Questionnaire Report for Red drum
(MERA version 4.1.6)
Brett van Poorten (brett.vanpoorten@gmail.com)
2019-07-30
1 About this document
This is a prototype of an automatic report that documents how the user specified the operating model and their various justifications.
2 Introduction
Describe the history and current status of the fishery, including fleets, sectors, vessel types and practices/gear by vessel type, landing ports, economics/markets, whether targeted/bycatch, other stocks caught in the fishery. Commercial fisheries typically landed less than 100,000 lbs/yr in each state prior to the 1980s. Purse seines began increasing catches in the early 1980s, dramatically increasing catches. In the mid-1980s, market demand increased with the sale of ‘blackened redfish’, with catches exceeding 10 million lbs. The commercial fisheries in the EEZ and most states was then closed due to concerns of overfishing. The fishery is now completely dominated by the recreational fishery and bycatch, primarily in the shrimp fishery, although a limited commercial fishery still exists in Mississippi waters. Fish are captured in all GOM states and recreational fishing effort is increasing. The population appears to be currently (as of 1997) overfished and experiencing overfishing (Red drum stock assessment 2000).
Describe the stock’s ecosystem functions, dependencies, and habitat types. Juvenile, subadult and adult red drum inhabit estuaries along the coast; adults are also found in the EEZ. Young (<50mm) red drum feed largely on copepods, shifting to mysids. After 50mm, red drum feed on other fish, crustaceans and shrimp; the relative proportion of each in the diet is determined by availability (Red drum FMP.pdf).
Provide all relevant reference materials, such as assessments, research, and other analysis. Red Drum FMP 1986.pdf Red Drum amend 01 1987.pdf Red Drum amend 02 1988.pdf Red Drum amend 03 1992.pdf Red Drum stock assessment 2000.pdf (Porch 2000)
3 Fishery Characteristics
3.1 Longevity
| Answered |
|---|
| Very short-lived (5 < maximum age < 7) |
| Short-lived (7 < maximum age < 10) |
| Moderate life span (10 < maximum age < 20) |
| Moderately long-lived (20 < maximum age < 40) |
| Long-lived (40 < maximum age < 80) |
| Very long-lived (80 < maximum age < 160) |
| Justification |
|---|
| Maximum observed age is 39 years (Red Drum stock assessment 2000.pdf) |
3.2 Stock depletion
| Answered |
|---|
| Crashed (D < 0.05) |
| Very depleted (0.05 < D < 0.1) |
| Depleted (0.1 < D < 0.15) |
| Moderately depleted (0.15 < D < 0.3) |
| Healthy (0.3 < D < 0.5) |
| Underexploited (0.5 < D) |
| Justification |
|---|
| SPR appears to be below 20%, indicating a relatively depleted stock; though actual stock depletion estimates do not appear to have been estimated (Red Drum stock assessment 2000.pdf) |
3.3 Resilence
| Answered |
|---|
| Not resilient (steepness < 0.3) |
| Low resilience (0.3 < steepness < 0.5) |
| Moderate resilence (0.5 < steepness < 0.7) |
| Resilient (0.7 < steepness < 0.9) |
| Very Resilient (0.9 < steepness) |
| Justification |
|---|
| Limited stock-recruit data suggest high compensation, though no data on the ascending limb of the stock-recruitment curve are available (see Stock Recruit Figure 21.png from Red Drum stock assessment 2000.pdf). |
3.4 Historical effort pattern
| Answered |
|---|
| Stable |
| Two-phase |
| Boom-bust |
| Gradual increases |
| Stable, recent increases |
| Stable, recent declines |
| Justification |
|---|
| Catch was stable over many years, then peaked in 1980s. Commercial fishery was then closed and replaced with a recreational fishery recently (see Catch history figure 1.png from Hightower 2016.pdf). |
3.5 Inter-annual variability in historical effort
| Answered |
|---|
| Not variable (less than 20% inter-annual change (IAC)) |
| Variable (maximum IAC between 20% to 50%) |
| Highly variable (maximum IAC between 50% and 100%) |
| Justification |
|---|
| Historical commercial effort was likely driven by market demand and appears to have been stable. Recent recreational effort is also relatively stable and driven by weather and economic drivers on disposable income and time. |
3.6 Historical fishing efficiency changes
| Answered |
|---|
| Declining by 2-3% pa (halves every 25-35 years) |
| Declining by 1-2% pa (halves every 35-70 years) |
| Stable -1% to 1% pa (may halve/double every 70 years) |
| Increasing by 1-2% pa (doubles every 35-70 years) |
| Increasing by 2-3% pa (doubles every 25-35 years) |
| Justification |
|---|
| Fishing efficiency has likely steadily increased as technology improved. More recently, due to the shift in gears (from commercial to recreational) and due to increases in recreational boat speed (can access offshore sites), GPS, acoustics, etc., efficiency has improved. |
3.7 Future fishing efficiency changes
| Answered |
|---|
| Declining by 2-3% pa (halves every 25-35 years) |
| Declining by 1-2% pa (halves every 35-70 years) |
| Stable -1% to 1% pa (may halve/double every 70 years) |
| Increasing by 1-2% pa (doubles every 35-70 years) |
| Increasing by 2-3% pa (doubles every 25-35 years) |
| Justification |
|---|
| I assume efficiency will continue to improve |
3.8 Length at maturity
| Answered |
|---|
| Very small (0.4 < LM < 0.5) |
| Small (0.5 < LM < 0.6) |
| Moderate (0.6 < LM < 0.7) |
| Moderate to large (0.7 < LM < 0.8) |
| Large (0.8 < LM < 0.9) |
| Justification |
|---|
| Goodyear (1996) estimated ages 0-6 had proportions of 0, 0.05, 0.25, 0.62, 0.9 and 1.0 mature, respectively (from red drum stock assessment 2000.pdf). Fish are ~75% of L-infinity by age-3. |
3.9 Selectivity of small fish
| Answered |
|---|
| Very small (0.1 < S < 0.2) |
| Small (0.2 < S < 0.4) |
| Half asymptotic length (0.4 < S < 0.6) |
| Large (0.6 < S < 0.8) |
| Very large (0.8 < S < 0.9) |
| Justification |
|---|
| 50% selectivity occurs from age-1 to age-3, depending on the gear and fishery (see Selectivity Figure 19.png from Stock assessment 2000.pdf) |
3.10 Selectivity of large fish
| Answered |
|---|
| Asymptotic selectivity (SL = 1) |
| Declining selectivity with length (0.75 < SL < 1) |
| Dome-shaped selectivity (0.25 < SL < 0.75) |
| Strong dome-shaped selectivity (SL < 0.25) |
| Justification |
|---|
| Selectivity ranges from asymptotic to sharply dome-shaped (see Selectivity Figure 19.png from Stock assessment 2000.pdf). |
3.11 Discard rate
| Answered |
|---|
| Low (DR < 1%) |
| Low - moderate (1% < DR < 10%) |
| Moderate (10% < DR < 30%) |
| Moderate - high (30% < DR < 50%) |
| High (50% < DR < 70%) |
| Justification |
|---|
| Discards range from near zero in early 1980s to 70% of total catch in the recent recreational fishery (see Discards Figure 14.png from Red drum stock assessment 2000.pdf). |
3.12 Post-release mortality rate
| Answered |
|---|
| Low (PRM < 5%) |
| Low - moderate (5% < PRM < 25%) |
| Moderate (25% < PRM < 50%) |
| Moderate - high (50% < PRM < 75%) |
| High (75% < PRM < 95%) |
| Almost all die (95% < PRM < 100%) |
| Justification |
|---|
| “Relatively few studies have documented the mortality rate of released red drum. Matlock et al., (1993) found that 96% of the red drum they caught in Texas bays (with single-barb and treble hooks) were still alive three days later. The preliminary results of a study presented on the WEB site of the Texas chapter of the American Fisheries Society (R. Glenn Thomas et al., Louisiana Dept. Wildlife and Fisheries, 1997) indicate even higher survival rates (96 to 99%). On the other hand, a study by Jordan and Woodward (1994) observed survival rates of only 84%.” (Red drum stock assessment 2000.pdf) |
3.13 Recruitment variability
| Answered |
|---|
| Very low (less than 10% inter-annual changes (IAC)) |
| Low (max IAC of between 20% and 60%) |
| Moderate (max IAC of between 60% and 120%) |
| High (max IAC of between 120% and 180%) |
| Very high (max IAC greater than 180%) |
| Justification |
|---|
| Sigma R is approximately 20% (see Stock recruit Figure 21.png from Red Drum stock assessment 2000.pdf). |
3.14 Size of an existing MPA
| Answered |
|---|
| None |
| Small (A < 5%) |
| Small-moderate (5% < A < 10%) |
| Moderate (10% < A < 20%) |
| Large (20% < A < 30%) |
| Very large (30% < A < 40%) |
| Huge (40% < A < 50%) |
| Justification |
|---|
| No closures currently exist |
3.15 Spatial mixing (movement) in/out of existing MPA
| Answered |
|---|
| Very low (P < 1%) |
| Low (1% < P < 5%) |
| Moderate (5% < P < 10%) |
| High (10% < P < 20%) |
| Fully mixed |
| Justification |
|---|
| No justification was provided |
3.16 Size of a future potential MPA
| Answered |
|---|
| None |
| Small (A < 5%) |
| Small-moderate (5% < A < 10%) |
| Moderate (10% < A < 20%) |
| Large (20% < A < 30%) |
| Very large (30% < A < 40%) |
| Huge (40% < A < 50%) |
| Justification |
|---|
| No closures are being considered |
3.17 Spatial mixing (movement) in/out of future potential MPA
| Answered |
|---|
| Very low (P < 1%) |
| Low (1% < P < 5%) |
| Moderate (5% < P < 10%) |
| High (10% < P < 20%) |
| Fully mixed |
| Justification |
|---|
| No justification was provided |
3.18 Initial stock depletion
| Answered |
|---|
| Very low (0.1 < D1 < 0.15) |
| Low (0.15 < D1 < 0.3) |
| Moderate (0.3 < D < 0.5) |
| High (0.5 < D1) |
| Asymptotic unfished levels (D1 = 1) |
| Justification |
|---|
| Fishing effort and catches in the 1880s were low, suggesting the stock was near unfished levels. |
4 Management Characteristics
4.1 Types of fishery management that are possible
| Answered |
|---|
| TAC (Total Allowable Catch): a catch limit |
| TAE (Total Allowable Effort): an effort limit |
| Size limit |
| Time-area closures (a marine reserve) |
| Justification |
|---|
|
1. Describe what, if any, current management measures are used to constrain catch/effort. States have their own regulations: Alabama allows three fish daily between 16-26“; one fish allowed per day over 26” Texas allows three fish daily between 20-28“; one fish over the maximum length per year may be harvested when affixed with a properly completed red drum tag; an additional fish over the maximum length per year may be harvested when affixed with a properly completed bonus red drum tag. Mississippi allows three fish per day over 18”; one fish per day over 30“ Florida allows one or two fish per day between 18-27” (depending on the area of coast). Florida also has catch-and-release zones. Louisiana allows five fish per day between 16-27“; one fish per day may be larger than 27” Mississippi also allows a limited commercial harvest of 35,000 pounds annually. 2. Describe historical management measures, if any. Commercial harvest was closed in EEZ waters in 1987. Four of five states followed suit, though Mississippi continues to allow a limited commercial harvest. In October 1987, quota was issued for EEZ off Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, but none off Texas and Florida. In 1988, retention within the EEZ was prohibited States regulate their own fisheries, but no historical information could be found. 3. Describe main strengths and weaknesses of current monitoring and enforcement capacity. Monitoring is primarily through NMFS, which monitors the recreational fishery through stratified phone surveys and dockside monitoring. Enforcement is through state agencies, which may be weak, especially in less popular areas. 4. Describe and reference any legal/policy requirements for management, monitoring and enforcement. |
4.2 TAC offset: consistent overages/underages
| Answered |
|---|
| Large underages (40% - 70% of recommended) |
| Underages (70% - 90% of recommended) |
| Slight underages (90% - 100% of recommended) |
| Taken exactly (95% - 105% of recommended) |
| Slight overages (100% - 110% of recommended) |
| Overages (110% - 150% of recommended) |
| Large overages (150% - 200% of recommended) |
| Justification |
|---|
| No information on total annual catch could be found. |
4.3 TAC implementation variability
| Answered |
|---|
| Constant (V < 1%) |
| Not variable (1% < V < 5%) |
| Low variability (5% < V < 10%) |
| Variable (10% < V < 20%) |
| Highly variable (20% < V < 40%) |
| Justification |
|---|
| TAC is implemented in EEZ, but within state waters, fisheries are regulated using bag and size limits. These are relatively stable through time. |
4.4 TAE offset: consistent overages/underages
| Answered |
|---|
| Large underages (40% - 70% of recommended) |
| Underages (70% - 90% of recommended) |
| Slight underages (90% - 100% of recommended) |
| Taken exactly (95% - 105% of recommended) |
| Slight overages (100% - 110% of recommended) |
| Overages (110% - 150% of recommended) |
| Large overages (150% - 200% of recommended) |
| Justification |
|---|
| No effort limitation |
4.5 TAE implementation variability
| Answered |
|---|
| Constant (V < 1%) |
| Not variable (1% < V < 5%) |
| Low variability (5% < V < 10%) |
| Variable (10% < V < 20%) |
| Highly variable (20% < V < 40%) |
| Justification |
|---|
| No effort limitation |
4.6 Size limit offset: consistent overages/underages
| Answered |
|---|
| Much smaller (40% - 70% of recommended) |
| Smaller (70% - 90% of recommended) |
| Slightly smaller (90% - 100% of recommended) |
| Taken exactly (95% - 105% of recommended) |
| Slightly larger (100% - 110% of recommended) |
| Larger (110% - 150% of recommended) |
| Much larger (150% - 200% of recommended) |
| Justification |
|---|
| There are likely some fish that are below the minimum size; few fish are over the maximum size because a limited harvest of fish is allowed above the maximum size. |
4.7 Size limit implementation variability
| Answered |
|---|
| Constant (V < 1%) |
| Not variable (1% < V < 5%) |
| Low variability (5% < V < 10%) |
| Variable (10% < V < 20%) |
| Highly variable (20% < V < 40%) |
| Justification |
|---|
| There are few changes to the maximum size over time. |
5 Data Characteristics
5.1 Available data types
| Answered |
|---|
| Historical annual catches (from unfished) |
| Recent annual catches (at least 5 recent years) |
| Historical relative abundance index (from unfished) |
| Recent relative abundance index (at least 5 recent years) |
| Fishing effort |
| Size composition (length samples) |
| Age composition (age samples) |
| Growth (growth parameters) |
| Absolute biomass survey |
| Justification |
|---|
|
1. Provide the time series (specify years, if possible) that exist for catch, effort, and CPUE/abundance indices. I cannot find a recent stock summary, though they undoubtedly exist. The National Marine Fisheries Service has collected landings data since the 1880s by contacting fish dealers. Landings for each state exist sporadically since 1887 and annually since 1948 (Red drum stock assessment 2000). Estimates of bycatch in the shrimp fishery within the EEZ exist, but do not exist in state waters (though they may be substantial). Recreational harvest and release have been collected annually through the Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey since 1979. These data include fishing from shore, private boats, charter boats and party (head) boats. These data exist over most areas, but since 1983, Texas has conducted their own survey. Release rates in Texas were no longer monitored after 1981. Size composition exist for all years and states for the recreational fishery through MRFSS and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Size composition from the commercial fisheries are sporadic over time and area. There are limited length composition data from the shrimp bycatch Age composition exist for the purse seine and haul seine landings. Sporadic age samples from fishery-independent sources exist as well. Egg and larval densities are available through the annual SEAMAP Ichthyoplankton survey. Three aerial surveys of schools have been conducted, but are assumed underestimates of true abundance. Two mark-recapture studies exist to estimate total abundance. Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Florida monitor abundance using various gears as well. Growth is estimated directly from length-at-age data. 2. Describe how these data collected (e.g., log books, dealer reporting, observers). Recreational catch data are collected using telephone surveys and on-site creel surveys. Length and age samples are from portside monitoring. Catches are from a standardized program between NMFS and dealers. 3. Describe what types of sampling programs and methodologies exist for data collection, including the time-series of available sampling data and quality. “The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) has deployed bag seines along the coastlines of Texas bays since 1977 and monofilament gill nets since 1975. This survey is unique in that samples are taken at numerous locations that are randomly selected from virtually all of the possible positions along the coastline of each major Texas bay system.” “The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries has used monofilament gill nets, trammel nets and bag seines to monitor abundance since 1986. Fixed stations located in a wide range of estuarine habitats have generally been sampled several times a year.” “The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) has used bag seines and otter trawls with a 3.1 mm mesh to monitor the abundance of juvenile fish since 1989. The program employs a stratified random sampling design in several key bay systems.” (Red drum stock assessment 2000.pdf). 4. Describe all sources of uncertainty in the status, biology, life history and data sources of the fishery. Include links to documentation, reports. Population status, biology and life history are all relatively well known. Distribution is a little less certain, but there have been many studies on stock structure, which indicates a strong separation of the Gulf from Atlantic stocks and some possible sub stock structure within the Gulf. (Red Drum stock assessment 2000.pdf) |
5.2 Catch reporting bias
| Answered |
|---|
| Strong under-reporting (30% - 50%) |
| Under-reporting (10% - 30%) |
| Slight under-reporting (less than 10%) |
| Reported accurately (+/- 5%) |
| Slight over-reporting (less than 10%) |
| Justification |
|---|
| The current MRFSS recreational angler survey is well structured and reasonably accurate. |
5.3 Hyperstability in indices
| Answered |
|---|
| Strong hyperdepletion (2 < Beta < 3) |
| Hyperdepletion (1.25 < Beta < 2) |
| Proportional (0.8 < Beta < 1.25) |
| Hyperstability (0.5 < Beta < 0.8) |
| Strong hyperstability (0.33 < Beta < 0.5) |
| Justification |
|---|
| There is no evidence of hyperstability in abundance indices. They are relatively well designed spatially to detect hyperstability; red drum also show low mobility. |
5.4 Available data types
| Answered |
|---|
| Perfect |
| Good (accurate and precise) |
| Data moderate (some what inaccurate and imprecise) |
| Data poor (inaccurate and imprecise) |
| Justification |
|---|
| Annual catch and abundance data are good, and length composition are frequent. Age composition data are less frequent; data quality varies somewhat spatially due to different management jurisdictions. |
6 Version Notes
The package is subject to ongoing testing. If you find a bug or a problem please send a report to t.carruthers@oceans.ubc.ca so that it can be fixed!
shiny-2019-07-30-16:07:30
Open Source, GPL-2 2019