Occurrence of depredation by common bottlenose (Tursiops truncatus) on reef fish captured and released by rod and reel in the northeastern

by

Corie E. Grewal

Advisor: Dr. Andrew J. Read

Prepared for: Jessica Powell, National Marine Fisheries Service

April 30, 2021

Masters project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Environmental Management degree in the Nicholas School of the Environment of Duke University

Executive Summary

In the Gulf of Mexico, common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) have been observed depredating fish from rod and reel anglers. Depredation is defined as the removal of captured fish or bait by a predator, in this case bottlenose dolphins. Depredation can cause serious injury and mortality for dolphins who may become entangled or hooked in gear and also increases the costs of fishing for anglers by forcing them to replace gear and bait, as well as the loss of catch to dolphins. Protected managers in the Gulf are receiving an increasing number of reports about depredation from anglers and are hoping to gain more insight into how such interactions can be reduced. To better understand the nature and extent of these interactions, I examined potential factors that could influence the probability of depredation and the spatial distribution and frequency of such interactions. I analyzed data collected from the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) fisheries-dependent monitoring at-sea observer program to determine which factors played a role in rod and reel depredation of rod and reel fisheries between 2009 and 2020. Every observation in the dataset represented a fish caught by a rod and reel angler, and depredation was recorded in the dataset after fish were discarded and observed being consumed by a dolphin. I chose potential predictive factors based on their known or hypothesized influence on dolphin behavior and used a generalized linear model (GLM) to examine relationships between instances of depredation and these predictive factors. The variables that I examined included year, depth, geographic location binned by latitude and longitude into fishing zones, vessel type, fishing mode, the number of anglers fishing, taxonomic family of captured fish, fish fork length and whether or not the fish was vented. To reduce dependence between individual observations that may have taken place on the same trip or at the same location, I also created and included a lag variable. The most parsimonious model was the best fit to the data, and included year, the number of anglers fishing, two geographic areas surrounding Panama City and Destin, Florida, and the fish families Lutjanidae (snapper family), (jack family), Serranidae ( and sea family), and a binned group of other species that were individually captured less frequently. All of these variables were significant predictive factors in the model. The results suggest that food provisioning in the Florida panhandle is a driver of depredation and that the incidence of depredation has increased over time. A spatial analysis of

i the location of depredation events indicates that the northern and eastern coastal stocks, which occur over the near-shore shelf off the Florida gulf coast, have become conditioned to exhibit a range of low cost foraging techniques, such as scavenging, begging, and depredation. Snappers were observed in 78% of depredation events and this family was the most significant predictive factor in the model, revealing a regional prey preference for snapper by dolphins of the northern coastal stock. To deter dolphins from depredation, a number of mitigation techniques such as acoustic deterrents, gear modifications, and avoidance are possible, but each technique has advantages and disadvantages that must be considered. Acoustic devices have been shown to be effective in deterring some other species, but are likely to draw bottlenose dolphins towards fishing activities, acting as a “dinner bell”. Gear modifications and avoidance may create additional economic burdens for anglers, but are more promising and deserve further study. The analysis presented here can help inform management and mitigation of bottlenose dolphin depredation in the Gulf of Mexico and provides a baseline for future scientific study. This study was the first to analyze the factors influencing the incidence of bottlenose dolphin depredation using data from observers. The use of previously existing data reduced the time and funding necessary for this study, but also created limitations. The dataset was created for fishery managers and needed to be intensively edited for use with this depredation case study. Furthermore, the relatively small number of depredation events compared with the total number of observations, and the manner in which depredation events were recorded complicated this assessment. Future research should employ experimental designs that are designed to address depredation events.

ii Table of Contents

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..1

Materials and Methods……………………………………………………………………………5 Data Source……………………………………………………………………………… 5 Data Preparation………………………………………………………………………….8 Modeling………………………………………………………………………………....10 Model Selection and Analysis …………………………………………………………....10 Spatial Analysis…………………………………………………………………………..10

Results…………………………………………………………………………………………....11

Discussion………………………………………………………………………………………..15

Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………....24

References………………………………………………………………………………………..25

iii Introduction Over the past few decades, depredation by common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) has emerged as a complex conflict for marine resource management. In rod and reel (private and for-hire) fisheries, depredation events can consist of a dolphin taking a target fish off a hook as the angler is attempting to reel it in, but can also include taking bait off the line or scavenging to collect fish that are thrown back after being caught (Tixier et al. 2020,

Zollett and Read 2006). Depredation has negative consequences for bottlenose dolphins because dolphins that become conditioned to depredate have a higher chance of injury or mortality

(Christiansen et al. 2016). It can also lead to bycatch because depredating dolphins are more likely to become entangled or ingest fishing gear (Read 2008, Wallace 1985). Bycatch is non- target catch that becomes trapped in gear during fishing (Read 2008). Bycaught may be difficult to free from gear, causing serious injury or death to the individual (Read 2008, Wells and Scott 1994). Dolphins can also be injured or killed due to vessel strikes when depredating

(Wells and Scott 1997). Depredation causes additional economic burdens for private and for-hire anglers who lose out on profitable catch or need to purchase extra bait or replace gear to account for losses to marine mammals (Read 2008, Tixier et al. 2020). Frustration stemming from interactions with dolphins can lead to harassment and retaliation efforts (Department of Justice

2006, Department of Justice 2007, NMFS 2016, Read 2005, Zollet and Read 2006). The Gulf of

Mexico has been referred to as a hotbed for retaliation against depredating bottlenose dolphins and several documented observations of retaliation have been observed (Department of Justice

2006, Department of Justice 2007, NMFS 2016, Vail 2016, Wursig 2017).

In the Gulf of Mexico, there have been numerous anecdotal reports of bottlenose dolphin depredation events in rod and reel (also known as hook and line) fisheries. In Florida, there have been several documented cases of dolphin depredation in various locations such as Destin,

1 Panama City, and Sarasota Bay, and some private and for-hire anglers report increased depredation over time (Cunningham-Smith et al. 2006, Powell et al. 2018, Powell and Wells

2011, Samuels and Bejder 2004, Shippee et al. 2017, Zollet and Read 2006). There are several potential reasons for depredation, which likely interact with one another in the Gulf. One reason is , which has depleted fish stocks sufficiently to create direct competition between fisheries and dolphin populations (DeMaster et al. 2001, Read 2008, Reichmont et al. 2018). In the Gulf of Mexico, stable reef fish populations lead to healthy ecosystem functions such as balanced predator-prey interactions (Coleman and Koenig 2010). However, the effects of climate change and other anthropogenic disturbances further exacerbate this balance (Coleman and

Koenig 2010). In the northeastern Gulf, competition is also driven by declines in fish populations after periodic harmful algal blooms, increased fish predation by the invasive lionfish, and the

2010 BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (Green et al. 2012, Lewis et al. 2020, Powell and Wells

2011). Another potential reason for depredation by dolphins in Florida is intentional feeding.

Higher incidence of food provisioning escalates depredation because conditioned dolphins learn that humans offer the potential opportunity for a meal (Powell et al. 2018, Samuels and Bejder

2004). This conditioned behavior may be passed on to social associates and younger individuals through cultural transmission (Christiansen et al. 2016, Herzing 2005, Wells 2003).

While bottlenose dolphins are not threatened or endangered under the Endangered

Species Act, they are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972 and require conservation consideration in the United States. Bycatch, feeding, and intentional harm are deemed “takes” under the MMPA and are thus prohibited except under specific permits issued by protected species managers (MMPA 1972). Permits for takes are based on level of potential biological removal (PBR), calculated based on estimated population size, reproduction

2 rate, and a recovery factor (MMPA 1972). Take associated with bycatch is hard to avoid due to its unintentional nature, but other activities like feeding and retaliation are intentional and avoidable behaviors that constitute harassment and are always considered illegal (MMPA 1972).

By reducing illegal feeding, depredation interactions will also likely be reduced and angler frustration with dolphins and associated occurrence of retaliation may also be slowed or halted.

To more thoroughly understand the effects of depredation on bottlenose dolphin populations in the Gulf, it is important to study the systems that create opportunities for depredation to take place (Read 2008, Tixier et al. 2020). While there have been prior studies of bottlenose dolphin depredation on rod and reel fisheries in Florida and Gulf of Mexico waters, they often did not incorporate fisheries data, while many others focused on crab pot, gillnet, and troll fisheries (Noke and Odell 2002, Powell and Wells 2011, Reichmont et al. 2018, Shippee et al. 2017, Zollett and Read 2006). Despite these examples, there is little understanding of the impact of dolphin depredation on rod and reel private and for-hire fisheries.

Rod and reel fisheries can be more complicated for data collection because there are often several different relevant fishing modes that fall under this category (National Research Council

Ocean Studies Board 2006, Powers and Anson 2016). For instance, individuals can participate in rod and reel fishing off of a private vessel, or a group of people can take part in a fishing charter that is owned and operated by another party. Individuals can also fish off of a headboat that is operated similarly to a fishing charter. Despite differences in fishing mode, all of these approaches use the same types of rod and reel gear and likely target the same species, making them all potential opportunities for depredation. However, surveys interested in understanding depredation may only target boat captains or may only be surveying anglers at limited access

3 points, missing important and relevant information from anglers (National Research Council

Ocean Studies Board 2006, Powers and Anson 2016).

While depredation has been studied in other fisheries, none have closely examined trends in depredation for rod and reel private and for-hire anglers. , and rod and reel angling in particular, is important in the Gulf of Mexico, accounting for 64% of total landings and exerting particular influence on high-value species like red snapper and (Coleman et al. 2004, Powers and Anson 2016). Using a dataset collected by the fisheries-dependent monitoring at-sea observer program operated and maintained by the Florida Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Commission (FWC), the aim of this study is to determine whether bottlenose dolphin depredation has increased over the last decade, where these interactions are most often happening, which dolphin stocks are depredating most, and understand factors related to bottlenose dolphin depredation events with rod and reel anglers. To do this, I modeled the relationships between depredation events and several independent variables that fell into three categories. The first two categories of independent variables I was interested in were geographic location and behavioral characteristics of anglers and vessels. The third category examined the relationships between depredation events and the fish being depredated. Year was also included to determine whether depredation has been increasing over time. The dataset includes information about whether depredation occurred in each observation, which provides the capability to determine which relevant factors influence depredation. I also conducted a spatial analysis to examine the geographic data visually and attempt to determine which dolphin stocks were depredating. Creating context on the specifics of depredation, such as whether it is increasing, where it is happening, what fish are most often targeted, which dolphin stocks are

4 depredating, and what techniques anglers are using while on-board is important for future research on potential mitigation strategies for depredation.

Materials and Methods Data Source The dataset used was collected as part of the FWC fisheries-dependent monitoring at-sea observer program, which consisted of observations recorded by FWC fisheries observers on rod and reel fishing trips between 2009 and 2020. Observations run along the Florida gulf coast, although some are located in Alabama waters (Figure 1). Each observation represented one fish caught by an angler. For each observation, there were >100 associated variables recorded by the observer to provide context for the conditions that gave rise to the fish being caught and released or kept by the angler. Observations were identified by a reference number that was created using the date of the trip, a trip number for that date, and a station number that the vessel was fishing at. Stations were unique to the trip and were organized in chronological order from the beginning of the trip (the first station) to the end of the trip (the last station). At each station, another variable identified the chronological order in which fish were caught in. Although the dataset is extremely comprehensive, there are instances where an observer did not record all fish caught during the trip, particularly on larger vessels where there may have been visual impairments or too many anglers for the observer to keep a constant record.

Events that were considered depredation were recorded as a factor under a variable that included several values describing potential actions that could happen to the fish following release. This variable was only recorded upon discard, so it was only possible to analyze depredation events that happened following release, although it is important to note that depredation is most often reported by anglers as removal of captured fish still on the line prior to

5 bringing on-board the vessel. Additionally, this variable did not specify the species of marine mammal involved in the interaction. However, spotted dolphins and bottlenose dolphins are the only two marine mammal species that can be found on the continental shelf in the Gulf of

Mexico, and of those two species, bottlenose is the only one associated with depredation, scavenging, and begging behavior (Balmer et al. 2016, Samuels and Bejder 2004, Powell and

Wells 2011, Powell et al. 2018, Tixier 2020). To use this dataset, I assumed that all depredating marine mammals included in the dataset were bottlenose dolphins because all depredation events occurred on the continental shelf (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Map of the gulf coast of Florida indicating all observations in the FWC fisheries dependent monitoring at-sea observer program dataset, with depredation events highlighted as stars. The continental shelf is indicated in lighter blue.

6 Independent variables used in the final models were chosen based on initial examinations of the dataset and their potential to influence dolphin behavior. Many of the variables deemed potentially important for this study were factors rather than continuous variables. I chose to use water depth and location based on Florida Fish and Wildlife’s fishing zone area codes to examine the relationship between geographic location and depredation events. The zone codes were designated based on latitude and longitude and provided one variable that integrated these two factors together (Figure 2). The second group of variables included the vessel type, the fishing mode, and the number of anglers fishing. The vessel types included charter, headboat, multi-day trips, and research trips. Multi-day and research trips took place on-board charter and headboat vessels, but were categorized separately and made up a very small portion of the dataset. Fishing modes included anchored fishing, drift fishing, , and holding, also known as idling. The variables included regarding the characteristics of depredated fish included the taxonomic family of fish, fish fork length (length of the fish from front of face to middle of the tail) and whether the fish was vented before release. The use of bait was originally included as a variable, but was later eliminated from consideration because it had a very low amount of complete observations, which both reduced the model’s ability to accurately predict its occurrence and severely truncated the dataset. Another variable that was ultimately discarded was whether the fish was alive or dead on release, but all depredation events were on fish that were alive. Year was included into the model to determine whether depredation was increasing over time.

7

Figure 2. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission fishing area code map. Provided by FWC.

Data Preparation All data manipulation and analysis was completed using R 3.6.1 software (R Core Team,

2019). To isolate the ‘preyed upon by a marine mammal’ value of the actions post-release variable, a new binary depredation variable was created, where 1 referred to all instances where the ‘preyed upon by marine mammal’ value was found, and all other observations were 0 (Figure

1).

Fish species were truncated to a taxonomic family level to reduce the number of levels for the variable. Initially, there were 230 individual fish species originally recorded in the dataset, including reef fishes, demersal fishes, large pelagics, elasmobranchs, and cephalopods

(Table 1). Once these observations were reduced to the family level, there were still 65 families, many with very few observations. Thus, due to the size of the dataset, only families with >1,000 observations in the complete dataset were included as separate factors, and all other families were included under one ‘other’ factor (Table 1). Five families were separated with >1,000 observations and 55 families were combined into the ‘other’ category (Table 1). Although this

8 removed some families from individual consideration in the model, I felt that these divisions were more representative of the most commonly captured fish and could accurately display the variability I wanted to address. Fish Family Species Included

Gray triggerfish, ocean triggerfish, queen triggerfish Balistidae

African Pompano, almaco jack, amberjacks, Atlantic bumper, Atlantic moonfish, banded Carangidae rudderfish, bar jack, bigeye scad, blue runner, crevalle jack, greater amberjack, horse-eye jack, jacks and pompanos*, leatherjacket, lesser amberjack, scad, permit, , round scad, rough scad, yellow jack Haemulidae Bluestriped grunt, cottonwick, French grunt, margate, tomtate, white grunt, pigfish, porkfish

Lutjanidae Cubera snapper, dog snapper, gray snapper, lane snapper, mutton snapper, red snapper, schoolmaster, yellowtail snapper, vermillion snapper

Bank sea bass, black grouper, bass, butter hamlet, coney, creole-fish, gag, goliath Serranidae grouper, graysby, red grouper, red hind, rock hind, rock sea bass, sand , scamp, soapfishes*, Spanish flag, yellowmouth grouper, tattler, whitespotted soapfish, yellowedge grouper Atlantic bonito, Atlantic croaker, Atlantic mackerel, Atlantic sharpnose , Atlantic spadefish, Atlantic thread herring, banded jawfish, bandtail searobin, bandtail puffer, bank butterflyfish, bank cusk-eel, baitfish, barracudas*, batfishes*, chub, bigeyes*, bighead searobin, blackbar drum, blackbelly rosefish, blackedge moray, blackfin , blackline tilefish, blacknose shark, , blackwing searobin, blowfishes*, bluefishes*, blueline tilefish, blue parrotfish, bonnethead, bull shark, cero, chub mackerel, clearnose skate, cobia, checkered puffer, common moray, common puffer, conger eel, cubbyu, doctorfish, dolphinfish, dusky damselfish, dusky , dusky shark, filefishes*, finetooth shark, Florida smoothhound, *, gafftopsail , great barracuda, grass porgy, gray angelfish, green moray, guaguanche, gulf flounder, gulf toadfish, hammerhead shark, hardhead catfish, high-hat, hogfishes*, inshore lizardfish, jawfishes*, jolthead porgy, king mackerel, , lefteye flounder, ladyfish, lemon shark, leopard toadfish, lionfish, little tunny, littlehead porgy, Other lizardfishes*, loggerhead sea turtle, longspine squirrelfish, *, morays*, Northern sennet, Northern puffer, nurse shark, ocellated frogfish, oceanic puffer, ocellated flounder, ocellated moray, octopus*, orange filefish, toadfish, pearly razorfish, pinfishes*, planehead filefish, porgies*, puddingwife, red drum, red mullet, red porgy, redband parrotfish, remora, requiem shark, reticulate moray, sailfish, sandbar shark, sanddabs, sand diver, sand seatrout, sand tilefish, saucereye porgy, scaled sardine, scorpionfishes*, scrawled cowfish, scrawled filefish, sea robins*, *, sharksuckers*, sharpnose lizardfish, sheepshead, short bigeye, silky shark, slippery dick, silver seatrout, smooth dogfish, smooth puffer, snakefish, Southern flounder, Southern sennet, Southern stingray, Southern puffer, Spanish hogfish, Spanish mackerel, Spanish sardine, spiny dogfish, spiny , spinycheek scorpionfish, spinner shark, , spotfin hogfish, spottail pinfish, spotted moray, spotted scorpionfish, spotted seatrout, squirrelfishes*, stingrays*, striped burrfish, tiger shark, tilefishes*, toadfishes*, tripletail, turtles*, unicorn filefish, wahoo, white marlin, whitebone porgy, whitefin sharksucker, yellowcheek wrasse Table 1. Fish species included in truncated taxonomic family groups. Species denoted with an asterisk were only identified at the genus level by the at-sea observer.

9

Many of the depredation events happened on the same trip or at the same station, so that those observations were not independent. To account for this issue, a binary lag variable was created where 0 was used for all observations before the depredation event on a trip and 1 included the depredation event and all subsequent observations on the trip. The lag variable was incorporated as an independent variable in all models.

Modeling I developed a generalized linear model (GLM) to examine the potential influence of independent variables listed above on the occurrence of depredation. I used binomial regression to portray the proportional distribution of depredation events to all other observations. The dataset consisted of 333,912 observations with 110,575 complete observations ultimately included in modeling. This subset of the data included 269 depredation events. The original model included all independent variables but was parsed to find the model with the best fit.

Model Selection and Analysis Model summaries, Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC) and a chi-squared analysis of variance (ANOVA) were all methods used in tandem to determine the model with the best fit to the data. I used the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) to test for collinearity and the ratio of deviance and residual degrees of freedom to assess dispersion. I verified the goodness-of-fit of the selected model using r.squaredGLMM, which calculates the amount of variation that can be described by the variables. Coefficients were transformed using inv.logit to determine the probabilities of the effects of each predictor variable on depredation events.

Spatial Analysis A spatial analysis was conducted using ESRI’s ArcGIS Pro software (ESRI Inc. 2021).

Points were generated to designate all observations using the latitude and longitude coordinates recorded in the fishery observer dataset. Spatial data for Gulf of Mexico bottlenose dolphin

10 stocks was provided by NMFS, and was used to determine which stocks were depredating based on where depredation happened in the fishery observer dataset. An examination of the frequencies of depredation events was also conducted in each fishing zone to understand where depredation hot spots occurred.

Results After examining the summaries of parsed models with various combinations of the predictors, I determined that the most parsimonious model had the best fit (ANOVA: p <0.001,

AIC =2001.3). This model included number of anglers, geographical location by fishing area code, year of depredation event, and fish family, which were all either significant or had significant factors (p < 0.05). The number of anglers, two levels from the fishing zone factor around Panama City and Destin, the individual fish families Carangidae, Serranidae, and

Lutjanidae and the ‘other’ category, and the years 2015, 2017, 2018, and 2019 were significant in the final model (Table 2, p < 0.05). There was little multicollinearity between variables (vif <

2) and dispersion was low (0.018) indicating little overdispersion. Some factors within each variable were not significant because they had no occurrences of depredation represented in the dataset, such as fishing zones 2, 3, 4 and 7 (Table 2). All other variables, such as fishing mode, vessel type, the use of venting, fork length, other geographic areas and fish families, and depth were not included in the final model.

While the model was able to generate probability of depredation for variables, the discrepancy between the frequency of depredation events (269) and number of observations

(110,575) likely had a considerable impact on determining significance, particularly for fish families. For instance, the Lutjanidae family, which includes snapper and schoolmaster species, was significant, had the highest percent of total observations of all depredated fish and was 78%

11 of all depredated fish (Table 2, Table 3). In comparison, the Carangidae family, made up of jacks, pompanos, and scad, made up only 0.01% of all observations and 4% of depredated fish, but was also a significant factor in the model (Table 2, Table 3).

Table 2. Results of the GLM.

Serranidae, or grouper and sea bass species, made up 0.03% of all observations but 14% of depredated fish (Table 3). The ‘other’ category only had 0.004% depredation out of all observations, but made up 1.49% of all observations, so although the frequency of depredation was low, the variable was still significant (Table 2, Table 3). While these families were depredated, the frequency of depredation on Lutjanidae species is much higher (Table 3).

12

Table 3. Table indicating frequency of depredation events on each fish family within the context of the entire dataset of observations.

More recent years since 2015 were significant in the model, with the exception of 2016

(Table 2, Figure 3). 2012 had a high number of depredation events and the largest frequency of depredation events out of all observations, but it was not significant (Figure 3, Table 2). This may also be attributed to the large number of observations that year, which was more than any other year in the dataset.

Figure 3. Frequency of depredation occurrences out of all observations per year.

13 The spatial analysis informed where depredation events are occurring and which dolphins are depredating. Using spatial data relaying the boundaries of dolphin stocks along the gulf coast,

I was able to determine that bottlenose dolphins from the northern coastal stock are those most often depredating in the waters off Panama City and Destin, Florida (Figure 4). Bottlenose dolphins from the eastern coastal stock are depredating near Clearwater, Florida (Figure 4). The coastal stocks are most often found between coastline beaches and the 20 meter isobath, whereas bay stocks are found in coastal bays and estuaries (Balmer et al. 2019, Figure 4). The bay stocks rarely leave those enclosed ranges and thus are less likely to be depredating out on the continental shelf (Balmer et al. 2019, Figure 4). While the locations in the panhandle were both significant in the model, the location off the coast of Clearwater was not, but the

Figure 4. Map of bottlenose dolphin stocks and depredation events in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Bathymetry data developed by Scripps Institute of Oceanography at UCSD.

14 frequency of observations that had depredation events in the Clearwater fishing zone was much lower than the frequencies found in panhandle fishing zones (Table 2, Figure 5).

Figure 5. Percent of observations that include depredation in each geographic fishing zone designated by FWC in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico.

Discussion The variables that were significant in the model point to a combination of foraging theory and prey preference as reasons for increased depredation. The probability of a depredation event occurring was high in the Panama City and Destin areas, where there has already been a high percentage of depredation events between 2009 and 2020 (Table 2, Figure 5). Thus, our data

15 backs up the evidence observed in Panama City and Destin that conditioned dolphins with more access to human interactions are more likely to depredate. Since the 1980s, there is ample evidence of food provisioning in the northeastern gulf to high numbers of wild dolphins, who become conditioned to initiate begging and scavenging when vessels and people are nearby

(NMFS 1994, Powell et al. 2018, Samuels and Bejder 2004). In these cases, conditioned dolphins engaged with humans between 73-77% of the time when a human stimulus was within

50 meters (Powell et al. 2018).

Feeding dolphins to encourage them to participate in swim-with programs is another widely practiced means for food provisioning in the Panama City and Destin areas, and also increases opportunities for dolphins to become conditioned to foraging for food provided by humans (Powell et al. 2018, Samuels and Bejder 2004, S. Horstman 2021, personal communication). Although securing food provisions the dolphin with energy, prey search and capture require both time and energy as inputs. To maximize fitness, dolphins adopt foraging tactics that provide the most energy from prey at the lowest cost in terms of conserving time and energy (Torres and Read 2009, Weiss 2006). Traits like high plasticity and knowledge transfer between conspecifics make it easier for bottlenose dolphins to find and exploit foraging tactics based around human behaviors, such as food provisioning and fishing, for their own benefit

(Torres and Read 2009, Weiss 2006). One study on bottlenose dolphins in Florida observed that individuals that specialized in a foraging tactic would focus on using only that tactic as much as possible, and even limit their spatial distribution to facilitate the use of their specialized foraging technique (Torres and Read, 2009). Powell et al. (2018) witnessed two conditioned dolphins who were known beggars directly attempting to depredate from recreational anglers in Panama City,

16 indicating that these foraging tactics all fall under the same specialization skill set for bottlenose dolphins.

There are three coastal stocks of bottlenose dolphins that stay within the bounds of the continental shelf break in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as 31 smaller stocks that primarily reside in bay, sound, and estuary (BSE) areas with more restricted ranges than the coastal stocks

(Balmer et al. 2019). Seven BSE stocks and one coastal stock can be found in the Florida panhandle alone (Figure 4, Balmer et al. 2016, NMFS 2016). There is minimal spatial overlap between BSE and coastal stocks in the Panama City and Destin areas, the groups are rarely sighted together, and stocks have significant genetic differentiation (Balmer et al. 2016, Balmer et al. 2019, Sellas et al. 2005). The coastal stock can often be found swimming along shore, and is more often the stock targeted for food provisioning and swim-with programs by beach goers and tourism ventures, although individuals from both stocks have been documented being provisioned (Figure 4, Balmer et al. 2016). Animals in the same stock are more likely to exhibit social transmission, so the dolphins that learn to forage by means of human interaction near the beach are able to spread that knowledge to others and ultimately increase depredation at nearshore reefs on the continental shelf (Herzing 2005, Wells 2003). In 2016, the northern coastal stock was estimated to be around ~ 7000 individuals, while the St. Andrews Bay stock found in the bays around Panama City is estimated at ~200 individuals (Balmer et al. 2019).

Both stocks are experiencing mortality and serious injury at rates higher than their PBR (NMFS

2016, NOAA 2019). Behavior resulting from provisioned dolphins by both dolphins and anglers include depredation and retaliation. Thus, one or more of the mitigation practices outlined below need to be implemented in the Panama City and Destin areas immediately in order to eliminate

17 the occurrence of these behaviors, reducing incidence of depredation events for anglers and serious injury and mortality for dolphins.

I determined that for each unit increase in the number of anglers, the probability of a depredation event occurring also increased (Table 2). More anglers fishing in one area are more likely to be noticed and depredated by conditioned dolphins foraging for food, particularly since bottlenose dolphins have been documented begging and scavenging around fishing boats once they realize that there are opportunities for food (Samuels and Bejder 2004, Shippee et al. 2017,

Powell et al. 2018). Conditioned dolphins have also been documented repeatedly returning to areas where anglers normally fish to forage, or restricting their range to only include those areas

(Cantor et al. 2018). Thus, in Panama City and Destin where dolphins have already become closely associated with humans, it is likely that they have learned to follow boats to known fishing sites and end up staying in the area. Another study also reported bottlenose dolphins responding to fish vocalizations by turning towards the sound and increasing echolocation frequency, which would also be more likely around boats with many anglers at a large fishing ground (Gannon et al. 2005). Ultimately, it is understandable that this variable is significant while others examining angler behavior are not. Vessel type and fishing mode are more human- centric variables, whereas number of anglers more directly considers dolphin sensation and behavior.

The Lutjanidae family, which includes snapper and schoolmaster species, were depredated in 78% of all depredation events, indicating a high overall level of depredation in comparison to all other families (Table 3). This could be attributed to dolphin foraging theory, but may also indicate a prey preference for bottlenose dolphins in the Gulf. There is evidence that marine mammals target prey based on quality rather than focusing solely on quantity

18 because the metabolic cost of living is correlated with diet quality (Spitz et al. 2012).

Additionally, bottlenose dolphin prey preference for soniferous fishes (such as species found in the Lutjanid, Serranid and Carangid families) has been demonstrated in Florida (McCabe et al.

2010). Consistency in the diet of bottlenose dolphins residing in a restricted range has been demonstrated in Florida, indicating that populations do exhibit prey preference, and prey species recorded in the study examining bottlenose dolphin stomach contents included snapper species

(Dunshea et al. 2013). Additionally, anglers in the field have observed bottlenose dolphins exhibiting prey preference for snapper species (J. Powell 2021, personal communication). Thus, there is a high likelihood that bottlenose dolphins off the Gulf coast of Florida do prefer those species and target them specifically as prey.

The frequency of snapper depredated is important to consider for Gulf of Mexico anglers, who target red snapper under strictly managed regulations such as shortened catch seasons and required discards of fish smaller than the legal size limit. After discarding fish below the legal limit and watching them be depredated by dolphins, anglers may become more frustrated with the imposed regulations and thus report depredation more frequently. This has also been suggested by Shippee et al. (2017) as a reason for increased complaints. This increase in complaints is justified given our results, which show that over time, depredation is increasing.

While the frequency of depredation events stayed fairly even over time except for a large number in 2012, 2015, 2017, 2018 and 2019 were all significant to the model, indicating that there was a higher probability of depredation happening in those years (Figure 3, Table 2). There was not enough data from 2020 recorded at the launch of this study to determine a continuation of the trend. Depredation is part of a harmful cycle of human interactions with dolphins, and since anglers are struggling to deal with increasing events and their effects on economically important

19 catch, it is imperative that changes are implemented sooner rather than later to reduce this particular trend.

Several studies have focused on venting as a means for mitigating barotrauma in reef fish that may be impaired after being caught (Drumhiller et al. 2014, Pulver 2017). While venting has demonstrated improvements in recovery for fish and has been thought to assist them in evading predatory marine mammals, it was not significant in this study and was not included in the final model (Drumhiller et al. 2014). However, using barotrauma mitigation tactics as a preventative measure against depredation may be useful for anglers. There is evidence that anglers prefer other barotrauma mitigation methods, such as descending devices, and that these may be better at preventing depredation from dolphins as well as other large predators such as sharks because the behavior of the fish on a descending device is more fluid and natural, rather than erratic (Ayala

2020, Curtis et al. 2019, Shippee et al. 2017). However, there is also anecdotal evidence that bottlenose dolphins can learn to depredate fish off descending devices in short periods of time (J.

Powell 2021, personal communication). This is not surprising given the high plasticity and preference for low cost foraging behavior that bottlenose dolphins are known for, particularly in uncommon habitats and across varying prey sources (Torres and Read 2009, Weiss 2006).

Other potential mitigation techniques for reducing the occurrence of dolphin depredation events include the use of deterrents such as acoustic pingers, gear modifications, and avoidance.

Deterrent devices and gear modifications are often used as mitigation techniques for marine mammal bycatch, but have also been studied in the context of reducing depredation (Dawson et al. 2013, Hamer et al. 2015, McPherson 2011, Tixier et al. 2020, Zollett and Read 2006). While both methods have demonstrated some success at deterring marine mammals from depredating, a comparison of the two in a review of depredation mitigation techniques showed that gear

20 modifications have emerged as the more promising method, particularly for foraging bottlenose dolphins, where conclusions on pinger usage have been mixed (Dawson et al. 2013, Hamilton and Baker 2019, Tixier et al. 2020). While some groups have seen small reductions in depredation when pingers are used, a complete elimination of depredation using this method has never been described, and there are no examples of long term pinger use in any fishery (Dawson et al. 2013). In fact, the use of pingers for bottlenose dolphins has been linked to the “dinner bell effect” whereby bottlenose dolphins become habituated to the sound and use it to determine where to depredate, despite gear type, due to their characteristic food motivation (Cox et al.

2004, Dawson et al. 2013). However, a potential gear modification for rod and reel use was created and tested on the Florida king mackerel commercial troll fishery in 2006, and was successful at deterring bottlenose dolphins from depredating without reducing catch (Zollett and

Read 2006). Further studies using this methodology may be helpful for private and for-hire anglers to determine whether it should be expanded as an option for reducing depredation. In practice, both acoustic pingers and gear modifications create supplementary economic burdens for anglers, because they become responsible for purchasing pingers or new gear and may need to hire more crew members to help with new methods for catch (Dawson et al. 2013, Hamer et al. 2015). The method most widely accepted as best for depredation mitigation is avoidance, because it is the only method that relies on human behavior to implement (Fader et al. 2021,

Werner et al. 2015). There are two tactics for avoidance: moving on from sites where dolphins are and targeting fishing times and locations where dolphins can be avoided altogether (Tixier et al. 2020). While avoidance is seen as a safer and more effective way to prevent depredation, it may increase costs for anglers because they must travel more to move on from a fishing site where dolphins are depredating or to get to sites where they know that dolphins may not be

21 (Tixier et al. 2020). It also may require more planning and consideration for dolphin behavior than other methods, which may be burdensome for some anglers (Werner et al. 2015). However, implementing avoidance in the Gulf for a set period of time may cause dolphins to develop other foraging techniques to account for losses from depredation, giving anglers more flexibility in the long term for fishing where they would like.

As bottlenose dolphin depredation continues to be problematic for anglers, this study provides more understanding of the trends that may be contributing to the issue, and can be used to inform protected species management concerned with preserving local bottlenose dolphin populations and anglers hoping to reduce interactions with dolphins. The variables deemed significant by the model definitively point to the problems with food provisioning in Panama

City and Destin as management issues that need to be addressed. A reduction in illegal dolphin feeding would likely prevent increases in dolphin scavenging, begging, and depredation, or even reduce depredation over time. While reducing the number of anglers and targeting non-preferred prey species will likely also reduce depredation, these would be unrealistic recommendations.

However, these trends do warrant consideration for fisheries and protected species management as fundamental dynamics of the interactions between dolphins and anglers in the Gulf and knowledge of their roles will be important for future studies of dolphin depredation. These trends point to learned dolphin foraging tactics and prey preference as reasons for increasing depredation in the Gulf, and mitigation techniques need to be implemented in order to reverse the effects of these behaviors. Ultimately, other studies are needed to address the gaps in knowledge for rod and reel depredation. Several reviews of depredation studies and mitigation techniques echo this opinion, as data for closely examining the effects of depredation and mitigation in different fisheries systems are often lacking or incomplete (Tixier et al. 2020, Werner et al.

22 2015). A more direct approach to studying these interactions would be useful to complement the results found using the fishery observer dataset and could incorporate an examination of potential mitigation techniques like barotrauma mitigation tools, deterrent devices, and avoidance tactics. This study examined data from for-hire fishing vessels, which includes several relevant stakeholder groups, but excludes private anglers. Future studies able to incorporate data from private anglers would be better for diagnosing issues with depredation in the Gulf by incorporating data from all affected rod and reel groups, providing more information about who is depredated, although according to our research, it is likely that for-hire vessels experience more depredation because there are more anglers with lines in the water. Examining the use of bait as a trend for depredation would also be applicable. I attempted to look at bait, but there was a large amount of missing data which rendered the variable not useful for the model. Finally, expanding study of bottlenose dolphin depredation events on rod and reel angling ventures across the entire Gulf of Mexico would provide managers with more information and allow them to apply mitigation techniques more holistically across the region. It would also provide justification for other anglers who are concerned about depredation in their areas. Ultimately, human interactions with bottlenose dolphins are hard to avoid in the Gulf. However, increasing food provisioning and swim-with programs has led to an increase in depredation events that is proving detrimental to local anglers. This cycle must be broken in order to reverse these trends and give dolphins the space they need to learn to forage without the assistance of humans.

23 Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and particularly

Oscar Ayala, for sharing the data used to generate this report, Will Cioffi for consulting on coding for edits to the dataset and statistical analyses and Matt Duggan for his help sorting fish species.

24 References Adimey, N.M., Hudak, C.A., Powell, J.R., Bassos-Hull, K., Foley, A., Farmer, N.A., White, L. and K. Minch. (2014) Fishery gear interactions from stranded bottlenose dolphins, Florida manatees and sea turtles in Florida, USA. Marine Pollution Bulletin 81: 103-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.02.008 Ayala, O. (2020) Testing the efficacy of recompression tools to reduce discard mortality of reef fishes in the Gulf of Mexico. University of South Florida Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 38 pp. Balmer, B., Morey, J., Quigley, B., Rowles, T., Speakman, T., Ylitalo, G., Zolman, E. and L. Schwacke. (2016). Bottlenose dolphin occurrence in St. Andrews Bay, Florida, and coastal waters near the naval surface warfare center, Panama City division testing range. MOA-2015-029/9087. https://www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/index.php/download_file/view/1803/ Balmer, B., Watwood, S., Quigley, B., Speakman, T., Barry, K., Mullin, K., Rosel, P., Sinclair, C., Zolman, E. and L. Schwacke. (2019) Common bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) abundance and distribution patterns in St Andrews Bay, Florida, USA. Aquatic Conservation 29(3): 486-498. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3001 Cantor, M., Simoes-Lopes, P.C. and F.G. Daura-Jorge. (2018) Spatial consequences for dolphins specialized in foraging with fishermen. Behavior 139: 19-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2018.03.002 Christiansen, F., McHugh, K.A., Bejder, L., Siegal, E.M., Lusseau, D., McCabe, E.B., Lovewell. G. and R.S. Wells. (2016) Food provisioning increases the risk of injury in a long-lived marine top predator. Royal Society of Open Science 3: 160560. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160560 Coleman, F.C., Figueira, W.F., Ueland, J.S. and L.B. Crowder. (2004) The impact of United States recreational fisheries on marine fish populations. Science 305: 1958-1960. 10.1126/science.1100397 Coleman, F.C. and C.C. Koenig. (2010) The effects of fishing, climate change, and other anthropogenic disturbances on red grouper and other reef fishes in the Gulf of Mexico. Integrative and Comparative Biology 50(2): 201-212. doi:10.1093/icb/icq072 Cox, T.M., Read, A.J., Swanner, D., Urian, K. and D. Waples. (2004). Behavioral responses of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, to gillnets and acoustic alarms. Biological Conservation 115(2): 203-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00108-3 Cunningham-Smith, P., D.E. Colbert, R.S. Wells, and T. Speakman. (2006) Evaluation of human interactions with a provisioned wild bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) near Sarasota Bay, Florida, and efforts to curtail the interactions. Aquatic Mammals 32:346-356. Curtis, J.M., Tompkins, A.K., Loftus, A.J., and G.W. (2019) Stunz. Recreational angler attitudes and perceptions regarding the use of descending devices in southeast reef fish fisheries. Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management, and Ecosystem Science 11: 506-518. DOI: 10.1002/mcf2.10102 Dawson, S.M., Northridge, S., Waples, D. and A.J. Read. (2013) To ping or not to ping: The use of active acoustic devices in mitigating interactions between small cetaceans and gillnet fisheries. Endangered Species Research 19: 201-221. Doi: 10.3354/esr00464 DeMaster, D.P., Fowler, C.W., Perry, S.L., and M.F. Richlen. (2001) Predation and competition: The impact of fisheries on marine-mammal populations over the next one hundred years. Journal of Mammalogy 82(3): 641-651.

25 Department of Justice. (2006, August 8) Florida Charter Boat Captain Pleads Guilty to Shooting at Dolphins. [Press Release]. Department of Justice. (2007, January 19) Shooting of Dolphin Leads to Federal Charges. [Press Release]. Drumhiller, K.L., Johnson, M.W., Diamond, S.L., Robillard, M.M.R. and G.W. Stunz. (2014) Venting or rapid recompression increase survival and improve recovery of red snapper with barotrauma. Marine and Coastal Fisheries 6(1): 190-199. DOI: 10.1080/19425120.2014.920746 Dunshea, G., Barros, N.B., Berens McCabe, E.J., Gales, N.J., Hindell, M.A., Jarman, S.N. and R.S. Wells. (2013) Stranded dolphin stomach contents represent the free-ranging population’s diet. Biology Letters 9: 20121036. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2012.1036 Esri Inc. (2021) ArcGIS Pro (Version 2.7). https://www.esri.com/en-us/arcgis/products/arcgis- pro/overview Fader, J.E., Elliott, B.W. and A.J. Read. (2021) The challenges of managing depredation and bycatch of toothed whales in pelagic longline fisheries: Two U.S. case studies. Frontiers in Marine Science 8: 618031. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.618031 Gannon, D.P., Barros, N.B., Nowacek, D.P., Read, A.J., Waples, D.M. and R.S. Wells. (2005) Prey detection by bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus: an experimental test of the passive listening hypothesis. Animal Behavior 69: 709-720. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.06.020 Green, S.J., Akins, J.L., Maljkovic, A. and I.M. Cote. (2012) Invasive lionfish drive Atlantic reef fish declines. PLoS ONE 7(3): e32596. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0032596 Hamer, D.J., Childerhouse, S.J., McKinlay, J.P., Double, M.C. and N.J. Gates. (2015) Two devices for mitigating odontocete bycatch and depredation at the hook in tropical pelagic longline fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science 72(5): 1691-1705. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsv013 Hamilton, S. and G.B. Baker. (2019) Technical mitigation to reduce marine mammal bycatch and entanglement in gear: Lessons learnt and future directions. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-019-09550-6 Herzing, D. (2005) Transmission mechanisms of social learning in dolphins: Underwater observations of free-ranging dolphins in the Bahamas. Autour de l'ethologie et de la cognition animale 185-193. Lewis, J.P., Tarnecki, J.H., Garner, S.B., Chagris, D.D. and W.F. Patterson. (2020) Changes in reef fish community structure following the Deep Water Horizon oil spill. Nature Scientific Reports 10:5621. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-62574-y Litz, J.A., Baran, M.A., Bowen-Stevens, S.R., Carmichael, R.H., Colegrove, K.M., Garrison, L.P., Fire, S.E., Fougeres, E.M., Hardy, R., Holmes, S., Jones, W., Mase-Guthrie, B.E., Odell, D.K., Rosel, P.E., Saliki, J.T., Shannon, D.K., Shippee, S.F., Smith, S.M., Stratton, E.M., Tumlin, M.C., Whitehead, H.R., Worthy, G.A.J. and T.K. Rowles. (2014) Review of historical unusual mortality events (UMEs) in the Gulf of Mexico (1990-2009): providing context for the multi-year northern Gulf of Mexico cetacean UME declared in 2010. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 112: 161-175. doi: 10.3354/dao02807 Marine Mammal Protection Act. (1972) 16 U.S.C. §§ 1361 et seq. McCabe, E.J.B., Gannon, D.P., Barros, N.B. and R.S. Wells. (2010) Prey selection by resident common bottlenose dolphins (tursiops truncatus) in Sarasota Bay, Florida. Marine Biology 157: 931-942. DOI 10.1007/s00227-009-1371-2

26 McPherson, G. (2011) Acoustic methods to mitigate bycatch and depredation by marine mammals on commercial fishing operations in Australian waters: Fishermens options. Proceedings of Acoustics Paper Number 101. 8 pp. National Research Council Ocean Studies Board. (2006) Review of recreational fisheries survey methods. The National Academies Press, Washington D.C. 187 pp. NMFS. (1994) Report to congress on results of feeding wild dolphins: 1989-1994. 84 pp. https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/16196 NMFS. (2016) Common bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus truncatus): Gulf of Mexico northern coastal stock. 11 pp. https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/dam- migration/f2015_bodoncoastgmex508.pdf NOAA Fisheries. (2020) 2018-2020 Bottlenose dolphin unusual mortality event southwest Florida. Accessed on February 22, 2021 at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/southeast/marine-life- distress/2018-2020-bottlenose-dolphin-unusual-mortality-event-southwest NOAA. (2020) US Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments - 2019. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-264 497 pp. https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/dam- migration/2019_sars_atlantic_508.pdf Noke, W.D. and D.K. Odell. (2002) Interactions between the Indian River Lagoon blue crab fishery and the bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus. Marine Mammal Science 18(4): 819-832. Powell, J.R. and R.S. Wells. (2011) Recreational fishing depredation and associated behaviors involving common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in Sarasota Bay, Florida. Publications, Agencies and Staff of the U.S. Department of Commerce. 308. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdeptcommercepub/308 Powell, J.R., Machiernis, A.F., Engleby, L.K., Farmer, N.A. and T.R. Spradlin. (2018) Sixteen years later: an updated evaluation of the impacts of chronic human interactions with bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus truncatus) at Panama City, Florida, USA. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 19: 79-93. Powers, S.P. and K. Anson. (2016) Estimating recreational effort in the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery using boat ramp cameras: Reduction in federal season length does not proportionally reduce catch. North American Journal of 36(5): 1156-1166. DOI: 10.1080/02755947.2016.1198284 Pulver, J.R. (2017) Sink or swim? Factors affecting immediate discard mortality for the Gulf of Mexico commercial reef fish fishery. Fisheries Research 188(2017): 166-172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2016.12.018 R Core Team. (2019) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/. Read, A.J. (2005) Bycatch and depredation. In Marine Mammal Research: Conservation Beyond Crisis. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 5-17. Read, A.J. (2008) The looming crisis: Interactions between marine mammals and fisheries. Journal of Mammalogy 89(3): 541-548. Rechimont, M.E., Lara-Dominguez, A.L., Morteo, E., Martinez-Serrano, I., and M. Equihua. (2018) Depredation by coastal bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in the southwestern Gulf of Mexico in relation to . Aquatic Mammals 44(5): 469-481. DOI 10.1578/AM.44.5.2018.469

27 Samuels, A. and L. Bejder. (2004) Chronic interaction between humans and free-ranging bottlenose dolphins near Panama City Beach, Florida, USA. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 6(1):69-77. Shippee, S., Wells, R.S. and K.A. McHugh. (2017) Technical Report: Testing tackle modifications and fish descender tools for reducing dolphin depredation and scavenging of sport fish. 35 pp. Spitz, J., Trites, A.W., Becquet, V., Brind’Amour, A., Cherel, Y., Galois, R. and V. Ridoux. (2012) Cost of living dictates what whales, dolphins and porpoises eat: The importance of prey quality on predator foraging strategies. PLoS One 7(11): e50096 Sellas, A.B., Wells. R.S. and P.E. Rosel. (2005) Mitochondrial and nuclear DNA analyses reveal fine scale geographic structure in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in the Gulf of Mexico. Conservation Genetics 6: 715-728. DOI 10.1007/s10592-005-9031-7 Tixier, P., Lea, M., Hindell, M.A., Welsford, D., Maze, C., Gouguet, S. and J.P.Y. Arnould. (2020) When large marine predators feed on fisheries catches: Global patterns of the depredation conflict and directions for coexistence. Fish and Fisheries 2020;00:1-23. DOI: 10.1111/faf.12504 Torres, L.G. and A.J. Read. (2009) Where to catch a fish? The influence of foraging tactics on the ecology of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in Florida Bay, Florida. Marine Mammal Science 25(4): 797-815. DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-7692.2009.00297.x Vail, C.S. (2016) An overview of increasing incidents of bottlenose dolphin harassment in the Gulf of Mexico and possible solutions. Frontiers in Marine Science 3(110): https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2016.00110 Wallace, N. (1985) Debris entanglement in the marine environment: A review. In Session II: Impacts of Debris on Resources. 200 pp. Accessed at https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1409/ML14094A566.pdf Weiss, J. (2006). Foraging habitats and associated preferential foraging specializations of bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) mother-calf pairs. Aquatic Mammals 32(1): 10-19. DOI:10.1578/AM.32.1.2006.10 Wells, R. S. and M.D. Scott. (1994) Incidence of gear entanglement for resident inshore bottlenose dolphins near Sarasota, Florida. Report International Whale Commission (Special Issue 15): 629. Wells, R.S. and M.D. Scott. (1997) Seasonal incidence of boat strikes on bottlenose dolphins near Sarasota, Florida. Marine Mammal Science 13: 475-481. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748- 7692.1997.tb00654.x Wells, R.S. (2003) Dolphin social complexity: Lessons from long-term study and life history. In F. B. M. de Waal and P. L. Tyack, Animal social complexity: Intelligence, culture, and individualized societies. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 32-56. Werner, T.B., Northridge, S., Press, K.M. and N. Young. (2015) Mitigating bycatch and depredation of marine mammals in longline fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science 72(5): 1576-1586. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsv092 Wursig, B. (2017) Marine mammals of the Gulf of Mexico. In C.H. Ward, Habitats and Biota of the Gulf of Mexico: Before the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Vol. 2. Springer Nature 1489-1588. DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-3456-0 Zollett, E.A. and A.J. Read. (2006) Depredation of catch by bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in the Florida king mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla) troll fishery. Fishery Bulletin 104(3): 343- 349.

28