Photo from N.C. Division of Marine Fisfi 



bluefish, cobia, sheepshead, gray trout 

 and flounder take up residence. 

 Finally, the fishermen arrive, dangle 

 baited lines and lure fish from their 

 protective homes. As he pulls in a 

 hefty catch, the fisherman proves that 

 one man's trash may yield a fishing 

 treasure for another. 



For more information on the state's 

 artificial reef program or the location 

 of the reefs, contact the N.C. Division 

 of Marine Fisheries, Box 769, 

 Morehead City, N.C. 28557, or call 

 919/726-7021. 



— Nancy Davis 



Sinking a Liberty ship 



A FADish attraction 



Small bait fish are always hungry for a meal. Often 

 they find their dinner attached to reefs, piles and sunken 

 wrecks. But the new restaurant in town is the fish 

 aggregating device. 



As these underwater cones of nylon mesh become 

 fouled with barnacles and tiny organisms, they attract 

 small fish and, in turn, may attract larger fish such as 

 king and Spanish mackerel. And mackerel are favored 

 fish for anglers. 



Last summer Jim Murray, director of UNC Sea 

 Grant's Marine Advisory Service, and David Lindquist, 

 a biologist at the University of North Carolina at 

 Wilmington, tested 18 fish aggregating devices. The 

 miniature artificial reefs were suspended in 30 feet of 

 water 750 feet off the end of two piers in New Hanover 

 County. 



After obtaining the necessary permits from the U.S. 

 Army Corps of Engineers and N.C. Office of Coastal 

 Management, the researchers installed the devices off the 

 end of one of the piers. Every six weeks, they alternated 

 the FADs between the piers to avoid having people 

 fishing off just one pier and to establish an experimental 

 control. 



Before beginning the project, Murray and Lindquist 

 gathered catch-per-unit-of-effort data for each pier. 

 They compared that data with catch information ob- 

 tained after the FADs were installed to see if fishing off 

 the piers improved. A preliminary analysis showed no 

 significant difference in catch rates. 



From visual observations Murray and Lindquist say 

 the devices attracted bait fish but not as many large fish 

 as they had hoped. 



Jeffrey Howe, a graduate student working with Lind- 

 quist on the project, made four to six dives each week to 

 observe the devices. He found large numbers of five- to 

 six-inch fish aggregating around the surface buoys, the 

 cement-filled tires anchoring the devices, and the devices 

 themselves. In contrast, the pier without a FAD usually 

 had no fish in the water column. 



In all, Howe spotted 35 different species around the 



FADs, including a few large schools of blue runners and 

 Spanish mackerel. But he adds that the schools didn't 

 appear to be feeding on the smaller fish. 



Howe isn't sure how to explain the absence of larger 

 fish. They may have been more skittish than the smaller 

 fish or they may prefer the cooler water temperatures of 

 the deep, offshore waters. 



Murray thinks the FADs may perform better if they 

 are positioned closer to the piers. Despite the disap- 

 pointing results of this first test, Murray and Lindquist 

 aren't giving up on the FADs yet. They think the bait 

 fish may ultimately attract more of the larger fish. 

 They'll be analyzing their data in the coming months to 

 see if the devices might prove economical for pier owners. 



Diagram of a FAD in water 



