Simulated Economic Impact of TED Regulations on Selected Vessels in the Texas Shrimp Fishery
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Simulated Economic Impact of TED Regulations on Selected Vessels in the Texas Shrimp Fishery JOY CLARK, WADE GRIFFIN, JERRY CLARK, and JAMES RICHARDSON Introduction of a Turtle Excluder Device (TED) it was called a Turtle Excluder Device which, when placed in the shrimp trawl, (TED) (Watson et aI., 1985). Shrimp fishermen trawling in the Gulf prevents turtle mortality. However, the All sea turtles are listed as endangered ofMexico and the south Atlantic inadver shrimp industry has been concerned or threatened by the Endangered Species tently capture and kill sea turtles which about the possible impact of the TED Act. Underthis Actit is illegal to import, are classified as endangered species. Re upon vessel shrimp catch. export, take, possess, sell, or transport cent Federal legislation requires the use This analysis was designed to address endangered species without a permit this issue by evaluating the impact ofthe unless these activities are specifically Joy Clark is with the Economics Department, TED regulations upon the economic allowed by regulation (USDC, 1978; Auburn University at Montgomery, Montgomery, AL36193-0401. WadeGriffin and James Richard viability ofrepresentative shrimp vessels Yaffee, 1982). Fivespecies ofsea turtles son are with the Agricultural Economics Depart in the Texas shrimp fishery. are caught in shrimp trawls in the waters ment, Texas A&M University, CoUege Station, TX This analysis, however, does not ex ofthe southeast United States. They are 77843. Jerry Clark was with Texas Parks and Wildlife and Fisheries, P.O. Box 98000, Baton plicitlyconsiderthe interactiveaspects of the loggerhead, Caretta caretta; Kemp's Rouge, LA 70898-9000. Views or opinions ex the shrimp fishery, both among the ves ridley, Lepidochelys kempi; green, Che pressed or implied are those of the authors and do sels and between the vessel catch and loniamydas; leatherback, Dermochelys not necessarily reflect the position ofthe National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. remaining shrimp stock. An implicit coriacea; and hawksbill, Eretmochelys assumption ofthis analysis is that the in imbricata (Dean and Steinbach, 1981; l dividual vessel's fishing behavior would Anonymous ). In 1978, when the green not change as a result ofthe TED regula and loggerhead sea turtles were listed ABSTRACT-Shrimpfishermen trawling in tions, in response to either increases or under the Endangered Species Act (the the Gulf of Mexico and south Atlantic in decreases in catch per tow. Rather, this other three species were listed in earlier advertentlycaptureandkillsea turtles which analysis is based on the resultant impact rulemakings), the problem ofincidental are classifiedas endangeredspecies. Recent legislation requires the use ofa Turtle Ex on the catch ofthe representative vessel take ofthese species in the shrimp fishery cluderDevice (TED) which, when in place in in the Texas shrimp fishery given all the was addressed in a Final Environmental the shrimp trawl, reduces sea turtle mortal interactive effects. That is, after all other Impact Statement (USDC, 1978). At that ity. The impactofthe TED on shrimpproduc considerations, if the vessel catch has time, methods to reduce the incidental tion is notknown. This intermediate analysis changed, what is the impact on the eco take were not available. ofthe TED regulations using an annualfirm level simulation model indicated that the nomic viability ofthe vessel? Finally, this In 1983, NMFS began a formal pro average Texas shrimp vessel hada lowprob is an intermediate analysis ofthe impact gram to encourage voluntary adoption of ability ofbeing an economic success before ofthe TED regulations. Future analysis TED's by the shrimp industry. Through regulations were enacted. An assumption that should be directed at examining the inter the voluntary program, TED's werecon the TED regulations resulted in decreased production aggravatedthis condition andthe active effects within the fishery. structed under contract and distributed to change in Ending Net Worth andNet Present shrimpers who agreed to use them. Modi Value ofEnding Net Worth before and after History fication and evaluation ofthe TED con a TED was placed in the net was significant In 1981 the National Marine Fisheries tinued, resulting in a smaller, lighter, col at the 5 percent level. Service (NMFS), as the result ofan ongo lapsible NMFS TED, as well as other However, thedifference in the IntemalRate ofRetumfor the TED and non-TED simula ing research and development program, non-NMFS TED's. Despite numerous tions was not significant unless the TED introduced a shrimping gear design extension programs, publicity and train- caused a substantial change in catch. This aimed at reducing the capture of sea analysis didnotallowfor interactionsbetween turtles. This device would be sewn into I Anonymous. 1983. Environmental assessment of the fishermen in the shrimp industry, an a shrimp traw1(Fig. 1) and was designed a program to reduce the incidental take ofsea turtles assumption which couldsignificantlyalterthe by the commercial shrimp fleet in the southeast impact ofTED use on the catch andearnings to provide a way for sea turtles to exit the United State. U.S. Dep.Cornmer., NOAA,NMFS ofthe individual shrimp vessel. trawl. Because ofits proposed function, Southeast Reg. Off., 51. Petersburg, Fla., 20 p. 53(2),1991 1 Fla., prior to 1988 (Table 1) identified four TED's which satisfactorily excluded turtles from commercial shrimp nets: 1) The standard 30-inch opening and 25 inch opening NMFS TED's, 2) the "Georgia" TED, 3) the "Cameron" TED, and4) the" Matagorda Bay" TED. In the time period subsequentto 1988, ad ditional devices have been approved but they are not considered as part of this analysis. The NMFS and Cameron TED's are three-dimensional, implying that a sec tion ofthe net must be removed to install the device. The NMFS devices are rec tangular in shape whereas the Cameron TED is circular (Fig. 2). TheGeorgiaand Figure I.-Position of the TED in the shrimp trawl. Matagorda TED's are two-dimensional and are sewn directly into the net. The Georgia TED has a long oval shape with parallel bars creating a barrier across the ing activities, the voluntary program was the TED March though November, and surface of the device. The Matagorda not effective (Anonymous2). As oflate Atlantic vessels from May through Aug TED is rectangular and also has parallel 1986, less than 3 percent of the shrimp ust. Inshore regulations have similar bars which function as a barrier to entry fleet had used or continued to use a TED seasonal requirements but all shrimp intothecod end ofthe trawl (Fig. 3). The (Oravetz3) . trawls musteither use aTED orlimittow positioning of the opening in the trawl, Specific regulations concerning use of time to 90 minutes. which allows turtles and other large TED's were developed in 1986 during organismsto escape, varies by TED. The mediation between members ofthe south Turtle Excluder Devices NMFS and the Matagorda devices have eastern U.S. shrimp industry and inter Testing conductedoffCapeCanaveral, top openings. The Georgia TED has a ested members of the environmental community. Proposed regulations were published in the March 1987 Federal Register and final regulations were pub Table 1.-Summary01 testing conducted todeterminecapabilities ollourTurtleExcluder lished in the July 1987 Federal Register. Devices. Sources: Text footnotes 4,5,6,8, and 10. As summarized by the National Marine Turtles Shrimp Fisheries Service (Anonymous4), as of 1 No. caught (no.) catch (lb.) By-catch (lb.) Test and of May 1989 in offshore waters, use ofthe type of TED tows Control TED Control TED Control TED TED was to be required of all vessels Cape Canaveral tests 1 measuring 25 feet or longer. For vessels NMFSTED 10 14 0 26.00 24.00 7,488 4,164 of less than 25 feet in length, the option Cameron TED 10 21 0 26.75 26.50 4,551 3,026 Georgia TED 10 16 0 13.75 17.25 5,275 4.014 of towing 90 minutes was available. Matagorda TED 10 17 0 31.75 29.50 7,771 4,312 There are seasonal requirements by re North Carolina Sea Grant gion, with Canaveral and southwest NMFS TED with 45° grid angle 8 696' 291 158' 55.50 Florida vessels required to pull the TED NMFS TED with year-round, Gulfvessels required to pull 37° grid angle 10 1,393 1,513 73.10 42.65 SI. Simon's Island NMFSTED 18 158.00 175.38 Georgia TED 18 15988 156.88 2Anonymous. 1986. Report from the turtle excluder Matagorda TED 18 143.25 194.75 device workshop. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA, Cameron TED 18 17588 200.75 NMFS, Southeast Fish. Cent., Pascagoula, Miss., 15 p. Texas testing' 'Chuck Oravetz, National Marine Fisheries Ser Std. NMFS TED 49 3,073 3,127 186.8 230.3 vice, NOAA, Southeast Regional Office, St. Peters Mini NMFS TED 5 170 249 0 2.2 burg, Fla. Presentation at TED meetings in Georgia Jumper 14 753 793 29.6 40.1 Pascagoula, Miss., Oct. 1986. 'Data recorded for 7 tows wfTED, while 10 tows were recorded for control. 4Anonymous. 1989. Summary of TED/tow time 2Measured as number of shrimp rather than pounds of shrimp caught. regulation. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA, NMFS 'Measured in kg. Southeast Reg. Off., St. Petersburg, Fla. I p. 'By-catch measured in bushels. 2 Marine Fisheries Review bottom opening and the Cameron TED can be used with either a bottom or top opening. Meanwhile, TED development and use has also been proceeding in other na tions. In July 1986, following a publicity and coordination trip in March, a work shop and vessel demonstration was held in Mazatlan, Mex. In Indonesia, over 1,000TED's are in use in the western area onjoint-ventureJapanese vessels. Indo nesia has sent fishing gear experts for training at the NMFS Harvesting Sys Cameron TED tems Division, Mississippi Laboratories (USDC, 1985).