Table 5. — Nijmber of bait shrimp and percentage 

 of males in samples piirchased weekly for 

 biological analysis in lower Tampa Bay and 

 Old Tampa Bay 



Date of 

 Sample 



1961 



1962 



Jan. 7 



Jan. lA... 

 Jan. 21... 

 Jan. 28... 



Feb. A- 



Feb. 11... 

 Feb. 18... 

 Feb. 25... 



Mar. A 



Mar. 11... 

 Mar. 18... 

 Mar. 25... 

 Apr . 1 . . . . 

 Apr. 8 



Total... 

 Average . 



Lower Tampa Bay 



Shrimp Males 



Number 



97 

 101 

 308 

 421 

 'i22 

 403 

 527 

 405 

 400 

 428 

 430 

 269 

 450 



310 

 461 

 229 

 388 

 391 

 499 

 368 

 361 

 382 

 364 

 268 

 310 

 282 



9,274 

 356.7 



Percent 



49.5 



58.4 



49.0 



52.0 



48. 



50. 



48. 



50. 



50.3 



48.8 



44.2 



55.0 



51.8 



46.8 

 43.0 

 54.1 

 48.5 

 44.2 

 53.3 

 49.5 

 51.2 

 48.4 

 47.8 

 52.6 

 49.4 

 50.0 



49.4 



Old Tanjja Bay 



Shrimp Males 



Number 



108 



95 



105 



55 

 143 



98 

 115 

 175 

 153 

 192 

 191 

 162 

 100 

 224 

 196 

 187 

 122 



2,421 

 142.4 



Percent 



54.6 

 49.5 

 50.5 



43.6 

 44.1 

 45.9 

 60.9 

 54.3 

 52.3 

 43.2 

 54.5 

 51.9 

 47.0 

 52.7 

 49.0 

 47.1 

 54.1 



50.5 



representative of the pink shrimp population 

 in Tampa Bay (tables 6 and 7; figs. 3-5). The 

 smaller specimens were eliminated either by 

 selectivity of the fishing gear or by the fisher- 

 nnen. Shrimp of carapace length smaller than 

 10.0 mm. and larger than 27.9 mm., total 

 length smaller than 45.0 mm. and larger than 

 119.5 mm., and weight less than 1.0 g. and 

 more than 13.9 g. are not included in figures 

 3-5 because of insufficient numbers of speci- 

 mens. Disposal by fishermen of the smaller 

 shrimp from catches also eliminated most 

 specimens of T^. constr ictus. 



DECLINE OF THE BAIT SHRIMP FISHERY 



An almost complete daily sale of marketable 

 bait during the survey was indicated by the 



demand for live bait shrimp. This demand was 

 created primarily by residents and tourists 

 in Pinellas County, Fla., particularly in the 

 Tampa Bay area. In 1955, almost 15 million 

 bait shrimp were sold in that county (Wood- 

 burn et al., 1957). Sales by one dealer in the 

 Boca Ciega Bay area increased from 490,000 

 to 667,000 shrimp from 1950 to 1955. The 

 increase in retail value for this dealer was 

 $4,425 (Hutton, Eldred, Woodburn, and Ingle, 

 1956). Although the supply of bait shrimp from 

 Tampa Bay exceeded local dennand as recently 

 as 1949 (Idyll, 1949), it now does not. To 

 overcome this shortage, shrinnp caught along 

 the periphery of the Gulf of Mexico north of 

 Tampa Bay are now trucked to St. Petersburg 

 and suburbs. 



A reduction in the number of bait shrimp 

 caught and of persons and boats in this fishery 

 is evident in both shrimping areas in Tampa 

 Bay. In 1954, about 17 bait shrimp boats 

 fished Boca Ciega Bay from October through 

 May (Hutton et al., 1956). During the present 

 survey, the average number of boats was less 

 than seven per day (table 3). 



In 1954, 7 shrimp boats operating full time 

 and 10 fishing part tinne within Old Tampa Bay 

 landed 4.5 nnillion bait shrimp (Higman and 

 Ellis, 1955). During 1961-62, however, the 

 number of boats actively engaged in shrimping 

 had dwindled to an average of less than one 

 per day, and the catch dropped to 0.32 million 

 shrimp (table 4). 



The reduction in fishing effort since 1954 

 can be attributed to several possible reasons. 

 Shrimping in other areas (mainly the Gulf of 

 Mexico) has produced more shrimp of larger 

 size; vessel size has been increased; gear 

 has been improved; and shrinnping areas in 

 Old Tampa Bay and Boca Ciega Bay have been 

 reduced in size. 



Effect of Estuarine Engineering on Shrimping 

 and Fishing 



The only significant alteration of shrimping 

 grounds in Old Tampa Bay between 1954 and 

 1961 was brought about by the construction of 

 Howard Frankland Bridge and approaches. In 

 this project, about 275 acres (111 ha.) of 

 submerged grass flats were covered with fill 

 material, and much additional acreage was 

 dredged or silted over. The largest reduction 

 in fishing area was in Boca Ciega Bay, where 

 the total water area was reduced by 19.8 

 percent since 1920 (fig. 6) through the ad- 

 dition of land fill for realty development. 

 Another proposed fill area will add about 1,120 

 acres (453 ha.) or almost 2 square miles tb 

 the total (fig. 6). Hutton et al. (1 956) in a report 

 on the ecology of Boca Ciega Bay concluded 

 that 80-90 percent of the bait shrimping area 

 would be eliminated by dredging and filling. 

 If the proposed fill (fig. 6) is completed, this 

 prediction will be reasonably accurate. 



