Preliminary Characterization of the North Carolina Autumn Recreational Shrimp Trawl Fishery

• Published in: North American journal of fisheries management 1997-08, Vol.17 (3), p.696-702
• Main Authors: Griffith, David, Rulifson, Roger A.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Marine; Penaeidae
• ISSN: 0275-5947; 1548-8675
• DOI: 10.1577/1548-8675(1997)017<0696:PCOTNC>2.3.CO;2

Several states in the USA have proposed or implemented new regulations to monitor recreational fishing more closely. One regulatory tool, the saltwater recreational fishing license, has been adopted in several states, yet in other states it is opposed heavily by fishers. One difficulty in developing new types of saltwater licenses in North Carolina is that part‐time fishers use commercial gear but straddle recreational and commercial fishing motives and behaviors. In North Carolina, over 20,000 people hold commercial fishing licenses, but fewer than 10% of those (1,747) sell more than US$ 10,000 worth of seafood annually. North Carolina's undocumented recreational trawl fishery for shrimp (Penaeidae) often harvests significant fishery resources but has inadequate or loosely enforced restrictions. To investigate the nature of the recreational shrimp trawl fishery in coastal North Carolina waters, we conducted an intercept interview survey in the fall of 1995. Slightly more than half of those interviewed were recreational shrimpers, and the remainder were part‐time commercial shrimpers. All were men, and most held skilled and semi‐skilled technical jobs. Most limited their shrimping activities to local waters and had used other commercial gear including gill nets, clam rakes, scallop and oyster dredges, and crab pots. Part‐time commercial shrimpers spent more time fishing, caught more shrimp. and had shrimped more in previous years than recreational shrimpers: however, only 18% of all shrimpers fished exclusively for shrimp. About one‐third of part‐time commercial shrimpers interviewed shrimped primarily for personal consumption, while about two‐thirds sold all or part of their catch. Although about 90% of all gear was equipped with a bycatch reduction device (BRD), placement of the BRD was highly variable, which suggests a need to standardize BRD placement to increase its effectiveness.