Jun 30, 1996 - that observed during the last two or three years, then the ...... The Texas bag-seine samples of red drum primarily ...... Crystal, Chassahowitzka, Apalacheem, Dead Man, Waccasassa, Withlahoochee, Ocklokonee, and ... Troll. Purse. Shriq>. Year Seines. Nets. Nets. Lines. Lines Seines Trawls Landings.
STATUS OF THE RED DRUM STOCKS OF THE GULF OF MEXICO
C. Phillip Goodyear
30 June 1996
Southeast Fisheries Science Center Miami Laboratory Coastal Resources Division 75 Virginia Beach Drive Miami, FL 33149-1099
Miami Laboratory Contribution: MIA - 95/96-47
Table of Contents LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................. 3 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................................. 4 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS ...................................................................................................................... 5 MORPHOMETRICS ................................................................................................................................................. 5 GROWTH .................................................................................................................................................................. 5 FECUNDITY AND MATURITY .............................................................................................................................. 5 NATURAL MORTALITY ........................................................................................................................................ 5 RECRUITMENT ....................................................................................................................................................... 6 FISHERY ..................................................................................................................................................................... 6 COMMERCIAL......................................................................................................................................................... 6 Florida .................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Alabama and Mississippi ........................................................................................................................................ 7 Louisiana ................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Texas....................................................................................................................................................................... 8 RECREATIONAL ..................................................................................................................................................... 8 Data Sources .......................................................................................................................................................... 8 Size composition ..................................................................................................................................................... 9 Recreational Catch ............................................................................................................................................... 10 SHRIMP BYCATCH ............................................................................................................................................... 12 COMBINED CATCH .............................................................................................................................................. 12 PRESENT AND POSSIBLE FUTURE CONDITION OF THE STOCK............................................................. 13 STOCK SIZE ........................................................................................................................................................... 13 Calculations from Larval densities....................................................................................................................... 13 Aerial Surveys....................................................................................................................................................... 13 Mark-Recapture Studies ....................................................................................................................................... 13 FISHERY INDEPENDENT SURVEYS .................................................................................................................. 13 FISHING MORTALITY ESTIMATES FROM TAGGING DATA ........................................................................ 14 SEQUENTIAL POPULATION ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... 16 Methods ................................................................................................................................................................ 16 Results .................................................................................................................................................................. 17 Discussion ............................................................................................................................................................ 18 RESEARCH NEEDS ................................................................................................................................................. 19 LITERATURE CITED ............................................................................................................................................. 19
2
LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A. CONVERSION FACTORS
APPENDIX B. FECUNDITY ANALYSES APPENDIX C.GROWTH ANALYSES APPENDIX D. ANALYSES OF ADULT AGE STRUCTURE APPENDIX E. ANALYSES OF ADULT MORTALITY FROM AGE STRUCTURE APPENDIX F. ANALYSES OF TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE MARK-RECAPTURE DATA APPENDIX G. ANALYSES OF LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES MARKRECAPTURE DATA APPENDIX H. ANALYSES OF MARK-RECAPTURE DATA COLLECTED BY THE GULF COAST CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION OF LOUISIANA APPENDIX I. ANALYSES OF MARK-RECAPTURE DATA FROM MISSISSIPPI APPENDIX J.ANALYSES OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BAG SEINE AND GILL NET DATA APPENDIX K. ANALYSES OF MARK RECAPTURE DATA IN THE NMFS CTS FILES APPENDIX l. ANALYSES OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MARKRECAPTURE DATA APPENDIX M.ANALYSES OF TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE BAG-SEINE SAMPLES OF RED DRUM APPENDIX N. ANALYSES OF TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE GILL-NET SAMPLES OF RED DRUM APPENDIX O. ANALYSES OF LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES BAG-SEINE SAMPLES OF RED DRUM APPENDIX P. ANALYSES OF LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES TRAMMEL-NET SAMPLES OF RED DRUM APPENDIX Q. ANALYSES OF LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES GILL-NET SAMPLES OF RED DRUM APPENDIX R. ANALYSES OF GULF COAST RESEARCH LABORATORY GILL-NET SAMPLES OF RED DRUM
3
SUMMARY million fish from 1987 to 1988 as a result of conservation measures that essentially eliminated the commercial fishery and sharply curtailed the recreational harvest. As a result, the bycatch of the shrimp fishery which was not affected by the conservation measures increased from about 3.5% before 1988 to 9% of the total numbers taken by the combined fisheries thereafter. The total number of red drum killed in 1995 was about 3.4 million, nearly 75 percent of the 1979-1987 average. Estimates of the escapement rates are more pessimistic than expected based on the last assessment. Several factors reduce confidence in the results of the sequential population analysis with ADAPT that lead to the escapement rate estimates. However, ancillary data from fishery independent surveys support the analysis, and although confidence in the result is poor, the current best assessment is that the escapement rates did not increase immediately to the desired levels when the conservation actions were first put in place. The unweighted transitional spawning potential ratio (SPR) was evaluated and projected using the same methods applied in previous assessments based on the fishing mortality rates estimated from the sequential population analysis. Values for fishing mortality for the age classes in the stock at the beginning of the time series in 1979 were assumed to be equal to the values that existed in that year. The resulting time trend of unweighted transitional SPR estimates begins at a level of about 13 percent in 1979, but declined to 6 percent in 1992. SPR has increased since and was estimated to be slightly over 10 percent in 1996 (Figure 19). If the mortality schedule estimated for 1995 is assumed constant in the future, SPR is forecast to increase to about 18 percent at the turn of the century. This result indicates that SPR has not increased at the rate anticipated in the last assessment, and that the stock continues to be in an overfished condition. On the positive side, there appears to have been an increase in recruitment beginning in 1992. If this trend continues, and the exploitation pattern doesn’t change from that observed during the last two or three years, then the stock might see important gains in the next few years. Several aspects of the assessment could have been improved with additional data or better methods. These include knowledge of the age composition of the shrimp bycatch, evaluation of the robustness of the assessment model for use with this fishery, and a new fishery independent estimate of the size and age composition of the adult stock. I consider the replication of the 1986-1987 mark-recapture study to be the most important research need. The results of this study which is planned for 1996 could confirm the present finding or help identify factors that are impeding robust analysis of the status of the Gulf of Mexico red drum resource.
This is the sixth assessment for the stock of Gulf of Mexico red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) required by Amendment 1 (GMFMC 1987) to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for red drum (USDOC 1986). Research concerning the fishery and biology of red drum has been the focus of a cooperative program involving universities, state agencies and NMFS, coordinated by the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission Red Drum SEAMAP Committee since 1986. Much of the funding of the data collection was sponsored by the NMFS MARFIN grants program. This report revises some biological data and updates the commercial and recreational landings estimates and provides an assessment of the current status of the red drum stock. Commercial landings statistics for red drum have been collected since 1880 and have been compiled annually since 1950. Gulfwide, the reported annual commercial landings totaled from about 1 to 3 million pounds until 1970. During the 1970s the total commercial landings increased to a peak of 5.4 million pounds in 1976, then subsided to a minimum of 2.5 million pounds in 1982. Commercial landings then increased dramatically and reached an all-time high of 14.1 million pounds in 1986. Most of this increase was landed in Alabama and was taken from statistical grid 11 in the EEZ by the newly developed purse-seine fishery. This sudden increase in the fishery prompted subsequent conservation actions in both Federal and state waters The highest gulfwide recreational harvest in numbers occurred in 1983 with a value of over 4 million fish and about 10 million pounds harvested. There is no clear trend in the estimates of the numbers of red drum harvested by recreational fishermen from 1979 through 1986, but the numbers declined thereafter to a low of about 1 million fish in 1990, primarily as a result of conservation efforts. This decline in numbers harvested was partly offset by an increase in mean size so that the recreational harvest by weight remained comparatively more stable than the numbers of fish harvested. Since 1990 both the number and weight harvested have increased. The 1995 harvest in numbers increased to 3.1 million fish which is the highest since 1984, and the 13.5million-pound biomass harvest in 1995 was the highest since MRFSS began its survey in 1979. The recreational catch, which includes released fish, reached a 1992 peak and then declined about 25% through 1995. In addition to the directed harvest by recreational and commercial fishermen, red drum are captured incidental to the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery. The estimated numbers killed as a part of the bycatch have gradually increased since 1972, but the annual estimates are quite variable. Because recreational landings statistics are available only since 1979, the combined harvest can only be estimated since then. During the period 1979-1987 the catch in numbers fluctuated around a mean of about 4.5 million fish. The numbers caught declined from 3.7 to 1.4
4
that the standard von-Bertalanaffy growth equation does not adequately describe growth (Condrey et al. 1988; Goodyear 1989). In addition, within the first year or so there is a conspicuous seasonal component to growth. As a consequence the growth was modeled in prior assessments as a series of monthly equations with parameter values derived from monthly fractions of annual growth and annual increases in length derived from a double von Bertalanffy growth equation fitted to observations of size at age from red drum from then north-central Gulf of Mexico (Goodyear 1989). Additional observations of size at age in this area have made by researchers from Louisiana State University (C. Wilson, personal communication). These new observations were pooled with the earlier data and the analyses were updated for this assessment (Appendix C). The resulting growth model was used to characterize size at age of red drum landed west of Florida. A different model based on the von Bertalanffy growth equation fit to red drum from Tampa Bay (Murphy and Taylor 1990) was adopted for Florida landings. Both models were incorporated into the ageing algorithm used to estimate the age composition of the harvest based on the probabilistic method (Goodyear 1995).
INTRODUCTION This is the sixth assessment for the stock of Gulf of Mexico red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) required by Amendment 1 (GMFMC 1987) to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for red drum (USDOC 1986). The intent of the assessment is to provide information related to the questions posed in Section 12.6.2 of the amended FMP. This report updates the commercial and recreational landings estimates and provides an assessment of the current status of the red drum stock. In addition, supporting analyses of numerous data sets arising from state resource agency and federally funded university research are included as appendices. This report is intended as a working document for the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council's Red Drum Stock Assessment Group, which specifies a range of acceptable biological catch (ABC) for the EEZ.
BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS Research concerning the fishery and biology of red drum has been the focus of a cooperative program involving universities, state agencies and NMFS, coordinated by the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission Red Drum SEAMAP Committee since 1986. Much of the funding of the data collection was sponsored by the NMFS MARFIN grants program. The data derived during this research were provided for the analyses performed in this assessment.
FECUNDITY AND MATURITY In their study of the reproductive biology of red drum, Wilson and Neiland (1994) found that the females are group synchronous, batch spawners. This reproductive style is characterized by individual females spawning repeatedly during a protracted spawning period. These investigators estimated that the numbers of eggs cast by individual females ranged from 0.16 to 3.27million, with an average of 1.54 million ova cast during each spawning event. They further estimated that the average spawning frequency during the 1986-1992 spawning seasons was about once every 2-4 days. Fecundity at age was evaluated from their data in Appendix B as the product of batch fecundity at age and spawning frequency at age. The derived relationship was used to characterize age specific fecundity in the current assessment.
MORPHOMETRICS Weights of landings in this document are reported as pounds, whole weight, and lengths are reported as inches, total length. Many of the original length and weight measurements of individual fish were recorded in different units. In addition, the various research programs that provide data for the analyses make their original observations in different physical units (e.g. fork or total length) which require conversion to a common unit when the data are pooled. Conversions among units were done with sufficient precision to maintain the precision of the original measurement. The equations required to convert among units were developed using a composite of length and other measurements of Gulf of Mexico red drum that have been collected during federal, state and university red drum research and monitoring programs through the years. The present evaluation combined these data with data collected during the trip intercept portions of the National Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS); the NMFS Headboat survey; and samples of commercial and recreational catches collected as part of the Trip Interview Program (TIP) of the State/Federal Cooperative Statistics Program (Appendix A)
NATURAL MORTALITY Age frequency data from fish captured in purse seines, led to the 0.20 estimate of adult mortality in prior assessments. Additional data have been collected since the last assessment and the analyses were updated in Appendices D and E using all of the random samples from nonselective gear from the north-central gulf (data courtesy C. Wilson , Louisiana State University). The estimate of the total mortality rate was Z=0.211 from a catch curve of ages 15 and above (R2 =0.91; N=21). A similar analysis of the decay of year class abundances with time provided an estimate of total mortality of Z=0.218 (R2=0.998; N=7). If these ages had been completely protected from fishing mortality prior to the initiation of the purse-seine fishery and if the inshore fishing mortality rate had been constant over time, then this estimate would reflect only natural mortality operating on these ages, and this estimate of Z would also be an estimate of natural mortality. There was some historical recreational fishing mortality on these ages and some were also taken as bycatch by the shrimp fishery. However, it is
GROWTH Red drum growth is characterized by a very rapid increase in length with age during the fishes’ first few years of life in estuarine habitats. This fast growth rapidly subsides when the fish emigrate to more oceanic waters. The shift in growth between the two periods is sufficient
5
1989 assessment I estimated that survival would have had to decline by about 85 percent from 1974 to 1978 in order to account for the estimated decline in recruitment offshore during the same period (Goodyear 1989). The offshore recruitment estimates for the period preceding the decline (1952-1966) are significantly correlated with inshore commercial landings during the years when the year classes would have been 2-3 years old (Figure D-3). However, that correlation disappeared over the period when recruitment to the offshore stock declined (Figure D-2). Also, inshore commercial landings per recruit to the offshore population increased markedly, as would be expected if fishing mortality increased during the period (Figure D-4). The increasing ratios of reported commercial landings to the estimates of recruitment to the adult offshore stocks for year classes formed the previous year strongly indicate that commercial fishing mortality rates increased in the mid- to late 1970s. The rapid rise in these ratios in the later years is consistent with both declining inshore survival and increased landings. The reported commercial landings did increase during the period (Figure 1); however, the increase does not seem sufficient to explain the large gain in landings per recruit. One consequence of these observations is that the commercial component of fishing mortality must have increased more than the gain in reported landings suggest. This is because the increased landings were being taken from a smaller pool of recruits. Increased recreational mortality may have contributed to this trend. Regulatory actions taken by the states in the late 1980s to decrease inshore fishing mortality rates appear to have increased recruitment to the offshore stock (Figure D-1) as evidenced by an increase in the relative frequency of ages 3-5 in the age composition. However, it is not clear that the adult age composition is tending toward that of the pre-1970s level. Overall, these observations suggest a relatively constant fishing mortality from the early 1950s to the late 1960s, followed by an increase in inshore fishing mortality which simultaneously increased landings and reduced the offshore escapement estimates. However, these data do not clarify the extent to which recruitment to the inshore stock may have declined.
unlikely that fishing mortality on the ages involved in the catch curve analysis was very high unless there was a very large, unreported catch of these fish. Prior analyses showed that even very small levels of fishing mortality on the offshore stock in the early 1970s would have resulted in catches of millions of pounds. There is no evidence of such large catches until the purse seine fishery developed in the mid 1980’s. Consequently, the level of natural mortality must be only slightly below the total mortality estimates derived from the age composition data. These arguments support the retention of the value for natural mortality of M=0.20 that was adopted in prior assessments.
RECRUITMENT Two sets of recruitment estimates are discussed in this document. The first, recruitment to the offshore stock, is developed here. The second, recruitment to the inshore stock, will be estimated as a part of the Sequential Population Analysis discussed later. Throughout this document, the year designation of a year class is the year following the year in which they were spawned. This convention was so that the year class coincides with the year in which the age 0 fish from a cohort are harvested.. The basic analyses were presented in the 1989 assessment (Goodyear 1989). Some of these earlier analyses have been updated to include the most recent data Appendix D. These data suggest that the red drum begin to emigrate from the estuaries sometime during their third or fourth year of life. The data for aged fish from purse-seine collections were sorted by age and month of capture (Table D-2). Red drum first appear in the samples in conspicuous numbers in June of their third year at a biological age of approximately 2.7 years. However, the modal age in the samples was 4 years, indicating that red drum are not fully recruited until age 4 or older. The analyses presented in the 1989 assessment demonstrated that that recruitment declined to the offshore stock in the mid-1970s and had shown no signs of recovery through 1988. The reduction in recruitment to the offshore stock may have been caused either by a recruitment failure to the inshore fishery beginning in the mid-1970’s or an increase in the inshore fishing mortality rate at the same time. The decline in recruitment to the offshore stock might result if output from previously lightly fished, but productive, habitats declined as a result of significant environmental degradation. The effect of such degradation could simply be the virtual elimination of juvenile production from some or all such areas because of the lack of suitable habitat for early development. Another possibility is that some natural environmental perturbation caused a series of poor year classes beginning in the mid-1970s. Given the lack of extended periods of low recruitment in the pre-1970 yearclass estimates, this explanation would require a significant departure from the behavior of the earlier year classes. Part of the reduction in offshore recruitment is likely the result of increased fishing mortality during the period. Assuming constant recruitment inshore, an increase in the inshore fishing mortality rate would reduce the average survival of juvenile red drum over all of the estuarine areas that contribute recruits to the adult stock offshore. In the
FISHERY COMMERCIAL Landings statistics for commercially caught fish have been collected since 1880. Annual landings data were collected at irregular intervals until about 1950. Since then, annual landings statistics have been reported for each state for each year. These estimates (Table 1) are thought to account for most of the commercial catch passing through dealers; however, that part of the catch that bypasses the dealers and processors and enters the retail market directly is not included in the catch estimates. No attempt has been made to adjust the commercial landings estimates for the fraction which are not included in the landing statistics. Gulfwide, the reported annual landings totaled from about 1 to 3 million pounds until 1970 (Figure 1). During the 1970s the total landings increased to a peak of 5.4 million
6
adjacent offshore waters in NMFS statistical grids 3 and 4 (Figure 2; Table 4). These areas accounted for about 63 percent of Florida's red drum reported catch in 1982, but the contribution had declined to about 38% by 1985 and 22% by 1986. The reduced proportion of the take in these areas in 1986 was augmented by an increase in landings from grids 7 and 8 which peaked in 1986. Part of this decline can also be explained by overreporting of landings (to an unknown extent) by a single dealer in the Charlotte Harbor area prior to 1984. However, even with the suspect data removed, this area accounted for 51% of Florida's reported landings in 1982. Over-reporting in this area extends back to at least 1978 (perhaps earlier). This factor must be considered if these particular data contribute significantly to future management decisions involving calculations based on the absolute levels of landings. Reported commercial catch for several of the estuarine areas showed marked annual variations. The reported catch for the St. Joseph Bay system increased from 5.9 to 194 thousand pounds in two years (1977 to 1979) and subsequently fell to 5.5 thousand pounds 2 years later (1981). Such large (40-fold) changes in estimated catch could reflect local shifts in the fishery or real changes in the abundance associated with occasional strong, locally significant year classes. Reported catches from several historically important areas fell to 0 in 1986, prior to the closure of the fishery in early 1987. Gill nets were the principal gears used to harvest red drum in Florida from 1968 though 1985 (Table 5). Haul seines were second and trammel nets third in importance until 1982 when they switched relative positions. The relative importance of handlines decreased from an average of over 10 percent of the catch before 1977 to 2 percent in 1986, and recovered to about 5 percent in 1987. Gill and trammel nets accounted for the 94% of the Florida catch in 1987. The limited 1988 commercial catch was from unknown gear.
pounds in 1976, then subsided to a minimum of 2.4 million pounds in 1982. Landings then increased dramatically and reached an all-time high of 14 million pounds in 1986.
Figure 1. Reported commercial landings of red drum from the Gulf of Mexico, 1951-1995. Commercial landings declined to 4.9 million pounds in 1987 coincident with the prohibition of a directed commercial fishery in the EEZ and the introduction of conservation measures by the states for their waters. Commercial landings further declined to the lowest level on record in 1990 as a result of strict conservation actions in all of the major producing states. The effect of the prohibition of the directed fishery in the EEZ is clearly seen in markedly reduced offshore catches in 1987 from prior years, as reflected in the estuarine/oceanic and state/EEZ proportions (Tables 2 and 3). The overall effect of the EEZ prohibition and state conservation regulations was the virtual elimination of the commercial harvest after about 1988-1989. It is clear from Table 2 that before 1985 the commercial catches primarily occurred in estuarine habitats rather than in oceanic areas (estuarine areas are inside bays and lagoons; oceanic areas include both state waters and the EEZ). The contribution from oceanic areas averaged about 20 percent of the total estimated catches from 1968 through 1984. About 59 percent was from oceanic areas in 1985, and oceanic catches were slightly in excess of 65% for 1986. About 58 percent of the total reported commercial catch was taken from the EEZ in 1986 (Table 3).
Alabama and Mississippi Reported catches in Alabama and Mississippi and adjacent offshore waters since 1968 are given in Table 6. Landings from the Mississippi Sound have typically been higher than those reported for Mobile Bay. Prior to 1970, the trammel net was the most important gear in the Sound; but it was replaced by the gill net in the early 1970s (Table 7). Reported catch from the Mississippi Sound rose sharply in 1977 and peaked at 588 thousand pounds in 1978 as a result of the introduction of purse seines in the fishery (Tables 6 and 7). This gear was prohibited in Mississippi state waters effective December 19, 1979. Red drum catches from areas offshore of Alabama and Mississippi have been largely from grid 11 (Table 6). Catches in this area were predominantly taken as incidental catch in otter trawls until 1981 (Tables 6 - 8). The catches from this area increased rapidly from 1981 to 1986 as a consequence of the expanded use of purse seines and accounted for 43 percent of the total estimated commercial landings in the Gulf in 1986. Most of these fish were landed in Alabama (Table 9). The 1987 prohibition of a directed commercial fishery in the EEZ reduced the contribution from grid 11 to 0.7% of the total annual reported catch. Small numbers of red drum
Florida Although the commercial fishery is now closed, commercial landings in Florida since 1950 ranged from 526 thousand pounds to a high of 1.3 million pounds (Table 1). The estimate for 1987 declined to 252 thousand pounds, largely as a result of conservation actions. The 1988 estimate of 4.6 thousand pounds resulted from a complete closure of the fishery for red drum in Florida that year. No red drum appeared in the Florida commercial landings after 1988 and the small amount seen in the 1988 data may reflect coding errors. Much of Florida's reported commercial catch of red drum historically came from the Charlotte Harbor area and
7
obtained during 1986-1987. However, they provide a clear indication that runaround gill nets, haul seines, and purse seines were employed in the harvest of the large red drum, while the traditional gill and trammel nets harvested the youngest fish (Figure 3). Fish harvested by hook and line represented the broadest range of lengths of any gear.
continued to be harvested from the Mississippi Sound through 1995 by Mississippi commercial fishermen. Louisiana Estimates of commercial catches of red drum from areas along the Louisiana Coast since 1968 are given in Table 10. Fishermen from Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas have traditionally fished off Louisiana. Although their percentage of the Louisiana catch was small (range of 3.5 to 15.8 percent), these catches were often larger than the catches in Alabama and Mississippi waters. Most of the Louisiana catch landed in Texas came from grid 17. The 1986 catch was higher than the 1985 catch for each of the regional groupings and the highest since 1968 for six out of the nine regional sums. The greatest proportional increase from 1984 to 1986 was for NMFS grids 14-15. However, there were substantial increases in 1986 catch estimates for many of the estuarine areas as well. Reported catches from the oceanic areas decreased markedly in 1987, however the combined catches from estuarine waters were still higher than the levels observed in prior years.
Texas Estimated commercial catches of red drum for areas along the Texas Coast are presented in Table 12 for the period 1968-1981. Commercial fishing for red drum in Texas ended by regulation in May of 1981. Nearly all of the Texas commercial catch had come from estuarine areas, and the greatest proportion of that was taken with trot lines (Table 13). Nearly all of the rest of the estimated Texas commercial catch was taken in trammel nets, with haul seines important in only a few years in the early 1970s. Matlock (1984) reported that the Texas commercial fishery in 1975 and 1976 harvested red drum that averaged 20.2 inches in length and 2+ years of age.
RECREATIONAL Data Sources The recreational harvest estimates for red drum are derived from a combination of three sources. The primary data source is the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey (MRFSS), which covers the period 1979-1991. This survey provides estimates of the numbers of red drum harvested during bimonthly periods (waves) by state, mode (shorebound, private/rental boats and party/charterboats) and distance from shore with several exceptions. There were no estimates of harvest for wave 1 (January-February) in 1981. Texas boat mode was not sampled from 1982-1984. Texas initiated its own survey in 1986 and was not included in the MRFSS survey thereafter. Party boat (headboat) sampling was discontinued after 1985 for all waves and states. The suspension of the party boat sampling by the MRFSS coincided with an expansion of NMFS Headboat Survey conducted by the NMFS Beaufort Laboratory (data courtesy G. Huntsman, SEFSC Beaufort Laboratory) to include U.S. Gulf of Mexico ports. This second data source provides estimates of landings by partyboats for all states after 1985. The third source of recreational harvest estimates is the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) coastal sport fishing survey (data provided by TPWD). This survey provides estimates for numbers harvested by boat modes exclusive of party boats for Texas for 1986-1988. Also, the catch of shorebound fishermen has not been included in the Texas estimates since 1985. The combination of these three sources provided estimates for all areas, modes, and periods except for wave 1 of 1981, 1982-1984 Texas boat modes, and Texas shore modes after 1985. Also the 1995 headboat and Texas data were not available at the time this assessment was prepared. The 1994 headboat Texas Parks and Wildlife estimates were substituted for the corresponding missing 1995 data. Values for the other missing strata were generally estimated
Figure 3. Length frequencies of commercial samples of red drum from Louisiana, 1985-1987. Louisiana closed its commercial fishery by 1988 with a resulting large reduction in reported catch. The red drum landed in Louisiana have primarily been taken by trammel and gill nets (Table 11). Trammel nets predominated in the earlier years of record but were replaced by gill nets in the most recent years. Purse seines were not important before 1985 but accounted for 36.3 percent of the landings in 1986 (Table 11). Many of these fish were caught in NMFS grid 11. The EEZ prohibition in 1987 left gill nets as the predominant gear employed in Louisiana. This gear accounted for all of the limited 1989 Louisiana commercial catch. The small amounts of the estimates for 1990-1995 are from unknown gear, and may reflect coding errors.. Length-frequency data for the Louisiana commercial catch are available only for the period 1985-1987 from collections made by investigators from Louisiana (Russell 1988; data courtesy of Sandy Russell, Center for Wetland Resources, Coastal Fisheries Institute, Louisiana State University). The bulk of the samples from this period were
8
regulations. In contrast, the charter catch had included the larger fish and shows a greater impact of the upper size limit. Some harvest of fish larger than the upper size limit continues as a result of an allowance for one fish larger than the maximum size in Mississippi and Louisiana. The apparent downward shift in the size composition of the landings by private-rental boat mode seen in Figure 6 is the result of the missing 1995 data from Texas.
from their respective proportional contributions for years where they were sampled. Specifically, the 1981 wave 1 estimates were derived from the 1981 totals using the mean fraction of the annual harvest that occurred in wave 1 in other years. The harvest by shore modes in Texas after 1985 was estimated from the Texas boat mode catch and the average proportion of the total annual landings contributed by the Texas shore modes in years when they were sampled. The 1982-1984 estimates of boat mode harvest from Texas were derived from a regression of the boat mode catch on year for adjacent years where this strata was sampled. The biomass of the annual recreational harvest was estimated as the sum of the products of the estimated number of red drum harvested in each state, mode, wave, and area and the estimated mean weight of the drum harvested in these strata. If fewer than 10 red drum were measured within a strata then the annual mean weight of red drum for the state was substituted for the strata mean. Weights of individual fish were generally estimated from length measurements. Size composition A scattergram of all length observations from the recreational fishery by year is given in Figure 4. And the length frequencies of recreationally harvested red drum sampled by various programs are presented by state and year in Figure 5. These data indicate that a large proportion of the harvest by recreational fishermen consisted of red drum smaller than 15 inches during the earlier years. However, the minimum size regulations have had a clear impact, particularly in Texas, Louisiana and Florida. Alabama and Mississippi harvest of small fish also declined, but fish of 15 inches total length and smaller were still relatively common in the catch in these two states after 1988. Mississippi is the only state in which red drum larger than 30 inches are relatively common in the samples across years. These same data, pooled by mode and year over state, also reflect the impact of size regulations (Figure 6). The catch by headboat patrons and anglers fishing from private vessels clearly show the impact of the minimum size
Figure 4. Scattergram of length observations from the recreational fishery since 1979. Recreational length observations from 1979 to 1986 sorted by mode and state show that Mississippi and Alabama charter boats relied heavily on fish larger than 30 inches for the red drum component of their fisheries (Figure 7). Mississippi's regulations permit this pattern to continue (Figure 8). It also appears from the development of a bimodal distribution of sizes in samples from the charter mode in Louisiana that part of the fleet has begun targeting the larger fish (Figures 7 and 8).
Figure 5. Length frequencies of Gulf of Mexico red drum as measured during creel surveys by year and state.
9
size (Figure 9). However, the average weights in Table 14 vary considerably by state and year, ranging from slightly less than 1¼ pound in Alabama in 1981 to slightly less than 13 pounds for the 1983 samples in Mississippi. Undoubtedly, some of this variation in mean weight is due to the distribution of sampling effort. Tables 15-17 indicate substantial spatial and temporal variability in both sample sizes and mean weights. There does, however, appear to be a trend of increasing mean weights with increasing distance from shore. However, occasional large fish are also encountered in the nearshore waters.
Recreational Catch Annual estimates of the recreational harvest of red drum from the Gulf of Mexico for 1979-1995 are given by state and area in Tables 18-21. These estimates are somewhat different than those previously reported. The NMRFSS program recently revised the methods used to estimate the catches, and where possible revised their estimates for earlier years. All of the NMRFSS values used in this assessment are the revised estimates except for 1979-1980 and Texas, Wave 4, 1981-1985, which use the old estimates. In addition, the current estimates include new catch estimates for the Texas survey (data courtesy TPWD) which were lower than previous estimates for some years.
Figure 6. Length frequencies of Gulf of Mexico red drum by fishing mode and year.
Figure 7. Length composition of 1979-1986 recreational harvest of red drum by mode and state.
Figure 9. Estimated mean weight of all red drum harvested by recreational anglers, 1979-1995. The highest gulfwide recreational harvest estimate occurred in 1983 with a value of over 4 million fish and about 10 million pounds harvested (Figures 10 and 11). There is no clear trend in the estimates of the numbers of red drum harvested by recreational fishermen from 1979 through 1986, but the numbers declined thereafter to a low of about 1 million fish in 1990, primarily as a result of conservation efforts (Figure 10). This decline in numbers harvested was partly offset by an increase in mean size (Figure 9) so that the recreational harvest by weight remained comparatively more stable than the numbers of fish harvested (Table 18, Figure 11). Since 1990 both the number and weight harvested have increased. The 1995 catch in numbers increased to 3.1 million fish which is the highest since 1984, and the 13.5-
Figure 8. Length composition of 1990-1995 recreational harvest of red drum by mode and state. Mean weights of fish sampled from recreational landings are given in Table 14 by state and year. As the length-frequency data indicate, the gulfwide average size of red drum harvested has increased since 1979, primarily as a result of conservation actions which increased the minimum
10
half of the total catch being released since 1987. However, the percentage released in 1995 was the lowest since 1986. Anglers interviewed in the intercept portion of the NMRFSS indicated that 92 percent of all released fish were released because of size limits. Texas data are not included in these statistics because of the change in survey design after 1981 which eliminated possible estimation of release rates.
million-pound biomass harvest in 1995 was the highest since MRFSS began its survey in 1979. Historical recreational harvest estimates indicate that, on average, Louisiana anglers have harvested the most red drum in both numbers and weight. Florida is next, followed by Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama. Annual variations in estimated harvest among the states do not show any apparent trends and do not appear to be strongly correlated, except for the reduced numbers harvested in the first years after 1986 in response to conservation measures taken by the states. Estimated numbers of red drum harvested by anglers by fishing mode and habitat type are presented in Table 22. These data indicate that the percentage, by number, of red drum taken from boats versus those taken from the shore increased after the early 1980s and that, most are harvested from boats.
Figure 11. Estimated biomass of red drum harvested by recreational fishermen from the Gulf of Mexico and adjacent waters, 1979-1995.
Figure 10. Estimated numbers of red drum harvested from the Gulf of Mexico and adjacent waters by anglers, 19791995. Similarly, the estimated fraction of the recreational harvest taken from oceanic waters versus estuaries has been highly variable over the period (Table 22). However, most red drum harvested by recreational anglers have come from estuaries. The immediate effect of the conservation actions on the traditional recreational fishery was an initial reduction in harvest numbers and an increase in the mean size of harvested fish. This was followed by a recovery in numbers harvested which with the increased mean size resulted in the maximum biomass harvest of the recreational fishery in 1995. Additionally, there was a large increase from 1979 to 1995 in the number of red drum which are reported to have been caught but released (Table 23). Both the absolute number of releases and the fraction of the total catch are eported to have increased (Figures 12 and 13) with well over
Figure 12. Estimated fraction of the recreational catch of Gulf of Mexico red drum that were released by anglers 19791995. If these data are representative of the gulfwide recreational fishery for red drum, then the total recreational catch of red drum in U.S. waters of the Gulf of Mexico reached a 1992 peak and then declined about 25% through 1995.
11
commercial fishery and sharply reduced the recreational harvest. As a result, the bycatch of the shrimp fishery which was not affected by the conservation measures increased from about 3.5% before 1988 to 9% of the total numbers caught thereafter. The total number of red drum killed in 1995 was about 3.4 million, nearly 75 percent of the 1979-1987 average.
Figure 13. Estimated numbers of Gulf of Mexico red drum that were caught and released by anglers east of Texas 19791995.
SHRIMP BYCATCH In addition to the directed harvest by recreational and commercial fishermen, red drum are captured incidental to the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery. The age composition of the bycatch is unknown. The lengths of individuals caught in the Oregon II cruises are generally over 30 inches (S. Nichols, personal communication), suggesting that at least part of the bycatch consists of adult fish in the offshore fishery. However, the 5 red drum measured from shrimp trawls in the Louisiana sampling were only about 25 inches TL, indicating that these fish were sub-adults (Figure 3). The estimated bycatch by depth stratum indicated that catches inside of 10 fathoms outnumbered those from greater than 10 fathoms by 6 to 1 (S. Nichols, personal communication). Consequently, the bycatch is probably spread across all age classes in the population, but the age specific selectivities are unknown. The estimated numbers killed as a part of the bycatch have gradually increased since 1972, but the annual estimates are quite variable (Figure 14). Some of this bycatch prior to 1987 undoubtedly contributed to the reported commercial landings of red drum; however, the extent is unknown. They are included in analyses in this assessment as an additional source of mortality; consequently, part of the pre-1987 commercial catch may be double counted. However, the magnitude of the bycatch is a small part of the total catch in those years.
Figure 14. Shrimp bycatch estimates for red drum in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, 1972-1995.
Figure 15. Numbers of Gulf of Mexico red drum in the combined commercial and recreational harvest and shrimp bycatch, 1979-1995. The biomass harvested increased from 12 million pounds in 1979 to about 21 million pounds in 1986 (Figure 16). The 1986 peak resulted from the growth in the commercial catch in that year. Conservation actions caused landings to decline to 11 million pounds in 1987 and to a low of about 5.1 million pounds in 1988. Subsequent total biomass harvest gradually increased so that the 1995 harvest of about 13.6 million pounds was about the same as the 1979-1987 mean of 12.7 million pounds. Part of the 1988-1995 increase was the result of increased yield per recruit associated with the increased size limits, but the total number of fish harvested also increased during the period.
COMBINED CATCH Because recreational landings statistics are available only since 1979, the combined harvest can only be estimated since then. During the period 1979-1987 the catch in numbers fluctuated around a mean of about 4.5 million fish (Figure 15). The numbers caught declined from 3.7 to 1.4 million fish from 1987 to 1988 as a result of conservation measures that essentially eliminated the
12
population sizes. However, if the sampling and analytical biases are consistent through time, the estimates should be useful indices of relative abundance. If so, the observed decline in the estimate between the 1986-1987 period and 1995 suggests a decline in the adult stock. If so, this result would be consistent with a pattern of inadequate recruitment of sub-adults to the adult stock and declining abundance of the adults due to natural mortality. However, the confidence intervals on the survey data are sufficiently large that the 1995 estimate is not statistically different that that of 1987, and we cannot be sure from this data that the stock has actually declined. Also, the authors of the most recent study point out several factors that might lessen the comparability of the 1987 and 1995 studies. Mark-Recapture Studies The mark-recapture study was conducted by NMFS in 1986 and 1987 (Nichols 1988). This study involved the release of tagged adult red drum captured in purse seines in the fall of 1986 and spring of 1987. The marked fish were allowed to mix with unmarked fish until the fall of 1987. Samples were then taken to obtain estimates of the ratio of marked to unmarked fish in the population. Tagging mortality and tag shedding were estimated and used to adjust the numbers of tags at large for anticipated losses. The estimated number of red drum in the study area was 5.3 million with a total bulk of 90 million pounds. This estimate was adjusted upward to account for the density of red drum outside the study area using the relative densities estimated from the 1987 aerial survey, which occurred at the same time that the tag recovery samples were taken (Nichols 1988, Lohoefener et al. 1988). The resulting estimate was about 7.2 million fish weighing 123 million pounds. This estimate is accepted as the best estimate of the size of the Gulf of Mexico red drum population in the fall of 1987, exclusive of the young fish still occurring in the estuaries. Based on the data of Appendix Table D-2 the estimate includes fish of biological age 4 (the tabled age 3 become biological age 4 in October) and older. A replicate of the study is planned to begin in the Fall of 1996, and is badly needed to confirm the status of the adult population.
Figure 16. Combined biomass of the commercial and recreational harvest, 1979-1995.
PRESENT AND POSSIBLE FUTURE CONDITION OF THE STOCK STOCK SIZE Three types of direct estimates of the size of the offshore adult stock have been made. These include estimates from aerial surveys, back calculations of spawning stock size from surveys of egg and larval densities, and estimates from a mark-recapture study. The mark-recapture estimate is thought to be better than the other two approaches, but the estimates derived with the other two approaches will also be discussed. Calculations from Larval densities Lyczkowski-Shultz et al. (1988) estimated spawning stock biomass between the Mississippi Delta and Mobile Bay based on the abundance of red drum egg and larval densities observed in 1 X 1.4 m Tucker trawls from late August though early November 1986. Sample densities were expanded to the volume of the area involved in the survey and corrected for mortality. Spawning stock biomass was estimated to be between 14.6 and 35.5 million pounds in the study area. The authors noted that these results compared favorably with the results of the mark-recapture study, which indicated a spawning stock of about 15 million pounds in the same area.
FISHERY INDEPENDENT SURVEYS Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida have fishery independent monitoring programs to monitor the abundance of juvenile fishes in their waters. Collectively these studies involve the use of bag seines, gill nets, and trammel nets that sample red drum densities. The Texas survey began in 1975 and has the longest time series of bag seine and gill net sampling. Louisiana and Mississippi began their monitoring programs in 1986, and Florida started its program in 1989. I examined each of the resulting data sets for evidence of trends in the abundance of red drum. The time series from Florida’s sampling which continues to be refined is generally too short to be meaningful (Appendix J). The abundance of small red drum (less than 18 inches TL) in Mississippi’s gill net samples declined from 1988 to a low in 1990, increased in 1991 and 1992 but has declined each year from 1992 to 1995 (Appendix R). The ratio of
Aerial Surveys Loehoefner et al. (1987, 1988) examined the potential of aerial survey techniques to monitor the relative abundance of red drum and estimate stock size. The pilot study was conducted in the fall of 1986 and yielded a point estimate of about 35 million pounds for the biomass of the stock in the study area (Lohoefener et al. 1987). The experiment was repeated in 1987 over a somewhat greater area and yielded an estimated biomass of 28.9 million pounds. The study was again repeated in the fall of 1995 and produced an estimate of 18.1 million pounds (Mullen et al., 1996). Most of the known sources of bias in the data collection and analytical methods in the aerial surveys would cause the biomass estimates to be an underestimate of the actual
13
this index is taken to measure relative abundance of age 1 red drum at the beginning of the model year (January 1).
the catch rate of fish greater than 18 inches TL to the catch rate of smaller fish (taken as an indicator of survival) was lowest at the beginning of the time series and peaked in 1991. The ratio has declined since 1991 but was still slightly higher in 1995 than it was at the beginning of the survey. These data suggest an initial improvement in red drum abundance and survival followed by a decline to levels only slightly above the 1986-1987 levels. The Texas bag-seine samples of red drum primarily consist of age 0 fish and show marked seasonal trends with a December peak and late summer minimum (Appendix M). These data show annual fluctuations in abundance with no apparent trend with time. The Texas gill net samples include fish from about 10 to 30 inches TL with different mesh sizes selecting for different size red drum (Appendix N). Catch rates for the smallest mesh sizes show no apparent trend with time, suggesting that recruitment has not markedly increased through the period. However, catch rates in the larger mesh sizes have increased with time. The ratio of the 6-inch mesh catch rate to that of the 3-inch mesh rate 2 years earlier increased from 0.038 in 1977 to 0.185 in 1994. If the change is entirely the result of decreased mortality then survival rates from the younger fish caught in the smaller mesh to the older fish taken in the 6 inch mesh increased nearly 5 fold. Louisiana’s bag seine samples also catch primarily age 0 red drum (Appendix O) with a December peak. There is a relatively large year to year variation in annual mean catch per set with no apparent trend in the mean catch rate with time. However, the mean catch per set is only about 0.5 fish, and the gear may not be suitable for monitoring changes in abundance of juvenile red drum. Catch rates in Louisiana’s gill net samples increased after 1990 and peaked in 1992 (Appendix Q). The catch rates in the smallest mesh (2 inches) declined from 0.048 red drum per set in 1986 to 0.017 in 1990 then increased to a peak in 1992 of 0.309. The values for the last three years (1993-1995) were about 0.15. Catch rates in the 3 inch mesh were similar but did not decline as much after the 1992 peak, with the 1995 value the second highest of the time series for this mesh, only slightly less than the value in 1992. These data support the notion that recruitment increased after 1990 Catch rates in the largest mesh (4 inches) were also higher at the end of the time series than they were in 1986 and 1987, but there is little evidence of a trend.. The peak catch rate was in 1989, before there is any evidence of increased recruitment in the smaller mesh sizes. There is also little indication of increased survival with time from the ratios of catch rates in successively larger mesh sizes. Louisiana trammel-net samples also show an increase in catch per set with time (Appendix P). Length frequencies from this gear were bimodal with most of the catch consisting of red drum of biological age 1. Sampling has been conducted October through the following March for most years. This allowed me to develop an index of abundance for model-age 1 red drum as the mean catch per set from this gear by considering only those fish less than 18 inches TL in the samples (Figure 17, Table 24). Since sampling is centered on the beginning of a calendar year,
Figure 17. Relative abundance of age 1 red drum in Louisiana trammel net samples. The number of samples for each year is given within the histogram bars.
FISHING MORTALITY ESTIMATES FROM TAGGING DATA Numerous estimates of total annual mortality have been made for various locations over the years. These estimates are typically based on either the results of mark-recapture studies or analyses of the age structure of landings (Table 25). In general, estimates of total mortality (Z) in inshore waters of the Gulf of Mexico are all quite high. Many of the estimates of Z in Table 25 are actually estimates of the instantaneous rate at which red drum disappear from the samples. For estimates based on catch curves, this disappearance rate potentially includes emigration and reduced gear efficiency as well as mortality. Mark-recapture estimates of disappearance also may include the effects of tag shedding, tag induced mortality and increasing difficulties in tag identification through time. The robustness of these estimates can be assessed by examining the characteristics of the estimation methods. For mark-recapture studies, if sufficient numbers of tags are applied, and the mortality rates and reporting rates are sufficiently stable over the time span of a mark and recapture experiment, the rate of disappearance of the tags can be robustly estimated from the slope of the logs of the number of tags returned with time (Ricker 1975, Section 4.3). Fishing mortality estimates from such experiments are derived by partitioning the total apparent loss of marks (Z') into those due to fishing and other causes, i.e., Z' = F + M + U where: Z' = instantaneous rate of disappearance of tags from the marked population; F = instantaneous rate of fishing mortality; M = instantaneous rate of natural mortality; U = instantaneous rate of loss of tags not attributable to fishing or natural mortality.
14
have been taken into account, and estimates of M are likely to be biased high. As an example, the Rago and Goodyear (1985) estimates of fishing and natural mortality in Table 25 assumed 50 percent reporting of recaptured tags. Their results support estimates of F from 0.42 to 0.51. However, if the Texas estimate of 36 percent reporting had been used (Green et al. 1983), the corresponding range of F would be from 0.58 to 0.71 and the estimates of natural mortality would be reduced to a range of 0.16 to 0.62. I applied this method of analysis to mark-recapture data from Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (Appendix F), Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (Appendix ), the Gulf Coast Conservation Association of Louisiana (Appendix H), Gulf Coast Research Laboratory (Appendix I), Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Appendix L), and other data in the NMFS Cooperative Gamefish Tagging Program files. The data from the Texas mark-recapture program were split into three periods for analysis, 1975-1976, 1977-1987 and 1988-1989. Separate analyses were performed for different pooling intervals (30, 45 and 60 days) for the recaptures, showed similar results. For the 60 day interval, the estimate of the instantaneous disappearance rate fell from 3.17 from the 1975-1976 marks to 1.86 for the 1977 -1987 marks and 1.39 for the 1988-1989 marks. Tables giving estimates of the fishing mortality rate for different assumptions about initial tag loss and tag reporting rates are given in Appendix F. If the reporting rate and initial loss rates are comparable through time, the fishing mortality rate appears to have decreased 60-70 percent from the first period to the last. Analyses of the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries mark-recapture data are presented in Appendix G. The catch curve estimate of the disappearance rate for recaptures pooled by 45 day intervals was 1.58. If the reporting rate is about 40% and the initial loss of marks about 20% then fishing mortality would be about 0.5, but other combinations of reporting rates and initial tag losses produce fishing mortality rate estimates greater than 1.0. Analyses of the LAGCCA mark-recapture data in Appendix resulted in very low estimates of fishing mortality for all reasonable combinations of reporting and initial tag loss. However, inspection of scatter about the catch curve indicated that the assumption of constant instantaneous tag shedding was not met by these data. The initial rate of tag shedding appears to have been very high, followed by a much reduced rate after the first 6 months at large. Consequently, the estimates of fishing mortality for this data set are not considered meaningful. The mark-recapture from Mississippi were split into two periods, 1986-1988 and 1989-1990 and were analyzed separately to see if mortality rates declined between the two period (Appendix I). The catch curves based on recaptures pooled by intervals of 30, 45 and 60 days at large. For the 45 day interval the estimated disappearance rate declined from 2.3 to 1.49 between the two periods. If the reporting rate is about 40% and the initial loss of marks about 20% then fishing morality declined from about 1.63, to about 0.6 from 1986-1988 to 1989-1990. However, other combinations of
Further, let A' = (l - S') = (l - exp(-Z)); A' = fraction of marks that disappear; S' = l - A' = "survival" probability of tags. The apparent exploitation fraction during a time i, u', is then the fraction of tagged fish recovered with tags still attached and can be estimated with equation (4.4) of Ricker (1975), i.e., R1 + R2 + . . . + Rn u'= ------------------------------------- ; Y[l + S' + (S')2 + . . . + (S')n-l]
Ri = tag returns during interval i; Y = initial number of marks. If not all tags are reported, then Ri must be corrected for the reporting rate. Although there are different methods for estimating F, all seek to estimate S' and partition F on the basis of the return of the marks. The losses to other causes are only estimated by difference, and those due to natural mortality are not separable from those due to tag shedding, tag-induced mortality, and emigration, etc. The instantaneous rate of the disappearance of marks (Z' of equation 1) is a good estimate of the total morality rate (Z) only if 1) there is no tag shedding, 2) no tag induced mortality, 3) no deterioration of the tag reporting rate associated with tag recognition, and 4) no emigration. Otherwise, the estimate will exceed the true value of Z, and the estimate of natural mortality will be biased high. In general these factors are difficult to estimate or unknown and are commonly ignored. As a consequence, estimates of total mortality derived from mark-recapture studies are often biased high. This bias probably contributes to all of the natural mortality estimates for red drum that have been derived from mark-recapture experiments in Table 25. The instantaneous fishing mortality rate (F) is estimated as u'Z' F = -----; A' and is an unbiased estimator of the true value of F if u' is estimated accurately. The two biggest potential problems with the estimate of u' are non-reporting of the recaptures (which biases Ri downward) and short-term tagging mortality which causes the effective initial number of marks to be less than the number released. Uncorrected, both the nonreporting and the short-term tagging mortality will bias the estimate of F downward. This bias, if present, will contribute to the upward bias in the natural mortality estimate because it is determined as the difference between Z' and F. Thus, estimates for fishing mortality will tend to be low except where reporting rates and immediate tag-induced mortality
15
samples of the purse seine fishery in 1986, and from 19861989 research sampling. Because the age composition of the catch has not been directly monitored, I estimated it from the length composition of the catch. The conversion of length to age was done using the probabilistic method employed in the most recent red snapper assessment (Goodyear 1995a, b). This method uses estimates of relative year-class strengths, survival histories and the distributions of size at age to partition the length observations into ages. The current analysis used the offshore recruitment indices from Appendix D and the relative abundances at age 1 from the Louisiana trammel net samples for the relative year class strengths. An initial iteration of the ADAPT procedure was used to construct a survival history for the final ADAPT analysis.
reporting rates and initial tag losses produce fishing mortality rate estimates greater than 1.0 for the latter period. Disappearance rate estimates from the catch curve using the CTS recapture data pooled by 45 day recapture interval for marks applied from 1990-1993 was 1.42 (Appendix K). If the reporting rate is about 40% and the initial loss of marks about 20% then fishing mortality would be about 0.4 from these data, but other combinations of reporting rates and initial tag losses produce fishing mortality rate estimates greater than 1.0. The Florida DEP mark-recapture data were split into 3 periods, 1983-1986, 1987-1989, and 1992-1994. Data from each period were evaluated separately (Appendix L). The disappearance rate estimated from recapture intervals of 45 days fell from 2.64 to 2.12 from the first to second period and to 1.64 in the last interval. If the reporting rate is about 40% and the initial loss of marks about 20% then fishing morality declined from about 1.97, to about 0.79 from 1986-1988 to 1989-1990, and to 0.68 for the 1992-1994 period. As with prior analyses, other combinations of reporting rates and initial tag losses produce fishing mortality rate estimates greater than 1.0 for the most recent period. Overall these data indicate that fishing mortality dropped substantially with the implementation of the conservation measures in the late 1980s. They also support the previous concern that the fishing mortality rates were excessive in the mid-1980s. However, the precise level of post-regulation F cannot be evaluated without knowledge of the initial tag loss and reporting rates.
Pooling conventions The spatial distribution of the total catch by number is centered on the northern Gulf. The Louisiana harvest accounted for 63 percent of the 1979-1995 total and 71 percent of the harvest since 1988 when conservation measures were strengthened This observation suggests that the abundance time series used to tune the VPA should reflect trends in Louisiana. The index selected for the present analysis was the CPUE from the Louisiana trammel-net sampling of age 1 red drum discussed previously (Figure 17). The commercial landings data are categorized by year, month, state, water body, and gear of capture. However, because the length frequencies of the commercial catches were not routinely sampled, I partitioned the commercial landings into 6 spatial strata. The non-purse seine catches for each state constituted strata 1-5. The sixth stratum was the purse seine catch for all states combined. The landings estimates for the commercial fishery are in biomass units. Because insufficient observations of the lengths of the commercial catch are available to characterize the length composition of the commercial harvest in each stratum for each year, I pooled the observed lengths from the recreational fishery with those from the inshore commercial fishery to characterize the non-purse-seine component of the commercial catch. The age composition of the purse seine catch were estimated from observations from the purse seine catch. The numbers of fish landed for each strata each year were estimated by dividing the stratum biomass catch by the annual stratum mean weight. The estimates of mean weight for the strata were the sum of the weights of measured individuals divided by the numbers sampled. If the weight of a sampled fish was not taken, the fish's weight was estimated from its length using the appropriate length-weight equation. The age distributions of the resulting numbers caught by strata were then estimated from the sampled lengths in the strata using the method described above. In contrast to the commercial landings which are recorded in biomass, the annual catches for the recreational fishery are estimated in numbers of individuals. Because of differences in the length frequencies among states, the recreational data were partitioned by state. Large numbers of red drum have been measured from the recreational fishery
SEQUENTIAL POPULATION ANALYSIS Methods The ADAPT procedure was applied to estimate numbers and fishing mortality at age for the stock since 1979. This is a VPA procedure in which the abundance of one or more ages in the last year are estimated by regressing external indices of abundance with the abundances of those age(s) predicted by the model. The procedure requires estimates of the age composition of the catch by year, an estimate of natural mortality in the stock a time series that tracks the abundance of one or more year classes in the stock, and the age specific selectivities to fishing mortality in the final year of the analysis. Natural mortality was assumed to be 0.2. The terminal year selectivity curve was estimated from the proportions of each age class between the 16 to 27 inches TL size limit in Louisiana, with the selectivities for the older ages set so that the initial 1988 adult biomass resulting from the analysis approximated that estimated by the mark-recapture experiment Age estimates There is no direct monitoring of the age composition of the red drum catch. However, the length-frequency of the recreational catch is available from measurements during the intercept portion of the various recreational surveys since 1979. Except for the purse-seine fishery, size data from samples of the commercial catch is limited to that displayed in Figure 3. Age and length data are from
16
ageing algorithm. All of the alternatives which resulted in reasonable model fits resulted in estimates of fishing mortalities similar to those in Tables 29 and 30.
for each year for which catches were estimated (Table 14). Nonetheless, inadequate samples were available for some year-state combinations. If fewer than 25 observations were available for a year-state stratum the length-frequency samples pooled over all states for the year was substituted for the state data. These substitutions should have only a small impact on the analysis because they impact only a small part of the total catch. The catch at age estimated from each of the strata each year were summed to provide an estimate of the total catch at age for the fishery each year. Because the age distribution of the shrimp bycatch is unknown it was not possible to include this source of mortality appropriately in the catch at age matrix. For analytical reasons all of the red drum caught as shrimp bycatch were assumed to be age 0 and were added to that age in final catch at age matrix (Table-27).
Escapement Escapement rates for each year were computed as the conditional survival probability that would result from the sum of the fishing mortality rate estimates for ages 0-4 each year (Table 29). Because the survival of any given year class accumulates the effect of fishing mortality each year, the escapement rate estimated in Table 29 differ from the escapement rate for any given year class. For example, if fishing mortality suddenly dropped from a very high level down to a constant lower level that would achieve a 50% escapement, it would be 4 years later when the first year class exposed to the lower fishing mortality would become part of the “adult” stock. The estimate for the escapement rate for 1991 in the 1992 assessment was much more optimistic than the present result indicates. Consequently, I performed a retrospective analysis of the behavior of the escapement rate estimated in the last year of the analysis. I did this by repeating the analysis assuming the time series was shortened one additional year for each analysis. The results of this examination are consistent with the knowledge that the most recent year is the most poorly estimated in VPA analysis (Figure 19). The addition of each successive year caused the prior year’s estimate of the escapement rate to be reduced. This phenomenon subsided after the accumulation of about 3 years of additional data.
Results ADAPT Analysis The age composition of the population at the beginning of each year and fishing morality rates during the year that were estimated from the age composition data using ADAPT are given in Tables 28 and 29. The fishing morality rates and approximate confidence intervals for the last year are given in Table 30. The model fit was relatively good with an estimated coefficient of variation for the number of red drum at age 2 of 0.24. The index, fitted values and deviations are in Figure 18.
Figure 18. Escapement rate estimates by year for analyses of the catch at age matrix ending in different years.
Figure 18. Scattergram of age-1-red drum catch per trammel-net set, predicted values and residuals from the ADAPT procedure.
This result indicates the most recent two or three years of the current analysis may be poorly estimated and, if so the fishing mortalities are probably biased low and the numbers at age for the first few ages are probably biased high. The pattern of the retrospective analysis could be the result of model misspecification, misspecification of the selectivity in the prior years, error in the abundance time series used to “tune” the analysis, or mortality not accounted for in the model. VPA estimates generally converge on the true values for earlier years in the time series, and each of the retrospective analyses indicated
This solution is based on selectivities for based on the proportions of the age classes that were within the 16-27 inch size limit for the Louisiana fishery, but which also assumed that the availability of fish declined markedly after age 2. The selectivity for the older fish was iteratively adjusted to obtain reasonable agreement between the model-generated and the mark recapture estimate of the adult stock size at the beginning of 1988. In doing so, I performed many alternative analyses using different selectivity assumptions and weighting schemes for the
17
the north-central Gulf is probably a pool of the survivors of the inshore fishery in all states. Given these problems, I am not confident in the SPA result and the ensuing calculations of current and projected transitional SPR that depend upon it. The retrospective analysis suggests that the estimates of fishing mortality in the most recent years is probably biased low. However, I cannot find an obvious reason to conclude the result of the ADAPT analysis for the 1979-1992 period is seriously in error, and the estimates of fishing mortality and stock abundance in the most recent years may accurately describe the condition of the stock. Note that the downward trend in the adult biomass observed in the aerial survey agrees with the result of the ADAPT analysis. The conservation actions that were imposed to increase escapement of red drum from the inshore fishery to adulthood to 30% of the unfished condition involved creel and size limits for the recreational fishery and the elimination of the commercial catch in most states. These actions caused reductions in the total harvest seen in Figure 15. The reduction in numbers harvested that is required to increase escapement rates from one level to another can be calculated for any level of recruitment. Assuming the lower size limit delayed entry into the fishery by one year, the equilibrium catch in numbers at 30% escapement would be reduced to 54% of the level at 1% escapement if recruitment is constant. The estimated Gulfwide harvest in numbers of age 0-4 red drum fell to 28% of the 1981-1987 mean level in 1988, and remained below 50% until 1992. Since 1992 the catch of ages 0-4 has averaged about 63% of the 1981-1987 mean. At first glance these results indicate the conservation actions had the desired effect when first introduced, but catch levels subsequently increased to rates too high to achieve the 30% escapement goal for the inshore fisheries. If, however, recruitment contributing to the 1988-1991 catch was lower than average, then the initial decline in the catch levels may have been partly the result of the lower year-class strengths as well as the newly adopted conservation measures. Both the Louisiana gillnet and trammel net samples indicate that recruitment from 1986 through 1990 was low by comparison to later years (Appendices P and Q). This same pattern is also apparent in the Mississippi gillnet samples (Appendix R). Also the 1986-1990 cpue in the Texas gillnet survey for the smallest mesh size used was 72% of the average of the other years, and the 1990 value was the lowest of the time series that began in 1975 (Appendix N). These observations support the ADAPT result which exhibited a decline in recruitment after 1983 to a 1987-1990 low. These relatively poor year classes contributed to the decline in age 0-4 catches, so the observed magnitude of the decline in catches is not a good predictor of the change in escapement rates. Changes in catch per trip observed in intercepts from MRFSS and the Texas Parks and Wildlife coastal sportfishing survey provide additional information to judge the effectiveness of the conservation actions (Tables 31 and 32). The catch per trip for intercepted Florida fishermen that had harvested red drum during a trip declined 64 percent from 1984-1986 to 1987-1989, and 87% among all intercepted fishermen. The changes in the other states were
escapement levels on the order of one percent or less during the mid 1980’s with improvement after 1987. Spawning Potential Ratio The spawning potential ratio (SPR) was evaluated and projected using LSIM (Goodyear 1989) with the fishing mortality rates estimated with Adapt. Values for fishing mortality for the age classes in the stock at the beginning of the time series in 1979 were assumed to be equal to the values that existed in that year. Projections assumed that the values estimated for 1995 would remain constant in the future. The resulting time trend of unweighted transitional SPR estimates begins at a level of about 13 percent in 1979 followed by a decline to 6 percent in 1992. SPR has increased since and was estimated to be slightly over 10 percent in 1996 (Figure 19). If the mortality schedule estimated for 1995 is assumed constant in the future SPR is forecast to increase to about 18 percent at the turn of the century.
Figure 19. Time trend in unweighted transitional SPR estimates based on the fishing mortality estimates arising from the ADAPT procedure. Discussion The result of the current analysis seems pessimistic given the expectations from the conservation measures imposed by the states. Analyses conducted in conjunction with the last assessment (Goodyear 1992) confirmed that the methodology applied for this analysis provided accurate estimates of stock size and fishing mortality given appropriate data. However, the pooling of catch at age information from the different states with differing minimum and maximum size limits and possibly different emigration patterns may have confounded the analysis. The use of an index of abundance of red drum from Louisiana to “tune” the model for the whole Gulf of Mexico red drum stock may have biased the result as well. Of the fishery independent data sets that were examined, the data from Louisiana indicated a stronger increasing trend of recruitment than the other areas. It would seem that it would have been better to have separate solutions for each of the states, and then summed the result for the Gulf. However, the methods that may be applied for such an analysis are unclear since it is likely that the adult stock in
18
impeding robust analysis of the status of the Gulf of Mexico red drum resource.
less dramatic. Louisiana recreational fishermen that caught red drum harvested 30% fewer fish per trip from 19841986 to 1987-1989, but harvest per trip was down 45% among all intercepted fishermen. This decline in the catch rate in Louisiana would by itself not have been sufficient to achieve the 30% escapement goal even if recruitment was constant, but the additional effect of the closure of the commercial fishery is not accounted for in these comparisons. Given that recruitment was probably lower for the year-classes contributing to the 1988-1992 catches, it is unclear that the data in Tables 31 and 32 are consistent with the magnitudes needed to achieve a gulfwide 30% escapement rate for those years. These discussions leave the question about the magnitude of the effect of the initial conservation actions taken in the late 1980s unresolved. The current best assessment is that the escapement rates did not increase immediately to the desired levels, and as a consequence SPR has not increased at the anticipated rate. The stock continues to be in an overfished condition. However, if the recent increase in recruitment continues, and the exploitation pattern doesn’t change from that observed during the last two or three years, then the stock might see important gains in the next few years.
LITERATURE CITED Anonymous. 1988. Tag/recapture and age validation of red drum in Florida. Final report for NOAA Grant NA87WCH-06117. 15p. Anonymous. 1973. A program for research and management of finfish on the Texas coast. Staff report, Coastal Fisheries Branch, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Beckman, D. W., C. A. Wilson, and A. L. Stanley. (in press). Age and growth of red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus from offshore waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Fishery Bulletin. Condrey, R., D. W. Beckman and C. A. Wilson. 1988. Management implications of a new growth model for red drum. Appendix D. in J. A. Shepard [Ed.], Louisiana Red Drum Research, MARFIN final report, Contract No. NA87-WC-H-06122. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Seafood Division, Finfish Section, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 26 pp. Doerzbacher, J. F., A. W. Green and G. C. Matlock. 1988. A temperature compensated von Bertalanffy growth model for tagged red drum and black drum in Texas bays. Fisheries Research, 6: 135-152. Green, A. W., H. R. Osburn, G. C. Matlock, and H. E. Hegen. 1985. Estimated survival rates for immature red drum in Northwest Gulf of Mexico bays. Fisheries Research 3: 263-277. Green, A. W., G. C. Matlock, and J. E. Weaver. 1983. A method for directly estimating the tag-reporting rate of anglers. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 112:412-415. Goodyear, C . P. 1987. Status of the red drum stocks of the Gulf of Mexico. USDOC, NMFS, SEFC, Miami Laboratory Contribution CRD 86/87-34. 113 pp. Goodyear, C. P. 1988. Status of the red drum stocks of the Gulf of Mexico. USDOC, NMFS, SEFC, Miami Laboratory Contribution CRD 87/88-32. 34pp. Goodyear, C. P., 1989. Status of the red drum stocks of the Gulf of Mexico: Report for 1989. USDOC, NMFS, SEFC, Miami Laboratory Contribution CRD 88/89-14. 64pp. Goodyear, C. P., 1995. Red snapper in U. S. waters of the Gulf of Mexico. USDOC, NMFS, SEFC, Miami Laboratory Contribution MIA 95/96-05 . Goodyear, C. P., 1995. Fish age from length: an evaluation of three methods using simulated red snapper data USDOC, NMFS, SEFC, Miami Laboratory Contribution MIA 94/95-42. GMFMC and GSMFC, 1984. Fishery profile of red drum. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, Tampa, Fl and Ocean Springs, Ms. GSMFC, 1980. Fishery profiles of red drum and spotted seatrout. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, Ocean Springs, MS. 60p. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. 1987. Amendment number 1 and environmental assessment
RESEARCH NEEDS Several aspects of the assessment could have been improved with additional information or better methods. The age composition of the bycatch of red drum in the shrimp fishery should be ascertained. The limited information suggests that many or most of these fish are adults, and the bycatch mortality may be the most significant source of fishing mortality on the adults. Because the selectivity vector for the terminal year influences the estimation of numbers alive within the older age classes, missassignment of the age composition of the shrimp bycatch mortalities in the older ages could seriously compromise the assessment. This was avoided in the current assessment by assuming all of the bycatch consisted of age 0 individuals, but this convention understates the importance of the bycatch to the stock. The current assessment model pools the catches from the various states which have different size and creel limits. In addition, the length of time that red drum remain available to the inshore fishery may vary among the various states. These factors would introduce geographical differences survival patterns that may affect the robustness of the current assessment model. The accuracy of the current method should be verified, and/or alternative assessment models should be explored that may produce more robust estimates. The uncertainty about the status of the stock estimated in this assessment would have been greatly reduced if an independent estimate of the current adult biomass and age structure of the stock had been available. Consequently, I consider the replication of the 1986-1987 mark-recapture experiment to be of highest priority. Its results could confirm the present finding or help identify factors that are
19
Nichols, S. 1988. An estimate of the size of the red drum spawning stock using mark/recapture. US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center, Pascagoula Laboratories, Pascagoula, MS., March 1988. 24 p. Overstreet, R. 1983. Aspects of the biology of the red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus, in Mississippi. Gulf Research Report, Supplement 1,45-68. Pauly, D. 1979. On the inter-relationships between natural mortality, growth parameters and mean environmental temperature in 175 fish stocks. J. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer., 39(2):175-192. Pearson, J. C. 1929. Natural history and conservation of the redfish and other commercial sciaenids on the Texas coast. Bulletin US Bureau of Fisheries, 44:129-214. Poss, S. G. 1988. Identification of red drum fishery stock and establishment of a multivariate model for growth and body condition. MARFIN final report for year 1 of a two year project, Contract No. NA87-WC-H-06128. Powers, J. E., and G. P. Scott. 1986. Status of the Gulf of Mexico red drum resources. US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center, Miami Laboratory, Miami, Fl. August 29, 1986. ML1-86-55:38p. Rago P. J., and C. P. Goodyear. 1985. Estimation of mortality rates and population size from tagging studies in Everglades National Park, 1984-1985. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Gainesville, Fl. Ramsey, P. R., and J. R. Wakeman. 1987. Population structure of Sciaenops ocellatus and Cynoscian nebulosus (Pices: Sciaenedae): Biochemical variation, genetic subdivision and dispersal. Copeia 1987(3):682695. Red Drum Scientific Assessment Group. 1987. Report of the Red Drum Stock Assessment Group Meeting (November 9-10, 1987 in Miami, Florida) Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. 10 pp. Ricker, W. E. 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada l9l. 382 pp. Robson, D. S. and D. G. Chapman. 1961. Catch curves and mortality rates. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 90:181-189. Rohr, B. A. 1980. Use of hard parts to age Gulf of Mexico red drum (Abstract). In: Colloquium on the biology and management of red drum and seatrout. Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, No.5:7-8. Russell, S. J. 1988. Bioprofile sampling of red drum. Appendix B. In J. A. Shepard [Ed.], Louisiana Red Drum Research, MARFIN final report, Contract No. NA87-WC-H-06122. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Seafood Division, Finfish Section, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 18 pp. Shepard, J. A. 1988. Red drum tagging in Louisiana. Appendix A. In J. A. Shepard [Ed.], Louisiana Red Drum Research, MARFIN final report, Contract No. NA87-WC-H-06122. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Seafood Division, Finfish Section, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 7 pp.
and supplemental regulatory impact review, regulatory flexibility analysis for the red drum fishery of the Gulf of Mexico. Heincke, F. 1913. Investigations on the plaice. General report 1. Plaice fishery and protective regulations Part I. Rapp P.-V. Reun. Con. Perm. Int. Explor. Mer 16, 67 pp. Johnson, D. G. 1978. Development of fishes of the MidAtlantic Bight, An atlas of egg, larval and juvenile stages, Volume IV, Carangidae through Ephippidae. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Publication FWS/OBS-78/12. Lohoefener, R., C. Roden, W. Hoggard, and K. Mullin. 1987. Distribution and relative abundance of near-surface schools of large red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus, in northern Gulf of Mexico and selected inland waters - a pilot study. US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center, Pascagoula Laboratories, Pascagoula, MS. 7 May 1987, 85 p. Lohoefener, R., C. Roden, W. Hoggard, K. Mullin, and C Rodgers. 1988. Distribution, relative abundance, and behavior of near-surface schools of large red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus, in north-central Gulf of Mexico. US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center, Pascagoula Laboratories, Pascagoula, MS. 7 May 1988, 61 p. Lyczkowski-Shultz, B. H. Comyns, and R. I. Shulman. 1988. Red drum spawning in east Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama offshore waters, 1984-1986. Final report to Louisiana State University under contract No. 173285. Gulf Coast Research Laboratory, Ocean Springs, Mississippi, 30 p. Matlock, G. C. 1984. A basis for the development of a management plan for red drum in Texas. PhD Dissertation. Texas A&M University, College Station, Tx. 291 p. Matlock, G. C., and J. E. Weaver. 1979. Fish tagging in Texas bays during November, 1975-September, 1976. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Coastal Fisheries Branch, Management Data Series, 1:136. Mullin, K., T. Henwood, W Hoggard, C. Rodgers, C. Roden and S. O’Sullivan. Distribution and relative abundance of large near-surface red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) in the northern Gulf of Mexico - fall 1995). National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Mississippi Laboratories, Pascagoula Facility, Pascagoula, MS. Murphy, M. D., and R. G. Taylor. 1986a. Reproduction and Growth of red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus, in Florida. Florida Department of Natural Resources, St. Petersburg, Fl. 76 p. Murphy, M. D., and R.G. Taylor. 1986b. A tag/recapture study of red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus, on the Gulf coast of Florida - Spring 1984. Draft manuscript. Bureau of Marine Research, Florida Department of Natural Resources, St. Petersburg, Fl. 18 p. Murphy, M. D., and R. G. Taylor. 1990. Reproduction, growth, and mortality of red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus, in Florida waters. Fishery Bulletin 88:531-542.
20
Theiling, D. L., and H. A. Loyacano, Jr., 1976. Age and growth of red drum from a saltwater marsh impoundment in South Carolina. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 105:41-44. Tilmant, J. T., E. S. Rutherford and E. B. Thue, 1989. Fishery harvest and population dynamics of red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) from Florida Bay and adjacent waters. Bulletin of Marine Science, 4(1):126-138, 1989. USDOC. 1986. Secretarial fishery management plan, regulatory impact review, and regulatory flexibility analysis for the red drum fishery of the Gulf of Mexico. US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. Washington, DC. Young, U. D. and D. S. Robson. 1978. Estimation of population number and mortality rates. In T. Bagenal (Ed.). Methods for assessment of fish production in freshwaters. IBP Handbook 3 (3rd edition):137-136. Vaughan, Douglas S. 1996. Status of the red drum stock on the Atlantic Coast: stock assessment report for 1995. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFSF-SEFC-380. Warren, J. R. 1988. Life history studies of red drum populations in Mississippi. MARFIN annual report, Contract No. NA87-WC-H-06127. Gulf Coast Research Laboratory, Ocean Springs, MS. 47 pp. Wilson, C. A., D. W. Beckman, D. L. Nieland, and A. L. Stanley. 1988. Age, growth rate and reproductive biology of red drum landed in Louisiana. Final report for 1987-1988 to Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries and MARFIN, LSU-CFI-88-18, 29 pp. Wilson, C. A., and D. L. Neiland. 1994. Reproductive biology of red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus, from the neritic waters of the northern Gulf of Mexico.Fishery Bulletin 92:841-850.
21
Table 1. GulfofMexico landings ofred drum, 1880-1995 (1000s of Pounds).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------Florida we Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Texas ... Total ________ --------------------------------------------1887 NA NA 141 289 1005 NA
Year
1888 1889 1890 1897 1902 1908 1918 1923 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1934 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1945 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
55 391 458 236 1104 608 995a 1398 776 889 992 937 934 719 873 927 948 1012 908 647 1294 b 1670 942 919 646 526 752 754 763 667 627 692 931 967 1490 1104 797 913 735 564 806 668 760 807 961 1088 1358 865 1032 845 899 745 817 1131 861 804 849 539 878 252 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 64 54 213 70 151a 23 15 55 49 105 104 62 44 65 34 67 32 31 27 260 157 112 16 44 56 46 19 19 50 10 19 18 9 24 13 20 19 4 6 9 16 51 35 32 77 172 120 74 67 65 86 85 53 38 69 361 854 2843 5305 14 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
165 185 201 199 93 244a 116 177 237 208 129 122 100 75 73 88 123 106 165 55 66 54 76 52 31 41 62 61 57 71 54 65 71 39 53 76 59 50 33 37 96 215 100 70 59 56 86 88 72 95 164 658 194 20 67 41 24 24 27 126 53 41 140 5 22 63 84 40 24
288 314 339 465 442 716a 566 665 556 434 445 335 369 282 492 347 450 522 694 183 596 254 480 455 384 328 273 271 344 407 353 488 488 428 666 567 466 312 471 532 654 741 782 789 724 889 1184 1436 1362 2212 1435 1219 1057 725 899 1455 1939 2608 2934 7818 4571 245 25 2 0 0 2 3 14
944 1063 1108 1144 898 1309a 1337 878 1248 1030 934 873 864
825 1579 956 954 860 470 265 1297 621 520 567 237 250 511 721 494 641 504 599 963 705 617 699 685 447 533 797 768 925 1085 1586 1991 1468 1678 1921 2120 2029 951 861 690 1114 613 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1452 2017 2160 2257 2607 3028a 3037a 3133 2872 2610 2605 2371 2329 1945 3082 2352 2542 2532 2268 1177 3513 NA 2858 2032 1615 1321 1418 1824 1668 1932 1588 1798 2232 2112 2327 2845 2334 1625 1954 2107 2091 2703 2686 3240 3613 3451 4208 4923 4493 5435 3460 3723 2771 2729 2748 2425 3127 4334 6343 14127 4890 292 166 8 22
0
63
0 0 0
86 43 38
----------------------------------------------------------------------------Perret et al. (1980)
Not Available Includes Black Drum b Less than 500 reported
~A
Sources:
NMFS Landings Data 1962-1995
Table 2. Reported commercial catch of red drum (thousands of pounds) from estuarine and oceanic areas of the Gulf of Mexico, 1968-1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Louisiana Texas Gulf of Mexico Percent of Total Alabama/Mississippi Florida -------------------------------------------------------- ----------~··--------------------------------------------------Estuarine Oceanic(%) Estuarine Oceanic(%) Estuarine Oceanic Total Estuarine Oceanic Estuarine Oceanic(%) Year Estuarine Oceanic(%) ---- --------- ------------ --------- ------------ --------- ------------ ---------- ------------ --------- ------- ------ --------- ------(8) 888.3 2703.0 36.6 (4) 2123.7 579.3 78.6 21.4 212.5 18.5 620.7 120.2 c16) 402.2 404.0 (50) 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
346.2 385.9 442.5 524.6 683.9 772.9 490.3 622.0 517.4 417.7 525.9 690.5 792.0 747.5 718.1 590.5 398.1 295.4 198.2 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
322.0 375.1 364.8 436.8 403.7 585.0 375.3 409.5 445.9 607.5 323.2 240.5 497.4 233.9 198.1 377.5 215.9 583.0 53.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
(48) (49) (45) (45) (37) (43) (43) (40) (46) (59) (38) (26) (39) (24) (22) (39) (35) (66) (21) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0)
91.0 59.9 (40) 44.5 61.0 (58) 42.9 47.6 (53) 43.1 89.3 (67) 106.8 151.0 (59) 87.2 120.8 (58) 56.5 88.5 (61) 67.1 94.6 (59) 133.4 95.6 (42) 636.9 107.4 (14) 79.6 (28) 199.7 13.2 59.7 (82) 38.5 (37) 66.7 26.9 82.7 (75) 31.8 352.9 (92) 24.8 852.4 (97) 12.7 2857.9 (100) 105.6 5325.5 (98) 28.3 39.1 (58) 38.9 3.0 (7) 2.9 (2) 138.7 0.7 ( 13) 4.5 21.3 0.8 (4) (0) 62.5 0.1 (0) 83.7 0.0 (1) 39.7 0.5 (0) 24.1 0.0
661.9 120.2 (15) 687.8 101.4 (13) 597.0 126.7 (18) 734.4 154.3 (17) 1039.8 143.9 (12) (9) 1314.0 122.1 1117.0 245 .1 ( 18) 1923.1 289.3 c13) 1120.6 314.8 (22) 998.2 220.5 (18) 832.2 224.8 (21) 680.6 44.2 (6) 770.1 128.5 (14) 1278.7 175.8 (12) 1760.9 177.7 (9) 2247.6 360.8 ( 14) 2229.5 704.1 (24) 4465.9 3351.8 (43) (1) 4530.4 41.5 243.8 1.5 (1) 0.0 (0) 24.8 2 .4 (100) 0.0 0.0 0.0 (0) 0.0 0.0 (0) 1.9 (100) 0.0 3.0 (100) 0.0 14.2 (100) 0.0
1035.6 1460.7 1793.9 1369.9 1515.4 1783.4 2026.1 1950.5 909.3 853.5 677.0 1106.4 604.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
47.7 (4) 125.5 (8) 196.8 ( 10) 97.9 (7) 162.1 (10) (7) 138.1 (4) 94.3 78.9 (4) (4) 41.5 (1) 7.5 (2) 13.1 8.1 c1) 8.9 ( 1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0
2134.7 2578.9 2876.3 2672.0 3345.9 3957.5 3689.9 4562.7 2680.7 2906.3 2234.8 2490.7 2233.2 2053.1 2510.8 2862.9 2640.3 4866.9 4756.9 286.9 163.5 4.5 21.3 62.5 83.7 39.7 24.1
549.8 663.0 735.9 778.3 860.7 966.0 803.2 872.3 897.8 942.9 640.7 352.5 673.3 492.4 728.7 1590.7 3777.9 9260.3 134.3 4.5 2.9 3.1 0.8 0.1 1.9 3.5 14.2
2684.6 3241.8 3612.2 3450.4 4206.6 4923.6 4493.1 5435.0 3578.5 3849.2 2875.5 2843.2 2906.4 2545.5 3239.5 4453.6 6418.2 14127.2 4891.2 291.4 166.4 7.6 22.2 62.6 85.6 43.2 38.3
79.5 79.5 79.6 77.4 79.5 80.4 82.1 84.0 74.9 75.5 77.7 87.6 76.8 80.7 77.5 64.3 41.1 34.5 97.3 98.5 98.3 59.1 96.3 99.8 97.8 92.0 62.9
20.5 20.5 20.4 22.6 20.5 19.6 17.9 16.0 25.1 24.5 22.3 12.4 23.2 19.3 22.5 35.7 58.9 65.5 2.7 1.5 1. 7 40.9 3.7 0.2 2.2 8.0 37. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3. Reported commercial catch of red drum (thousands of pounds) in State and EEZ waters of the Gulf of Mexico 1973-1995 regardless of where landed. Catch in state waters includes estuaries.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Alabama/Miss Louisiana Florida Texas Gulfwide Total Percent ------------------ ---------------------------------- -----------------State State State State EEZ EEZ EEZ EEZ in -----------------0-3 mi 9-200 mi 0-3 mi 3-200 mi 3-200 mi 0-9 mi 9-200 mi State EEZ Year 0-9 mi EEZ ..... -- -------- --------- ----·--- ·------- -.... -........ - -------- -----·-- -------- ............... - ................... .. ........ --1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
1084.3 1358.0 865.6 1031.5 963.3 1025.2 849.1 931.0 1289.3 981.5 916.1 967.4 614.0 878.4 251. 7 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
o.o
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
o.o
0.2 0.0 0.0
o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0
o.o 0.0
169.9 136.1 95.9 102.3 158.3 656.3 201. 7 25.5 73.9 32.8 174.4 33.8 22.2 122.6 37.6 38.9 138.7 4.5 21.3 62.5 83.7 40.2 24.1
87.8 71.9 49.0 58.8 70.5 87.9 77.5 47.5 31.4 76.8 210.3 843.3 2848.3 5308.5 29.7 3.0 3.0 0.7 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
1183.8 1436.1 1329. 1 2212.2 1426.9 1218.8 1054.3 724.4 898.6 1454.5 1922.9 2464.2 2325.1 4936.7 4571.2 245.4 24.8 2.4 0.0 0.0 1.9 3.0 14.2
0.0 0.0 32.9 0.2 8.4 0.0 2.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 15.8 144.1 608.5 2881.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1677.5 1921.5 2420.4 2029.4 950.8 862.3 690.1 1114.2 613.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
o.o
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4115.5 4851. 7 4711.0 5375.4 3499.3 3762.6 2795.2 2795.1 2875.2 2468.8 3013.4 3465.4 2961.3 5937.7 4860.5 288.5 163.5 6.9 21.3 62.5 85.6 43.2 38.3
91.1 71.9 81.9 59.0 78.9 87.9 79.9 47.9 31.4 76.8 226.1 987.4 3456.8 8189.5 30.7 3.0 3.0 0.7 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
2.2 1.5 1. 7 1.1 2.2 2.3 2.8 1. 7 1.1 3.0 7.0 22.2 53.9 58.0 0.6 1.0 1.8 9.1 3.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4. Reported commercial catch of red drum (thousands of pounds) by water area for Florida, 1968-1995.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Estuarine Areas Oceanic Areas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------Charoletie Year Harbor
Tamps Bay
Apalachicola Bayc
1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
47.9 43.9 51.2 71.1 92.6 86.8 105. 1 55.4 54.2 51.4 49.5 51.1 73.5 192.2 170.8 111. 5 97.9 66.9 73.7 35.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
46.5 36.5 29.9 22.4 21.4 26.6 25.9 33.4 35.7 20.1 10.4 10.7 9.7 9.9 7.1 14. 1 9.6 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
...
---
------- -------- -------144.9 133.2 150.2 166.7 192.5 289.3 253.4 227 .1 264.1 212.0 230.9 147.1 286.2 331.0 382.8 329.4 260.0 155.2 153.0 68.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
St. Joseph Bay
................. .,. ...
7.5 4.4 6.9 7.1 3.7 6.2 7.7 8.3 20.3 5.9 11.9 194.1 168.0 5.5 5.5 84.9 77.5 41.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
St.
Andre~s
Bay
--------5.3 4.9 2.9 7.1 3.2 5.5 3.9 5.0 4.6 58.0 3.8 10.0 13.1 54.9 6.0 2.3 2.8 5.7 15.5 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ChoctaNMFS Statistical Grids whatchee Pensac~la Other ----------------------------------------------Bay Bay Estuariesf 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10
-------- -------1.3 7.1 1.8 1.3 1.5 1.5 2.4 2.8 2.1 10.1 1.1 1.6 4.0 7.3 10.3 9.5 11.2 3.9 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4.6 3.9 5.5 6.6 7.9 16.1 7.6 14.8 9.7 10.7 7.7 10.6 17.1 9.0 5.5 7.0 6.2 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
--------- ------- -------102.8 84.2 100.9 115.6 147.5 183.6 271.4 100.0 150.6 98.8 54.4 45.6 51.6 90.9 81.2 88.9 74.9 64.3 51.9 84.7 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2.2 1.4 2.0 1.8 1.3 2.2 1.2 1.1 1. 1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1. 1 1. 1 1.1 2.1 1.5 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
226.3 201.9 233.7 249.2 282.1 251.1 371.5 232.9 263.5 329.5 365.3 255.1 130.5 146.3 160.7 140.7 94.4 51.5 44.7 19.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
-------- -------78.8 58.8 65.6 58.9 72.5 70.6 97.3 58.1 50.0 42.7 22.0 13.5 5.6 8.3 5.9 6.5 2.9 2.6 18.6 30.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1.1 24.8 32.1 14.5 31.9 32.2 44.4 40.8 43.2 25.1 149.1 14.5 71.6 275.2 33.2 19.6 228.8 129.0 514.7 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
.......................
51. 5 1.1 1. 1 1.1 1.1 3.7 4.5 1.8 7.0 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.2 2.6 2.4 2.3 1.5 2.5 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
o.o
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a includes Lemon Bay, Pine Island Sound and San Carlos Bay. b includes Hillsborough Bay, Johns Pass, Boca Ciega Bay, and Old Tampa Bay. ~ includes St, George Sound. includes West Bay. e includes Escambia Bay, East Bay, and Santa Rosa Sound. f includes Florida, Clearwater, Crystal, Chassahowitzka, Apalacheem, Dead Man, Waccasassa, Withlahoochee, Ocklokonee, and Sarasota Bays, and Suwanee Sound. Less than 0.1% were landed in Alabama, and only in 1974 and 1976.
Table 5. Florida West Coast reported commercial landings (thousands ofpowids) of red drwn by method of capture 1968-1995.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Percent of Landings ------------------------------------------------------------------Hand Troll Purse Shriq> Haul Gill Trannel
Year
Seines
1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
20.6 20.1 20.1 22.9 20.0 21.2 18.9 18.9 19.1 20.0 28.9 36.0 30.3 28.0 7.1 14.9 23.0 19.2 35.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Nets
Nets
Lines
Lines
10.3 10.6 10.0 10.6 16.7 11.8 12.9 12.4 10.6 7.8 9.4 5.3 6.7 7.8 6.7 3.3 5.1 2.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.7 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0
-------- -------- --------------58.1 9.9 11.1 0.2 58.8 57.2 58.4 59.9 58.0 59.4 59.4 60.2 60.6 52.6 47.7 41.2 42.7 53.9 48.7 36.3 52.5 38.3 49.0 0.0 0.0
o.o
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
10.1 11.3 8.4 9.3 8.8 9.7 8.6 8.1 8.7 10.6 6.9 23.2 22.6 31.2 29.9 37.4 21.7 24.6 45.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
o.o
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Seines ___ ... ____ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Landings
Trawls --------·-----0.0 708.3 0.0
o.o
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
587.1 668.6 709.3 844.5 955.1 1192.3 760.4 905.2 844.0 899.6 745.9 818.1 1132.1 862.1 805.1 850.2 540.1 878.4 251.8 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6. Reported commercial catch ofred drum (thousands ofpollllds by water area off Alabama and Mississippi, 1968-1995.
Year 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Estuarine Areas -------------------Mobile Mississ~ppi Bay" sound" 9.3 3.2 2.1 2.5 5.4 3.9 5.7 5.1 1.7 1.8 8.3 12.0 7.7 6.6 6.3 5.8 6.5 0.6 0.1 0.8 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
75.1
24.6 19.1 18.0 11.1 20.2 11.4 18.5 30.7 113.0 588.2 145.0 3.5 6.3 9.6 10.9 11.5 8.2 15.6 15.9 38.• 2 133.4 4.2 21.3 62.1 83.7 39.7 24.1
Oceanic Areas NMFS Grids 10 11 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
o.o 0.0 0.0
7.5 41.3 39.1 19.2 49.0 68.8 64.5 51.5 37.6 57.2 57.1 29.3 24.6 21.3 73.4 305.5 847.1 2834.7 6006.3 33.1 2.1 2.9 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.5
o.o
Percent Landed in Alabama
Miss.
16.6 60.0 50.0 54.9 76.4 67.6 69.9 60.2 56.4 21.1 9.1c 19.5c 54.1c 80.1 63.0 99.5 97.3d
83.4 40.0 50.0 45.1 23.6 32.4 30.1 39.5 43.6
83.~ti
62.'r
22.5 1.9 1.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
78.9 90.8
80.4 40.8 19.9 37.0 0.5 2.7 0.1 0.5 77.5 98.1 98.6 100.0 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table 7. Mississippi reported commercial landings of red drwn (thousands of pounds) by method ofcapture, 1968-1995.
------------------------------------------------------------------------Percent of Landings --------------------------------------------------------Trammel
Year
1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Purse Seines 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
o.o
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 54.2 81.6 1.0 77.2a 51.5 12.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Fish Trawls
Shrimp Trawls
4.8 16.2 2.4 5.8 10.0 13.8 7.6 9.9 5.1 1.2 1.1 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.4 37.6 3.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0
11.3 12.5 23.6 24.0 8.7 9.8 25.4 19.2 10.4 2.3 8.0 19.5 11.2 19.8 30.8 24.2 19.1 7.7 4.5 6.6 0.5 11.8 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Gill Nets
Nets
Hand Lines
Landings
-------- -------- -------- -·------ --------------o.o 95.3 0.0 214.6 2.4 2.3 0.0 9.2 16.8 46.6 69.2 72.1 56.5 65.9 27.9 14.4 19.1 62.2 10.9 27.3 46.7 61.5 37.4 84.2 49.4 66.1 76.1 41.6 92.9 99.0 99.9 93.8 84.1
83.8 62.0 56.8 23.0 8.9 2.4 6.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 10.9 15.6 12.4 1.8
o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.3 0.7 3.2 1.9 4.5 4.4 2.5 0.5 1.5 17.4 0.0 1.4 10.1 12.8 5.9 5.2 5.3 16.1 7.8 34.2 2.3 1.0
o.o
4.2 15.9
99.6 70.3 58.8 55.5 85.6 88.5 71.4 95.1 163.6 658.0 194.4 20.4 67.0 40.6 24.2 23.7 27.4 126.4 53.1 41.1 139.8 5.2 22.1 62.6 83.7 40.2 24.1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Landed in Alabama and trucked to Mississippi.
Table 8. Reported shrimp and fish otter trawl catches ofred drum (thousands of pounds) entering commercial markets by distance from shore (statute miles) and landed by Alabama and Mississippi vessels, 1973-1995.
------------------·----------------------------------------------------------------Alabama Vessels Mississippi Vessels -------------------------------------- -------------------------------------Year 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Offshore Areas Offshore Areas Estuarine ---------------------------- Estuarine ---------------------------Areas 0-3 mi. 3-12 mi. 12-200 mi 0-3 mi. 3-12 mi. 12-200 mi Areas ... - ... - .... -- -------- ...................... -------- -------0.2 1.7 27.7 53.1 1.3 11.1 3.6 54.4 15.4 0.1 0.9 10.5 0.5 5.0 42.6 1.7 0.0 4.1 8.7 13.2 1.7 0.0 2.4 10.9 0.3 44.2 4.8 12.0 3~ 1 0.4 0.0 61.6 0.0 13.3 9.0 o. 1 0.1 79.0 0.0 10.3 5.8 7.2 72.7 0.2 13.6 0.4 0.7 1.3 3.7 0.2 0.0 43.6 0.0 0.9 2.8 0.3 0.0 30.4 0.3 0.9 6.4 0.7 0.6 0.3 54.7 0. 1 5.9 1.3 0.9 1.0 0.8 45 .1 0.0 5.8 1.7 0.0 1.0 2.2 0.1 0.2 14.9 o.o 1.3 2.5 41.7 1. 7 0.1 5.0 10.4 0.0 0.9 3.7 0.3 3.2 13.4 4.9 0.7 5.8 2.8 4.2 1.6 0.6 2.7 5.9 3.1 0.8 0.5 0.0 0. 1 0. 1 0.1 0.7 1.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.1 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 o.o o.o 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
----·---
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 9. Alabama reported commercial landings of red drum (thousands of pounds) by method ofcapture, 1968-1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------Percent of Landings ----------------------------------------------Shrimp Trarrmel Hand Gill Purse
Year
1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981a 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Trawls
56.7 85.0 93.2 72.9 70.3 48.1 55.1 65.6 70.5 94.8 91.7 88.2 83.1 81.5 81.1 14.6 1.8 1.7 0.4 86.9 39.4 94.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Nets
-------0.0 0.8 0.0 1.6 0.0 10.5 7.5 0.0 0.2
o.o
0.0 0.1 0.7 0.9 1.6 0.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.6 0.5 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Nets
Lines
Seines
14.0 6.8 24.9 29.4 41.2 37.1 34.0 29.2 5.1 7.8 11. 7 15.4 17.6 16.4 2.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 10.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.2 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.8 T 0.9 0.8 0.2
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 81.4 96.6 98.3 99.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Landings
-------- -------- --------------43.3 0.0 0.0 16.4
o.o
0.0 2.8
o.o
4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
51.3 35.2 31.7 77.0 172.2 119.6 73.7 66.6 65.4 86.4 85.0 52.5 38.3 69.1 360.5 853.5 2843.1 5304.9 14.3 0.8 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------
a Additional red drum were landed in Alabama but were not recorded as no transaction occurred in Alabama. T =Less than 0.1 percent.
Table 10. Reported commercial catch of red drum (thousands of pounds) by water area for Louisiana waters, 1968-1995. Estuarine Areas
Oceanic Areas
Lake Chandeleur Miss. Bayou Atchaf- Tigre Pt. Pontch& River to La Fourche alaya to artrain Breton Bayou to Atchafto Louisiana & Borgne Soundsa La Fourcheb alaya Rt Tigre Ptd Pte Year 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
55.8 65.2 61.6 15.4 13.6 6.9 7.8 4.7 48.5 29.3 6.4 1.6 0.7 9.3 3.6 44.1 43.2 6.8 57.0 84.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
o.o 0.0 0.0
424.0 312.3 241. 7 187.2 248.2 314.7 419.8 315.0 306.0 266.9 76.7 19.5 13.0 111.0 202.9 400.2 834.5 562.1 903.1 708.8 29.0 5.3 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0
o.o
113. 7 231.3 253.2 226.4 285.3 419.4 527.9 506.8 714.4 610.1 487.2 663.5 394.6 471.3 715.0 871.3 892.8 1141.3 2267.2 2447.4 134.6 24.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
149.5 113.4 130.4 156.8 190.5 357.0 414.6 286.8 757.0 171.3 183.6 95.6 86.0 56.3 212.8 203.8 218.9 182.2 689.3 832.7 42.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
o.o
0.0 2.0 14.7 31.5 23.1 23.9 14.4 23.8 20.7 39.0 263.1 50.1 81.6 38.8 76.7 75.4 118.2 232.6 400.0 353.7 32.3 0.0
o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
6.8 0.9 2.6 2. 1
0.5 0.4 0.5 13.0 111.5 62.6 29.5 49.2 107.8 121.5 67.8 164.7 140.1 106.7 239.1 114. 7 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
NMFS Grids 12-13
14-15
16-17
94.4 84.6 79.2 147.8 172.9 222.6 172.9 266.1 321.9 321.4 246.2 264.4 75.4 137.7 159.0 66.2 210.4 224.3 801.5 32.6 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
35.8 47.5 44.1 6.1 18.9 1.0 0.2 6.2 12.9 31.1 7.9 8.8 3.9 1.8 16.8 2.4 8.2 478.9 1898.7 13.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3.6 4.9 6.8 1.4 13.3 2.0 18.1 21.9 11.8 3.1 17.4 1.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 103.9 122.3 0.0 15 .1 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
o.o
0.0 0.0 0.0
a Includes Garden Island Bay. b Includes Barataria Bay, Caminada Bay, Lake Salvador, Little Lake, East Bay and Bay Adam. c Includes Timbalier Bay, Terrebonne Bay, Caillou Bay, Lake Barre, Lake Pelto, Lake Decade, Lake Merchant,Lake Felicity, Lost Lake, and Four Leagues Bay. d Includes Vermilion and Cote Bays. e Includes Calcasieu Lake. Source NMFS Landings Data, sequenced for catch by area.
Table l l. Louisiana reported commercial landings of red drum (thousands of p01mds) by method of capture, 1968-1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Percent of Landings ----------------------------------------------------------------------------Haul Shrimp Hoop Gil L Tranmel Hand Trot Purse
Year
Seines
1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
5.9 7.6 10.2 2.2 4.5 1.0 2.1 2.7 2.4 3.4 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.3 0.0 0.2 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Trawls
Nets
2.3 1.9 1.7 2.4 1.7 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.9 5.0 9.1 2.2 1.3 0.7 0.0
0.0 0.0
Nets
Nets
Lines
Linesa
Seines
Landings
2.3 1.9 1.8 1.6 11.3 2.1 4.2 1.5 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 1.0 2.6 1.1 2.4 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
T 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.5 0.1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.3 36.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
740.9 782.1 789.2 723.7 889.0 1183.5 1436.1 1362.3 2212.5 1435.5 1218.8 1058.3 742.8 898.6 1455.0 1939.0 2608.0 2933.6 7817.7 4571.2 245.4 24.8 2.4 0.0 0.0 1.9 3.0 14.2
-------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
o.o 0.0 0.1
o.o
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4.5 3.1 3.7 5.8 17.6 25.7 30.7 52.3 53.1 63.1 58.9 45.0 28.4 40.1 48.6 67.1 66.3 44.6 44.1 76.7 92.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
85.0 85.1 82.2 87.9 65.0 70.7 62.9 41.3 43.6 32.6 39.4 54.6 71.1 58.8 48.9 29.7 26.1 31.6 13.6 20.1 6.8 0.0 0.0
o.o
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
T T T
0.0 T
0.8 0.0 0.0 T 3.7 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
o.o 0.0
o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1= Less than 0.1 percent. includes unbaited Long Lines and snaglines.
Table 12. Reported commercial catch of red drum (thousands of pounds) by water area for Texas, 1968-1995.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Estuarine Areas Oceanic Areas ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Galveston Matagorda San Aransas Corpus Upper Lower NMFS Grids Bay Bay Bay Antonig Sabine Christ~ Lagun? Laguna -----------------Systemd System Madre Year Lake Systema Systemb System 18-19 Madre 20-21 -------- ....................... ..... -...... - ...... -------- -------- ..................... -------- -------- ........................
21.2 121.2 31.8 105.6 14.5 167.6 417.3 1968 9.1 22.9 10.1 33.7 151.4 16.7 1969 4.0 38.1 109.0 254.3 428.4 17.6 25.2 35.3 128.7 110.6 160.7 38.7 393.1 593.6 1970 0.0 27.2 91.5 545.4 1971 18.1 65.6 96.8 222.2 72.6 773.3 52.4 144.0 0.0 1972g 101.5 244.4 594.0 33.6 76.9 55.5 264.1 43.4 0.3 43.9 0.7 49.6 70.5 78.1 229.2 153.3 258.4 695.8 53.7 1973 98.4 168.6 216.7 1974 0.0 34.9 52.5 244.0 668.0 93.9 398.7 31.0 179.4 167.6 79.5 72.1 282.0 416.9 828.1 43.9 1975 0.5 38.5 1976 2.8 97.5 47.9 144.5 484.3 121.9 321. 7 729.9 47.7 21.5 0.7 24.0 45.7 64.5 158.4 86.7 1977 142.2 378.1 8.7 30.3 69.8 83.4 1978 0.0 14.8 32.9 121.5 79.9 455.1 6.9 0.1 1979 0.3 18.7 24.2 43.4 74.7 62.4 81.5 371.7 13.2 0.0 13.1 27.6 102.8 169.8 103.7 243.1 1980 1.6 444.7 8.0 0.0 32.0 185.8 1981 0.4 6.2 13.2 46.8 0.0 320.2 1.1 0.1 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1982-95 0.0 0.0 a-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Includes West Bay, Trinity Bay, Upper Galveston,Bay, East Bay, and Lower Galveston Bay. b Includes Matagorda Bay, East Matagorda Bay, and Lavaca Bay. c Includes San Antonio Bay, Espirito Bay, and Mesquite Bay.
d Includes Aransas Bay, and Copano Bay. e Includes Corpus Christi and Neuces Bay. f Includes Baff in Bay. g Less than 0.1 percent of the catch was landed in Louisiana these years.
Table 13. Texas reported commercial landings of red drum (thousands of pounds) by method of capture, 1968-1995.
Percent of Landings Year
--------------------------------------------------------Shrimp Gill Tra11111el Hand Trot Haul Seines
Trawls
Nets
Nets
Lines
Linesa
Landings
-------- -------- -------- -------- --------------0.4 6.0 32.7 2.6 54.6 924.9
1968 3.5 1969 3.8 0.3 5.6 33.0 5.3 52.1 1083.3 1970 7.6 0.4 4.0 22.1 2.3 63.6 1586.2 3.7 16.2 1.8 68.7 1990.7 1971 9.4 0.2 3.5 24.7 63.4 1467.8 2.2 19n 5.9 0.2 1973 9.3 0.6 1.7 26.8 1.1 60.3 1677.5 1974 7.3 0.1 1.9 20.2 0.3 70.2 1921.5 3.3 1.4 1.0 24.1 1.5 68.9 2120.4 1975 1976 3.6 0.1 3.4 36.6 0.7 55.5 2029.4 1977 3.0 3.5 4.6 35.2 1.9 51.8 950.8 1978 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.8 65.7 864.9 32.~ 1.9 0.0 o.o 1979 0.0 960.1 29.6b 68.4~ 1980 o.o 0.7 0.0 37.4 0.0 61.9 1114.4 o.o 0.0 1981 0.0 1.5 23.4 75.6 613.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1982-95 0.0 0.0 a-------------------------------------------------------------------------includes long and set lines with hooks. b Includes some trot line catches. c Includes some tra11111el and gill net catches.
d Includes some tra11111el net catches. T= Less than 0.1 percent •
•
Table 14. Sample sizes and estimated mean weights in pounds of red drum harvested by recreational fishermen by state and year, for all modes combined 1979-1995.
All Modes and Areas Combined
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Florida Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Texas Total Gulf ----------- ................................ ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------
Year
Numb
Wt
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
28 163 159 96 129 126 61 51 37 9 71 67 91 304 144 223 229
3.15 2.12 2.05 3.38 2.26 3.56 3.91 2.85 4.96 2.77 5.35 5.60 3.79 4.34 4.62 4.69 4.23
Numb
Wt
10 3.92 34 5.08 14 1.25 26 4.39 7 8.19 27 10.55 24 2.88 46 6.44 31 5.29 11 6.03 10 4.10 11 5.17 104 2.69 113 2.98 69 3.50 55 8.63 65 5.99
Numb
Wt
29 114 68 81 172 105 27 122 175 100 60 70 111 73 75 78 78
6.02 3.40 3.30 3.72 12.33 10.37 7.83 5.75 12.95 6.34 4.53 11.89 11.82 8.03 9.72 7.79 8.47
Numb
Wt
Numb
202
2.07 2.14 2.10 1.79 1.59 2.58 2.21 1.92 2.65 4.47 4. 71 6.78 4.67 4.25 4.56 4.84 4. 77
145 114 69 30 4519 2228 3919 5020 6079 4948 4570 3172 3534 4923 8680 7521 0
866
133 686 403 516 614 2421 719 773 751 622 576 2351 1588 1459 1808
Wt
Numb
414 2.22 3.65 1291 4.09 443 3.10 919 3.31 5230 4.09 3002 3.97 4645 4.03 7660 4.47 7041 4.89 5841 5.05 5462 5.08 3942 4.94 4416 4.73 7764 4.76 10556 5.03 9336 0.00 2180
Wt
2.52 2.46 . 2.55 2.24 3.45 4.09 3. 75 3.39 4.50 4.86 5.00 5.48 5.00 4.57 4.76 5.03 4.88
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 15. Sample sizes and estimated mean weights in pounds of red drum harvested by recreational fishermen by state and year, for all modes combined 1979-1995. All Modes in State Inshore Waters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mississippi Louisiana Texas Total Gulf Florida Alabama ----------- ----------- ................................. ... ............................. ----------- ... ................................
Year
Numb
Wt
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
23 126 61 34 39 23 2 17 9 4 43 20 52 179 95 123 98
3.23 2.03 1.76 5.68 3.16 2.97 1.23 2.10 5 .14 3.09 5.03 4.73 3.60 4.55 4.67 4.90 4.59
Numb
Wt
5 23 13 7
0.92 3.33 1.26 2.30
13 8 2 5 4 21 72 23 10 35
3.40 1. 71 2.09 2.20 3.75 1.58 2.45 1.96 2.60 2.95
Numb
28 68 57 35 26 13 8 92 35 39 23 3 4 31 49 47 52
Wt
Numb
Wt
Numb
Wt
Numb
Wt
6.22 4.10 3.68 1.73 1.52 2.35 7.16 2.27 1.85 5.58 2.82 2.64 4.24 4.63 5.80 4.78 5.59
170 406 100 349 211 259 479 1391 335 555 620 260 377 1549 1043 1122 1413
2.27 1.63 2.24 1.60 1.61 1.89 1.98 1.52 1.94 3.15 4.05 4.22 3.82 3.63 3.70 4. 11 4.22
129 79 59 10 4457 2071 3854 4981 5968 4900 4549 3069 3501 4888 8624 7436
1.99 2.45 4.31 1.62 3.29 4.18 3.97 4.02 4.45 4.88 5.04 5.05 4.94 4.73 4.75 5.00
355 702 290 435 4733 2366 4343 6494 6355 5500 5240 3356 3955 6719 9834 8738 1598
2.52 2.09 2.80 1.94 3.21 3.90 3.76 3.45 4.30 4. 71 4.91 4.98 4.79 4.45 4.64 4.88 4.26
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 16. Sample sizes and estimated mean weights in pounds of red drum harvested from the state territorial sea by recreational fishermen by state and year, for all modes combined 1979-1995. All Modes in State Territorial Seas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Florida Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Texas Total Gulf ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ............................... ------------
Year
Numb
Wt
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
5 35 91 61 88 99 59 31 25 5 27 40 39 118 44 98 131
2. 75 2.27 2.24 2.14 1.88 3.26 4.00 3.39 5.04 2.52 5.69 5.78 4.03 4.04 4.63 4.43 3.96
Numb
3 10 1 19 7 20 22 31 20 9 5 5 6 35 36 19 12
Wt
0.44 6.95 1.10 5.15 8.19 3.76 2.37 7.79 6.04 6.91 6.00 2.20 1.95 3.65 3.37 5.82 7.98
Numb
Wt
1 0.47 5 15.40 11 1.35 19 1.82 12 1.37 18 , . 11 5 0.53 6 10.04 26 9.21 27 4.25 29 5.54 46 11.66 29 1.91 14 4.52 1 5.95 3
8.45
Numb
Wt
Numb
Wt
Numb
Wt
18 39 30 328 158 206 114 939 326 169 109 313 196 663 472 277 344
0.59 5.24 1.58 1.97 1.19 2.42 2.41 2.40 2.54 8.08 8.17 8.02 6.17 5.26 5.99 7.60 5.98
16 19 10 20 58 131 59 34 90 40 21 93 29 28 32 67
4.11 9.18 2.82 3.84 4.17 2.51 3.72 4.74 5.51 6.57 5.53 5.94 5.58 3.62 5.77 6.87
43 108 143 447 323 474 259 1041 487 250 191 497 299 858 585 461 490
2.14 5.60 2.07 2.20 2.07 2.63 3.03 2. 71 3.72 7.27 7.07 7.73 5.33 4.96 5. 72 6. 75 5.50
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 17. Sample sizes and estimated mean weights in pounds of red drum harvested by recreational fishermen by state and year, for all modes combined 1979-1995. All Modes in EEZ
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mississippi Total Gulf Florida Alabama Louisiana Texas ----------- ................................. ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------
Year
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Numb
Wt
Numb
Wt
2 16.65 7 2.18 1 0.66 2 1.10 4 14.56 3 3
1.58 3.68
1 7
9.92 7.03
7 4 2
4.00 4.03 4.08
7 29.96 2 8.49 2 5.07 3 9.85 2 15.43 1 3.09 6 5.47 3 3.82 7 11.33 18 10.59
Numb
Wt
15
0.32
27 134 73 14 24 114 34 8 19 7 28 25 31 23
7.64 15.40 14.21 10.82 18.02 17.21 8.86 5.76 13.47 16.40 13.55 17.55 12.37 14.98
Numb
Wt
5 1.09 53 7.89 3 2.65 9 2.67 34 3.34 51 6.72 21 6.22 91 2.84 58 7.32 49 6.95 22 6.20 30 9.75 3 13.46 139 6.29 73 7.55 46 4.92 35 14.88
Numb
Wt
3
7.08
4 26 6 5 21 8
5.23 5.17 4.28 6.55 6.28 5.82
10 4 7 24 18
7.05 6.78 5.76 5.68 6.92
Numb
Wt
7 71 10 37 174 161 43 125 199 91 31 68 15 187 129 104 76
5.54 6.26 2.32 6.24 12.65 11.07 7.55 5.91 12.86 7.57 6.21 10.28 12.36 7.24 8.94 7.90 13.89
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 18. Recreational harvest estimates for Gulf of Mexico red drum by state and distance from shore for the period 1979-1995. The estimates are based on the 1979-1995 NMRFSS, the 1986-1994 NMFS Headboat Survey, and 1981-1994 length-frequency samples and 1986-1994 catch estimates compiled by Texas Parks and Wildlife. The weight estimates for the MRFSS and Texas surveys are the products of the annual harvest and mean weight estimates for each state where the sample size available to estimate mean weight exceeded 9 individuals. Where the sample size was less than I 0, the annual state mean for was substituted for the sample mean. The estimates have been adjusted for missing data in January and February, 1981 in all states, and for 1982-1984 boat mode and 1986-1994 shore modes in Texas by the average proportions observed in years where these strata were sampled. The 1995 Texas estimates are the means of Texas estimates for 1992-1994. Units are in thousands of fish and pounds.
All Areas Combined
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Florida Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Texas Total Gulf -·-------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ................................
Year
Numb
l.Jt
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
453 555 827 624 1134 1340 463 615 139 29 234 142 279 388 197 234 253
1427 1144 1733 2120 2093 5519 2105 1859 689 79 1252 805 1055 1758 898 1076 1092
Numb
13 27 47 54 12 23 27 59 35 16 9 24 24 58 52 44 73
l.Jt
51 131 65 236 98 195 78 380 188 98 36 125 64
161 203 381 391
Numb
l.Jt
108 566 177 480 133 474 136 498 124 1026 66 753 26 254 115 229 90 870 50 277 31 137 31 305 35 230 29 202 32 331 55 335 78 610
Numb
l.Jt
Numb
l.Jt
2455 1705 532 1696 2612 1427 1465 1626 1504 814 1052 617 874 1770 1917 1385 2435
5307 4013 1099 2946 3779 2739 3203 3099 3131 2759 4382 3021 3910 6072 7433 6293 9987
1051 940 563 455 582 530 352 272 341 244 228 184 172 219 377 308 301
2174 3509 2423 1410 1838 966 1368 1105 1531 1206 1147 925 856 1036 1792 1546 1458
Numb
l.Jt
4080 9525 3404 9278 2101 5795 2965 7210 4464 8832 3386 10172 2334 7009 2687 6673 2108 6408 1153 4419 1554 6954 998 5181 1384 6115 2465 9229 2576 10656 2026 9630 3141 13538
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 19. Recreational harvest estimates for Gulf of Mexico red drwn by state and distance from shore for the period 1979-1995. The estimates are based on the 1979-1995 NMRFSS, the 1986-1994 NMFS Headboat Survey, and 1981-1994 length-frequency samples and 1986-1994 catch estimates compiled by Texas Parks and Wildlife. The weight estimates for the MRFSS and Texas surveys are the products of the annual harvest and mean weight estimates for each state where the sample size available to estimate mean weight exceeded 9 individuals. Where the sample size was less than 10, the annual state mean was substituted for the sample mean. The estimates have been adjusted for missing data in January and February, 1981 in all states, and for 1982-1984 boat mode and 1986-1994 shore modes in Texas by the average proportions observed in years where these strata were sampled. The 1995 Texas estimates are the means of Texas estimates for 1992-1994. Units are in thousands of fish and pounds.
State Inshore Waters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Florida Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Texas Total Gulf ---------- ---------- .......................... ---------- ---------- -----------
Year
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Numb
Wt
433 1363 475 974 226 392 118 545 220 409 76 178 69 271 139 391 53 263 6 1S 112 S97 42 236 157 S79 228 10S4 120 5S7 133 644 120 S73
Numb
10 8 4S 7 0 0 0 9 9 7 7 8 8 34 14 11 32
Wt
38 32 64 29 0 0 0 SS 45 41 30 43 20 90 S1 96 148
Numb
106 81 73 44 67 12 11 111 49 18 16 1 12 21 24 45 53
Wt
Numb
Wt
Numb
Wt
S53 189 274 1S7 228 122 84 183 308 100 69 8 146 134 230 244 400
2248 724 297 791 1429 909 1122 958 1001 668 836 372 6S8 1278 1470 1166 1994
5026 1325 742 1286 2121 1716 2243 1S26 1953 20S4 3240 1606 2618 41S4 5408 4805 7974
973 611 418 38 271 189 24S 271 339 243 225 182 171 217 363 305 295
2002 2186 1833 119 809 494 931 1104 1S22 1201 1133 917 8S2 1027 1720 1S22 1423
Numb
Wt
3770 8982 1899 4706 10S9 3304 998 2136 1987 3S66 1186 2S10 1447 3S29 1488 32S9 14SO 4091 941 3412 1196 5068 606 2810 1007 4216 1779 64S9 1992 7966 16S9 7311 2494 10S18
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 20. Recreational harvest estimates for Gulf of Mexico red drum by state and distance from shore for the period 1979-1995. The estimates are based on the 1979-1995 NMRFSS, the 1986-1994 NMFS Headboat Survey, and 1981-1994 length-frequency samples and 1986-1994 catch estimates compiled by Texas Parks and Wildlife. The weight estimates for the MRFSS and Texas surveys are the products of the annual harvest and mean weight estimates for each state where the sample size available to estimate mean weight exceeded 9 individuals. Where the sample size was less than 10, the annual state mean was substituted for the sample mean. The estimates have been adjusted for missing data in January and Februazy, 1981 in all states, and for 1982-1984 boat mode and 1986-1994 shore modes in Texas by the average proportions observed in years where these strata were sampled. The 1995 Texas estimates are the means of Texas estimates for 1992-1994. Units are in thousands offish and pounds.
State Territorial Seas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Florida Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Texas Total Gulf ---------- ------·--- ............................... ............................ ---------- -----------
Year
Numb
Wt
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
20 33 491 506 885 1249 391 466
64 69 1115 1572 1620 5290 1823 1439 383 64 625 464 444 663 309 425 519
77
23 117 81 114 151 70 100 133
Numb
2 18 1 47 12 17 24 49 25 10 2 14 16 22 35 21 17
Wt
7 91 1 207 98 125 69 315 138 57 6 72 43 65 141 182 101
Numb
2 75 61 19 24 21 5 3 25 21 13 25 21 6 0 0 9
Wt
12 254 200 69 297 218 41 16 330 132 58 238 70 49 4 0 78
Numb
Wt
128 93 206 891 907 453 300 607 445 119 187 209 213 414 355 173 401
118 324 296 1636 1173 839 827 1405 955 538 1021 1166 1277 1621 1556 1260 1726
Numb 77
60 89 61 71 340 107 0 1
0 3 1 1 2 14 3 6
Wt
Numb
Wt
172 341 365 190 236 471 437 1 6 3 14 7 4 8 70 22 34
230 278 848 1524 1899 2080 827 1125 573 173 321 330 365 594 474 297 567
373 1080 1978 3675 3423 6943 3197 3176 1811 793 1724 1945 1839 2406 2080 1889 2458
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 21. Recreational harvest estimates for Gulf of Mexico red drum by state and distance from shore for the period 1979-1995. The estimates are based on the 1979-1995 NMRFSS, the 1986-1994 NMFS Headboat Survey, and 1981-1994 length-frequency samples and 1986-1994 catch estimates compiled by Texas Parks and Wildlife.· The weight estimates for the MRFSS and Texas surveys are the products of the annual harvest and mean weight estimates for each state where the sample size available to estimate mean weight exceeded 9 individuals. Where the sample size was less than 10, the annual state mean was substituted for the sample mean. The estimates have been adjusted for missing data in January and February, 1981 in all states, and for 1982-1984 boat mode and 1986-1994 shore modes in Texas by the average proportions observed in years where these strata were sampled. The 1995 Texas estimates are the means of Texas estimates for 1992-1994. Units are in thousands offish and pounds.
EEZ
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Florida Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Texas Total Gulf -.. -... -- ---... --------·- ----------- .......................... ........................ ----------Numb Wt Numb Wt Year Numb Wt Numb Wt Numb Wt Numb Wt 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
0 1 6 1 28 14 3 10 9 0 6 19 8 10 7 1 0
0 2 12 3 64 51 10 29 43 0
30 105 31 42 32 6 0
2 0 0 0 0 7 3 2 1 0 0 2 0 2 3 12 24
7 0 0 0 0 70 9 11 5 0 0 11 1 6 11 103 143
0 6 0 73 34 33 10 2 16 11 2 5 1 2 8 10 16
0 2 0 272 501 413 130 30 231 45 10 59 14 19 97 90 131
12 114 8 13
276 65 43 61 58 27 29 36 3 78 92 46 40
24 789 16 23 485 184 133 169 223 167 121 249 15 298 469 228 286
0 6 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 23 32 0 0 1 0 0 4 2 1 2 0 0 1 2 1
13 127 21 87 337 120 60 74 85 39 37 62 12 91 110 70 80
31 816 60 298 1050 719 283 238 506 214 162 426 61 364 609 429 562
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 22. Recreational harvest estimates for Gulf of Mexico red drum by mode and area for the period 1979-1995. The estimates are based on the 1979-1995 NMRFSS, the 1986-1994 NMFS Headboat Survey, and 1981-1994 length-frequency samples and 1986-1994 catch estimates compiled by Texas Parks and Wildlife. The estimates have been adjusted for missing data in January and February, 1981 in all states, and for 1982-1984 boat mode and 1986-1994 shore modes in Texas by the average proportions observed in years where these strata were sampled. The 1995 Texas estimates are the means of Texas estimates for 1992-1994. Units are in thousands of fish and pounds.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Fishing Mode Fishing Area --------------------------------------------------------------Estuaries Shore Boat Ocean Unknown ----------- ......................... ----------- ------·---- ----------- Total
Year
No.
%
No.
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
3704 2873 1580 2069 2717 2305 1739 2322 1825 972 1374 824 1158 2138 2135 1781 2878
90.8 84.4 75.2 69.8 60.9 68.1 74.5 86.4 86.6 84.3 88.4 82.6 83.7 86.8 82.9 87.9 91.6
376 531 521 896 1746 1081 594 365 283 181 180 173 226 326 441 245 263
%
9.2 15.6 24.8 30.2 39.1 31.9 25.5 13.6 13.4 15.7 11.6 17.4 16.3 13.2 17.1 12. 1 8.4
No.
%
No.
%
3770 1899 1059 998 1987 1186 1447 1488 1450 941 1196 606 1007 1779 1992 1659 2494
92.4 55.8 50.4 33.7 44.5 35.0 62.0 55.4 68.8 81.7 77.0 60.7 72. 7 72.2 77.4 81.9 79.4
243 405 869 1611 2237 2200 887 1199 658 211 358 392 378 686 583 367 647
6.0 11.9 41.4 54.4 50.1 65.0 38.0 44.6 31.2 18.3 23.0 39.3 27.3 27.8 22.6 18.1 20.6
No.
%
Gulf
67 1.6 1100 32.3 173 8.2 355 12.0 240 5.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
4080 3404 2101 2965 4464 3386 2334 2687 2108 1153 1554 998 1384 2465 2576 2026 3141
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 23. NMRFSS harvest and release estimates for Gulf of Mexico red drum east of Texas for the period 1979-1995. Texas data are omitted because there are no release estimates for 1982-1995 boat and 1986-1995 shore modes. Units are in thousands offish.
All Modes and Areas Combined
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Florida Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------Year Harv Rel %Rel Harv Rel %Rel Harv Rel %Rel Harv Rel %Rel Harv Rel %Rel 1979 453 8 1980 555 119 1981 723 79 1982 624 113 1983 1134 729 1984 1340 706 1985 463 278 1986 615 786 1987 139 1631 1988 29 1357 1989 234 1082 1990 142 677 1991 279 1335 1992 388 1750 1993 197 1089 1994 234 1398 1995 253 1323
1. 7 17.7 9.8 15.3 39.1 34.5 37.5 56.1 92.2 97.9 82.2 82.6 82.7 81.8 84.7 85.6 83.9
13 27 46 54 12 23 27 59 35 16 9 24 24 58 52 44 73
0 4 13 46 3 0 0 0 5 7 4 17 27 28 32 18 52
0.0 12.2 22.3 46.2 18.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 12.6 29.4 32.6 41.5 52.6 32.2 38.3 28.6 41.7
108 177 133 136 124 66 26 115 90
so
31 31 35 29 32 55 78
13 4 3 31 3 0 4 31 33 3 20 70 302 349 156 287 114
10.8 2.5 2.1 18.7 2.4 0.0 14.1 21.2 27.1 6.1 39.2 69.7 89.7 92.3 83.0 83.9 59.4
2455 1705 511 1696 2612 1427 1465 1626 1504 813 1052 617 873 1768 1914 1382 2435
224 118 9 207 352 198 175 309 1444 2229 1381 823 3767 3440 2837 2495 2768
8.4 6.5 1.8 10.9 11.9 12.2 10.7 16.0 49.0 73.3 56.8 57.2 81.2 66.1 59.7 64.4 53.2
3029 2464 1412 2510 3882 2857 1981 2415 1767 907 1326 814 1211 2244 2195 1715 2839
245 245 104 397 1087 904 457 1127 3114 3597 2487 1587 5431 5566 4115 4198 4256
7.5 9.0 6.9 13.7 21.9 24.0 18.8 31.8 63.8 79.9 65.2 66.1 81.8 71.3 65.2 71.0 60.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 24. Estimated relative abundance (CPUE) of red drum in LDWF trammel-net samples. Bata are pooled across calendar year (OCTDEC=YEAR+l). The data from the sample abundance offish from 8 to 18 inches were associated with red drum abundance at the beginning of the year at age 1 in the sequential population analysis. RED DRUM
8 TO 18 INCHES TOTAL LENGTH
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~--------------------------
AREA 1
YEAR
----
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 l 993 1994 1995 1996
----
ALL
AREA 2
AREA 3
-----------
-----------
-----------
------ ----
------ ----
------ ----
------ ----
------
CPUE
N
0.000 0.545 0.333 0.200 0.167 0.000 0.933 0.793 0.345 0.087 0.231
15 11 27 10 30 20 15 29 29 23 13
0.333
222
CPUE
N
1.000 0.778 0.379 0.545 0.206 0.139 0.694 1. 028 11. 4 92 3.351 1. 389
8 18 29 33 34 36 36 36 36 37 18
2 .142
---321
AREA 4
----------CPUE N ------ ----
CPUE
N
0.000 0.000 0. 696 0.037 0.067 3.183 1.654 1.360 0.865 0.125 2.800
15 18 23 27 30 21 26 25 37 32 15
2.000 0. 94 6 2.680 4 .211 0.690 1.000 3.886 10.936 7.944 14. 81 7 10.342
0.895
269
5.630
------ ----
------
18 23 25 30 35 36 35 36 36 36 18
----
328
AREA 5
----------CPUE N ------ ---0.167 0.056 1. 690 0.861 0.633 2. 914 2.917 1. 944 5.181 7.334 2 .167
18 18 29 36 30 36 36 36 36 36 18
2.652
329
------ ----
AREA 6
----------CPUE N ------
1.150 1.650 2.090 2.310 1.111 0.483 2.923 1.224 0.378 0.385 1.056
----
20 20 36 29 27 29 52 49 45 39 18
------ ---1. 388
364
AREA 7
----------CPUE N ------
----
0.000 0.083 0.083 0.080 0.500 0.056 0. 200 0.256 0.256 0.152 0.167
18 12 36 25 36 36 35 39 39 33 18
0.187
327
------ ----
ALL
-----------CPUE N ------
-----
0.625 0.640 1.123 1.302 0.474 1. 069 2.051 2.511 3.702 4.015 2.688
112 120 205 190 222 214 235 250 258 236 118
1.985
2160
------ -----
RED DRUM LARGER THAN 18 INCHES TOTAL LENGTH
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------AREA 5 AREA 2 AREA 3 AREA 4 AREA 6 AREA 7 AREA 1 ALL ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------CPUE CPUE CPUE N CPUE N N N CPUE N CPUE YEAR CPUE N N CPUE N ------ --------- --------- --------- ---- ------ ---- ------ ---- ------ ---- ------ -------1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 l 992 1993 1994 1995 1996
----
ALL
0.000 0.000 0.111 0.000 0.167 0.000 0.267 1.034 0.621 0.087 0.231
-----0.293
15 11 27 10 30 20 15 29 29 23 13
---222
0.000 0.000 0.034 0.061 0.088 0.028 0.000 0.333 2.203 2.216 1. 222
8 18 29 33 34 36 36 36 36 37 18
0.630
321
------ ----
0.000 0.000 0.043 0.074 0.000 0.150 0.000 0.240 1.027 0.281 0.333
15 18 23 27 30 21 26 25 37 32 15
0.238
269
------ ----
0. 611 0.793 0.040 1.655 0.510 0.500 0.257 3.036 2 .111 4.044 4.602
-----1.642
18 23 25 30 35 36 35 36 36 36 18
---328
0.056 0.000 0.310 0.111 0. 733 0.308 0.111 0 .194 1. 097 9.082 1.056
-----1.348
18 18 29 36 30 36 36 36 36 36 18
----
329
0.400 0.250 1. 771 1.207 1.667 3.517 0.212 2.020 2.111 1.103 1. 389
20 20 36 29 27 29 52 49 45 39 18
1. 4 61
364
------ ----
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.083 0.143 0.154 0.795 0.121 0.333
-----0.223
18 12 36 25 36 36 35 39 39 33 18
---327
0.17 9 0 .194 0.384 o. 488 0. 4 99 0.646 0.140 1.077 1. 460 2 .596 1.380
112 120 205 190 222 214 235 250 258 236 118
0.888
2160
------ -----
ALL LENGTHS COMBINED
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------AREA 2 AREA 3 AREA 4 AREA 5 AREA 6 AREA 7 AREA 1 ALL ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -------------------------------CPUE N CPUE N CPUE N CPUE N CPUE N CPUE CPUE N N CPUE N YEAR ----
------
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
0.000 0.545 0.444 0.200 0.333 0.000 1.200 1. 828 0.966 0.174 0.462
----
ALL
------
0.626
----
------ ----
15 11 27 10 30 20 15 29 29 23 13
1.000 0. 778 0.414 0.606 0. 294 0 .167 0.694 1. 361 13.694 5.568 2. 611
222
2.773
----
------
8 18 29 33 34 36 36 36 36 37 18
---321
------ ---0.000 0.000 0. 739 0.111 0.067 3.333 1. 654 1.600 1. 892 0.406 3.133
-----1.134
------
15 18 23 27 30 21 26 25 37 32 15
2. 611 1.739 2. 720 5.867 1. 200 1. 500 4.143 13.972 10.056 18.861 14.944
269
7. 271
----
----
------
18 23 25 30 35 36 35 36 36 36 18
0.222 0.056 2.000 0. 972 1.367 3.222 3.028 2.139 6.278 16.417 3.222
328
4.000
------ ----
---18 18 29 36 30 36 36 36 36 36 18
------ ----
329
------ ----
------
------ ----
------
1.550 1.900 3.861 3.517 2.778 4.000. 3.135 3.245 2. 4 89 1. 487 2.444 2.849
20 20 36 29 27 29 52 49 45 39 18
364
0.000 0.083 0.083 0.080 1.000 0.139 0.343 0. 410 1.051 0.273 0.500 0.410
----
------ -----
----
------ -----
18 12 36 25 36 36 35 39 39 33 18
327
0.804 0.833 1.507 1. 789 0.973 1. 715 2.191 3.588 5.163 6.610 4.068
112 120 205 190 222 214 235 250 258 236 118
2.873
2160
________ __ __________
Table 25 Estimates of instantaneous annual mortality rates fur red drum reported in the literature. .,.., ,.
-----------------------z Comment F M ------------------1.31
State
Area
Texas
Laguna Madre
Texas
eight bays
Green et al. (1985)
0.86
Texas
eight bays
Matlock (1984)
0.42
Texas
bays
Matlock (1984)
0.29
Texas
eight bays
Matlock & Weaver ( 1979)
Gulf
Murphy & Taylor (1986a)
-------------
Florida Tampa Bay
Florida Mosquito/Indian River Florida Pasco-Monroe Counties
Author
-------------------Anon.(1973)
0.36
1.66
Mark-recapture
1.03
1.89
Mark-recapture
1.19
1.61
Z from catch curve of catch Pauly's ( 1979) method & Pearson's (1929) data
1.39
Mark-recapture
2.53"
Catch curve using ages assigned from engths
2.66b 2.81' Atlantic
1.05"
Murphy & Taylor (1986a) l.08b 1.05'
Lower Gulf Coast
2.28d
Mark-recapture
1.37
1.87
Average ofl984-1985 rates based on VPA analysis
0.5lf 0.748 l.07h
l.33f
Mark-recapture
Catch curve using ages assigned from lengths ofMRFSS red drum intercepts
GMMFC & GSMFC (1984) 2.43'
Florida Park
Everglades Nat.
Tilmant et al. (1989)
Florida Park
Everglades Nat.
Rago & Goodyear (1985) 0.32° 0.65°
Gulf of Mexico East ofTexas
inshore
Goodyear (1987)
2.31
Texas
inshore
Goodyear (1987)
2.09 2.32
Gulfwide
offshore
Goodyear (1987)
0.20
Catch curve using otolith ages of red drum from purse seines
Apalachicola Bay &nearGulf
Anon.(1988)
2.4
Mark-Recapture (age 2) " (age 3)
Florida
Atlantic Coast
0.82° 0.42 8 0.42h
1.1 .2
Vaughan (1996)
0.23
i
Catch curves using 1983-86 TPW creel 1984-86 TPW gillnet data
Mean sub-adult (ages 0-5)
--------------------------·---·-----·-------------------------------------------------------------------------·--·Estimation methods •Heinke (1913) b Robsen and Chapman (1961) ' Catch curve d Young and Robson ( 1978)
•by addition ofM and F r "Days at large" 8 "Contour plot" h "Maximum likelihood"
;Boudreau and Dickie (1989)
Table 26. Estimated total catch of red drum in numbers, numbers and percentages of harvest by state and year for 1979-1995, and means for the entire time series and for 1988-1995.
Thousands Harvested and Percentage of Harvest by State
Year 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95
-7 9-95 88-95
---------------------------------------------------------------------Alabama Miss. Louisiana Texas Gulf Florida --------- --------- --------- --------- ------------------N % N % N % N N % N % % --- ---- ---- ---- ----- ----680 950 1375 875 1494 1561 592 915 184 30 234 142 279 388 197 234 253
13.3 21. 4 42.8 22.1 25.0 34.2 16.1 18.1 5.3 2.5 14.7 14.2 20.1 15.7 7.6 11. 5 8.1
15 29 53 56 13 24 28 59 35 16 9 24 24 58 52 44 73
0.3 0.6 1. 6 1. 4 0.2 0.5 0.8 1. 2 1. 0 1. 4 0.6 2.4 1. 8 2.4 2.0 2.2 2.3
140 179 153 140 126 68 28 133 92 56 62 31 37 37 41 60 80
2.7 4.0 4.8 3.5 2.1 1. 5 0.8 2.6 2.6 4. 6 3.9 3.1 2.6 1. 5 1. 6 3.0 2.6
2905 2038 921 2438 3766 2383 2668 3669 2827 858 1057 61 7 874 1770 1917 1385 2436
2031 62.9 1364 70.8
----
----
----
----
----
611 18.9 220 11.4
36 38
1.1 2.0
86 50
2.7 2.6
----
56.9 45.9 28.7 61. 5 63.0 52.2 72.7 72.7 81. 3 71.2 66.5 61. 8 63.0 71.6 74.2 68.2 77.5
---- ----
1366 1250 709 455 582 530 352 272 341 244 228 184 172 219 377 308 301
----
26. 7 28.1 22.1 11.5 9.7 11. 6 9.6 5.4 9.8 20.3 14.3 18.4 12.4 8. 9 14.6 15.2 9.6
----
464 14.4 254 13.2
5107 4445 3211 3963 5981 4565 3668 5049 3478 1205 1589 998 1386 2472 2585 2031 3145
-----
100. 0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
-----
3228 100.0 1926 100.0
Bycatch Number and % of Total
----------N
%
262 111 99 125 323 109 62 146 201 218 198 147 127 219 164 226 242
4. 9 2.4 3.0 3.1 5.1 2.3 1. 7 2.8 5.5 15.3 11.1 12.8 8.4 8.1 6.0 10.0 7.1
175 193
5.1 9.1
----- -----
----- -----
Total (1000s)
----------N % -----
5369 4556 3310 4088 6304 4674 3730 5195 3679 1423 1787 1145 1513 2691 2749 2257 3387
-----
---
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
-----
3403 100.0 2119 100.0
Table 27. Estimated catch at age for the combined fishery for red drum in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico 1979-1995. Ages for recreational and commercial inshore catches were based on all observed lengths from inshore catches pooled by state using the probabilistic method. All fish from commercial offshore catches were aged using the same method with observed lengths from all offshore catches pooled. All red drum taken as shrimp bycatch were assumed to be age 0.
CATCH AT AGE BY YEAR
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------83 84 85 86 87 88 89 79 80 81 82 92 93 90 91 94 95 ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------411991 261182 210682 0 3734891 2677304 1750299 2484354 4206516 1953322 1866192 2559210 1093542 375013 328029 330632 284747 417602
Age
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 29 30+
--Tot
1326424 193604 38434 11651 10860 4448 4647 4819 3098 3967 2592 5521 4095 4065 1408 1725 789 1498 1861 1553 1983 1583 284 306 592 350 601 421 359 305
------5368?34
1537757 221337 66959 8720 4073 2038 2749 2640 2618 1656 2262 1604 3666 2890 3035 1106 1416 674 1324 1700 1459 1916 1567 288 317 627 379 663 472 411
1355854 166891 25533 1315 474 533 1107 1263 1081 975 564 663 390 742 489 432 133 146 60 102 114 86 101 73 12 12 21 12 19 13
1190361 365084 29163 5203 897 519 753 1567 1788 1533 1377 794 932 548 1039 684 604 186 203 83 142 158 121 140 101 17 17 30 17 26
1606074 361640 79139 7130 5290 1411 1178 1742 3686 4280 3758 3505 2109 2584 1587 3144 2160 1987 638 723 306 539 624 485 579 434 73 74 137 77
4555627
3309509
4088441
6303609
------- ------- ------- -------
1987031 551897 72684 15575 6397 7082 3278 2701 3965 8321 9601 8332 7601 4468 5362 3235 6310 4279 3899 1242 1404 594 1046 1214 948 1141 861 147 151 280
------4674368
1268008 339254 4 7079 11022 10789 9605 18278 8152 6529 9361 19305 21496 17979 15791 8927 10295 5959 11144 7242 6318 1930 2086 846 1427 1587 1189 1373 996 162 161
1774828 241744 63926 26907 18632 22792 23072 44817 20294 16315 23530 48533 54439 45970 40803 23337 27243 15979 30287 19959 17670 5472 6007 2470 4231 4772 3628 4248 3123 519
2106508 423435 27585 1898 916 272 477 543 1170 570 521 845 1958 2446 2278 2208 1369 1716 1074 2157 1497 1387 447 510 217 381 442 343 411 307
786592 139473 55968 2146 370 105 153 279 332 750 404 409 713 1755 2312 2255 2282 1470 1910 1236 2561 1831 1744 578 674 294 528 626 496 604
1055410 399706 32624 7094 676 72 143 191 341 401 952 535 537 921 2229 2883 2769 2757 1717 2237 1426 2911 2051 1929 631 726 311 556 651 511
412011 396276 104909 3710 1391 67 45 78 100 175 219 541 301 298 507 1217 1570 1504 1196 950 1218 778 1595 1130 1066 351 406 175 315 371
773664 315482 43985 2929 166 34 11 6 10 13 24 30 73 39 38 64 150 190 180 177 111 141 90 182 127 120 38 45 19 34
37304.82
5194757
3679430
14 22841
1787110
1145452
1513185
------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
1940494 350655 36102 21075 4564 178 232 66 38 62 79 148 185 436 231 ·218 355 824 1028 957 928 575 723 454 916 639 597 194 223 96
------2691301
1758152 593249 57792 1155 1965 311 78 92 26 14 26 36 69 88 214 115 111 185 441 561 533 526 332 425 272 557 394 373 123 143
1268625 2098174 655424 747578 40701 106489 4179 10371 159 2342 170 59 148 325 33. 251 37 53 10 58 6 16 12 10 18 18 33 25 43 46 105 58 57 136 56 72 94 69 224 114 288 268 275 339 274 321 175 316 200 225 255 144 298 163 213 334 202 237 67 225
2748990
225?042
------- ------- ------3386524
Table 28. Estimated abundance of U.S. Gulf of Mexico red drum by age and year from the SP A. NUMBERS AT AGE AT BEGINNING OF YEAR
Age
--
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10+ -----Sum 4 +
---------------------------------------------------------------------
B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 BB B9 90 91 79 BO Bl B2 92 93 94 95 -------- -------- --------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ----704BlBO 5B93192 4413927 594717B 7BBB9BO 427B547 52B2325 5900507 3344449 2B64 ll 6 1446B39 2839569 4971626 6311186 9140220 1153874B 34928540 949504 2134797 3732151 4B71134 71B4911 9190025 3229225 2443882 2433558 204 7489 2647398 2712691 175B397 2652595 2543440 1757601 1973B41 741767 321297 241411 637307 7B6121 618397 469821 601342 409125 1054764 1326539 2413101 4740624 736252 676168 10BB378 14573B9 62 50321 118460 73673 246960 201480 57750 121333 854 371B70 317642 184939 993876 549176 556058 1387079 835512 716831 278157 86364 57197 1664 B 47028 526515 397529 790663 31167 108396 125405 1B8952 13696 1377146 64 9371 15262 41B546 5237B5 429B86 642641 22129B 140654 60777 22B09 9504 11696 32114 22174 B6103 83700 11454 3391999 11169B9 321695 105426 33043 1784 8 7447 8966 521372 175408 25037 18004 66376 66754 910834 428411 351151 9234 4537412 2767324 26808 4204 67 134945 65819 14518 6032 72BO 745246 350284 286223 20468 14 580 54063 4561538 3710901 2263853 54500 89714 609476 2B5724 231379 327752 53457 21810 11757 47B2301 3730473 3035746 1B524B6 4B9B 5951 16548 11867 44130 497423 231492 18207B 227966 72961 43515 17684 4005 9555 321B762 3911064 3051869 2484317 1515272 4Bl2 13466 96B6 2402B432 22272950 2140B740 20021022 1B416290 1628B332 13675B1B 1124B985 B9810B6 7517B27 6191543 5077729 4157063 3409627 27B5898 2279814 1874999 -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- ------45B97584 3B159068 3172133B 26752030 22163272 18289324 149615B2 12117160 9434133 7715053 633755B 51B5449 4334 4 04 3669563 2987177 2B34946 2732789
Table 29. Estimates of fishing mortality at age by year for U.S. Gulf of Mexico red drum.
Age 0 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 B 9 10 Escap.
FISHING MORTALITY AT AGE DURING YEAR - -- - - --- ------- - -- -- -- - - - - --- - -- - --87 82 B3 B4 B5 B6 BB B9 Bl 90 91 92 93 94 -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------0.172 O.B6B 0.642 0. 443 0. 221 O.OB5 0.087 0. 609 0.6B9 0. 4 89 0. 059 0. 041 0.02B 0.6B4 0.56B O.B59 0. 997 1. 072 1. 553 0. 670 0. B71 2 .155 1.144 0.930 1. 500 1. 284 0. 642 0.505 O.B34 0.502 o. 596 0.216 1. 007 1. 425 0.9B7 0. 706 1.611 1. 504 1. 654 0.892 1. 011 1. 758 0. 453 0.1B3 0.339 0.669 0. 354 0.21B 0.319 0. 724 0. 090 0.561 0.552 1. 631 0.906 0.660 0. 623 0.109 0.029 0.274 1.131 0.123 0. OB4 0.052 0. 007 0. 029 0.095 0.719 0 .153 0.165 0.003 0.151 0. lBl 0.140 0.030 0. 204 0.087 0.009 0.015 0. 012 0.009 0. 044 0.032 0. 002 O.OBB 0. 4 09 0.045 0.066 0.008 0. 004 0.001 0. 04 9 0. 060 0.026 0.015 0. 004 0.004 0. 015 0.271 0. 009 0. 007 0. 001 0. 062 0. 011 0.008 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0. 011 0.005 0.003 0. 004 0.001 0. 001 0.013 0. 04 9 0.20B O.OOB 0.006 0. 011 O.OOB 0.002 0. 013 0.006 0.003 0.001 0.001 0. 001 0.003 0.010 0.007 0. 006 0.000 0.040 0 .163 0.010 0. 007 0.001 0. 012 0.001 0.006 0.003 0.001 0. 001 0.003 0.009 0. 032 0 .131 0.006 0.005 0.009 0.006 0.001 0.000 0.001 0. 011 0.006 0.003 0.001 0. 001 0.002 0.007 0. 005 0. 004 0.026 0.000 0 .103 0.007 0.005 0.001 0.001 0. 009 0.005 0.003 0.001 -------- -------- -------- --------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------8. 978 3.707 6. 6BO 15.43B 1.100 1. 505 0.266 0. 613 5.922 B.193 7.036 11. 827 6. B4 9 24. 104 50. 014 17. 661 79
BO
95 0. 013 0. 2B9 0 .190 0. OBB 0. 02B 0. 008 0.007 0. 007 0.006 0.006 0.006
------54. 419
Table 30. Estimated fishing mortality rate at age during the terminal year (1995) of the SPA. Age
F
Std Error
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.013 0.289 0.190 0.088 0.028 0.008 0.007 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.006
0.060 0.039 0.018 0.006 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
--------0.003
Approx. 80% CI
----------------0.010 : .. . ·.
d
5 0 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
TOTAL LENGTH (IN) Figure A- 7. Relationship between gutted weight and total length for Gulf ofMexico red drum.
40
45
50
50 45 ,-.. ~
i-:i
'-'
E~
0 1--1 ~
~
GW = 3.2214E-4 *FL
40
3.062
R-SQUARE = 0.991
35
N=740 30 25 20
Q ~
15
:::i 0
10
~
5 0 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
FORK LENGTH (IN) Figure A-8. Relation gutted weight andfork length for Gulf ofMexico red drum.
40
45
50
50
-
45
GW = 9.0347E-4 * SL
40
i:o
~ "'-"'
E-i
::r:: 0
~
~
2.863
R-SQUARE = 0.989
35
N= 746 30 25 20
Q ~
15
~
10
~ 0
5 0 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
STANDARD LENGTH (IN) Figure A-9. Relation gutted weight and standard length for Gulf ofMexico red drum.
40
45
50
APPENDIXB FECUNDITY ANALYSES
DATA SOURCE: C. Wilson, Louisiana State University
See also: Wilson, C. A. and D. L. Neiland. 1994. Reproductive biology of red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus, from the neritic waters of the northern Gulf of Mexico. Fishery Bulletin 92:841-850.
FEC = EXP[ (14.57 - 19.5 /AGE 2 R-SQUARE = 0.71 N = 51
4
)]
3
2
+ +
.. i
0
.! 5
10
15
20
25
AGE Figure B-1. Relationship between batch fecundity and the age offemale red drum.
30
35
40
30
FEC =[ 1.07 - 0.847 (LOG (AGE)] 2 ~
u
25
R-SQUARE = 0.40
z
N= 29
~
~
a
20
~
~
i::i.i
...
15
0
z z
""""'"4
..
10
~
~ rJ')
5
0 0
5
10
15
20
25
AGE Figure B-2. Relation between spawning frequency and age offemale red drum.
30
35
40
0
5
10
15
20
AGE Figure B-3. Estimated mean annual egg production for female red drum by age.
25
30
35
40
-z
5
~ ~
4
(/.)
--~ -z
-
0
~ ..._, ~
:=> 0:: u ~
0::
-
3
..._
-
,__
,__
:=> u
-
-
,__
-
~
-
2 -
Cl ~
- - ..._ ,__
-
-
- ,_ ,__
0
,.._
,.._
lllinn
r
0
-
5
10
15
20
'
25
I
'
30
'
35
AGE Figure B-4. Relative reproductive value ofred drum females by age class for the unfished age structure (M=0.20).
40
Table B-1. Reproductive profile of red drum from the Gulf of Mexico. Data courtesy C. Wilson, LSU. The population statistics are computed for the unfished condition with M=0.2. INDIVIDUAL FEMALE AVERAGES
----------------------------AGE
FREQ
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
0.0 0.0 2.7 4.0 5.0 5.9 6.7 7.4 8.0 8.6 9. 1 9.6 10.1 10.5 10.9 11.3 11. 7 12.0 12.4 12.7 13.0 13.3 13.6 13.9 14.2 14.4 14.7 14.9 15.2 15.4 15.6 15.8 16.0 16.3 16.5 16.7 16.9 17.0 17.2 17.4 17.6
POPULATION STATISTICS
-------------------------------------------------
BATCH FECUNDITY
ANNUAL PRODUCTION
FRACT. MATURE
O.OOOE+OO O.OOOE+OO 1.636E+04 2.455E+05 6.336E+05 9.826E+05 1.247E+06 1.440E+06 1.581E+06 1.685E+06 1. 764E+06 1.825E+06 1.872E+06 1.910E+06 1.941E+06 1.966E+06 1.986E+06 2.004E+06 2.018E+06 2.031E+06 2.042E+06 2.051E+06 2.059E+06 2.066E+06 2.072E+06 2.078E+06 2.083E+06 2.087E+06 2.091E+06 2.095E+06 2.098E+06 2.101E+06 2.103E+06 2.106E+06 2.108E+06 2.110E+06 2.112E+06 2. 113E+06 2.115E+06 2.116E+06 2.118E+06
O.OOOE+OO O.OOOE+OO 4.492E+04 9.826E+05 3.191E+06 5.818E+06 8.351E+06 1.064E+07 1.267E+07 1.448E+07 1.609E+07 1. 755E+07 1.887E+07 2.009E+07 2.121E+07 2.225E+07 2.322E+07 2.413E+07 2.499E+07 2.580E+07 2.658E+07 2.731E+07 2.801E+07 2.869E+07 2.933E+07 2.995E+07 3.055E+07 3.113E+07 3.169E+07 3.223E+07 3.275E+07 3.326E+07 3.375E+07 3.423E+07 3.470E+07 3.515E+07 3.560E+07 3.603E+07 3.645E+07 3.687E+07 3.727E+07
0.00 0.00 0.05 0.25 0.62 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
---------
----------
PRODUCTION PER RECRUIT
-----------
O.OOOE+OO O.OOOE+OO 1.839E+03 1.647E+05 1.086E+06 2.353E+06 3.072E+06 3.205E+06 3.125E+06 2.923E+06 2.660E+06 2.375E+06 2.091E+06 1.822E+06 1.575E+06 1.353E+06 1.156E+06 9.836E+05 8.340E+05 7.050E+05 5.945E+05 5.002E+05 4.201E+05 3.522E+05 2.949E+05 2.465E+05 2.059E+05 1. 717E+05 1.431E+05 1.192E+05 9.916E+04 8.244E+04 6.850E+04 5.688E+04 4.720E+04 3.915E+04 3.246E+04 2.690E+04 2.228E+04 1.845E+04 1.527E+04
%/R 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 3.1 6.7 8.8 9.1 8.9 8.3 7.6 6.8 6.0 5.2 4.5 3.9 3.3 2.8 2.4 2.0 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0. 1 0. 1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0
CUMULATIVE PRODUCTION
CUM. %
O.OOOE+OO O.OOOE+OO 1.839E+03 1.665E+05 1.252E+06 3.605E+06 6.677E+06 9.882E+06 1.301E+07 1.593E+07 1.859E+07 2.097E+07 2.306E+07 2.488E+07 2.645E+07 2.781E+07 2.896E+07 2.995E+07 3.078E+07 3.149E+07 3.208E+07 3.258E+07 3.300E+07 3.335E+07 3.365E+07 3.389E+07 3.410E+07 3.427E+07 3.441E+07 3.453E+07 3.463E+07 3.472E+07 3.478E+07 3.484E+07 3.489E+07 3.493E+07 3.496E+07 3.499E+07 3.501E+07 3.503E+07 3.504E+07
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 3.6 10.3 19.1 28.2 37.1 45.5 53.1 59.8 65.8 71.0 75.5 79.4 82.7 85.5 87.8 89.8 91.5 93.0 94.2 95.2 96.0 96.7 97.3 97.8 98.2 98.5 98.8 99.1 99.3 99.4 99.6 99.7 99.8 99.8 99.9 100.0 100.0
----------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIXC GROWTH ANALYSES
DATA SOURCES:
C. Wilson, Louisiana State University M. Murphy, Florida DEP Gulf Coast Research Laboratory Texas Parks and Wildlife Pearson ( 1929)
APPENDIXD
ANALYSESOFADULTAGESTRUCTURE
DATA SOURCES:
C. Wilson, Louisiana State University
Figure D-1. Length.frequencies of red drum sampled with purse seines off Louisiana, 1986-1992. Data courtesy C.
Wilson, LSU
YEAR CLASS OF ESTIMATED OFFSHORE RECRUITMENT
7.5
5.0
E-
z
2.5
~
u
0::: ~
0...
6.0
NON-EEZ COMMERCIAL LANDINGS IN YEAR
4.0 2.0
0.5
0:::
0.0 -0.5
LAGGED CORRELATION
-1.0 +----..-----.---....---.---.....----,.----....-----~---1
50
54
58
62
66
70
74
78
82
86
90
VFAR
Figure D-2. Estimates of recruitment to the offshore stock, inshore commercial landings and lagged correlation between the two by year.
ti')
Ci
z
5~ z
2.5
0...
-l
0
< :J
0 d
2.0
•
•
0::: ~ J.lJ -
~ 0:::
~ ~
u N
:5
~ 'fl < z u.l
u.l
0
zz
1.5
LBS= 1161+ 0.14 (RECRUITMENT) R-SQUARE = 0.60 N= 15
1.0
>~
N
0.5
< u.l ~
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
RECRUITMENT INDEX (THOUSANDS)
Figure D-3. Scattergram and regression ofoffshore recruitment index and prior inshore commercial harvest for 19521966.
COMMERCIAL LANDINGS PER ESTIMATED RECRUIT
~
:::> ~ 1--1
75
~
~
0:::
0.1
0.2
0
::E nn u.u
0.0 0
5
10
15
20
YOUNGEST AGE IN ANALYSIS
Figure E-3. Stability of regression estimates of adult red drum mortality from the data of Table E-1 as a function of the youngest age included in the analysis.
Table E-1. Data compilation used to estimate Z from the decay in year-class abundance with time from the 1986-1992 purse seine samples (Data courtesy C. Wilson, LSU). The observed numbers are the number at age observed in the sample by year. The expanded numbers are the observed numbers at age multiplied by maximum number of age 15 and older collected in any year (1988) and divided by the sum ofage 15 and older sampled in the given year. This procedure is used to remove the effect of sample size in the analysis.
1987
1986
Age
.-
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
1989
1988
1990
1991
1992
.. ... ... .. .. .. .. -.. -.. -- ------------- ------------- ............................ ........................... ------------- ----·-------Obs Expand Obs Expand Obs Expand Obs Expand Obs Expand Obs Expand Obs Expand --... - ------ ---.. ------ ---- ------ ........ - ------ ---- .............. -...... .. ... -... -- - .. -- --. 45 43 28 17 20 27 19 20 9 2 4 3 2 3 2 1 2
--
.-
..... - ..
Sum
247
47.2 45.1 29.3 17.8 21.0 28.3 19.9 21.0 9.4 2.1 4.2 3.1 2. 1 3.1 2. 1 1.0 2.1
23 31 23 26 25 26 9 12 1 4 9 5 4 4 1 0 1
24.6 33.2 24.6 27.8 26.7 27.8 9.6 12.8 1.1 4.3 9.6 5.3 4.3 4.3 1.1 0.0 1.1
. . -------- ---- -.......... .
258.9
204
218.2
32 23 16 36 20 13 7 2 4 6 2 3 5 1 1 1 1
32.0 23.0 16.0 36.0 20.0 13.0 7.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 2.0 3.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
.
......... 173
6 3 5 6 9 9 4 0 3 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0
. .
...
-
--..... -
173.0
-
.
...
17.2 8.6 14.3 17.2 25.8 25.8 11.5 0.0 8.6 0.0 2.9 0.0 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 0.0
-
- .....
... ...........
50
143.4
5 2 5 1 4 6 4 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
---30
18.6 7.5 18.6 3.7 14.9 22.4 14.9 0.0 3.7 3.7 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
.
8 0 5 3 3 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
28.6 0.0 17.9 10.7 10.7 14.3 3.6 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
25
89.4
--........ - ---- ....... -
111 .9
4 12 2 14 4 12 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4.9 14.6 2.4 17 .1 4.9 14.6 4.9 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
58
70.7
---.......
APPENDIXF ANALYSES OF TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE MARK-RECAPTURE DATA
DATA SOURCES:
TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT
TEXAS P&W RECAPTURE DATA FOR 77-87 MARKS
>i u
100
z
~
::::>
CY ~ 0:::
~
=1.86 R = 0.97 N = 16
•
D
10
~
2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
YEARS AT LARGE Figure F-3. Regression estimate ofthe disappearance rate for red drum marked during 1977-1987 in the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department mark-recapture program.
TEXAS P&W RECAPTURE DATA FOR 88-89 MARKS
100u-.---------------------------------------------------------.
=1.39 R = 0.85 D
2
N
100
= 16
10
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
YEARS AT LARGE Figure F-4. Regression estimate ofthe disappearance rate for red drum marked during 1988-1989 in the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department mark-recapture program.
Table F-1. Numbers of marks applied to red drum in Texas Parks and Wildlife mark-recapture programs by estimated red drum age and year and month of marking.
1975
Age 0 1 2 3 4 5+
All
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec All ----- ----- ----- ----- ·---- ----- .............. ----- ----- ----- ----- --... -0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
120 15 3 0 0 0
208
63 5 0 0 0
0 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ............... ----- ----- -- ------0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 138 276
-----
328 78 8 0 0 0 414
1976
Age 0 1 2 3 4 5+
All
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------All Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec ... --...... ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- --- -0 207 89 1 0
0 130 8 0 0
0 119 17 1 0
0
0
0
0 151 52 1 1 0
0 198 42 1 2 0
0 3 0 0 0 0
1 2 0 0 0
0
3 3 1 0 0 0
2 3 0 0 0 4
120 165 16 0 1 5
229 165 7 0 1 0
253 151 3 1 0 0
-- ...... - ----- ----- .. -......... ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ............... ----- ----297 138 137 205 243 3 3 7 9 307 402 408
608 1297 235 5 5 9
2159
1977
Age 0 1 2 3 4 5+
All
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------All Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec ----- .. ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ............ ----- ----- ----- ----0 75
66 1 0 0
...........
142
0 159 52 0 0 0
0 95 25 2 0 0
0 194 41 2 0 3
1 175 15 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
211
122
240
191
2 5 1
4 2 2
0
0
0
0 0
0 4
0
8
12
0
0 0 0 0
0 1
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
146 15 0 0 0 0 161
176 48 2 0 0
187 40 1 0 0 0
516 808 205 5 0 8
226
228
1542
0
. ---- -----
1978
Age 0 1 2 3 4 5+
All
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec All ----- ----- ----- -.. --- ----- -- .. -- ----- ----- ........... ... ---- -- ....... --- .. 0 110 51 1 0 0
0 107 51 3 0 0
162
161
----- -----
0
193 75 1 0 0
----40
269
0 171 42 2 0 0
1 217 32 3 1 1
0
215
255
0
0 0 0
0 0
12 54 5 0 0
74 101 16 3 1
0
0
71
195
117 57 12 0 0
219 61 8 2 0 0
214 32 6 0 3 1
258 39 4 0 0 0
895 1142 302 16 5 2
187
290
256
301
2362
,
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ........... ----- .. -. --
Table F-1 (cont.). Numbers of marks applied to red drum in Texas Parks and Wildlife mark-recapture programs by estimated red drum age and year and month of marking.
1979
Age 0 1 2 3 4 5+
All
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec All ----- ----.. ----... - ---- --- -- ----- ----- --... -.. ----- ----- ----- ----0 89 34 7 1 0
0 27 3 1 0 0
131
31
0 62 9 1 0 0
0 144 14 3 0 1
0 89 10 1 1 0
7 74 1 2 0 0
72
162
101
84
----- ----- ----... --... --
46 49 14 12 8 0
111 79 11 3 0 0
234 17 5 1 0 1
454 33 8 4 0 0
497
129
204
258
499
583
73
12 1 0 0
531 43 4 4 0 0
1880
582
2836
-... --- ----- ---.. - ----- --- .. ..... ---
779
125 40 10 2
"'
1980
Age 0 1 2 3 4 5+
All
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------All Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec ----- ----- ----- ---- - - ---- ----- ----- -.. --- -.... -... ----- .. .. --- ----0 29 2 0 0 0
0 59 2 0 0 0
31
61
0 390 5 1 0 0
0 416 19 2 0 0
0 403 24 1 0 0
1 112 3 0 0 0
17 144 14 0 0 0
18 189 8 3 0 0
44 69 2 0 0 0
142 135 3 0 0 0
181 152 4 1 0 0
174 57 2 0 0 0
577 2155 88 8 0 0
396
437
428
116
175
218
115
280
338
233
2828
----- ----.. --- -- ---.. - ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---...... 1981
Age 0 1 2 3 4 5+
All
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec All --Jan .. -... --.. -- --... -- -.. --.. -..... -.. -.. -.... -..... -... .. ---- ... -.. -... ----- ... ---- -... --0 34 36 1 0 0
0 84 27 0 0 0
71
111
0 259 46 0 0 0
0 288 36 0 0 0
0 234 30 0 0 0
0 34 13 0 0 0
4 36 7 1 0 0
7 20 4 0 0 0
5 48 6 0 0 0
52 76 13 0 0 0
64 141 21 0 0 0
34 33 5 1 1 5
166 1287 244 3 1 5
305
324
264
47
48
31
59
141
226
79
1706
--... -- ----- ---.. - .. ---- ---.. - -- --- .. ---- -.. --- --... -- - ... -... 1982
.....................................................................................................................................................................................
Age 0 1 2 3 4 5+
All
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
----- ----... ----- ----.. ----- ----- ---.. - ---...... ---... - ..... --.. --... -- -... --0 83 117 4 0 3
0 87 62 0 0 0
0 47 20
1 0
0 106 38 0 0 0
0 102 27 9 0 0
207
149
69
144
138
1
---.. - ---.... --.. -- ---... - -.. --...
0 83 13 1 0 0
0 11 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
2 27 6 0 0 0
12
72
20 70 19 0 0 0
8 0 0 0 .............. ... ---.. 35 92 109
-... --. -... --- -... --... ----0 97 11
All
4 6 0 0 0 0
38 694 310 15 1 3
10
1061
---... -
Table F-1 (cont). Numbers of marks applied to red drum in Texas Parks and Wildlife mark-recapture programs by estimated red drum age and year and month of marking.
1983
Age 0 1 2 3 4 S+
All
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec All ----- ----- _____ ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----,
0 7 1 0 0 0
-----
8
0 10 0 0 0 0
..........
10
0 61 22 7 1 2
0 333 3S2 83 24 9
0 3S8 191
0 S1 7 1 0 0
78
1S 21
0 2 0 0 0 0
0 9 1 0 0 0
7 239 36 9 2 2
18 190 21 4 0 0
18 127 11 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ------------- ----- ----93 801 S9 2 10 29S 1S6 233
663
44 1387 642 182 42 34
2331
1984
Age 0 1 2 3 4 S+
All
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------All Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
--------- ----- ----- -----0 .............0 -----0 -----0 -----2 -----4 -----10 ----21 33 0 0 0 3 17 0 0 0
28 S2 7 3 1
47
20
91
12S
75
3 0 0
177 104 7 2 0
84 47 0 0 0
84 21 1 0 0
28 1 1 0 0
102 13 2 0 0
46 21 1 1 0
126 37 1 0 0
140 24 3 1 0
81 21 1 2 0
70 946 433 27 9 1
131
106
30
119
73
174
189
138
1486
----- ----- ----- --------- ------ ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----290 198S
Age 0 1 2 3 4 S+
All
------------------------------------------------·----------------------------Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec All ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
3
0 83 52 7 3 1
0 S1 22 1 0 0
0 112 130 18 4 2
0 138 122 19 2 4
0 76 S4 14 1 1
12S
146
74
266
285
146
0 0 8S 26 11
0
0
60
99
42 13 0 2
42 9 0 0
0 108 6S 21 12
s
10 267 111 11 2 2
31 1SO 67 1 0 1
49 163 17 4 0 0
1307 809 144 35 21
211
403
2SO
233
2406
----- ----- ----- ----- .. ---- -- .. -- ----- ----- -·-- -. ----- ----- ----117
1SO
90
1986
Age 0 1 2 3 4 S+
All
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec All ----- ----- ----- ........... ____ ___ ----- ----- ..... --- --- -- ----- ----..,
0 S6 89 18 2 3
0 91 10 3 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 186 108 14 1 2
----- --------- ----106 311 168
0
0 1S9 76 12 0 0
...............
247
_,,,
1
73
11 3 0 0
-----88
0 0 0 0 0 0
.............
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
--... --
0
1 69 14 2 1 0
............
87
22 347 30 2 0 1
741 180 22 1 0 0
402
944
--... -.. .........
2 24 0 0 0 0
767 118S 360 SS
26
2379
-----
s
7
Table F-1 (cont.). Numbers of marks applied to red drum in Texas Parks and Wildlife mark-recapture programs by estimated red drum age and year and month of marking.
1987
Age 0 1 2 3 4 5+
All
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------All Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec ----- -.. --- -.. --- ----- -- --- ----- ----- ... ---- --.. -... .. -... -- -. -... - -.... -0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0
156 16 1 0
0 64 87 4 0 0
0
0
0
257
155
84
0 19 17 0 0 0 ... 36
0 0 0 0 0 0 ... 0
0 1 0 0 0 0
0 115 23 1 0 0
7 232 41 5 0 0
472 160 30 0 0 1
139
285
663
1 0 0 0 0 0 ...
--... -- ----- ---... - - .. --. --... -.. ---- ---- ----.. -.. --- ---..... ... ---- .... --
480 675 354 26 1 1
1537
1988
Age 0 1 2 3 4 5+
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec All ----- ........... -.... -- -... -.. - .......... -... --.. -.. --... ---.. - -.. --... ----.. ---... - ---... 0 0 0 1 0 0
All
0 2 2 0 0 0
0 32 11 1 0 5
0 97 177 17 1 1
4
49
293
0 70 104 7 0 0 ... ... 181
0 51 28 1 0 1
-... --.. ----- ----- - --
81
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
2 77 47 1 0 0
4 166 35 1 0 0
0 85 25 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
6 580 429 29 1 7
0
0
127
206
110
0
1052
----- ............ --.. -.. ----- ----- --... --
1989
Age 0 1 2 3 4 5+
All
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec All .... --... -.. --.. ----- ----... ----.. ----- ----- ----- ... ---- ----- ----- ----0 0 1 1 0 0
0 2 1 0 0 2
0 1 0 1 0 0
0 81 113 6 1 0
2
5
2
201
----- ----- .. -.. -- -----
0 83 65 7 1 1
0 19 35 3 1 0
0 47 19 5 3 0
0 16 6 2 3 1
2 122 26 0 2 0
0 209 47 4 0 0
58
74
28
152
260
2
68 9 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1
-- --- --- -... --- -.. --- ----- ----- ----- -----
4 648 322 30 11 5
_,.
157
80
1020
1990
Age 0 1 2 3 4 5+
All
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Dec All --- --------.. --.. -- -.. --.. --.... - .. ---- --.. -- ____ ... -...... .. -.. -- .. -..... - ......Nov .,.
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 2
0 116 231 22 2 9
0 91 158 2 0 0
0
0
2
380
251
0 52 28
0
2 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 .. ... ............ 80 2
-... --- .... --.. --..... - -... --- --.. -- - --
0 1 0 0 0 0
0 44 42 3 0 0
29 287 106 1 0 0 ... 423
17 111 50 9 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
48 702 615 37 2 11
187
0
1415
-.. -.. - ----- --- - -.. -.. - ----89
Table F-2 (cont.). Numbers of recaptures of marks applied to red drum in Texas Parks and Wildlife mark-recapture programs by estimated red drum age at year and month of marking.
1979
Age 0 1 2 3 4 5+
ALL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------ALL Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ...... --... --... -- ... --... - -... --- -- ........ ... ... --... -...... -0 12 6 2
0 4 1 0 0
0 11 1 0 0 0
0 43 1 0 0 0
0
0
0
20
5
12
44
--........ ----... ... ---... - ... -... -
0 27 2 0 0 0
2 22 0 0 0 0
29
24
6 17 19 11 1 8 2 0 1 0 0 0 ... ... ...... ... 37 28
34
73
7 1 0 0 0
11 1 3 0 0
42
88
--- -- ... -... -- .... -- - - --...... -----
100 17 0 1 0
........ --
0
82 5 0 1 0 0
--...... -
314 189 22 9 1 0
118
88
535
1980
Age 0 1 2 3 4 5+
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------ALL Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec ......... -.. ... ... .. ... - -...... -- ......... -- -........... ... --- ... -............ ----- ........ -... .. --..... --......... --- ...... 0 5 1 0 0 0
0 12 1 0 0 0
6
13
0 70 0 1 0 0 ...... ... 71
--........ ... ---.. ... --
Al L
0
0
64
77
2
2 0 0 0
0 0 0 ......
-- -........ 66
79
0 33 1 0 0 0
2 43 4 0 0 0
4 60 2 0 0 0
4 18 0 0 0 0
............... ...... .. ...... ............... ... ... -- ... ... 49 22 34 66
24 28 0 0 0 0
34 36 29 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ... ... ... ... 66 50
--...... ---52
--
104 455 14 1 0 0 574
1981
Age
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------ALL Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -...... -- .......... - ... .. ... ... ... --...... - -............ ----- ... ---- ----- ----... --- -- --.. -- ----...
1
0 3
2 3 4 5+
0 0 0
0
ALL
7
0
0 46 3 0 0 0
13
49
0 12 1 0 0
0 48 9 0 0 0 ...... 57
0 53 3 0 0 0
0 8 0 0 0 0
0 2 0 0 0 0
56
8
2
3 2 0 0 0 0
1
11 15 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 ... ........ ... ... ......... 7 5 27
---... - --......... --... -- -- - ..... --- --...... - -... --... ... -- 10
0 6
- -
13 20 1 0 0 0 ...... 34
---
6 3 0 0 0
33 218 26 0 0 0
9
277
0
---......
1982
_______________ ..................................................................................................... -----------------------------
Age
Jan ...
0 1 2 3 4 5+
ALL
----
0 12 10 0 0 0
.. ... ... ... ...
22
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov --...... -- ......... .. --.. - -.... -... .. -- ...... -........... - .. Jun
Feb Mar Apr May ......... ... ... .,, ___ ... ...... 0 0 0 0 4 16 13 8 5 2 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 ... ............ .. ... .. ... ...... ... 15 19 8 21
-
----- -
-
--
0 11 0 0 0 0 11
0 0 0 0 0 0
- -
... ......
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 4 0 0 0 0
0
4
.............. ...............
1 9 2 0 0 0
---... 12
4
4 1 0
0
Dec
... ...........
0 1 0 0 0 0
___ ,. 0... -........... 9
ALL 5 82 34 0 1 0 122
Table F-2 (cont.). Numbers of recaptures of marks applied to red drum in Texas Parks and Wildlife mark-recapture programs by estimated red drum age at year and month of marking.
1983
Age 0 1 2 3 4 5+
ALL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec ALL ----- ... ---- ----- ----- -. --- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----... ----- ----0 3 0 0 0
----- ---
0 0 0 0 0 0 ...... ...
3
0
0
0 4 0 0 0 0
0 26 26
4
58
5 1 0
---- -----
0 30 16 4 0 0 ............... 50
0 9 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
9
0
0 1
0 0
0
0
0
0
-..... -- ----- -----
1 18 2 0 0 0
0 7 2 1 0 0 ...... ... 10
---
21
1 15 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0
2 113 46 10 1 0
16
0
172
---.. ----...
1984
Age 0 1 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------ALL Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -...... -- ....... .., ... .. --...... ----... ----- -- --- -... --- ... --... - ... ---... ----- ----- --... -...
3 4 5+
0 0 2 0 0 0
Al L
2
0 4
1 0 0
0 4 8 1 0 0
10
13
5
... ...
--- -----
0 18 10 0 0 0
..............
28
---
0 12 5 0 0 0 ...... 17
0 0 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ... ........... ... ... ... 8 4
-... --
1 5
0 0 0 0 ... 6
--
2 14 4 0 0 0 .. ... ... ... ......... 6 20 0 5 1 0 0 0
--
-
2 10 0 0 0 0
4 9 2 0 0 0
9 93 37 2 0 0
12
15
141
-...... -..
1985
Age 0 1 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Al L ----- --...... - ----... ----- ----- ... --... - ...... -..... .............. .. --.. - ----- --... -- -----
3 4 5+
0 0 4 0 1 0
ALL
5
0 15 6 3 0 0
0 6 2 0 0 0
0 11 6 1 0 0
0 20 20 3 1 0
0 15 2 1 0 0
0 4 1 1 0 0
0 8 2 0 0 0
0 12
1 1 1
1 41 16 0 0 0
9 16 3 0 0 0
24
8
18
44
18
6
10
20
58
28
5
7 15 2 1 0 0 ...... 25
----- --.. -- ----- ----- ----- -- --- ----- ---.. - -.... -- -.. --- - ..... -
17 163 69 11 3 1
264
1986
Age 0 1 2 3 4 5+
ALL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Al L -..... -- -...... -- ... .. -...... -.......... ... -......... ----- .. ---- --.. -... ----- ----- --...... - -...... -.. 0 6 4 2 0 0 ... .. ... ... ... ... 12
-
-
0 7 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0
0
7
0
-... --.........
... ...
0 33 17 1 0 1
-......
52
0 0 0
0 7 0 0 0 0
29
7
0 24
5
.. ...... -... -..........
0 0 0 0 0 0
... ...
--..
0
0 0 5 0 12 66 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ............ .............. ............... 16 0 75
-
7 26 1 0
-
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...... ...... ...... 34 0
-- -
12 181 35 3 0 1
232
Table F-2 (cont.). Numbers of recaptures of marks applied to red drum in Texas Parks and Wildlife mark-recapture programs by estimated red drum age at year and month of marking.
1987
Age 0 1 2 3 4 S+
All
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec All ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -·--- ----- ----- ----- ............. ----- ----0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0
0
--... -- ----- ..............
0 16 16 2 0 0
0 6 11 0 0 0
0 3 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 15 5 0 0 0
2 29 2 0 0 0
3 20 2 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
5 89 36 2 0 0
33
25
0
132
----- ----- ---- .. ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----34 17 3 0 20 0
1988
Age 0 1 2 3 4 S+
All
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec All -... --- -----·. .............. ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----~.
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0
----- -----
0 2 1 0 0 0
..............
3
0 9 21 1 0 0
0 10 5 0 0 0
0 5 4 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
31
15
9
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 10 2 0 0 0 ............... 0 12
----- ----- --...... - ----- -----
0 22 5 0 0 0
0 15 4 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 73 42 1 0 0
0
116
----- ----- ----27 19
1989
Age 0 1 2 3 4 S+
All
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec All .............. ----- ----- ----- -·--- -·--- ----- ----- ----- ---- ... ----- _... ___ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 4 1 3 1 16 6 0 12 so 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
12 0 0 0 .
6 0 0 0
1 0 0 0
1 0 0 0
0 1 0 0
3 0 0 0
-... --... ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----0 19 10 4 0 0 2 2 15
3 0 0 0
...............
19
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
26 1 0 0
0
77
-----6 -----
1990
Age 0 1 2 3 4 5+
All
--------------... ----------------------------·--------------------------------Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec All ----- .. ---- ----- .... -... - .. ---- -...... -- ----- ---.... ----- ----- ----- ----0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 14 12 0 0 0
0 15 10 0 0 0
0 4 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0
0 1 1 0 0 0
2 22 7 0 0 0
1 10 3 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
3 67 34 0 0 0
2
31
14
0
104
----- ----- ----- ----- --... -- ----- ----- ----- ---... - ...... -..... ----... ----0 0 0 26 25 5 0
Table F-2 (cont.). Numbers of recaptures of marks applied to red drum in Texas Parks and Wildlife mark-recapture programs by estimated red drum age at year and month of marking.
1991
Age 0 1 2 3 4 5+
All
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
AUg
Jul
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
--.... - --.. -- ... ---.. .. ....... - ---.. - ----- .. ---- ----- ... --..... ----... ----... ----0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 6 1 0 0
0 3 4 0 0 0
0 1 4 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 1 0 0 0
0
0
0
7
7
5
0
0
2
0 1 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0
---.. - ----- --... -- ---.. - -... --- ... ---.. ---...... -... -..... ----- -.. ---
All
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 7 15 1 0 0
0
23
1992
Age 0 1 2 3 4 5+
All
Jan
............. 0 0 0 0 0 0
Feb Mar Apr -.. --- ........... -----
-May ... --...
Jul
Jun
Aug
............ --... -- -----
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oct Nov Dec -Sep ... --- ... ---- --- -- ----0 0 0 0 0 0
----- -... --- ---... - ----- -...... -- --... -- ----.. --... -- ----0
0
...
All
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
---- ... ---- -----
ALL YEARS Age 0 1 2 3 4 5+
All
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec All ----- ----- ----- ----- .. ---... -... --- ----- ----.. ----... --.. -- ....... ..... ............ 0 132 82 5 1 0
220
0 146 42 4 0 0
0 248 42 2 1 0
192
293
0 437 168 11 1 1
1 445 103 7 1 0 .. ... ... 618 557
2 127 13 1 0 0
----- ---. - -- -- - -- ----..
143
9
15 3 1 0
49 127 8 1 0 0
76 142 30 2 1 1
236 357 51 5 0 1
111
185
252
650
83
...
338 267 21 1 0 0
267 113 7 2 0 0
978 2624 582 44 6 3
627
389
4237
---- -..... -..
Table F-3. Percentage recaptured for marks applied to red drum in Texas Parks and Wildlife markrecapture programs by estimated red drum age at year and month of marking. 1975 Age
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
0 1 2 3 4
Nov
Dec
All
9.2 11.1 20.0 20.6 33.3 0.0
10.4 20.5 12.5
10.9 13.0
12.3
Nov
All
5+ All 1976 Age 0 1 2 3 4 5+
All
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
23.7 17.7 23.5 31.1 18.7 22.5 0.0 11.8 19.2 11.9 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 23.6
16.7 21.9 27.8 17.3
Jun
Jul
0.0
Sep
Oct
Dec
o.o
0.0 50.0 26.7 17.0 14.2 0.0 33.3 31.5 30.3 25.2 0.0 28.6 66.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0
17.8 25.1 17.4 20.0 0.0 11.1
0.0
0.0 22.2 27.7 22.6 18.6
22.0
0.0
0.0
Aug
1977 Age 0 1
2 3 4
Jan
Feb
Mar
May
100.0 20.0 15.7 20.0 26.8 28.6 28.8 17.3 8.0 17.1 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
5+
All
Apr
Jun
Jul
16.1
0.0
17.2 24.6 27.2
Sep
0.0 75.0 40.0 50.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
23.9
Aug
25.0 33.3
Oct
Nov
Dec
24.0 27.3 16.6 53.3 33.3 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
All 22.9 24.3 18.5 0.0 0.0
0.0 26.7 28.3
17.1
22.8
1978 Age 0 1 2 3 4 5+ All
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------All Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -......... ----- ----- ----.. -......... ----.. --- -- -...... -- ----- ----- - ..... -- ----0.0 24.5 33.6 28.0 19.3 29.5 17.6 15.7 26.7 19.0 18.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
o.o
22.2 27.3
27.5
19.1
27.5
8.3 28.4 30.8 25.9 28.7 35.1 20.0 18.8 33.3 0.0 100.0 0.0
--
.. -.. ... ..... -...
21.9 29.9 17.1 26.2 28.1 12.8 50.0 33.3 25.0 50.0 0.0 0.0
22.5 27.2 32.6 23.8 29.3
16.6
23.9 26.9 21.9 12.5 0.0 0.0 24.9
Table F-3 (cont.). Percentage recaptured for marks applied to red drum in Texas Parks and Wildlife mark-recapture programs by estimated red drum age at year and month of marking.
1979 Age 0 1 2 3 4 5+ ALL
Jan.,. .. ___
Feb
May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -- ... Apr ---- ... ---- ............. .. ---- -- -... - -...... -.. . .. -... - --.. -- -... ---
Mar
--- --
...... ...
--
----- -
28.6 13.0 15.3 14.5 16.1 20.1 15.4 13.5 14.8 17. 7 29.9 30.3 29.7 22.4 24.1 41.2 33.3 23.3 11.6 17.6 33.3 11.1 7.1 20.0 0.0 57.1 9.1 20.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 28.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 75.D 100.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 - ......... -........... - - .. --... --- ... -... ... ... .. 15.3 16.1 16.7 27.2 28.7 28.6 21.7 18. 1 16.3 17.6 20.2 15.1
--
----- -- --
-- -
-- ----- -----
ALL 16.7 24.3 17.6 22.5 10.0 0.0 18.9
1980 Age 0 1
2 3
Jan
-........ -
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
--- ..... -... --- ---·- ... --... - -----
Jul
......... -- ...
Aug
Sep Oct Nov Dec ---- -... --.. .. ---- ........... -- -......
ALL
0.0 11.8 22.2 9.1 16.9 19.9 19.5 17.2 20.3 17.9 15.4 19.1 29.5 29.9 31.7 26.1 20.7 19. 1 28.1 50.0 50.0 0.0 10.5 8.3 33.3 28.6 25.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
18.0 21.1 15.9 12.5
19.4 21.3 17.9 15.1
18.6 19.5 21.5
20.3
Oct
ALL
4
5+
All
18.5 29.3 28.0 30.3 19.1 1981
Age 0 1 2 3 4 5+ Al L
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
----- -... --- ----- -... --... ----- ----8.8 14.3 17.8 16.7 22.6 23.5 19.4 3.7 6.5 25.0 10.0 0.0 0.0
14.1
11. 7 16.1
Jul
17.6 21.2 17.0
Aug
Sep .............. 0.0 42.9 0.0 5.6 10.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0
.............
--... --
4.2 16.1
.. ---..
Nov
Dec
----- -----
21.2 20.3 17.6 19.7 14.2 9.1 7.7 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
19.9 16.9 10.7 0.0
o.o
o.o o.o
11.9 19.1
15.0 11.4
16.2
Sep
Nov
All
1982 Age
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Oct
Dec
0.0
0.0 8.3 20.0 0.0 14.8 12.5 5.7 16.7 0.0 25.0 5.3
5+
14.5 9.2 8.5 15.1 12.7 13.3 8.5 17.7 15.0 13.2 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
ALL
10.6 12.8 11.6 14.6 10.9 11.3
0.0
11.4 13.0
0 1 2
3 4
8.3 10.0
13.2 11.8 11.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 11.5
Table F-3 (cont.). Percentage recaptured for marks applied to red drum in Texas Parks and Wildlife mark-recapture programs by estimated red drum age at year and month of marking.
1983
Age 0 1 2 3 4 5+
All
Jan
Feb
.......... ........... 42.9 0.0
37.5
0.0
Mar
6.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
7.8 7.4 6.0 4.2 0.0
May
...........
Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec ----- ----- --------- ----- ----- ----14.3 0.0 5.6 0.0
8.4 17.6 8.4 o.o 5.1 o.o 0.0
0.0 11.1 0.0
o.o
7.5 3.7 11.8 5.6 9.5 o.o 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -.. --4.3 7.2 7.5 15.3 0.0 10.0 7.1 4.3 10.3
----- .......... 0.0
Apr
----- -----
0.0
All 4.5 8.1 7.2 5.5 2.4 0.0 7.4
1984
Age 0 1 2 3 4 5+
All
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
----- ----- ----- --------- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----50.0 0.0 20.0 9.5 12.1 0.0 14.3 8.5 10.2 14.3 11.8 9.6 10.7 9.6 10.6 14.3 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
9.5 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
4.9 10.9 11.1 o.o 4.8 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
----- ----- --------- ----- ----- ---·- ----- ----9.7 13.0 7.5 13.3 5.0 8.2 11.5
10.0 11.0 10.4
7.1 11.1 0.0 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
..........
-----
6.3 10.9
All 12.9 9.8 8.5 7.4 0.0 0.0 9.5
1985
Age 0 1 2 3 4 5+
All
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----4.7 0.0 9.1 0.0
............
18.1 11.8 11.5 9.1 42.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
-----
..........
4.0 16.4 10.8
9.8 4.6 5.6 0.0 0.0
14.5 19.7 16.4 3.7 15.8 7.1 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
----- ----- -----
6.7 2.4 7.7 0.0
...........
6.8 15.4 12.3
5.1
Sep
...........
Oct Nov Dec ----........... -----
10.0 29.0 14.3 8.1 11.1 15.4 10.7 9.2 4.8 7.7 14.4 4.5 11.8 o.o 4.8 0.0 0.0 25.0 8.3 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0
----- ---... - ----- ----- ----6.7 9.5 14.4 11.2 10.7
All 18.9 12.5 8.5 7.6 8.6 4.8 11.0
1986
Age 0 1 2 3 4 5+
All
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec All
----- -·--- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----.. 0.0 10.7 4.5 11.1
o.o 0.0 7.1
7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
17.7 15.1 15.7 6.6 7.1 0.0 0.0 50.0
9.6 0.0
o.o
----- ----- ----- ----- --------6.6 16.7 11.7 8.0
----- --... -- ----- ----0.0 22.7 0.9 17.4 19.0 14.4 28.6 13.3 4.5 0.0 0.0 o.o
o.o
o.o
----- ----- ----18.4 18.7
3.6
0.0 0.0
----0.0
1.6 15.3 9.7 5.5 0.0 14.3 9.8
Table F-3 (cont). Percentage recaptured for marks applied to red drum in Texas Parks and Wildlife mark-recapture programs by estimated red drum age at year and month of marking.
1987
Age
Jan
Feb
Mar
0 1 2 3 4 5+
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
----- ---... - ---.. - ..... -... 19.0 9.4 15.8 10.3 12.6 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0
Aug
......
Oct Nov -.. - ... Sep ---- ----- ----28.6 0.6
0.0
13.0 12.5 12.5 21.7 4.9 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
............ ... .. -... 13.2 11.0
All
Dec ........ -0.0
8.3
0.0 14.4 11.6
--- -- ---- ... 3.8
0.0
All 1.0 13.2 10.2 7.7 0.0 0.0 8.6
1988
Age
Jan
0 1 2 3 4 5+
0.0
All
0.0
Feb
Mar
Apr
...............
Jun Jul -May ............ ----- -... --...
0.0 0.0
6.3 9.3 14.3 9.8 9.1 11.9 4.8 14.3 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
6.1
Aug
Oct
.............
...
,
Nov
Dec
--...... --.........
0.0 0.0 13.0 13.3 17.6 4.3 14.3 16.0 0.0 0.0
8.3 11.1
10.6
Sep
9.4
All 0.0 12.6 9.8 3.4 0.0 0.0
13. 1 17.3
11.0
1989
Age 0 1 2 3 4 5+
All
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------All Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec .. ... ... -... ... ............ ... ............ -........... .............. --...... - .............. --... -.. -......... - ............... --......... 0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
... ... ... ... ...
-............
0.0
0.0
8.6 10.6 0.0 0.0
4.8 9.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 ........... 6.4
9.5
5.3 2.9 0.0
o.o ... -- .....
0.0 6.4 6.3 9.8 5.3 0.0 11.5 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
7.7 6.4 0.0
5.4
7.3
... ............ ... ... ... .. ...
3.4
7.1
0.0 8.8 0.0 0.0
-
......... ... ... ...... -...
9.9
7.5
0.0
0.0 7.7 8.1 3.3 0.0 0.0
0.0
7.5
1990
Age 0 1 2 3 4 5+
All
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------All Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec ... ... ... ... - - ... - ... - - ............ ... ............ ...... - ...... ... ... -...... - ... -- - ...... -... - ......... -12.1 16.5 5.2 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
7.7 3.6
100.0
2.3 2.4 0.0
6.9 7.7 6.6 0.0
5.9 9.0 6.0 0.0
6.3 9.5 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
6.3
0.0 100.0
2.2
7.3
7.5
7.3
0.0
--...... - -............ -............
6.8 10.0
Table F-3 (cont.). Percentage recaptured for marks applied to red drum in Texas Parks and Wildlife mark-recapture programs by estimated red drum age at year and month of marking.
1991 Age
Jan
Feb
0 1 2 3 4 5+
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
-...... -- ----- ..... -..... -..... -..
0.0
0.0 9.7 9.1 0.0
5.7 2.4 5.2 12.5 o.o 0.0
0.0
7.6
5.0
0.0
Jul
Aug
Sep
0.0
o.o
0.0 0.0
o.o -... --.. ----- ----- ---... - -... --... -..... --
All
Oct
Nov
Dec
----- --.. -- -- --- ----- --------o.o o.o
6.4
0.0
0.0
All
0.0 1• 1 2.8 0.0
0.0 0.5 0.0
o.o
0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.9 5.2 2.8 0.0
1.3
0.4
0.2
1.9
1992 Age
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
All
0 1
2 3 4
5+
All ALL YEARS Age 0 1 2 3 4 5+ All
--------------------- ... -·--------------------------·-------------------·------All Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec ----- .............. ... ....... - -...... -... ... ...... -... --... -- ---... - -....... - -... -- - ...... -- .. ----- ... ............ 19.0 16.8 18.3 13.9 13.0 12.8 8.2 19.0 10.0 7.1 0.0 25.0 o.o -............ 0.0 0.0 ........ 16.1 15.7 17.1
--
50.0 22.2 10.3 16.3 17.7 16.4 18.8 10.0 9.3 4.9 13.6 5.4 4.6 3.3 8.8 2.6 4.0 0.0 8.3 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 ............ ... - ..... - ... -... - 13.4 14.5 13.3 16.2
-- -- -
20.8 17.0 18.6 12.0 15.4 20.4 12.5 13.9 12.9 16.1 7.7 8.8 9.9 5.9 11.3 4.5 4.8 11.4 5.6 18.2 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 12.5 0.0 0.0 - -... - ...... -... ... ........ -- ......... -18.6 12.6 14.8 11.9 15.5
- -
- -- -
14.8 16.0 10.1 6.7 4.4 2.6
14.3
Table F-4. M= time at l"!le ond dl r
6992
800
Lr---....C:L.l..,..L.L.1-L..L,.J-l......LJ:::.t;;:J===-------~-,.~~~._..l
5
10
15
20
25
-:z
30
r
35
TOTAL LENGTH (INCHES)
Figure Q-1. Length.frequencies of red drum sampled in Louisiana gill nets by mesh size. The data are pooled over months, area and years.
2IN
2.SIN
3IN
3.5 IN
4 IN
6IN JAN FEB
~
u zri.:l
APR
Cl
MAY
0::::
JUN
MAR
~
ri.:l ~
ri.:l
->< E-4
2
JUL
3
AUG SEP
i-l ri.:l
7
0::::
OCT NOV
DEC 10
20
30 "10
20
30 10
20
30 10 20
30 10 20
30 10
20
30 10
20
30
TOTAL LENGTH (INCHES) Figure Q-2. Length frequencies of red drum sampled in Louisiana gill nets by mesh size and month. The data are pooled over area and years.
2 IN ~
2.5 IN
3.SIN
3IN
49
48
45
56
SIN
4 IN
6IN 86 4
u
z
87 88
~
:::>
a
303
~
89
0:::
90
->
91
~
~
~
279
92
~ ~
153
93
E-
~
30
TOTAL LENGTH (INCHES) Figure R-3. Length frequencies of red drum sampled in gill nets in Mississippi by bay system and year. Data are pooled over months and mesh sizes.
MISSISSIPPI GILL NET CPUE 2.70
2.70
2.75 INCH
1.80
1.80
~ 0~ 0.90
~
®
s
,,,..
M
..., "' LI)
~
®
~
C>
"' "' ~ ~ 0.00
0.00 4 INCH
~
::r:: u ~
