Analysis of Recreational Haddock Discard Mortality: Results and Findings from Year 1 and Year 2. Final Report to the Northeast Consortium

Transcription

1 New Hampshire Sea Grant, University of New Hampshire and Eastman s Fishing Fleet Analysis of Recreational Haddock Discard Mortality: Results and Findings from Year 1 and Year 2. Final Report to the Northeast Consortium

2 Project Title: Assessing Recreational Haddock Discard Mortality on Jeffrey s Ledge Through an Industry-led Collaborative Mark-Recapture Tagging Program Award Number: 14NE99 Period of Award: March 1, 2015-December 31, 2017 Final Report Submission Date: January 20, 2017 Principal Investigators: Gabriela M. Bradt, Ph.D. New Hampshire Sea Grant University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension 164A Morse Hall 8 College Rd. Durham, NH gabriela.bradt@unh.edu Lester and Philip Eastman Eastman s Fishing Fleet LLC 5 River St Seabrook, NH Abstract: New Hampshire Sea Grant, UNH Cooperative Extension and Eastman s Fishing Fleet LLC administered a cooperative mark-recapture tagging program in which 16,677 Atlantic haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) were tagged and released as part of regular recreational fishing operations in fishing areas 513 and 514 over two fishing seasons (May-Dec 2015, 2016). Tagging these fish was intended to provide a more accurate estimate of recreational fishing mortality of Atlantic haddock. Fish were captured by Eastman s recreational fishing vessels using hook and line gear (rod and reel) and tagged using yellow t-bar anchor tags. The tagging program used recreational fishing clients to help capture the fish while trained crew members handled, tagged and released the fish. The program attempted to capitalize on recreational fishermen networks, marinas and social media to enlist participation on tag returns. Additionally, four cash lotteries were held to further incentivize fishermen to return tags. Data management and returns infrastructure were performed by New Hampshire Sea Grant, UNH Cooperative Extension and Eastman s Fishing Fleet and scientific program oversight was provided by New Hampshire Sea Grant and UNH Cooperative Extension. As of November 2016, there were 75 reported tag returns, a rate of approximately 0.005%. Due to the very low rate of return, a statistically robust estimate of recreational discard mortality of Atlantic haddock could not be calculated. Introduction:

3 There is a large recreational fishery for haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) in the Gulf of Maine (GOM). It is estimated that in the last ten years, the recreational haddock fishery has accounted for 29-86% of the total haddock catch (NESFC, 2014b). Estimates for recreational removals have varied annually from a low of 39 mt in 1981 to a high of 618 mt in 2007 (NESFC, 2014b) with an average of 17% of annual removals from between (NESFC, 2014b). Although there are better estimates of removals attributed to the recreational haddock fishery, it is currently not known how many of these removals are then discarded (NESFC, 2014a). The most current stock assessment for GOM haddock has used a baseline discard or release mortality of 50% based primarily on informal communications with recreational groundfish fishermen (NESFC, 2014a,b). To date, there continue to be no available published scientific studies on discard mortality of haddock released from the recreational fishery (NESFC, 2014a). Because the recreational haddock fishery in the GOM is large, that a recreational discard mortality rate is not known is problematic both for the sustainability of the fishery ecologically but also economically. According to the latest assessment (NESFC, 2014a), the contribution of recreational discards to the total recreational catch has been increasing over time, however, although discards have been reported in the assessment updates (NESFC, 2014a), they have not been included in the catch at age models due to the limited length frequency data on recreational discards (NESFC, 2014a). Therefore, given the large magnitude of recreational releases in recent years, discard mortality is an important metric to have to more accurately assess the status of the GOM haddock stock. The fishery regulations for the recreational haddock fishery for Fishing Year 2014 (FY14) dramatically decreased the number of haddock that anglers could keep per day from an unlimited number to 3 fish per angler per day. This dramatic decrease was placed into effect because according to NOAA, the recreational fishery had exceeded the catch limit in place for FY 2013 (GARFO, 2014a) and in order to assure that overages didn t occur again in 2014, regulators felt this was the best course of action. Additionally, and more relevant, fishery managers explained that they had arrived at a limit of 3 fish per angler per day based on communications with recreational fishermen indicating that in general, anglers tend to keep >1 haddock /angler and that decreasing the bag limit to 10 fish per angler would not reduce the catch by any significant amount (GARFO, 2014a). Thus, because anglers keep so few haddock, the number of fish that are released back into the water is significant enough that a more accurate release discard rate needs to be calculated. If, in fact, more released fish survive than is estimated, then the assumption would be that catch limits for the haddock recreational fishery should be increased as well as bag limits. While this study was underway, the regulations for Fishing Year 2015 (FY15) increased the number of haddock that anglers could keep to 15 per day as a result of an updated stock assessment, however, the discard mortality rate for the recreational fishery that was used was 50% and it was again, not based on any scientific estimates. Therefore, the current study was of utmost relevance and while the bag limit did increase during this time period, estimating a discard mortality rate for the recreational haddock fishery is still important.

4 This tagging study was designed to leverage recreational fishing operations in real time using anglers and trained crew to catch and tag 20,000 haddock. By tagging fish under normal recreational fishing trip conditions we anticipated the ability to estimate an accurate discard mortality rate Figure 1. Overview of the Northeast Statistical Fishing Areas. Red asterisks indicate fishing areas where this study took place. Project Objectives: Conduct an intensive mark-recapture effort of 20,000 haddock on Jeffrey s Ledge in the Gulf of Maine over a 24-month period to get a better understanding and assessment of recreational discard/release mortality of this species. Develop and maintain a tagged haddock database Calculate an accurate recreational discard mortality rate for haddock Develop a collaborative haddock tagging program involving recreational fishermen

5 Participants Scientific Partners (primary contacts) NH Sea Grant UNH Cooperative Extension Gabriela Bradt Phone: Fisheries Specialist University of New Hampshire 164A Morse Hall 8 College Rd Durham, NH Eastman s Fishing Fleet, LLC 5 River St Seabrook, NH Lester Eastman Phone: Least36932@aol.com Phillip Eastman Phone: iloveaudreymay@icloud.com Elizabeth Geis Eastman s Fishing Fleet, LLC Business Manager Phone: (603) Table 1: Fishing Vessel Participation (Vessel and Captain) Lady Merrilee Ann III Philip Eastman Lady Audrey Mae Tory O Byrne Table 2: Fishing Vessel Crew/Technicians Philip Eastman Nicole Gagnon Zach Eastman Nathaniel Ribblett Curran Flanagan Matt Day Les Eastman, Sr. Jake Wiser Methods Proposed Tagging Leveraging already scheduled recreational fishing trips, clients and crew on the largest vessel in their fleet, the Lady Merrilee Ann III, our goal was to tag 20,000 haddock caught by hook and line during an 18-month period, using T-bar style Floy tags. All tagging of haddock occurred in Fishing areas 513 and 514 around Jeffrey s ledge (Figure 1) and took place as part of normal charter business operations. Trained crew members were deployed on all trips to ensure that accurate tagging, fish measurement and data recording occurred.

6 Actual Tagging and Fish Release Tagging began in May 2015, a month later than anticipated due to the haddock season remaining closed until May 1 st of that year. Tagging for the first year continued until December 26 th, although effort was significantly reduced (only occasional trips from November through December). During this first year a total 134 scheduled recreational fishing trips were made. During the second year of tagging, tagging began on April 2, 2016 and continued until December 2, A total of 185 trips were made. During this time, a total of 339 recreational fishing trips during which tagging occurred took place and a total of 16,677 fish were tagged. Tagging Protocol Haddock were captured during normal recreational fishing operations by anglers using rod and reel. Haddock were gently removed from the hook by either the captain or by trained crew and minimally handled to ensure that the slime coat was not removed. Fish were placed into a live well for 30 seconds 1 minute to let the fish equilibrate and then they were measured, condition scored, tagged and released (a total of 20 seconds for the entire tagging procedure). If it was not possible to tag the fish immediately, fish were left in the live well for up to two minutes before being tagged. If fish were not tagged after two minutes, they were released. As part of the training, crew were trained how to handle the haddock to cause minimal stress and damage which included not touching gills and eyes. Additionally, crew were trained to score fish condition based on the degree of severity of injuries (if any) the fish had or level of resistance to being handled (See Scoring table below). Prior to tagging, every fish to be tagged, was measured and its condition evaluated, scored and recorded as either Good, Fair, Poor or Dead following the criteria in the table below. Table 3. Fish Condition Scoring G Good strong resistance to being handled and uninjured F Fair moderate resistance to being handled and /or minor injuries P Poor weak, little resistance to being handled and/or significant injuries D Dead Not viable Only fish that were in releasable condition (i.e. not dead) were tagged and subsequently released, and all fish caught, regardless of size or condition were counted. (While we did attempt to not tag un-releasable fish, there was a small percentage of fish, that were tagged because their condition indicated that they would survive, however after being released, those fish either did not recover from being tagged or were actually eaten by gulls as we watched). Tagging of the fish occurred on board using yellow Floy FD-94 T-bar anchor and a Mark III Regular Pistol Grip Tagging Gun. T-bar tags were designed for insertion into the musculature below the dorsal fin and anchoring to bone (Figure 2). The tags were designed for use in high speed tagging operations on medium sized fish. Tags were printed with a unique ID #, the name of the program, phone number and website for reporting recaptured fish. Because of the frequency and length of the fishing trips, trained crew members and boat captains were

7 completely responsible for recording fishing location (GPS coordinates), date, time, depth, tag number, fish length and fish condition on each fish that was to be tagged. Figure 2. Floy FD-94 T-bar anchor tag on a recaptured haddock from this project and tag position below dorsal fin. Documentation and verification of the date of tagging and location was also done electronically on board with FVTR (Fishing Vessel Trip Reports). The Lady Merrilee III has the only NOAA supplied on board computer on a recreational vessel to file daily FVTR. Data Entry and Verification All tagging and recapture raw data collected every month during the fishing season was housed in binders at Eastman s Fishing Fleet, L.L.C. headquarters in Seabrook, NH. Data from both the paper data sheets and the FVTR electronic files were then entered into an Excel database and maintained in Durham, NH. Data were verified and quality controlled by NH Sea Grant project scientist, G. Bradt. The database will continue to be maintained and the data will be accessible to fishermen, fisheries scientists and managers upon request. Tag Returns Tag returns were managed by Eastman s Fishing Fleet office manager. To make reporting recaptured tags as easy as possible for all parties involved, the tags were printed with a phone number and a website where pictures of the tag could be texted to or sent along with the name, date, and GPS location of the recapture (Figure 3). Returned tags were inventoried and pictures of the tags along with the location, vessel, angler s name and date of recapture was posted onto the website in a timely fashion. Returned tag data was also entered into the main database maintained at NH Sea Grant. Additionally, all fishermen who returned tags were entered into 6 $500 lottery drawings that were held in the second year. We had initially intended to hold three lotteries the first year and three the second year except the rate of tag

8 returns was so low, we felt it would not be fair to hold them until we had more tags returned. We had six draws and checks were mailed out to the winners shortly therafter. Figure 3. Reward flier for recaptured tags. Outreach Figure 4. Screen shot of a Facebook Post.

9 At the start of the project we distributed printed fliers and placards (Figure 3) at over 300 locations from Portland, ME to Provincetown, MA. The locations included marinas, boat launches and bait and tackle shops. We also tried to use social media (Facebook, Twitter and Instagram) (Figure 4) to spread the word about the project and we also spoke about the project on a regular basis to customers on the fishing trips. Eastman s Fishing Fleet, LLC maintains a website with a Haddock Tagging Program specific page as well as a general business Facebook page. Most of the online outreach was done via these two platforms. New Hampshire Sea Grant also featured the program in an article posted on their website ( this article was shared on social media as well. Changes from Proposed Work and/or Complications Tagging fell short for the project in the first year due to the regulations on open and closed areas for fishing, the number of haddock that recreational fishermen were allowed to keep that year (3) and during the month of September, no haddock were allowed to be kept at all. Since this project was leveraging trips already scheduled for recreational anglers, normal business operations took priority and anglers, as paying customers, first had to meet their quota of haddock and often there were not enough crew to help the anglers and tag and record data on large numbers of fish. Additionally, since haddock and cod were being avoided, the number of haddock caught was also lower. Tagging during year two was much more successful as the trained crew were more efficient and had streamlined the process and 20,000 haddock tagged goal would likely have been reached had trips not been cancelled due to weather. Returns were significantly lower than expected throughout the project and while there was a steady, but slow and low volume of tags returned, not enough tags were returned by the end of the data collecting period to allow for any meaningful statistical analysis to be conducted. As of October 15, 2016, only 75 tags out 0f 16,677 tags had been returned, a 0.005% return rate. This falls significantly short of the 5-10% recapture rate that we had anticipated (1,000-2,000 fish) (based on 6% return rate from the Northeast Regional Cod Tagging Program)which was likely too high of a goal to begin with as haddock are often considered to be much more fragile fish than cod (Howell, pers. com 2015). We know that approximately 3% of the tags used were faulty and didn t successfully attach to the animal and about 2% of the animals that were tagged ended up not surviving the return to the water, likely due to capture or tagging induced stress, therefore, 5% of the tags used were never going to be returnable. We also attribute this poor rate of return primarily on the current federal regulations limiting cod harvesting which in turn affects haddock, not because the haddock populations are declining but rather because commercial and recreational fishermen are trying to avoid catching cod and as a result, harvest less haddock.

10 Results and Conclusions Accomplishments towards Project Objectives to Date Outreach efforts through informational placards and fliers were printed and distributed to over 300 locations in Maine, NH and Massachusetts (Marinas, docks and bait and tackle shops). Social media and website on the specifics of the project were used and updated periodically. Two extensive training sessions on tagging protocol were held, one at the start of each fishing year. Additionally, scientists were on board two fishing trips to provide oversight and make sure tagging procedures were being conducted properly and satisfactorily (See Pics). Floy Tagged Haddock

11 Measuring Fish 1 International Animal Care and Use Committee Approval (IACUC) was granted for the haddock tagging project and proposed protocol for both years beginning March 26, Database was created and population of the database with >16,500 releases was entered and verified by G. Bradt and maintained by NH Sea Grant and UNH Cooperative Extension. The database will continue to be updated if and when more tags are returned. Informational project webpage and an inventory of returned tags is updated and operational and maintained by Eastman s Fishing Fleet personnel ( As of July 2017, Eastman s has removed pictures from website but website is still available to house more tags and picture information if it comes in.

12 Six recapture lottery draws were held at 3 different dates in 2016 and six people won $ (See table below). There was a total of 339 trips taken and 2 of the largest Eastman s fleet vessels participated. Approximately 15,255 anglers were informed and participated in capturing haddock for the program (average of 45 anglers/trip). A GIS Map of all the returned tags to date will be posted on the NH Sea Grant webpage by July Table 5. $500 Lottery Winners. Date Name Tag # July 15, 2016 Kevin Duval 5487 July 15, 2016 Luis Pinheiro 440 October 15, 2016 Mike Kelly October 15, 2016 Bill West December 17, 2016 Jonathan Quigley 2769 December 17, 2016 Capt. Collin MacKenzie 2670 Total Funds Paid Out $3, Data Brief Summary of Results for the 2 years of tagging A total 16,677 fish were recorded as being tagged over the course of the project. To date, of those tagged fish, 75 haddock tag-recapture records have been verified and tallied. Of the tagged fish, 16,347 have sufficient information for analysis. Based on tagged and released fish data, the nominal recapture rate from April 2015-Decemebr 2016 was 0.005%. Conclusions Because of the significantly low number of tag recaptures (0.005%) available, no attempt was made at estimating the discard mortality rates in the Gulf of Maine Haddock recreational fishery for this report. Had we gotten at least a 3% return rate (based on Heuter et al 2006), we would have applied Heuter et al, Short term effects model (Heuter et al, 2006) to estimate a discard mortality rate. However, there are a few conclusions and lessons learned that can be drawn. The size and condition of the fish when tagged likely contribute to it s ability to survive handling and release. However, because the legal size limit at which haddock can be kept is 43.2 cm, 82% of all fish tagged regardless of condition, were between cm in length and 71% of those tagged were scored as in good condition. Therefore, it was

13 not surprising that 40% of the returned tags were in this size range. What was surprising, was that 39% of the returned tags were fish that were in the larger range cm in length, especially when only 12% of all the good condition tagged fish were in this size range (Figure 5). Fish Length v Fish Condition Returned Tags cm cm cm cm cm Good Poor Good Fair Poor Dead Figure 5. Fish Length vs Fish Condition of recapture tags. The extremely low number of recaptures make it difficult to evaluate the potential factors that could be contributing to the low numbers of returns, however this could suggest that Gulf of Maine Haddock are indeed very fragile, and do not survive handling and tagging procedures (high tagging-induced mortality) as well as other gadoid species, such as cod. However, trying to glean some additional information/patterns from the tags that did get returned, suggest that fish can and did survive the tagging process and well based on the timing of the returned tags, the length between tagging and recapture (in some cases up to 505 days post tagging). Based on the tags that were returned with all of the information requested (date, GPS location etc.), we found that the amount of time between when the fish was tagged and when the fish was recapture varied tremendously, from the 0 days (shortest) to 505 days (longest) with an average tag-recapture time of 194 days (approximately 6.5 months). There also seemed to be two periods of time that had the most tags returnedthe first being fish tagged within the first 5 months of the project (N=44) and second were fish tagged between months of the project (N=28) (See Fig 6).

14 50 # of tags returned vs. when fish were originally tagged # tags returned May 2015-Sept 2015 Oct 2015-Dec 2015 April 2016-July 2016 timing of original tagging Aug 2016-Dec 2016 Figure 6 Number of tags returned vs. timing of original tagging. Interestingly, more fish tagged in May 2015 were recaptured than any other month (24) followed by April 2016 (11). More fish were recaptured in 2016 (N=62) than in 2015 (N=13). Overall, there was no difference in the total number of fish recaptured between 5/16-7/16 as from 8/16-10/16. August 2016 more fish were recaptured than any other month(n=14), followed by May 2016 (N=11). Of the fish captured in of the 13 were tagged in May 2015 (Figure 7). Number of Tags returned May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 #Tags Returned Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Figure 1 Number of tags returned. Blue=tags returned organized by the month they were tagged; Orange= tags organized by the month they were landed. Feb-16 # Tags Returned Month Tagged # Tags returned by Month Landed Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 What these findings indicate is also difficult to parse out however, it appears as though, if the fish survive the initial tagging stress, that they can survive for a long period of time. Additionally, based on the recaptured tag location data, the majority of the fish

15 stayed with in the same fishing area where they were originally tagged, although some did travel into the adjacent fishing area. The average distance that fish travelled during their post-tagging period was 15.5 miles, with the shortest distance being 0 (fish caught the same day as the day it was tagged) and the longest distance was 68.7 miles. The low number of tag returns could be reflective of high tag loss, low angler engagement and reporting, and the status of the groundfish fishery in general which is likely having cascading effects on the recreational fishery. Thus, if the cod populations are extremely depleted and quota is very low or non-existent in the recreational fishery, low haddock fishing effort could result in fewer haddock being recaptured. However, with such a low recapture rate, it is difficult to make any robust conclusions. While leveraging angler efforts and already scheduled fishing trips is in theory a good way to engage anglers in collaborative scientific projects, and to tag high numbers of fish, in practice, it was difficult to manage normal fishing business operations and tagging operations at the same time. The goal of 20,000 haddock should have easily been met given the volume of passengers and the number of overall trips, but as was mentioned before, paying customers want to go home with their allowed bag limit and crew are expected to help fulfill these bag limits for every passenger to the best of their ability. Thus, tagging and releasing was not the priority in that type of environment, especially on days when there were a high number of passengers. While adding a few extra crew members would have been ideal, the budget from this project just did not allow this and recruiting interns that would volunteer their time was not successful. Impacts and Implications Unfortunately, the tag return rate in this project was disappointingly low, and the ability to calculate a useable, scientifically based discard mortality rate for the haddock recreational was not possible. However, the need for this estimate is still high and of importance because of the precariousness of the groundfish fishery. It is important to know how much of an impact the recreational fishery is having on the haddock population and fisheries managers need accurate and sufficient data in order to effectively and fairly manage both the recreational and commercial fisheries. REFERENCES: GARFO. Greater Atlantic Region Bulletin. 2014a. Gulf of Maine Recreational Cod and Haddock Changes to Regulations. GARFO. Northeast (NE) Multispecies Information Sheet; Charter/Party and Recreational Fishing. 2014b.

16 Heuter, R. E., Manire, C., Tyminski, J.P., Hoenig, J.M., and D. A. Hepworth Assessing Mortality of Released or Discarded Fish Using a Logistic Model of Relative Survival Derived from Tagging Data. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135: Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NESFC). 2014a. 59th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (59th SAW) Assessment Report. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc ; 782 p. Available from: National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA , or online at Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NESFC). 2014b. 59th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (59th SAW) Assessment Summary Report. US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc ; 39 p. Available from: National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA , or online at

17