SHIFTING GEARS Addressing the Collateral Impacts of Fishing Methods in U.S. Waters

Lance E. Morgan Ratana Chuenpagdee PEW SCIENCE SERIES PEW SCIENCE SERIES Public debate and policy decisions tives: first, to communicate the regarding management of natural results of sound scientific research resources should be guided by good science. on problems that are or will soon be at the Too often, they are not. In some cases, the forefront of environmental decision making problem is a lack of data. In others, it is the and debate; and second, to do so in a way tendency to sacrifice the dictates of good sci- that is readily comprehensible to policymak- ence to the exigencies of politics. In many ers, resource managers, the media and the instances, however, the problem is not the public. absence of scientific information or an The intent of the series is not to simplify unwillingness to pay attention to it. Rather, the scientific endeavor. Rather, it is to make it is that the available scientific data is fre- the fruits of that endeavor more accessible to quently unintelligible to decision makers as those people and institutions charged with well as those who shape public opinion. making decisions that will affect the future The goal of this series of publications health and, in some cases, very survival of is to bridge the gap that so often exists those natural systems upon which human between scientists working to illuminate the society depends. causes and consequences of specific environ- mental problems, and those individuals who Joshua Reichert are faced with making decisions about how Director to address these problems. Each of the series’ Environment Division reports is designed to accomplish two objec- Pew Charitable Trusts

ccccc SHIFTING GEARS Addressing the Collateral Impacts of Fishing Methods in U.S. Waters

Lance E. Morgan Ratana Chuenpagdee SHIFTING GEARS

Copyright © 2003 Lance E. Morgan and Ratana Chuenpagdee

All rights reserved under International and Pan American Copyright Conventions. No part of this book may be repro- duced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher: Island Press, 1718 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20009.

The work on which these findings are based was initiated and sponsored by The Pew Charitable Trusts. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Pew Charitable Trusts.

A product of Island Press Publication Services.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Morgan, Lance. E. Shifting gears : addressing the collateral impacts of fishing methods in U.S. waters / Lance E. Morgan, Ratana Chuenpagdee. p. cm. — (Pew science series on conservation and the environment) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 1-55963-659-9 (pbk.) 1. Fisheries—Gear selectivity. 2. Fisheries—Equipment and supplies—Environmental aspects. I. Ratana Chuenpagdee. II. Title. SH344.15.M67 2003 639.2’028’4—dc21 2003004095

Printed on recycled, acid-free paper.

Manufactured in the United States of America 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

ii SHIFTING GEARS

Contents

Acknowledgments ...... iv

A Note on Terminology...... iv

Executive Summary ...... v

Changing Perspectives ...... 1

Bycatch...... 6

Habitat Damage ...... 7

Fishing in the United States...... 9

Assessing Bycatch and Habitat Damage...... 14

Step 1: Literature Review and Data Compilation...... 14

Step 2: Expert Workshop—Rating of Fishing Gear Impacts ...... 14

Step 3: Survey Ranking of Bycatch and Habitat Damage...... 19

Results of Paired Comparison Survey...... 22

Formulating Policies Using the Severity Ranking of Collateral Impacts...... 25

Policy Recommendations ...... 26

Shifting Gears...... 27

Changing Fishing Practices...... 27

Promoting Gear Innovations ...... 29

Establishing Area-Based Restrictions...... 30

Supporting Future Studies ...... 31

Conclusion ...... 32

Literature Cited ...... 33

Appendix 1 Bycatch and Habitat Damage by Gear Class, as Summarized in Table 1 ...... 36

Appendix 2 “Shifting Gears” Expert Workshop Participants...... 41

About the Authors ...... 42

Photo Credits ...... 42

iii SHIFTING GEARS

Acknowledgments

This study was initiated by the staff of the Environment Program of the Pew Charitable Trusts, who recognize the critical role that fishing gear plays in the ongoing debate about the health of the marine environment, and believe that a scientifically based analysis of the varying impacts of fishing gear will provide a useful tool for the research community, resource managers, conservationists and policy makers to make more informed judgments about the use of such gear in the future. We would like to thank The Pew Charitable Trusts for their vision and financial support. We are indebted to Sara Maxwell for her dedication and tireless efforts; above all, she was always a joy to work with. We also would like to thank the experts who participated in our Seattle workshop, our survey respondents, and various colleagues who provided information. Much of the hard work was done by Rachel C. Atanacio, Katie Burdick, Bill Chandler, Peter Etnoyer, Hannah Gillelan, Tina Harcrow, Courtney Harris, Jessica Morgan, Elizabeth Petras, Laurie Sorabella, Kristin Stahl-Johnson, Chih-Fan Tsao, Anne Wakeford, Andrew C. Walker, and Ed Winn, and we gratefully acknowledge them. Jay Nelson, Elliott Norse, Daniel Pauly, and Diane Thompson provided valuable guidance and insight, and Christine McGowan provided editorial comments and advice in the production of the report. We also appreciate the improvements suggested by three anonymous reviewers.

A Note on Terminology

We avoid using the term “harvest” to refer to capture fisheries in the United States, adopting the view that in order to harvest a resource, one must first plant and care for the organism. Inaccurate use of this term, though commonplace, suggests that fisheries can be managed like cattle or crops, a view that does not adequately account for the enormous complexities in fisheries management. We have adopted the term “fishers” as a gender-neutral term for people in fishing occupations in general.

iv SHIFTING GEARS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY seabird or the destruction of a deep-sea coral reef—alter marine food webs and damage habi- tats, reducing the ability of marine ecosystems How We Fish Matters to sustain fisheries. Fishers, scientists, and managers acknowl- With global reports of declining fisheries catch- edge that these problems exist, but the com- es, and with the disintegration of many local plexity of assessing ecological impacts associat- fishing communities here in the United States, ed with different gears—how we fish—has there is much debate about how best to man- long been a stumbling block to the serious age our fisheries. Traditionally, fisheries have consideration of gear impacts in fisheries man- been managed on a “numbers” basis, species- agement decisions. by-species. In what is referred to as “single- species management,” the focus is on how Severity Ranking of Collateral Impacts many fish can be removed before we cause By synthesizing existing information and using deleterious effects to future stocks. What is all expert knowledge, Shifting Gears documents too often lost in this assessment is the impact and ranks the collateral impacts of various fish- of how we fish—what gear we use, how it is ing gear classes. This ranking will help fishers, deployed, and its consequences for the health conservationists, scientists, managers, and poli- and sustainability of our marine species and cymakers in addressing the urgent need to • At least forty seabird ecosystems. reduce the impacts of fishing. species, including alba- While specific problems, such as the col- Although previous studies document the trosses and petrels in lapse of New England groundfish fisheries, are impacts associated with specific fishing gears, Alaska, are killed by widely covered by the media, the ongoing Shifting Gears is the first to integrate informa- pelagic longlines, with harm to non-target species and damage to tion on bycatch and habitat damage for all mortality rates high marine ecosystems caused by fishing is largely major commercial fishing gears, gauge the enough to cause popula- tion declines in at least overlooked. Currently, almost one-quarter of severity of these collateral impacts, and com- half of these species. global fisheries catches are discarded at sea, pare and rank the overall ecological damage of Streamer line usage is dead or dying, each year. Scientists estimate these gears. reducing this number. that 2.3 billion pounds of sea life were discard- While there has been clear documentation ed in 2000 in the United States alone. In addi- of collateral impacts in some fisheries, until bbbbbbbbb tion, many uncommon, threatened, or endan- now no scientific method has addressed what gered species, such as sharks, sea turtles, types of impacts are considered most harmful. seabirds, and marine mammals, are killed in It is difficult for any one sector of science or fishing operations. There is growing concern society to determine the answers to such ques- that fishing gears that contact the seafloor tions as which is more ecologically damaging, a damage the very habitats that marine life gear that kills endangered sea turtles or one depend on for their survival. that destroys a portion of a deep-sea coral for- These collateral impacts of fishing gears— est. Social science methods can help us answer whether the incidental take of an endangered such questions by integrating the knowledge-

v SHIFTING GEARS

able viewpoints and values of fisheries and ecological impacts from bottom trawls, bot- marine professionals to fill gaps in current tom gillnets, dredges, and midwater (drift) ecological assessments. These answers, in gillnets relatively “high,” impacts from long- turn, provide enhanced understanding of col- lines, pots and traps relatively “moderate,” lateral impacts, which is needed for ecosys- and the impacts from hook and line, purse tem-based management. Ecosystem-based seines, and midwater trawls relatively “low.” management focuses on maintaining the In addition, these marine professionals con- health and viability of the ecosystems on sistently judged habitat impacts to be of which fish depend for their survival, rather greater ecological importance than bycatch than simply calculating, species-by-species, impacts. the number of fish that can be removed. The innovative “damage schedule” Toward Ecosystem-based Management approach used in this study combines existing Taking gear impacts into account is an information with the knowledgeable judg- important first step in the move toward ments of those involved in fisheries issues to ecosystem-based management. Shifting effort produce a ranking of the impacts of commer- from the gears deemed to have high impacts cial fishing gears. Using data compiled from to those with low impacts is one way to over 170 sources, an expert panel of fishers, improve fisheries management. Other meth- managers, and scientists reviewed impacts of ods for mitigating gear impacts include clos- ten commercial fishing gears widely used in ing areas to certain types of fishing and devel- the United States. The results of this work- oping new, less harmful fishing technologies shop were summarized and incorporated into or gear deployment practices. This report can an anonymous survey that was distributed to serve as the basis for future policies to reduce fishery management council members the impact of fisheries on marine life and (including fishers), scientists who served on their habitats. the National Research Council’s Ocean The time has come for fishery managers Studies Board or its study panels, and fishery and conservation organizations to add fishing specialists of conservation organizations. selectively, avoiding habitat damage, and pro- These professionals were asked to consider tecting marine biodiversity as important com- the suite of collateral impacts of various gear ponents in maintaining ocean ecosystems and classes in paired comparisons, each time healthy fisheries. The results of this report choosing which set of impacts they consid- demonstrate that people with diverse interests ered to be ecologically most severe. and experiences agree on the relative severity Contrary to general expectations, the of ecological damage caused by different fish- results of this survey show remarkable con- ing gears. This consensus ranking demon- sensus among the different groups: there was strates that common ground exists for better consistent agreement about which fishing management of the collateral impacts of fish- gears are the most and least damaging to ing gears. marine resources. The respondents rated the vi SHIFTING GEARS

Changing Perspectives cccccccc

umanity’s collective view of the ocean, collateral impacts, which are the focus of this Hour understanding of human influence report (see Box 1 for definitions of these on it, and the way we value marine life have terms), receive less attention for several reasons: changed dramatically over the past century. In few nonfishers observe fishing operations; very the late nineteenth century, the sea seemed so few people, including fishers and fishery man- bountiful that eminent British biologist agers, ever visit the seafloor; and as human Thomas Huxley (1883) declared, “I believe beings we tend to underestimate the adverse that...all the great sea-fisheries are inex- environmental effects of our actions, in part haustible...nothing we can do seriously affects because of the short history of our individual the number of fish.” But at the close of the experiences (i.e., shifting baselines; Pauly 1995, twentieth century, scientists had provided Dayton et al. 1998). This lack of awareness has unmistakable evidence that the sea is in trouble greatly slowed actions to curtail bycatch and (Norse 1993; Butman and Carlton 1995). The habitat damage caused by fishing. health of estuaries, coastal waters, and oceans has become an increasing global concern, and it is now clear that the largest threat to the sea’s biological diversity and productivity is fishing Box 1 Definitions (Jackson et al. 2001; Pauly et al. 2002; Dayton Collateral impact: et al. 2002). Unintentional or incidental damage to sea life or seafloor Humans have hunted marine animals for a habitat caused by fishing activities directed toward other types of sea life. Collateral impact includes bycatch and very long time, but the sea’s opacity made fish- habitat damage. ing very inefficient. Our earlier, limited tech- nology allowed many fish to escape and others Bycatch: The incidental catching and discarding of species alive, to remain undiscovered. But twentieth-century injured, or dead, while fishing. Three classes of bycatch innovations—larger boats, steel hulls, and pow- are as follows: erful engines; improved fishing gears; and 1. Economic bycatch—species discarded because they weather forecasting, navigation, and fish-find- are of little or no economic value (e.g., in poor condi- ing technologies—have “made the seas trans- tion or nonmarketable); parent” (Koslow et al. 2000; Roberts 2002). 2. Regulatory bycatch—marketable species discarded These innovations, coupled with an inex- because of management regulations (e.g., size limits, haustible demand for seafood, place almost all allocations, seasons); marine populations and habitats at risk. 3. Collateral mortality—species killed in encounters with Usually, the collapse of fisheries is attrib- fishing gears that are not brought on board the vessel. uted to overfishing, the taking of more individ- Habitat damage: uals than the remaining population can replace. Damage to living seafloor structures (e.g., corals, Fishery managers traditionally have paid less sponges, seagrasses) as well as alteration to the attention to the incidental, or collateral, geologic structures (e.g., boulders, cobbles, gravel, sand, impacts of fishing on nontarget species (those mud) that serve as nursery areas, refuges, and homes not actively sought by fishers) and on the habi- for fishes and organisms living on or near the seafloor. tat of both target and nontarget species. These

1 SHIFTING GEARS

There have been efforts to address the col- methods are banned not because they can lateral impacts of fishing, but they have been result in overfishing but because of the collat- insufficient to deal with the magnitude of eral impacts they cause. Restricting these these problems. Examples include the effort, methods was undoubtedly easier for Americans led by the United States in the 1980s, to ban because the restrictions had no substantial High Seas drift nets over a certain length— effect on U.S. fisheries. However, U.S. fisheries because of high mortality to marine mammals, cause significant bycatch and habitat damage seabirds, and sea turtles—and restrictions on that need to be addressed comprehensively. dynamite fishing and cyanide fishing on coral This report details the results of a study that reefs in areas of the Indo-West Pacific. These asked, “Which classes of commercial fishing gear used in the United States produce the most severe collateral impacts?” This question must be answered because Box 2 The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery the United States faces major challenges in Conservation and Management Act managing its fisheries. Federal fishery manage-

Passed in 1976, the Each of the eight regional ment derives from the Magnuson-Stevens Magnuson-Stevens Fishery fishery management councils Fishery Conservation and Management Act Conservation and Management has seven to twenty-one voting (FCMA) (Box 2). The 2002 report of the Act (FCMA) established control members representing a com- National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), of U.S. fishing resources out to bination of state and tribal National Ocean and Atmospheric 200 nautical miles from the management officials, the Administration, U.S. Department of U.S. coastline. The stated pur- regional director of NMFS, and Commerce, on the status of U.S. fish stocks poses of this law include devel- individuals who are knowledge- oping and conserving fishery able of fishery resources, nomi- revealed that 93 of 304 fully assessed stocks resources in U.S. waters, but it nated by state governors and either were overfished or were experiencing also was designed to appointed by the secretary of overfishing (another 655, or 68 percent, of Americanize these resources by the U.S. Department of U.S.-managed stocks were not assessed). News removing foreign fishing fleets. Commerce. The main function stories about overfishing have become routine In addition, the Act established of the councils is to prepare across the country, including the well-publi- regional fishery management fishery management plans and councils to advise the National subsequent amendments to be cized troubles of New England groundfish Marine Fisheries Service submitted to the Secretary of (e.g., Atlantic cod, haddock, yellowtail floun- regarding fishery regulations Commerce for approval and der) and West Coast rockfishes (e.g., bocaccio, within eight specified fishery implementation. These fishery canary rockfish, yelloweye rockfish). The col- management regions. management plans must take lapse of fish populations represents a serious In 1996, in response to into consideration social, eco- social and economic, as well as ecological, findings that had accumulated nomic, biological, and environ- problem for coastal communities. At the same over two decades, the FCMA mental factors associated with was substantially revised by the fisheries, while minimizing time, the United States is witnessing popula- Sustainable Fisheries Act. The bycatch to the extent practica- tion declines in many sea turtle, marine mam- amended law required the ble and designating essential mal, and seabird species that we do not harm regional fishery management fish habitat and methods to deliberately. These parallel declines are very councils and NMFS to improve reduce damage to it. Thus, likely linked to the ways we fish. the sustainability of fisheries by these conservation mandates A growing number of scientists (e.g., stopping overfishing, “rebuild- of the FCMA provide the foun- ing” stocks, reducing bycatch, dation for the implementation Dayton et al. 1995; Pitcher and Pauly 1998; and identifying and protecting of ecosystem-based manage- Pitcher et al. 1999; NRC 1999; Dayton et al. essential fish habitat. ment. 2002) recommends refocusing attention from

2 SHIFTING GEARS single-species management (which evaluates species—those targeted, their young, and other fish stocks one by one) to the protection and commercial and noncommercial species—as rebuilding of ecosystems, including species and well as the geologic and biological components their habitats. Considering the bigger picture of seafloor habitats (Figure 1). Altering food and managing fisheries with a broader range of webs by removing predators, prey, competitors, considerations is called ecosystem-based man- and alternative hosts of parasites, or affecting agement. habitats by removing structure-forming species Ecosystem-based management is needed on the seafloor, can result in unintended because the way people think about fish, and changes in populations and marine ecosystems the tools used to “manage” them, no longer (Estes et al. 1998; Pauly et al. 1998; Tegner adequately reflect what marine scientists know and Dayton 2000). Fishery management prin- about fish. The prevailing management para- cipally based on stock assessment cannot possi- digm focuses on avoiding overfishing by ask- bly predict these cascading effects. And fish- ing, “How many tons of a stock can be fished eries cannot be managed sustainably unless without diminishing future catch?” This fishery management deals successfully with the approach deals with fish populations one by collateral impacts of fishing gears. one, as if each fish population and fishery Ecosystem-based management is both fas- existed in isolation. But scientists have known cinating and challenging for several reasons. the flaws inherent in this approach for decades For one, ecosystem-based management involves (Larkin 1977; May et al. 1979). Fishing gears many more considerations than single-species are seldom selective. It affects a wide range of management. Moreover, our knowledge is not

Figure 1 Ecological Impacts of Fishing

Fishing reduces the abun- dance of target and non- target fish populations. Other non-target species can be injured or killed as bycatch. The physical impact of fishing gear on the seafloor harms habitats for important commercial species and other marine life. Together these impacts can lead to habitat dam- age, reduced biodiversity, changes in food webs, and reduced ecosystem function.

Adapted from Pauly et al 1998, and Dayton et al 2002.

3 SHIFTING GEARS

complete: scientists have not yet identified and understand the way different classes of fishing described all the species and processes that gears affect species that are not their intended drive marine ecosystem dynamics. Another targets, as well as the gears’ effects on the com- challenge is that “nature is variable, uncertain, position, structure, and functioning of marine unpredictable, and capricious” (Pimm 2001). ecosystems. Therefore, how we fish must be a In other words, it gives managers moving tar- central consideration in marine ecosystem-based gets. But the complexity and variability of management. marine ecosystems is no excuse for failing to A key stumbling block in assessing these make the transition from single-species man- collateral impacts has been an absence of ways agement to ecosystem-based management. The to compare classes of fishing gears. It is not continuing collapse of so many fisheries and inherently difficult to assess fisheries in terms the ongoing problems of bycatch and habitat of tons or dollars. But ecological assessments damage, which affect marine ecosystems more are more challenging. For instance, what bbbbbbbbb broadly, illustrate that single-species manage- would a thoughtful fishery manager consider ment has not worked. more harmful: a gear class that kills large num- • Bycatch of sharks and Ecosystem-based management aims to sus- bers of juvenile fishes before they are mar- finfish, species that asso- tain—and, where needed, restore—fisheries ketable, one that kills many uncommon ciate with the targeted and ecosystems, but it has yet to be imple- seabirds, one that lays flat whole forests of fish schools, occurs mented to any meaningful degree in the coral, or one that disturbs large areas of nurs- throughout U.S. waters. United States. An essential first step is for us to ery habitat for young fishes? Such comparisons

4 SHIFTING GEARS are crucial because different gears target the the consequences of fishing in terms of same species in the same places, and fishery bycatch and habitat damage. managers need information and tools to Similar methods have been applied to address their comparative ecological effects. environmental issues such as siting of poten- Many studies have summarized aspects of tially noxious facilities (Opaluch et al. bycatch or habitat alteration (Alverson 1993); comparison of the value of private 1998; Auster and Langton 1999; Hall 1999; goods (e.g., concert tickets, clothing, travel Johnson 2002; NRC 2002), but this report certificates) with that of public goods (park- uniquely considers these collateral impacts ing capacity, wildlife refuges, clean air) together in evaluating the overall ecological (Peterson and Brown 1998); and assessment effects of different classes of commercial of the health of the eastern Bering Sea fishing gears. ecosystem (Chuenpagdee and Vasconcellos Ideally, managers base their decisions on 2000). This report employs the damage the best available information, taking into schedule to incorporate individuals’ scienti- account underlying assumptions and accept- fic knowledge and subjective judgments able levels of uncertainty. In fishery manage- regarding habitat damage and bycatch asso- ment, uncertainty regarding gear-specific ciated with different classes of fishing gears. habitat damage and bycatch can be high, if This method is a simple and straightforward data are available at all, which makes deci- way to rank the adverse ecological effects of sion making difficult. As desirable as it is to gears used in U.S. commercial fisheries, maintain and expand data acquisition efforts providing a management tool for decision and scientific understanding, we need makers and others interested in marine means of interpreting and using existing ecosystem-based management. information. This is especially true where Application of the damage schedule in knowledge exists but has not been formal- this report involved three steps. First, we ized or standardized in the scientific litera- reviewed the literature and compiled infor- • Despite regulations, old ture. mation for commercial fisheries, fishing nets and cod ends are Bycatch and habitat damage reduce the gears, and their impacts on bycatch and dumped at sea, entan- value of marine ecosystems through direct habitats. Next, we conducted a workshop of gling marine mammals economic losses to fisheries, and harm fishers, fisheries specialists, scientists, and and damaging sensitive ecosystem integrity. The extent of these loss- managers, who used this information to rate seafloor organisms. es can be determined in different ways: by the level of bycatch and habitat damage for quantification of lost monetary value due to each fishing gear. We then used the gear rat- bbbbbbbbb changes in productivity or removal of ings from this expert workshop to design a species with monetary value, or by nonmon- questionnaire that we used to survey a broad etary measures of social well-being related to range of marine professionals to elicit their the resource (e.g., enjoyment of the act of judgments about the relative severity of fishing). Because we are still in our scientific bycatch and habitat damage caused by those infancy in determining the effects of fishing classes of fishing gears. The results of the on ecosystems (Hall 1999) and it is exceed- survey provide a ranking of the different ingly difficult—if not impossible—to place impacts of the fishing gears on bycatch and a monetary value on marine ecosystems, this habitat, and serve as the basis for the man- report uses a nonmonetary valuation agement implications and policy recommen- approach, the “damage schedule,” to assess dations found at the end of this report.

5 SHIFTING GEARS ccccccccc Bycatch coverage, not including fisheries with very large vessels, is limited (e.g., less than 1 percent Every year, fisheries in the United States discard observer coverage in the case of the Gulf of vast numbers of invertebrates, fish, sea turtles, Mexico shrimp fishery). The low rate of observ- sea birds, and marine mammals that were er coverage means that the only way to get over- caught unintentionally (Alverson 1998). Using all bycatch estimates is to extrapolate from small Alverson’s estimate that roughly 25 percent of samples to an entire fleet. These estimates also catch is discarded, Dayton and colleagues assume that fishers fish the same way whether (2002) estimated that in 2000, U.S. fisheries or not observers are on board and that species discarded 2.3 billion pounds (1.05 million met- are uniformly distributed—neither of which is ric tons) of sea life. In some fisheries, such as necessarily valid. the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery, it is estimat- Bycatch occurs because fishing gear does ed that there is nearly 10 lbs. of bycatch for not discriminate between the target species and every pound of shrimp landed (Alverson et al. those that live in close association with it. Many bbbbbbbbb 1994; Nance and Scott-Denton 1997). factors influence the severity of bycatch, includ- One of the most vexing issues is the scarcity ing the species’ pattern of distribution (e.g., • Bycatch of fishes and of valid bycatch estimates. Many estimates are patchiness or concentration in one area, season- invertebrates can out- based on fishers’ logbooks, but it is doubtful ality), predictability of behavior, and associa- weigh target species that they always report bycatch accurately. tions with other species, as well as the degree to (shrimp) by five, ten, or More often, bycatch is estimated from reports which fishers can control deployment of the twenty or more times. by onboard observers. Unfortunately observer gear (Hall 1996). With the possible exception of

6 SHIFTING GEARS harpooning, spearfishing, and hand-picking, Habitat Damage ccccccccc all classes of fishing gears result in some level of unintended catch. Perhaps more significant but even less Bycatch creates problems for both fish- understood than bycatch is the adverse effect ers and managers. Bycatch of species pro- of commercial fishing gears on benthic tected under the Marine Mammal Protect- (seafloor) habitats. The seafloor is, quite liter- ion Act of 1972 or the Endangered Species ally, a largely uncharted frontier for science, Act of 1973 can cause fisheries to be closed. yet it is crucial to the biological productivity In addition, regulatory bycatch—discards of the ocean. Only in recent years has science that occur because management regimes begun to comprehend the importance of the limit the types of fish a particular fisher can seafloor as fish habitat and the ecological land—leads to discarding of marketable implications of its disturbance by humans. species. For example, current regulations in Fishing gears that contact the seafloor Alaska prohibit fishers not licensed to fish disturbs geologic and biological structures. for Pacific halibut, salmon, herring, or cer- These gears plane off structures on soft tain crab species from retaining these areas of the ocean bottom, displace boulders, species. When a fishery exceeds its bycatch and harm bottom-dwelling organisms by limit for one of these species, it is closed for crushing them, burying them, or exposing the season (Pereyra 1996; Trumble 1996). In them to predators. The habitat damage 1994, the bycatch mortality of Pacific hal- caused by a particular gear depends on its ibut in Alaska equaled 19 percent of the total footprint—that is, whether the gear is towed allowable catch and 29 percent of commer- across the bottom and causes linear distur- cial landings (Trumble 1996). Because of bances or contacts the bottom only at regulatory bycatch closures, the overall 1995 restricted points. Type of habitat, duration groundfish catch reached only about two- of contact, and type, width, weight, and • Bottom trawls cause thirds of the total allowable catch. Excessive number of units employed all determine the damage to seafloor halibut bycatch also required fishers to forgo extent of adverse effects. The benthic ani- habitats including approximately 17,600 tons (16,000 metric mals most sensitive to fishing gears are those scarring of sandy- tons) of other flatfishes (e.g., sole) catch in that are erect and fragile, long-lived and bottom seafloors. 1994 (Stone and Bublitz 1996). slow-growing, or living in waters where It is clear that bycatch significantly severe natural disturbances are less common, bbbbbbbbb impacts individual species. In the United particularly below a depth of 350 feet (100 States in 2001, the federal government pro- meters). posed listing the smalltooth sawfish as Efforts to understand the role of the endangered under the Endangered Species seafloor are complicated by the fact that Act solely because of bycatch mortality many places were substantially altered before (Federal Register 2001). Other species scientific study began (Watling and Norse imperiled as a result of bycatch include the 1998; Thrush et al. 2001). The lack of a his- barndoor skate in the North Atlantic Ocean torical baseline makes it much more difficult and the leatherback sea turtle in the Pacific. to determine the significance of what we see Impacts to many other species, especially today. To paraphrase Dayton and colleagues non-target species, are not known, and even (1998), no matter how well one understands more problematic is the assessment of the present populations, any current program will ecosystem-wide consequences of bycatch. fail to discern the ghosts of missing animals.

7 SHIFTING GEARS

What scientists do know is that seafloor 283 species (worth $2,800 million) lived pri- communities support an extraordinary diversi- marily in association with the seafloor, whereas ty of life and much of the sea’s productivity. Of only 85 species (worth $630 million) lived pri- the more than 235,000 animal species known marily in the water column. Twelve other to live in the ocean, more than 98 percent are species (worth $189 million) moved between found in or on the ocean floor (Thurman and the two habitats. bbbbbbbbb Burton 2001). Many major marine species Another factor that can amplify habitat groups are exclusively or almost exclusively damage, bycatch, or both is the loss of fishing Physical and benthic as adults. These include sponges, gear, which can lead to ghost-fishing. This Biological corals, annelid worms, clams, oysters, sea slugs, occurs when lost gear continues to disturb the Habitat Impacts shrimps, lobsters, crabs, sea stars, rockfishes, and seafloor or catch organisms even though fishers The photo on this page other perch-like fishes. Not surprisingly, the are no longer able to recover the catch. shows the seafloor, undis- importance of the seafloor is reflected in statis- Because lost pelagic and midwater gear gradu- turbed, rich with life. On tics for commercial landings in the United ally gets heavier from encrusting organisms the next page is a photo States. In the year 2000, of 380 marine fish- and dying animals, it eventually sinks, and of the same location after eries listed in NMFS’ fishery landings database can damage the seafloor. Lost gear adds to the a dredge has left its foot- (on the Internet at http://www.st.nmfs.gov/), collateral impacts caused when it was in use. print.

8 SHIFTING GEARS

Fishing in the United States cccccccc

This report categorizes fishing gear according to Pacific tuna fishery. The ten classes of fishing ten classes commonly used in commercial cap- gear addressed in this report are used in differing ture fisheries in the United States. The ten gear degrees in all eight fishery management council classes considered are: dredges, bottom gillnets, (FMC) regions, and the same gear may target midwater and drift gillnets, hook and line, bot- different species in different regions (Figure 2). tom longlines, pelagic longlines, pots and traps, In general, fishing gears can be broadly clas- purse seine, bottom trawls, and midwater trawls. sified according to whether they target species The report does not address the different types associated with the seafloor (benthic) or those of handfishing (harpooning, spearfishing, and living in the water column (pelagic). Different diver collecting),1 nor does it include an assess- fishing gears are used to target different species ment of the country’s substantial recreational across diverse habitats. Each FMC has regional fisheries, although the latter also adversely affect differences in habitats and species which dictate marine populations and ecosystems (Dayton et in part how gears are modified and used, al. 2002). Neither did we consider destructive although many aspects of an individual gear’s fishing methods not used in the United States, usage are common to all target species and habi- such as chemical or dynamite fishing, nor inter- tats. Following on page 12 is a description of the national fisheries such as the Eastern Tropical ten major gear classifications used in this study

1 This gear class was initially included in our study, but removed from the list of gears (Figure 3). evaluated due to insufficient information on impacts associated with their use, and because suspected impacts are considered negligible.

9 SHIFTING GEARS

Figure 2 Landings by Gear Class in 2001 by Fishery Management Council Region

bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb

Regional breakdown of com- pie chart shows percentage mercial fish landings in thou- landings by weight, total sand metric tons (MT) and dollar value for gear class in value (millions of dollars). millions, and highest value For each FMC region, the species for each gear class.

North Pacific – 1,530 MT ($666)

7% Gillnets – midwater

9% Other ($175; Pacific halibut) 16% Purse seineses ($102; pink salmonon)

63% Trawls – midwater 5% Trawls – bottomb ($237; walleye pollock) ($43; Pacific cod) U.S. REGI FISHE bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb MANAGE COUNC Pacific – 389 MT ($312)

17% Other ($149; albacore tuna) 4% Pots and traps ($79; Dungenes crab)

20% Trawls – midwater ($10; whiting)

48% Purse seine 11% Trawls – bottom ($32; market squid) ($42; ocean shrimp)

bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb

Western Pacific – 9 MT ($40)

1% Other ($0.5; caridean shrimp)

3% Purse seines 1% Gillnets – bottom ($1; big-eye scad ‘akule’) ($0.3; big-eye scad ‘akule’)

63% Longlines – pelagic 32% Hook and line ($27; big-eye tuna) ($12; yellowfin tuna ‘ahi’)

10 SHIFTING GEARS

bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb

New England – 286 MT ($639)

7% Dredges $109; sea scallops)

15% Pots and trap ($244; American lobster)

26% 33% Trawls – bottom ($147; goosefish)

bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb

ONAL Mid-Atlantic – 379 MT ($348)

RY 14% Dredges ($125; sea scallops)

MENT 12% Other 8% Pots and traps ($80; quahog clams) CILS ($75; blue crabs)

6% Trawls – bottom 60% Purse seines ($41; sea scallops) ($27; Atlantic menhaden)

bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb

South Atlantic – 85 MT ($167)

5% Hook and line ($17; king and cero mackerel)

23% Other 23% Pots and traps ($42; quahog clams) ($46; blue crab)

7% Other 20% Trawls – bottom 29% Purse seines ($59; shrimp) ($2; Atlantic menhaden) 3% – ts and traps blue crab)

13% Purse seine

*Quahog clams caught using a gear not assessed in this report.

Data from the fish landing statistics of NMFS, and augmented as needed for clarity, with state infor- mation. The PACFIN database for the Pacific FMC. The ADF&G database for Alaska. Data for Western Pacific FMC is available for Hawaii only, from Hawaii Division of Aquatic Resources statistics. No data is available for the Caribbean FMC. 11 SHIFTING GEARS

Figure 3 Descriptions of Fishing Gears bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb

1 Dredges Gillnets 3 Midwater Gillnets and-line fisheries, monofilament (Including Scallop Dredges and A gillnet is a curtain-like panel (Including Drift Nets) or steel line is used. Hook-and- Hydraulic Clam Dredges) of netting that is suspended Midwater gillnets are most com- line fishing includes the use of Dredges are used to catch benth- vertically in the water by floats monly used to catch pelagic rod and reel or power-assisted ic species such as clams, scallops, along the top of the net and (water-column) fish species such reel (bandit rig), handline fishing oysters, blue crabs, sea urchins, weighted along the bottom as sharks, herring, mackerel, (no reel used), trolling, and jig sea cucumbers, and goosefish. (lead line). Because the mono- salmon, and swordfish. Midwater fishing, in which several hooks are They are towed behind a vessel, filament line used to make the gillnets are marked at the ends deployed from the base line in a sometimes in pairs. Dredges are net is transparent, organisms with buoys, but the nets are not cascade. Jigging is also used to defined by the width of the are unable to see the net, and anchored to the seafloor. catch schooling organisms such frame. Most dredges are thirteen they swim into it and become Midwater gillnets can be as much as flying squid. or fifteen feet (approximately four entangled, often by their gill as 1,200 feet (360 meters) long to four and one-half meters) wide cover (operculum). Two main and 12–50 feet (3.5–13 meters) and can weigh as much as 2,400 types of gillnets are in use: deep. Many net panels can be pounds, or 1,000 kilograms. The bottom gillnets and midwater tied together. Longlines dredge most commonly used in gillnets. A longline consists of a long the United States is the New 4 Hook and Line stationary line (usually con- Bedford style dredge, which con- 2 Bottom Gillnets (Including Trolling, Bandit Rigs, structed from thick monofila- sists of a large metal frame with a (Including Anchored or Handlines, and Jigging) ment or steel) to which shorter metal bag to hold the collected Set Gillnets) Hook-and-line fishing is used to lines with baited hooks (as many organisms. The frame and cutting Bottom gillnets are used to catch catch both pelagic species, such as 12,000 per line) are attached. bar ride along the surface of the benthic species such as sharks, as salmon, tunas, and swordfish, They are typically left in place seafloor, occasionally digging into goosefish, cod, pollock, and and benthic species, such as for periods ranging from several the bottom, while the bag drags flounder. These nets are either sablefish, snappers, groupers, hours to a couple of days. along behind, in contact with weighted and/or anchored to halibut, rockfishes, and cod. In Configuration of the lines, the seafloor. The front of the maintain contact with the sea- hook-and-line fishing, individual including the addition of floats frame is outfitted with a tickler floor. An individual gillnet can lines with baited hooks or lures or weights, can be tailored to chain, which triggers organisms be 350 feet (100 meters) long. are deployed from a vessel, much different target species and such as scallops to propel from Often, ten to twenty nets are as most recreational fishing is habitats. the seafloor so they are more tied together in a line. done. Hook sizes, sinkers, and easily captured. Rock chains are the weight and composition of used on rocky areas of seafloor lines vary, depending on target to prevent large boulders from species and rig. In most hook- entering the bag.

7 5 2

1

12 9 SHIFTING GEARS

5 Bottom Longlines 8 Purse Seines bridle that connects to a foot The spread of trawl nets can be Bottom longlines are used to Purse seines are primarily used to rope on the bottom and a as much as 200 feet (55 meters) catch benthic species such as cod catch schooling pelagic species buoyed head rope to hold the wide and 40 feet (12 meters) (Pacific and Atlantic), rockfishes, such as squid, salmon, men- net mouth open. In a beam high. Trawls are used from shal- Pacific halibut, sablefish, and haden, sardine, and herring. This trawl, a wooden or metal beam, low depths of 50 feet (15 meters) groupers. Weights are added to gear operates with two boats per rather than doors, holds the inshore to extreme depths of the lines to allow them to rest on net. The main boat remains sta- mouth of the net open. Use of 6,000 feet (2 km) on the conti- or slightly above the seafloor. The tionary while a much smaller boat beam trawls is minimal in the nental slope. lines are marked with buoys on encircles the fish with a long net United States. the sea surface. that has floats on top. Once the 10 Midwater Trawls net is in place, the purse line is 9 Bottom Trawls Midwater trawls are used mostly 6 Pelagic Longlines pulled to close the bottom of the (Including Otter Trawls, Shrimp to catch pelagic and bentho- Pelagic longlines are used to net and capture the fish, which Trawls, and Beam Trawls) pelagic schooling species, such catch large pelagic species such are then hauled aboard Bottom trawls are used through- as pollock, hake, herring as tunas and swordfish. They are the larger vessel. out most of the United States to and Atlantic mackerel. free-floating, supported by large catch benthic species such as The most common midwater floats, and can be many miles shrimp, sole, cod, flounder, and trawls are similar to bottom trawls long. They can be set at depths rockfishes. Most bottom trawls but with lighter rigging, and larg- as great as 1,200 feet (360 Trawls are variations of the otter trawl. er net mouths, up to 330 feet meters). Trawls are a class of mobile fish- Typically, doors are designed to (100 meters). Despite their name, ing gear in which a large, bag- come into contact with the midwater trawls can be used 7 Pots and Traps like net is towed behind a ves- seafloor; however, newer designs close to the bottom and contact Pots and traps are used to catch sel. The cone-shaped net is wide skid across the seafloor with less the seafloor. whelks, prawns, crabs, lobster, at the mouth and narrows to contact. The groundline, which and fishes such as Pacific cod and create a “cod end.” The net is keeps the net in close contact Atlantic black sea bass. Frames held open by a solid beam, or with the seafloor, can be a are commonly made from wood, by the force of water pressure weighted chain or cable, some- aluminum, steel, or vinyl-covered against the doors, often made times modified with large, heavy wire and wrapped with nylon of wood or steel, that move discs and rollers designed to ride mesh or twine. Baited pots are upright through the water. Each over obstructions and keep the left in place for up to several door can weigh many thousands net belly from snagging and tear- days. Many pots can be connect- of pounds (as much as 6,000 ing on the seafloor. ed by a common line (e.g., trot kilograms). The net is attached line or set line), and they can to the doors by a weighted be set on the floor at a variety of depths, from very shallow to hundreds of meters.

3

6 8

4

10

13 SHIFTING GEARS ccccccccc Assessing Bycatch and Habitat Damage

The assessment of bycatch and habitat damage where these gears operate. The data were then involved three steps. standardized for reporting units—for instance, using tonnage or the number of individuals. Step 1: Literature Review This compilation was provided to the expert and Data Compilation workshop participants (see Box 3 for an exam- ple) and is summarized in Table 1. The first step in this project was to review the literature documenting the ecological effects of Step 2: Expert Workshop— the ten specified classes of fishing gear. The lit- Rating of Fishing Gear Impacts erature review focused on the largest fisheries, by landings and values, based on fishery statis- At a one-day workshop held in Seattle, tics kept by NMFS. We reviewed over 170 Washington, on March 23, 2002, we convened documents for relevant bycatch and habitat a group of thirteen fishery experts to rate information. Our review of the literature indi- bycatch and habitat damage for each of the cated that scientific knowledge of adverse ten classes of fishing gear. These experts were bbbbbbbbb effects vary considerably among gear classes. selected because of their familiarity with differ- For example, bottom trawls and dredges are ent fishing gear classes and their knowledge of relatively well studied in comparison with bycatch and habitat damage caused by these other gears. gears. They also represent a range of scientific We compiled the bycatch and habitat disciplines, technical expertise, and geographic impact information for the major fisheries regions. The participants included two natural

Box 3 Bycatch in the California Drift Gillnet Fishery for Swordfish

The drift gillnet fishery for swordfish and 1990 to 1998 (Rasmussen and Holts 2001; Target sharks, using mesh nets with a stretched see pie chart) and estimated mortality of 11% Discarded Retained diameter greater than fourteen inches, marine mammals, seabirds, and sea turtles invertebrates (nontarget) has existed off the West Coast of the (Julian and Beeson 1998). Observer cover- 8% 23% United States since 1977. Annually since age in this fishery ranges from about 13 1980, with the exception of a few years, to 18 percent, and information regarding either the California Department of Fish bycatch of nontarget fish is collected in and Game or NMFS has fielded an terms of number of individuals rather than observer program to record the fishery’s weight. Estimated annual mortality of catch, bycatch, and adverse effects on marine mammals from 1992 to 1994 was Discarded sharks Discarded finfish protected species. Data available at the 492.5; observed mortalities were marine 42% 16% time of the expert review described in this mammals – 219, sea turtles –19, and report included observed bycatch from seabirds –6 (Julian and Beeson 1998). BY INDIVIDUALS: SUM 101,639 1990–1998 (14% Observer Coverage) Species Observed in Bycatch: Marine Mammals • common dolphin • northern elephant seal • Dall’s porpoise • northern right whale dolphin • Risso’s dolphin • short-finned pilot whale • Pacific white-sided dolphin • Finfish • blue marlin • black marlin • sailfish • bay pipefish • blacksmith • bullet mackerel • California barracuda • California needlefish • common mola • jack mackerel • louvar • mobula • northern anchovy • oarfish • opah • Pacific bonito • Pacific hake • Pacific herring • Pacific mackerel • Pacific pomfret • Pacific sardine • remora • white seabass • yellowtail • Sharks and Rays • Pacific angel shark • prickly shark • salmon shark • six-gill shark • seven-gill shark • smooth hammerhead shark • soupfin shark • spiny dogfish shark • bat ray • big skate • manta • Pacific electric ray • pelagic stingray • round stingray • basking shark • white shark • megamouth shark • Seabirds and 14 Sea Turtles • leatherback sea turtles • loggerhead sea turtles • unrecorded seabird species SHIFTING GEARS

Table 1. Overview of Bycatch and Habitat Damage by Gear Class Note: See Appendix 1 for referenced literature.

1 Dredges

Habitat Damage Bycatch Dredging reduces habitat complexity, Dredges catch or damage organisms not Examples of Threats leading to long-term effects including targeted, especially sponges, bivalves, • Dredging for sea scallops and clams in decreased species richness and biomass aquatic vegetation, and bottom fishes. New England causes significant bycatch and increased presence of weedy species. These organisms often are uprooted from of small crabs and other bottom- Dredging damages organisms, reduces the seafloor and then crushed by the dwelling organisms, such as flounder. biomass and smothers submerged aquatic weight of the bag and are unlikely to sur- • Dredges catch endangered barndoor vegetation (SAV) and algae. On sand, vive if captured and discarded. Bag ring skates in the offshore Atlantic sea scal- mud, and silt bottoms, dredging smooths size can be regulated to reduce the num- lop fishery. bedforms, resuspends sediments reducing ber of unwanted organisms retained in the • Dredges cause severe habitat damage, the number of species living there as a bag. especially in areas of hard bottom and result of burial or smothering, and reduces gravel. An example is seen off Swan nutrients and microbial activity. Dredging Ghost-Fishing Island in New England, where the cover- of gravel, hard-bottom, and living habitats No effects are expected, given that age of living organisms attached to the reduces species living in the interstices of dredging gear is rarely lost, and if it is, it seafloor has been greatly reduced. the gravel and rocks, species attached to stops fishing. the seafloor, and habitat complexity. On oyster reefs dredging reduces reef height and decreases oyster resistance to low- oxygen. Dredging also damages shellfish found in and on top of soft bottoms.

2 Gillnets – Bottom (Anchored or Set)

Habitat Damage Ghost-Fishing In strong ocean currents or when being Gillnets often are intentionally placed near Examples of Threats hauled out of the water, bottom gillnets shipwrecks to take advantage of the fishes’ • In New England, gillnets cause bycatch may become tangled and snagged on attraction to these structures, resulting in of harbor porpoises, bottlenose and rocks and living organisms, such as corals the wrecks becoming covered with nets white-sided dolphins, pilot whales, har- and aquatic plants, breaking or uprooting which continue to catch fish that cannot be bor seals, gray seals, and harp seals. structures and organisms. Damage is high- recovered. The rate of continuous fishing • Shark bycatch occurs in gillnets through- er with mechanical hauling gear. by lost gillnets (ghost-fishing) depends on out U.S. waters. maintenance of a vertical profile, visibility • Thousands of seabirds, such as common Bycatch to fish (older nets become more visible as murres, as well as harbor porpoises, sea Gillnets are a nonselective type of gear, a result of encrustation by algae, etc.), and otters, and other marine mammals, are often catching a wide range of nontarget abundance of fish in the area where the caught in halibut fisheries off California. species. By extending vertically into the gillnet is lost. Lost nets can become tan- • Endangered and threatened sea turtles, water column, bottom gillnets cause gled on seafloor structures such as coral such as green, loggerhead, and Kemp’s bycatch of marine mammals, seabirds, sea heads and rocky outcroppings, damaging ridley turtles, commonly are caught in turtles, sharks, and finfishes. Occasionally, the seafloor and entangling organisms. southern gillnet fisheries, such as the benthic species such as crabs become Mid-Atlantic FMC monkfish fishery. entangled. In states where gillnets are • In the southeastern and western Pacific legal, regulations limit soak times and net Ocean and the Caribbean Sea, bottom mesh size to reduce bycatch of nontarget gillnets may snag on corals and sponges, and juvenile target species. causing them to break.

15 SHIFTING GEARS

3 Gillnets – Midwater and Drift

Habitat Damage Ghost-Fishing Because midwater gillnets rarely come into The rate of continuous fishing by lost gill- • High bycatch of sharks in midwater and contact with the seafloor, their effects on nets (ghost-fishing) depends on mainte- drift gillnets occurs in swordfish fisheries. habitat are minimal. nance of a vertical profile, visibility to fish • Threatened and endangered sea turtles, (older nets become more visible as a result such as green, olive ridley, and Bycatch of encrustation by algae, etc.), and abun- leatherback turtles, are caught in fisheries Gillnets are a nonselective type of gear, dance of fish in the area where the gill net is along the coast of California and in the often catching a wide range of nontarget lost. Lost nets can become tangled on South Atlantic FMC region. species. By maintaining a vertical profile in seafloor structures such as coral heads and • Marine mammals are frequently taken as the water column, drift gillnets cause rocky outcroppings damaging the seafloor bycatch in midwater and drift gillnets, bycatch of marine mammals, seabirds, sea and entangling organisms. including approximately 2,000 harbor por- turtles, sharks, and finfishes. In states where poises taken in New England and Mid- gill nets are legal, regulations limit soak Examples of Threats Atlantic FMC fisheries. times and net mesh size to reduce bycatch • In Alaska and Puget Sound, Washington, • Bycatch of juvenile swordfish and other of nontarget and juvenile target species. marbled murrelets and common billfishes occurs in Atlantic tuna and shark murres are entangled and killed in salmon fisheries. fisheries.

4 Hook and Line

Habitat Damage Bycatch Ghost-Fishing Hooks are often suspended in the water Bycatch of finfish and sharks occurs when Lost lines may affect habitat by entangling column and usually do not touch the either undersized individuals or nontarget and damaging structures. Lines may also seafloor. If they are set on or near the species are caught and discarded. As indi- entangle and kill a variety of marine life. seafloor, damage can occur from entangle- vidual lines are retrieved, unwanted catch ment, breakage, or minor degradation of can be quickly returned to the water, Examples of Threats seafloor organisms such as invertebrates increasing chances of survival; however, • Lost gear can become tangled on (corals, sponges, or gorgonians), and lines damage from hooking and handling and seafloor structures such as coral heads and sinkers may cause abrasions. stress caused by capture decrease chances and rocky outcroppings, damaging the of survival. seafloor and entangling organisms.

5 Longlines – Bottom

Habitat Damage which dive for the baited hooks as the Damage to habitat caused by bottom lines are released from the vessel. entangle benthic species such as corals longlines is limited because the gear is Seabirds may ingest these baited hooks and gorgonians, resulting in damage or small in weight and area. However, hauling and subsequently drown. Sharks and death. the lines from the bottom may cause the marine mammals are also caught when hooks to snag, and the lines may cause they mistake the bait for prey. When Examples of Threats abrasions or entangle rocks, coral, or hooks are hauled in individually, nontarget • Bycatch of seabirds in Alaska groundfish structural organisms such as sponges or catch may be released, but damage due longline fisheries resulted in thousands gorgonians. When lines are hauled mech- to hooks, handling, and stress of capture to tens of thousands of birds killed per anically, this damage is magnified. decreases survival. Mechanical hauling and year, prior to the incorporation of line-strippers prevent live release. streamer lines, a bycatch reduction Bycatch device. Bycatch of seabirds is a significant conse- Ghost-Fishing • Bottom longlines may damage corals, quence of bottom longline fisheries. Unknown bycatch impact; lost gear contin- such as gorgonian corals in Alaska, when Deployment of longlines attracts seabirds, ues to fish until bait is lost. Lost gear may hooks snag during hauling. 16 SHIFTING GEARS

6 Longlines – Pelagic

Habitat Damage Because pelagic longlines rarely come into Ghost-Fishing • Critically endangered leatherbacks and contact with the seafloor, their effect on Unknown bycatch impact, but lost gear other endangered and threatened sea habitats is minimal. continues to fish until bait is lost. Lost gear turtles are common bycatch in pelagic may entangle benthic species such as longline fisheries for swordfish and tunas Bycatch corals and gorgonians, resulting in dam- in both the Pacific and Atlantic fisheries. Bycatch of seabirds, sea turtles, sharks, age or death. • Bycatch of marine mammals occurs in and billfishes is a significant consequence most Atlantic pelagic longline fisheries, of pelagic longline fisheries. Deployment Examples of Threats including that for big-eye tuna, in which of longlines attracts seabirds, which dive • Blue, whitetip, and thresher sharks, and more than 150 pilot whales are estimat- for the baited hooks as the lines are other deep-ocean species often are ed to die every year. released from the vessel. Seabirds may caught on longlines set to catch tunas • Bycatch of marlin and other billfishes ingest these baited hooks and subse- and swordfish. occurs in Atlantic tuna and swordfish quently drown. Sharks, billfishes, sea tur- • At least forty seabird species, including fisheries. tles, and marine mammals are also caught albatrosses and petrels in Alaska, are when they mistake the bait for prey. When killed by pelagic longlines, with mortality hooks are hauled in individually, nontarget rates high enough to cause population catch may be released, but damage due declines in at least half of these species. to hooks, handling, and stress of capture Streamer line usage is reducing this decreases survival. Mechanical hauling and number. line-strippers prevent live release.

7 Pots and Traps

Habitat Damage Setting and hauling traps on SAV or living brought to the surface due to changes in by other animals in the pot, starvation, and substrates may cause damage and reduce pressure that can damage internal organs. disease. Delayed mortality may also occur available shelter and food. Trotline (setline) Marine mammals do become entangled in after escape from pots. traps tend to cause more damage during the marker lines connecting the pots to hauling than single pots. Pots are not the buoy. Examples of Threats always or necessarily stationary on the • Shellfishes and crabs may be caught in seafloor, and bouncing occurs in the pres- Ghost-Fishing lost gear. ence of large swells or strong tides. The effects of ghost-fishing by lost pots • Buoy lines of lobster pots in New Although each trap has a small footprint, and traps can be very significant. The level England entangle marine mammals, such large numbers of traps may have a consid- of impact depends on several factors, as the critically endangered Atlantic right erable cumulative effect. Reduction in bio- including number of lost pots, rate of loss, whale. mass or cover of SAV and algae has been density of pots in an area, bottom habitat • In the Caribbean, pots and traps are set documented. and location of the lost pots, change in on living organisms or substrates 40 per- number of animals caught by ghost pots cent of the time and may crush or dam- Bycatch over time, degradation rates of pots, sea- age these organisms. Nontarget bottom-dwelling species may son of loss, catchability of unbaited pots be affected when they are attracted to the (as well as the rebaiting of pots by dead bait. However, because organisms entering and dying animals), rates of ingress and the trap are enclosed and not entangled, egress by organisms, and mortality of ani- they can be easily and quickly discarded mals in lost pots. Mortality in pots when the pot is retrieved. Deeper dwelling depends on adverse environmental condi- organisms are more likely to die when tions (e.g., low oxygen), predation, injury

17 SHIFTING GEARS

8 Purse Seines

Habitat Damage Bycatch Purse seines used for salmon in Alaska con- Bycatch of sharks and finfishes, species that Examples of Threats tact the seafloor and may harm submerged associate with the targeted fish schools, • Shark bycatch in the Gulf of Mexico men- aquatic vegetation. In the Gulf of Mexico occurs throughout U.S. waters. haden fishery is equal to one-third of the menhaden fishery, there is frequent seafloor target catch for sharks in this region. contact, resulting in sediment resuspension Ghost-Fishing that may bury certain invertebrates. These No effects are expected, given that this type impacts are largely unknown. Effects on of gear is very rarely lost. other habitats are expected to be minimal.

9 Trawls – Bottom

Habitat Damage Bycatch Trawling reduces habitat complexity, species Bycatch varies seasonally, temporally, and by Examples of Threats richness and biomass, and increases the target species. Bottom trawls catch nontar- • Bottom trawls continue to drown sea tur- presence of weedy species by altering the get species, including fishes, marine mam- tles, especially leatherbacks and adult log- species composition (e.g., long-lived and mals, turtles, seabirds, and invertebrates, as gerheads, in the Gulf of Mexico and South fragile species are less likely to withstand the net sweeps across the ocean floor. Atlantic FMC region shrimp trawl fisheries, trawling). It reduces the biomass of SAV Because such large quantities of ocean life despite regulations requiring the use of through loss of rhizomes and smothering, are brought on board at once, the unwanted turtle excluder devices (TEDs). reduces coverage of organisms attached to organisms are often returned to the ocean • Shrimp trawls catch substantial numbers of the seafloor, smooths bedforms, and com- dead, having failed to recover from being shark pups and juveniles in shallow waters. presses sediments in sand and mud habitats. crushed in the net, or unable to recover • For every pound of shrimp caught in the Bottom trawling also resuspends sediment from being out of the water for the length Gulf of Mexico trawls, as much as 10 (turbidity), lowers the nutritive quality of of time it took to sort the catch. pounds of fishes and invertebrates are sediment, and reduces primary and micro- discarded, often dead or dying. bial production. Turbidity impedes the nor- Ghost-Fishing • Groundfish bottom trawls in New England mal functioning of benthic organisms’ feed- Despite regulations, old nets and cod ends catch significant numbers of endangered ing and respiratory structures, resulting in are dumped at sea. Lost trawl gear has low barndoor skates. hypoxia or anoxia. Turbidity may also ghost-fishing potential unless the net is sus- • Bottom trawls cause damage to bottom increase primary and microbial production in pended by floats. Buoyant trawl web masses habitats and have long-lasting effects on certain situations. On hard-bottom and living attract pelagic fishes and invertebrates, the organisms growing on gravel habitats habitats, trawling reduces the size and/or which in turn attract and entangle sea turtles in New England and in areas with deep- density of invertebrates such as sponges and and seals. sea corals and sponges in the north coral colonies. Trawling displaces boulders Pacific. and damages seafloor structures, reducing feeding and sheltering sites for marine life.

10 Trawls – Midwater

Habitat Damage Ghost-Fishing This gear is not configured to come into Despite regulations, old nets and cod ends Examples of Threats contact with the bottom. Seafloor contact are dumped at sea. Lost trawl gear has low • Habitat damage occurs when trawls con- that does occur is poorly studied. ghost-fishing potential unless the net is sus- tact the seafloor, as in the Bering Sea pended by floats. Buoyant trawl web masses pollock fishery. Bycatch attract pelagic fishes and invertebrates, • Because of its enormous scale, the Bering Because midwater trawls target very large which in turn attract and entangle sea turtles Sea pollock fishery has the largest total schools of fish, bycatch percentage is low, and seals. bycatch of any fishery, although the over- however the number of individuals in the all rate relative to targeted catch is small. bycatch is high.

18 SHIFTING GEARS scientists, one social scientist, five fishers, four ease of completion, and clarity of instructions. government officials, and one fishery specialist As seen in Box 5, two impact scenarios were from a conservation organization (see presented at a time and individuals were asked Appendix 2 for details). to select the scenario they considered to be Workshop participants reviewed and cate- more ecologically severe. Note that each impact gorized habitat impacts into two types: (1) scenario was presented without reference to the effects on non-living physical structures (e.g., gear causing adverse effects, to reduce biased boulders, cobbles, gravel, mud, or sand judgments. This is similar to the use of blind- seafloor), and (2) effects on seafloor organisms folds in food tests, in which respondents are (e.g., kelp, seagrasses, sponges, sea anemones, asked to indicate which beverage they prefer corals, etc.), and bycatch into five additional without knowing the brand names. groups: (1) shellfish and crabs, (2) finfish, (3) The survey package included the question- sharks, (4) marine mammals, and (5) seabirds naire, an introductory letter stating the purpose and sea turtles. Next, the workshop participants of the survey and emphasizing the confidential- rated the effects of each gear class, relative to ity and anonymity of the respondents’ answers, that of the others, for each bycatch group and instructions for completing the questionnaire, habitat type. They did this based on the results clear definitions of how specific terminology was of the literature review provided to them in used in the study, and a set of demographic advance of the workshop, their expert judgment, questions regarding respondents’ gender, age, and discussions with other experts at the work- education, occupation, and the like. In addition, shop. The consensus ratings of bycatch and respondents were asked to indicate whether habitat impacts resulting from the workshop are habitat damage or bycatch were more influential displayed in Box 4, and were used to develop in their decisions. • Threatened and endan- the impact scenarios in step 3. We identified three groups of potential gered sea turtles, such as survey respondents: (1) voting members of the green, olive ridley, and Step 3: Survey Ranking of Bycatch eight regional fishery management councils, leatherback turtles, are and Habitat Damage (2) scientists and experts who served on the caught in fisheries along National Research Council’s Ocean Studies the coast of California, In this step we designed a questionnaire and Board, or its study panels and (3) fishery special- and in the South surveyed individuals representative of the broad ists of marine-related conservation organizations. Atlantic and Gulf of spectrum of fishing and fishery management to The first group represented those with responsi- Mexico FMC regions. elicit their judgments concerning the severity bility and expertise in marine fishery manage- of bycatch and habitat impacts. The question- ment and those with experience in either com- bbbbbbbbb naire design followed the established method mercial or recreational fishing. The second of paired comparisons, detailed in Box 5. (See group represented those whose main role it is to also Chuenpagdee et al. 2001b). provide scientific advice to policy makers on For the questionnaire we used a set of marine-related issues. The third group represent- impact scenarios resulting from the expert work- ed marine scientists and fishery specialists from shop participants’ ratings of bycatch and habitat environmental organizations. For each of these impacts for the ten fishing gears (Box 4). three groups we compiled a list of potential Because of the similarity of their impacts, we respondents and then randomly selected ques- used one scenario to represent impacts from tionnaire recipients. midwater trawl, purse seine, and hook and line. We iteratively pre-tested and revised the draft questionnaire to improve comprehension,

19 SHIFTING GEARS

Dredges Gillnets – Bottom Gillnets – Midwater

Impacts on: Impacts on: Impacts on: LOW HIGH LOW HIGH LOW HIGH PHYSICAL PHYSICAL PHYSICAL STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE

SEAFLOOR SEAFLOOR SEAFLOOR ORGANISMS ORGANISMS ORGANISMS SHELLFISH SHELLFISH SHELLFISH & CRABS & CRABS & CRABS

FINFISH FINFISH FINFISH

SHARKS SHARKS SHARKS

MARINE MARINE MARINE MAMMALS MAMMALS MAMMALS

SEABIRDS SEABIRDS SEABIRDS & TURTLES & TURTLES & TURTLES

Box 4 Hook and Line Longlines – Bottom

Impacts on: Impacts on: LOW HIGH LOW HIGH Impact Rating PHYSICAL PHYSICAL STRUCTURE STRUCTURE

of Ten Fishing SEAFLOOR SEAFLOOR ORGANISMS ORGANISMS Gear Classes SHELLFISH SHELLFISH & CRABS & CRABS

as Agreed by FINFISH FINFISH

Thirteen Expert SHARKS SHARKS

MARINE MARINE Workshop MAMMALS MAMMALS SEABIRDS SEABIRDS Participants & TURTLES & TURTLES

Longlines – Pelagic Pots and traps Purse seines

Impacts on: Impacts on: Impacts on: LOW HIGH LOW HIGH LOW HIGH PHYSICAL PHYSICAL PHYSICAL STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE

SEAFLOOR SEAFLOOR SEAFLOOR ORGANISMS ORGANISMS ORGANISMS SHELLFISH SHELLFISH SHELLFISH & CRABS & CRABS & CRABS

FINFISH FINFISH FINFISH

SHARKS SHARKS SHARKS

MARINE MARINE MARINE MAMMALS MAMMALS MAMMALS

SEABIRDS SEABIRDS SEABIRDS & TURTLES & TURTLES & TURTLES

Trawls – Bottom Trawls – Midwater

Impacts on: Impacts on: LOW HIGH LOW HIGH PHYSICAL PHYSICAL STRUCTURE STRUCTURE

SEAFLOOR SEAFLOOR ORGANISMS ORGANISMS SHELLFISH SHELLFISH & CRABS & CRABS

FINFISH FINFISH

SHARKS SHARKS

MARINE MARINE MAMMALS MAMMALS

SEABIRDS SEABIRDS & TURTLES & TURTLES 20 SHIFTING GEARS

Box 5 Paired Comparison Method

The method of paired compar- ble paired comparisons: (x, y), (x, in Chuenpagdee and colleagues isons often is used to elicit sub- z), and (y, z). When pairs are pre- (2002) (importance of marine jective judgments when several sented to a sample of respon- resources in Mexico). complex objects or attributes are dents, it is assumed that each Application of the paired being compared, as in taste test- object has the same possibility of comparison method in this study ing or personnel evaluation being selected because all are resulted in a one-dimensional (David 1988). The presentation of paired an equal number of times scaling, in which all attributes choices as binary options (two (in this example, two times). The presented (e.g., bycatch or habi- choices at a time) not only simpli- paired comparison method tat damage) were equally weight- fies decision making for respon- results in an interval ranking, ed and only the final choice mat- dents but also follows the natural which is more informative than an tered (whether impact scenario A thought process people use to ordinal ranking (obtained from was more or less severe than make decisions on a daily basis direct ranking of the objects), as impact scenario B). (Opaluch et al. 1993). the distance between each object An example of a pair of The basic model for the is meaningful. Applications of the impacts presented in the ques- paired comparison method paired comparison method to tionnaire is shown below. involves all possible pair combi- marine environmental issues are nations for the objects. For exam- discussed in Chuenpagdee and ple, in the case of three objects, colleagues (2001a, b) (damage to x, y, and z, there are three possi- coastal resources in Thailand) and

An example of paired comparison from the questionnaire:

A B In your opinion, Impacts on: Impacts on: which of these sets LOW HIGH LOW HIGH PHYSICAL PHYSICAL of impacts, A or B, STRUCTURE STRUCTURE do you consider SEAFLOOR SEAFLOOR ORGANISMS ORGANISMS ECOLOGICALLY

SHELLFISH SHELLFISH MORE SEVERE? & CRABS & CRABS (please circle A or B)

FINFISH FINFISH

SHARKS SHARKS

MARINE MARINE MAMMALS MAMMALS

SEABIRDS SEABIRDS & TURTLES & TURTLES

21 SHIFTING GEARS

Results of Paired Comparison Survey comparing disparate elements because it is famil- A total of 70 respondents, including 24 each iar, simple, and straightforward (Gormley and from the fishery management council and conser- Weiner 1999). vation organization groups, and 22 from the Survey results showed that respondents con- Ocean Studies Board group, completed and sidered ecological impacts caused by bottom gears returned the survey, for an overall response rate of more severe than those caused by pelagic gears, 53 percent. Twenty-nine percent of the respon- suggesting that habitat damage weighed heavily in dents were female. The majority of respondents their decisions. This result is consistent with (about 60 percent) were between the ages of thir- respondents’ answers to the survey question ask- ty-five and fifty-four, and 65 percent of all ing whether bycatch or habitat damage was more respondents had postgraduate degrees. Forty per- influential in their decisions. Fifty-three percent cent of respondents identified themselves as biolo- of respondents indicated that habitat damage was gists or scientists, 17 percent as managers, 16 per- the most important criterion, 37 percent stated cent as university professors, 13 percent as fishers that they used both criteria equally, and only 10 or workers in fisheries-related businesses, 7 per- percent considered bycatch most important. cent as consultants or attorneys, and the other 7 Until now, there has been no thorough com- percent as other occupations. More than half of parative study of bycatch and habitat damage the respondents (58 percent) indicated that they caused by major commercial fishing gears that had experience onboard a commercial fishing ves- would allow managers to make consistent and sel. Except for the Caribbean and North Pacific rational decisions to reduce adverse effects of fish- Fishery Management Council regions, the distri- ing operations. The surprisingly strong consensus bution of respondents, based on their geographic in impact ranking among those who responded area of specialization and responsibility, was fairly provides a scientifically sound foundation for for- even (Table 2). We classified 36 percent of mulating potentially agreeable policies and can • A factor that can respondents as “national”; that is, their expertise complement other fishery management tools. amplify habitat dam- and knowledge were not specific to a particular This study also demonstrates the usefulness age, bycatch, or both is region. of the damage schedule approach in assimilating the loss of fishing gear, Analysis of the paired comparison responses large amounts of data of disparate types into a which can lead to provided an aggregated score of relative severity simplified, standardized form that allows for com- ghost-fishing. for the gear impact scenarios, normalized to a parison. The knowledge of the fishing communi- scale of 0–100, with 100 being most severe. Table ty, scientific expertise, individual judgment, and bbbbbbbbb 3 shows these scores by respondent group, along conservation concerns were successfully integrated with the ranking assigned to these scores (1–8, in this study, the outcome of which should serve with 1 the most severe impact and 8 the least to inform decision makers of the relative severity severe). Statistical analysis showed no significant of damage caused by commercial fishing gears. difference among the three groups of respondents, As demonstrated in this study, the significant suggesting strong agreement in the ranking of level of agreement among the three groups sug- impact scenarios among the fishery managers gests that well-informed people hold similar views (including fishers), scientists, and program staff of concerning the adverse effects of fishing on conservation organizations (Table 4). This finding ecosystems (Box 6). No less striking is the fact allowed aggregation of responses from all respon- that respondents were generally more concerned dents, resulting in severity ranking (damage with habitat damage than with bycatch. This schedule) of ecological impacts for the fishing finding has a strong policy implication for marine gears considered in this study (Figure 4). The ecosystem management, as discussed later in this ranking shown in Figure 4 is a powerful tool for report. 22 SHIFTING GEARS

Table 2. Number of Respondents by Occupation and Geographic Area of Specialization

Fisheries Fisheries Biologist/ Consultant/ Professor Other Total Region related managers Scientist Attorney

New England 1 1 – 1115 Mid-Atlantic 1 3 – 11– 6 South Atlantic 2 2 – 1117 Caribbean 1 ––1 –– 2 Gulf of Mexico 1 ––3 – 15 Western Pacific 3 1 – 22– 8 Pacific – 5 – 4 –– 9 North Pacific ––21–– 3 National ––914– 225 TOTAL 9 12 11 28 5 5 70 % TOTAL 13 17 16 40 7 7 100

Note: The region designated “national” includes respondents whose expertise and knowledge are not specific to a particular region.

bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb

Table 3 Relative Impact Scores and Corresponding Rankings Based on Three Respondent Groups

Fishery Management NRC – Ocean Studies Conservation Council Organizations

GEAR CLASS SCORE RANK SCORE RANK SCORE RANK Dredges 63 3 69 3 68 3 Gillnets – bottom 74 2 72 2 72 2 Gillnets – midwater 55 4 66 4 67 4 • In New England, gill- Longlines – bottom 36 6 29 7 24 7 nets cause bycatch of Longlines – pelagic 29 7 41 5 36 5 Pots and traps 42 5 37 6 36 5 harbor porpoises, bot- Trawls – bottom 90 1 89 1 95 1 tlenose and white-sided Trawls – midwater 6 8 6 8 2 8 dolphins, pilot whales,

No. of respondents 24 22 24 harbor seals, gray seals, and harp seals. Note: Rank 1 was assigned to the highest normalized score and rank 8 to the lowest score. One impact scenario was used to represent midwater trawls, purse seines, and hook and line gear classes. bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb bbbbbbbbb

Table 4 Kendall’s Tau Rank Correlation Coefficients

Fishery Management NRC – Ocean Studies Conservation Council Organizations

Fishery Management Council 1.000 –– NRC – Ocean Studies 0.817 1.000 – Conservation Organizations 0.873 0.971 1.000

Average coefficient 0.887

Note: All correlations are significant at alpha level 0.01.

23 SHIFTING GEARS

Figure 4 Severity Ranking Relative severity of fishing gear classes (Damage Schedule) of Ecological Impacts 100 for All Fishing Gears, Based on All Trawls — bottom (91) Respondents —

—

Box 6 Gillnets — bottom (73) Important Results — of This Study Dredges (67)

Experts strongly agreed Gillnets — midwater (63) — about the levels of bycatch and habitat damage caused by the various fishing methods. 50—

Survey respondents, including fishers, man- agers, scientists, and — Pots and traps (38) conservationists, strong- ly agreed on the relative Longlines — pelagic (36) severity of damage — Longlines — bottom (30) caused by given fishing gear classes, based on impact scenarios involv- ing bycatch and habitat — damage.

Survey respondents considered habitat — damage to be of greater ecological Trawls — midwater (4) importance than [Purse seines; Hook and line] — bycatch . 0

Note: 0 = least severe and 100 = most severe. Numbers in paren- theses are impact scores, aggregated across all respondents. Impact score for midwater trawls also represents that for purse seines and hook and line. 24 SHIFTING GEARS

Formulating Policies Using the Severity Ranking ccccccccc of Collateral Impacts

To help fishery managers formulate policies to merit somewhat lower priority. reduce bycatch and habitat damage, we have Characterization of fishing gear classes and sorted the fishing gear classes that are the subject ranking of the bycatch and habitat damage they of this report into three categories according to cause is a useful management tool, provided the their impact scores: high-impact, medium- rankings reflect fishery-specific practices. Box 7 impact, and low-impact (Figure 5). Gears in the illustrates an example of how fishery-specific high-impact category include bottom trawls, information of ecological impacts can be evalu- gillnets (midwater and bottom), and dredges. ated using the severity ranking. Of course, Gears categorized as medium-impact include measures of collateral impacts from various fish- longlines (pelagic and bottom), and pots and ing gears may vary, not only with the kind of traps. In this ranking exercise, hook and line, gear, but the scale of its use. Even a gear type purse seines, and midwater trawls fell into the that has relatively low bycatch or habitat impact low-impact category. This result has a straight- per ton of target catch—such as midwater forward message—high-impact gears need trawls—will have a very large cumulative impact immediate management attention; medium- on ecosystems, if fishing effort is very large, such impact gears also should be reviewed carefully, as with the Bering Sea pollock fishery. but with less urgency; and low-impact gears The severity ranking can be used as a pre-

Figure 5 Experts’ Impact Rating, Survey Severity Ranking, and Policy Implications

HABITAT IMPACTS BYCATCH Shellfish Marine Sea birds MANAGEMENT CATEGORY GEAR CLASS Physical Biological Finfish Sharks & crabs mammals & turtles (Policy responses)

Trawls – bottom 55 35222

Gillnets – bottom 32 14343 HIGH IMPACT Dredges 55 42111 (Very Stringent) Gillnets – midwater 11 14455

Pots and traps 32 42131 MEDIUM IMPACT Longlines – pelagic 11 13435 (Moderately Longlines – bottom 22 14312 Stringent)

Trawls – midwater 11 13222 LOW IMPACT 11 12232 Purse seines (Least Stringent) Hook and line 11 12312

KEY: 5 VERY HIGH IMPACT 4 HIGH IMPACT 3 MEDIUM IMPACT 2 LOW IMPACT 1 VERY LOW IMPACT 25 SHIFTING GEARS

cautionary tool in marine ecosystem manage- Policy Recommendations ment, particularly when there is considerable With this scientifically sound comparison of uncertainty about how some gear classes affect fishing gears ranked by their associated bycatch habitats and species. On the basis of this scale, and habitat damage, fishery managers, policy rigorous policies, including prohibition of cer- makers, and fishers can move on to the next tain gears in some areas, should be applied step: minimizing and eliminating the impacts where collateral impacts are considered high. of fishing gears. Five possible policy options For some gear classes, the rankings are suffi- should be considered for ecosystem-based ciently clear that managers should proceed management, based on the rankings of bycatch without delay with measures to reduce their and habitat damage: adverse effects. It is important to remember 1. “Shifting gears,” or substituting less ecolog- that fishing involves killing fish, so use of all ically damaging gears for the more damag- classes of fishing gears—even those classified ing gear types; as low-impact—require certain precautionary 2. Changing fishing practices using appropri- measures and judicious restraint. For example, ate incentives; most observers would agree that harpoons are 3. Promoting innovations in fishing gear and associated with negligible bycatch and habitat technology; damage, but history clearly documents their 4. Establishing area-based restrictions; and efficiency at killing whales. The Atlantic gray 5. Supporting future studies, including assess- whale is now extinct and others are near ment of social and economic effects of poli- extinction. cy actions on fishing communities.

Box 7 Application of the Severity Ranking to Three Hypothetical Fisheries

The severity ranking developed in the applying it to three hypothetical fisheries. crabs and occasional marine mammals Shifting Gears report is a useful manage- An intertidal clam dredge fishery (AMCC 2000). Finally a hypothetical troll ment tool for assigning specific fisheries might have very high impacts on physical (hook and line) fishery might have low to high, medium or low collateral impact habitat, with low bycatch of invertebrates finfish and shark bycatch, but no other categories. For any fishery for which eco- and fishes, and no other bycatch (Collie bycatch or habitat damage (A. Coan, logical impacts can be assessed, the rela- et al. 2000; Peterson et al. 1987). A NMFS pers. comm.). tive severity of these impacts can be hypothetical midwater trawl fishery might compared against the severity rankings in cause significant seafloor disturbance Given this information, the appropriate Figure 5. Here we demonstrate this point (Loverich 2001), and may result in level of impacts for each fishery would by using information on fishing gear bycatch of species including finfishes, look like: impacts analyzed in this report and sharks, commercially important benthic

HABITAT IMPACTS BYCATCH Shellfish Marine Sea birds Physical Biological Finfish Sharks Hypothetical fishery & crabs mammals & turtles

Intertidal clam dredges 5552 11 1

Midwater trawls 3334 22 2

Troll (or hook and line) 1112211

Comparing these impact levels with are high-impact for hypothetical inter- low impact for the hypothetical troll those in Figure 5 suggests that the tidal clamming, medium-impact for fishery. appropriate categories for these gears the hypothetical midwater trawling and 26 SHIFTING GEARS

Shifting Gears Other means of shifting gears include reassign- Shifting gears is a solution that can be accom- ment of fishing quotas or catch allocations, plished either by switching to fishing gears that incentive programs, and the creation of fishery- cause fewer collateral impacts or by eliminating specific performance standards. the use of gears that cannot meet reasonable ecological performance standards. Shifting gears Changing Fishing Practices is not a trivial task. It requires extensive com- Fishing practices are complex, and they change mitment from fishery management councils as in response to dynamic biological, economic, well as consultation and cooperation with the and social pressures, so it is not always easy for fishing community and public. One important managers to track the latest methods. This step would be for managers and the industry to understanding is important, however, because establish a gear accreditation system based on in some cases managers and fishers can signifi- the severity of the gear’s adverse effects. Such a cantly reduce collateral impacts by modifying system could be used to limit high-impact gear existing practices. Fishers call on their experi- to certain habitats or areas least sensitive to eco- ence and knowledge in making choices that logical damage. These efforts will undoubtedly influence their gear’s interaction with the envi- have social, economic, and political dimensions. ronment. These decisions, including configura- In some cases, the adverse effects of certain tion of the gear and where and when it is bbbbbbbbb classes of gears are so great compared with those deployed, can result in markedly different levels of others that the course of action should be of bycatch or habitat damage. Such behavioral obvious (Box 8). In other cases, shifting gears changes have resulted in welcome decreases in might require financial assistance for fishers. bycatch in a number of fisheries. One of the

Box 8 Shifting Gears: From Trawls to Traps in the Spot Prawn Fishery

In February 2003, the California State 1.0, and that of the trap fishery was 2.0 prawn fishery, fishers can reduce rockfish Fish and Game Commission unanimously to 1.0. bycatch by an order of magnitude or voted to end the spot prawn trawl fishery. Of particular importance in this region more. To rebuild rockfish stocks, prohibit- A recent study of the spot prawn fishery is the different gears‘ bycatch of rockfish- ing the directed take of rockfish is essen- in California revealed dramatic differ- es, whose populations have been severe- tial but not sufficient. Rockfish recovery ences in bycatch between two types of ly reduced by commercial fishing and efforts must also address the rockfish’s gear: bottom trawls and traps (Reilly and sportfishing. NMFS has determined that mortality as bycatch, and the homoge- Geibel 2002). California had failed to seven rockfish species in California waters nization of its complex habitat by trawls. restrict the size of bottom trawl gear in are overfished and in need of rebuilding. The National Research Council (NRC the spot prawn trawl fishery despite high Bycatch statistics for northern California 2002) found that low-mobility, long-lived rockfish bycatch. Data collected by in the same report show that the weight species such as rockfish are more vulnera- observers show that in northern ratio of rockfish bycatch to spot prawn ble to acute and chronic physical distur- California, the weight ratio of total bot- catch was 2.1 to 1.0 in the trawl fishery bance than are short-lived species, and tom trawl bycatch, including inverte- and 0.04 to 1.00 in the trap fishery, a that bottom trawls alter the composition brates, to spot prawn catch was 8.8 to fifty-two-fold difference. In southern and productivity of fish communities that 1.0, whereas in the trap fishery it was 1.0 California, the same ratios were 1.5 to 1.0 depend on structurally complex seafloor to 1.0, a nearly ninefold difference. In for trawls and 0.07 to 1.00 for traps, a habitats for food and refuge. Hence, southern California, the weight ratio of twenty-one-fold difference. reducing the use of bottom trawls for total trawl bycatch, including inverte- This indicates that by shifting from spot prawns will also reduce damage to brates, to spot prawn catch was 20.6 to bottom trawl to trap gear in the spot the benthic habitat on which rockfish rely.

27 SHIFTING GEARS

best-known examples is the back-down method situations create strong disincentives for consci- currently employed by fishers in the Eastern entious behavior to reduce collateral impacts. Tropical Pacific yellowfin tuna purse seine fish- Therefore, onboard observer programs or other ery (Hall 1996). In this case, boat captains measures to record spatial and temporal pat- developed a technique to force a portion of the terns of fishing and associated bycatch and net below the water’s surface; this allows dol- habitat damage (e.g., vessel monitoring sys- phins to escape over the top of the net while tems, gear-tracking tools, video recordings, tuna are retained. Adoption of the back-down landing reviews), if effectively implemented method, in addition to net modifications, has and monitored, can lead fishers to use gears reduced dolphin deaths in this fishery. with greater care. Undoubtedly, this works best There are many other ways in which con- when the fishing industry and fishery managers scientious fishers can reduce bycatch and habi- cooperate to set performance standards, to tat damage. In some cases, skilled fishers can establish incentives that encourage self-policing distinguish among species remotely using elec- among fishers, and to certify or otherwise tronic fish finders and can avoid target schools reward fishers for low bycatch or decreased associated with large numbers of species that habitat damage. Joint government–fishing bbbbbbbbb would become bycatch. Or fishers can simply industry programs can provide welcome finan- avoid areas where their experience tells them cial incentives for fishers to improve their per- • Seafloor, undisturbed fishing would be likely to cause unacceptable formance and improve real-time communica- by fishing, near Swan’s damage to the seafloor. tion about transitory situations involving Island, Gulf of Maine. Unfortunately, some economic and social bycatch risk.

28 SHIFTING GEARS

Promoting Gear Innovations (and other species) with a better chance of post- To minimize the adverse ecological effects of release survival, since circle hooks do not cause fishing gears, fishery managers and the fishing as much damage as J-hooks. Unfortunately, cir- industry should promote modifications that cle hooks alone are insufficient to address sea enhance selectivity and reduce habitat damage. turtle bycatch in longline fisheries. Separator These can come from government research pro- trawls used in the Pacific cod fishery have been grams, from fishers, or from cooperative research shown to reduce halibut bycatch by 40 percent programs between the two groups. while reducing the cod catch by only 6 percent Modifications can range from minor adjust- (Glass 2000). Similarly, hose cages and large fish ments to gear, such as changes in mesh size or excluders in Gulf of Mexico menhaden fisheries shape, to larger modifications, such as insertion help prevent nontarget finfishes and sharks from of turtle excluder devices (TEDs) into shrimp entering the boat’s hold, although survival of trawls. Use of streamer lines on longline boats large fish passing through the exclusion devices is has reduced bycatch of albatrosses and other currently less than 28 percent (Rester and seabirds (Box 9). Other examples include the use Condrey 1999). of raised footrope trawls to reduce bycatch in Incentive programs to enhance gear configu- small-mesh whiting trawl fisheries in ration, reduce gear loss and damage from ghost- bbbbbbbbb Massachusetts (Glass 2000) and the use of circle fishing, and promote gear recycling programs hooks instead of J-hooks in longline fisheries also can result in reducing the adverse effects of (Bolten et al. 2002) and hook-and-line fisheries. fishing gears. Circle hooks enable fishers to release sea turtles

Box 9 Gear Innovations: “Bird-scaring Lines” in Longline Fisheries

Bycatch of seabirds occurs in many certain areas or allowed them to fish baited hooks. These lines have been longline fisheries. Seabirds often go only at night. Both can cause economic shown to reduce seabird mortality by after the bait as it is released from the hardship by closing important fishing as much as 92 percent in Alaska’s vessel, taking not only the bait but also areas or decreasing the time in which sablefish longline fishery (American Bird the hook, and subsequently drowning. catches can occur. However, bird-scar- Conservancy 2001), and they also have Birds can also become entangled in the ing lines developed by the Japanese shown good results in Norwegian lines, with the same result. Bycatch of have become the mainstay of effective groundfish longline fisheries. Moreover, seabirds is a twofold problem for fish- reduction in seabird bycatch (American target catch increased by 32 percent in ers and fishery managers: (1) it has eco- Bird Conservancy 2001). Norwegian groundfish fisheries as a logical consequences for seabird popu- Bird-scaring lines, sometimes called result of retention of bait otherwise lations and is, in some cases, the main tori lines or streamers, can be the most taken by seabirds (Lokkeborg 2001). In source of mortality to endangered cost-effective solution to seabird addition to being effective, bird-scaring seabirds such as the black-footed alba- bycatch. Two long main lines, often lines are inexpensive, costing only $260 tross (Gilman 2001), and (2) seabirds made of steel or polyester, are posi- per pair. To encourage initial use of the feeding on longline bait decrease the tioned on either side of the longline lines, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service catch rate of target species. Therefore, and extend at an angle behind the created a program to give the lines sharply reducing bycatch is in the inter- boat, with floats attached to the ends. away for free in Alaska, at a cost to the est of both the birds and the fishers. Approximately twelve brightly colored agency of $850,000, in 2000 and 2001. Attempts to mitigate seabird streamer lines are attached to the main bycatch have taken the form of regula- lines, and the bright colors and flap- tions that restricted longline fishers to ping lines scare seabirds away from the 29 SHIFTING GEARS

Establishing Area-Based Restrictions high level of bycatch. However, over 100,000 sq. Area-based restrictions such as fishing closures miles (255,000 sq. kilometers, roughly an area offer a clear advantage: they immediately and the size of the state of Oregon) of the U.S. EEZ unambiguously end harm from destructive fish- are trawled more than once each year (NRC ing. Many states have regulations restricting or 2002). banning particular classes of gears, either To use area-based restrictions most effective- throughout state waters or in particular places ly, managers must judiciously determine which or fisheries, as a way of reducing collateral habitats are most in need of protection and impact. In federal waters, particular gear types which classes of fishing gears pose the greatest are restricted or banned in many places or, in a threat to benthic ecosystems. As this report very few cases, entire regions. For example, in the demonstrates, bottom trawling has by far the Pacific FMC, pelagic longlining recently was greatest collateral impacts. Thus, closing areas to banned, and in the North Pacific FMC extensive bottom trawls—from small areas to entire fishery areas have some sort of gear restriction in place. management council regions—would protect structurally complex, biologically diverse habitats bbbbbbbbb Similiarly, bottom trawls are banned throughout the 1.5 million square miles (3.9 million square such as coral forests, coral reefs, kelp beds, kilometers) of the Western Pacific FMC region sponge reefs, and seagrass beds and the species because of their damage to seafloor habitat and that depend on them (NRC 2002, Box 10).

Box 10 Effects of Closed Areas on the Sea Scallop Fishery on Georges Bank.

Following introduction of the otter fold (Murawski et al. 2000). From 1999 richness, and species diversity all trawl in the early twentieth century, until January 2001, areas within the increased in the undisturbed areas overfishing of certain groundfishes, Georges Bank closure system were (Collie et al. 1997). Only species even- such as cod, various flatfishes, and opened to the scallop fishery. Many ness, as expected, was found to be skates, became a major issue in the fishers stated that in 20 to 30 years of higher in disturbed areas. In the undis- northwestern Atlantic waters of the fishing, they had never witnessed turbed areas, complex habitats formed United States. After employing tradi- catches of this size. To manage fishing by hydroids, bryozoans, and worm tional management for many years, in effort during these short-term open- tubes provided protection for other December 1994 the New England ings, managers implemented several species such as brittle stars, shrimps, Fishery Management Council closed restrictive measures, such as and small fishes. Disturbed areas, on three areas of Georges Bank, totaling decreased days at sea, a limit of seven the other hand, were dominated by some 6,600 square miles (17,000 crew members per vessel, and large mollusks and scavengers such as square kilometers), to any type of gear increased dredge ring and mesh size, crabs and echinoderms. Collie and col- able to capture groundfish. to control bycatch of groundfish. leagues (1997) hypothesized that given Although the areas were closed In addition, comparative benthic five to ten years of nondisturbance primarily to manage depleted ground- surveys of both undisturbed and dis- and recovery, the closed areas of fishes, fishing for the Atlantic sea scal- turbed fishing areas that were begun Georges Bank would be comparable lop also was banned. From the time in 1994, prior to the area closures, to the undisturbed locations they had the closures began until July 1998, the revealed a number of differences in sampled. biomass of fishable sea scallops within benthic invertebrate communities. The the closed areas increased fourteen- number of organisms, biomass, species

30 SHIFTING GEARS

In these sensitive habitats, recovery from a sin- found in higher abundance near known nest- gle pass of a trawl or dredge can take years, ing beaches, so the risk of bycatch can be pre- decades, or even centuries. Other areas, such as dicted to be higher at known times of nesting. seamounts, have such high levels of endemism It makes sense to take special care to protect (presence of species that occur nowhere else) waters near nesting beaches. that trawling might eradicate species before we Knowledge of the spatial and temporal know of their existence (Koslow et al. 2001). distributions of common or sensitive bycatch As we continue to explore the deep sea, we species has been used successfully to reduce undoubtedly will discover more about the bycatch in Alaska. For example, the Chinook nature and resilience of seafloor habitats. Salmon Savings Areas and the Red King Crab Under the FCMA, fishery management Savings Area are closed to trawling in the councils can use the designations of essential month of August and year-round, respectively, fish habitat (EFH) and habitat areas of partic- to reduce excessive bycatch of chinook salmon ular concern (HAPC) as spatial management in groundfish trawl fisheries and to protect the tools, although these designations in them- red king crab population (North Pacific selves do not restrict fishing. Councils, howev- Fishery Management Council 2002). Clearly er, have the authority to close areas to fishing. managers need to carefully consider the use of Designation of HAPCs can be made if one or area-based restrictions to mitigate both bycatch more of the following criteria are met: impor- and habitat damage. tant ecological function of the habitat, sensi- tivity of the habitat to anthropogenic (human- Supporting Future Studies caused) environmental degradation or develop- Policy makers and fishery managers should • Marine mammals are ment activities, and rarity of the habitat type. support increased funding for further studies frequently taken as Further habitat mapping will provide of the effects of fishing gears on bycatch and bycatch in midwater managers with better tools; however, the level habitat. For example, NMFS needs funding and drift gillnets. of resources and the time that would be need- from the United States Congress to evaluate ed to map the vast seafloor suggests that a wise the effects of fishing gears on the diverse bbbbbbbbb precautionary approach is to restrict the more seafloor habitats, including essential fish habi- harmful fishing gear classes now. Since few tat as mandated by the Magnuson-Stevens seafloor habitats appear resilient to the damage Fishery Conservation and Management Act in caused by mobile fishing gear, zoning—creat- 1996. Seven years after this requirement was ing a mosaic of places where different uses or imposed, most councils have only just started combinations of uses are given precedence— to perform these assessments. Policy makers can limit negative effects of fishing by restrict- and fishery managers also should promote ing the most damaging gear to the least sensi- research to modify existing fishing gears and tive areas. practices and to seek innovative, environmen- Area-based gear restrictions also are useful tally benign alternatives to damaging gears. in reducing bycatch. Just as distributions of Congress should fund studies of social and target species often can be predicted, so can economic effects on the industry and society those of bycatch species. This knowledge can during the transition from harmful fishing be used to limit mortality of non-target methods to those causing less damage to species. For many species, scientists or fishers marine biological diversity and fisheries, as already know which feeding grounds or areas well as exploration of community-based are important for such functions as migration approaches to management for ease of imple- and breeding. For example, sea turtles are mentation of other policy recommendations. 31 SHIFTING GEARS ccccccccc Conclusion

A wealth of information and several recent issues and suggests avenues for precautionary scientific reviews (Watling and Norse 1998; management. Suggestions for improving the Auster and Langton 1999; Dayton et al. 2002; state of marine ecosystems include shifting NRC 2002; Pauly et al. 2002) have clearly gears—retiring and phasing out fishing gear demonstrated the harm that fishing does to classes that cause the worst damage, allocating marine ecosystems. Despite this, fishery mana- catch to less damaging gears, changing behav- gagement in the United States still focuses on iors, improving the technology, increasing maximizing levels of single-species catch rather incentives and funding efforts to limit bycatch than on protecting the intact ecosystems that and habitat damage, establishing fishing clo- support fish production. This report takes a first sures, and increasing funding for government step toward addressing these problems by ranking agencies to carry out their conservation the adverse effects of different classeses of fishing mandates. gears commonly in use in the United States. Shifting Gears suggests not only moving The clear consensus demonstrated in this toward the use of less ecologically damaging study should be welcome to fishers, decision fishing gears, but also shifting our thinking makers, policy advisors, and conservation advo- from single-species management to protec- cates because it provides a basis from which to tion, recovery, and sustainable use of entire move forward in addressing these complicated ecosystems.

32 SHIFTING GEARS

Literature Cited Chuenpagdee, R., and M. Vasconcellos. 2000. Application of the damage schedule approach on the Ecopath ecosys- Alaska Marine Conservation Council (AMCC). 2000. tem modelling. In Proceedings of the INCO-DC Discards in the Groundfish Fisheries of the Bering International Workshop on Markets, Global Fisheries, and Sea/Aleutian Islands and the Gulf of Alaska, 1998 and 1999. Local Development, Bergen, Norway, 22–23 March 1999, Juneau, Alaska: Fisheries Information Services. edited by U. R. Sumaila, R. Chuenpagdee, and M. Vasconcellos. ACP-EU Fisheries Research Report No. 7. Alverson, D. L. 1998. Discarding Practices and Unobserved Brussels: ACP-EU Fisheries Research Initiative. Fishing Mortality in Marine Fisheries: An Update. Seattle: Washington Sea Grant Program. Collie, J.S., G. A. Escanero, and P. C. Valentine. 1997. Effects of bottom fishing on the benthic megafauna of Alverson, D. L., M. H. Freeberg, S. A. Murawski, and Georges Bank. Marine Ecology Progress Series 35:159–172. J. G. Pope. 1994. A Global Assessment of Fisheries Bycatch and Discards. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 339. Rome: Collie, J.S., S. J. Hall, M. J. Kaiser, and I. R. Poiner. 2000. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. A quantitative analysis of fishing impacts on shelf-sea ben- thos. Journal of Animal Ecology 69:785–798. American Bird Conservancy. 2001. Sudden Death on the High Seas. Longline Fishing: A Global Catastrophe for David, H. A. 1988. The Method of Paired Comparisons. Seabirds. The Plains, Va.: American Bird Conservancy. London: Charles Griffin & Company.

Auster, P. J., and R. W. Langton. 1999. The effects of fish- Dayton, P. K., M. J. Tegner, P. B. Edwards, and R. L. ing on fish habitat. In Fish Habitat: Essential Fish Habitat Riser. 1998. Sliding baselines, ghosts, and reduced expecta- and Rehabilitation, edited by L. R. Benaka, 150–187. tions in kelp forest communities. Ecological Applications 8: American Fisheries Society Symposium 20. Bethesda, Md.: 309–322. American Fisheries Society. Dayton, P. K., S. F. Thrush, M. T. Agardy, and R. J. Bolten, A. B., H. R. Martins, E. Isidro, R. Ferreira, M. Hofman. 1995. Environmental effects of marine fishing. Santos, A. Cruz, E. Bettencourt, A. Giga, and K. A. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems Bjorndal. 2002. Results of an experiment to evaluate gear 5:205–232. modification on sea turtle bycatch in the swordfish long- line fishery in the Azores: Effects of hook type and size. Dayton, P. K., S. Thrush, and F. C. Coleman. 2002. Paper presented at the Twenty-Second Annual Symposium Ecological Effects of Fishing in Marine Ecosystems of the on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, Miami, Fla., 4–7 United States. Arlington, Va.: Pew Oceans Commission. April. Estes, J. A., M. T. Tinker, T. M. Williams, and D. F. Doak. Butman, C. A., and J. T. Carlton, eds. 1995. 1998. Killer whale predation on sea otters linking oceanic Understanding Marine Biodiversity: A Research Agenda for and nearshore ecosystems. Science 282:473–476. the Nation.Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Federal Register. 2001. Endangered and threatened species: Chuenpagdee, R., J. Fraga, and J. Euan. 2002. Proposed endangered status for a distinct population seg- Community’s perspectives toward marine reserve: A case ment of smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata) in the United study of San Felipe, Yucatan, Mexico. Coastal Management States. Federal Register 66 (73): 19414. April 16. 30: 183–191. Gilman, E. 2001. Integrated management to address the Chuenpagdee, R., J. L. Knetsch, and T. C. Brown. 2001a. incidental mortality of seabirds on longline fisheries. Coastal management using public judgments, importance Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems scales, and predetermined schedule. Coastal Management 11:391–414. 29:253–270. Glass, C. W. 2000. Conservation of fish stocks through Chuenpagdee, R., J. L. Knetsch, and T. C. Brown. 2001b. bycatch reduction: A review. Northeastern Naturalist 7 (4): Environmental damage schedule: Community judgments 395–410. of importance and assessments of losses. Land Economics 77:1–11. 33 SHIFTING GEARS

Gormley, W. T., and D. L. Weimer. 1999. Lokkeborg, S. 2001. Reducing seabird bycatch in long- Organizational Report Cards. Cambridge, Mass.: line fisheries by means of bird-scaring lines and under- Harvard University Press. water setting. In Seabird Bycatch: Trends, Roadblocks, and Solutions, edited by E. F. Melvin and J. K. Parrish, Hall, M. A. 1996. On bycatches. Reviews in Fish Biology 33–41. AK-SG-01-01. Fairbanks: University of Alaska and Fisheries 6: 319-352. Sea Grant College Program.

Hall, S. J. 1999. The Effects of Fishing on Marine Loverich, G. 2001. NET-Systems. Trawl dynamics and Ecosystems and Communities. Fish Biology and Aquatic its potential impact on habitat. Report submitted to the Resources Series 1. London: Blackwell Science. National Academy of Science, Evaluating the Effects of Bottom Trawling on Seafloor Habitats. Anchorage, Huxley, T. H. 1883. Inaugural address, Fisheries Alaska. Exhibition, London. In The Fisheries Exhibition Literature Scientific Memoirs, vol. 5, 1885. Retrieved May, R. M., J. R. Beddington, C. W. Clark, S. J. Holt, from The Huxley File, edited by C. Blinderman and and R. M. Laws. 1979. Management of multispecies D. Joyce, http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley. fisheries. Science 205: 267–277.

Jackson, J. B. C., M. X. Kirby, W. H. Berger, K. A. Murawski, S. A., R. Brown, H. L. Lai, P. J. Rago, and Bjorndal, L. W. Botsford, B. J. Bourque, R. H. L. Hendrickson. 2000. Large-scale closed areas as a fish- Bradbury, R. Cooke, J. Erlandson, J. A. Estes, T. P. ery-management tool in temperate marine systems: The Hughes, S. Kidwell, C. B. Lange, H. S. Lenihan, J. M. Georges Bank experience. Bulletin of Marine Science 66: Pandolfi, C. H. Peterson, R. S. Steneck, M. J. Tegner, 775–798. and R. R. Warner. 2001. Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science Nance, J. M., and E. Scott-Denton. 1997. Bycatch in 293:629–638. the Southeast Shrimp Trawl Fishery: A Data Summary Report. Miami, Fla.: U.S. Department of Commerce, Johnson, K. A. 2002. A Review of National and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, International Literature on the Effects of Fishing on National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Benthic Habitats. NOAA Technical Memorandum Science Center. NMFS-F/SPO-57. Silver Spring, Md.: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2002. Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. Toward Rebuilding America’s Marine Fisheries: Annual Report to Congress on the Status of U.S. Fisheries—2001. Julian, F., and M. Beeson. 1998. Estimates of marine Silver Spring, Md.: U.S. Department of Commerce, mammal, turtle, and seabird mortality for two National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, California gillnet fisheries: 1990–1995. Fishery Bulletin National Marine Fisheries Service. 96:271–284. National Research Council (NRC). 1999. Sustaining Koslow, J. A., G. W. Boehlert, J. D. M. Gordon, R. L. Marine Fisheries. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Haedrich, P. Lorance, and N. Parin. 2000. Continental Press. slope and deep-sea fisheries: Implications for a fragile ecosystem. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57:548–577. National Research Council (NRC). 2002. Effects of Trawling and Dredging on Seafloor Habitat. Washington, Koslow, J. A., K. Gowlet-Holmes, J. K. Lowery, T. D.C.: National Academy Press. O’Hara, G. C. B. Poore, and A. Williams. 2001. Seamount benthic macro-fauna off southern Tasmania: Norse, E. A., ed. 1993. Global Marine Biological Community structure and impacts of trawling. Marine Diversity: A Strategy for Building Conservation into Ecology Progress Series 213:111–125. Decision Making. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Larkin, P. A. 1977. An epitaph for the concept of maxi- North Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2002. mum sustained yield. Transactions of the American Fishery Management Plan for the Bering Sea/Aleutian Fisheries Society 106 (1): 1–11. Islands Groundfish. Silver Spring, Md.: U.S. Department

34 SHIFTING GEARS

of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Rasmussen, R., and D. Holts. 2001. Observed Swordfish Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. Catch in the California Drift Net Fishery. La Jolla, Calif.: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Opaluch, J. E., S. K. Swallow, T. Weaver, C. W. Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Wessells, and D. Wichelns. 1993. Evaluating impacts Service Southwest Region, Southwest Fisheries Science from noxious facilities: Including public preferences in Center. current siting mechanisms. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 24:41–59. Reilly, P. N., and J. Geibel. 2002. Results of California Department of Fish and Game Spot Prawn Trawl and Pauly, D. 1995. Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syn- Trap Fisheries Bycatch Observer Program, 2000–2001. drome of fisheries. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. Belmont: California Department of Fish and Game. 10:430. Rester, J. K., and R. E. Condrey. 1999. Characterization Pauly, D., V. Christensen, J. Dalsgaard, R. Froese, and and evaluation of bycatch reduction devices in the Gulf F. Torres Jr. 1998. Fishing down the marine food webs. of Mexico menhaden fishery. North American Journal of Science 279:860–863. Fisheries Management 19:42–50.

Pauly, D., V. Christensen, S. Gunette, T. J. Pitcher, U. Roberts, C. M. 2002. Deep impact: The rising toll of R. Sumaila, C. J. Walters, R. Watson, and D. Zeller. fishing in the deep sea. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 2002. Towards sustainability in world fisheries. Nature 17: 242–245. 418:689–695. Stone, M., and C. G. Bublitz. 1996. Cod trawl separa- Pereyra, W. T. 1996. Midwater trawls and the Alaskan tor panel: Potential for reducing halibut bycatch. In pollock fishery: A management perspective. In Solving Solving Bycatch: Considerations for Today and Tomorrow, Bycatch: Considerations for Today and Tomorrow, edited edited by T. Wray, 71–78. AK-SG-96-03. Fairbanks: by T. Wray, 91–94. AK-SG-96-03. Fairbanks: University University of Alaska Sea Grant College Program. of Alaska Sea Grant College Program. Tegner, M. J., and P. K. Dayton. 2000. Ecosystem Peterson, C., H. Summerson, and S. Fegley. 1987. effects of fishing on kelp forest communities. ICES Ecological consequences of mechanical harvesting of Journal of Marine Science 57:579–589. clams. Fishery Bulletin 85: 281-298. Thrush, S. F., J. E. Hewitt, G. A. Funnell, V. J. Peterson, G. L., and T. C. Brown. 1998. Economic val- Cummings, J. Ellis, D. Schultz, D. Talley, and A. uation by the method of paired comparison, with Norkko. 2001. Fishing disturbance and marine biodi- emphasis on tests of the transitivity axiom. Land versity: The role of habitat structure in simple soft-sedi- Economics 74 (2): 240–261. ment systems. Marine Ecology Progress Series Pimm, S. L. 2001. The World According to Pimm: A 223:277–286. Scientist Audits the Earth. New York: McGraw-Hill. Thurman, H. V., and E. A. Burton. 2001. Introductory Oceanography. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Pitcher, T. J., and D. Pauly. 1998. Rebuilding ecosys- tems, not sustainability, as the proper goal of fisheries Trumble, R. J. 1996. Management of Alaskan longline management. In Reinventing Fisheries Management, fisheries to reduce halibut bycatch mortality. In Solving edited by T. J. Pitcher, P. J. B. Hart, and D. Pauly, Bycatch: Considerations for Today and Tomorrow, edited 311–329. London: Chapman and Hall. by T. Wray, 183–192. AK-SG-96-03. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Sea Grant College Program. Pitcher, T. J., D. Pauly, N. Haggan, and D. Preikshot. 1999. “Back to the Future”: A method of employing Watling, L., and E. A. Norse. 1998. Disturbance of the ecosystem modeling to maximize the sustainable benefits seabed by mobile fishing gear: A comparison with forest from fisheries. In Ecosystem Approaches for Fisheries clear-cutting. Conservation Biology 12: 1189–1197. Management: Proceedings of the 16th Lowell Wakefield Fisheries Symposium, 447–466. AK-SG-99-01. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Sea Grant College Program.

35 SHIFTING GEARS ccccc APPENDIX 1 Bycatch and Habitat Damage by Gear Class, as Summarized in Table 1

FEDERAL FISHERY BYCATCH REFERENCES HABITAT GHOST- MANAGEMENT TARGET SPECIES REFERENCES FISHING COUNCIL REGION Fish Mammals Seabirds Turtles (Physical and Biological) REFERENCES

66; 154; 7; 55; Gulf of Mexico sponge* 113; 125; 19; 20; Mid-Atlantic hydraulic clam dredge* 159; 165; 6; 104; New England, Mid-Atlantic quahog, surf clam 110 101; 9; 10; 108; South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, 34; 35; 36; 75; 65; 102; 33; 95; 109; New England scallop 46; 122 94; 96; 119; 93; DREDGES Pacific geoduck, Manila clam* 67; 120; 126,5 North Pacific scallop 11

South Atlantic flounder, sea trout, croaker, mullet 158; 1868; 124; 167; 115; 30; 38; 42 Mid-Atlantic multispecies (e.g., flounder) 128; 136 62 29; 28; 166; 51; 151; 148 New England, Mid-Atlantic spiny dogfish* New England monkfish* 161 New England multispecies 136; 164

GILLNETS Pacific California halibut, angel shark 86; 57 86; 57 86 Bottom Gillnets Pacific, North Pacific salmon* 105; 170 North Pacific herring* Western Pacific Hawaii deep reef fish*

South Atlantic shark 26; 25; 27 26; 25; 164 26; 25; 27 30; 38; 42 South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic shad 136 58; 134; 135 South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic weakfish* 68; 124; 167; 115; 29; 28; 166; South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic bluefish* 51; 151 Pacific California swordfish, 133; 127; shark drift gillnet 18 86 86 86

GILLNETS Pacific halibut 57 Pacific Washington/Puget Sound 169; 105; non-treaty sockeye 170

Drift Nets, Midwater Gillnets North Pacific salmon 2

Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic snapper, grouper 144 144 10; 141 Gulf of Mexico, Mid-Atlantic, LINE South Atlantic, New England wreckfish 145 145 Pacific albacore 32 AND North Pacific cod, rockfish 8 Pacific rockfish*

HOOK Pacific, North Pacific salmon* Western Pacific Hawaii finfish*

Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic Florida grouper 144 144 116; 168 Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic shark 18 18 18 18 New England, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic tilefish 111 New England Cape Cod groundfish* LONGLINES

Bottom Longlines North Pacific All (e.g., rockfish, sole) 8; 106 2 98; 150; 37

Note: Numbers correspond to references listed after this table. Asterisks (*) indicate species with insufficient information. 36 TRAWLS TRAWLS LONGLINES PURSE SEINES POTS AND TRAPS Midwater Trawls Bottom Trawls Pelagic Longlines tatc i-tatc sud akrl utrih1419 1 30;44 119;116 56 53 153;52 118 153 30;44 Pacificoceanperch* rockfish* 72;83 98 pollock hake(whiting) 2 herring 164 mackerel* North Pacific North Pacific 53 72;83;50 73 Pacific Pacific squid,mackerel, butterfish New England Mid-Atlantic shrimp* 164 New England multispecies groundfish* 142;10;151 Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, Gulf ofMexico,South 90; 122 100 164 117;18;1; 69; 73 (e.g.,flounder, shrimp) North Pacific multispecies Pacific shrimp 153 Pacific bluecrab New England shrimp Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, summerflounder* Gulf ofMexico,South 153 91;43 Mid-Atlantic, SouthAtlantic herring* squid* South Atlantic 91;107 salmon* smallpelagics* South Atlantic tuna Gulf ofMexico herring North Pacific menhaden North Pacific Pacific Pacific 164 Pacific Dungenesscrab* 144 New England multispecies(e.g., New England Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, Gulf ofMexico,South 103 Florida spinylobster North Pacific reef fish Americanlobster Pacific Mid-Atlantic, NewEngland Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic Gulf ofMexico,South South Atlantic Gulf ofMexico, Caribbean etr aii HawaiiHMS Western Pacific aiba wrfs n/rtn 839;40 18 swordfish and/ortuna highly migratoryspecies South Atlantic,NewEnglandi Gulf ofMexico,Mid-Atlantic, Caribbean East Coast,GulfofMexico, AAEET TRE PCE EEECSFISHING REFERENCES TARGET SPECIES COUNCIL REGION MANAGEMENT FEDERAL FISHERY HS sak ilih ua 39;18 (HMS) (shark,billfish,tuna) ugns rb igca) ;11298 2 8;121 Dungeness crab,kingcrab) (shark, billfish,tuna) blue crab (e.g., cod,flounder) 127; 18 45 ihMmasSaid Turtles Seabirds Mammals Fish YAC EEECSHABITAT BYCATCH REFERENCES 164 5 8 9 740 85; 78;39;37 7;3 41 171; 37 37 45 139; 84;64;120;5 17; 131;63;88;60; 87; 59;99;119;147; 12; 162;163;159; 16; 112;157;160; 114; 98;89;97;15; 123; 6;143;132;75; 140; 70;4;79;151; 79; 55;7;47;130; 48; 137;138;156; 82; 74;54;92;149; 24; 146;9;10;81; 31; 165;21;22;23; 155 71; 151;49; 61; 80;3;10; 39; 40;85;41;116 (Physical andBiological) HFIGGEARS SHIFTING GHOST- REFERENCES 14; 129;76 30; 77;13; 152; 71; 37 SHIFTING GEARS

1. Alverson, D. L., M. H. Freeberg, S. A. Murawski, Beam Trawl. Gear and Behavior Committee. ICES 35. Collie, J. S., G. A. Escanero, and P. C. Valentine. and J. G. Pope. A Global Assessment of Fisheries C.M. 1972: 256–260. Effects of bottom fishing on the benthic megafauna Bycatch and Discards. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper of Georges Bank. Marine Ecology Progress Series 35 17. Brylinsky, M. G., J. Gibson, and D. C. Gordon Jr. 339. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of (1997): 159–172. Impacts of flounder trawls on the intertidal habitat the United Nations, 1994. and community of the Minas Bay, Bay of Fundy. 36. Collie, J. S., G. A. Escanero, and P. C. Valentine. 2. Angliss, R. P., D. P. DeMaster, and A. Lopez. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Photographic evaluation of the impacts of bottom Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 2001. 51 (1994): 650–661. fishing in benthic epifauna. ICES Journal of Marine NMFS-AFSC-124. Seattle, Wash.: U.S. Department Science 57 (2000): 987–1001. 18. Burgess, G., University of Florida Museum of of Commerce, NOAA, NMFS, AFSC 2001. Natural History, Gainesville. Personal communica- 37. Cooper, J., J. P. Croxall, and K. S. Rivera. Off the 3. Appeldoorn, R. S., M. Nementh, J. Vasslides, and tion, 2002. hook? Initiatives to reduce seabird bycatch in long- M. Scharer. The Effect of Fish Traps on Benthic line fisheries. In Seabird Bycatch: Trends, 19. Caddy, J. F. Underwater observations on scallop Habitats off La Parguera, Puerto Rico. Mayaguez, Roadblocks, and Solutions, edited by E. F. Melvin (Placopecten magellanicus) behaviour and drag effi- P.R.: Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 2000. and J. K. Parrish, 9–32. AK-SG-01-01. Fairbanks: ciency. Journal of Fisheries Research Board of University of Alaska Sea Grant College Program, 4. Ardizzone, G. D., P. Tucci, A. Somaschini, and A. Canada 25 (1968): 2123–2141. 2001. Belluscio. Is bottom trawling partly responsible for 20. Caddy, J. F. Underwater observations on tracks the regression of Posidonia oceania meadows in the 38. Cooper, R. A., H. A. Carr, and A. H. Hulbert. of dredges and trawls and some effects of dredging Mediterranean Sea? In The Effects of Fishing on Manned Submersible and ROV Assessment of Ghost on a scallop ground. Journal of Fisheries Research Non-Target Species and Habitats, edited by M. J. Gillnets on Jeffreys and Stellwagen Banks, Gulf of Board of Canada 30 (1973): 173–180. Kaiser and S. J. de Groot, 37–46. Oxford: Blackwell Maine. Groton, Conn.: National Undersea Research Science, 2000. 21. Cahoon, L. B., G. R. Beretich Jr., C. J. Thomas, Center, 1989. and A. M. McDonald. Benthic microalgal production 5. Auster, P. J., and R. W. Langton. The effects of 39. Cramer, J. Large Pelagic Logbook Newsletter— at Stellwagen Bank, Massachusetts Bay, USA. Marine fishing on fish habitat. In Fish Habitat: Essential Fish 1994. NMFS-SEFSC-378. Miami: U.S. Department of Ecology Progress Series 102 (1993): 179–185. Habitat and Rehabilitation, edited by L. R. Benaka, Commerce, NOAA, NMFS, SEFSC, 1995. 150–187. American Fisheries Society Symposium 20. 22. Cahoon, L. B., and J. Cooke. Benthic microalgal 40. Cramer, J. Species Reported Caught in the U.S. Bethesda, Md.: American Fisheries Society, 1999. production in Onslow Bay, North Carolina, USA. Commercial Pelagic Longline, Gillnet, and Pair Trawl Marine Ecology Progress Series 84 (1992): 185–196. 6. Auster, P., R. Malatesta, R. Langton, P. Valentine, Fisheries from 1987 to 1995. Miami: U.S. Department C. Donaldson, E. Langton, A. Shepard, and I. Babb. 23. Cahoon, L. B., R. S. Redman, and C. R. Tronzo. of Commerce, NOAA, NMFS, SEFSC, 1996. The impacts of mobile fishing gear on seafloor habi- Benthic microalgal biomass in sediments of Onslow 41. Crowder, L. B., Duke University Marine tats in the Gulf of Maine (Northwest Atlantic): Bay, North Carolina. Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf Laboratory. Personal communication, 2002. Implications for conservation of fish populations. Science 31 (1990): 805–816. Reviews in Fisheries Science 4 (1996): 185–202. 42. Degange, A. R., and T. C. Newby. Mortality of 24. Cahoon, L. B., and C. R. Tronzo. Quantitative seabirds and fish in a lost salmon driftnet. Marine 7. Bargmann, G., M. Pedersen, and R. J. Trumble. estimates of demersal zooplankton abundance in Pollution Bulletin 11 (1980): 322–323. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Onslow Bay, North Carolina, USA. Marine Ecology Continued Harvest of Bottomfish in Puget Sound by Progress Series 87 (1992): 197–200. 43. de Silva, J. A. The nature and extent of species Commercial Otter Trawl Gears. Olympia: Washing- interactions with the U.S. Gulf menhaden fishery. 25. Carlson, J. The Directed Shark Gillnet Fishery: ton Department of Fisheries, 1985. Ph.D. diss., Louisiana State University, Department Right Whale Season, 2001. Panama City, Fla.: U.S. of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences, 1998. 8. Barnard, D., R. Burt, and H. Moore. Alaska Department of Commerce, NOAA, NMFS, SEFSC Department of Fish and Game Summary of the 2000 2001. 44. Donohue, M. J., R. C. Boland, C. M. Sramek, and Mandatory Shellfish Observer Program Database for G. A. Antonelis. Derelict fishing gear in the north- 26. Carlson, J. Progress Report on the Directed the Open Access Fisheries. Regional Information western Hawaiian Islands: Diving surveys and debris Shark Gillnet Fishery: Right Whale Season, 2000. Report 4K01-39. Kodiak: Alaska Department of Fish removal in 1999 confirm threat to coral reef ecosys- Panama City, Fla.: U.S. Department of Commerce, and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, 2001. tems. Marine Pollution Bulletin 42 (2001): NOAA, NMFS, SEFSC 2000. 1301–1312. 9. Barnette, M. C. Gulf of Mexico Fishing Gear and 27. Carlson, J., and I. Baremore. The Directed Their Potential Impacts on Essential Fish Habitat. 45. Doxey, R. Industry-Dependent Baseline Data Shark Gillnet Fishery: Non-Right Whale Season, NMFS-SEFSC-432. St. Petersburg, Fla.: U.S. Collection on Finfish/Terrapin Bycatch in the Crab 2000–2001. Panama City, Fla.: U.S. Department of Department of Commerce, NOAA, NMFS, SEFSC Pot Fishery. Raleigh: North Carolina Sea Grant Commerce, NOAA, NMFS, SEFSC, 2001. 1999. College Program and North Carolina Marine Fishery 28.Carr, H. A. Long term assessment of a derelict Commission, 2001. 10. Barnette, M. C. A Review of the Fishing Gear gillnet found in the Gulf of Maine. In Proceedings, Utilized within the Southeast Region and Their 46. DuPaul, W. D., J. C. Brust, and J. E. Kirkley. Ocean ’87. Columbia, Md.: Marine Technology Potential Impacts on Essential Fish Habitat. NMFS- Bycatch in the United States and Canadian sea scal- Society, 1988. SEFSC-449. St. Petersburg, Fla.: U.S. Department of lop fisheries. In Solving Bycatch: Considerations for Commerce, NOAA, NMFS, SEFSC 2001. 29. Carr, H. A., E. A. Amaral, A. W. Hubert, and R. Today and Tomorrow, edited by T. Wray, 175–181. Cooper. Underwater survey of simulated lost demer- AK-SG-96-03. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Sea 11. Barnhart, J. P., and G. Rosenkranz. Summary and sal and lost commercial gill nets off New England. In Grant College Program, 1996. Analysis of Onboard Observer Collected Data from Proceedings of the Workshop on the Fate and the 2000/2001 Statewide Commercial Weathervane 47. Eleuterius, L. Seagrass ecology along the coasts Impact of Marine Debris, 26–29 November 1984, Scallop Fishery. Kodiak: Alaska Department of Fish of Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. In edited by R. S. Shomura and H. O. Yoshida, 438–447. and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, in Proceedings of the Symposium on Subtropical- NMFS-SWFSC-54. Honolulu: U.S. Department of press. Tropical Seagrasses in the Southeastern United Commerce, NOAA, NMFS, SWFSC, 1985. States, edited by M. J. Durako, R. C. Phillips, and R. 12. Bradstock, M., and D. P. Gordon. Coral-like bry- 30. Carr, H. A., and J. Harris. Ghost-fishing gear: R. Lews III, 11–24. Publication No. 42. St. ozoan growths in Tasman Bay, and their protection Have fishing practices during the past few years Petersburg: Florida Marine Research Institute, 1987. to conserve commercial fish stocks. New Zealand reduced the impact? In Marine Debris: Sources, Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 17 48. Engel, J., and R. Kvitek. Effects of otter trawling Impacts, and Solutions, edited by J. M. Coe and D. (1983): 159–163. on a benthic community in Monterey Bay National B. Rogers, 141–151. New York: Springer, 1997. Marine Sanctuary. Conservation Biology 12 (1998): 13. Breen, P. A. Mortality of Dungeness crabs 31. Churchill, J. H. The effect of commercial trawling 1204–1214. caused by lost traps in the Fraser River estuary, on sediment resuspension and transport over the British Columbia. North American Journal of 49. Eno, N. C., D. S. MacDonald, J. A. M. Kinnear, Middle Atlantic Bight continental shelf. Continental Fisheries Management 7 (1987): 429–435. C. S. Amos, C. J. Chapman, R. A. Clark, F. S. P. D. Shelf Research 9 (1989): 841–864. Bunker, and C. Munro. Effects of crustacean traps on 14. Breen, P. A. A review of ghost fishing by traps 32. Coan, A., National Marine Fisheries Service, benthic fauna. ICES Journal of Marine Science 58 and gillnets. In Proceedings of the Second Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, Calif. (2001): 11–20. International Conference on Marine Debris, edited Personal communication, 2002. by R. S. Shomura and M. L. Godfrey, 571–599. 50. Epperley, S. P., and W. G. Teas. 1999. Evaluation NMFS-SWFSC-154. Honolulu: University of Hawaii 33. Coen, L. D. A Review of the Potential Impacts of of TED Opening Dimensions Relative to Size of Sea Grant College Program, 1990. Mechanical Harvesting on Subtidal and Intertidal Turtles Stranding in the Western North Atlantic. Shellfish Resources. Charleston: South Carolina SEFSC Contribution PRD-98/99-08. Miami, Fla.: U.S. 15. Bridger, J. P. Some Effects of the Passage of a Department of Natural Resources, 1995. Department of Commerce, NOAA, NMFS, SEFSC, Trawl over the Seabed. Gear and Behavior 1999. Committee. ICES C.M. 1970: 254–259. 34. Collie, J. S., G. A. Escanero, L. Hunke, and P. C. Valentine. Scallop dredging on Georges Bank: 51. Erzini, K., C. C. Monteiro, J. Ribeiro, M. N. 16. Bridger, J. P. Some Observations on the Photographic evaluation of effects on benthic epi- Santos, M. Gaspar, P. Monteiro, and T. C. Borges. Penetration into the Sea Bed of Tickler Chains on a fauna. ICES C.M. 1996/Mini: 9: 1–14. An experimental study of gill net and trammel net “ghostfishing” off the Algarve (southern Portugal). 38 SHIFTING GEARS

Marine Ecology Progress Series 158 (1997): Supplement Oyster Production in Southern North 84. Jennings, S., and M. J. Kaiser. The effects of 257–265. Carolina. Morehead City: North Carolina Division of fishing on marine ecosystems. Advances in Marine Commercial and Sports Fisheries, 1973. Biology 34 (1998): 201–352. 52. Fertl, D., and S. Leatherwood. Cetacean interac- tion with trawls: A preliminary review. Journal of 68. Gomez, E. D., A. C. Alcala, and H. T. Yap. Other 85. Johnson, D. R., C. Yeung, and C. A. Brown. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Science 22 (1997): fishing methods destructive to coral. In Human Estimates of Marine Mammal and Marine Turtle 219–248. Impacts on Coral Reefs: Facts and Bycatch by the U.S. Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fleet Recommendations, 65–75. French Polynesia: in 1992–1997. NMFS-SEFSC-418. Miami: U.S. 53. Fisheries Information Services. Discards in the Antenne Museum, 1987. Department of Commerce, NOAA, NMFS, SEFSC, Groundfish Fisheries of the Bering Sea/Aleutian 1999. Islands and the Gulf of Alaska, 1989 and 1999. 69. Graham, G. L. Finfish bycatch in the southeast- Juneau: Alaska Marine Conservation Council, 2000. ern shrimp trawl fishery. In Solving Bycatch: 86. Julian, F., and M. Beeson. Estimates of marine Considerations for Today and Tomorrow, edited by mammal, turtle, and seabird mortality for two 54. Flint, R. W., and J. A. Younk. Estuarine benthos: T. Wray, 115–119. AK-SG-96-03. Fairbanks: California gillnet fisheries: 1990–1995. Fishery Long-term community structure variations, Corpus University of Alaska Sea Grant College Program, Bulletin 96 (1998): 271–284. Christi Bay, Texas. Estuaries 6 (1983): 126–141. 1996. 87. Kaiser, M. J., and B. E. Spencer. Fish scavenging 55. Fonesca, M., G. W. Thayer, A. J. Chester, and C. 70. Guillen, J. E., A. A. Ramos, L. Martinez, and J. L. behaviour in recently trawled areas. Marine Ecology Foltz. Impact of scallop harvesting on eelgrass Sanchez-Lizaso. Antitrawling reefs and the protec- Progress Series 112 (1994): 41–49. (Zostera marina) meadows: Implications for manage- tion of Posidonia oceanica (L.) delile meadows in ment. North American Journal of Fisheries 88. Kenchington, E. L. R., J. Prena, K. D. Gilkinson, the western Mediterranean Sea: Demand and aims. Management 4 (1984): 286–293. D. C. Gordon, K. MacIsaac, C. Bourbonnais, P. J. Bulletin of Marine Science 55 (1994): 645–650. Schwinghamer, T. W. Rowell, D. L. McKeown, and 56. Forney, K. A., J. Barlow, M. M. Muto, J. Baker, 71. Guillory, V., A. McMillen-Jackson, L. Hartman, H. W. P. Vass. Effects of experimental otter trawling on G. Cameron, J. Mobley, C. Stinchcomb, and J. V. Perry, T. Floyd, T. Wagner, and G. Graham. Blue the macrofauna of a sandy bottom ecosystem on Carretta. U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Crab Derelict Traps and Trap Removal Programs. the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. Canadian Assessments, 2000. NMFS-SWFSC-300. La Jolla, Publication No. 88. Ocean Springs, Miss.: Gulf Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58 (2001): Calif.: U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2001. 1043–1057. NMFS, SWFSC, 2000. 72. Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Development 89. Kenchington, T. J. A summary of the published 57. Forney, K. A., S. R. Benson, and G. A. Foundation. Alternatives to TED’s: Final Report, evidence relating to habitat modification by fishing Camerson. Central California gillnet effort and Tampa, Fla.: Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries draggers. In The Canadian Maritimes Fishery: Let’s bycatch of sensitive species, 1990–1998. In Seabird Development Foundation, 1998. Fix It! edited by G. Dedrick and B. Williams, Bycatch: Trends, Roadblocks, and Solutions, edited 109–116. Shelburne, Nova Scotia: SW Nova Fixed by E. F. Melvin and J. K. Parrish, 141–160. AK-SG- 73. Hall, M. A., Inter-American Tropical Tuna Gear Association, 1995. 01-01. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Sea Grant Commission, La Jolla, Calif. Personal communica- College Program, 2001. tion, 2002. 90. Kennelly, S. J., S. C. Drew, and C. D. Delano- Gagnon. Rates of retained and discarded catches 58. Forsell, D. J. Mortality of Migratory Waterbirds 74. Hall, S. J. Physical disturbance and marine ben- from demersal fish trawling off the northeastern in Mid-Atlantic Coastal Anchored Gillnets during thic communities: Life in the unconsolidated sedi- United States. Marine and Freshwater Research 48 March and April, 1998. Annapolis, Md.: U.S. Fish ments. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An (1997): 185–199. and Wildlife Service, 1999. Annual Review 32 (1994): 179–239. 91. Kirkley, J. Bycatch in the Virginia Menhaden 59. Freese, L., P. J. Auster, J. Heifetz, and B. L. 75. Hall-Spencer, J. M., and P. G. Moore. Impact of Fishery: A Reexamination of the Data. Gloucester Wing. Effects of trawling on seafloor habitat and scallop dredging on maerl grounds. In Effects of Point: Virginia Institute of Marine Science, 1995. associated invertebrate taxa in the Gulf of Alaska. Fishing on Non-Target Species and Habitats,edited Marine Ecology Progress Series 182 (1999): by M. J. Kaiser and S. J. de Groot, 105–107. 92. Krost, P., and H. Rumohr. Effects on the benthos 119–126. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 2000. of physical disturbance of the sea bed. Annex to Ninth Report of the Benthos Ecology Working 60. Friedlander, A. M., G. W. Boehlert, M. E. Field, 76. High, W. L. Escape of Dungeness crabs from Group. ICES C.M. 1990/L:95: 75–77. J. E. Mason, J. V. Gardner, and P. Dartnell. Sidescan- pots. Marine Fisheries Review 38, no. 4 (1976): sonar mapping of benthic trawl marks on the shelf 19–23. 93. Kyte, M. A., and K. K. Chew. A Review of the and slope off Eureka, California. Fisheries Bulletin Hydraulic Elevator Shellfish Harvester and Its Known 77. High, W. L., and D. D. Worlund. Escape of King 97 (1999): 786–801. Effects in Relation to the Soft-Shell Clam, Mya are- Crab, Paralithodes camtschatica, from Derelict Pots. naria. Report No. WSG 75-2. Seattle: University of 61. Garrison, L. P. Vertical migration behavior and NMFS SSRF-734. Seattle, Wash.: U.S. Department Washington, Division of Marine Sciences, 1975. larval transport in brachyuran crabs. Marine Ecology of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Progress Series 176 (1999): 103–113. Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, 94. Langan, R. The effect of dredge harvesting on 1979. eastern oysters and the associated benthic commu- 62. Gearhart, J. Sea Turtle Monitoring of the 2000 nity. In Effects of Fishing Gear on the Sea Floor of Fall Flounder Gillnet Fishery of Southeastern 78. Highly Migratory Species Division, National New England, edited by E. M. Dorsey and J. Pamlico Sound, North Carolina. Morehead City: Marine Fisheries Service. Final Fishery Management Pederson, 108–110. Boston: Conservation Law North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, 2001. Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks. Silver Foundation, 1998. Spring, Md.: U.S. Department of Commerce, 63. Gibbs, P. J., A. J. Collins, and L. C. Collett. NOAA, NMFS, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 1999. 95. Lenihan, H. S., and F. Micheli. Biological effects Effect of otter prawn trawling on the macrobenthos of shellfish harvesting on oyster reefs: Resolving a of a sandy substratum in a New South Wales estu- 79. Homziak, J., M. S. Fonseca, and W. J. fishery conflict by ecological experimentation. ary. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Kenworthy. Macrobenthic community structure in a Fisheries Bulletin 98 (2000): 86–95. Research 31 (1980): 509–516. transplanted eelgrass (Zostera marina) meadow. Marine Ecology Progress Series 9 (1982): 211–221. 96. Lenihan, H. S., and C. H. Peterson. How habitat 64. Gilkinson, K., M. Paulin, S. Hurley, and P. degradation through fishery disturbance enhances Schwinghamer. Impacts of trawl door scouring on 80. Hunt, J., and T. Matthews. Impact of lobster and impacts of hypoxia on oyster reefs. Ecological infaunal bivalves: Results of a physical trawl door stone crab fishery on essential fish habitat. Applications 8 (1998): 128–140. model/dense sand interaction. Journal of Unpublished report. St. Petersburg, Fla.: Florida Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 224 Marine Research Institute, 1999. 97. Lindeboom, H. J., and S. J. de Groot. The (1998): 291–312. Effects of Different Types of Fisheries on the North 81. International Council for the Exploration of the and Irish Sea Benthic Ecosystems. NIOZ Rapport 65. Glude, J. B., and W. S. Landers. Biological Sea. Effects of trawls and dredges on the seabed. 1998-1. Texel: Netherlands Institute for Sea Effects on Hard Clams of Hand Raking and Power ICES Gear and Behavior Committee. ICES C.M. Research, 1998. Dredging. Special Science Reports of Fisheries No. 1973/B:2. 110. Washington, DC.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 98. Livingston, P. Ecosystems Considerations for 82. International Council for the Exploration of the Service, 1953. 2002: The Plan Teams for the Groundfish Fisheries Sea. Report of the Study Group on Ecosystem of the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, and Gulf of 66. Godcharles, M. F. A Study of the Effects of a Effects of Fishing Activities, Copenhagen, Denmark, Alaska. Seattle, Wash.: U.S. Department of Commercial Hydraulic Clam Dredge on Benthic 7–14 April 1992. ICES Cooperative Research Report Commerce, NOAA, NMFS, AFSC, 2001. Communities in Estuarine Areas. Technical Series No. 200. Copenhagen: International Council for the No. 64. St. Petersburg, Fla.: Florida Department of Exploration of the Sea, 1995. 99. McConnaughey, R. A., K. Mier, and C. B. Dew. Natural Resources, 1971. An examination of chronic trawling effects on soft- 83. Jamir, T. V. C. Revisions to the Estimates of bottom benthos of the eastern Bering Sea. ICES 67. Godwin, W. F. Preliminary Draft: Environmental Incidental Sea Turtle Capture Aboard Commercial Journal of Marine Science 57 (2000): 1377–1388. Impact Analysis of Proposed Hydraulic Clam Shrimp Trawling Vessels. Tampa, Fla.: Gulf and Dredging Activity in the New River Estuary, Onslow South Atlantic Fisheries Foundation, 1999. 100. McKenna, S., and J. T. Camp. An Examination County, North Carolina: Use of Seed Oysters to of the Blue Crab Fishery in the Pamlico River Estuary. Washington, N.C.: North Carolina 39 SHIFTING GEARS

Department of Environment, Health and Natural 117. National Marine Fisheries Service. Bycatch in North Carolina Sea Grant College Program, 2000. Resources, 1992. the Southeast Shrimp Trawl Fishery: A Data 135. Rose, T. L., Jr. Migratory Bycatch in Submerged Summary Report. Miami: U.S. Department of 101. Maier, P. P., P. H. Wendt, W. A. Roumillat, G. H. vs. Floating Shad Gill Nets. Raleigh: North Carolina Commerce, NOAA, NMFS, SEFSC, 1997. Steele, M. V. Levisen, and R. V. Dolah. Effects of Sea Grant College Program, 2001. Subtidal Clam Harvesting on Tidal Creeks. 118. National Marine Fisheries Service. Pacific 136. Rossman, M. C., and R. L. Merrick. Harbor Charleston: South Carolina Department of Natural Whiting Non-Tribal At-Sea Processing Vessels Porpoise Bycatch in the Northeast Multi-species Resources, Marine Resource Division, 1998. (NMFS Observer Data). NMFS/NWR Preliminary Sink Gillnet Fishery and the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Data, 2000. Retrieved from 102. Manning, J. H. The Maryland Soft Shell Clam Gillnet Fishery in 1998 and during January–May http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1gdfsh/gdfsh01.htm. Industry and Its Effects on Tidewater Resources. 1999. NEFSC Reference Document 99-17. Woods CBL Reference No. 11. Solomons: Maryland 119. National Research Council. Effects of Trawling Hole, Mass.: U.S. Department of Commerce, Department of Research and Education, 1957. and Dredging on Seafloor Habitat. Washington, NOAA, NMFS, NEFSC, 1999. D.C.: National Academy Press, 2002. 103. Matthews, T. R., C. Cox, and D. Eaken. By- 137. Sainsbury, K. J., R. A. Campbell, R. Lindholm, catch in Florida’s spiny lobster trap fishery. 120. National Research Council. Sustaining Marine and A. W. Whitelaw. Experimental management of Submitted to Proceedings of the 46th Gulf and Fisheries. Washington, D.C.: National Academy an Australian multispecies fishery: Examining the Caribbean Fisheries Institute, 1994. Miami: Press, 1999. possibility of trawl induced habitat modifications. In University of Miami, in press. Global Trends: Fisheries Management, edited by E. 121. Neufeld, G., and D. Barnard. Alaska K. Pikitch, D. D. Huppert, and M. P. Sissenwine. 104. Medcof, J. C., and J. F. Caddy. Underwater Department of Fish and Game Summary of the Bethesda, Md.: American Fisheries Society, 1997. observations on the performance of clam dredges 2001 Mandatory Shellfish Observer Program of three types. ICES C.M. 1971/B:10. Database. Kodiak: Alaska Department of Fish and 138. Sainsbury, K. J., R. A. Campbell, and A. W. Game. 2002. Whitelaw. Effects of trawling on the marine habitat 105. Melvin, E. F., J. K. Parrish, and L. L. Conquest. on the north west shelf of Australia and implications Novel tools to reduce seabird bycatch in coastal 122. New England Fishery Management Council. for sustainable fisheries management. In Sustainable gillnet fisheries. In Seabird Bycatch: Trends, 2000 Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Fisheries through Sustaining Fish Habitat, edited by Roadblocks, and Solutions, edited by E. F. Melvin (SAFE) Report for the Northeast Skate Complex. D. A. Hancock, 137–145. Canberra: Australian and J. K. Parrish, 161–184. AK-SG-01-01. Fairbanks: Newburyport, Mass., New England Fishery Government Publishing Service, 1993. University of Alaska Sea Grant College Program, Management Council. 2001. 139. Sanchez, P., M. Demestre, M. Ramon, and M. J. 123. North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. Kaiser. The impact of otter trawling on mud commu- 106. Melvin, E. F., J. K. Parrish, K. S. Dietrich, and Shrimp and Crab Trawling in North Carolina’s nities in the northwestern Mediterranean. ICES O. S. Hamel. Solutions to Alaska’s Demersal Estuarine Waters. Morehead City: North Carolina Journal of Marine Science 57 (2000): 1352–1358. Longline Fisheries. Seattle: Washington Sea Grant Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Program, 2001. North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, 1999. 140. Sanchez-Lizaso, J. L., J. E. Gullien Nieto, and A. A. Ramos Espla. The regression of Posidonia 107. Menhaden Advisory Committee, Gulf States 124. Ohman, M. C., A. Rajasuriya, and O. Linden. oceanica meadows in El Campello (Spain). Rapp. Marine Fisheries Commission, Minutes from meet- Human disturbances on coral reefs in Sri Lanka: A Comm. Int. Mer Medit. 32 (1990): 7. ing of October 14, 1998. From testimony by R. case study. Ambio 22 (1993): 474–480. Condrey of Louisiana State University. Retrieved 141. Schleyer, M. H., and B. J. Tomalin. Damage on 125. Orth, R. Impacts of Shellfish Harvesting: from http://www.gsmfc.org/pubs/ijf/oct.1998.pdf South African coral reefs and an assessment of their Implications of Management and Policy. 2001. sustainable diving capacity using a fisheries 108. Messieh, S. N., T. W. Rowell, D. L. Peer, and P. Retrieved from http://www.csc.noaa.gov/crs/ approach. Bulletin of Marine Science 67 (2000): J. Cranford. The effects of trawling, dredging, and bhm/sav_cd/html/clam.htm. 1025–1042. ocean dumping on the eastern Canadian continen- 126. Orth, R. J., and K. A. Moore. Letter report to tal shelf seabed. Continental Shelf Research 11 142. Schoellhamer, D. H. Anthropogenic sediment Maryland Department of Natural Resources secre- (1991): 1237–1263. resuspension mechanisms in a shallow microtidal tary Griffin concerning dredge scars in Maryland estuary. Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf Science 43 109. Meyer, T. L., R. A. Cooper, and K. J. Pecci. The coastal bay SAV beds, 1997. Retrieved from (1996): 533–548. performance and environmental effects of a http://www.vims.edu/bip/sav/dredgescar/ hydraulic clam dredge. Marine Fisheries Review 43, 143. Schwinghamer, P., D. Gordon, T. Rowell, J. 127. Pacific Fishery Management Council. Draft no. 9 (1981): 14–22. Prena, D. McKeown, G. Sonnichsen, and J. Y. Fishery Management Plan and Environmental Guignes. Effects of experimental otter trawling on 110. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Impact Statement for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for surficial sediment properties of a sandy-bottom Amendment 12 to the Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Highly Migratory Species. Portland, Oreg.: Pacific ecosystem on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. Quahog Fishery Management Plan. Dover, Del.: Fishery Management Council, 2002. Conservation Biology 12 (1998): 1215–1222. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 1998. 128. Palka, D. L., and M. C. Rossman. Bycatch 144. Scott-Denton, E. Characterization of the Reef 111. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Estimates of Coastal Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops Fish Fisheries of the Eastern U.S. Gulf of Mexico. Tilefish Fishery Management Plan. Includes EIS and truncatus) in the United States Mid-Atlantic Gillnet Galveston, Tex.: U.S. Department of Commerce, RIR. Dover, Del.: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Fisheries for 1996–2000. NEFSC Reference NOAA, NMFS, SWFSC, 1995. Council, 2000. Document 01-15. Woods Hole, Mass.: U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, NMFS, NEFSC, 145. Sedberry, G., South Carolina Department of 112. Moore, D. R., and H. R. Bullis. A deep-water 2001. Natural Resources. Personal communication, 2002. coral reef in the Gulf of Mexico. Bulletin of Marine Science of the Gulf and Caribbean 10 (1960): 129. Paul, J. M., A. J. Paul, and A. Kimker. 146. Sherk, J, J. O’Conner, and D. Neumann. Effects 125–128. Compensatory feeding capacity of two brachyuran of suspended and deposited sediments on estuar- crabs, tanner and Dungeness, after starvation peri- ine environments. In Estuarine Research, edited by 113. Moore, K. A., and R. J. Orth. Evidence of ods like those encountered in pots. Alaska Fisheries L. Corin, 541–558. New York: Academic Press, 1975. Widespread Destruction of Submerged Aquatic Research Bulletin 1 (1984): 184–187. Vegetation (SAV) from Clam Dredging in 147. Smith, E. M., and L. L. Stewart. A Study of Chincoteague Bay, Virginia. Report to the Virginia 130. Peterson, C., H. Summerson, and S. Fegley. Lobster Fisheries in the Connecticut Waters of Long Marine Resources Commission. Gloucester Point: Ecological consequences of mechanical harvesting Island Sound with Special Reference to the Effects Virginia Institute of Marine Science, 1997. of clams. Fishery Bulletin 85 (1987): 281–298. of Trawling on Lobsters. Hartford: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Marine 114. Moran, M. J., and P. C. Stephenson. Effects of 131. Pilskaln, C., J. Churchill, and L. Mayer. Fisheries Program, 1985. otter trawling on macrobenthos and management Resuspension of sediment by bottom trawling in the of demersal scalefish fisheries on the continental Gulf of Maine and potential geochemical conse- 148. Smolowitz, R. Bottom tending gear used in shelf of north-western Australia. ICES Journal of quences. Conservation Biology 12 (1998): New England. In Effects of Fishing Gear on the Sea Marine Science 57 (2000): 510–516. 1223–1229. Floor of New England, edited by E. M. Dorsey and J. Pederson, 46–52. Boston: Conservation Law 115. Munro, J. L., J. D. Parrish, and F. H. Talbot. The 132. Prena, J., P. Schwinghamer, T. W. Rowell, D. C. Foundation, 1998. biological effects of intensive fishing upon reef fish Gordon Jr., K. D. Gilkinson, W. P. Vass, and D. L. communities. In Human Impacts on Coral Reefs: McKeown. Experimental otter trawling on a sandy 149. Sparks-McConkey, P., and L. Watling. Effects on Facts and Recommendations, edited by B. Salvat, bottom ecosystem of the Grand Banks of the ecological integrity of a soft-bottom habitat 41–49. French Polynesia: Antenne Museum, 1987. Newfoundland: Analysis of trawl bycatch and effects from a trawling disturbance. Hydrobiologia 456 on epifauna. Marine Ecology Progress Series 181 (2001): 1–13. 116. National Marine Fisheries Service. Alaska (1999): 107–124. Groundfish Fisheries: Draft Programmatic 150. Stehn, R. A., R. S. Rivera, S. Fitzgerald, and K. Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. 133. Rasmussen, R., and D. Holts. Observed Wohl. 2001. Incidental catch of seabirds by longline Anchorage, Alaska: U.S. Department of Commerce, Swordfish Catch in the California Drift Net Fishery. fisheries in Alaska. In Seabird Bycatch: Trends, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, La Jolla, Calif.: U.S. Department of Commerce, Roadblocks, and Solutions, edited by E. F. Melvin National Marine Fisheries Service, 2001. NOAA, NMFS, SWFSC, 2001. and J. K. Parrish, 61–77. AK-SG-01-01. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Sea Grant College Program, 134. Rose, T. L., Jr. Migratory Bird Bycatch in 2001. Submerged vs. Floating Shad Gill Nets. Raleigh: 40 SHIFTING GEARS

151. Stephan, C. D., R. Peuser, and M. Fonseca. 158. Thorpe, T., D. Beresoff, and K. Cannady. Gillnet 166. West, T. L., W. G. Ambrose Jr., and G. A. Evaluating Fishing Gear Impact to Submerged Bycatch Potential, Discard Mortality, and Condition Skilleter. A Review of the Effects of Fish Harvesting Aquatic Vegetation and Determining Mitigation of Red Drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) in Southeastern Practices on the Benthos and Bycatch: Implications Strategies. Habitat Management Series No. 5. North Carolina. Wilmington: North Carolina Marine and Recommendations for North Carolina. Report Washington, D.C.: Atlantic State Marine Fisheries Fisheries Commission, 2001. No. 94-02. Raleigh, N.C.: U.S. Environmental Commission, 2000. Protection Agency and North Carolina Department 159. Thrush, S. F., J. E. Hewitt, V. J. Cummings, P. K. of Health, Environment and Natural Resources, 152. Stevens, B. G., I. Vining, S. Byersdorfer, and W. Dayton, M. Cryer, S. J. Turner, G. A. Funnell, R. G. 1994. Donaldson. Ghost fishing by tanner crab Budd, C. J. Milburn, and M. R. Wilkinson. (Chionoecetes bairdi) pots off Kodiak, Alaska: Pot Disturbance of the marine benthic habitat by com- 167. Williamson, J. Gillnet fishing. In Effect of density and catch per trap as determined from mercial fishing impacts at the scale of the fishery. Fishing Gear on the Sea Floor of New England, sidescan sonar and pot recovery data. Fisheries Ecological Applications 8 (1998): 866–879. edited by E. M. Dorsey and J. Pederson, 87–89. Bulletin 98 (1999): 389–399. Boston: Conservation Law Foundation, 1998. 160. Tilmant, J. Observations on the Impact of 153. Stevenson, D. K., and B. Scully. Using Shrimp Roller Frame Trawls Operated over Hard 168. Witherell, D., and C. Coon. 2000. Protecting Observers to Monitor Status of Atlantic Herring Bottom Communities, Biscayne Bay, Florida. Series gorgonian corals off Alaska from fishing impacts. Spawning Stocks and Groundfish Bycatch in the No. P-553. Homestead, Fla.: National Park Service, Paper presented at First International Symposium Gulf of Maine. 96-NER-136. West Boothbay Harbor: Biscayne National Monument, 1979. on Deep Sea Corals, July 30–August 2, 2000, Maine Department of Natural Resources, 1999. Halifax, Nova Scotia. 161. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sea tur- 154. Stevenson, J. C., and N. M. Confer. Summary tle conservation; restrictions to fishing activities. 169. Wolf, K., J. Grettenberger, and E. Melvin. of Available Information on Chesapeake Bay Federal Register 67, no. 55 (2002): 13098–13101. Seabird bycatch in Puget Sound commercial salmon Submerged Vegetation. FWS/OBS-78/66. Washing- net fisheries: Working gear report. In Solving 162. Van Dolah, R., P. Wendt, and M. Levisen. A ton, DC.: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1978. Bycatch: Considerations for Today and Tomorrow, study of the effects of shrimp trawling on benthic edited by T. Wray, 311–319. AK-SG-96-03. 155. Sutherland, D., and D. E. Harper. The Wire communities in two South Carolina sounds. Fisheries Fairbanks: University of Alaska Sea Grant College Fish-Trap Fishery of Dade and Broward Counties, Research 12 (1991): 139–156. Program, 1996. Florida: December 1979–September 1980. St. 163. Van Dolah, R., P. Wendt, and N. Nicholson. Petersburg: Florida Department of Natural 170. Wynne, K. M. Bird interactions with salmon Effects of a research trawl on a hard bottom assem- Resources, 1983. drift gillnets in Prince William Sound, Alaska: 1990 blage of sponges and corals. Fisheries Research 5 and 1991. In Seabird Bycatch: Trends, Roadblocks, 156. Tabb, D. C. Report on the Bait Shrimp Fishery (1987): 39–54. and Solutions, edited by E. F. Melvin and J. K. of Biscayne Bay, Miami, Florida. Miami: Florida State 164. Waring, G. T., J. M. Quintal, and S. L. Swartz. Parrish, 198. AK-SG-01-01. Fairbanks: University of Board of Conservation, Marine Laboratory, U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Alaska Sea Grant College Program, 2001. University of Miami, 1958. Stock Assessment, 2000. NMFS-NE-162. Woods 171. National Marine Fisheries Service Honolulu 157. Tabb, D. C., and N. Kenny. A Brief History of Hole, Mass.: U.S. Department of Commerce, Laboatory. Hawaii Longline Summary Quarterly Report. Florida’s Live Bait Shrimp Fishery with Description of NOAA, NMFS, NEFSC, 2000. Retrieved from Fishing Gear and Methods. Contribution No. 1070. 165. Watling, L., R. H. Findlay, L. M. Mayer, and D. http://www.nmfs.hawaii.edu/fmpi/fmep/. Miami: University of Miami, Institute of Marine F. Schick. Impact of a scallop drag on the sediment Sciences, 1969. chemistry, microbiota, and faunal assemblages of a shallow subtidal marine benthic community. Journal of Sea Research 46 (2001): 309–324.

ccccc APPENDIX 2 “Shifting Gears” Expert Workshop Participants

Doug DeMaster Phil Steele Dave Wallace Marine mammal and fisheries biologist Fisheries biologist Commercial fisheries consultant Alaska Fisheries Science Center NOAA Fisheries, Southeast Regional Office Cambridge, Maryland Seattle, Washington St. Petersburg, Florida Dredge gear

Daniel Pauly Phil Kline John Pappalardo Fisheries biologist Ocean conservationist, commercial fisher Policy analyst, commercial fisher University of British Columbia (retired) Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s Vancouver, British Columbia Oceana Association Washington, D.C. North Chatham, Massachusetts Jane Eisemann Hook-and-line, longline, pot gear Hook-and-line gear Commercial fisher, fisheries educator Kodiak, Alaska Waldo Wakefield Les Watling Bottom longline, gillnet, trawl, pot, purse Fisheries biologist Invertebrate biologist, seine gear NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Fisheries Science benthic oceanographer Center University of Maine Jeff Rester Newport, Oregon Walpole, Maine Habitat program coordinator Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission Johnnie Mercer Dan Parker Ocean Springs, Mississippi Commercial fisher Commercial fisher New Bern, North Carolina Astoria, Oregon Jim Kirkley Dredge gear Trawl gear Fisheries economist Virginia Institute of Marine Science Gloucester Point, Virginia

41 SHIFTING GEARS

About the Authors

Dr. Lance E. Morgan is Chief Scientist at Marine Conservation Biology Institute and an affiliate assistant professor at the School of Marine Affairs, University of Washington. He has expertise in marine ecology and fisheries conservation. He has authored reports on organisms as diverse as red sea urchins, rockfish, fur seals, and sea lions. Dr. Morgan is currently conducting research on deep-sea corals in the Northeast Pacific Ocean.

Dr. Ratana Chuenpagdee is Assistant Professor at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary. She has expertise in fisheries biology, resource management and environmental studies. Dr. Chuenpagdee developed the “damage schedule” approach for environmental damage assessment. She is currently conducting research on assessing stakeholders preferences for ecosystem management options for the Chesapeake Bay.

Photo Credits Cover, i (seafloor images): Copyright © Peter Auster. Used with permission. Cover, i (pollock): Copyright © NOAA Alaska Fishery Center. Used with permission. page v: Copyright © Graham Robertson. Used with permission. page 4: Copyright © Doug Perrine/Seapics.com. Used with permission. page 6: Copyright © Elliott Norse. Used with permission. page 7-9: Copyright © Peter Auster. Used with permission. page 22: Copyright © Center for Coastal Studies. Used with permission. page 28-29: Copyright © Peter Auster. Used with permission. page 31: Copyright © Tom Campbell/Seapics.com. Used with permission.

42 A product of Island Press Publication Services CENTER FOR RESOURCE ECONOMICS Non-Profit Organization 58440 Main Street, P. O. Box 7 U.S. Postage PAID Covelo, California 95428 Center for Resource Economics

cccccccccccccc 9 859633475 781559 F.P.O. ISBN 1-55963-347-6

90000