Traps have historically proven to be effective but nonselective gear (i.e., traps capture a high percentage of nontarget species). During a Department study, the percentage of nontarget fishes and invertebrates captured in traps ranged between 82% and 98%. Captured fishes and invertebrates are also frequently damaged or killed due to "trap trauma". In addition, lost or abandoned gear become "ghost traps" that continue to capture fishes for years until the traps decay or fall apart. The effect of finfish trapping on southern California´s marine resources is not known at this time. However, sheephead are probably the most affected of all target species since they account for more than 88% of live fish landed by trap gear since 1989. In fact, commercial landings (all gears) of sheephead have increased 7- fold during the last 5 years–more than 240,000 lbs were landed in 1992. An additional 75,000-100,000 sheephead are taken each year by recreational anglers and divers. It is unlikely that local sheephead populations can continue to sustain this increase in fishing pressure.

Until more is known about the effects of the live-fish trap fishery in California, it is in the best interest of the state´s marine resources to manage "finfish trapping" as a separate fishery. We recommend the foIlowing effort and gear restrictions be considered to manage the finfish trap fishery (detailed options are presented in the text)

~ Special permit for finfish trapping ~ Limited entry ~ Logbook required ~ Only finfish may be taken in traps; no incidental take of invertebrates allowed ~ Gear restrictions: _ maximum trap size: 20 cu ft _ minimum mesh size: 2" x 2" _ trap must have at least 1 destruct device ~ Finfish trapping may take place during daytime hours only; all traps must be returned to port each day ~ Finfish traps and receivers impounding fish shall be individually buoyed ~ Finfish trapping restricted to depths of 60´ or less ~ Any species with minimum size limit (commercial or recreational) may not be used as bait or possessed on any vessel trapping finfish (e.g., rock crab, kelp bass) ~ No SCUBA equipment or other artificial breathing device may be used or possessed on any vessel trapping finfish ~ California sheephead no longer allowed to be taken incidentally.in other trap fisheries (e.g., lobster, dungeness crab, rock crab)

Historical Background of Trapping:

Trapping has been an important method of fishing throughout recorded history (Von Brandt 1972). Although simple baskets made of woven twigs, branches, bamboo, or palm leaves are still used in the fisheries of Africa, Indonesia, Asia, South America, and the Caribbean, the majority of traps used in modern day fishing are significantly more complex, constructed with a variety of materials including wood, wire, netting, and plastic (Von Brandt 1972). Marine traps, in particular, are generally basket or box- like structures with one or more funnels (or slits) for entrances. Bait is placed in the trap to entice target fish or invertebrates to enter. Traps are effective in catching finfish (Munro 1974). Once caught in the trap, fishes cannot easily escape because of the tapered shape of the entrance funnels (Butler et al. 1993, Stone 1987). Traps are also nonselective and capture a wide variety of fishes and invertebrates - including a large percentage of noncommercial species (Sutherland and Harper 1983, Taylor and McMichael 1983). In addition, juvenile and undersized individuals are often trapped (Taylor and McMichael 1983). Because of the gear´s effectiveness and nonselectivity, trapping has the potential to negatively effect marine resources if not properly monitored and managed. In fact, fish trapping has already been banned in several areas of the world because of its detrimental effect on coral reef communities.

Prior to World War II, the Bermuda Islands had a subsistence fishing industry (including trapping) that dated back to the time of their earliest settlement (Butler et al. 1993). After the war, however, technological advances, combined with a growing demand for choice, white-meat fishes, expanded the Bermuda trap fishery to such an extent that sustainable yields of desired species (primarily groupers and snappers) were exceeded (Butler et al. 1993). Local trap fishermen soon began looking for alternative target species and found that the fillets of many reef-dwelling species (previously thought of as "second-rate" seafood) now had high market potential. As the catch of grouper and snapper continued to decline, herbivorous ~eef fishes soon formed the mainstay of the trap fishery. Unfortunately, many noncommercial species were also captured by the nonselective traps. Fisheries managers soon became concerned that not only were desirable fish stocks being exhausted, but also that the integrity of the reef community itself might be in danger (Butler et al. 1993). Despite stringent regulations enacted by the Bermuda government on fish trapping during the 1980s, many species continued to become seriously threatened. In a final attempt to avoid the local extinction of several species, the Bermuda government completely banned fish trapping in 1990 (Butler et al., 1993). Although the long-term outcome of the ban is still unknown, it has already significantly reduced the catch of grouper, snapper, and other important coral reef fishes (Butler et al. 1993).

In the 1970s, a trap fishery developed in the Caribbean after a National Marine Fisheries Service study found that there was a "good potential" for finfish trapping in the area (Wolf and Chislett 1971). By 1977, the trapping had actively spread northward to the Florida reef tract in both the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico (Stone 1987). State and federal fisheries managers soon became concerned that the traps were too effective and were damaging local reef-fish stocks (Bohnsack et al. 1989). Government studies found that 38-50% of the fish caught in traps had no direct commercial importance (Sutherland and Harper 1983, Taylor and McMichael 1983). In addition, both noncommercial species and undersized commercial fishes often incurred injury and mortality from: 1) attempting to escape from traps, 2) embolisms caused by changes in ambient pressure as deep-water traps were lifted to the surface, 3) stress and handling at the surface before release, and 4) predators (e.g., moray eels) entering the trap to feed on captured fishes (Sutherland and Harper 1983, Taylor and McMichael 1983). Lost or abandoned traps ("ghost traps") were also found to attract and catch fish for several years until their steel or plastic components broke apart. Because of these significant findings, Florida banned the use of fish traps within state waters in 1980 (Stone 1987). Several years later, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council banned fish trapping in federal waters of the Atlantic Ocean. The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC) allowed fish trapping to continue in the Gulf of Mexico but enacted the following restrictions on trappers: 1) possession of fish trap permit, 2) maximum trap volume of 33 cu ft, 3) minimum mesh size of 1"x 2", and 4) no more than 100 traps per vessel. In addition, the GMFMC currently has an amendment pending to enact these additional restrictions: 1) limited-entry fishery, 2) all traps must be returned to port at end of each trip, and 3) traps must be individually buoyed (i.e., no strings of traps allowed).

In the Gulf of Alaska, fisheries managers are trying to properly manage a relatively new trap fishery (Gay 1991). In 1988, north Pacific crab fishermen began modifying their traps to target Pacific cod (Gadus Macrocephalus). By 1991, the trappers were successfully competing with trawlers for this increasingly shared resource. With the establishment of this trap fishery, two major concerns for the local resources have developed: 1) areas historically closed to trawlers to protect cod spawning stocks are being fished by trappers, and 2) cod traps catch juvenile crabs that are readily fed upon by captured cod or suffer mortality from handling (Gay 1991). Regulations are currently being enacted to confront these issues and reduce the negative effect trapping may have on cod and crab stocks.

Live-Fish Trap Fishery in Southern California, 1989-1992

In 1989, a live-fish trap fishery developed in southern California to meet the high demand and price paid for live ocean fish by local Asian restaurants. Although some freshwater species such as carp, squawfish, and suckers were caught and sold live during the 1940s (Hallock 1949) trapping and transporting live fish for food is relatively new and unregulated in California. To determine if fish trapping in California has the potential to negatively affect local resources, general and specific fishery data were collected and analyzed by Department biologists. General information concerning fishery operations was obtained via interviews with participating commercial trap fishermen, live fish dealers, and Department wardens. Specific commercial catch data were obtained from Department landing receipt records.

A general trap permit is required to trap and sell live fish. The permit is non-specific and does not require a log book. Although trap fishermen use a variety of trap configurations (Figure 1), the basic design is a 3´x 2´x 1.5´ double compartment trap with two entrance funnels. Traps are usually constructed with 1 "x 1", 2"x 2", or 2"x 4" wire mesh. Each trap has a top door and built-in bait container. Individual or strings of traps must be marked with a buoy. Traps are set in 10´ to 140´ of water and "soaked" anywhere from 45 minutes to several days. invertebrates (primarily rock and spider crabs) are most commonly used as bait by local fishermen. Other bait used includes mussels, squid, mackerel and sardines.

During its 4-year existence, the live-fish trap fishery has grown rapidly–both total effort and catch have increased dramatically each year (Table 1; Figure 2). In 1989, the fishery consisted of 2 boats that landed 1,365 lbs of live fish; in 1992, 27 boats landed 52,626 lbs of live fish (Table 1). During the last 3 years, landings have peaked each summer and declined each fall (Figure 2); this trend is due to fish trappers targeting spiny lobster (panulirus interruptus) during their October to March commercial season.

Market demand drives the live fish trap fishery; dealers determine which species and size of fish are marketable (hereafter referred to as target species). The fishery is also highly mobile; most live-fish dealers do not have or need processing locations since live fish are transported (trucked) directly from boat to restaurant. Thus target species must not only taste good but be hardy enough to withstand capture, transport, and storage in tanks. As with any live seafood product, good physical appearance is also mandatory. Restaurants prefer small (1-2 lbs) fish because they can be cooked and served whole as a single entree. They also believe that smaller fish have better taste and texture than larger fish. Restaurant- desired species currently targeted by the live-fish trap fishery include California sheephead (Semicassyphus puicher). California moray eel (Gymnathorax mordax), California scorpionfish (Scorpaena gutta La), cabezon (Scorpaenichthys marinaratus), several species of shallow-water rockfish (Sebastes spp.). In 1992, ex-vessel price for these species (live) ranged from $2.00/lb to $8.50/lb.

California sheephead is the primary target of the fishery and accounts for 89% of live fish landed by trap gear since 1989 (Table 1; Figure 3). It first appeared in southern California restaurants circa 1987 and was dubbed the "fish of good health" by Chinese fish brokers to entice potential consumers. Its continued popularity at local restaurants is due to a striking similarity in both appearance and flavor to a well-liked fish in Asia. One local high volume dealer complained that he "couldn´t get enough live sheephead to satisfy his customers because demand is so high. Adding to the sheephead´s high value in the live-fish trade is its low mortality rate during capture, transfer, and storage.

The commercial catch of target species other than sheephead has been relatively small (Table 1) with combined landings accounting for approximately 10% of the fishery´s total catch. Generally, there is much less demand for these species by live-fish dealers and restaurants. Scorpionfish (sculpin) was the first local species to appear in southern California´s "live-fish" restaurants (circa 1980). Its delicate flavor and hardy nature made it a natural success in the live-fish industry; however, restaurant demand quickly declined with the introduction of sheephead. Many chefs also complained of getting stuck by the sculpin´s poisonous spines and refused to prepare them. Restaurant demand for moray eels has also been relatively weak. In 1992, live eels were being targeted by only a few boats and only upon request from their respective dealers. The demand for cabezon and rockfish is also considerably lower than that for sheephead.

Over 90% of the nontarget (bycatch) commercial species landed by the live-fish trap fishery were invertebrates (Table 1), primarily rock crab (Cancer spp. and spider crab (Loxorhynchus spp.). Bycatch finfish landings were dominated by ocean whitefish (Caulolatilus princeps) in 1991 and unspecified surfperch (Embiotocidae) in 1992. California Department of Fish and Game Live-Fish Trap study: Because trap fishermen were not willing to let Department personnel "ride-along" on their boats to observe trapping operations, a fishery-independent study was conducted. This section summarizes the study´s findings. A detailed account of the study will be presented in a separate paper (palmer et al., in prep).

In September and October 1992, Department personnel made 453 trap sets along the Palos Verdes Peninsula (PVP) in southern California (Figure 4). Finfish "targeted" were California sheephead, California scorpionfish, California moray eel, cabezon, and shallow water rockfish. Trapping operations (daytime and overnight) were patterned after techniques used by commercial trap fishermen in southern California. All finfish captured were measured, examined, and released (if healthy). invertebrates were also identified and released.

During the daytime sets, target species made up 34% of the total finfish catch (Table 2). This is similar to the target/nontarget finfish ratios observed in Florida trap fisheries (Sutherland and Harper 1983, Taylor and McMichael 1983). Sheephead, the primary target of the live-fish trap fishery, represented only 17% of the total finfish catch (Table 2) whereas, kelp bass (paralabrax clathratus) and barred sand bass (p. nebulifer) accounted for more than 40% (Table 2) It´s important to note that both basses are restricted from commercial catch and are important to the sport fishing industry in southern California. In fact, most of the "nontarget" finfish captured during the study had little or no commercial value. Invertebrates accounted for 46% of the total daytime catch (Table 2) and were also comprised primarily of nonmarketable species.

The target/nontarget ratio was even lower in the overnight sets. Target species (primarily rockfish) accounted for 19% of the finfish catch and 2% of the total catch. In addition only 1 sheephead was caught. Kelp bass and barred sand bass again dominated the finfish catch and accounted for more than 58% of all finfish captured (Table 2). In addition, 33% of the finfish captured at night were either damaged or dead. Invertebrates accounted for 88% of the total overnight catch (Table 2) and were comprised primarily of Kellet´s whelk (Kelletia kelletii) and spiny lobster. Most lobster were of sublegal size (carapace length <3.25") and several were either damaged or dead. These results indicate that finfish trapping in southern California is also very nonselective and many species of fishes and invertebrates with little or no commercial value are often captured. In fact, the overall target/nontarget ratio of the study was lower than those measured in other areas where trapping has already been banned (i.e., Florida). In addition, a high percentage of the bycatch was damaged or killed. Unless the live-fish trap fishery in southern California is properly regulated and monitored, the potential to negatively affect local fish and invertebrate populations (including noncommercial species) exists.

Issues:

Sheephead are protogynous hermaphrodites (i.e., all fish begin life as females and later transform into males). Juvenile sheephead become mature females at age 4-5 when they are about 8" long (Feder et al. 1974) and weigh approximately 0.3 lbs (Ames 1972). Each female sheephead can spawn several times during its breeding season (August through October). However, the length of time a sheephead spends as a mature female (and contributes to the total spawning biomass) differs markedly among populations (Warner 1975, Cowen 1990). Although most individuals function a minimum of one year as a female (Warner 1975), sexual transformation depends on intrapopulational relationships such as sex ratio and average male size (Cowen 1990). In a recent study. the age at which females transformed into functional males varied significantly among sheephead populations and ranged from 5 years to 14 years (Cowen 1990). In 1992, the majority of sheephead landed live in southern California were mature females (Burres 1992). However, most of these females were relatively small (Table 4, Figure 6). The continued removal of young females by the live-fish trap fishery will not only affect important intrapopulational relationships but may also significantly reduce the recruitment of sheephead throughout the Southern California Bight.

Since the landings of other target species have been relatively small, the live-fish trap fishery probably does not directly affect their populations at this time. Nonetheless, a few trends in the fishery should be noted. Eel landings have more than doubled during the last three years (Table 1); however, dealer supply and demand now limit their catch. Both rockfish and cabezon landings, increased significantly in 1991, but all landings combined still make up less than 5% of the total fishery catch (Table 1). Scorpionfish account for only 1% of the target species caught, but landings did increase significantly in 1992. This may signify a resurgence in its popularity.

Effects of trapping on nontarget finfish populations:

Effects of trapping on nontarget invertebrate populations:

Conflicts with other commercial gear:

Sheephead abundances may also indirectly affect other fisheries in southern California. Sheephead are such important predators of sea urchins that they regulate urchin densities and influence microhabitat distribution (Cowen 1983, Tegner and Dayton 1981). If sheephead abundances become severely reduced, their ability to keep urchin populations "in check" will diminish and allow the formation of dense urchin aggregations that can destroy a kelp forest at the rate of 30´ per month (Mcpeak et al., 1988). Thus sheephead play an important role in the survival of kelp forests and their biota - - valuable resources that support many other commercial and recreational fisheries in southern California.

Conflicts with sport fishing industry:

Many CPFV owners have already expressed concern over the use of prime fishing areas by finfish trappers. Besides reporting reduced sport fish catches, they also complain that anglers frequently snag their lines on submerged trap gear. Some coastal areas are also especially important during rough weather when sport boats are limited to nearshore areas. Other conflicts may exist with sport divers since they frequently target sheephead when spearfishing and may be tempted to raid or destroy traps when opportunities arise.

Recommendations:

OPTION 1.

b) Limited entry - permit issued only to a person who landed finfish commercially (using trap gear) in this state in his or her own name, as documented by one or more landing receipts issued pursuant to _8043 (Cal. Fish & Game Code) between March 31, 1984 and March 31, 1994, inclusive.

c) Logbook - each permittee must submit an accurate record of finfish trapping activities on a form (Daily Trap Fishing Log) provided by the Department, pursuant to _190 (Title 14) and _8026 (Cal Fish & Game Code)

d) Only finfish may be taken with finfish traps; all invertebrates caught incidentally must be immediately released.

e) Gear restrictions: _ Maximum trap size- 20 cu ft _ Minimum mesh size 2" x 2" _ Every trap must have at least one destruct device pursuant to _9003.

f) Finfish traps can be used during daytime hours only (1 hr before sunrise to 1 hr after sunset); all traps must be returned to port each day (weather permitting).

g) Finfish traps and receivers impounding fish shall be individually buoyed. Each buoy must be on the surface of the water and marked with the permit number of the fishermen followed by the letter "S".

h) Finfish trapping restricted to depths of 60' or less.

i) Any species with a minimum size limit (commercial or recreational) may not be used as bait or possessed on vessel being operated pursuant to a commercial finfish trap permit (e.g., rock crab, spiny lobster, kelp bass).

j) No SCUBA equipment or other artificial breathing device may be used or possessed on any boat being operated pursuant to a commercial finfish trap permit.

k) California sheephead no longer allowed to be taken incidentally, in other trap fisheries (e.g., lobster, dungeness crab, rock crab).

Pros & Cons: OPTION 1 would effectively protect sheephead populations and other important marine resources by limiting the total fishing effort on both target and non-target species, preserving reproductive stocks in deeper (< or equal to 60') water, reducing injuries and death caused by trap trauma and embolism, reducing the number of lost traps, reducing invertebrate bycatch, and increasing the Department's ability to monitor and manage the fishery. However, a limited-entry fishery is also costly to manage and monitor and may also hinder economic growth in southern California. In addition, several of this option's regulations (e.g., daytime soaks, depth restrictions, individual buoys) may prove to be a hardship on some trappers.

OPTION 2.

Allow finfish trapping to remain under the general trap permit guidelines with the following regulations added by the Fish and Game Commission: a) Logbook - each finfish trapper must submit an accurate record of fish trapping activities on a form (Daily Trap Fishing Log) provided by the Department pursuant to _190 (Title 14) and _8026 (Cal Fish & Game Code). b) Only finfish may be taken with finfish traps; any other species caught incidentally must be immediately released. c) Gear restrictions: _ Maximum number of traps per vessel - 50 _ Maximum trap size - 20 cu ft _ Minimum mesh size - 2"x 2" Every trap must have at least one destruct device pursuant to _9003 d) Finfish traps may be used during daytime hours only (1 hr before sunrise to 1 hr after sunset); all traps must be returned to port each day (weather permitting). e) Finfish traps and receivers impounding fish shall be individually buoyed. Each buoy must be on the surface of the water and marked with the commercial license number of the fishermen followed by the letter "S". f) Finfish trapping restricted to depths < or equal to 60'. g) Any species with a minimum size limit (commercial or recreational) may not be used as bait or possessed on vessel being operated pursuant to a commercial finfish trap permit (e.g., rock crab, spiny lobster, kelp bass). h) No SCUBA equipment or other artificial breathing device may be used or possessed on any boat being operated pursuant to a commercial finfish trap permit. i) California sheephead no longer allowed to be taken incidentally in other trap fisheries (e.g., lobster, dungeness crab, rock crab).

Pros & Cons: OPTION 2 would provide some protection to sheephead populations and other important marine resources by limiting the effort (per boat) on both target and non-target species, preserving reproductive stocks in deeper (s60') water, reducing injuries and death caused by trap trauma and embolism, reducing the number of lost traps, reducing the invertebrate bycatch, and increasing the Department's ability to monitor and manage the fishery. However, this option does not limit or restrict the fishery's growth, which may be an important factor in January 1994 when displaced gill netters (approx. 100 vessels) in southern California begin seeking new livelihoods. In addition, several of this option's regulations (e.g., daytime soaks, depth restrictions, individual buoys) may prove to be a hardship on some trappers.

OPTION 3.

Finfish trapping would be illegal in southern California. In addition, the incidental catch of finfish would not be allowed in any invertebrate trap fishery (e.g., lobster, rock crab).