728 
Fishery Bulletin 96(4), 1998 
(Polachek et al., 1995), but the southern limit of the 
range of the species is generally accepted to be Cape 
Hatteras, North Carolina (reviewed in Palka et al., 
1996). Little is known about the distribution and 
ecology of this harbor porpoise population in winter; 
even less is known about interactions with commer- 
cial fisheries in the Mid-Atlantic region. Porpoises 
are taken in a variety of gillnet fisheries in this area 
(Read, 1994; Read et al., 1996), but to date it has not 
been possible to determine the full extent or nature 
of incidental catches in the southern portion of the 
range of this population. The impact of these inci- 
dental takes on the Gulf of Maine and Bay of Fundy 
population, therefore, is unknown. 
Current monitoring efforts for estimating the mag- 
nitude of porpoise bycatch in gillnet fisheries in the 
Mid-Atlantic rely on observers placed aboard com- 
mercial fishing vessels operating in this region. The 
majority of these observed trips take place more than 
three miles from shore; coverage of nearshore com- 
mercial fisheries by observers is extremely limited. 
An alternative source of information on marine mam- 
mal mortality in these nearshore fisheries comes from 
documentation of recovered stranded carcasses. Here 
we augment current monitoring programs by report- 
ing observations of stranded harbor porpoises that 
exhibit evidence of entanglement in the Mid-Atlan- 
tic region. Our intent is to provide this information 
to managers of observer programs, so that they may 
concentrate efforts in times and areas where en- 
tanglements have been documented. 
Methods 
Porpoises stranded on the beaches of Maryland, 
North Carolina, and Virginia 2 in 1994, 1995, and 
1996 were examined for evidence of entanglement 
by using the protocol developed by Haley and Read 
(1993). This protocol is used by personnel in regional 
stranding networks to assess the carcasses of 
stranded marine mammals for the presence of physi- 
cal evidence consistent with entanglement in fish- 
ing gear. Physical evidence of entanglement includes 
impressions of net material in the epidermis, thin 
lacerations on appendages, and mutilation, includ- 
ing dismemberment and longitudinal cuts along the 
ventral abdomen into the body cavity (Fig. 1). In gen- 
eral, these observations are indicative of entangle- 
ment and death in fishing gear. 
Carcasses were examined on the beach by strand- 
ing network personnel for fishery interactions and 
2 Carcasses retrieved in New York, New Jersey, and Delaware 
were not included in this study because comparable data on 
fisheries interaction were not available for these specimens. 
Figure 1 
Mutilated carcass of a stranded harbor porpoise, Phocoena phocoena (MMSC 94-009). Note the 
net mark encircling the body just anterior to the insertion of the flipper. 
