384 
Fishery Bulletin 11 7(4) 
Given additional time and funding, it would be worth¬ 
while to explore bycatch reduction strategies beyond those 
tested here. The results of testing gear combinations in this 
study provide a strong basis by which to make adjustments. 
Despite the high levels of bycatch reduction achieved, t-test 
results indicate that the decrease of shrimp catch never 
exceeded 12.1% relative to that of the control net (Tables 3 
and 4). In fact, loss of shrimp catch was significant only in 2 
of 10 Gtests, indicating that even more radical approaches 
could be considered. For example, would a 20% decrease 
in shrimp catch be acceptable if finfish bycatch could be 
reduced by 80% in the estuarine shrimp fishery? Given that 
significant shrimp loss (>15%) would likely occur during 
the course of testing, future studies should consider funding 
that would compensate industry partners for lost revenue 
while adhering to strict testing protocols. 
The importance of using a collaborative process for gear 
testing cannot be overstated. Projects that can combine 
the interests of both industry and resource management 
can often obtain multiple objectives and create successful 
cooperation between stakeholders (Yochum et al., 2011; 
Thornton and Scheer, 2012; O’Keefe and DeCelles., 2013). 
It would not have been possible to test 14 gears in the 
course of 3 sampling seasons without substantial and con¬ 
sistent industry input, involvement, and cost sharing of 
vessel time. 
Acknowledgments 
We thank the fishing vessel owners, captains, and crews 
and all workshop and workgroup members that partic¬ 
ipated in this collaborative effort. Special gratitude is 
extended in memory of the late S. Parrish, who served 
as a highly respected member of this workgroup and 
similar groups in the past. Funding was made available 
through the NCMFC’s Conservation Fund, the North 
Carolina Sea Grant Program, the NOAA Bycatch Reduc¬ 
tion Engineering Program (Award NA15NMF4720376), 
and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Fisheries 
Innovation Fund (Award 47988). 
Literature cited 
Andrew, N. L., and J. G. Peppered. 
1992. The by-catch of shrimp trawl fisheries. Oceanogr. Mar. 
Biol. Annu. Rev. 30:527-565. 
Brewer, D., N. Rawlinson, S. Eayrs, and C. Burridge. 
1998. An assessment of bycatch reduction devices in a 
tropical Australian prawn trawl fishery. Fish. Res. 36: 
195-215. 
Broadhurst, M. K. 
2000. Modifications to reduce bycatch in prawn trawls: a 
review and framework for development. Rev. Fish Biol. 
Fish. 10:27-60. 
Conway, F. D. L., and C. Pomeroy. 
2006. Evaluating the human—as well as the biological— 
objectives of cooperative fisheries research. Fisheries 
31:447-454. 
Crowder, L. B., and S. A. Murawski. 
1998. Fisheries bycatch: implications for management. Fish¬ 
eries 23(6):8-17. 
Crowley, M. 
2014. Towing trends: making strides in bycatch, bottom 
impacts, fuel savings. Natl. Fisherman 94(ll):32-33, 37. 
Davies, R. W. D., S. J. Cripps, A. Nickson, and G. Porter. 
2009. Defining and estimating global marine fisheries 
bycatch. Mar. Policy 33:661-672. 
Eayrs, S. 
2012. Comparative testing of bycatch reduction devices in 
tropical shrimp-trawl fisheries: a practical guide, 122 p. 
FAO, Rome. 
Engaas, A., D. Foster, B. D. Hataway, J. W. Watson, and I. Workman. 
1999. The behavioral response of juvenile red snapper 
(Lutjanus campechanus ) to shrimp trawls that utilize 
water flow modifications to induce escapement. Mar. Tech. 
Soc. J. 33(2):43-50. 
Hall, M. A., D. L. Alverson, and K. I. Metuzals. 
2000. By-catch: problems and solutions. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 
41:204-219. 
Harte, M. 
2001. Opportunities and barriers for industry-led fisheries 
research. Mar. Policy 25:159-167. 
Hataway, D., D. Foster, and L. Saxon. 
2017. Evaluations of turtle excluder devices (TEDs) with 
reduced bar spacing in the inshore penaeid shrimp fish¬ 
ery in the northern Gulf of Mexico. NOAA Tech. Memo. 
NMFS-SEFSC-707, 13 p. 
Isaksen, B., J. W. Valdemarsen, R. B. Larsen, and L. Karlsen. 
1992. Reduction of fish by-catch in shrimp trawl using 
a rigid separator grid in the aft belly. Fish. Res. 13: 
335-352. 
Kelleher, K. 
2005. Discards in the world’s marine fisheries: an update. 
FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. 470,131 p. FAO, Rome. 
Manly, B. F. J. 
2007. Randomization, bootstrap, and Monte Carlo methods 
in biology, 3rd ed., 480 p. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca 
Raton, FL. 
Murray, J. D., J. J. Bahen, and R. A. Rulifson. 
1992. Management considerations for by-catch in the 
North Carolina and southeast shrimp fishery. Fisheries 
17( 1 ):21—26. 
NCDMF (North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries). 
2015. North Carolina shrimp fishery management plan, Amend¬ 
ment 1, 366 p. Div. Mar. Fish., North Carolina Dep. Environ. 
Nat. Resour., Morehead City, NC. [Available from website.] 
Noell, C. J., M. K. Broadhurst, and S. J. Kennedy. 
2018. Refining a NordmOre-grid bycatch reduction device 
for Spencer Gulf penaeid-trawl fishery. PLoS ONE 
13(ll):e0207117. 
O’Keefe, C. E., and G. R. DeCelles. 
2013. Forming a partnership to avoid bycatch. Fisheries 
38:434-444. 
R Core Team. 
2017. R: a language and environment for statistical com¬ 
puting. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, 
Austria. [Available from website, accessed December 2017.] 
Rulifson, R. A., J. D. Murray, and J. J. Bahen. 
1992. Finfish catch reduction in the South Atlantic shrimp 
trawls using three designs of by-catch reduction devices. 
Fisheries 17(11:9-20. 
SAFMC (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council). 
1996. Final amendment 2 (bycatch reduction) to the fish¬ 
ery management plan for the shrimp fishery of the 
