improved enforcement presence, the simplest solution is to move the fleet away from Ras Madrakah.

Based on yet unpublished data, the total catch by the demersal trawl fleet in 1989 was 18,499.11 mt, or nearly 500 mt over the total allowable catch. Discard accounted for 7,238.80 (39.1%) of the total catch. This catch was produced during 1339 fishing days (of which 210 days were by the Oman Sea One). The two larger trawlers that worked all year in Oman averaged 288.5 fishing days, the remainder taken up in transit and an annual visit to drydock. If the seven larger trawlers currently licensed in Oman managed the same amount of working time in 1990, the total number of fishing days would be 2020, plus 210 by the Oman Sea One. Assum- ing similar catch rates, if fishing remained unchecked through the end of the year, the total catch would be in the vicinity of 30,800 mt. If catch rates remained constant through the year, the full 18,000 mt demersal quota would he taken by the end of July. A decision will need to be made sometime during the first half of 1990 either to raise the demersal catch quota, or limit trawler catch. Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief W-1

DISCUSSION

A continuing goal of the DC Program is to determine the validity of the reported catch by the fishing companies. Short of a dockside inventory at the time of unloading, the only means for comparison is at sea sampling of the catch. The experience of the DC Program to date has been that the vessels carrying DCs generally report their retained catch accurately. Variation between reported composition and that determined by sampling has been sizable in just a few of the cruises. When the data are summed across cruises, the percentage difference for any species group between DC Program and vessel reported data remains relatively small. It would be a mistake to use this as evidence that the companies have historically reported their catches accurately, and will continue to do so. It is likely that certain elements of the reports are, in fact, accurate, particularly those that can be verified at the dock (e.g., species composition of the retained catch). Much other information, particularly the fishing area and catch of discards, are either not reported by the vessel or are falsified. Having Data Collectors on board - biologists who independently measure all aspects of the fishing operation - provides a powerful incentive to vessel personnel to comply with Ministry regulations and keep accurate records.

The discard rate in the demersal trawl fishery has remained steady through the eight months of sampling aboard the trawlers. One of the major factors for the high discard rate was shown to be the use small mesh nets, often double and triple layered, that allowed for little escapement through the codend (Hare, 1989~).Two fisheries, however, have had low bycatch rates of discarded species - the monsoon season bream/cuttiefish fishery around the Kuria Muria Islands, and the hairtail fishery north of Masirah Island. For reasons stated below, I believe the north Masirah hairtail fishery should be encouraged and the fleet permitted to fish further north, at least on a trial basis, than 21'N latitude, the historical northern limit.

Hairtail is a species with virtually no market in Oman. As such, there is no direct competition between artisanal and commercial fishermen as exists for many of the more valuable fish (grouper, bream, meagre, emperor). I showed earlier that the hairtail catch north of Masirah Island is not only generally free of discard, but of most other species as well. Though still undocumented, it appears that hairtail has expanded in recent years to become one of the most, if not the most, dominant species in the demersal trawl fishery. The historical lack of a hairtail fishery, combined with an intensive 15 year fishery for more valuable species in the Concession area, may have contributed to this shift in composition. Allowing a directed fishery, free to follow the hairtail schools, could help to reverse this trend.

When the trawlers are banned from north Masirah, they generally move back to the Ras Madrakah region, which has been the center of the fishery for 15 years. The Ras Madrakah fishery is, during all seasons, "dirty", with discards averaging 50% of the total catch. There are many small fishing villages along the coast between south Masirah and Ras Madrakah, and there is a long history of interaction between artisanal fishermen and the trawlers. The tendency of the trawlers to fish in shallow, nearshore waters has long been documented. Circumstantial evidence, such as high turtle catch (discussed below), also demonstrates this point. Both the resource, and the artisanal fishery would benefit from the removal of the commercial fleet from turtle was taken for every 7.04 mt retained (11.50 rnt total) catch. The incidence rate for Cruises 1-5 was 1 per 40.33 mt retained (72.59 mt total) catch, while Cruises 6-10 showed 1 turtle per 28.35 mt retained (44.48 mt total) catch.

Catch rates The average catch rate for the five cruises far surpassed that encountered in any of the previous sampled cruises (Figure 5). The vessels averaged a retained catch rate of 991.3 kghour of trawling. The total catch rate was 1,619.3 kghour. The three cruises that occurred during the hairtail season (13, 14 and 15) had the highest catch rates. Nighttime fishing was curtailed aboard the trawlers as the catches outstripped factory and freezer production capacity. The average retained catch rate for the first five cruises was 647.5 kglhour, and for the second five cruises 658.5 kghour. The hourly catch rate for Cruises 11-15 are the highest ever documented, over a sustained period, in Oman. While requiring further study, this appears largely due to the recent influx of hairtail into the trawler catches. Historically, hairtail catches have been an important, but not dominant, part of the total trawler catch. Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 90-1

Comparison of sampline results and vessel reported catch For these five sampled cruises, there were only minor differences between sampling results and vessel reported data (Figure 3). The top three species groups, determined by sampling, were hairtail (33.4% of total retained catch), breams (25.8%) and cuttlefish (12.1%). The vessel reports gave the same three groups, though with slightly different percentages: hairtail - 31.8%, breams - 22.1%, and cuttlefish - 14.5%. As discussed in the General Comments for Cruise 11, and in the previous Research Brief, cuttlefish are sometimes underrepresented in sampling data due to physical obstruction of the Data Collectors. Emperors (10.5%). trevallies (6.2%) and meagres (2.8%) were also important components of the catch.

Comparing catch composition between sampled and unsampled vessels, particularly over a short timeframe, can be misleading if the sampled vessels do not accurately reflect the activities of the unsampled vessels. For the timeframe of this Brief, the catches of the unsampled trawlers cover only the period of 4 November to 31 December. The sampled catch, however, dates back to 2 October, thus incorporating more of the cuttlefish season. This may, in part explain, the large differences in catch composition between the sampled and unsampled catch. Excluding the Oman Sea One catch, the unsampled trawlers reported composition as follows: hairtail - 66.1%,breams - 13.8%, meagres - 3.6%, trevallies - 3.5%, emperors - 3.3% and cuttlefish - 1.8%. Conversations with vessel captains and visual inspection of product during offload- ing confirmed the high proportion of hairtail in the catches of the unsampled trawlers.

Discarded species The discarded catch of the trawler fleet continues to comprise a significant portion of the total catch. Total discard for the five cruises was 584.40 mt, 38.78% of total catch. The discard rate for the first 10 DC Program Cruises also averaged approximately 40%. A wide variety of species made up the discard (Figure 4), with more than 100 species identified in the discard. Six species groups accounted for 62% of the discard: porcupinefish (Diodontidae, 14.9%), triggerfish (Balistidae, 10.7%), grunts (small Haemulidae, 10.0%), lizardfish (Synodon- tidae, 10.0%), catfish (Ariidae and Plotosidae, 8.8%), and rays and sharks (7.7%). During both the Ras ad Duqm cuttlefish and hairtail seasons, many valuable species were discarded. These included Japanese threadfin bream (Nemipterus japonicus, 13.8 mt), barracudas (Sphyraena spp., 10.0 mt), Arabian pandora (Pugellus affiis, 9.8 mt) and longnose trevally (Carangoides chrysophrys, 7.4 mt). Note that these five cruises represent only 30.5% of the fishing effort during this period.

Turtle catch Turtle catch during October and November was very high, with an estimated total catch of 131 individuals (Table 5). Area 762 (Ras ad Duqm) yielded the greatest catch with 115 turtles taken in 364 hauls. This translates to an incidence rate of 0.430 turtles per mt of retained catch (0.262 per mt total catch). Turtles were also taken in Areas 764 (Ras Madrakah, 11 individuals) and 771 (north of Masirah Island, 5 individuals). More turtles were caught in October (91) than November (40), and had a much higher average weight (95.0 kg vs 64.0 kg). The incidence rate for the five combined cruises (though no turtles were caught in December) was 0.142 individuals per mt retained and 0.087 per mt total catch. Phrased another way, one M ena ensCenter Kcsearch Bnef 90-1

RESULTS

Sampling and Fishing effort The five cruises cover 91 sampling days (Table 2). Cruise 11 (the first cruise) began October 2nd and the last two cruises (Nos. 14 and 15) ended on December 31st. The previous Research Brief (No. 89-6) covered fishing activity until November 3rd, therefore this Brief includes all data from November 4th until the end of the year. The data for Cruises 11 and 12, both of which began prior to November 4th are included in this Brief. The total number of fishing days by the fleet1 was 298 for a sampling percentage of 30.5% (91/298 days). During the five cruises, a total of 913 individual fishing operations were recorded. The On Board DCs sampled 291 of the hauls for species composition, lengthheight distributions of target species, and factory production rates.

Dailv retained catch Total retained daily catch rate aboard the sampled trawlers averaged 8.79 mt (Table 3). This compares to a reported rate of 10.60 mttday for unsampled trawlers during the same period. The higher catch rate aboard unsampled trawlers is probably due to the arrival of the hairtail season, which is a high volume, low value fishery. The DC Program concentrated on sampling the cuttlefish fishery (low volume, high value running from September to November) which is thus overrepresented in the data for this sampling period. The Oman Sea One reported a daily retained catch rate of 2.72 mttday.

Fishing locations and target suecies Two distinct fisheries were sampled during this period (Figure 2). Cruises 11 and 12 took place during the end of the traditional cuttlefish season. The fishery centers around the Ras ad Duqm region (Areas 761-764). During this fishery, breams (families Sparidae and Nem- ipteridae) and emperors (Lethrinuiae) form the largest part of the catch, but cuttlefish are often found in large concentrations. When the vessels "hit" the cuttlefish, they will frequently discard all bycatch except for the emperors and breams, amounting to more than half the total catch.

Beginning in November, the fleet usually began targeting on hairtail. When permitted, the vessels will fish north of Masirah Island (Areas 771-773, up to 21' N latitude). The catches tend to be very pure (90+% hairtail) with very low discard rates. When restricted to the area south of Masirah Island (20Â° latitude), the vessels also target on hairtail, though the fishery produces a more diverse catch. Discard constitutes a much larger portion of the catch as well.

More than 80% of the total retained catch from the five cruises was taken in just two statistical areas, nos. 762 and 771 (Table 4). A limited amount of fishing was performed south outside Ras Qarwaw (Areas 752-755).

If one includes the Oman Sea One, the total number of fishing days rises to 333. The Oman Sea One is treated as a special case due to its smaller size (35 m, 800 hp vs >50 m, >2000 hp), and much lower catch rate (one-third to one-fifth of the other trawlers). The DC Program also did not sample aboard the vessel during 1989. Marine Science and Fisheries Cenler Research Brief 90-1

THE FISHERY

The past year (1989) was a transition year for the demersal trawl Fishery. The modern fishery began in 1976 with a fleet of four large Japanese stern trawlers and three small New Zealand-built stern trawlers (Yesaki, 1978 and 1979). The Japanese trawlers departed in 1977, the small trawlers ceased operations in 1978. In 1978, the Korea Overseas Fishing Company (KOFC) signed the first of a series of concession agreements (first with the Ministry of Agricul- ture and Fisheries, later with the Oman National Fishing Company) authorizing limited trawling operations in exchange for a percentage (usually 38%) of the catch. From 1981 until 1988, the fleet size held steady at 7-8 vessels. Trawling operations were allowed in waters deeper than 50 meters in the region between 21Â° latitude and 5Y45'E longitude (Figure 1). No restrictions were placed on the quantity of fish caught (or discarded) and KOFC paid a set amount, in the form of a royalty to the government, for every ton of retained catch (a substantially higher amount was paid for the cuttlefish, Sepia pharaonis).

In March of 1989, the fleet was reduced to three vessels - two 350 GRT stern trawlers belonging to KOFC and a 240 GRT Italian-built dragger belonging to the Oman Sea Company (which had operated only sporadically since its arrival in Oman in 1987). A demersal fishery management plan was instituted in April, establishing a quota system in an attempt to regulate the fishery. Initially, quotas were awarded to the five major Omani fishing companies, with the largest quota given to the newly formed Oman Fishing Company. For 1989, the total allowable demersal catch was set at 18,000 mt, including discards. The five companies also received small pelagic and large pelagic quotas. The Ministry established an Individual Transferrable Quota system as the companies were free to market (sell, trade) their quotas. By the end of 1989, the fleet had grown to eight trawlers from three companies, each of which had obtained a Korean fishing company partner to provide trawlers, marketing and technical support (Table 1).

In addition to the catch quotas and fishing areas, the trawler fleet is subject to a number of other regulations, including: unloading of catch is permitted only at Mina Qaboos (the Capi- tal Area port), a Ministry observer or two MSFC Data Collectors must accompany every vessel on every trip, haul by haul records of fishing location, time and catch quantity must be kept and submitted to the Ministry following every voyage, and mesh size is restricted to greater than 110 mm inside stretch measure with no doubling of netting. The principal aim of these measures is to protect the artisanal fishermen, while at the same time encouraging growth of the industrial sector. The effectiveness of these regulations is discussed in detail later in this report. INTRODUCTION

This is the third in a series of Marine Science and Fisheries Center (MSFC) Research Briefs documenting the commercial catch of the demersal trawler fleet operating off the coast of Oman1. The data contained herein were collected by a team of "On Board Data Collectors" (hereafter DCs) that began sampling aboard the trawlers in May 1989. The DC Program was originally established to provide basic information on the largely unknown commercial demersal fishery. Early aims were to provide a temporal and spatial description of biomass removal, in order to assess the health and value of the resource. Also of great concern was the extent of interaction between the commercial and artisanal demersal Fisheries. Funding for the DC Program was provided by the Omani-American Joint Commission (Project Grant 272-0101.1-1) and administered by the Oregon State University. Sampling techniques and DC duties were originally summarized in a manual (Hare, 1989a) that was used as the basis for training the DC corps, and which has recently been revised (Hare 1990). The first two Research Briefs (Hare, 1989b and 1989d) were based on DC Program Cruises 1-10, roughly corresponding to the 2nd and 3rd quarters of 1989~.This Brief presents results from Cruises 11-15, the last five Cruises of 1989.

A standardized format for presentation of sampling results has been utilized for each of the Briefs and is summarized here. First, various summary tables and figures for the five combined cruises are given, including areal distribution of vessel catch and effort, retained and discarded catch composition, cpue indices in mthour and a comparison of vessel reported catch composition and sampling extrapolations. A Results section follows, with data summaries and interpretations. Management recommendations and suggestions for future studies and/or monitoring are provided in the Discussion section. Secondly, a seven page Catch Report is given for each of the individual cruises. The first page, titled General Comments, summarizes the findings from that cruise as well as reporting on problems encountered by the DCs or reported fishing violations by the vessel. The second and third pages are figures showing the catch distribution by area, and retained and discarded catch composition by major species group. Page four gives details of the fishing operations, including fishing period, number of hauls, trawling time, catch per day, etc. This is followed by two tables listing the 20 top retained and discarded species, along with catch data on each species. The final page gives the retained catch as officially reported by the vessel and allows direct comparison with DC sampling results.

* All MSFC Publications are available from the MSFC Library by writing to: P.O. Box 467, MSFC Library, Marine Science and Fisheries Center, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisher- ies, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman.

A DC Program Cruise is defined as complete sampling coverage of a trawler fishing voyage. A typical voyage lasts 4-6 weeks, with the DC hoarding the vessel when it leaves for fishing grounds and disembarking at the port upon return. The only exception is when a voyage crosses over from the end of one year to the next year. In that case (and as occurred with Cruises 14 and 15 in this Brief) the data prior to January 1 constitutes one cruise, and the data after January 1st another cruise. Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 90-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The third set of On Board Data Collection Program cruises covered 91 fishing days and 913 trawl hauls. This represented 30.5% of total fleet effort during the period. Two of the cruises took place during the end of the Ras Madrakah cuttlefish season, the others during the onset of the hairtail fishery.

The sampled trawlers averaged 8.79 mt retained catch per day, while the unsampled trawlers averaged 10.60 mtlday. The difference is mostly due to the overrepresentation of the less productive (but far more valuable) cuttlefish fishery in DC Program sampling.

The cuttlefish fishery took place in the region between Ras ad Duqm and Ras Madra- kah, ending in late October. Several problems related to the fishery were identified: a large percentage of the catch is discarded, including many valuable species that are normally retained at other times during the year, incidence of turtles in the catches was very high as the trawlers move into shallow water following the cuttlefish schools, and vessel personnel interfere with Data Collector sampling activities.

The hairtail fishery was split between two locations - north of Masirah Island and Ras ad Duqm. The Masirah fishery yields very pure caches with little discard, in contrast to the more southern fishery which produces a more diverse catch with much discard.

Discard continued to be very high in the demersal trawl fishery, averaging 38.78% of total catch during the five cruises. Major discards were porcupinefish, triggerfish, grunts, lizardfish, catfish, rays and sharks. Valuable species discarded in quantity (>I0 mt) include Japanese threadfin bream, barracudas and trevallies.

A total of 131 turtles were caught during the five cruises, all in October and November. Most of the turtle catch occurred in the Ras ad Duqm area, which lies in the south to north migratory route to nesting beaches on Masirah Island

Catch rates were the highest ever documented over a sustained period in Oman. This may reflect an increasing hairtail population in the demersal fish biomass.

The DC Program provides a strong incentive to trawler companies to accurately report their catches, as evidenced by the close match between sampling results and company catch reports. The DC Program must, however, be continued to insure future cooperation between the Ministry and industry.

It is recommended that the area north of Masirah Island he opened, at least on a trial basis, to the commercial trawl fishery. At the same time, the Ras ad Duqm to Ras Madrakah region should be closed for part of the year to protect the artisanal demersal resource as well as migrating turtle populations.

The total commercial trawler catch in 1989 was 18,500 mt. Assuming similar catch and discard rates in 1990, the present fleet will catch 30,800 mt (12,800 mt over quota) if allowed to operate throughout the year. LIST OF TABLES, cant.

Table 18. Catch Report from Data Collector Cruise No. 14 ...... 42

Table 19. The 20 most common species, or species groups, retained from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 14 ......

Table 20. The 20 most common species, or species groups, discarded from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 14 ...... 44

Table 21. The 20 most common species retained by the vessel, as officially reported by the vessel's company during Data Collector Cruise No. 14 ..... 45

Table 22. Catch Report from Data Collector Cruise No. 15 ...... 49

Table 23. The 20 most common species, or species groups, retained from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 15 ...... 50

Table 24. The 20 most common species, or species groups, discarded from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 15 ...... 51

Table 25. The 20 most common species retained by the vessel, as officially reported by the vessel's company during Data Collector Cruise No. 15 ..... 52 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. The eight trawlers currently licensed for operation in the commercial demersal finfishfishery ...... 14

Table 2. General Information on DC Program Cruises 11-15 ...... 15 Table 3 . Summary of trawler activity and sampling coverage during the period 4 November .31 December. 1989 ...... 15

Table 4 . Breakdown of fishing effort, retained catch and total catch by area and Cruise for DC Program Cruises 11-15 ...... 16

Table 5. Details of turtle catch during Cruises 11-15 ...... 17

Table 6. Catch Report from Data Collector Cruise No . 11 ...... 21 Table 7. The 20 most common species. or species groups. retained from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No . 11 ...... 22

Table 8. The 20 most common species. or species groups. discarded from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No . 11 ...... 23 Table 9. The 20 most common species retained by the vessel. as officially reported by the vessel's company during Data Collector Cruise No . 11 ..... 24 Table 10. Catch Report from Data Collector Cruise No . 12 ...... 28 Table 11. The 20 most common species. or species groups. retained from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No . 12 ...... 29 Table 12. The 20 most common species. or species groups. discarded from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No . 12 ...... 30 Table 13. The 20 most common species retained by the vessel. as officially reported by the vessel's company during Data Collector Cruise No . 12 ..... 31 Table 14. Catch Report from Data Collector Cruise No . 13 ...... 35 Table 15. The 20 most common species. or species groups. retained from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No . 13 ...... 36 Table 16 . The 20 most common species. or species groups. discarded from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No . 13 ...... 37 Table 17 . The 20 most common species retained by the vessel. as officially reported by the vessel's company during Data Collector Cruise No . 13 ..... 38 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Legal fishing zone and statistical regions for the demersal trawl fishery. . . . . 9

Figure 2. Distribution of catch (retained amount only) by vessels carrying Data Col- lectors, 4 November - 31 December, 1989 (DC Program Cruises 11-15) . . . . 10

Figure 3. DC Program estimates of retained catch composition and vessel reporteddata ...... 11

Figure 4. Composition of discarded portion of the catch ...... 12

Figure 5. Average catch rates (in kg per trawling hour) aboard vessels carrying Data Collectors ...... 13

Figure 6. Total vessel catch (retained and discarded) by area, Sum Bong 501, 2 October - 14 November, 1989 (DC Program Cruise 11) ...... 19

Figure 7. Total catch utilization and species composition of the retained and discarded portious of the catch, Sum Bong 501,2 October - 14 November, 1989 ...... 20

Figure 8. Total vessel catch (retained and discarded) by area, Sea Queen 2, 14 October - 18 November, 1989 (DC Program Cruise 12) ...... 26

Figure 9. Total catch utilization and species composition of the retained and discarded portious of the catch, Sea Queen 2, 14 October - 18 November . . . 27

Figure 10. Total vessel catch (retained and discarded) by area, Sea Queen 1, 10 November - 26 November, 1989 (DC Program Cruise 13) ...... 33

Figure 11. Total catch utilization and species composition of the retained and discarded portions of the catch, Sea Queen 1, 10 November - 26 November, 1989 . . . . . 34

Figure 12. Total vessel catch (retained and discarded) by area, Aurola 7, 19 December - 31 December, 1989 (DC Program Cruise 14) ...... 40

Figure 13. Total catch utilization and species composition of the retained and discarded portious of the catch, Aurola 7, 19 December - 31 December, 1989 ...... 41

Figure 14. Total vessel catch (retained and discarded) by area, Sea Queen I, 28 December - 31 December, 1989 (DC Program Cruise 15) ...... 47

Figure 15. Total catch utilization and species composition of the retained and discarded portions of the catch, Sea Queen I, 28 December - 31 December, 1989 . . . . . 48 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ...... 1

Introduction ...... 2

TheFishery ...... 3

Results ...... 4

Discussion ...... 7

INDIVIDUAL CRUISE RESULTS

CRUISENO.ll ...... 18

Generalcomments ...... 18

CRUISEN0.12 ...... 25

Generalcomments ...... 25

CRUISEN0.13 ...... 32

Generalcomments ...... 32

CRUISEN0.14 ...... 39

GeneralComments ...... 39

CRUISEN0.15 ...... 46

Generalcomments ...... 46

Literature Cited ...... 53 Appendix Ill-,M6 Uemersal Finfish find Report

Sultanate of Oman

Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Directorate General of Fisheries Marine Science and Fisheries Center

Oman Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 90-1 Preliminary Results from Biological Sampling Aboard Demersal Trawlers Operating off the Coast of Oman: On Board Data Collection Program Cruises 11-15

April 1990

Steven R. Hare

Demersal Finfish Biologist

P.O. Box 467 Muscat LITERATURE CITED

Hare, S.R. 1989a. Sampling Manual for Data Collectors Aboard Foreign Fishing Vessels. Oman Marine Science and Fisheries Center, Special Report No. 1. April 1989. 93 pp.

Moussalli, E. and M. Bouhlel. 1989. Fisheries Statistics. 1988 Annual Report. Resource Development Associates Contribution # 89/2. Department of Statistics and Data Processing, Directorate General of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Sultanate of Oman.

Stromme, T. 1986. Pelagic and Demersal Fish Resources of Oman - Results of the R/V Dr. Fridtjof Nansen Surveys in Oman 1983-84. UNDPFAO Programme GLOi82i001. Institute of Marine Research, Bergen. 123 pp.

Retained Catch Quantites Reported by Vessel, Cruise No. 10

"Korean code" Common name s pharaoh cuttlefish H (spangled) emperors

Dl santer seabream

D3 king soldierbream

KF pufferfishes

K2 meagres (Arsyrosomus genus)

K3 tigertooth croaker

M sweetlips

w largehead hairtail

D bluespotted jobfish

D2 soldierbream

E groupers (Epinephelus genus)

Gl (goldlined) seabreams

J Japanese threadfin bream

v Indian spiny turbot

L squid (Loligo genus)

P Arabian pandora

Bl mullets

TOTAL

Table 23. The 20 most common species retained by the vessel, as officially reported by the vessel's company, during Data Collector Cruise No. 10.

' This is the percent by weight this species contributed to the vessel's retained catch only, since commercial vessels do not report their discard. Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89-6

Species Discarded from Catch, Cruise No. 10 KG Per -No. Scientific name Common name Number Percent' -hour

1 Saurida spp. lizudfishes 53,083 8.70 97.4

2 Diodontidae spp. porcupinefishes 399,619 7.30 81.7

3 Balistidae spp. triggerfishes 169,477 6.73 75.4

4 Aks thalassinus giant catfish 23,533 3.85 43.1

5 unsampled/unidentified unsampled/unidentified -*- 3.30 37.0

6 Carangoides chrysophrys iongnose trevally 7,168 3.04 34.0

7 Torpedinidae spp. electric rays 3,912 1.43 16.0

8 Dasyatidae spp. stingrays 698 1.33 14.9

9 Scolopsis taeniaais banded monocle bream 14,544 1.12 12.6

10 Diagramma picturn painted sweetlips 2,077 0.83 9.3

11 Gnathonodon speciosus golden trevally 617 0.76 8.5

12 Siganus spp. rabbitfishes 6,553 0.69 7.7

13 Rhinobatus spp. guitarfishes 2,472 0.68 7.6

14 turtles, unidentified turtles, unidentified 28 0.65 7.3

15 Drepane spp. sicklefishes 1,262 0.54 6.1

16 Lethrimis nebulosus spangled emperor 3,841 0.53 5.9

17 Acanthopagrus bifasciatus twobar seabream 2,308 0.48 5.4

18 Sphyraena spp. barracudas 1,428 0.39 4.4

19 Alectis ciliaris African pompano 395 0.38 4.2

20 Other discarded spp. miscellaneous --* 5.63 62.8 ------TOTAL

Table 22. The 20 most common species, or species groups, discarded from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 10.

This is the percent by weight this species contributed to the vessel's catch (is., retained and discarded catch combined). Species Retained from Catch, Cruise No. 10 KG Per N* N* Scientific name Common name Number Percent' -hour

1 Sepia pharaonis pharaoh cuttlefish 21.62 242.0

2 Lethrinus nebulosus spangled emperor 9.07 101.6

3 Cheimerius nufur santer seabream 5.33 59.6

4 Lagocephulus spp. pufferfishes 2.47 27.6

5 Argyrops spinifer king soldierbream 2.16 24.2

6 Argyrops filamentosus soldierbream 1.54 17.2

7 unsampled/unidentified unsampled/unidentified 1.18 13.2

8 Diayummu pictum painted sweetlips 0.88 9.8

9 Argvrosomus heinii Arabian sea meagre 0.86 9.6

10 Epinephelus chloroshgma brownspotted grouper 0.67 7.5

11 Argvrosomus hololepidoms southern meagre 0.62 6.9

12 Pugellus affinis Arabian pandora 0.62 6.9

13 Carangoides chrysophrys longnose trevally 0.60 6.7

14 Pristipomoides filamentosus bluespotted jobfish 0.58 6.5

15 Nemipterus japonicus Japanese threadfin bream 0.54 6.0

16 Trichiums lepturus largehead hairtail 0.46 5.2

17 Psettodes erumei Indian spiny turbot 0.46 5.1

18 Lethrinus lentjan redspot emperor 0.36 4.0

19 Acanthopagrus berda picnic seabream 0.23 2.5

20 Other retained spp. miscellaneous 1.39 15.8 ------.------TOTAL 577.9

Table 21. The 20 most common species, or species groups, retained from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 10.

This is the percent by weight this species contributed to the vessel's catch (i.e.: retained and discarded catch combined).

45 Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 89-6

CATCH REPORT VESSEL: Sea Queen 1 Data Collector Cruise No. 10

Fishing Dates: 22 September - 3 November, 1989

AREAS FISHED:

CATCH (in MT) Reeion Name Region No. &I& Retained Total

Ras Qarwaw 754 2 0.00 0.00

Jazir/Al Quwayrah 758 2 0.00 0.00

Ras Madrakah (near) 761 294 144.88 267.79

Ras Madrakah (far) 762 22 6.52 19.91

Ras ad Duqm (near) 763 83 39.29 75.45

Ras ad Duqm 764 9 2.17 7.46

Masirah (south) 768 9 7.03 15.24

Masirah (north) 770 11 6.68 14.20

GENERAL INFORMATION:

Total Vessel Catch (MT): 400.05 Total Retained Catch (MT): 206.57 Percent Retained: 51.64 Total Discarded Catch (MT): 193.48 Percent Discarded: 48.36

Total No. of Fishing Days: 43 Total No. of Fishing Hauls: 432 Total No. of Fishing Hours: 357.45

Average Fishing Time per Day (hrs): 8.3 1 Average Duration per Haul (hrs): 0.83

CATCH RATES:

MT per day MT per haul MT per hour

Total Catch 9.303 0.926 1.119

Retained Catch 4.804 0.478 0.578

Discarded Catch 4.500 0.448 0.541

Table 20. Catch Report from Data Collector Cruise No. 10. Fishing Location: Ras Qarwaw to Masirah Island Distribution of Retained Species

CATCH UTILIZATION

Retained 206

Distribution of Discarded Species

catch

Figure 15. Total catch utilization and species composition of the retained and discarded portions of the catch, Sea Queen No. 1, 22 September - 3 November, 1989. Marine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 90-1

CATCH REPORT

VESSEL: Aurola 7 Data Collector Cruise No. 14

Fishing Dates: 19 December - 31 December, 1989

AREAS FISHED:

CATCH (in MT) Reeion Name Region No. Retained -Total

Ras Sawqirah (tar) 755 -33 23.20 50.78

Ras ad Duqm 764 -18 52.26 112.71 Masirah (northeast) 771 -36 102.38 112.61

GENERAL INFORMATION:

Total Vessel Catch (MT): 276.10 Total Retained Catch (MT): 177.83 Percent Retained: 64.40 Total Discarded Catch (MT): 98.27 Percent Discarded: 35.60

Total No. of Fishing Days: 13 Total No. of Fishing Hauls: 87 Total No. of Fishing Hours: 116.92

Average Fishing Time per Day (hrs): 8.99 Average Duration per Haul (hrs): 1.34

CATCH RATES:

MT per day MT per haul MT per hour

Total Catch 21.238 3.174 2.362

Retained Catch 13.679 2.044 1.521

Discarded Catch 7.559 1.130 0.841

Table 18. Catch Report from Data Collector Cruise No. 14. Species Retained from Catch, Cruise No. 14 KG Per -No. Scientific name Common name Number -hour

Trichiunts lepturus largehead hairtail 1247.1

Argyrops spinifer king soldierbream 42.3

Cheirnerius nufar santer seabream 40.6

Epinephelus diacanthus thornycheek grouper 30.9

Carangoides malabaricus Malabar trevaliy 27.4

Netniptents japonicus Japanese threadfin bream 25.6

Argyrops filamentosus soldier bream 24.5

Carangoides chtysophrys longnose trevally 15.3

Lethrinus nebulosus spangled emperor 9.5

Umbrina ronchus fusca croaker 9.0

Arsyrosomus spp. meagres 7.4

Gnathanodon speciosus golden trevally 7.3

Pagellus affinis Arabian pandora 6.7

Lagocephalus spp. pufferfish 6.4

Gemsfilamentosus whipfin silver-biddy 5.6

Plectorhinchus pictus trout sweetlips 3.5

Epinephelus latifasciatus banded grouper 2.0

Seriola rivoliana Almaco jack 1.9

Pomadasys argenteus silver grunt 1.7

Other retained spp, miscellaneous 6.3 - -- * - - - TOTAL 1,521.0

Table 19. The 20 most common species, or species groups, retained from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 14.

' This is the percent by weight this species contributed to the vessel's catch (i.e., retained and discarded catch combined). MineScience 2nd Fisheries Center Research Brief 90-1

Species Discarded from Catch, Cruise No. 14

-No. Scientific name Common name Number

1 unsampledfunidentifsed unsampledfunidentified ---

2 sharks, unidentified sharks, unidentified 6,691

3 Sphyraena spp. barracudas 9,123

4 Rhinobatus spp. guitarfishes 1,953

5 Diodontidae spp. porcupinefishes 18,423

6 Saurida undosquamis brushtooth lizardfish 7,313

7 Arias lhalassinus giant catfish 563

8 Cookeolus hoops blackfin hullseye 909

9 Trachurus indicus Arabian scad 8,378

10 Seriolina nigrofasciata blackbanded trevally 221

11 Plerygomgla guezei Mauritius gurnard 4,552

12 Scolopsis vosmeri whitecheek monocle 880

13 Torpedinidae spp. electric rays 289

14 Pseudorhombus arsius largetooth flounder 490

15 Uranoscopus spp. stargazers 271

16 Sphyma spp. hammerhead shark 3

17 Trichiurus lepturus largehead hairtail 146

18 Loligo spp. squids 604

19 Sarda orientalis striped bonito 8

20 Other discarded spp. misceElaneous ------TOTAL

Table 20. The 20 most common species, or species groups, discarded from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 14.

' This is the percent by weight this species contrihtcd to the vessel's catch (i.e., retained and discarded catch combined).

44 L LLmu rm Lenier Kesearcti tinet w 1

Retained Catch Quantities Reported by Vessel, Cruise No. 14

"Korean code" Common name w largehead hairtail

Dl santer seabream

E groupers (Epinephelus genus)

Cl golden trevally

D3 king soldierbream

J Japanese threadfin bream

P Arabian pandora

D2 soldierbream

H (spangled) emperors

K2 meagres (Aroyrosomus genus)

K3 meagre

KF pufferfishes

GR silver-biddy

B barracudas

NG (silver) grunts c (large) trevallies

01 goldlined seabream

C2 blackbanded trevally

D jobfish

-- Other retained spp.

TOTAL

Table 21. The 20 most common species retained by the vessel, as officially reported by the vessel's company, during Data Collector Cruise No. 14.

This is the percent by weight this species contributed to the vessel's retained catch only, since commercial vessels do not report their discard. Marine Science ;md Fisheries Center Research Huef 90-1

GENERAL COMMENTS. Cruise No. 15

The Data Collectors on this Cruise were Khalifa Al-Kalbani and Mohammed Al-Belushi. This voyage aboard the Sea Queen 1 was divided into two Cruises, Nos. 15 and 17 because the time period crossed the end of the year. Cruise 15 represents only 2 days of fishing, therefore most of the comments concerning this voyage will be included with the General Comments for Cruise No. 17. All fishing during the two days occurred northeast of Masirah Island (Figure 14). The Data Collectors sampled just one of the 18 hauls retrieved during this Cruise. It is, therefore, reasonable that vessel and Data Collector data do not match, since catch variability is the rule, not the exception, in this fishery. It was deemed necessary to separate and retain this Cruise's data in order to complete the 1989 DC Program database.

Total catch during the two days of fishing was 41.22 mt, of which only 9.22 mt (22.37%) was retained (Figure 15). Vessel fishing effort totaled 16.18 hours for average catch rates of 2.547 mthour total and 0.570 mthour retained catch (Table 22). Only one night haul was made, resulting in a total catch of 0.62 mt.

Only two retained species occurred in the single sampled haul (Table 23), Trichiurus lepturus (largehead hairtail) and Pseudorhombus arsius (largetooth flounder). Extrapolated to the total catch, hairtail accounted for 13.76% (5.676 mt) and flounder 8.61% (3.544 mt). At least 14 species (Table 24) made up the discarded catch. Grunts totalled 19.701 mt of the 32.000 mt discard, followed by lizardfish (7.962 mt) and trevallies (1.251 mt).

No turtles were captured during this cruise.

The vessel catch differs somewhat from the DC data (Table 25), possibly for the reasons listed above. The amount of catch is so small, however, as to be insignificant in terms of a normal cruise. The vessel reported a hairtail catch of 6.768 mt, with the remainder divided among 9 species groups. No flounder is listed among the retained vessel catch. This is due to the fact that the vessel crew often save flounder for personal consumption. The DC Program records all fish catch, regardless of the ultimate destination (e.g., export, discard, scientific study, etc.). Figure 15. Total vessel catch (retained and discarded) by area, Sea Queen 1, 28 December - 31 December, 1989 (DC Program Cruise 15).

CATCH REPORT

VESSEL: Sea Queen 1 Data Collector Cruise No. -15

Fishing Dates: 30 December - 31 December, 1989

AREAS FISHED:

CATCH (in MT) Region Name Region No. Retained -Total

Masirah (northeast) 771 -18 9.22 41.22

GENERAL INFORMATION:

Total Vessel Catch (MT): 41.22 Total Retained Catch (MT): 9.22 Percent Retained: 22.37 Total Discarded Catch (MT): 32.00 Percent Discarded: 77.63

Total No. of Fishing Days: 2 Total No. of Fishing Hauls: 18 Total No. of Fishing Hours: 16.18

Average Fishing Time per Day (hrs): 8.09 Average Duration per Haul (hrs): 0.89

CATCH RATES:

MT per day MT per haul MT per hour

Total Catch 20.610 2.290 2.547

Retained Catch 4.610 0.512 0.570

Discarded Catch 16.000 1.778 1.977

Table 22. Catch Report from Data Collector Cruise No. 15.

49 Nhrine Science and Fisheries Center Research Brief 90-1

Species Retained from Catch, Cruise No. 15

(MT) per -No. Scientific name Common name Number l'ercentl

1 Trichiurus lepturus largehead hairtail 7,007 5.676 13.76 350.4

2 Pseudorhombus arsius largetooth flounder 14,199 3.544 8.61 219.0

Table 23. The 20 most common species, or species groups, retained from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 15.

This is the percent by weight this species contributed to the vessel's & catch (i.e., retained and discarded catch combined).

50 Species Discarded from Catch, Cruise No. 15. KG Per -No. Scientific name Common name Number -hour

1 Pomadasys stridens striped piggy 1213.3

2 Saurida tumbil greater lizardfish 492.0

3 Carangoides chrysophrys longnose trevally 46.7

4 Arias thalassinus giant catfish 44.0

5 Sphyraena spp. barracuda 36.0

6 Pterysomgla guezei Mauritius gurnard 33.3

7 Gerres filamentosus vthipfin silver-biddy 25.3

8 Decaptems russelli Indian scad 25.3

9 Nemipterus japonicus Japanese threadfin bream 22.7

10 Uranoscopus spp. stargazers 10.7

11 Ariomma indica Indian ariomma 10.7

12 Sharks sharks, unidentified 8.0

13 Uraspis secunda cottonmouth jack 5.3

14 Pomadasys argenteus silver grunt 4.0

TOTAL

Table 24. The 20 most common species, or species groups, discarded from the catch during Data Collector Cruise No. 15.

' This is the percent by weight this species contributed to the vesselk & catch (i.e., retained and discarded catch combined).

5 1 Marine Science ;ind 17isI-;eries Ccnlrr Research Brief 90-1

Retained Catch Quantities Reported by Vessel, Cruise No. 15.

"Korean code" Common name

w largehead hairtail

P Arabian pandora

K3 meagres

D3 king soldierbream

KF pufferfishes

K2 meagres (Arvyrosomus genus)

Dl santer seabream

J Japanese threadfin bream

NO (silver) grunts

E groupers (Epinephelus genus)

TOTAL

Table 25. The 20 most common species retained by the vessel, as officially reported by the vessel's company, during Data Collector Cruise No. 15.

' This is the percent by weight this species contributed to the vessel's retained catch only, since commercial vessels do not report their discard. LITERATURE CITED

Hare, S.R. 1989a. Sampling Manual for Data Collectors Aboard Foreign Fishing Vessels. Oman Marine Science and Fisheries Center, Special Report No. 1. April 1989. 93 pp.

Hare, S.R. 1989c. Preliminary Results from Biological Sampling Aboard Demersal Trawlers Operating off the Coast of Oman. [In] Papers Presnted by MSFC Staff at the International Symposium on, Agriculture and Fisheries. MSFC Special Report 89-2. October, 1989

Hare, S.R. 1990. Sampling Manual for Data Collectors Aboard Demersal Trawlers. Oman Marine Science and Fisheries Center, Special Report No. 1 - 1st Revision. 96 pp.

Ross, J.P. and M.A. Barwani. 1979. Review of Sea Turtles in the Arabian Area. In Bjorndal, K.A. [Ed.], Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles

Sultanate of Oman Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Directorate General of Fisheries Marine Science and Fisheries Center

Oman Marine Science and Fisheries Center Special Report No. 3

A Report on the Sampling and Living Conditions Aboard the Demersai Trawlers Operating off the Coast of Oman

April 1990

Michael S. Trianni

Consultant to the MSFC Demersal Finfish Section

P.O. Box 467 Muscat TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Introduction ...... 1

Methods ...... 1

Executive Summary ...... 1

INDIVIDUAL VESSEL REPORTS

PEONIANO.l ...... 3

FactoryDiagram ...... 3 Movement of Fish from Landing to Freezer ...... 4 SamplingoftheCatch ...... 6 Impressions of the Vessel ...... 8

FactoryDiagram ...... 9 Movement of Fish from Landing to Freezer ...... 10 Sampling of the Catch ...... 12 Impressions of the Vessel ...... 14

Factory Diagram ...... 15 Movement of Fish from Landing to Freezer ...... 16 SamplingoftheCatch ...... 18 Impressions of the Vessel ...... 20 .

SEAQUEEN 1 ...... 21

FactoryDiagram ...... 21 Movement of Fish from Landing to Freezer ...... 22 Sampling of the Catch ...... 24 Impressions of the Vessel ...... 26

FactoryDiagram ...... 27 Movement of Fish from Landing to Freezer ...... 28 SamplingoftheCatch ...... 30 Impressions of the Vessel ...... 32

OMANSEAONE ...... 33 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of my consultancy was to visit the demersal trawlers actively fishing in the Oman Exclusive Economic Zone, and to complete for each a Vessel Report as outlined by the Demersal Finfish Senior Scientist. I was also to work with any Omani Data Collectors present on the vessels I was to visit. The objective of the latter aspect was to act as a cross check to verify that the methods employed by the Data Collectors were consistent with the training they had received, and with the guidelines documented in the Sampling Manual for Data Collectors Aboard Demersal Trawlers.

METHODS

Prior to departing for sea, fifteen days were spent working with the Senior Scientist becoming acclimated to the organization of the Data Collection Program and acquiring a sense for the logistical and management components involved in its operation. During this period familiarity with the background, duties and accomplishments of the Data Collectors was acquired. I went to sea on a vessel departing for the fishing grounds, bringing along the essential sampling gear, data forms and notebook to perform the duties of a Data Collector. In instances where Data Collectors were working on a vessel, I participated in their daily sampling routines. Three to five days were spent on each vessel, gathering information relevant to the completion of the vessel report. Vessels fishing together in the same area were sampled first. decreasing the necessity of ordering vessels to steam long distances to transfer me. Upon completion of visitation of the vessels I returned to the Marine Science and Fisheries Center (MSFC) for two weeks to transfer the vessel reports into computer files for final editing and format structure.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

To become acquainted with the industry, we visited three vessels in port and met with the managers of two of the three fishing companies operating demersal trawlers in Oman. While at the MSFC, I was able to observe the interactions between the Senior Scientist and the Data Collectors on a daily basis. Later, I interacted with them myself while procuring items and completing tasks relevant to the functioning of the Data Collection Program. I also observed the placement of Data Collectors on vessels and their removal. I was able to view the debriefing process, listen to any problems which occurred on the cruise and how they were subsequently handled. I also viewed the Data Collectors checking and editing raw field data and entering this data into appropriate computer files. I participated in the compilation of six vessel reports, which were further assembled and analyzed by the Senior Scientist for his quarterly reports. Originally I was scheduled to depart on the 19th of March aboard the Kum Bong 501, a Korea Overseas Fishing Company (KOFC) vessel, which had arrived in port on the 17th. The vessel encountered delays due to product packaging complications encountered while unloading their product. At this point, the Section Head and I became concerned about the time frame within which the completion of this project was restricted by. We understood that if I weren't able to depart before the last week in March that completion of the project was in jeopardy. On the 22nd of March my departure was hastily arranged with the Oman Fishing Company (OFC). Their vessel, the Sea Queen 1, was steaming from drydock in Ajman, UAE with plans to stop outside Mina Qaboos only to have their nets inspected by representatives from the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. We took advantage of this opportunity and 1 transferred to the Sea Queen 1 late that morning accompanied by the Senior Scientist, the OFC manager and Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries representatives. The second facet of my consultancy was begun. The primary objective was to visit all the trawlers and for each prepare a vessel report, Marine Science and Fisheries Center Special Repon Vo 7

as previously mentioned. As a result of logistical difficulties, only six of the eight trawlers were visited. Two of the KOFC vessels, the Kum Bong '503 and the Kum Bong 505, had arrangements to go into drydock in the UAE at Ajman shortly after I departed for sea. This was revealed to the Senior Scientist and myself while discussing the complications encountered by the Kum Bong 501 with the vessels captain. This was a fact we became resigned to, though an introductory meeting and subsequent contact with the manager of the company did not reveal this seemingly predetermined fact. Therefore, this resulted in missing these two vessels. On two of the vessels, Data Collectors were encountered. These were the Peonia No. 1 and the Aurola 7, their respective companies being Gulf of Oman Fisheries, Inc. (GOOFI) and KOFC. The first vessel visited was the Peonia No. 1, where I became impressed with the number of hauls per day the Data Collectors were sampling, the ratio being fifty percent of up to twelve hauls per day. I did not expect this, and was pleased by their consistency. They are considered by the Senior Scientist to be the top two samplers. When I visited the Data Collectors on the Aurola 7 the Islamic Holy Month of Ramadan had already begun, meaning that they would be fasting during the daylight hours. The Data Collectors were sampling two to three hauls per day, which was not impressive. Normally, they said, three to four hauls would be sampled, but during Ramadan this was difficult to do. The Senior Scientist confirmed this upon my return. Both sets of Data Collectors impressed me with their competent knowledge and pronunciation of the scientific names of the fish species they were working with. The list of fish present on the fishing grounds and which have been sighted exceeds three hundred. They demonstrated a sound understanding of the characteristics used to distinguish similar species of fish, openly discussing problematic identifications until an agreement was reached at what level (Family, Genus, Species) classification should be made. The Data Collectors were averse to using the five and two kilogram spring scales to weigh species of fish in which only one individual was collected during species composition sampling. Instead the fifty kilogram scale was preferred. On both vessels we practiced weighing individual fish by both methods and comparing the difference. When performing length-weight collections they used the smaller scales, though on both vessels this sampling took place after I found them not using the smaller scales during species composition sampling. The remainder of their sampling duties: length frequency sampling, product recovery rates and unit weight testing were completed appropriately. Overall, they performed all their sampling duties well and completed the associated paperwork after each haul or at the end of the day. I feel that they should spend more time on the bridge to enhance communications with the officers and to check that their trawl data forms are being filled out properly. From my observations I feel that the work the Data Collectors are doing is at an adequate level of precision and exceeds what should be expected considering their educational backgrounds (high school equivalency) and the fact that the majority of them had no previous at sea experience. They are consistent, methodical workers who like to sample. These perceptions are underlined by the fact that all 10 of the original class of Data Collectors are still working in the program after sixteen months, with none displaying any intentions of quitting. This is perhaps the most surprising element when compared with the high rates of attrition inherent in similar at sea sampling programs in the United States. I believe this latter element is in part due to the sampling scheme developed by the Senior Scientist. This scheme allows the presence of two Data Collectors on each cruise, a different combination subsequently, which establishes immediate support at sea, and has the effect of providing a cross check to insure that each Data Collector is performing adequately. The scheme allows for the Data Collector to spend as much time on land as on sea by a month onlmonth off sequence. This also provides for personal planning. While on land and at the MSFC they partake in a variety of activities which diversifies their training, most importantly the use of computers. It is my feeling that the Data Collectors are ready to expand upon the complexity of data they are recording, perhaps beginning to collect otoliths and scales and to sex fish. The following are reports compiled from my observations and sampling aboard the vessels visited. VESSEL REPORT

Vessel Dates on Board

PEONIA NO. 1 23 March to 27 March 1990

Scale Diagram of Factory, including bin lcm=&

FORWARDS

. items

Bin fan

~ubtiettires

STERNWARDS Marme Science and Fisheries Center Special Report No. 3

MOVEMENT OF FISH FROM LANDING TO FREEZER

1. Briefly describe hauling and emptying of the net.

The bridge notifies the deck crew and reduces vessel speed as net retrieval commences. Each trawl winch is operated by a worker on a small winch deck located above the work deck and directly astern of and below the pilot house. As the trawl doors surface each door is secured to the vessel and disconnected from the trawl cable by two workers. When the net balloons and wings come aboard and are pulled up to the winches two more workers join in, making three per side. The net is then choked off and pulled aboard using a small central winch, operated by one winchman, located between the two main winches. When the codend comes aboard an alarm goes off to notify the factory of the incoming catch. The codend is untied, the hatch is opened, and the codend is then pulled up using a small power block on a central boom, depositing the catch in the bin.

2. Describe the movement of both retained and discarded fish from the bin to the packing tables, including number and location of tables.

As the catch is deposited in the bin, the bin's slope causes the catch to slide forward to the front of the bin. After the codend has been deposited, four to six workers begin sorting out the retained species, tossing them on onto the sort and packing table which stretches along the front of the bin, and continues approximately half way down the port side of the bin. Two large hoses which reach into the back of the bin are turned on, continually moving the catch to the front of the bin. The discards are tossed into the discard chute by hand or basket. When on the sort and packing table, the retained species are further sorted according to size.

3. Describe packing of fish in trays, weighing (if any) and movement of the trays to the blast freezers. Does anyone tally the number and types of trays? What is the capacity of the blast freezers?

Fish are sorted then packed in trays according to species and size. Trays are not weighed. Ten kilograms is the assumed standard for all trays of product, mainly the Japanese threadfin bream and the larger largehead hairtail which have their heads and a portion of the caudal area removed. For largehead hairtail packed whole, the unit weight is assumed to be twelve kilograms. A factory worker tallies the number and type of tray product as the trays leave the factory and enter the flash freezer room on the port conveyor belt. Prior to entering the flash freezer the fish are sprayed with water by an overhanging jet, which is forward of the junction of the starboard to port conveyor belt and the belt leading into the freezer, just before entering the freezer. Blast freezer capacity:

lOke/tray * 4 trayslfreezer shelf * 12 freezer shelveslfreezer section * 8 freezer sections = 3840kg or 3.84 MT Daily capacity 24 MT per vessel specifications. Marine Science and kishenes Center Special Report No. 3

4. Describe movement of trays from blast freezer to holds. How long in the blast freezer? Which holds are filled first? How many tons does each hold hold?

The product stays in the blast freezer for four hours, after which the trays are loaded onto a conveyor belt leading from the blast freezer to the starboard conveyor belt which leads into the packaging room. Prior to entering the packaging room the trays are sprayed with warm water by an overhead jet on the conveyor belt, which melts the icing and loosens the product. Upon entering the packaging room the product is popped out of the tray, two trays worth placed in a plastic bag, then boxed, strapped, stamped with product identification codes, and stacked in preparation to be loaded into the holds. The number three hold, located in the freezer room, is filled first. The first hold is filled next. This hold is located forward of the second hold under crew quarters. This hold can only be entered through the second hold, which is located and entered in the packaging room. The second hold is filled last. The vessel capacity is roughly 660 tons. The vessel could hold more, though fuel capacity limits the duration of a cruise (vessel specifications read 1558.23 m3 volume capacity of holds. Marine Science and Fisheries Ceiiler Special Report No 7

SAMPLING OF THE CATCH

1. Is there a means for making a Data Collector estimate, either by bin or codend volume? If so, explain how, otherwise explain why not.

It is not possible to estimate either the codcnd or to obtain a bin estimate. The hauls are not large enough to adequately fill a codend and thus make an estimate. The bin frequently contains more than one haul, up to three, with the catch aggregating into a high mound often reaching the ceiling. The bin floor is never covered due to the mounding of the fish and/or the size of the bin. The bin floor is also sloped. Under these circumstances an estimate is not recommended.

2. Where should the sampling station be located (indicate on map, first page). What are potential problems and the advantages to this locations?

The sampling station is located on the starboard side of the bin and provides more than adequate space to work in. The crew never occupies this area during normal fishing operations. The bin is easily entered through the discard chute opening. The close proximity and easy access necessitates the obtainment of at least five basket samples. The relative location to the discard chute is advantageous in that species not retained by the vessel are easily discarded after processing. The sort and packing table is also close by so that species retained by the vessel are easily dumped. The floor of the sampling station is uneven due to the presence of an inoperative conveyor belt upon which it is necessary to stand while working. Therefore, each step must be calculated. Directly starboard to the sampling station is a large fan which must be turned off while working. There is also a water pipelrelease valve which hangs low over the sampling table upon which head injuries can occur.

3. How and where should the samples for species composition be collected? What potential bias should a Data Collector watch out for?

The method to obtain species composition samples is by shoveling fish into baskets. This method is potentially problematic in that large individual fish cannot be picked up with a shovel and some species, largehead hairtail in particular, are difficult to pick up. Therefore any fish which slide off the shovel should be placed in the basket. Because of the mounding of the catches and presence of more than one haul in the bin, caution must be used in selecting samples. Fish from previous hauls are dry, settled and packed in a mound. As the new haul is deposited, because of the moisture content, it for the most part slides off the drier, previous haul(s) and tends to compile at the forward of the bin. This is the area which the crew sorts and processes first and which is always cleared. Thus due to the size and rapidity of the hauls the fish which are mounded are not processed before the next haul. It should be mentioned that with a different target species (these catches targeted Japanese threadfin bream) of the catch, this mixing may not he a problem. This forward area is where samples should he taken. Concentration on the freshness and pliability of the fish should be practiced. Manne Science and Pishens Cenler Special Report No. 3

4. How should fish for length frequency (and lengthlweight frequency) be collected?

There are a couple ofways this can be accomplished. As the catch is deposited and flows to the forward of the bin, samples can be collected by walking from the starboard to the port, or diagonally through the bin depending upon catch size and/or mounding of the fish, and selecting the necessary number upon encounter. These samples can also be obtained by basket sample, sorting out the necessary number of specimens to collect from. It is very important to obtain these samples in an area where the crew is not sorting the catch to avoid possible bias in size selection.

5. What is the best manner to conduct product recovery and unit weight tests?

Product recovery is accomplished by requesting that a crewman who is actively processing the fish provide his assistance. Since the packing tables border the bin, and the packers face the bin, the fish can be taken to the processor through the bin. This is the easiest method for both crewman and Data Collector. There is not much space between the packing tables and the starboard to port conveyor belt immediately forward. Oftentimes as many as nine packed trays are stacked by each packer atop the conveyor belt, making this route less desirable. In cases where the bin is very full it may be necessary to move along this route. Unit tests are best conducted on the starboard side of the bin. The conveyor belt leading into the freezer room is stacked with product ready to be flash frozen. Also, to the stern of this belt are stacked empty trays. Since the packing table only extends halfway down the starboard bin, there is ample room past this point to conduct tests.

6. Other comments concerning sampling on this vessel

The factory crew is very good at allotting extra baskets, shovels and fish hoes to the Data Collectors. The sampling space is adequate and out of the way of the crew, is well lit and gives the Data Collectors a total view of the factory. The location of the sampling station and its proximity to the packing tables, discard chute, and easy access to the bin make sampling relatively simple. The Data Collectors room is near the packaging room, providing quick access into and out of the factory, and to the stern of the door there is a small area where the Data Collectors can put their boots and work jumpers. This is very convenient in that it provides space to change outside of the factory area without being in someone's way or being cramped. Overall, this is a very good vessel to work on. Marine Science and Fisheries Center Special Repon No 3

IMPRESSIONS OF THE VESSEL

1. Briefly discuss your impressions of the captain and officers, including their attitude towards Omanis, Data Collectors, etc.

For the most part the captain and officers were cordial to me, though the captain did make it difficult for me to get onto his vessel, even though he knew well ahead of time that I was coming. The day after I arrived he again expressed his displeasure at my presence, though that was the end of it. When I asked him general questions about fishing, etc. the captain reacted in a paranoid fashion. When he asked me a question, an answer was always required. The officers are indifferent towards their work. A few told me that instead of going into the army, they had an option to go fishing for five years. They do not seem to like the Data Collectors. Their attitude is the less they interact with them, the better. I saw virtually no interactions between the two groups. On only two occasions did I see a Data Collector in or around the bridge area. Perhaps this is due to the fact that the this was the vessels first trip.

2. Briefly discuss your impressions of the overall attitude aboard the vessel.

The overall attitude is the same, indifference. The work is performed adequately, though not intensively. There does not seem to be a strong comraderie amongst them. They feel they are underpaid.

3. Describe the living conditions on the vessel (room, bath, mess, etc.).

The room is adequate in size, four bunks for two Data Collectors and an inspector (though one was not present during my stay). The room is very dirty and grossly infested with at least two species of cockroach. I spent a couple of nights picking cockroaches off my bunkwall and off myself. Anywhere one looked, cockroaches were there. Rats run rampant along pipes and dart across floors. The food I ate was good. The kitchen and mess are cleaner in general than the rest of the vessel. Toilets did not appear to be cleaned very often. Wash rooms were clean and adequate in size, though there was a lack of warm water.

4. What are the best and worst aspects of this vessel?

Best aspects: The size of the room is a nice escape for the Data Collectors. Wide hallways with relatively high ceilings. Location and size of the sampling station. Easy access to the factory plus the small area outside the room where work clothes can be placed. Worst aspects: The frequency of cockroach and rat sightings. The Data Collector room is very dirty. Lack of consistent warm water. VESSEL REPORT

Vessel Dates on Board

KUM BONG 501 27 March to 29 March, 1990

Scale Diagram of Factory, including bin

FORWARDS

Factory

Conveyor belt to flash freeze Strapping machine

Sampling station

STERNWARDS Marine Science and Fisheries Center Special Report No. 3

MOVEMENT OF FISH FROM LANDING TO FREEZER

1. Briefly describe hauling and emptying of the net.

The deck crew is called to standby as the vessel slows and net retrieval commences. One worker operates the two trawl winches from a small platform above and forward of the winches. As the trawl doors surface, each door is attended to by one worker who secures it to the vessel. Each trawl door is then disconnected from the trawl cable by two workers. When the net balloons and wings come aboard and are pulled up to the winches, the net is then choked off and pulled aboard using a small central winch until the codend comes aboard. Once the codend is aboard, it is connected to a small power block attached to a double boom. The bin door is opened, the codend untied, and lifted slowly depositing the catch below.

2. Describe the movement of both retained and discarded fish from the bin to the packing tables, including number and location of tables.

After the catch has been deposited in the bin, a worker begins to push or shovel the catch onto a conveyor belt which runs alongside the port bin. A water hose, which extends into the back of the bin, is turned on to help move the fish more easily. This conveyor belt connects with a belt which runs along the front of the work area (see schematic), and eventually dumps nonretained fish into the discard chute on the starboard. When the catch begins to move along this discard conveyor belt, the retained fish are picked off by three to five workers and thrown into baskets, or onto the main sorting table just forward of the discard belt. A small conveyor belt branches off from the approximate center of the discard belt. This belt is used when the catch is composed of a high percentage of retained species. There is also a smaller sort table across the factory from the sampling station to which the baskets of fish are brought when hauls are substantial.

3. Describe packing of fish in trays, weighing (if any) and movement of the trays to the blast freezers. Does anyone tally the number and types of trays? What is the capacity of the blast freezers?

Fish are packed into trays on both the large and small sort and pack tables. The number of workers involved varies according to the size of the catch. As many as eight to as few as three pack trays. The trays are packed according to size, with a specific number attempted per tray. When the catch is small and the number of a particular species is low, similar size fish are packed together. Packed trays are stacked near the sternward hold. Trays are not weighed. When the trays are ready to be frozen they are placed on the conveyor belt sternward of the packaging area, which brings them to the port conveyor belt leading into the flash freezer. As the trays move onto this conveyor belt a worker shouts out a product description, which is recorded by the shift leader. Prior to moving into the blast freezer the trays are sprayed with water.

Blast freezer capacity:

lOkg/tray * 8 trays/shelf * 12 shelves/freezer section * 4 freezer sections = 3840kg or 3.84MT Manne Science and tishenes Cenlcr Special Kepn No 3

4. Describe movement of trays from blast freezer to holds. How long in the blast freezer? Which holds are filled first? How many tons does each hold hold?

The frozen trays leave the freezer on the same belt they entered on, passing under a sprinkler above the conveyor belt rollers which melts the frost and loosens the product with a spray of warm water. The trays are then diverted onto a conveyor belt leading into the packaging area. One worker pops the block of product out of the tray, another worker places two blocks in a plastic bag, and another worker boxes the bag. The boxes then move to the strapping machine, are strapped and stamped with a product identification code by one worker, and stacked on the forward holds. Trays stay in the blast freezer for four to five hours. The hold capacities are 90,85, and 75 tons for a total of 250 tons, though the captain said 260 tons was possible. The sternward hold is filled first. MeScience and i-ishenes ('enler Special Report No 3

SAMPLING OF THE CATCH

1. Is there a means for making a Data Collector, either by bin or codend volume? If so, explain how, otherwise explain why not.

The catches were small and did not cover the floor of the bin. The bin is not contained on the forward or port sides. Apparently large catches aren't common. If a catch was large enough to cover the bin floor, it would spill over into one or both of these sections. When catches are relatively large, Nemipterus japonicus for example, mixing of hauls occurs due to the short trawl times. Codend estimates can not be made due to the inadequate size of the catches.

2. Where should the sampling station be located (indicate on map, first page). What are potential problems and the advantages to this locations?

The sampling station, as documented on the scale diagram, is located on the starboard side of the vessel. There is plenty of room to sort and weigh the samples. The height of the sampling bench is perfect for the use of the standing fifty kilogram scale. Another good aspect of the bench is that fish can be sorted without bending over. Workers do not use this area when a Data Collector is present. The discard chute is nearby with unobstructed access. There is also easy access to the main sort and pack table for product recovery and unit weight tests. The disadvantage to this location is the difficulty encountered in retrieving basket samples. It is necessary to climb over a conveyor belt and walk through a "work area" which contains two inoperative processing saws and has a low ceiling perhaps 1.6 meters high, then back again with baskets. This problem is offset by the benefits of the sampling station.

3. How and where should the samples for species composition be collected? What potential bias should a Data Collector watch out for?

Basket samples taken directly from the bin or bin area is the method employed on this vessel. Baskets can be filled in a few ways. Shoveling fish into baskets can easily create bias because large fish of some species, such as rays, sharks, groupers, cannot be picked up with a shovel. Also, some species, such as Trichiums leptums, are difficult to pick up by shovel due to their shape. Concentration is required so as to avoid not collecting them. Pushing a basket into a pile of fish, and then pulling fish into it to fill it using a shovel is acceptable, and maybe better than the shovel method since a more vertical, rather than horizontal sample, is collected. This method takes into account the natural grouping of likes with likes, especially horizontally. The same difficulty, as with the shovel method, arises with large species. Species like Trichiurus are not a problem employing this method. Of course care should be taken to sample randomly. The best method for this vessel is the use of the conveyor belt which runs along the port of the bin. As soon as the catch is deposited in the bin, a worker begins to push the catch onto the conveyor belt. At predetermined increments, a board or shovel can be used to divert portions of the catch into the "work area", where they can then be placed in baskets. Very large individuals will not be placed on the conveyor belt. They will be pulled up through the bin door. These are species which, for the most part, occur in low numbers and should therefore be whole haul sampled. 4. How should fish for length frequency (and lengthlweight frequency) be collected?

The species being sampled should be taken directly off the conveyor belt that runs alongside the port side of the bin. Fish can be taken off the belt from the "work area" prior to the catch moving onto the discard helt where it is sorted. This sampling should be performed at predetermined intervals to eliminate bias. This is the only way these samples should be taken on this vessel.

5. What is the best manner to conduct product recovery and unit weight tests?

Because of the proximity of the sampling station to the main sort and pack table, obtaining product recovery is easily accomplished. All processing is by hand, the saws in the "work area" are inoperative, so assistance from a worker who is actively processing is requested. For unit weight tests the sampling station resides just sternward to an area where empty trays are packed. Just forward of the main sort and pack table is where packed trays are stacked. So testing can be accomplished by moving the fifty kilogram scale closer to these areas.

6. Other comments concerning sampling on this vessel

With a little persistence, and the will of the captain (who ultimately controls the crews behavior), sampling should not be a problem on this vessel. Once a crewmember began to shovel back the sample of fish I had just taken from the conveyor belt. A firm rebuke resolved this problem, which was the only incident encountered during my stay. As mentioned previously, access to the bin is difficult and the most extreme caution possible should be exercised in moving the basket samples. Of course it should always he accomplished by two individuals. The worker in control of the helt should he made aware to turn it off when it has to be crossed. The distance the basket samples have to be carried can be reduced by placing them on the moving discard conveyor belt. There were no difficulties in using vessel baskets, shovels or fish hoes. Marine Science and Fisheries Center SVCI;>! ?ewn ?..I 1

IMPRESSIONS OF THE VESSEL

1. Briefly discuss your impressions of the captain and officers, including their attitude towards Omanis, Data Collectors,etc.

Neither the captain nor the officers showed any animosity toward the Omanis on board. The captain was actually very polite towards them (two inspectors, one trainee). The bridge officers were very wary of me, though tried to be pleasant. They were not easy to get information out of, nor willing to provide it, especially the chief officer and third officer. The captain was very polite and cordial toward me and willingly answered all my questions. He was always nervous when the catch wasn't large, or of the desired composition. I visited this vessel alone.

2. Briefly discuss your impressions of the overall attitude aboard the vessel.

The crew seemed more or less to be waiting for the day their contracts end. They view their work in an ambivalent manner. They do the necessary work but with little animation.

3. Describe the living conditions on the vessel (room, bath, mess, etc.).

The room I stayed in had four bunks, occupied by four men (myself, KOFC trainee, and two crewman, one of which was the third officer, who shared the same bunk). It was small and I had no room for personal belongings outside of my seabag. The bunk was comfortable, but the port winch was no more than four to five meters from my bunk. The vessel made some hauls well past sundown, which made rest difficult. The room was actually outside the main crew quarters. Rats and roaches were not a problem. The bath was small and the freshwater hold seemingly always empty. The toilets were the squat type and generally dirty. The mess was small but usually clean. The food wasn't very good. It was difficult to pick and choose enough to fill up.

4. What are the best and worst aspects of this vessel?

Best aspects: The sampling station had plenty of space to work in, and the location was very good. Worst aspects: Lack of freshwater for drinking and bathing. Room noisy, close to the port winch. Also, no room for personal gear. Food was of a poor quality. VESSEL REPORT

Vessel Dates on Board

AUROLA 7 29 March to 3 April, 1990

Scale Diagram of Factory, including bin

FORWARDS

upetitions STERNWARDS MOVEMENT OF FISH FROM LANDING TO FREEZER

1. Briefly describe hauling and emptying of the net.

As net retrieval begins the deck crew is ordered to standby and the vessel speed is reduced from full to half. One worker operates the two trawl winches which house the trawl cables, from a platform directly forward and above. As the trawl doors surface three workers per door are responsible for securing the doors to the vessel and disconnecting them from the trawl cables. As the net balloons and wings come aboard they are pulled forward to the winches. The net is then choked off and pulled aboard using a small winch located between the two main winches, until the codend comes aboard. When the codend is aboard a cable from a power block in the center of the crosshairs is attached to it. The bin door is opened, the codend untied, then slowly lifted depositing the catch in the bin.

2. Describe the movement of both retained and discarded fish from the bin to the packing tables, including number and location of tables.

After the catch has been deposited in the bin, two large saltwater hoses which reach to the back of the bin are turned on to help move the fish to the forward of the bin. A worker removes the wood boards, two in length and one in height, from forward of the bin. He then climbs inside and begins shoveling, or pushing with a basket, fish towards the forward of the bin and onto the discard conveyor belt. Depending upon the amount of fish, two workers may he involved in this activity. Three to six workers pick retained species off the belt and throw them onto the large sort table directly forward, or into baskets. The belt is started and stopped as necessary. The discarded fish continue on the conveyor belt and exit through the port discard chute.

3. Describe packing of fish in trays, weighing (if any) and movement of the trays to the blast freezers. Does anyone tally the number and types of trays? What is the capacity of the blast freezers?

Four to six workers generally pack fish in trays at the large sort and pack table, which is the only such table. The fish are usually packed by species and size, though on occasions when a particular species or two are in short supply, they are packed with similar species. If this isn't possible they are then packed with fish of comparable size. After a tray has been packed it is weighed on a scale weighted to 14.5kg. If the tray is either too heavy or too light it is adjusted accordingly by the addition or deletion of fish. After the trays have been weighed they are then stacked on the port conveyor belt leading to the flash freezer and the small roller belt located between the weigh scale and the cold room. When the packing is completed the trays are then sent on this conveyor belt to the freezers. On the way to the freezers they are sprayed with water by hose. Sometimes this is before they are sent. The shift leader counts and tallies the trays when the packing and stacking are completed.

Blast freezer capacity: lOkg/tray * 8 trays/shelf * 11 shelves/freezer section * 4 freezer sections = 3520kg = 3.52MT Marine Science and Fisheries Center Swri,il Rcr-mrt No 3

4. Describe movement of trays from hlast freezer to holds. How long in the hlast freezer? Which holds are filled first? How many tons does each hold hold?

When the trays are ready to be taken out of the freezer and the product packaged, a bell is sounded to notify the packaging crew. One worker takes the frozen product out of the freezer, where it stays for four hours, and places it on the freezer conveyor belt which leads onto the starboard conveyor belt. The trays move down this belt and turn off onto a short conveyor belt which leads into the packaging area. Soon after moving onto the packaging belt, the product is loosened by a warm water sprayer above the belt. The product blocks are then popped out of the tray by one worker, another places two blocks in a plastic bag. The bag is then moved along to a worker who boxes the bag, which is then handed over to the worker operating the packaging machine, who straps the box, stamps it with product identification codes, and stacks it near the cold room door. A worker tallies the number of boxes and their content as they are stacked. The only entrance to the holds is in the cold room. When the boxing is completed the cold room is opened and the boxes are placed on the conveyor belt inside, which moves them closer to the hold where they are stacked. The boxes are then dropped into the hold where a line of workers moves them to the designated hold. The holds are filled in the following sequence, one - three - two. Total hold capacity is 550 tons. Manne Science and Fzsherics Center Specie! Report '4-1 ''

SAMPLING OF THE CATCH

1. Is there a means for making a Data Collector estimate, either by bin or codend volume? If so, explain how, otherwise explain why not.

The bin of this vessel is sloped forwards, and rectangular in shape for the most part. It is a large bin and the bottom of the floor is not completely covered due to the sizes of the catch, which usually covers one third to one half of the floor. Therefore a bin estimate is not possible. The codend is never fully expanded due to the small catch sizes associated with this fishery. As the haul comes aboard it flattens out, leaving a pancake configuration of dubious volume. Therefore a codend estimate is not possible.

2. Where should the sampling station be located (indicate on map, first page). What are potential problems and the advantages to this locations?

There is little available space about the bin area for a sampling station of any size. The sort and pack table is very large and covers the majority of the factory's stern area (see scale diagram). The present location of the sampling station is the best that can be expected. It is close to the bin which has the advantage of obtaining basket samples fairly easily and promptly. It is also right next to the discard conveyor belt, making the task of dumping discarded species relatively easy. The sampling station is also right next to the sort and pack table where retained species are easily dumped. The area in which the Data Collectors have to sample is small with no standing table to work on (the sort and pack table does not always have unattended space plus working there would block the main walkway), requiring bending over to sort the sample and read the fifty kilogram scale. It extends onto the regularly used walkway, especially during processing, leading to the bin, sort table, and packaging area. It is right next to the processing saws which tends to inhibit the crew from using them while the Data Collectors are present and, like machinery in general, requires caution when working around it.

3. How and where should the samples for species composition be collected? What potential bias should a Data Collector watch out for?

Because of the diversity of the hauls, whole haul sampling cannot be regularly accomplished. However, because of the sampling station's proximity to the bin, hauls which are very small should be whole haul sampled. The best method is to basket sample for most species, and whole haul sample for large species occurring in very low numbers, such as turtles, rays, sharks etc. Four to five baskets can be taken, the latter with a bit more difficultly due to the small sampling area. After the catch is deposited, little time passes before workers enter the bin, and with the help of two large hoses and a shovel or a basket, begin to push and shove the catch toward the discard belt where it is sorted. It is, therefore, important to realize that fish will slide at different rates because of their external structure and that this must be kept in mind while sampling. Basket sampling can be performed by three methods. Baskets can be filled by shovel though some species, such as Trichiums, are difficult to pick up due to their external morphology, and others because of their size. For shovel sampling, concentration is necessary so as to avoid not sampling them. Aside from shovel sampling, the use of a long fish hoe to pull fish from deep in the bin toward, and into a basket at the front of a bin, is less taxing and avoids bias in species selection and, to a degree, in size selection. A potential problem with this method is the rate at Marine Science and Fisheries Center Special Rqmn No :

which the crew empties the bin, which can be in total conflict with the slow and methodical nature of this mcthod. Another mcthod is to place a basket on its side, push it into a pile of fish filling it halfway, then using a small fish hoe or shovel to pull fish into it until full. This method eliminates bias in species selection and reduces it in size selection. Of the three methods the last one is recommended.

4. How should fish for length frequency (and lengtwweight frequency) be collected?

Fish collected for length frequency or lengthheight frequency should be chosen from the bin either by taking the first individuals encountered when walking a predesignated path through the bin or from basket samples. It is possible that fish can be picked off the conveyor belt as they are pushed or slide onto it, though this will depend upon the number of workers actively sorting at the belt, which positively correlates with catch size. The latter method is desirable, though is only practical on smaller hauls.

5. What is the best manner to conduct product recovery and unit weight tests?

Product recovery is accomplished by employing a worker who is involved in creating the product from which information is sought. Fish are processed by hand or by use of the processing saws. The saws are located virtually in the sampling area, and the table is close by. The fish may have to carried a short distance if the processing is by hand. The standing fifty kilogram scale is very helpful in obtaining unit tests. Packed trays are stacked on the port conveyor belt which leads to the blast freezers and the small roller belt between the factory weigh scale and the cold room. It is therefore necessary to move a little further than the other side of the factory. Empty trays are located close by, between the packaging area and the sortlpack table.

6. Other comments concerning sampling on this vessel

Considering the size of the factory, the area delegated to the Data Collectors is rather small. On the other hand, the design of the factory prohibits its placement elsewhere without sacrificing proximity to the bin, discard belt and sortlpack table, that the present sampling station provides. The closer to these areas the Data Collectors are, the more efficiently their duties can be carried out. The crew does not intentionally interfere with the work of the Data Collectors. Both groups go about their business with little interaction except when either groups work requires it. The crew willingly aided the Data Collectors when requested to do so. Outside of the factory, there was an area where the Data Collectors hung their jumpsuits and put their boots. This provided a good location to change when entering or leaving the factory. Right next to this area was a long sink with numerous freshwater outlets where the Data Collectors washed up after leaving the factory. A highly desirable situation. Overall, the Aurola 7 is a very good vessel to sample on. Marine Science and Fisheries Center Special Rcpr-R No. 3

IMPRESSIONS OF THE VESSEL

1. Briefly discuss your impressions of the captain and officers, including their attitude towards Omanis, Data Collectors, etc.

The captain is a very pleasant individual overall. He is young with modern attitudes and therefore refreshing to talk with. He was polite to me for the most part. Toward the Omanis and Data Collectors he was also polite and proper. He believes he is, and wants to be the best fisherman in the company fleet. A very proud individual. He is a morose and persistent complainer though with regard to what he views as the inadequacy of the size and composition of the catches. Most of the officers are also young and well educated, and are also driven. Toward the Omanis and the Data Collectors they seemed ambivalent. They viewed their presence as a fact of life with which they have to live, and showed little interest in interacting with them.

2. Briefly discuss your impressions of the overall attitude aboard the vessel.

The crew on this vessel did not show displeasure toward the Data Collectors work. There was some animosity toward them, in the way of occasional sneers, though I believe this is directed at the bureaucracy which they feel is inhibiting the quality of the fish they catch and generally making their situation more difficult than it already is. They are more animated than ambivalent. Their work is work, though my impression is that they think they are working for the best vessel.

3. Describe the living conditions on the vessel (room, bath, mess, etc.).

The vessel is very clean, the food good. There is plenty of freshwater with which to bathe, to drink, and to wash clothing. There are two functional small washing machines on the factory level floor. Western style toilets are present and are clean. The Data Collectors eat in the officers' mess after the vessel personnel. One of the cooks prepares a meal especially for them, and also waits on them. The Data Collectors room is located on the same floor as the officers. It is a two bunk room, and adequate with respect to space and the storing of personal belongings. The living conditions on this vessel are excellent.

4. What are the best and worst aspects of this vessel?

Best aspects - Very clean vessel. Very adequate sleeping quarters and general living space. The availability of freshwater for bathing, drinking and washing clothes plus the presence of two washing machines exceed all expectations. Cook prepares good meals and waits attentatively on the Data Collectors.

Worst aspects - The size of the sampling station and its extension onto the main factory walkway. VESSEL REPORT

Vessel Dates on Board

SEA QUEEN 2 3 April to 6 April 1990

Scale Diagram of Factory, including- bin lcm=A

FORWARDS

Factory entrance I

STERNWARDS Marine Science and Fisheries Center Special RC* No 7

MOVEMENT OF FISH FROM LANDING TO FREEZER

1. Briefly describe hauling and emptying of the net

The deck crew is alerted to standby and the vessel slows as net retrieval commences. From a small platform above and forward a worker operates the two trawl winches. As the trawl doors surface, three workers per door are responsible for securing them to the vessel and disconnecting them from the trawl cable. Shortly after the net balloons and wings come aboard and are pulled up to the winches. The net is then choked and pulled by a small central winch located between the two trawl winches and operated by the same winchman. When the codend comes aboard it is connected by cable to a power block located between and connected to two overhead booms. The codend is then untied, the bin door is opened and pulled up depositing the catch below.

2. Describe the movement of both retained and discarded fish from the bin to the packing tables, including number and location of tables.

After the catch is in the bin two large hoses which extend into to the rear of the bin are turned on, causing the fish to slide down toward the front of the bin. At this time, a crewman enters the bin and, using a basket or shovel, facilitates the movement of the fish onto the conveyor belt, where four to six men pick off the retained species and throw them onto the forward sort and pack table, or into a basket. Target species go onto this main table, then into baskets which are taken to the overflow tables on the factory port. Secondary retained species are placed in baskets and processed after the target species. Discarded species are left on the conveyor belt, except catfish, which are taken off on first notice to avoid injury. The conveyor belt is turned on and off as necessary, the discards eventually leaving through the port discard chute.

3. Describe packing of fish in trays, weighing (if any) and movement of the trays to the blast freezers. Does anyone tally the number and types of trays? What is the capacity of the blast freezers?

Fish are primarily packed per species and size, though when the number of a particular species is low they are packed by similarity or size. The number of fish packed in a tray varies according to size. Trays are not weighed. The packed trays are stacked on the first and second of three conveyor belts leading to the flash freezers, and in the empty tray area(see diagram) when the catch is large. The trays are then moved into the freezer along the conveyor belts, with approximately a tray space between trays. One individual is responsible for tallying the number and type of trays as they enter onto the second of the three conveyor belts leading into the freezer.

Blast freezer capacity:

lOkg1tray * 12 trayslshelf * 10 shelveslfreezer section * 4 freezer sections = 4800kg or 4.8MT 4. Describe movement of trays from blast freezer to holds. How long in the blast freezer? Which holds are filled first? How many tons does each hold hold?

One to two workers, depending upon the number of freezer compartments being emptied, place the frozen product on the freezer conveyor belt which exits out onto the factory belts in which the product entered on. The trays move along on this belt until they are diverted onto the conveyor belt leading to the boxing and strapping area. The trays are sprayed by the conveyor belt sprayer with warm water, loosening the product which is then popped out by a worker. The next worker places two trays worth of product in a plastic bag, another worker boxes them and sends them to a worker who straps and stamps them with identification codes, with another worker stacking them on the hold cover. The trays spend 4 1/2 to 5 hours in the blast freezers. The hold in the packaging area is filled first, with another hold located in the freezer. Both holds are unloaded through the hold covers just astern of the flash freezers. A chain of workers loads the final product into the hold. The vessel holds 265 to 275 tons when "W (largehead hairtail) and 5"(pharaoh cuttlefish) comprise the majority of the product and 275 to 285 when J (Japanese threadfin bream) is the target species. SAMPLING OF THE CATCH

1. Is there a means for making a Data Collector estimate, either by bin or codend volume? If so, explain how, otherwise explain why not.

The size of the catches prohibits both a codend or bin estimate. The codend is never fully expanded so that volume cannot he adequately quantified. The bin is never covered and is sloped to such a degree that even distribution of the catch on the bin floor is prevented.

2. Where should the sampling station be located (indicate on map, first page). What are potential problems and the advantages to this locations?

This factory is very small, with the proximal bin area and sort and pack tables always attended by crewmen. As indicated on the scale diagram, the sampling station is located on the starboard side of the factory, making it necessary to climb over two conveyor belts to enter the bin and retrieve basket samples. Despite the difficult locality, this sampling station is near the bin, the main sort and pack table, the discard chute, and it is in an area which crewmen do not frequent. In this area there is also plenty of room to sort the catch, though no tables are present and extended periods bent over place excessive strain on the lower back. To alleviate this, when a basket or two are being sorted it is suggested that they be placed on the nearby conveyor belt, with the sorted fish tossed into an empty basket on the floor (This sorting should be done to the stern of the belt to avoid conflict with workers stacking the packed trays on the belt). The baskets can then be easily weighed with the standing fifty kilogram scale positioned on the floor. Another disadvantage is that baskets of retained fish have to be lifted over the belt to dump them on the main sort and pack table, which requires both Data Collectors and extreme caution.

3. How and where should the samples for species composition be collected? What potential bias should a Data Collector watch out for?

Species composition samples are taken with baskets from the bin, immediately after the catch has been deposited. Samples can be taken by using a shovel, or by pushing a basket sideways on the bin floor into the catch, then by using a fish hoe or shovel pulling fish into the basket to fill the remainder. The first method is less desirable because it prohibits the taking of large species such as some rays, sharks and turtles. It is also difficult to pick up certain species such as the largehead hairtail because of their external morphology. Therefore, when using this method concentration is necessary to avoid not collecting these fish. The second method inhibits the taking of very large fish, though the difficulty of collecting certain species because of their shape is eliminated. Therefore this method is more desirable. These samples can be taken from different areas of the bin or as the fish are flowing toward the conveyor belt. Large or small species evident in low numbers should be whole haul sampled.

4. How should fish for length frequency (and lengtwweight frequency) be collected?

Specimens for these two samples can be taken from the bin by basket samples or by crossing a section of the bin and selecting the first individuals encountered. Specimens can also MiScience and Fisheries Cemcr Special Report No. 3 be taken from the conveyor belt as the fish flow onto it or are pushed onto it. This type of sampling should be performed at predetermined increments to reduce bias, understanding that different sized fish will flow at different rates.

5. What is the best manner to conduct product recovery and unit weight tests?

Product recovery is best accomplished by requesting that an individual creating the product process the sample. This individual can come to the Data Collectors or vice versa, depending upon where the processing is being done. Because of the sampling stations proximity to the conveyor belt where packed trays are stacked from the nearby sort and pack table, the best method to obtain unit weight is to place the standing Fifty kilogram scale on the conveyor belt, select empty trays from the appropriate area, and weigh them. Since the packed trays will be on the conveyor belt, it is merely a matter of moving them from the stack, onto the scale, and back again.

6. Other comments concerning sampling on this vessel

The factory is very small and the location of the sampling station requires movement over two conveyor belts to retrieve basket samples. Also, the bin ceiling is very low which increases the potential for head injuries. Extreme caution and concentration of not only Data Collector but factory worker activity is necessary to diminish the easy possibility of injury in this factory. The factory crew were generally willing to give a helping hand, listened when asked to assist(turn off the conveyor belt or hoses), and because of the sampling station location, were out of the way. A difficult factory to work in, though no problems were encountered. IMPRESSIONS OF THE VESSEL

1. Briefly discuss your impressions of the captain and officers, including their attitude towards Omanis, Data Collectors,etc.

The captain and officers seemed ambivalent towards the Data Collectors. In general, Oman is disliked though on an individual basis it depends upon the person. An Omani OFC trainee was present whom everyone liked very much. The "checkman" is a fact of life to them, no more, no less. The captain and officers on this vessel seemed polite for the most part, I witnessed no negative actions or animosity toward Omanis or myself. The officers were more willing to give information upon request than on other vessels.

2. Briefly discuss your impressions of the overall attitude aboard the vessel.

The crew on this particular vessel were young for the most part, averaging probably twenty five to twenty seven years and their attitude was upbeat. They tended to laugh and joke around more than crews on the other vessels. They are on a very old, dirty vessel, and have adapted to that reality. Overall they were friendly and courteous, and not opposed to interacting with the Omanis.

3. Describe the living conditions on the vessel (room, bath, mess, etc.).

This is one of the dirtiest vessels in the fleet. It is very old and it is obvious that no work in the form of beautification has been put into its interior for a long time. Rats abound though cockroaches, strange as it may seem, are not frequently seen. My room was adequate in size, clean and comfortable. I bunked with the Ministry Inspector. It was the room of the chief officer, who was rooming in the radio operators room, who was not on the vessel. The kitchen and the crew's mess were rather old and dirty. I ate with the Omanis in the officers salon, which was located in the living area and contained comfortable vinyl sofas, a colored television with VHS and Betamax video players plus numerous cassettes. Perhaps the best aspect of this salon and the living area in general is that it is air conditioned. This was a pleasant escape from the humid heat of the factory and the rest of the vessel. The bath was small, though freshwater was available upon request, as it was for drinking. The cooks frequently offered us snacks and sodas.

4. What are the best and worst aspects of this vessel?

Best aspects - Air conditioning in the living quarters and officer salon. The availability of freshwater for both drinking and bathing. The crew was generally young and enjoyable to interact with.

Worst aspects - The vessel is old and very dirty. The factory is very small and difficult to work in. Extreme caution is necessary. Ceilings, doorways, and crossbeams are very low and require attention. VESSEL REPORT

Vessel Dates on Board

SEA QUEEN 1 6 APRIL TO 9 APRIL 1990

Scale Diagram of Factory, including bin

1 cm = 2 meters

FORWARDS

Bin

STERNWARDS Marine Science and Fisheries Center Special Rcprt No 3

MOVEMENT OF FISH FROM LANDING TO FREEZER

1. Briefly describe hauling and emptying of the net.

Vessel speed is reduced and the deck crew is ordered to standby as haul retrieval commences. Two workers operate one trawl winch each. Three workers apiece are responsible for securing the trawl doors onto the vessel and disconnecting them from the trawl cables. As the net balloons and wings come aboard and are pulled up to the winches, one of the winch operators goes down onto the deck to aid in the remainder of net retrieval. The winchman operates the small central winch with which the net is choked off and hauled aboard until the codend comes aboard. When the codend is aboard it is choked off just forward of the catch, and connected by cable to a small power block on the starboard boom, operated by the lone winchman. The rear is then untied, the bin door lowered, and the codend is slowly pulled up depositing the catch in the bin.

2. Describe the movement of both retained and discarded fish from the bin to the packing tables, including number and location of tables.

After the catch has been deposited in the bin a large hose extending into the rear of the rear of the bin is turned on full, facilitating the movement of the fish toward the front of the bin, and onto the port to starboard conveyor belt. At this time a crewman enters the bin and begins to push the fish toward the belt using a shovel or basket. When the fish reach the belt four to six workers pick out the retained species and toss them onto the large sort and pack table forward of the conveyor belt, stopping and starting the belt as necessary, and into baskets if the catch is large. The main table usually sorts and packs the target species according to size. When the catch is large the port and starboard (when the Data Collectors are not sampling) tables are used as well. The discarded species remain on the conveyor belt, eventually exiting out through the starboard discard chute.

3. Describe packing of fish in trays, weighing (if any) and movement of the trays to the blast freezers. Does anyone tally the number and types of trays? What is the capacity of the blast freezers?

Fish are packed by species and size. If the number of individuals within a species is low, they will be packed with similar sized fish. Large individuals of Trkhiurus lepturus are headed while large individuals of Epinephelus sp. are headed and gutted. As many as ten workers are involved in the sorting and packing of fish at the main and port and starboard tables. The trays are not weighed. The packed trays are stacked forward of the main table. The trays are then glazed with water and sent along the port and/or starboard conveyor belt(s), leading to the flash freezers, depending upon which freezer(s) is being filled. The factory manager, or fish master as he is referred to here, tallies the number and type of trays being sent into the freezer room. Freezer capacity: lOkg/tray * 12 traydshelve * 10 shelves/freezer section * 4 freezer sections = 4800kg = 4.8MT Marine Science and Fisherk-s Center Special Rery-n No "i

4. Describe movement of trays from blast freezer to holds. How long in the blast freezer? Which holds are filled first? How many tons does each hold hold?

Empty boxes are removed from the cold storage room located forward of the freezer room, and placed in the area bounded by the conveyor belts. After the trays have been in the freezer for four to five hours, they are taken out and sent along the same conveyor belt(s) they were sent in on. The trays are sprayed with warm water as they pass under a belt sprayer which removes the icing and loosens the product. These belts extend to the boxing and strapping area. As the product reaches this area, it is placed on the rectangular table immediately sternward of the roller belt and strapping machine. Here the product is popped out of its tray and placed on the roller belt where a worker places two blocks of product into a plastic bag. Another worker boxes the product and gives it to a worker who straps it, stamps it with a product identification code, and stacks it in the area where the empty boxes were placed. When the packaging is completed the boxes are placed onto the conveyor belts and sent back into the freezer room where two holds are located, or into the cold storage room. A worker, or workers (depending upon how filled the holds are), gets into the hold and receives the boxes from a chain of two workers, one which takes it off the conveyor belt and one which drops it into the hold. The sternward holds are filled first. Total hold capacity is roughly 260MT. SAMPLING OF THE CATCH

1. Is there a means for making a Data Collector estimate, either by bin or codend volume? If so, explain how, otherwise explain why not.

The amount of fish captured per trawl is of a very low tonnage. This prohibits adequate measures of codend volume. The size of the catches also do not cover the bin floor, at least not during my stay.

2. Where should the sampling station be located (indicate on map, first page). What are potential problems and the advantages to this locations?

The sampling station is located on the starboard side of the factory, just forward of the discard chute. When Data Collectors are not sampling, this area is used for sorting and packing fish. This is a good location. The table is large enough to place the standing fifty kilogram scale on, with sufficient space between it and the ceiling to weigh baskets. In addition two baskets can be placed on the table and still leave nearly one half of the table for the crew's use. The availability of a table to work off of makes the sorting of fish much easier on the lower back as the amount of physical work performed while bent over is reduced. The station is close to the main sort and pack table, the discard chute and the bin. Retrieval of basket samples does not require hauling them a long distance. Discarded species can be easily and quickly dumped. Retained species do not have to be carried far. The one problem with this location is that one of the areas where empty trays are stored is under the sampling table, causing minor disruption from the crew, especially if the catch is large.

3. How and where should the samples for species composition be collected? What potential bias should a Data Collector watch out for?

The retained and discarded species are sorted as soon as they come onto the conveyor belt so it is imperative that species composition basket samples be taken from the bin as soon as the catch is deposited. Baskets can be filled by shovel or by pushing the basket on its side into a pile of Fish, filling it more than hallway, then by using a shovel or fish hoe pulling fish into the basket to complete filling it. The first method prohibits the taking of large individuals and inhibits taking species which are difficult to pick up with a shovel, such as the largehead hairtail. To a degree the second method decreases the difficulty of picking up large individuals or species, and eliminates the second problem with the first method. Since fish are not always evenly distributed the selection of an area of the bin to sample must be random. Sampling of the catch at different intervals as it approaches the conveyor belt is effective. Caution is necessary when moving the baskets in and out of the bin since workers use gaffs to sort out retained species and do not make an effort to be aware of the Data Collectors presence. Marine Science and Fisheries Center Special Repon No, "i

4. How should fish for length frequency (and lengthlweight frequency) be collected?

These samples must be collected prior to the fish reaching the conveyor belt and subsequent crew sorting. The samples also should not be taken from the sort and pack tables. At that point size selection has already occurred. The best method is by taking baskets from the bin and then separating out the species on which length frequency or length weight is to be collected. The two kilogram and five kilogram scale are to used for length weight collection, unless of course an individual exceeds five kilograms.

5. What is the best manner to conduct product recovery and unit weight tests?

Product recovery can be obtained by collecting a sample of the type and size fish which are being processed, weigh them in a basket and take them to an individual who is doing the processing. The circular saw used to remove heads is located between the sampling station and the discard conveyor belt. If processing is being performed this way then the sample does not have to be carried very far. If it is not, then it will be necessary to take the sample to where the processing is being performed, or have the processor come to the sampling station. Packed trays are located forward of the main sort and pack table, and also on the table. Empty trays are located underneath the main sort and pack table, the port sort and pack table and under the sampling station. Because of the proximity of the packed and unpacked trays the best area to conduct unit tests is at the sampling station.

6. Other comments concerning sampling on this vessel

Sampling on this vessel should be easy, but isn't. The crew does not acknowledge the presence of the Data Collectors until baskets need to be removed from the bin or if their assistance is required for product recovery or unit tests, at which time the Data Collectors are viewed as an annoyance. Under the direction of the factory manager, or "fish master" as he is referred to on this vessel, the crew repeatedly (3-4 times during sampling)asks for the retained species of fish from the Data Collectors basket samples. This is very aggravating. At times they were caught in the act of trying to take fish from the basket samples while we weren't looking. The factory manager also requested that the sampling process be hurried up so the crew could process the catch faster. He also suggested, on one occasion, that we sort a particular species for them according to size. These tactics are obvious examples of interference with the duties of the Data Collectors. Fish are gaffed off the conveyor belt and onto the large sort and pack table by two to four workers, who do not make an effort to be aware of the Data Collectors. Caution is advised. When removing baskets from the bin the workers would push or shove them out of their way, unwilling to help out. If they did "help out" they would carelessly move, not quite able to toss, the baskets to the main table causing some spillage. Some "hard" shoulders were brushed on occasion. This is not an easy factory to work in because of its size alone, and when coupled with the interference and carelessness the crew presents it becomes trying. Manx Science and Fisheries Center Speci:i! RCWH No, 3

IMPRESSIONS OF THE VESSEL

1. Briefly discuss your impressions of the captain and officers, including their attitude towards Omanis, Data Collectors, etc.

The captain was very pleasant to both myself and the om an^. at whom 1 saw no instances of animosity towards. He spoke little English so what he thought df them was unknown. The officers who spoke English, especially the Chief Officer, joked often with the Inspector, though was more guarded around the Data Collector and myself. As is the case with the other vessels, the officers seem ambivalent, though reluctant to interact with the Data Collector and myself, and seemed more or less paranoid when we were around. The Factory Manager, as aforementioned, was somewhat of a problem. In one particular instance when the Data Collector and I were measuring the factory with the aid of the Inspector, the Factory Manager made remarks and gestures to the effect that myself and the Omanis partook in rude and indecent sexual acts. We ignored him, though he tried to he "in my face", attempting to make a mockery out of what we were doing by suggesting the measurement of small, obscure objects, and by making gestures suggesting ridicule. This individual obviously thought little of Omanis and Data Collectors.

2. Briefly discuss your impressions of the overall attitude aboard the vessel.

The majority of the crew seemed pleasant for the most part, though some factory workers were difficult at times, some of the behavior which I attribute to the prompting of the Factory Manager. Overall the crews attitude seemed to be one of ambivalence toward their work, for the most part. The older crew members, who were the minority, were much harder workers than the younger crew members.

3. Describe the living conditions on the vessel (room, bath, mess, etc.).

The two man room provided us was very small, perhaps 1.8 meters in length and 1.6 meters in height, with a width of about 1.5 meters. It resembled, and felt like a two man coffin rather than a room. Freshwater for bathing was a rare luxury, though it was always available to drink. The mess is small, though the service is good and well intended. I ate only "Omani food" which was mostly good. The fish or chicken served with meals were so fried that is was difficult to remove from the bone and the fish all tended to taste the same, regardless of the species. The toilets were the squat type and generally were kept fairly clean.

4. What are the best and worst aspects of this vessel?

Best aspects - Location of the sampling station Availability of freshwater for drinking.

Worst aspects - Fish and chicken were not cooked well. The lack of freshwater for bathing. The Factory Manager and some factory workers behavior because of him. The size of the room we slept in. VESSEL REPORT

Vessel Dates on Board

OMAN SEA ONE 9 April to 10 April 1990

The Oman Sea One is the smallest of the stern trawlers actively fishing in Omani waters. Its hold capacity is roughly sixty tons. There is no stern ramp as exists on larger trawlers. Instead there is a roll bar over which the codend passes as it is winched aboard. There is a small stern deck which is combination work deck and factory. It is here that the codend is opened and the catch deposited and sorted since there is no bin. Forward of this area on both the port and starboard are small tables and stacks of empty trays. These trays are used to pack fish in prior to freezing. The packed trays are weighed. The trawl winches are located forward of the sort and pack area, prior to a forward work area. This work area is separated from the work deck by a modest wall. On both the port and starboard is one small freezer where the packed trays are flash frozen. In the forward work area the frozen product is boxed and strapped then lowered into the hold located in this area.

Sampling on this vessel would appear to be somewhat difficult due to its small size. Basket samples for species composition would have to taken out on the stern work deck as the catch is deposited. The method used would have to be filling baskets by shovel. Placing a basket under the codend as it is dumped may be intermittently possible. These baskets are then moved to either the port or starboard. The number of baskets should be kept to a minimum. No matter where the sorting and weighing of the sample takes place, work conditions are bound to cramped. Samples for length frequency and length weight should be taken as those for species composition are. The size of the working areas, coupled with the use of a standing fifty kilogram scale would not make movement to obtain product recovery or unit tests very exhausting. On larger vessels this would he a plus, though on a vessel this size it could be cumbersome. On this vessel care should be taken to perform duties with minimal interference with vessel personnel. Because of the working areas exposure to the elements, if sampling is necessary during rough weather caution must be heeded.

The Captain was cordial to me and seemed like a friendly man though always appeared distracted. The Chief Officer wasn't friendly toward me. He was reluctant to engage in conversation and when we did he was rather gruff about it. The remainder of the officers were courteous. The attitudes of the Koreans, who were the top officers and deck boss, were sullen. When I asked the Captain if he was going to extend his contract after the present one, he replied that he was going directly hack to Korea, that being Captain of this vessel was too difficult. The general attitude of the Koreans on this vessel was that they couldn't wait to get off. Virtually all the Omani crew greeted me upon my arrival and seemed friendly throughout my stay. I did not engage in many conversations with them though we always greeted each other with a hello. Most of the crew seemed young, with the average probably not exceeding twenty three.

The living conditions on this vessel are crowded due to its small size. During my stay aboard this vessel a room was not available for me so it was necessary to sleep on the sofa in the small video area located on the floor below the bridge where the vessels officers resided. The crew, slept in a large room on the floor below the officers. Also located on this floor was the kitchen, officers masfwhere the Koreans ate) and the crews mess. The cook, I believe, was an Indian. Both types of food on the vessel were good. The vessel appeared as though its upkeep had been very inadequate in the past years. It had recently come from drydock where it had received a new painting, so the exterior looked good. Upon closer observation it was evident that much more work is needed to do this vessel justice. The vessel was built in Italy. The ceilings are high, reducing the probability of head injury and creating a spacious feeling. The officers quarters appeared very comfortable and adequate in size. The toilets were Western in construction, though through neglect were broken to the point where they could not be flushed, no water was in them, and were not fit to sit upon. Freshwater was in low abundance, the drinking water was from bottled water. Interior Fixtures were broke or in the process of breaking. It is unfortunate that this vessel in this condition. At one time it was probably a satisfactory vessel.