m a r i n e advice 



Letting Bycatch Out off the Bag 



A new North Carolina fisheries 

 regulation has commercial watermen 

 who fish state waters rigging their 

 nets with bycatch reduction devices 

 (BRDs). The regulation's purpose is 

 to reduce the amount of nontargeted 

 catch — bycatch — that fishermen 

 net along with their intended catch. 

 North Carolina is the only state to 

 require use of BRDs in inshore 

 waters. 



Fisheries managers believe that 

 reducing bycatch may help restore 

 the deficits in some fisheries. But 

 any device that allows unintended 

 catch to escape may let the target 

 catch out of the tailbag too. 



That's why Sea Grant fisheries 

 agents Jim Bahen and Wayne 

 Wescott have been testing different 

 types of BRDs and net configura- 

 tions to see how they work over vari- 

 ous kinds of inshore bottom areas. 



Bahen's project, funded by 

 the National Marine Fisheries 

 Service (NMFS) through the Marine 

 Fisheries Initiative Program, had the 

 cooperation of several fishermen. 

 They tested four BRD designs at four 

 locations — the Cape Fear River, 

 Pamlico Sound, Core Sound and the 

 estuary behind Topsail Beach — for 

 10 nights during peak brown shrimp 

 season. The BRDs were used in con- 

 junction with turtle excluder devices 

 (TEDs), which resource managers 

 also require inshore shrimpers to use 

 to release endangered sea turtles. 



The fishermen tested two hard 

 BRD designs — the Florida Fish 

 Separator and a PVC pipe design. 

 The soft BRD designs were varia- 

 tions of what fishermen call the 

 "snake eye." The snake eye is a 

 diamond-mesh extension that is 

 attached behind the turtle excluder 

 device. Diamond-shaped holes in the 



Wayne Wescott 



extension allow the bycatch to es- 

 cape. The extension was tested with 

 and without an accelerator, which 

 funnels the catch to the tailbag. 



During testing, the boats were 

 rigged on one side with a BRD. On 

 the other side, the BRD was sewn 

 shut according to a testing protocol 

 established by NMFS. A technician 

 and a graduate student gathered 

 bycatch reduction and catch data and 

 monitored the equipment. 



After testing, Bahen sent all of 

 the data to NMFS for analysis. 



"The verdict is still out," he says. 

 "All of the designs reduced bycatch. 

 But we're waiting to see which one 

 reduced bycatch and retained the most 

 shrimp. We want to see the percent- 

 ages on shrimp loss and bycatch re- 

 duction before we make any recom- 

 mendations about BRD designs." 



Meanwhile, Wescott tested an- 

 other bycatch reduction method — 

 large mesh webbing in the belly of the 

 shrimp net. Fishermen had suggested 

 to Wescott that large webbing in the 

 belly might reduce bycatch without 

 having to add gear or extensions in 

 the tailbag. 



They theorized that the shrimp 

 would be swept into the tailbag, by- 

 passing the large mesh. Fish, how- 

 ever, would be able to escape the net 

 through the big-mesh belly. 



During initial tests last year, the 

 idea seemed to work. This year, 

 Wescott received a Saltonstall- 

 Kennedy grant from NMFS to pursue 

 the idea on a larger scale. 



"Our goal was to have 50 percent 

 reduction in bycatch with only a 3 

 percent loss in shrimp," Wescott says. 



With the help of a fisherman, 

 Wescott tested 4-inch, 6-inch and 

 8-inch webbing in the belly. All re- 

 duced bycatch. The reduction varied 

 between 24 and 74 percent, Wescott 

 says. 



But the webbing also allowed 

 between 20 and 60 percent of the 

 shrimp to escape too. 



"That kind of shrimp loss is 

 totally unacceptable," Wescott says. 

 "It simply didn't work, and I hope 

 our work will prevent fishermen 

 from spending money on this type of 

 modification." 



Kathy Hart 



COASTWATCH 19 



