The Spot Prawn Fishery: A Status Report - Earth Economics

THE SPOT PRAWN FISHERY 

A STATUS REPORT 

Cristina L. Mormorunni 

A Project of the Asia Pacific Environmental Exchange 

December 2001

©2001 by Earth Economics. Reproduction of this publication for educational or other noncommercial 

purposes is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder 

provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other 

commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder.

THE SPOT PRAWN FISHERY: 

A STATUS REPORT 

A PROJECT OF 

1305 4th Avenue, Suite 606 • Seattle, WA 98101 

Tel.: 206.652.5555 • Fax: 206.652.5750 

Email: apex@seanet.com • www.a-p-e-x.org 

APEX is devoted to promoting Ecosystem Health and Ecological Economics in natural resource management 

and preventing the globalization of the toxic crisis. We focus our work in the Cascadia region of North 

America and the Asia-Pacific. 

Acknowledgments 

The David and Lucille Packard Foundation 

Editing: Isabel de la Torre and Richard Lehnert 

Cover Design and Printing: Jan Pomeroy and Paper Tiger 

Cover Photo: Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation – Kathleen Olson 

Report Photos: Nick Lowry, K.M. Kattilakoski 

Graphics: ADFG, CDFG, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, WDFW 

APEX would also like to thank the many individuals who generously assisted with this report 

by providing information, expertise, and comments. 

Printed on 100% recycled, chlorine-free paper.

CONTENTS 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................i 

PREFACE ...................................................................................................................i 

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................1 

ECOLOGY OF THE SPOT PRAWN .............................................................................2 

Life History and Geographic Range ............................................2 

Predator-Prey Relationships.......................................................5 

Factors Affecting Spot Prawn Success.........................................6 

AN OVERVIEW OF SPOT PRAWN MANAGEMENT ..................................................6 

ALASKA SPOT PRAWN FISHERY .............................................................................6 

Biological Status of Spot Prawns ................................................6 

History of the Fishery ................................................................7 

Nature of the Fishery Today .......................................................9 

Landings, Landed Values, and Markets........................................11 

Existing Management and Regulatory Systems...........................12 

Management Issues and Concerns.............................................14 

BRITISH COLUMBIA SPOT PRAWN FISHERY ..........................................................14 







WASHINGTON SPOT PRAWN FISHERY ...................................................................24 




Landings, Landed Values, and Markets........................................32



OREGON SPOT PRAWN FISHERY ...........................................................................35 

Biological Status of Spot Prawns.................................................35 





CALIFORNIA SPOT PRAWN FISHERY ......................................................................38 

Biological Status of Spot Prawns.................................................38 






RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................................................................................45 

Approach of the Recommendations ...........................................45 

Ecological Sustainability and Scale of the Fishery.........................45 

Fair Distribution—Democracy in Regulation and 

Management ............................................................................52 

Economic Efficiency ..................................................................55 

WHERE TO FROM HERE ...........................................................................................56 

REFERENCES.............................................................................................................57 

CONTACTS AND INTERVIEWEES .............................................................................61

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

This report could not have happened without 

the vision and support of Dave Batker and APEX. 

I want to thank him for possessing the intellect, 

perseverance, and drive needed to ensure a quality 

product, one that will significantly contribute to 

the management of spot prawns and fisheries in 

general. 

I also want to express my appreciation and gratitude 

to the many individuals and organizations 

that contributed their knowledge, expertise, and 

experience to this report. It is a much stronger 

document for your efforts. I especially appreciate 

the time that many of you took to review, and 

review, and review the document so that it was as 

accurate, tight, and information-rich as it possibly 

could be. Your fingerprints—or, should I say, keystrokes—are 

all over this document, and you 

share equally in its eventual success. 

Thanks to the Lucille and David Packard Foundation 

for seeing the importance of this project and 

for supporting APEX. Will Novy Hildesley, Associate 

Program Officer at The Packard Foundation, 

must be thanked for offering enthusiasm, encouragement, 

and support that went well beyond the 

call of duty. 

Finally, to the spot prawn, for without you, none 

of this would have happened. 

PREFACE 

What is the Asia Pacific 

Environmental Exchange 

The Asia Pacific Environmental Exchange (APEX) 

was founded in 1997 in order to develop new, 

innovative, and collaborative strategies that would 

lead to the creation of sustainable environmental 

policies and natural resource management systems. 

APEX’s guiding mission is to apply the theory and 

principles of Ecological Economics 1 and Ecosystem 

Health 2 , two current academic fields, to international, 

national, and regional environmental 

policy (see “Ecological Economics and Ecosystem 

Health” boxes in the “Recommendations” section 

for an expanded description of these academic 

fields). APEX campaigns on the vital issue areas 

of toxics, trade, forests, and marine ecosystems 

in order to concretize these theories and demonstrate 

that economic health and environmental 

sustainability can be mutually reinforcing. The 

organization is also focused on preventing the 

globalization of obsolete environmental and 

economic policies by such international forums 

as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World 

Bank, and the Asian Development Bank (ADB). 

APEX’s Marine Program— 

The Spot Prawn Project 

The Spot Prawn Project is the platform upon 

which APEX intends to build its Marine Programs. 

This project will allow APEX to apply its vision, 

academic base, and cooperative campaign strategies 

to the marine environment, establishing a 

unique niche in the marine conservation community. 

The Project’s multiple and far-reaching benefits 

will extend to the marine environment and to 

fishing communities, and will influence existing 

systems of fisheries management. 

The cutting-edge disciplines of Ecological Economics 

and Ecosystem Health will be used to shift 

the spot prawn fishery toward long-term ecological, 

economic, and sociocultural sustainability. 

This is critical; although there are myriad international 

and national laws and management systems 

established to protect our oceans, fishery collapse 

and habitat destruction continue. New and innovative 

approaches are vital. 

The Spot Prawn Project has the potential to protect 

more than just spot prawns. Its goals and 

strategies are aimed at providing a concrete vision 

1 The field of Ecological Economics “is not a single new paradigm based 

in shared assumptions and theory” (Costanza et al. 1997, p. 50). Ecological 

Economics is deliberately transdisciplinary or pluralistic and works 

from the initial premise that the “earth has a limited capacity for sustainably 

supporting people and their artifacts determined by combinations 

of resource limits and ecological thresholds” (Costanza et al. 1997, 

p. 75). Human economic systems are seen as a subset of, and entirely 

dependent on, natural ecosystems.“Ecological economists are rethinking 

both ecology and economics to better understand the nature of 

biodiversity, and arguing from biological theory how natural and social 

systems have co-evolved together such that neither can be understood 

apart from the other” (Costanza et al. 1997, p. 50). Elements of 

both ecology and economics, and the links that exist between them, 

such as resource economics and environmental impact assessment, are 

relied upon in assessing and directing development projects and 

resource management. 

2 The academic discipline of Ecosystem Health believes that the health 

of an ecosystem is determined by four major characteristics: sustainability, 

activity, organization, and resilience. “An ecological system is 

healthy and free from ‘distress syndrome’ (irreversible process of system 

breakdown leading to collapse) if it is stable and sustainable—that 

is, if it is active and maintains its organization and autonomy over time 

and is resilient to stress” (Costanza et al. 1992, p. 9). According to the 

practitioners of Ecosystem Health, this definition can and should be 

applied to all complex systems, and takes into account the fact that 

ecosystems will grow and evolve in response to both the natural and 

cultural environments within which they are rooted. 

i

for marine sustainability and fisheries conservation 

that is influential and meaningful for managers, 

fishers, and the general public. The public 

and political momentum created will have the 

capacity to reform fisheries management and the 

management of shrimp fisheries (both wild and 

cultured) in the United States and abroad. 

The Status Report—What is it 

What is it not 

The Spot Prawn Fishery: A Status Report (Status 

Report) is the result of a first-ever review of the 

fishery. The impetus for the Report was APEX’s 

view that until a foundational understanding of 

the fishery was obtained, assessing the fishery’s 

sustainability or the measures needed to shift the 

fishery toward sustainability could not accurately 

be determined. 

The Status Report will serve as the Spot Prawn 

Project’s foundational document and the source 

of the Project’s goals, strategies, and recommendations 

for spot prawn management. The Status 

Report is not an exhaustive treatise on spot prawns 

and their management. Rather, it offers a horizontal 

slice of the greater spot prawn picture. Future 

investigations will be vertical slices that arise naturally 

as the work progresses and the Project develops. 

Every effort was made to ensure the accuracy of 

the data and that all sources of information were 

tapped. Nevertheless, there is little doubt that the 

Status Report contains errors. It is likely that facts 

have been omitted; that the players and the playing 

field have changed; that dates and information 

are out of date before the report is even published. 

For these reasons, the Status Report makes no pretense 

of being the definitive document on spot 

prawns and their management. This is a starting 

point—an attempt to sketch the state of knowledge 

and the parameters of the debate so that all 

interested parties have a common starting point 

for discussion, agreement, and dissent. The Status 

Report is a living document that will be revised 

and reworked as the need presents itself and the 

information becomes available. 

e-mail, telephone, and in person. All efforts were 

made to locate and use the best and most recent 

data. Where available, we included data from the 

2000–01 fishing season, with the bulk of numbers 

coming from the 1999–00 season. All sources are 

listed at the end of the document and inserted in 

the text where it was determined to be particularly 

important to cite the reference or resource. 

I take personal responsibility for all factual errors 

in this report. It should be noted that major contributors, 

particularly at the State and Provincial 

level, reviewed the document for errors and omissions. 

In almost all cases, the document reflects 

the suggested changes. 

Report Outline 

The Status Report begins with a general discussion 

of the biology and ecology of spot prawns. 

This is followed by: an analysis of the fishery’s 

management systems, region by region (Alaska, 

British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and 

California); the biological status of spot prawns; 

the history of the fishery; the nature of the fishery 

today; landings, landed values, and markets; and 

existing management and regulatory systems. 

Future management issues and concerns are 

detailed for each region. 

The information in the Report was obtained 

through standard research methods or provided by 

interviewees and contacts. I took great measures 

to prevent APEX’s opinions or recommendations 

from creeping into the analysis and discussion. By 

contrast, the “Recommendations” and “Where To 

from Here” sections of the Report are the opinions 

of APEX, grounded in our investigation and 

examination of the fishery, discussions with a wide 

range of experts, and our own expertise and experience 

in the management of marine ecosystems. 

Research and Report Methodology 

The principal research and writing of this report 

took place between February and September of 

2001. Sources of information include the peerreviewed 

literature, unpublished papers, government 

documents, and numerous interviews via 

ii

The Spot Prawn Fishery: A Status Report 

INTRODUCTION 

The spot prawn fishery spans diverse habitats 

and ecosystems. The scientific, management, 

and cultural systems that have evolved with it are 

equally diverse. The Spot Prawn Fishery: A Status 

Report seeks to accurately reflect the ecology and 

management of this complex fishery. This information 

allows identification of aspects of the 

fishery that uphold the precautionary principles 

of Ecosystem Health and Ecological Economics, 

aspects that undermine these tenets and warn 

of unsustainability, and aspects that require 

further investigation. 

Why the Spot Prawn 

Pressure on marine ecosystems grows each year 

as seafood becomes a greater part of the American 

diet. Although there is increasing awareness 

of the various threats that undermine the viability 

of marine ecosystems, existing laws and regulations 

have largely failed to secure sustainable fisheries 

or to protect the intimate connection between 

the economy and the ecosystem evident in marinedependent 

communities. The record of fisheries 

management in the 20th century is dismal. 

According to the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture 

Organization (FAO), 11 of the world’s 15 

most important fishing areas and 60% of commercially 

significant fish species are in decline (FAO 

1997, McGinn, A.P. 1998). According to an FAO 

press release, 25% of the world’s marine fishery 

stocks, including many individual species of fish, 

are being overfished (Associated Press 2001). 

Recently, the United States Department of 

Commerce reported that the number of US fish 

species in jeopardy continues to rise, and reached 

a record 107 species in 2000 (Marine Fish Conservation 

Network 2001). Commemorating the United 

Nations’ Year of the Ocean (1998), more than 1,600 

marine scientists, oceanographers, and fishery 

biologists from around the world issued a joint 

statement, entitled “Troubled Waters,” alerting 

the international community to the global marine 

crisis and the forces driving it. These included 

pollution, habitat degradation, and wasteful and 

destructive fishing practices (MCBI 1998). 

The problems facing the oceans are clear. As fishery 

after fishery collapses, it is imperative that we 

ask “Why” and “What could have been done differently” 

Marine sustainability requires true 

understanding of the factors that lead to the 

destruction of marine species, and the ecosystems, 

economies, and cultures dependent 

on them. It requires evolution of existing management 

philosophies and paradigms. A broad knowledge 

of marine systems and a vision for sustainability 

are therefore at the crux of protecting our 

natural systems. The Spot Prawn Fishery: A Status 

Report seeks to assemble this type of information 

for one marine species before it is too late. 

Shrimp Fisheries in Context 

Shrimp—harvested in the wild or produced via aquaculture—are 

generally characterized as among 

the most unsustainable of all global fisheries. 

Destructive fishing methods, vast quantities of 

bycatch, loss of mangroves, and coastal pollution 

are only a few of the serious environmental and 

social problems that have been associated with 

the wild harvest and aquaculture of shrimp. Yet 

shrimp is also one of the fastest-growing and most 

lucrative global and domestic seafood markets. 

Shrimp are one of the most valuable seafood 

products imported into the United States. In 2000, 

US shrimp imports were valued at US $3.8 billion. 

In 2001, imports are expected to reach 775–785 

million pounds—a value of between US $3.5 and 

$3.8 billion (Department of Agriculture 2001). 

The National Marine Fisheries Service reports 

that nearly one billion pounds of shrimp were 

consumed in the US in 1998, and that consumption 

levels continue to rise (National Marine 

Fisheries Service 1999a). 

Unfortunately, the vast majority of shrimp consumers 

do not know that the unsustainable production 

and harvest of shrimp is devastating 

ecosystems and local communities. Moreover, 

they have no way of identifying or ordering sustainably 

produced shrimp in a restaurant or 

supermarket. There is a critical need to establish 

an ecologically certified, sustainable shrimp fishery 

that can be used to educate consumers, shift 

seafood demand to more ecologically sound 

products, and dramatically reduce demand 

for unsustainably produced seafood. 

The Spot Prawn Fishery 

The spot prawn fishery on the West Coast of 

North America, extending from Alaska to 

California, has great potential to be an exception 

to the ecological and social destruction that typifies 

many shrimp fisheries. This potential is a 

function of several factors: 

•the ecological sensitivity of spot prawns and 

1


their critical habitat has been recognized and 

reflected in most of the fishery’s management 

•the fishery is primarily a community-based fishery, 

with a great deal of fisher involvement in 

management 

•the high-value and expanding markets for spot 

prawn product lead to a greater “value” placed 

on the conservation and sustainability of the 

species 

•managers commonly recognize that constant 

refinement and improvement of the management 

system is a prerequisite for long-term 

sustainability 

APEX’s initial research indicates that the spot 

prawn fishery has the potential to: 

•be the first shrimp fishery managed according 

to the precautionary principles of Ecosystem 

Health and Ecological Economics 

•be the first shrimp fishery market-certified for 

its sustainability. 

•provide an example of a fishing technology that 

minimizes habitat destruction, reduces bycatch, 

and provides a high-quality, high-value product 

•play an important role in informing consumers 

about the true environmental and social costs 

of shrimp fisheries, thereby leading to a reduction 

in consumption of unsustainable seafood 

•serve as an example of sustainable fisheries 

management nationally and internationally 

An Overview of Project 

Goals and Strategies 

The Spot Prawn Project strategy focuses on influencing 

existing management systems, educating 

consumers and the public, and creating discerning 

markets for sustainable seafood. The Project seeks 

to create a new language of fisheries management 

—one that encompasses the principles of precautionary 

management, Ecological Economics, Ecosystem 

Health, proper temporal and geographic 

scale, just distribution, and transparent, democratic 

decision-making. Specifically, the principles of 

Ecological Economics and Ecosystem Health will 

be used to define marine sustainability and move 

the spot prawn fishery toward this standard. 

The Project aims to advance a sustainable and 

certifiable fishery from San Diego, California to 

Dutch Harbor, Alaska. A tangible vision for evolving 

existing systems of fisheries management will 

be provided. We also expect the spot prawn fishery 

to become a sustainable model for other fisheries 

in the US and for shrimp fisheries worldwide. 

ECOLOGY OF THE SPOT PRAWN 

Life History and Geographic Range 

Pandalus platyceros is in the Crustacean Decapod 

Family Pandalidae and is commonly known as the 

spot prawn or spot shrimp. This Family contains 

medium to large shrimp that inhabit continental 

shelves and slopes worldwide. At least 18 species 

in two genera have been recognized, a portion of 

which support commercial fisheries (California 

Department of Fish & Game 1995). 

The Spot Prawn 

Photo Courtesy K.M. Kattilakoski, Fisheries and Oceans Canada 

The spot prawn is the largest of the pandalid 

shrimp, with a carapace length—measured from 

the posterior eye orbit to the posterior mid-dorsal 

margin of the carapace—of 61.1 millimeters (2.4 

in.) (Butler 1980). Spot prawns are characterized by 

stout bodies that are light brown to orange in color 

and have white-paired spots behind the head and 

in front of the tail. The adult carapace is often distinguished 

by white stripes that run from the anterior 

to posterior (top to bottom) of the animal. 

The spot prawn’s geographic range extends from 

Southern California to Alaska’s Aleutian Islands, 

around to the Sea of Japan and the Korea Strait 

(Watson 1994). Anecdotal evidence suggests 

that the spot prawn’s range may in fact extend 

into Mexico, where a small fishery (±3 vessels) 

is reported to exist off the coast of Baja California 

(Nick Lowry, University of Washington School of 

Fisheries. Pers. comm., May 2001). None of the 

literature reviewed mentioned the possibility of 

the spot prawn’s range extending beyond the California 

border. The Status Report does not attempt 

to substantiate or disprove these observations, 

although this may be an important issue for 

scientists and managers to consider. 

2


Spot prawns typically inhabit rocky or hard bottoms, 

including reefs, coral or glass-sponge beds, 

and the edges of marine canyons. In part, species 

abundance is determined by the natural productivity 

levels characteristic of an area. Distribution 

is a function of the temperature and salinity of 

the water, and the animal’s developmental stage. 

Immature shrimp are able to tolerate greater ranges 

in both these factors and are found in shallower 

depths than adults. Common depth ranges extend 

from the intertidal to 487 meters (1,607 feet). Spot 

prawns are typically found at depth’s of between 

198 and 234 meters (653–772 feet). 

Research carried out by Schlining (1999) investigates 

spot prawn habitat and distribution. Detailed 

examination of video transects in, close 

to, and outside an ecological reserve in the 

Monterey Bay area revealed that spot prawns 

are not simply distributed in the most commonly 

available habitat type. Although the nature or pattern 

of selection is unclear, active habitat selection 

seemed to be taking place. Habitat types associated 

with spot prawns varied by depth. Spot prawns 

were more commonly associated with complex 

habitats of mixed sediment and smaller rock types 

such as gravel and cobble. The animals were also 

associated with large aggregations of drift algae, 

where this existed. 

Distribution appeared to be very patchy. A finding 

that Schlining (1999) correlates with local trap fishers’reports 

suggests that spot prawns may be vulnerable 

to local overfishing and serial depletion 

(Orensanz 1998). The factors determining the size 

and location of patches are unclear, but are probably 

influenced by spot prawn habitat selection and 

larval transport (Lowry, University of Washington 

School of Fisheries. Pers. comm., May 2001). 

Juvenile spot prawns concentrate in shallow 

inshore areas (


spawning characteristically occurs earlier. Each 

animal spawns once as a male and once or more 

as a female. Spawning takes place at depths of 

151–212 meters (500–700 feet). Female fecundity 

(number of eggs) is a function of the animal’s size 

and ranges from 1,400 to 5,000 eggs for the first 

spawning, approximately 1,000 for the second 

spawning. 

Females carry the eggs under their tails on appendages 

called swimmerets or pleopods. Fertilized 

and developing eggs are carried for four or five 

months, until they hatch, usually over a 10-day 

period. Upon hatching, the larvae enter a pelagic 

life stage in the water column. Larvae can remain 

free-swimming for up to three months, their 

movements potentially influenced by tides and 

currents (Boutillier and Bond 1999a). It is important 

to note that estimates of the larval stage vary 

considerably with geographic region. 

Spot Prawn Life History 

Diagram Courtesy Jim Boutillier, 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada 

4


Once the larvae begin to settle out, they migrate 

to inshore habitats suitable for growth and maturation, 

where they are believed to enter a relatively 

sedentary stage. While adult prawns have been 

known to move up and down in the water column 

in a diel (24-hour) migration pattern, it is not 

known if extended lateral migrations to adjoining 

coastal areas occur. Unpublished tagging studies 

carried out by J.A. Boutillier of Fisheries and 

Oceans Canada suggest that mature animals 

Egg-Bearing Female 

may well apply to prawns because of their lengthy 

pelagic larval stage” (Boutillier and Bond 1999a). 

Studies looking at smooth pink shrimp off the west 

coast of Vancouver Island have shown sequential 

recruitment among the population. This supports 

the concept of metapopulation trends in the region. 

Catch sampling data have illustrated good recruitment 

of a single spot prawn year-class over a fairly 

large area (Boutillier unpublished data, cited in 

Boutillier and Bond 1999a). It will be challenging 

to understand these processes and the factors 

and relationships affecting them. 

The abundance of egg-bearing females, the timing 

and length of spawning, the rates of development 

and growth, and larval production and survival 

are all influenced and controlled by water temperatures. 

In any given year, larval survival is affected 

by climatic conditions; for example, prevailing ocean 

currents. These can contain larvae in certain areas 

and possibly expose them to differing concentrations 

of planktonic foods, thus affecting growth 

rates in early life stages. In addition, the amount 

of quality habitat available to settling juveniles is 

likely to play a significant role in overall survival 

and population abundance (David Love, ADFG. 

Pers. comm., February 2001). 


“remained within one mile or two of their 

release location over a period of several months” 

(Boutillier and Bond 1999a). 

Other indicators, such as parasite loads and 

growth rates, vary considerably between prawn 

stocks separated by even tens of kilometers. These 

support the view that, once the animals settle, little 

movement occurs (Bower and Boutillier 1990, 

Bower et al. 1996). Log books and catch samples 

suggest that a single year-class could settle in a 

particular area, live out its life cycle, and leave the 

area “virtually barren” when the year class dies off 

(Boutillier and Bond 1999a). If this is in fact the 

case, it is likely that there are hundreds of independent, 

localized adult stocks throughout the 

spot prawn’s geographic range. 

However, “the concept of meta-populations 3 

(mixed common populations) that share larvae 

Predator-Prey Relationships 

Spot prawns are opportunistic foragers that typically 

feed on other shrimp, plankton, small mollusks, 

worms, sponges, and dead animal material. Adults 

are believed to be benthic (bottom) feeders that forage 

mostly at night. Spot prawns in turn are prey for 

other pelagic and demersal marine predators. 

As has been reported in other parts of the world 

for Pandalus borealis eous, or the pink shrimp, 

predators can play an important role in determining 

the reproductive success and recruitment of 

spot prawns to the fishery. To date, such studies 

have not been conducted in the spot prawn’s geographic 

range. Mortality due to predation is likely 

to be quite high during the larval and juvenile 

stages, but is significantly reduced once the animals 

settle out of the water column (Fisheries and 

Oceans 2000a). In benthic habitats, spot prawns 

__________________________________________________________ 

3 The term metapopulation was first defined by Levins (1969) as “a 

population of populations” that occupies a certain percentage of the 

suitable habitat available (Vandermeer and Carvajal 2001). Levins 

(1969) theorized that increases in local extinction rates or reductions in 

colonization rates threaten the long-term viability of a given metapopulation. 

Numerous studies have provided support for these ideas, illustrating 

that local extinction rates increase with a decrease in the size of 

habitat patches, and colonization rates decrease as distances between 

habitat patches increase (Vandermeer and Carvajal 2001). 

5


are prey for bottom-dwelling fish and octopus. 

Mid-water fish species such as salmon are not 

known to prey on spot prawns. 

The abundance of predator species may have an 

effect on the abundance of spot prawns and other 

shrimp species. A study in the Barents Sea demonstrated 

a significant negative correlation between 

the abundances of cod and northern pink shrimp 

(Berenboim et al. 1996). Several other studies provide 

evidence that where fishing pressure has 

reduced predator populations, prey populations 

have increased (Witman and Sebens 1992; Aronson 

1989). Conversely, it is possible that the 

removal of shrimp by a commercial fishery plays 

a role in reducing the population of predator 

species (Fisheries and Oceans 2000b). 

Factors Affecting Spot Prawn Success 

Spot prawn reproductive and recruitment success 

is dependent on and likely to be affected by a broad 

range of environmental variables, ecological factors, 

and changes in ambient conditions. It is important 

to consider environmental parameters in the development 

of management systems. The following elements 

are likely to affect the “success” of spot prawn 

reproduction and recruitment (ADFG 1985): 

•variation in preferred water temperatures, pH 

levels, dissolved oxygen concentrations, and/or 

the general chemical composition of the water 

•modification of critical benthic habitat 

•alterations of intertidal areas 

•increases of suspended organic or mineral 

material 

•reduced food supply 

•reduced protective cover; e.g., seaweed beds 

•obstruction of migratory pathways 

•level of harvest 

AN OVERVIEW OF 

SPOT PRAWN MANAGEMENT 

The spot prawn fishery spans an enormous and 

diverse stretch of ecosystems and management 

jurisdictions. While there are inherent similarities 

in both the ecological and management systems 

throughout the animal’s range, there are numerous 

differences. These similarities and distinctions 

are enumerated and discussed in detail in the later 

sections of the Report. The table on p.7 is an effort 

to summarize the nature of the fishery and its 

management in each of the five jurisdictions, and 

to set the stage for the more detailed discussions 

that follow. 

ALASKA SPOT PRAWN FISHERY 

Biological Status of Spot Prawns 

Southeastern Alaska historically has been 

described as the “shrimp treasure house” (Brian 

Paust, University of Alaska Marine Advisory 

Program. Pers. comm., June 2001). While other 

regions—such as Prince William Sound, Kachemak 

Bay, and the waters off the coast of Kodiak Island— 

once supported spot prawn populations large 

enough to sustain a commercial harvest, this is no 

longer the case. Southeastern Alaska is now the 

locus of spot prawn commercial activity. (Please 

note: For the purposes of the Status Report, the 

“Alaska” section will focus primarily on the southeastern 

Alaska spot prawn fishery.) 

Spot prawns remain “cryptic” organisms whose 

long-term sustainability and appropriate harvest 

are challenged by this lack of basic biological 

information (Paust, University of Alaska Marine 

Advisory Program. Pers. comm., June 2001). At 

this stage, data suggest that many different areas 

and subpopulations of a greater metapopulation 

exist in the region (Love, ADFG. Pers. comm., February 

2001). A stated goal of management is to further 

this biological understanding of spot prawn 

abundance and distribution. 

Analysis of preliminary research suggests that spot 

prawns in southeastern Alaska may be vulnerable 

to serial depletion. However, results are still under 

review, and the data are inconclusive. Whether serial 

depletion is due to changing environmental conditions 

or the effects of fishing is not currently known 

(see Piatt and Anderson 1996 in Orensanz et al. 1998). 

In the 1960s and ’70s, the Alaska Department 

of Fish and Game (ADFG) collected limited catchdistribution 

and pot-efficiency data. A 1996 review 

of catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) data available 

through fish tickets led to a recognition that the 

amount and type of biological data available were 

inadequate for effective spot prawn management. 

A stock assessment protocol to gather more information 

was developed, and a multi-year pilot study 

to obtain CPUE, size and weight, and size and sex 

data was begun in Fishery Management Districts 3 

and 7 prior to the 1996–97 fishery. The goal of this 

study was to: “collect and evaluate data required for 

rational management, to understand the variability 

of various parameters associated with stock assessment, 

to investigate factors essential to establishing 

an appropriate stock assessment program, and to 

provide information necessary to develop a well 

6


founded [harvest rate] management plan in the 

near future” (Koeneman and Botelho 2000c). 

Further research was carried out prior to the 1997– 

98 season, including the first pre-season survey in 

District 3, in-season monitoring of the fishery, and 

dockside sampling of landed catch. More recently, 

research utilizing pre- and post-season surveys 

has increased in major fishing districts. Plans exist 

to carry out additional post-season surveys and 

further develop an abundance index in at least 

two fishing districts by 2001–02. Dockside sampling 

is currently carried out in the most heavily harvested 

fishing districts, and monitoring and sampling 

takes place on the fishing grounds during commercial 

openings (Love, ADFG. Pers. comm., May 2001). 

On-board and dockside sampling programs allow 

additional biological data to be collected. 

Survey data are used to develop indices of abundance 

and to define population parameters such 

as length frequency, sex composition, and fecundity 

for spot prawns in surveyed districts. It must be 

noted that these surveys are limited in number 

and geographic scope and represent a relatively 

short time series. Integrating the multitude of factors 

that influence production of spot prawns into 

a sustainable management system will take time 

and a continued commitment to understanding 

the ecological dynamics of this species (Love, 

ADFG. Pers. comm., February 2001). 

History of the Fishery 

Pot fisheries for shrimp historically have concentrated 

in Cook Inlet for coonstripe shrimp (Pandalus 

danae), and in Prince William Sound and 

southeastern Alaska for spot prawns. Harvest 

records indicate that effort in these fisheries was 

An Overview of Management 

Alaska British Columbia Washington Oregon California 

Years in the Fishery ±30 ±87 ±60 ±8 ±31 

Total Catch (lbs/1999)* 800,000 3.1 million 228,375 22,221 615,000 

Pot/Trap Catch 800,000 3.1 million 127,049* 752 201,096 

Trawl Catch N/A N/A 96,250 21,459 413,658 

Pot Only Fishery YES YES YES (inshore) NO NO 

Total Catch Limits YES NO YES NO NO 

Daily Catch Limits NO YES∞ YES (non-Tribal) NO NO 

Number of Vessels 310^ 257¥ 26∆ (non-Tribal) 16µ 97 

Limits on Entry YES YES YES (non-Tribal) YES NO≠ 

Seasonal Closures YES YES YES NO YES 

Area Closures YES YES YES NO YES‡ 

Daylight-Only Fishing YES YES YES (inshore) NO NO 

Size Limits YES YES YES (inshore) NO NO 

Trawl-Excluder Device N/A N/A YES YES YES 

Trawl-Mesh Restrictions N/A N/A YES YES YES 

Pot/Trap Limits YES YES YES YES YES 

Pot Destruct Device YES YES YES NO YES 

Fish Tickets/Logs YES YES YES YES YES 

Observer Coverage YES# YES NO NO NO@ 

CPUE Data YES YES YES NO YES 

Stock Assessment NO NO NO NO NO 

Surveys YES YES YES NO NO 

Spawner Index NO YES NO NO NO 

Management Plan YES YES YES (inshore) NO NO 

* Excluding Hood Canal tribal catch. 

∞ Only the recreational fishery is subject to daily catch limits. 

^ 310 permits are allowed in the fishery. In 1999, 183 permits were fished. In the 2000–1 season, 168 permits registered to fish. 

¥ There are 253 commercial licenses and 4 communal (Aboriginal) licenses in the fishery. Not all licenses are fished in a given year. 

∆ This is an estimate of vessels in the inshore and offshore fishery. The inshore fishery (non-Tribal) is limited to 18 licenses. The offshore 

fishery (non-Tribal) is limited to 15 licenses: 10 pot and 5 trawl. 

µ Total of 6 trawl permits and 10 trap permits are allowed in the fishery. 

≠ A Restricted Access Program is presently being developed for the trap fishery. 

‡ There are no trap area closures at the present time. 

# Observer coverage is required only on floating processors. The owner pays for observer coverage. 

@ An observer program was instituted in 2000. Coverage is 2% of the trap fleet and 2% of the trawl fleet. 

7


sporadic, with low harvests. This is probably due 

to the fact that spot prawns historically were a 

supplemental source of income for salmon and 

halibut fishers (Koeneman and Botelho 2000c). 

Limited data from the 1960s suggest an annual 

harvest of 7,938 kilograms (17,464 lbs.) with a 

record catch of 17,690 kilograms (375,219 lbs.). 

Management was “passive” and markets existed 

for whole, fresh product or fresh tails. 

The spot prawn fishery became increasingly important 

to the fishing industry in the 1980s, with a 

resulting increase in both effort and landings. 

Average annual landings peaked at 170,554 kilograms 

(375,219 lbs.), and in the 1988–89 season 

130 permits were fished. In Prince William Sound 

the number of vessels participating in the fishery 

expanded ninefold between 1978 and 1987, with 

catches peaking in 1986 and then dropping precipitously, 

in part due to the Exxon Valdez oil spill. 

The fishery in Prince William Sound was closed 

by emergency order in 1990 due to low stock 

abundance. Experimental fishing in late 1991 

indicated “severely depressed stocks”; the fishery 

was closed in 1992 and remains closed today 

(Orensanz et al. 1998). 

Southeastern Alaska’s spot prawn catches were 

relatively small and the pace of fishing slow until 

the 1996–97 fishing season. Management reflected 

the nature of the fishery at that time. It was primarily 

“passive,” restricting only the number of pots 

fished and the mesh size used. Little funding or 

need for “active” management existed. The combination 

of growth in fishing effort, changing market 

conditions, and technological improvements drove 

commercial activity farther offshore or into other 

fishing areas. At this point, it became clear to management 

that a more structured management system 

was needed. 

The Spot Prawn Pot Fishery 

The spot prawn fishery grew rapidly in the 1990s, 

when up to 248 permits were fished and catches 

peaked at 356,076 kilograms (783,367 lbs.). Extensive 

regulations were established at this time. Total 

season harvest from all districts was restricted at 

371,952 kilograms (818,294 lbs.). Mesh-size limits 

were set in order to allow the escape of prawns 

that were smaller than 30 mm (1.18 in.) in carapace 

length. The fishing season was restrained in 

order to prevent fishing during the egg-hatching 

period (varies geographically, but typically falls 

between late February and mid-May) and during 

the summer, when prawns molt and their shells 

are soft. In 1997, a fishing season of October 1 to 

February 28 was implemented. 

In late 1994 the first catcher-processor 4 came 

into the fishery, and in the 1995–96 season five 

floating-processors 5 and additional catcherprocessors 

participated. Pot catch efficiency and 

the pace of the fishing greatly increased at this 

time. There was a shift from “tailed” to unsorted, 

whole product resulting in a moderate increase 

in value. The change in preferred product was significant 

in that it allowed fishers to spend less time 

sorting and processing prawns, and more time 

pulling pots or processing frozen-at-sea (FAS) 

product. The spot prawn fishery then became 

a major source of income for many fishers. 

Overcapitalization concerns led to discussions 

about the development and implementation of a 

limited-entry program to control effort and capacity. 

The limited-entry program was announced in 

late 1995 and established in 1996. Participation 

was restricted to 332 permits, the first of which 

were issued in February 1998. The announcement 

of this program led to speculative fishing behavior, 

and the actual number of permits fished peaked at 

353 in 1995. As a result, the ability of the program 

to actually control fishing effort was directly affected. 

To date, 309 permits have been issued: 155 transferable, 

154 non-transferable. For the 2000–01 fishing 

season, 168 permits to fish were registered. 

Guideline Harvest Levels 6 (GHLs) were instituted 

in 1997 for southeastern Alaska’s fishing districts. 

The GHLs were based on historical catches from 

the 1990–91 to 1994–95 fishing seasons. Due to the 

fact that GHLs are based on historical catch records, 

managers believe that they may not relate to such 

biological parameters as spawner abundance or 

recruitment strength. This is especially the case in 

southeastern Alaska, where the GHLs are based on 

only five years of data from a fishery that continues 

to exhibit increases in fishing effort and efficiency. 

Similarly, catch-per-unit-effort data may not 

reflect the fishery’s actual biomass. Improvements 

__________________________________________________________ 

4 Catcher-processors are defined in Alaska Commercial Fishing 

Regulations (2000–2002) as “a vessel from which shrimp are caught and 

processed on board that vessel and from which no shrimp caught on 

other vessels was purchased or processed” (p. 84). 

5 A floating-processor is defined by the Alaska Commercial Fishing 

Regulations (2000–2002) as “a vessel that purchases and processes 

shrimp delivered to it by other vessels” (p. 85). 

6 The Alaska Commercial Fishing Regulations (2000–2002) define 

Guideline Harvest Levels as the “preseason estimated level of allowable 

fish harvest which will not jeopardize the sustained yield of the 

fish stocks” (p. 63). 

8


in fishing techniques and technology can continue 

to ensure good catch rates even if stock abundance 

is, in fact, decreasing. In order to achieve sustainable 

spot prawn management, ADFG’s goals are 

to avoid basing the fishery on single-year or size 

classes, and to manage on a sustained-yield basis 

(Love, ADFG. Pers. comm., May 2001). 

The Shrimp Trawl Fishery 

The Alaskan trawl shrimp fishery began in southeastern 

Alaska, near Petersburg, in 1915. The fishery 

was an otter 7 and beam 8 trawl fishery whose 

primary target was pink shrimp. The beam trawl 

fleet also targeted sidestriped shrimp (Pandalopsis 

dispar), and this fishery continues today. The 

southeastern Alaska shrimp trawl fishery does 

not target spot prawns; spot prawns are caught 

only incidentally as bycatch. Southeastern Alaska 

was closed to otter trawling by a May 1998 Board 

of Fisheries decision driven primarily by conservation 

concerns. 

Nature of the Fishery Today 

The Spot Prawn Pot Fishery 

Southeastern Alaska’s spot prawn fishery is the 

last significant shrimp pot fishery in the state 

(Love, ADFG. Pers. comm., February 2001). 

Although stocks may be recovering in other 

areas, such as the Prince William Sound fishery, 

these areas are still closed to spot prawn fishing. 

Southeastern Alaska’s fishery is primarily a smallboat 

fishery that includes gillnetters, trollers, and 

limit seiners. Baited pots are longlined or fished 

as single pots. Catcher-processors also are participating 

in the fishery in growing numbers. The 

timely collection of harvest data is complicated 

due to the fact that catcher-processors remain 

on the fishing grounds until their holds are full. 

A limited-entry program characterizes the spot 

prawn fishery today. Guideline Harvest Levels 

continue to be set for each fishing district. ADFG’s 

emergency order process is used to close fishing 

districts when the GHLs are approached. If a district(s) 

is closed prematurely, additional emergency 

orders are issued and the district(s) is reopened 

to fishing until the full GHL is harvested. 

__________________________________________________________ 

7 An otter trawl is defined by Alaska Commercial Fishing Regulations 

(2000–2002) as “a trawl with a net opening controlled by devices commonly 

called otter doors” (p. 28). A trawl is a “bag-shaped net towed 

through the water to capture fish or shellfish” (p. 28). 

8 A beam trawl is defined by Alaska Commercial Fishing Regulations 

(2000–2002) as “a trawl with a fixed net opening utilizing a wood or 

metal beam” (p. 28). 

Spot prawn pounds per delivery and pounds 

caught per permit are increasing, as are the number 

of permits actively fished. Based on analysis 

of survey data, a 2.0 tail-weight conversion was 

recently adopted in the fishery. The purpose of 

the conversion factor was to more accurately 

reflect the total spot prawn biomass removed 

by commercial fishing. Approximately half the 

total weight of a spot prawn is its head; the other 

half is its tail. Application of the conversion factor 

increased GHLs in nearly all the fishing districts. 

Increased GHLs have not translated into a slower 

rate of harvest. This is largely due to continued 

growth in fishing effort and efficiency, and an 

increase in the number of previously unfished 

permits being fished. Last season’s GHLs were 

caught in less than a month in most of the 16 

fishing areas, and in one week or less in certain 

districts (Love, ADFG. Pers. comm., February 

2001). In the face of decreasing season length, 

management information must be swiftly collected 

and summarized to keep up with management 

needs. Fishers processing and freezing their catch 

on board must now report their total catch weekly 

in all fishing districts. In addition, daily fish tickets 

must be filled out, and these must match the 

weekly reported total. 

Management is based on closed spring and summer 

seasons to prevent fishing during the egg-hatch 

and growth period. Minimum mesh restrictions 

have been implemented to ensure that only larger 

animals are retained. Two different pot sizes have 

been approved, with restrictions on the number 

of pots per vessel based on which size class is used. 

Fishing is further regulated through limited daily 

deployment and hauling times. The permitting of 

floating-processors is regulated, and all vessels are 

required to carry on-board observers. (See “Existing 

Management and Regulatory Systems,” below, for 

details of these management restrictions.) 

ADFG is expanding its shrimp management and 

research program. Management data are acquired 

through fish ticket data, limited pre- and postseason 

surveys, and on-board and dockside catchsampling 

programs. On-board sampling during 

the fishing season was first instituted in 1999 

and is being expanded, as is the number of areas 

surveyed. In January 2000, the Board of Commercial 

Fisheries adopted the Southeast Alaska Pot 

Shrimp Management Plan, mandating that spot 

prawns be managed on a “sustained yield” basis 


9


The 1999–2000 spot prawn fishery was characterized 

by: 

•a strong market for whole prawns with an 

approximate value of $4 million 

•a growing number of catcher-processors 

participating 

•an increasing number of permits fished 

•an increase in total pounds caught per permit 

•an increase in pounds per landing 

•a majority of fishing districts being harvested 

within one month 

Today’s management and conservation concerns 

fall into two broad categories: the potential for 

overfishing and the potential for overcapitalization. 

The risk of overfishing stems from the following 

factors: 

•GHLs are not based on current estimates of 

population abundance 

•size-specific harvesting; i.e., the retention of 

the larger, more valuable (in both economic and 

biological terms) females 

•potential for serial stock depletion 

The potential for overcapitalization of the fishery 

arises from the following factors: 

•increasing number of permits actively fished 

•increasing number of catcher-processors 

participating in the fishery 

•increasing intensity and efficiency of the fishery 

The Shrimp Trawl Fishery 

Annual shrimp trawl harvests have fallen steadily; 

prime fishing areas (Cook Inlet, Kodiak, and the 

Alaska Peninsula) are now closed due to depleted 

stocks. Pink shrimp are still the primary target of 

the trawl fishery (otter trawls are banned in southeastern 

Alaska), constituting approximately 80% 

of trawl landings by weight. 

Spot prawns are landed only incidentally in 

Alaska’s shrimp trawl fisheries. Comparatively 

few adult spot prawns are harvested by trawl gear, 

as the beam trawlers do not fish the rocky habitats 

preferred by adult spot prawns. Smaller spot 

prawns (juveniles), which can be found in softbottom 

habitats, are occasionally caught in beam 

trawls (Love, ADFG. Pers. comm., May 2001). 

Approximately 1,029,382 kg. (2,264,641 pounds) 

of shrimp were landed in the 1998–99 fishing season. 

It is estimated that the harvest was made up 

of “only a trace of spot prawns” (Koeneman and 

Botelho 2000b). Through November 1999 of the 

1999–2000 fishing season, 829,183 kg. (1,824,203 

pounds) of shrimp had been landed—2,409 kg. 

(5,300 pounds) was spot prawns. 

Recreational, Subsistence, and Personal Use 

Spot Prawn Fisheries 

The recreational, subsistence, and personal use 

fisheries, specifically for spot prawns, are regulated 

but not closely monitored in Southeastern 

Estimated Recreational/Personal Use Harvests of Shrimp in Gallons in Southern 

Alaska as Estimated from the Statewide Harvest Mail Survey, 1992–1999 

Source: Paul Suchanek, ADFG 

10


Estimated recreational/personal use harvests of shrimp (numbers) and boat-days and pots of 

shrimping effort in the Ketchikan marine fishery as estimated by an on-site creel survey during 

late April or early May through late September, 1988–2000. 

Source: Paul Suchanek, ADFG 

Alaska (Paul Suchanek, ADFG. Pers. comm., April 

2001). The Board of Fisheries (BOF) has made several 

decisions regarding these fisheries in recent 

years. In District 13, the BOF adopted a “customary 

and traditional use finding” for shrimp and 

subsistence use, giving it priority over other uses. 

In addition, the BOF has implemented closures 

near coastal communities to protect subsistence 

and personal use. 

There are very limited data regarding recreational, 

subsistence, or personal use fisheries for spot 

prawns. The total number of participants and 

the amount of annual removals are not known. 

Estimates of recreational and personal use shrimp 

harvests are developed through an ADFG mail 

survey. These estimates refer to all shrimp species. 

There is no estimate of what percentage of the 

total shrimp harvest is spot prawns. 

Large annual variations in the recreational and 

personal use harvests are due in part to relatively 

poor estimates of sample size. It is likely that a 

small number of shrimpers in each area catch a 

large proportion of the overall catch. If these 

shrimpers were the ones who were contacted and 

responded to the survey, the estimate for the year 

would probably be high. Conversely, if these individuals 

were not included in the sample, then that 

year’s harvest estimate would be low (Suchanek, 

ADFG. Pers. comm., April 2001). 

ADFG also conducts a summer creel survey in 

Ketchikan aimed at estimating the total shrimp 

harvested. This survey also suggests highly variable 

recreation and personal use harvests. Analysis 

of the creel survey estimates total shrimping effort. 

In Ketchikan, the shrimp effort constitutes approximately 

30% of the boat-days of shellfish effort; 

the remaining 70% of boat-days target crab 

(Suchanek, ADFG. Pers. comm., April 2001). 

Landings, Landed Values, 

and Markets 

Between 1994 and 2000, pot landings ranged from 

486,678 kg. (1,070,691 pounds) in the 1994–95 season 

to an estimated 363,636 kg. (800,000 pounds) 

in 1999–2000. The number of permits fished 

peaked prior to the implementation of limited 

entry in 1994–95, but fell to 183 in 1999–2000. 

The number of permits registered increased for 

the 2000–01 fishing season, but the number of 

permits actually fished is not yet available. 

An increasing number of catcher-processors participated 

in the 1999–2000 fishing year, while float- 

11


ing-processors were not in evidence on the fishing 

grounds. Participation by catcher-processors seems 

to be increasing, with approximately 60% of the 

fleet now having freezers on-board (Love, ADFG. 

Pers. comm., May 2001). Catcher-processor numbers 

appear to have increased again for the 2000– 

01 season, but these data have yet to be confirmed. 

The ex-vessel value of the fishery at the close of 

the 1999–2000 season was estimated at $2.8 million. 

Markets remained strong for spot prawns in 

2000 and prices were high, but prospects for 2001 

appear to have softened as the Japanese economy 

continues to slip and the average Japanese income 

declines. Markets for spot prawns are cyclical and 

considered fluid; fluctuations are not unexpected. 

The majority of product in the fishery are whole, 

sorted, dipped, and frozen-at-sea (FAS) prawns, 

which are estimated to sell for $8.00/lb. wholesale 

(whole weight), and as high as $70.00/lb. in restaurants. 

This year there has already been a 30% decline 

in unit price, indicative of the volatility of both the 

price and markets for spot prawns (Stephen Wong, 

SeaPlus. Pers. comm., June 2001). 

The frozen-at-sea product type is considered 

sashimi grade. Over 90% is sold to Japan. Frozen 

spot prawns constitute less than 1% of total 

Japanese shrimp imports (Wong, SeaPlus. Pers. 

comm., June 2001). According to SeaPlus, which 

buys both Alaskan and Canadian spot prawns 

(40:60), the US market constitutes 5–10% of spot 

prawn production. California is the primary US 

market, but product is also sold in Chicago, 

Detroit, Denver, Atlanta, and Florida. 

Spot prawns are the “species of choice” for the 

Asian live markets. Fishers throughout southeastern 

Alaska devote at least part of their fishing time 

to serving the live market (Paust, University of 

Spot Prawn Product 

Alaska Marine Advisory Program. Pers. comm., 

June 2001). While the live market is definitely a 

high-value market, it is a difficult one to capture. 

The difficulty, primarily logistical, is due to the 

complexity and economics of organizing transportation 

and shipping. SeaPlus’ Stephen Wong 

said, “Shipping live in volume is an impossibility. 

The difficulty of establishing effective transportation 

linkages poses an enormous risk. The profits 

from the live market just aren’t great enough to 

take that risk.” It is also problematic due to the 

possibility of transporting diseases, some of 

which may not even have been identified, to 

other regions and countries (Love, ADFG. Pers. 

comm., June 2001). 

Existing Management and 

Regulatory Systems 

Alaska’s Management Philosophy 

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division 

of Commercial Fisheries, oversees management 

and conservation of Alaska’s commercial fisheries. 

“The mission of the Division of Commercial 

Fisheries is to manage, protect, rehabilitate, 

enhance, develop fisheries and aquatic plant 

resources in the interest of the economy and 

general well-being of the State, consistent 

with the sustained yield principle and subject 

to allocations established through the public 

regulatory processes. The Division is responsible 

for the management of the State’s commercial, 

subsistence, and personal use fisheries; 

the rehabilitation and enhancement 

of existing fishery resources; and the development 

of new fisheries. Technical support is 

provided to the private mariculture and 

salmon ranching industries. The Division also 

plays a major role in the management of fisheries 

in the 200-mile Exclusive Economic 

Zone and participates in international fisheries 

negotiations.” 

(See http://www.cf.adfg.state.ak.us/cf_home.htm) 

Regulations, particularly those governing allocation, 

are determined by the Alaska Board of 

Fisheries, based on recommendations from ADFG 

and testimony from commercial, recreational, personal 

use, and subsistence users. The BOF members 

are appointed by the Governor and approved 

by the legislature. 

Photo Courtesy Stephen Wong, SeaPlus Marketing. 

The Southeastern Alaska Pot Shrimp 

Management Plan 

The Board of Fisheries implemented a manage- 

12


ment plan for spot prawns in January 2000. The 

Southeastern Alaska (Registration District A) Pot 

Shrimp Management Plan directs the ADFG to 

manage spot prawns (and coonstripe shrimp) 

for “sustained yield” in order to: 

•Maintain a number of age classes of prawns that 

will ensure the long-term viability of the stock 

and reduce the dependence on annual recruitment 

•Reduce fishing periods for prawn stocks during 

the biologically sensitive periods of the life cycle 

(e.g., egg hatch, growth, recruitment) and when 

the stocks are in poor quality for the market 

•Reduce the mortality of any small shrimp 

[prawns] of any species 

•Maintain an adequate brood stock for the 

rebuilding of prawns should it be necessary 

•Continue the development of prawn fisheries in 

districts where effort has been low or sporadic 

•Re-open prawn fisheries by emergency order 

during the period May 15–July 31 in areas where 

the Guideline Harvest Range has not been 

reached during the established winter fishing 

season 

•Revise the Guideline Harvest Ranges to reflect a 

conversion of the tail weight to the whole weight 

by applying a factor of 2.00 

Summary of Commercial Management and 

Regulatory Measures 

Alaska’s management activities are defined by a 

complex set of regulatory measures and statutory 

law. This section provides an overview of some of 

the central elements of this system. It is not an 

exhaustive or definitive investigation of spot 

prawn regulation, management, and law in Alaska. 

For a complete description of the State’s existing 

shellfish management regime, see the 2000–2002 

ADFG Commercial Shellfish Fishing Regulations 

booklet. 

•The spot prawn pot fishery has been limited 

entry since 1997, with the number of allowable 

permits constrained to 310. 

•All prawn regulations apply in shrimp prawn 

registration areas, and, where applicable, in 

waters in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) 

that are adjacent to registration areas. 

•Weekly reporting requirements are in effect for 

all open districts of southeastern Alaska. Daily 

fish tickets must be submitted to ADFG by all 

fishers and processors. 

•Vessels and gear must be registered prior to fishing 

for prawn. 

•A vessel cannot land prawn in an area for 

which they are not registered. 

•Tendering vessels must be registered to tender 

shrimp [prawn] and may not be used to fish for 

shrimp [prawn], without first unregistering as a 

tender and registering for shrimp [prawn] fishing. 

Tenders may not have shrimp [prawn] gear 

or equipment on board. 

•Floating-processors need to obtain a permit 

from ADFG prior to processing shrimp [prawn]. 

They must comply with all requirements and 

reporting procedures. Vessels must report location, 

changes in location, license number, number 

and weight of deliveries received in whole 

pounds and categorized by the species of shrimp 

[prawn] purchased, timing of processing operations, 

and unloading and transport operations 

timing to ADFG. Fish tickets must be completed 

for each landing and submitted within seven 

days of the landing. Floating-processors are also 

prohibited from transporting pots for fishing 

vessels. Observer coverage is mandatory, the 

costs borne by the processor. 

•Catcher-processors must be registered to fish for 

shrimp [prawn]. Catcher-processor vessels must 

complete a fish ticket every day shrimp [prawn] 

are caught and processed. Total landings of 

shrimp [prawn] by whole weight, by species, by 

district or portion of a district, must be reported. 

A fish ticket for each district fished must be submitted 

to ADFG within seven days of the closure 

of that district or portion of district. 

•Guideline Harvest Levels have been established 

in all fishing districts since 1997. In districts that 

have a fairly consistent harvest history, the GHLs 

were instituted based on the history of catch for 

the years 1990–1995. For districts that exhibit 

low or variable harvests, GHLs are arbitrarily set 

at between 0 and 20,000 pounds. Depending on 

the observed health and strength of the stocks in 

a given year, the allowable catch may be adjusted 

down from the upper end of the GHL. 

•Prawn catches that are dumped, lost, or not sold 

(including personal use catches) must be reported 

on the fish ticket. In addition, the prawn 

buyer must report the gross weight of unpurchased 

prawn. 

13


•Prawn pots may be longlined or fished individually, 

at least one buoy must be attached, and the 

buoy must be marked per ADFG regulations. 

•The use of pot gear is subject to a number of 

restrictions, which include: 

❍Pots may not have more than one bottom, a 

vertical height of more than 24 in., and more 

than four tunnel openings that individually 

do not exceed 15 in. in perimeter. 

❍Pots must be entirely covered with net webbing 

or rigid mesh that is 1.75-in. stretch 

mesh so as to facilitate the escapement of 

prawn of less than 30 mm (1.2 in.) carapace 

length. The mesh restriction does not apply 

to the waters of Lituya Bay in District 16. 

❍The number of pots fished per vessel is restricted 

to 140 small pots (bottom perimeter 

of no more than 124 in.) or 100 large pots 

(bottom perimeter of no more than 153 in.). 

If any pot on the vessels falls into the large 

pot category, the vessel is restricted to 100 

pots. All pots on a vessel must be the same 

size and type. 

❍All pots must be tagged and registered, with 

tags obtained at an ADFG office. 

❍Simultaneously fishing other shrimp pots or 

another type of commercial, sport, or personal 

use pot is prohibited. 

•The fishing season has been set for October 

1–February 28, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. 

and 4:00 p.m. The Fish Commissioner may open 

a district to prawn fishing where the Guideline 

Harvest Range has not been reached from May 

15 through July 31. 

Management Issues and Concerns 

ADFG has expressed concerns regarding the serial 

and/or localized depletion of certain elements of the 

stock. “It is possible that fishers are maintaining 

good harvests through improved gear and fishing 

techniques and by exploiting different grounds, or 

other means. The targeted harvest of the larger, 

older, and most fecund prawns may be reducing 

stock reproductive potential through removal. An 

inappropriately high harvest rate and the removal 

of large females may be forcing females to produce 

their first clutch of eggs at a smaller size” (Koeneman 

and Botelho 2000c). Serial depletion is a potential 

concern for species, like spot prawns, that may have 

limited distributions, as it may lead to unexpected, 

precipitous declines in the population or overall biomass 


According to ADFG, a conservative and more 

informed management strategy is being developed 

and implemented for southeastern Alaska’s spot 

prawn fishery. Precaution is at the core of this system. 

However, like any oceanic, open-system fishery, 

complete enumeration is impossible. Research is 

needed to define the physical, chemical, biological, 

and temporal trends that influence and affect fisheries 

production. This process requires time, money, 

and dedication, and is a difficult but necessary challenge 


One of the central challenges facing ADFG and the 

management of spot prawns in Alaska is the establishment 

of an adaptive research and management 

system that can accurately predict future production 

given ever-changing population dynamics 

and demographics, while also preventing or rapidly 

detecting localized depletion. Expansion of baseline 

research is needed so that annual and area 

trends and biologically derived GHLs can be established. 

This type of data will allow for the determination 

of stock status, the effects of fishing on 

species and the environment, and ultimately will 

play a central role in ensuring the long-term sustainability 

of the fishery. 

BRITISH COLUMBIA 

SPOT PRAWN FISHERY 


Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Fisheries and Oceans) 

views the British Columbia (BC) inshore prawn 

stocks as fully exploited. Commercial landings 

data suggest a fairly consistent production trend. 

Prawns are landed incidentally in offshore fisheries 

for black cod, shrimp, and groundfish. 

Although the actual distribution and abundance of 

this stock is unknown, these landings provide evidence 

for the existence of an offshore stock. 

Fishers have a stated interest in investigating offshore 

fishing areas, but increased effort and efficiency 

have decreased inshore season length to 

the point where explorative fishing opportunities 

during the open inshore fishery are restricted 

(Boutillier, Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Pers. 

comm., March 2001). Exploratory fishing was carried 

out in late summer and early fall 2001, but the 

information collected was inconclusive. 

Catch sampling is used to determine the biological 

status of the spot prawn resource during the commercial 

fishing season. Prawns in every second 

or third trap on the fishing line are collected as 

14


the gear is hauled on board. The animals are segregated 

according to life stage, counted, weighed, 

and the type of trap documented. The number of 

females, males, and transitionals are compared to 

a biological reference point—the spawner index. 

The spawner index is used to determine the number 

of females required to meet the reproductive 

requirements of the stock. (See the next section, 

“History of the Fishery,” for a detailed description 

of the use of the spawner index in spot prawn 

management; and the “Nature and Development 

of the Spawner Index System” box for the history 

and philosophy behind this management tool.) 

In the 1999 commercial fishing season, 1,088 catch 

samples were taken—representative of data from 

2000 traps. In 2000, 1,200 spawner index samples 

were taken from more than 200 traps. 

While the extent of sampling has increased significantly 

since 1995, the commercial fishing season 

has become progressively shorter (230 days in 

1994, 79 days in 1999). Decreasing season length 

means that there is a shortage of biological information 

about the status of the stocks outside the 

season, in areas where there is a great deal of 

recreational fishing, and in unfished areas that 

may exhibit different natural mortality rates. A 

new initiative was established late in 2000 to “test 

the acquisition of index information on an ongoing 

basis by recreational fishing volunteers and 

First Nations fisheries personnel who may be fishing 

throughout the year” (Fisheries and Oceans 

Canada 2001). 

In addition, the “bigger ecological picture” is obtained 

through research in long-term experimental 

areas—Howe Sound and the Strait of Georgia. 

These studies provide index assessments that 

Fisheries and Oceans uses to guide the evolution 

and improvement of the BC management system. 

Spot prawn abundance and distribution are also 

evaluated through twice-yearly surveys. These 

areas are also used to compare gear efficiency 

and to test the relative effectiveness of different 

fishing strategies. The importance of these areas 

to sustainable spot prawn management cannot 

be underestimated; Fisheries and Oceans’ goal 

is to continue to augment the scope of this longterm 

research program (Boutillier, Fisheries and 

Oceans Canada. Pers. comm., March 2001). 


Prawns in the commercial fishery are caught 

in traps (pots) that are deployed on long-lines. 

The traps are fished at a depth of 55–90 meters 

(180–299 feet) on rocky or coral-bearing bottoms. 

The BC commercial prawn trap fishery began 

around 1914, but did not become a significant commercial 

fishery until the mid-1970s. The trap fishery 

accounts for 98% of total spot prawn landings and 

is the most valuable shrimp fishery in BC. An estimated 

50 commercial licenses were fished in 1979. 

This number grew to 900 licenses and 305 reported 

landings in 1989. In general, the annual catch has 

been increasing every year since about 1980. 

In order to prevent overcapitalization of the 

fishery, a limited-entry system was established 

in 1990. By the end of 2000, 253 licenses were eligible 

to fish spot prawns, one of which was a First 

Nation communal commercial license. Spot prawn 

fishers reside all along the BC coast; 84% of them 

live outside major metropolitan areas. An estimated 

20 license-holders live in north and central 

coastal communities, 120 live on the east coast 

of Vancouver Island (including Victoria), 12 live 

on the west coast of Vancouver Island, and another 

60 live on the Sunshine Coast. 

Since 1979, the fishery has been managed via a 

seasonal (winter) closure based on a set minimum 

escapement of adult female prawns (spawners, 3+ 

years old). The fishery typically targets animals in 

the final two years of their life cycle (2+ males, 3+ 

females). Catches are sampled on-board. The number 

of females and transitional prawns are counted, 

the count per trap compared to a standardized trap 

efficiency rating, and the count measured against a 

pre-established monthly minimum spawner index. 

The spawner index is seen as central to the longterm 

conservation of the stock and is a vital part 

of in-season management. 

Setting Gear 


15


Closures are implemented when the average 

number of females caught in a 24-hour period is 

equal to or falls below the target for that month’s 

index, or if that level is likely to be reached before 

the next sample is taken. Once a closure is established, 

it is in place until the next fishing season’s 

opening date, in order to protect egg-bearing 

females from fishing-related mortality during 

the larval hatching period. 

The opening of the commercial fishing season 

has been adjusted several times to maximize the 

number of females that release their eggs before 

encountering fishing mortality. Prior to 1994, 

closures were in place from January to March. 

Closures have been in place earlier since 1994 

because of an increase in fishing effort and more 

sophisticated in-season sampling. The season 

opened April 22 in 1999 and was completely closed 

as of July 9—the shortest season on record. 

British Columbia’s management system has continued 

to evolve throughout the fishery’s history. 

Each year, assessments and management decisions 

are made on a finer and finer scale. In 1994, 

15 separate management decisions were made. 

This number has grown exponentially over the 

years; in 1998, 45 separate decisions were made. 


Commercial Fishery 

Presently, the spot prawn fishery in British 

Columbia is a competitive limited-entry 

fishery with 253 “W” license-holders participating 

throughout the BC coast. The “W” license 

authorizes the harvest of other shrimp species, 

the retention of incidentally caught octopus, and 

the use of hook and line to catch Schedule II finfish 

species; e.g., lingcod, dogfish, skate, sole, 

flounder, Pacific cod, tuna. 

The commercial trap fishery accounts for 98% 

of spot prawn landings. Approximately 65% of the 

vessels fish the waters inside Vancouver Island, 

which includes Queen Charlotte Strait, Johnstone 

Strait, Georgia Strait, and the bordering mainland 

inlets. Vessel sizes in the fishery range from 3.9 

meters (13 feet) to 19.6 meters (64 feet), with an 

average length of 11.3 meters (37 feet). Larger ves- 

NATURE AND DEVELOPMENT OF 

THE SPAWNER INDEX SYSTEM 

The BC spot prawn fishery is 

presently managed to meet two 

biological objectives: 1) prevention 

of growth overfishing; and 2) prevention 

of recruitment overfishing. 

Growth overfishing is controlled 

through legal size limits, trap 

escapement modifications, and 

the timing of season openings. 

Recruitment overfishing has been 

managed since 1979 through the 

implementation and refinement of 

what is known as a fixed escapement 

or spawner index system. 

The underlying principle of this 

system is that the fishery will be 

closed to fishing once the number 

of females caught per trap reaches 

a minimum monthly spawner index 

or threshold (MMI).The series of 

monthly indices serve as biological 

reference points and are grounded 

in assessment indices of the average 

number of female spot prawns 

per trap in March—the month in 

which spot prawn eggs hatch. 

Assessments were first carried out 

in the 1970s.Today, standardized 

trap sampling takes place three to 

four times per year in study sites 

where the commercial fishing effort 

produces the largest, most consistent 

catches.The MMIs take natural 

mortality into account. 

The spawner index system is implemented 

through an in-season monitoring 

program that takes place 

on the fishing grounds. Sampling 

examines the sex and year class of 

the prawn catch on a per-trap basis. 

A number of different traps per 

string and a number of different 

strings over a large area are sampled.Traps 

that have been soaked 

overnight are generally sampled in 

order to minimize biases associated 

with longer and shorter soak times. 

The mean index of spawner abundance 

in the samples is compared 

to the pre-established escapement 

threshold or MMI. A given area is 

closed to fishing when the sample 

average of females per trap is less 

than or equal to the MMI. Once 

closed, a fishing area remains 

closed until the season’s opening 

the following year. 

There are assumptions inherent 

in the spawner index system.The 

most significant of these is that 

fishing effort can be standardized, 

and that escapement targets can 

be applied to the entire fishery. 

Fisheries and Oceans has recognized 

these assumptions and has 

established systems for addressing 

them.The fixed escapement strategy 

is based on a standard unit of 

effort. Managers are concerned that 

actual fishing effort may not be 

equivalent to the standardized 

effort due to the fact that fishing 

methods and technology are 

always changing and evolving. 

The “effective” effort of various fishing 

practices is regularly monitored 

to address this potential problem. 

Fishing techniques that vary from 

the standard survey are compared 

to this standard in highly controlled 

experiments. Correction factors are 

developed if required, applied to 

the results from in-season sam- 

16


sels tend to operate with three to four crew members, 

while smaller vessels may operate with 

only one person. 

Shrimp species that are targeted by the trawl 

fishery include smooth pink or ocean shrimp (Pandalus 

jordani), northern or spiky shrimp (Pandalus 

borealis eous), flexed shrimp (Pandalus goniurus), 

humpback shrimp (Pandalus hypsinotus), coonstripe 

or dock shrimp (Pandalus danae), and sidestripe 

shrimp (Pandalus dispar). Prawns are only 

caught incidentally in the shrimp trawl fishery. 

Bycatch of spot prawns in the shrimp trawl fishery 

has remained steady in recent years. Reported incidental 

landings have been approximately one tonne 

(2,200 lbs.) per year. 

The processing industry has grown rapidly in 

Canada. Five or six years ago, there were only a 

handful of players. In 1999, 16 companies were 

estimated to have handled more than 20 tons of 

spot prawn product, which translated into 90% 

of the coast-wide landings (Wong, SeaPlus. Pers. 

comm., June 2001). Buyers and processors are 

also located in a number of coastal communities, 

including Lund, Vancouver, Richmond, Campbell 

River, and Port Hardy. Processors must be federally 

registered with the Canadian Food Inspection 

Agency to export processed product. 

In 2000 and 2001, the commercial fishery 

opened the first week in May. Before that, the 

fishery had opened in the second or third week 

of April. A later commencement date to protect 

egg-bearing females has been under negotiation 

for several years. Areas that exhibit low spawnerindex 

values are closed as required. Closures are 

implemented on an as-needed basis throughout 

the season. All open areas are closed for the 

remainder of the season when the number and 

distribution of closures reach the point where the 

fishing effort is concentrated in a small number 

of areas and the spawner index is highly variable, 

indicating that an area is being fished down. 

Although increasingly early season closures have 

come to typify the fishery, due to overcapitalization 

and increased fishing efficiency, fishing-season 

length did increase slightly in 2000, to 85 days. 

pling, and indices are changed 

accordingly. 

Fisheries and Oceans developed 

initial escapement targets based 

on measurement and analysis of 

spot prawn production in a single 

area. The application of the fixed 

escapement system coast-wide 

assumes that all areas have equivalent 

production characteristics. 

There is a danger of overfishing if 

data from more productive fishing 

areas are extrapolated to less productive 

areas. Fixed escapement 

indices also assume that if a certain 

number of females are left in 

a given area, commercial production 

is guaranteed. These measurements 

do not adequately represent 

the idiosyncrasies of the 

spawner/ recruit relationship in 

all areas. 

In order to address these assumptions 

and their potentially confounding 

affects on the spawner 

index system, Fisheries and Oceans 

developed an Experimental Management 

Area (EMA) program in 

1985.“The objectives of this program 

were to improve the quality 

and efficiency of existing management 

practices, develop new practices 

for future use, and test the biological 

consequences for resource 

management decisions” (Boutillier 

and Bond 1999a). Under this program 

escapement indices are monitored, 

independent pre- and postfishery 

abundance surveys are carried 

out, and commercial biological 

sampling programs are verified. In 

addition, experiments are carried 

out to test effort standardization 

and further develop the biological 

understanding of the species.The 

majority of this work has focused 

on the south coast areas and Howe 

Sound. 

The fixed escapement management 

system is still a long ways 

from being a perfect system that 

provides optimum production 

from all areas of the coast. The 

results do suggest that there is 

room to be more conservative in 

biological reference point [spawner 

index] criteria for closing areas. 

By allowing more spawners to 

escape (up to a point) the prawn 

population should increase, which 

in turn would provide fishermen 

with a greater surplus of recruits 

to fish. In addition, a greater 

spawner index would provide a 

greater safety margin to take into 

account the variation in recruitment 

success caused by biotic and 

abiotic episodes such as disease 

and parasite outbreaks or unfavorable 

environmental conditions. 

The results also indicate that if the 

index is too high, then there is a 

chance of density depensatory 

mechanisms [cannibalism, disease 

outbreaks] affecting survival 

(Boutillier and Bond 1999a). 

The British Columbia spot prawn 

fishery is one of the few nonsalmonid 

(salmon and steelhead) 

fisheries that is being managed 

according to a fixed escapement 

policy. While admittedly not yet a 

perfect system, it is one that is constantly 

being refined and appears 

to be working. Managers point out 

that healthy populations of prawns 

and a healthy fishery have been 

maintained in the face of large 

increases in fishing effort and efficiency. 

17


Pacific Fishing Management Areas 

BC Prawn Boat 


described aboriginal landings as “trace or less 

than 1% of commercial landings.” 

Map Courtesy Jim Boutillier, Fisheries and Oceans Canada 

Aboriginal Fishery 

First Nations participate in the prawn fishery for 

commercial, food, social, and ceremonial purposes. 

Tribal participation in the fishery is negotiated and 

expanded through a Communal License Retirement/Allocation 

Transfer Program. (For more 

information on this program, see www.pac.dfompo.gc.ca/ops/fm/afs/retire.htm.) 

Access to the 

resource is managed through communal licenses 

issued to Aboriginal organizations. These serve to 

designate the individuals and vessels authorized to 

fish under the license. Like the commercial fishing 

permit, the communal license is subject to harvesting 

terms and conditions, and catch monitoring 

and reporting requirements. While First Nation 

fisheries can occur at any time throughout the calendar 

year, the nature of a communal license can 

be altered in-season for conservation purposes. 

Three communal commercial (Aboriginal) 

“FP” licenses have been assigned for the spot 

prawn fishery. Only one was actively fished in 

the commercial fishery in 2000. Four have been 

assigned for the 2001 season. The licenses are 

held by the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council and 

are fished by the Ahousasht Fisheries Corporation. 

Aboriginal licenses are monitored along with the 

rest of the commercial fishery, and are subject 

to the same hail, landing, and fee regulations. 

The level of Aboriginal harvest is not known, but 

is believed to be low. Fisheries and Oceans has 

Recreational Fishery 

A British Columbia Tidal Waters Sport Fishing 

License is required to harvest shrimp. More than 

285,000 fishers held licenses to catch spot prawns 

and other shrimp in 1999. There is no estimate of 

what number or percentage of these individuals 

actually harvested prawns. It is recognized that 

effort has significantly increased since the 1990s. 

The recreational fishery is a trap-only fishery, with 

a limit of four traps per fisher. Recreational traps 

are not subject to any volume or mesh-size restrictions. 

Daily catch limits are set at five kilograms 

(11.0 lbs.) of whole spot prawns, or two kilograms 

(4.4 lbs.) with the head removed. 

The recreational fishery takes place primarily 

near major population centers: Saanich Inlet, 

Stuart Channel, the Quadra and Cortes Island 

areas of Northern Georgia Strait, near the Powell 

River, Howe Sound, the west coast of Vancouver 

Island, the central coast at Kitimat, and in Kildala 

Arm. The spot prawn recreational fishery is a yearround 

fishery, and was not subject to area closures 

until recently. In March 2000, three areas in the 

Gulf of Georgia were closed to recreational fishing 

in order to protect females during the egg-incubation 

period. A recreational closure was implemented 

in Howe Sound in March 2001. 

There is no record of effort or total catch in the 

recreational fishery. It continues in most areas 

after the conservation targets (spawner index) 

have been reached in the commercial fishery. 

Fisheries and Oceans is in the process of developing 

a vessel-based program to monitor recreational 

fishing effort (Boutillier, Fisheries and Oceans 

Canada. Pers. comm., October 2001). 

18


Landings, Landed Values, and 

Markets 

The bulk of commercial landings have come 

from inside of Vancouver Island (71% in 1998). 

The remainder are caught off the west coast of 

Vancouver Island (6%) and the north/central 

coast (23%). Commercial landings and landed 

value achieved record levels in 1996, and peaked 

in 1997 at 1,785 tons (3.9 million lbs.). Landings 

were more than 1,700 tons (3.7 million lbs.) in 

1998, then fell to less than 1,400 tons (3.1 million 

lbs.) in 1999. Landings increased in 2000 to levels 

experienced between 1996 and 1998. 

Causal factors in landing fluctuations have not 

been positively determined. The following factors 

have been offered as potential explanations for 

the declines: 

•a return to normal levels following higher 

recruitment levels in recent years 

•surplus stocks in newly fished areas being 

fished down 

•environmental changes resulting in abnormal 

water temperatures and reduced levels of 

plankton 

•low surface-water salinity affecting the 1999 

year-class 

•reduced prawn predator (e.g., rockfish and 

lingcod) population levels in the mid-1990s, 

and increased abundance of other predators, 

such as hake, in the late 1990s 

The economic values of landings for the recreational 

or Aboriginal food, social, and ceremonial 

fisheries are not known. 

The landed value of the spot prawn trap fishery 

peaked in 1997 at approximately C$26 million 

(approximately US$18 million). Due to a decline 

in the Asian economy in 1998, landed value fell 

to an estimated C$18.4 million (approximately 

US$12.7 million). Nevertheless, spot prawns were 

still BC’s ninth most valuable fishery and its third 

most valuable invertebrate fishery. Landed value 

rose slightly in 1999 to more than C$20 million 

(approximately US$14 million)—a value of 

approximately C$80,000 per license (approximately 

US$50,000). The 2000 landed value was 

similar. 

The BC spot prawn fishery relies heavily on 

Asian markets. Instability in the Asian economy 

in 1998 led to a 30% decline in the landed value of 

spot prawns. Decreasing season length is an additional 

concern, as it leads to a product supply that 

is unsuitable for the easily glutted live and 

fresh markets. 

The fishery’s primary product types include 

frozen-at-sea (FAS), fresh landed then frozen, 

and fresh and live. Both the FAS product and 

the fresh landed and frozen product are “finger 

packed.” This is a specific packing/presentation 

technique that requires that the prawns are dipped 

in a sulphite solution to improve color, then laid in 

the same direction in a white, one-kilogram box 

with the antennae tucked in. Japan, the primary 

market for this product, imports 90% of the catch. 

Prices, determined by the size of the prawn, vary 

considerably from year to year. The 1999 value of a 

one-kilogram box of medium or large prawns was 

approximately C$14 (±US$10). A box of extra-large 

or jumbo product was valued at more than C$17 

(±US$12). Local markets, restaurants, and dock 

sales account for the sale of live and fresh prawns. 

The prawns are sold whole or tailed; dock prices in 

1999 commonly averaged C$12–$17 (±US$8–12) 

per kilogram. 



Canada’s Management Policies and Principles 

Integrated management (IM) of all activities 

affecting British Columbia’s estuarine, coastal, 

and marine waters is a central feature of the 

Oceans Management Strategy for Canada. 

Integrated management is defined as “an ongoing 

and collaborative approach incorporating social, 

cultural, environmental, and economic values to 

foster sustainable development while maintaining 

or enhancing aquatic ecosystems” (see 

www.pac.dfompo.gc.ca/oceans for more details). 

Development of fisheries management plans 

under IM is guided by the adoption of the precautionary 

principle, ecosystem considerations, 

and a co-management approach to management 

and sustainable development. In the future, integrated 

fishery management plans (IFMP) will 

consider the linkages between the management 

plans of associated species in a given area, identify 

overlapping interests, identify areas and 

requirements for marine protected areas, and 

ensure ongoing research and monitoring of 

marine ecosystem health. 

Spot prawn management in British Columbia is 

guided by the following philosophies and principles: 

19


•“To ensure conservation and protection of 

invertebrate stocks and their habitat through the 

application of scientific management principles 

applied in a risk averse and precautionary manner 

based on the best scientific advice available. 

•“To meet the federal Crown’s obligations regarding 

Aboriginal fisheries for food, social, and ceremonial 

purposes. 

•“To develop sustainable fisheries through 

partnership and co-management arrangements 

with client groups and stakeholders to share in 

decision-making, responsibilities and costs and 

benefits. 

•“To develop fishing plans and co-operative 

research programs which will contribute to 

improving the knowledge base and understanding 

the resource. 

•“To consider the goals of stakeholders with 

respect to the social, cultural and economic 

value of the fishery” 

(Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2000a). 

This is a fully competitive, limited-entry fishery 

that is managed through seasonal closures, inseason 

closures, gear limits, mesh size requirements, 

and minimum size limits. Two biological 

objectives have directed the choice of management 

tools: the prevention of growth overfishing 

(size limits and trap escapement modifications) 

and the prevention of recruitment overfishing (fixed 

escapement standard; i.e., spawner index model). 

Summary of Commercial Management and 

Regulatory Measures 

British Columbia’s spot prawn management system 

is different from all other spot prawn management 

systems. According to Fisheries and Oceans, spot 

prawn management in Canada is a “work in progress.” 

While management paradigms have historically 

focused on short-term yield, there is a need to 

change this culture and move toward a more longterm, 

precautionary, ecosystem approach. BC is 

continually evolving in this direction (Boutillier, 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Pers. comm., June 

2001). Precaution and ecosystem considerations 

are central to the BC system. Management operates 

on a very fine scale and is highly adaptive. 

Fine-scale management is fundamental to achieving 

BC’s management goals and central to achieving 

long-term sustainability for the spot prawn 

fishery. It is obtained through reliance on realtime 

management decisions and an involved atsea 

monitoring system. This fine-scale management 

system is at the crux of reducing the spot 

prawn’s vulnerability to serial depletion and 

localized overfishing (Boutillier, Fisheries and 

Oceans Canada. Pers. comm., October 2001). 

This section offers an overview of Canada’s spot 

prawn management measures and regulatory 

system. For a complete description of British 

Columbia’s spot prawn management regime, 

see Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s website 

(www.pac.dfompo.gc.ca/ops/fm/shellfish/ 

Prawn/prawn). 

•In 1979, a biological reference point—the spawner 

index—was instituted to manage 

fishing effort. 

•Harvest log requirements were mandatory as 

of 1983. Fishers are required to complete logbooks 

describing fishing effort and catch by midnight 

of each fishing day. The information must 

be delivered to Fisheries and Oceans within four 

weeks of the month in which fishing occurred. 

•Coast-wide seasonal closures were set in place 

for the South Coast (Areas 11–29) in 1984 and 

along the North Coast (Areas 1–10) in 1989. Prior 

to 1984, closures were set to coincide with the 

period in which eggs are incubated and larvae 

hatched (January–March). Closure timing is 

now based on a biological reference point: a 

minimum spawner index. 

•In 1985, a minimum size limit of 30 mm (1.18 

in.) carapace length was instituted. The size 

limit was increased to 32 mm (1.26 in.) in 1996 

and to 33 mm (1.30 in.) in 1997. A minimum 

length of telson (middle segment of the tail fan 

at the most posterior portion of the tail) of 20 

mm (0.79 in.) was established in 1998. 

•Trap mesh size limits became obligatory in 1988 

to reduce the capture of undersized prawns and 

mortality associated with bycatch and sorting. 

•A license limitation system, with a length restriction 

on transferability, was established in 1990. 

•Hailing requirements—i.e., fishers must report in 

prior to beginning fishing and on completion of 

fishing—were instituted in 1992. Hailing data 

facilitates in-season managment of the fishery. 

20


•In 1993, fishing was constrained to daylight 

hours only. 

•In 1994, a maximum trap volume was instituted. 

•The number of allowable traps was limited in 

1995. A fixed limit of 300 traps per license was 

set, with the option of stacking two licenses and 

fishing 500 traps on the licensed vessel. During 

the 1995–98 fishing season an estimated 73,000 

traps were fished coast-wide. 

•In 1995, license-holders began paying fees 

for the management of the spot prawn fishery. 

These monies are used to contract at-sea charter 

observers to monitor in-season regulatory compliance, 

as well as document catch composition 

and overall fishing effort. 

These regulatory and management measures form 

an integral part of the management regime today. 

Management of Spot Prawn Bycatch in the 

Commercial Shrimp Trawl Fishery 

The BC shrimp trawl fishery is primarily a 

commercial fishery. Recreational fishing with 

trawl gear is prohibited and only a few First 

Nation fisheries use trawl gear. Seven species of 

shrimp are caught with trawls: smooth pink or 

ocean shrimp (Pandalus jordani), northern or 

spiky shrimp (Pandalus borealis eous), flexed 

shrimp (Pandalus goniurus), humpback shrimp 

(Pandalus hypsinotus), coonstripe or dock shrimp 

(Pandalus danae), sidestripe shrimp (Pandalus 

dispar), and spot prawns (Pandalus platycereos). 

Both otter and beam trawls are fished in British 

Columbia. 

The trawl fishery for spot prawns was banned 10 

years ago due to the impacts on habitat, the nonselective 

nature of the fishery, and the inability to 

manage the fishery according to the principles of a 

fixed escapement policy (Boutillier, Fisheries and 

Oceans Canada. Pers. comm., April 2001). The 

trawl fishery is now a bycatch-only fishery. Spot 

prawn bycatch is subject to a number of 

different regulations, including: 

•Incidental catch of prawns is limited to 100 

prawns (whole in the shell), provided the 

fishing area in which they are caught is open 

to trawl gear. 

•The minimum legal size limit for retained 

prawns is a carapace length of 33 mm (1.30 in.). 

•It is illegal to retain spot prawns caught by trawl 

when the prawn trap fishery is closed. 

•Permanent area closures (South Coast Area 17 

and Sub-Area 29-5) prohibit the retention of spot 

prawns by trawl gear year-round. 

•All prawns must be sorted out of the catch when 

brought on board. Prawns that are in excess of 

the incidental catch limit or are undersize must 

be returned to the sea immediately. 

•Retained prawns must be kept segregated from 

all other catch on board. 

Management of Aboriginal and 

Recreational Spot Prawn Fisheries 

The recreational fishery is managed via gear 

limits, gear-marking requirements, a daily 

catch limit, and a two-day possession limit (see 

“Management Concerns—Recreational Fishery” 

below for more details). First Nations’ fisheries for 

food, social, and ceremonial purposes are managed 

via communal licensing, hailing, and 

catch reporting requirements. 

An overlap in season length results in conflicts 

between the recreational and commercial fisheries. 

Recreational fishers have observed that fishing 

success declines when the commercial fleet 

is active, and returns to acceptable levels a few 

weeks after commercial fishing activities leave an 

area or cease all together. Exclusive allocation of 

fishing grounds has been called for. Fisheries and 

Oceans recently addressed the conflict by leaving 

stocks at higher spawner index values in the most 

important recreational areas. These management 

actions appear to have quelled the concerns of 

recreational interests. 

First Nations have expressed apprehension 

about the growth in recreational harvest, particularly 

during the winter months when spot prawns 

are carrying eggs. The Saanich Tribal Fisheries are 

recommending that Saanich Inlet be completely 

closed to all users during the winter. 


British Columbia’s spot prawn management system 

aims to continue improving the state of biological 

and ecological knowledge and integrating 

this increased understanding into management 

and regulatory systems. Efforts are made to answer 

basic questions about spot prawn life history (e.g., 

variation in natural mortality), and more compli- 

21


cated questions such as the impacts of other fisheries 

on spot prawn distribution and abundance. 

Management assumptions are constantly challenged 

and tested. Driving the evolution and 

future of BC invertebrate management is the 

desire to move toward ecosystem management 

and develop systems that are quick to respond to 

changing environmental or human conditions 

(Boutillier, Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Pers. 

comm., June 2001). 

Fishing Intensity 

Commercial catches have reached record levels 

while season length continues to shrink (though it 

should be noted that the 2000 fishery saw a six-day 

increase in season length). Continued growth in 

fleet efficiency is brought about by improved traps, 

better fishing technology and electronics, vessel 

upgrades or replacements, re-powering of vessels, 

improved haulers, development of on-board freezing 

capabilities, and the widespread adoption of 

multiple-hauling practices. 

Before 1995, fishers typically hauled trap gear 

once a day. Investment in vessel upgrades and 

replacements increased a large percentage of 

the fleet’s operating speed and carrying capacity. 

Fishers in 1996 began the practice of double-hauling—hauling 

traps twice a day. This practice was 

most common at the start of the fishing season, 

when stock numbers were at their highest. A 

survey of fishers in 1997 found that 60% of the 

industry was double-hauling gear at the onset of 

the fishing season. In 1999, fishers were triplehauling. 

These changing fishing practices contributed 

to a reduction in season length, and could have 

increased fishing-related impacts on spot prawns 

and their habitat. Multiple hauling increases the 

number of small and undersized prawn mortality 

associated with handling. The fishing community 

has raised concerns about double-hauling and its 

impact on the overall sustainability of the fishery. 

Moreover, there are concerns that “this intensification 

of effort may ‘out fish’ the effectiveness of the 

spawner index as a management measure to 

achieve conservation goals” (Fisheries and 

Oceans 2000a). 

Fisheries and Oceans piloted a single-haul provision 

in 2000 in the southern portion of the commercial 

fishery—a region that constitutes 70% of 

all commercial landings—to determine the measure’s 

ability to control effort, its enforceability, 

and acceptance by the fishing community. In 2001, 

the fishing industry asked that the single-haul provision 

be applied coast-wide. This is now the standard, 

with voluntary industry funding covering the 

increased monitoring and enforcement costs. 

A pilot area-licensing program was established 

for 2000 to control the fleet’s movements between 

areas of single and multiple hauls. First Nation 

concerns regarding the intensity of commercial 

fishing effort on the west coast of Vancouver 

Island have been addressed by the implementation 

of a single-haul requirement in this part 

of the fishery. 

Bycatch Concerns 

Trap bycatch includes other shrimp species, 

small octopus, starfish, and small bottom fish. 

Bycatch is returned to the sea, usually unharmed, 

as the catch is emptied and sorted. The level of 

bycatch in the trap fishery is low and is not considered 

a significant conservation or management 

issue. 

On the other hand, the bycatch of undersized 

prawns is a conservation concern for Fisheries 

and Oceans. At present, though, no regulatory 

solution has been instituted. While spot prawn 

bycatch is an issue in a number of different fisheries, 

Fisheries and Oceans is now actively monitoring 

and addressing spot prawn bycatch only in 

shrimp trawl fisheries (Boutillier, Fisheries and 

Ocean Canada. Pers. comm., June 2001). The 

agency recognizes that a more holistic approach 

to bycatch and fishing-related mortality is a 

necessary component of a sustainable system. 

Ecosystem health and ecological relationships 

are important management considerations, and 

this is the direction in which Fisheries and Oceans 

is heading (Boutillier, Fisheries and Ocean 

Canada. Pers. comm., June 2001). 

To address the bycatch of undersized prawns, 

managers urged shrimp trawlers to avoid areas 

where there is a high incidence of small prawns. 

If these voluntary measures prove ineffective, 

the implementation of trawl closures will be considered. 

Spot prawn mortality associated with 

bycatch is another concern, particularly when 

the fishery is closed for conservation reasons. 

Regulations regarding handling and retention during 

closures are aimed at addressing these important 

concerns. If problems persist, Fisheries and 

Oceans will confer with the fishing industry about 

closures. 

22


Management Options — Commercial Fishery 

Discussions concerning the future management 

direction of the spot prawn trap fishery have covered 

further input controls; e.g., trap reductions, 

trap quota transfers, rotational fisheries, as well 

as output controls like individual quota systems. 

The Prawn Sectoral Committee (advisory committee 

to Fisheries and Oceans elected by six licenseholder 

organizations) prepared a report in 1999 discussing 

the various management options available. 

The industry agrees that conservation limits should 

continue to be set through the spawner index and 

measures taken to control the expansion of fishing 

effort. There is, however, no agreement on how this 

objective is best achieved. Some fishers want to 

retain a competitive fishery, others want to see 

the introduction of a quota management 

system (Boutillier and Bond 1999b). 

Fisheries and Oceans is considering expanding 

the extent of spawner index sampling so that data 

can be collected when the fishery is closed. These 

additional data would allow a better determination 

of the egg incubation period and ensure 

that mortality rates coincide with those deemed 

sustainable by the spawner index model. A 25% 

higher spawner index will be used in determining 

closures in Howe Sound and other areas with high 

concentrations of recreational effort. A slightly 

higher spawner index will also be applied coastwide 

in determining in-season closures. Research 

by Boutillier and Bond (1999b) suggests that a 

higher index may result in increased production 

and, therefore, enhanced harvests. (See “Spawner 

Index System” box for a more detailed 

discussion of this.) 

Beginning with the 2001 fishery, fishers and 

license-holder representatives will have the 

opportunity to develop the prawn commercial 

harvest plan. Issues to be addressed include conservation 

requirements, First Nations’ access to 

the fishery, enforceability issues, funding management, 

and stakeholder buy-in and participation 

in management. 

Management Options — Recreational Fishery 

The recreational fishery has grown exponentially 

in recent years. In some areas, particularly near 

cities, recreational effort is probably greater than 

commercial. Fisheries and Oceans say that “with 

this kind of effort severe overfishing can occur and 

a management strategy needs to be implemented 

to address the issue of the sport fishery’s impact 

on conservation” (Fisheries and Oceans 1999a). 

The lack of information regarding total effort and 

catch is one of the most critical issues facing the 

recreational component of the fishery. Additional 

problems include: 

•trap identification regulations 

•ability to accurately assess catch limits in the 

field 

•lack of minimum mesh size regulations 

•lack of a minimum size limit for catch 

•lack of seasonal closures to protect eggbearing 

females 

•lack of spawner index monitoring when the 

commercial fishery is closed 

The Groundfish and Shellfish Subcommittee of 

the Sports Advisory Board has recommended 

changes in the management of the recreational 

fishery that would effectively address these issues. 

These recommendations include improved trap 

identification, limits on the number of traps that 

can be set per bottom line, and changing catch 

limits to a piece rather than weight basis. Regulatory 

changes reflecting these suggestions are in 

progress. 

A recently revised recreational advisory 

document encourages the use of larger mesh 

on traps, a reduction of trap limits in conservation 

areas, the release of egg-bearing females, 

and conservation-oriented gear-deployment 

practices. Spawner index surveys (fall and winter) 

in areas with high levels of recreational activity 

are being discussed. Decisions need to be made 

regarding appropriate actions if surveys find that 

index levels are approaching conservation targets. 

Fisheries and Oceans presently is in the 

process of putting together a vessel-based monitoring 

system for the recreational fishery 

(Boutillier, Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 

Pers. comm., October 2001). 

Funding Management in 2001 and Beyond 

License-holders began paying fees for management 

in 1995. Originally this fee was set at C$1,170/ 

license (±US$820) and was paid in addition to the 

license fee. Management fees were increased to 

C$1,470 (±US$1030) per year in 1998 and were 

estimated to pay over 70% of management costs. 

In 2000, commercial license-holders paid a C$320 

(±US$225) license fee and the C$1,470 (±US$1030) 

management fee. 

The management fee agreement expired 31 March 

2001. It will not be renewed. The decision not to 

renew management fees was based on a Depart- 

23


ment policy that states that only license fees for 

access should be regulated. Fees for additional 

management services will be provided voluntarily 

by fishers through Joint Project Agreements between 

representative industry associations and 

the Department (Boutillier, Fisheries and Ocean 

Canada. Pers. comm., June 2001). 

Commercial fishers will pay a C$320 (±US$225) 

license fee for the 2001 fishery. As a pre-condition 

of license, the fisher will be responsible for securing 

third-party services to provide trap tags, inseason 

hail services, on-board gear inspections, 

and biological sampling. The cost is estimated at 

C$1,700–2,000 (±US$1,200–1,400) per vessel, 

depending on whether the vessel is on a singleor 

double-license status. Only vessels active in the 

fishery must make arrangements for these services. 

Fisheries and Oceans will be seeking funding 

from the industry for stock assessment and additional 

management activities. 

Bootleggers, Poaching, and 

Illegal Prawn Sales 

The purchase of out-of season fresh prawns in 

bars and restaurants is well known. The illegal 

sale of prawns is a big concern in British Columbia, 

despite the fact that the value of spot prawns is 

higher in the export market than in the illegal 

market, and the fact that the majority (95%) of 

spot prawn product is legally caught and adequately 

reported. Poaching is a conservation concern, 

particularly where it is concentrated in areas 

that are closed for ecological or conservation reasons. 

Illegal activity of this nature is difficult to 

quantify, let alone investigate and prosecute. The 

Department believes that bootleggers—individuals 

who catch prawns using a recreational license, 

then sell the catch privately—are largely those 

responsible for the illegal supply of spot prawns. 

WASHINGTON SPOT PRAWN FISHERY 

Biological Status of the Spot Prawn 

There has been virtually no ecological research 

on the spot prawn in Washington. Information 

regarding the biological status of spot prawns, and 

of Washington pandalid shrimp stocks in general, 

is limited (Therese Cain, WDFW. Pers. comm., 

March 2001). Spot prawns are found in Washington’s 

offshore (coastal) and inshore (Puget Sound 

and Northern Straits of San Juan de Fuca) waters. 

Much of the portion of Puget Sound that is between 

40 and 50 fathoms (240–300 feet) deep is 

believed to support spot prawn populations (Mark 

O’Toole, WDFW. Pers. comm., June 2001). It is likely 

that spot prawn life-history characteristics vary 

depending on whether the population is in 

enclosed waters, such as Puget Sound, or open 

waters, such as the Washington coast. Both 

inshore and offshore distribution is believed to 

be patchy. 

Existing management systems are grounded in 

area-specific knowledge of historical harvests. 

The size, genetic structure, number and/or location 

of the different stocks, and the interactions 

between them are virtually unknown. Recruitment 

to the fishery is also an unknown; it is 

unclear whether larvae are transported from 

one area to another, or whether an area provides 

its own recruitment. It is speculated that, “given 

the complex current patterns and topography of 

the area . . . there are several genetically distinct 

sub-populations” (Lowry 2000). 

The offshore topography at spot prawn depth is 

complex, and the shelf break comprises several 

submarine canyons. These canyons tend to contain 

counterclockwise eddies that may serve as 

larval retention devices. Canyons tend to be are 

as of greater upwelling, and as such could provide 

abundant food supplies and enhanced levels 

of productivity (Hickey 1995, 1997; Klinck 1996). 

Larval retention could lead to genetically distinct 

populations in each of the canyons. Even 

if this is not the case, it is believed that certain 

marine areas serve as larval sources, others as 

sinks (Lowry, University of Washington School 

of Fisheries. Pers. comm., May 2001). 

Complex geography and currents dominate the 

inshore Puget Sound region and could similarly 

limit larval transport and constrain gene flow. 

The Sound forms a part of a large fiord system 

made up of a number of distinguishable terrestrial 

and marine features that effectively divide it 

into distinct regions. Tides, wind, and terrestrial 

runoff govern water transport. Inshore areas like 

the Whidbey Basin or Hood Canal Basin exhibit 

slow turnover times (Ebbesmeyer, C.C. et al. 

1984). The combination of these factors may 

reduce passive larval transport and enhance the 

retention of larvae in the basins where they 

hatch. Gene flow between basins would be 

negligible under these conditions. 

Washington Sea Grant is currently funding a 

three-year program, Spot Prawn Stock Structure 

24


and Management, aimed at improving the state 

of this type of biological and ecological knowledge. 

(See “Spot Prawn Stock Structure and 

Management” box below for details.) 

A pre-season test fishery has been carried out 

in Hood Canal since the 1970s. This research 

has been aimed at analyzing relative abundance 

and life history characteristics, such as length 

frequency ovigery (egg bearing), in order to set 

the harvest level for the coming season and determine 

the timing and duration of season openings. 

The Tulalip, Swinomish, and Suquamish 

Tribes also run pre-season test fisheries for 

ovigery to determine the percentage of female 

prawns that are egg-bearing. These test fisheries 

are carried out in the central Sound/Whidbey 

Basin. The Hood Canal fishery presently is a 

recreational and tribal commercial fishery only. 

The State commercial fishery has been closed 

since 1992. 

The Puget Sound (excluding Hood Canal) 

Pandalid Shrimp Harvest Management Plan 

(2001a) recognizes that biological information 

about Puget Sound pandalid shrimp resources is 

currently limited. Both parties “share the goal of 

collecting and analyzing additional information to 

improve shrimp [prawn] management” (WDFW 

2001a). Additional biological information may be 

required in order to “make future assessments of 

allowable harvests and harvest methods.” This 

information may include the following: 

•develop quantitative survey methods to estimate 

the allowable catch by area, species, and 

gear type 

•biological basis for the establishment of harvest 

seasons; e.g., to deter harvest of ovigerous prawn 

•biological criteria for in-season data collection 

to evaluate harvest impacts and ensure proper 

resource utilization; e.g., count per pound 

•designation of minimum size limits of prawn 

and appropriate gear mesh size restrictions 

•designation of shrimp prawn nursery areas 

•identification of sub-areas needing unique 

management provisions 

•distribution and abundance of prawn species 

•methodology for estimation of non-commercial 

harvests and other fishery-related mortalities, 

including the bycatch of non-target species 

(WDFW 2001a) 

This additional biological information has not 

been collected to date. At the present time, the 

SPOT PRAWN STOCK STRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT 

A three-year (2001, 2002, and 2003) 

Washington Sea Grant Program will 

support spot prawn research in 

Washington’s inshore and offshore 

fisheries.The need for this program 

arose from the fact that, despite the 

value of spot prawns to commercial 

and recreational fishing interests, 

little biological or ecological information 

is available for management. 

According to the Project 

Rationale,“The life cycle of these 

animals makes them especially vulnerable 

to overexploitation, so this 

information [the size, genetic structure, 

and relationship between the 

species’ various stocks] is necessary 

for sound management of the 

resource” (Lowry 2000). 

The Project’s primary objectives are: 

•“To use microsatellite DNA analysis 

to investigate the genetic relationships 

between prawns from the 

major fishing areas in Washington 

State, both inshore and offshore. 

•“To examine modeled and observed 

current and water property patterns 

to determine the likelihood of 

local retention and exchange of larvae 

between putative sub-populations. 

•“To use the above two types of 

information to define the ranges of 

the populations being fished. 

•“To use logbook data from the 

commercial fishery to determine 

major fishing areas offshore and 

develop an area-specific biomass 

dynamics model for use in setting 

maximum catches. 

•“To provide fishery management 

recommendations regarding 

resource sustainability, including 

habitat protection and the potential 

use of reserves as a management 

tool” (Lowry 2000). 

The Project methodology will 

involve sampling sites in both the 

offshore and inshore fisheries and 

comparing the genetic makeup of 

the animals in these two regions. 

Commercial fishing logbook data 

will be used to ensure that areas 

where spot prawns tend to aggregate 

are sampled. Genetic stock 

structure and distribution data will 

then be compared to oceanographic 

movement models in order to 

locate areas where larvae are transported, 

as well as where they are 

retained. An area-specific model of 

spot prawn population dynamics 

will be developed. 

This Project will allow the description 

of “the genetic stock structure 

of Washington stocks of spot 

prawns, within Puget Sound and 

the Northern Straits of San Juan de 

Fuca as well as offshore. Comparison 

of this with oceanographic features 

in the areas occupied by spot 

prawns will allow us to draw conclusions 

about the life history of the 

offshore spot prawn populations, 

interactions between sub-populations, 

and the importance of eddies 

to the retention of larvae in submarine 

canyons” (Lowry 2000). 

25


list functions as a guide for future research plans 

(Cain, WDFW. Pers. comm., March 2001). 


Washington State has had significant spot prawn 

fisheries since at least the 1940s. Fishing has taken 

place in several different areas of the State. The offshore 

fishery is concentrated on Washington’s 

outer coast in the heads of Grays, Quinalt, and 

Juan de Fuca canyons. The inshore fishery takes 

place in Hood Canal, Whidbey Island Basin, San 

Juan Islands, Discovery Bay, and Port Angeles 

Harbor. The inshore fishery includes two distinct 

components: a commercial tribal fishery and a 

state recreation fishery in Hood Canal, and a 

tribal and state commercial fishery in Puget 

Sound (excluding Hood Canal). 

Hood Canal and the San Juan Islands report the 

highest spot prawn catches. Commercial fishing 

activity (outside Hood Canal) is mostly centered 

in the eastern and central Puget Sound. Recently, 

commercial harvests have increased significantly, 

especially in the offshore fishery. Comparatively, 

the inshore fishery has a longer history and more 

stable catch trends from year to year (Lowry, 

University of Washington School of Fisheries. 

Pers. comm., May 2001). 

Since the 1994 Rafeedie Decision (see “The Rafeedie 

Decision” box), Washington State Tribes and 

the WDFW have shared responsibility for spot 

prawn management and for ensuring that harvest 

guidelines are allocated equitably between Tribal 

and non-Tribal fishers. The Northwest Indian 

Puget Sound (Excluding Hood Canal) Pandalid Shrimp Fishery 

2001 Shrimp Pot Management Areas & Total Spot Shrimp Harvest Shares 

Map Courtesy Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

26


Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) represents 20 

treaty Tribes and has followed all stages of the 

Rafeedie case. The mission of the NWIFC is to 

assist “Treaty Indian Tribes in conducting biologically 

sound fisheries and providing a unified voice 

on fisheries management issues” (NWIFC 2000, 

www.nwifc.wa.gov). Approximately 16 Washington 

Tribes have a stated interest in the spot prawn 

fishery (David Fyfe, NWIFC. Pers. comm., June 

2001). 

Since Rafeedie, the Tribes “have a fundamental 

government duty to conserve and protect their 

treaty-reserved resources, while providing tribal 

harvest opportunity” (NWIFC 2000: p.4). 

Ensuring the development of sound data-management 

systems for catch reporting, research 

and assess-ment programs, and monitoring and 

enforce-ment regimes is a common goal of all 

Tribal shellfish management systems. The need 

to regulate and monitor the in-season fishery in 

order to ensure conservation of the resource and 

maintain a 50:50 allocation between Tribal and 

non-Tribal interests is specific to Tribal management. 

The development of “in-season population 

assess-ment methodologies is one of the goals of 

Tribal management systems and will require 

increased data collection and research” (NWIFC 

2000: p. 5). 

The Offshore Spot Prawn Fishery 

The offshore, directed fishery for spot prawns 

began in approximately 1992, when two boats 

based in Westport, Washington actively targeted 

spot prawns with pot gear. Prior to this time, spot 

prawns were a bycatch species in the ocean pink 

shrimp and groundfish trawl fisheries. Bycatch or 

incidental catch declined sharply when WDFW 

instituted regulations that required a larger mesh 

size (WDFW 2001c). In the early developmental 

stages of the spot prawn fishery, only a few regulations 

were in place. These included: 1) use of cotton 

For thousands of years, shellfish has 

been a vital food source for Washington’s 

Tribes, second only to salmon. 

Shellfish are equally important 

today for economic as well as subsistence 

and ceremonial purposes. 

Similar to salmon resources,Tribal 

rights to harvest shellfish are guaranteed 

in a series of treaties signed 

with representatives of the U.S. government 

in the 1850s. 

THE RAFEEDIE DECISION 

“The right of taking of fish at 

usual and accustomed 

grounds and stations is further 

secured to said Indians, in common 

with all citizens of the 

United States; and erecting 

temporary houses for the purposes 

of curing; together with 

the privilege of hunting and 

gathering roots and berries on 

open and unclaimed lands. 

Provided, however, that they 

take no shellfish from any beds 

staked or cultivated by citizens” 

(Treaty of Point No Point, 

Jan. 26, 1855, cited in 

Northwest Indian Fisheries 

Commission Comprehensive 

Tribal Shellfish Management. 

2000. www.nwifc.wa.gov/ 

ctnrm/2000_shellfish.htm). 

Shellfish harvests were dominated 

by the Tribes until well into the 

1920s, but as settlement spread 

and available land was purchased, 

the Tribes were slowly pushed out 

of traditional fishing and harvesting 

grounds. Efforts to restore and 

uphold treaty rights began with the 

case U.S. v. Winans, in which the 

Supreme Court ruled that where 

treaties reserve Tribal rights to fish 

at “usual and accustomed fishing 

grounds, the State can not preclude 

access to those places” (NWIFC 

2000: p. 2). In 1970, the U.S. government 

filed a case on behalf of western 

Washington fishing Tribes 

against the State of Washington. In 

1974,“The Boldt Decision” ruled that 

the Tribes had a reserved right to 

half of the harvestable salmon and 

steelhead in western Washington. 

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld this 

decision in 1979. 

Since then, the Tribes and Washington 

State have been working to 

develop fishery management systems 

that ensure opportunities for 

both Tribal and non-Tribal fishers. 

Despite these efforts, the Tribes felt 

obliged to file suit in Federal Court 

to protect their treaty shellfish harvest 

rights.The issue went to trial in 

1994.This case followed the case 

law laid out in U.S. v. Washington 

(“The Boldt Decision”). Judge 

Rafeedie ruled that “the treaties ‘in 

common’ language meant that the 

tribes had reserved harvest rights. 

The tribes reserved the right to harvest 

up to half of all shellfish from all 

of the usual and accustomed places, 

except those ‘staked or cultivated’ 

by citizens.” Rafeedie stated,“A 

treaty is not a grant of rights to the 

Indians, but a grant of rights from 

them” (NWIFC 2000: p. 3). 

All parties to the case have appealed 

various parts of Rafeedie’s ruling. 

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 

heard these arguments in 

1997 and upheld Rafeedie’s major 

rulings. Portions of the implementation 

plan were changed. Appeals for 

a re-hearing from the State of 

Washington and private property 

owners were denied.The Tribes’ 

appeal to change Rafeedie’s ruling 

that prevents the harvest of natural 

clams beneath growers’ cultivated 

oyster beds was also denied.The 

decision became final in 1999, when 

the U.S. Supreme Court denied 

appeals of lower court rulings.The 

Tribes have now “moved past the litigation 

and into co-management of 

their treaty resources with the State 

of Washington” (NWIFC 2000: p.3). 

27


“rot away” cord in pot gear; 2) a limited trawl season 

of April 1 through October 31; 3) keeping 

and submission of logbooks to WDFW. 

The bulk of the fishery takes place an average of 

25–30 miles offshore, and to date there has been 

no Tribal participation in the fishery. In 1992, 

approximately 2,480 pounds of spot prawns 

were landed off Westport in the Grays Canyon 

area. In 1993, four pot vessels actively targeted 

spot prawns and caught a total of 13,555 pounds. 

An Oregon-based trawler entered the fishery in 

1994 and harvested approximately two-thirds of 

the annual catch limit of 65,854 pounds. No landings 

were recorded in 1995. The WDFW believes 

that this is because fishers pursued more lucrative 

opportunities, particularly for albacore. In 1996, 

four pot boats re-entered the fishery and landed 

22,389 pounds of spot prawns. In addition, approximately 

130 pounds of spot prawns were reported 

as incidental trawl catch. 

The offshore fishery changed dramatically in 

1997, when five trawl boats entered the fishery 

and landed 112,284 pounds of spot prawns, 

approximately 84% of the total offshore catch. 

WDFW believes that this increase in trawl 

involvement was in part driven by a dramatic 

increase in demand for spot prawns, especially 

for the live market. The WDFW expressed concern 

about the dramatic increase in fishing 

effort evidenced in this 1997 season. Interest in 

the fishery was growing. In addition, the potential 

for rapid expansion was great, due to significant 

reductions in groundfish quotas and below-average 

catches of other important fisheries, such as 

pink shrimp. 

These management concerns and limited knowledge 

about the “distribution, abundance, and 

sustainability of the resource” (WDFW 2001c) led 

WDFW to recommend that the provisions of the 

Emerging Commercial Fisheries Act (ECFA) be 

applied to the coastal spot prawn fishery. The 

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission Member Tribes 

Map Courtesy Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 

28


WDFW Commission approved this recommendation 

in November 1997. 

The ECFA was enacted in 1990 to prevent habitat 

damage and conserve marine resources. The Act 

also protects the economic viability of fisheries 

through measures preventing overcapitalization. 

It authorizes the WDFW to limit the number of 

fishery permits issued annually for a period of 

up to five years. Furthermore, the permits issued 

are non-transferable and therefore unable to 

accumulate monetary value. 

An Industry Advisory Board was appointed in 

1998 according to ECFA guidelines. The Board’s 

mandate was to recommend to the WDFW the 

number of permits issued and the type of permit 

qualification requirements. This advice was incorporated 

into “a comprehensive regulatory package” 

that was approved by the Commission in 

December 1998, along with two fishery management 

policy statements. In January 1999, five trawl 

gear and ten pot gear permits were issued based 

on historical participation requirements. Later in 

1999, one of these trawl permits was converted 

to pot at the request of the fisher. 

An overall catch quota of 250,000 pounds was 

established and equally allocated to the two gear 

types. A trawl season of May 1 through November 

30 was instituted, and pot vessels were limited 

to 500 pots per vessel. Due to the fact that trawl 

gear is “widely reputed to cause inordinate adverse 

habitat impacts,” trawl gear was legally 

defined so as to prevent the use of “mud and tire 

and rockhopper gear” (WDFW 2001a). To avoid 

inter-jurisdictional conflict, WDFW and the 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) 

outlined an agreement restricting fishers to their 

State’s waters unless they possess a fishing permit 

in the other State. 

Under this new management regime, 251,344 

pounds of spot prawns were caught in 1998, 86% 

landed by eight trawlers. Effort and catch both 

declined in 1999. About 101,326 pounds were 

landed, 95% landed by three trawl vessels. 

The Puget Sound Spot Prawn Fishery 

The Puget Sound spot prawn fishery has a much 

longer and consistent catch history than the offshore 

fishery. Management of Puget Sound stocks 

is better established, especially in Hood Canal, 

Washington Coastal Commercial Spot Prawn Fishery 

* Pounds caught off Washington landed in Oregon 

(Source: Lorna Wargo, WDFW—Montesano) 

29


than in the offshore fishery. The fishery is a potonly 

fishery (excluding Hood Canal, which 

allows pots, ringnets, and hand dipnets). 

THE PUGET SOUND COMMERCIAL FISHERY 

(STATE AND TRIBAL) 

Spot prawn harvest guidelines in the Puget Sound 

are not based on stock assessments—methods 

used to determine harvest levels or harvestable 

surpluses outside of Hood Canal have been 

described as “crude.” Nevertheless, the catch limitation 

system does appear “to be working as there 

currently is no shortage of spot prawns” in Washington 

(O’Toole, WDFW. Pers. comm., March 

2001). Allocation and management of spot prawns 

is now guided by the Rafeedie Decision (see “The 

Rafeedie Decision” box), which requires a 50:50 

sharing between Tribal and non-Tribal fishers. 

Prior to the Rafeedi Decision, spot prawn management 

in the inshore fishery was directed by fishing 

performance indices. Annual closures were instituted 

when the CPUE was reduced to a certain 

level. 

Now harvestable surpluses are estimated and 

used to guide management decisions. Estimates 

of harvestable surpluses “for areas where extensive 

shrimp [spot prawn] pot fishing has occurred in 

past years are based on historical harvests with 

adjustments based on recent fishery performance. 

The harvestable surplus of pandalid shrimp [spot 

prawn] for areas where extensive shrimp [spot 

prawn] harvest has not yet occurred are projected 

in consideration of recent fishery performance 

and the approximate amount of appropriate 

shrimp habitat relative to areas where fishing has 

historically occurred” (WDFW 1998). A harvestable 

surplus is determined for each catch area or group 

of catch areas. The geographical boundaries of 

these areas do not necessarily reflect Puget 

Sound stock structure (O’Toole, WDFW. Pers. 

comm., May 2001). 

THE HOOD CANAL FISHERY — RECREATIONAL 

(STATE) AND COMMERCIAL (TRIBAL) 

Management of the spot prawn fishery in Hood 

Canal is carried out separately from the inshore 

fishery. Non-Tribal commercial fishing has been 

closed in Hood Canal since 1992. A test fishery is 

conducted every year in early spring. The annual 

quota is set based on the relationship between 

the CPUE in the test fishery and the total catch 

taken in previous years. Between 1990 and 2001, 

the average catch in Hood Canal was 168,115 

pounds. 

The Tribal and State fisheries in Hood Canal are 

based on a 50:50 sharing between Hood Canal 

Treaty Tribes (Skokomish Tribe, Port Gamble 

S’Klallam Tribe, Lower Elwha S’Klallam Tribe, and 

Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe) and non-Tribal recreational 

fishers. The Tribes and the State regulate 

their fisheries to ensure that harvest shares are 

not exceeded. In addition, there is an agreement 

between the Tribes and the State to avoid scheduling 

their respective fisheries on the same days. 

Neither group harvested spot prawns after September 

30 for the 2001 fishing season. 

The Tribes and the State “share the goal of 

collecting and analyzing additional information 

to improve shrimp [prawn] management in Hood 

Canal. This information will include, at a minimum, 

the following: 

•“Biological basis for the establishment of harvest 

seasons, e.g. to deter harvest of ovigerous 

shrimp [prawns]. 

•“Biological criteria for in-season data collection 

to evaluate harvest impacts, e.g. the number of 

shrimp [prawns] per pound. 

•“Daily catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) for the 

Tribal and State fisheries. CPUE will be calculated 

for each Catch Area (27A, 27B, 27C and will be 

expressed as the sum of each days total catch 

divided by the total number of pots fished that 

day” (WDFW 2001b). 

The State and the Tribes agree to collaborate on 

the development and implementation of sampling 

programs needed to ensure that this information 

is collected. 

A post-season assessment is carried out in Hood 

Canal every year. This assessment includes “at a 

minimum, harvest by catch reporting areas and 

catch-effort information” (WDFW 2001b). If either 

party overharvests its harvest share by more than 

5%, the amount of overharvest will be paid back 

to the resource in the following fishing season. 



The characteristics and regulations governing 

the offshore fishery are virtually the same today 

as they were in the 1998 and 1999 fishing seasons. 

The fact that there is “little scientific basis for setting 

quotas” has led WDFW to follow as precautionary 

an approach as possible, until the biological 

and fishery performance data are obtained 

and analyzed (WDFW 2001c). The WDFW and 

30


Hood Canal Spot Prawn Fishery (Pots), 1990–2001 

Note: After 1995, the spot prawn resource in Hood Canal was shared 50:50 with Hood Canal Treaty Tribes. 

Source: Therese Cain, WDFW—Point Whitney 

fishers are particularly concerned about the risk 

of overharvest due to the small, localized distribution 

of spot prawns. 

The trawl season has been established to protect 

prawns during the vulnerable egg-bearing stage 

and to ensure that there is greater catch equity 

between the trawl and pot fleets. The regulations 

were modified in 2000 to address concerns about 

the status of stocks in heavily fished areas such as 

Grays Canyon. The overall 2000 quota (250,000 

lbs.) was divided between the southern (100,000 

lbs.) and northern (150,000 lbs.) portions of the 

Coast. In addition, the opening date for the Grays 

Canyon fishery was set back until July 1 to reduce 

the length of the trawling season in this area. 

The regulations imposed on the fishery by the 

ECFA will remain in place until 2004. This fiveyear 

window will be used to gather information 

and develop management recommendations for 

the Commission and legislature. By necessity, recommendations 

will focus on the fishery’s future 

licensing scheme—a permanent license limitation 

or an open-access fishery—with catch limits. 

The appropriateness of trawl gear in spot prawn 

coastal habitats has been an issue in recent years, 

and led to a trawler phase-out proposal before the 

Washington legislature. According to WDFW, there 

has been a lot of discussion about converting the 

trawl fleet to trap. It is clear to many in the industry 

that change is on the horizon; some coastal 

trawlers are already in the process of trialing pot 

conversions (Lowry, University of Washington 



THE PUGET SOUND COMMERCIAL FISHERY 

(STATE AND TRIBAL) 

The non-Tribal commercial fishery in Puget Sound 

is currently limited to 18 licenses. The fleet is made 

up of 12 to 15 vessels fishing an 800-lb. weekly trip 

limit. Coonstripe shrimp are also targeted. Three 

vessels are estimated to fish the non-Tribal fishery 

in the central Sound. Their 300-lb. trip limits need 

to be augmented by catches of coonstripe shrimp 

in order for the spot prawn fishery to be economically 

viable. 

Tribal quotas are primarily caught in central Puget 

Sound and are fished according to regional allocation 

(Kelly Toy, Tulalip Tribe Fisheries Department. 

Pers. comm., September 2001). Management is 

based on historical catches. There is limited preseason 

research, but CPUE is monitored pre- and 

post-season. Tribal fishing effort continues to 

increase. There is interest in increasing quotas, 

but tribal managers are slow to move due to the 

limited biological understanding of the stock and 

the need to refine existing management systems 

(Paul Williams, Suquamish Tribe Fisheries 

Department. Pers. comm., May 2001). 

The State fishery lasts a month or two, typically 

from June 1 until the end of July. Before the implementation 

of trip limits, the fishery lasted only 

31


about five days (O’Toole, WDFW. Pers. comm., 

March 2001). The Tribal fishery is an open-access 

fishery that does not rely on trip limits to control 

effort. The harvest guideline is usually caught 

quickly, and the fishery typically lasts only two 

weeks per season (Paul Williams, Suquamish Tribe 

Fisheries Department. Pers. comm., May 2001). 

The adjusted 2000 State and Tribal quota allowed 

177,300 lbs. of spot prawns to be landed. The 2000 

State harvest was 74,451 lbs., of which commercial 

fishers landed 56,705 lbs. and recreational fishers 

landed 17,746 lbs. The Tribal harvest was 78,745 

lbs. State overage was 492 lbs., while the Tribal 

overage was 11,542 lbs. Draft 2001 quotas (adjusted 

for overages in 2000 and negotiated quota increases 

in several areas) were 100,733 lbs. for the 

State and 92,829 lbs. for the Tribes. The State commercial 

season opened June 11, 2001; the Tribal 

commercial season opened in April. 

Puget Sound spot prawn landings were at their 

highest level in 2000. (The 2001 landings have not 

been finalized yet.) Increases in the average catch 

per landing are seen as indicative of an increasing 

CPUE, a stable population, and sustainable harvest 

levels (Steve Barry, WDFW, cited in ODFW 2000). 

The catch in 2000 was almost 153,200 lbs., allocated 

among State commercial and recreational and 

Tribal interests. Tribal and State commercial and 

recreational interests took 51%, 37%, and 12% of 

the catch, respectively. The adjusted total State and 

Tribal quota for Puget Sound (excluding Hood 

Canal) was 193,602 lbs. in 2001. 

THE HOOD CANAL FISHERY —RECREATIONAL 

(STATE) AND COMMERCIAL (TRIBAL) 

See “History of the Fishery,” above, for a description 

of the nature of the Hood Canal fishery today. 

Landings, Landed Values, and Markets 

Spot prawns are a high-value product in Washington, 

with ex-vessel prices ranging from $4 to $8 per 

pound and retail prices as high as $20/lb. Assuming 

a lower average ex-vessel price of $4.50/lb., 

Washington’s commercial spot prawn fishery is 

valued at $2.2 million annually (Lowry, University 

of Washington School of Fisheries. Pers. comm., 

May 2001). The recreational fishery is also quite 

valuable, particularly if the money invested by recreational 

fishers in communities and businesses 

around key recreational fishing areas is considered. 

Most non-Tribal fishers market their own product, 

staking out a port and selling directly at the dock. 

About 80–90% of the product is sold live; dockside 

prices typically range between $7 and $10/lb. 

Some fishers sell to wholesalers in Seattle for 

about $4/lb. (O’Toole, WDFW. Pers. comm., 

March 2001). 

Almost all the Tribal spot prawn catch is sold as 

live product. Tribal fishers sell at the dock and to 

buyers/wholesalers in the Seattle area. In addition, 

there are one or two buyers in the San Juan Islands 

that buy and process (flash-freeze) spot prawns 

directly on the fishing grounds and sell them 

exclusively to Japan (Paul Williams, Suquamish 

Tribe Fisheries Department. Pers. comm., 

May 2001). 




The offshore fishery is currently managed under 

the Emerging Commercial Fisheries Act (ECFA). 

This is an emergency management measure used 

to protect the stock in the face of rapid commercial 

expansion and capitalization. The present regulatory 

system was set in place in 1999 and, under 

ECFA, will remain in effect until 2004. 

WDFW has limited participation in the fishery 

and instituted-management measures that will 

regulate the time, place, and manner in which 

fishing is conducted. Ten trawling permits and 

six pot permits have been issued and a 250,000-lb. 

annual catch limit set. WDFW has established 

a trawling season that protects egg-bearing 

females and ensures that pot fishers are given a 

more equitable share of the quota. Before 2004, 

the legislature will be presented with a management 

plan that controls effort and conserves the 

stocks. 

(See “Nature of the Spot Prawn Fishery Today— 

The Offshore Spot Prawn Fishery” section above 

for a summary of existing management and fishing 

regulations in the offshore fishery.) 


The primary management plan for Washington’s 

inshore commercial fishery, titled The Puget Sound 

(excluding Hood Canal) Pandalid Shrimp Harvest 

Management Plan, is developed annually for the 

fishery. The Management Plan establishes the 

“principles, concepts, and procedures” that will 

govern the non-Tribal and Tribal fisheries for pandalid 

shrimp species (including spot prawns) in 

32


Puget Sound. Its goal is “to preserve, protect, 

and perpetuate Puget Sound pandalid shrimp 

resources; provide for their sustainable harvest; 

protect the habitat necessary to sustain these harvests; 

and minimize bycatch mortalities of other 

species” (WDFW 2001a). 

The Tribes and the State are required to regulate 

their respective fisheries using the following management 

tools and measures: 

•the dates and hours that a given fishery will be 

open 

•the area(s) open for harvest 

•the type of fishery open 

•the type of gear allowed 

•requirements for record keeping and harvest 

reporting 

•management techniques aimed at controlling 

effort, such as weekly limits 

•strategies for monitoring and enforcement 

(WDFW 2001a) 

The fishery is divided into four types of management 

and allocation zones: Management Areas, 

Marine Fish/Shellfish Catch Areas, Shrimp Districts, 

and Special Management Areas. Harvest 

shares (quotas) are allocated for each Management 

and/or Catch Area based on historical landings 

and catch rates. Allocations are based on a 

50:50 sharing of the allowable catch between 

Tribal and non-Tribal fishers, and are managed 

so as not to exceed the quota. Harvest shares are 

adjusted annually in order to take into account 

any harvest overages that occurred during the previous 

season, and increased or decreased annually 

in consideration of catch rates during the previous 

season. 

TIMING OF THE PUGET SOUND FISHING SEASON 

•Certain Catch Areas (24B, 24C, 26A, 26B) open 

early (before April 11) to spot prawn fishing if 

test fishing shows that fewer than 2% of females 

are ovigerous. Samples must contain a minimum 

of 100 spot prawns with a carapace length 

of at least 30 mm (1.18 in.), and sampling must 

take place twice in two different sampling areas. 

Fishing is allowed in these areas through October 

15, or until the harvest shares are reached. 

•The general season for commercial pot fishing is 

April 16 through October 15, or until harvest 

shares (quotas) are reached. In 2001, the State 

season opened June 11 and continued until 

October 15 or the quotas were reached. Shrimp 

Districts 1 (Discovery Bay), 3 (Port Angeles 

Harbor), and 5 (Hood Canal), and Management 

Areas 1A and B, have distinctive regulations governing 

season openings and Tribal and non- 

Tribal participation in the fishery. 

•The Tribal pot fishery in Shrimp Districts 1 and 

3 is managed as a test fishery. The test fisheries 

are aimed at gathering data on: “1) the status of 

spot and coonstripe shrimp populations in the 

Districts; 2) ovigery timing in spot and coonstripe 

shrimp; and 3) status of spot shrimp populations 

in areas adjacent to Shrimp District 3” 

(WDFW 1998). Samples are to be collected each 

week and are analyzed jointly by Tribal and 

WDFW biologists. The Tribal test fishery runs 

from May 9 through October 15, or until the 

quota is caught. 

•Districts 1 and 3 are also open to non-Tribal 

recreational harvest. This fishery runs from the 

first Saturday in June through September 30, or 

until the quotas are reached. 

•The recreational fishery in Hood Canal opens 

the third Saturday in May and continues on a 

Saturday and Wednesday schedule until the 

quota is reached. The season has spanned only 

5–7 days for the past three years. 

•Ceremonial, Subsistence, and Recreational 

Fisheries are open in all areas (except Shrimp 

Districts 1 and 3) from April 11 through October 

15, or until the quotas are reached. 

(See “Nature of the Fishery Today—The Offshore 

Spot Prawn Fishery” section above for the timing of 

the offshore fishing.) 

SUMMARY OF PUGET SOUND TRIBAL AND 

NON-TRIBAL FISHERY REGULATIONS 

Puget Sound’s spot prawn regulatory and management 

system is guided by a number of different 

measures and tools. This summary provides 

an overview of the system, and is by no means an 

attempt to definitively enumerate all the idiosyncrasies 

of the spot prawn management regime 

in Puget Sound. 

•Pots are the only legal spot prawn fishing gear. 

•The shrimp trawl fishery may not retain spot 

prawns caught incidentally. 

•It is unlawful to pull or set prawn pots from one 

hour after sunset to one hour before sunrise. 

33


•Retained spot prawns must have a minimum 

carapace length of 30 mm (1.18 in.), except in 

Districts 3 (Port Angeles Harbor) and 5 (Hood 

Canal). A pot mesh restriction of 7/8 in. in Hood 

Canal regulates that the carapaces of most 

prawns caught are longer than about 30 mm. 

•All spot prawns landed must be sold to licensed 

Washington State wholesale fish dealers. Spot 

prawns may not be landed without immediate 

delivery to a licensed wholesale dealer; or, if 

transferred at sea, without transfer to a licensed 

wholesale dealer. 

•All pot gear must possess biodegradable escape 

mechanisms. 

•The San Juan Island Marine Preserve, Shrimp 

District 4 (Sequim Bay), and Catch Area 28B 

(Carr Inlet) are closed to all shrimp [prawn] 

harvest. 

•Shrimp Districts 1 and 3 and Hood Canal are 

closed to all non-Tribal commercial shrimp 

harvest. 

•Recreational fishers in Hood Canal are restricted 

to a daily limit of 80 spot prawns, a pot limit of 

one pot per person and four pots per boat, and a 

four-hour fishing day (9:00 a.m.–1:00 p.m.) on 

selected days of the week. 

•The harvest allocation for the State spot prawn 

fishery in CMR 2 and 4 (Central Sound/Whidbey 

Basin) is 40% commercial, 60% recreational. 

•Quota overages must be deducted from the next 

year’s quota in order to pay “the overharvest 

back to the resource” (WDFW 1998). 

•State commercial shrimp pots cannot be fished 

in more than one Marine Fish–Shellfish Management 

and Catch Reporting Area per day. Pots 

can be moved to other areas if a harvest report is 

made before the gear is moved and the number 

of pots being moved and the area they are being 

moved to are specified. 

•State commercial pots cannot be set or pulled 

from a Marine Fish–Shellfish Management and 

Catch Reporting Area if the fisher is in possession 

of shrimp harvested from another Area. 

•Both the Tribes and the State will collect and 

compile harvest data. This information is to be 

shared on the first and 15th of every month the 

fishery is open. When the total harvest in any 

area reaches 80% of the quota, commercial harvest 

data must be exchanged every Monday for 

the remainder of the time the fishery is open. 

•Total Tribal catches will be reported by: 

1. The Lummi Tribe—Management Area 1 

2. The Tulalip Tribe—Management Area 2 

3. The Elwha S’Klallam Tribe—Management 

Area 3 

4. The Suquamish Tribe—Management Area 4 

5. Tribe(s) to be determined, if necessary— 

Management Area 6 

•Fishers are required to submit monthly harvest 

logs to Tribal or WDFW biologists. Logs will 

detail, among other data, the number of pots, 

soak times, Catch Area, location fished, pounds 

landed by species, and total pounds landed. This 

information must be recorded immediately after 

a pot or string of pots is pulled. Harvest logs are 

numbered and must be used and submitted in 

consecutive order. 

•Daily commercial catches must be hailed by 

telephone each day prior to leaving the catch 

site. Hailing reports should include the fisher’s 

name, the Catch Area fished, the total number 

of pots fished, total number of pots pulled, the 

total pounds of prawns caught, and the port 

where the catch will be landed. 

•Landings from Fish Receiving Tickets are used 

to assess the annual Tribal and non-Tribal commercial 

harvests. 

•For the State commercial fishery, all buyers of 

spot prawns, including fishers that buy their 

own catch, must call WDFW each Monday by 

10:00 a.m. to report their total purchases from 

the previous week. 

•The State and Tribes will collect information on 

recreational, ceremonial, and subsistence harvests. 

In addition, the State will carry out surveys 

to evaluate total recreational catch and effort in 

key fishing areas. These data will be used to estimate 

total non-commercial catch and will be 

included in the setting of State and Tribal harvest 

shares (quotas). 

•Following the close of the commercial fishing 

seasons, a Tribal/State Shrimp technical group 

will “assess the season including harvest by fish- 

34


ery and harvest area, catch reporting, resource 

assessment, and other pertinent management 

information” (WDFW 2001a). 

(See “Nature of the Fishery Today—The Offshore 

Spot Prawn Fishery” section above for the summary 

of fishing regulations in the offshore fishery.) 


The state of knowledge is seen by many of the parties 

interviewed in this report as the biggest challenge 

for Washington spot prawn management. 

Basic biological information about spot prawns is 

lacking, and the level of basic research being conducted 

is mini-mal (Paul Williams, Suquamish Tribe 

Fisheries Department. Pers. comm., May 2001). In 

data-limited situations such as these, it is difficult to 

determine and establish biological or management 

reference points (Lowry, University of Washington 


Nevertheless, managers view the current commercial 

fishery as sustainable. Fishing is regulated and 

controlled, and expansion is slow. The future of the 

fishery is a “wild card,” however; the lack of biological 

information and research effectively forces 

managers to “grope in the dark” (Paul Williams, 

Suquamish Tribe Fisheries Department. Pers. 

comm., May 2001). 

The lifecycle characteristics of spot prawns—e.g., 

protandric hermaphroditism, and the fact that the 

fishery relies heavily on females—may threaten longterm 

sustainability. If recruitment and stock size 

prove to be linked, then removing a large proportion 

of females (i.e., the breeding stock) may reduce 

the number of young prawns entering the population 

and, ultimately, the robustness and resilience 

of the population (Lowry, University of Washington 

School of Fisheries. Pers. comm., May 2001). These 

factors, along with the fact that the spot prawn is 

susceptible to localized and serial depletion, are 

important management considerations. 

Existing research must be utilized, and monies 

and staff made available so that additional biological 

data can be collected, analyzed, and integrated into 

existing management systems (O’Toole, WDFW Pers. 

comm., May 2001; Cain, WDFW. Pers. comm., 

September 2001). According to WDFW, a rigorous 

stock assessment process should be instituted so that 

quotas are based on a biological understanding of 

the species and the fishery, rather than a historical 

understanding of effort and landings (O’Toole, 

WDFW. Pers. comm., March 2001). The ultimate goal 

is to determine and implement quotas so that the 

spot prawn fisheries can be maintained on a sustainable 

basis (Cain, WDFW. Pers. comm., September 

2001). There is also a general sense that managing on 

a smaller scale may be a way of offsetting the species’ 

vulnerability to localized depletion (Paul Williams, 

Suquamish Tribe Fisheries Department. Pers. 

comm., May 2001; Lowry, University of Washington 


WDFW’s management in Puget Sound is also 

challenged by the lack of a good method of adjusting 

quotas, particularly in-season, and an inability 

to determine the significance of pot catch rates 

due to a lack of pot efficiency studies. The lack of 

a scientific system for assessing the impacts of 

the recreational fishery is also challenging (Paul 

Williams, Suquamish Tribe Fisheries Department. 

Pers. comm., May 2001). Managers are working 

to “get a handle on” this fishery, which is growing 

rapidly (O’Toole, WDFW. Pers. comm., May 2001). 

Concerns have been expressed that the 250,000-lb. 

quota in the offshore fishery may not reflect the 

actual biological status of the stock and may need 

to be reduced. This is presently being investigated, 

and WDFW is establishing a research and monitoring 

program that will provide much-needed information 

(Lorna Wargo, WDFW. Pers. comm., 

September 2001). 

Bycatch is also an issue of management concern 

for the offshore fishery. WDFW estimates that there 

are presently three trawlers in the spot prawn fishery. 

Preliminary bycatch observations indicate that 

benthic epifauna may be damaged or destroyed by 

trawling. The main bycatch component is glass 

sponge, a slow-growing species that provides habitat 

for juvenile fishes and crustaceans (Lowry, 

University of Washington School of Fisheries. Pers. 

comm., May 2001). WDFW is currently working 

with the industry to develop a plan for converting 

the offshore fishery to a trap-only fishery. Four 

options are being discussed. One of these will be 

selected and sent to the Washington Fish and Wildlife 

Commission for adoption. The fishery is expected 

to be trap-only by 2004 at the latest (Lorna 

Wargo, WDFW. Pers. comm., September 2001). 

OREGON SPOT PRAWN FISHERY 


The biological status of spot prawns in Oregon 

waters is relatively unknown. The available species 

35


abundance and distribution information suggests 

that sparse populations of prawns are widely distributed 

along the Oregon coast. To date, there 

have been no spot prawn scientific surveys. Most 

of the information regarding the status of the 

species is based either on fishers’ local ecological 

knowledge or has been extrapolated from the fisheries 

in California, Alaska, and British Columbia. 


Oregon’s spot prawn fishing grounds are small, 

clearly delineated, and “characterized by high 

relief rock bottoms” (ODFW 2000). These small 

areas are regularly fished and are concentrated in 

prime habitat that lends itself to dense concentrations 

of spot prawns. Three areas are regularly harvested: 

the “prawn patch” off Nehalem Bay (35 

square miles), two sites off Cape Blanco (35 sq. 

miles), and the Rogue River (26 sq. miles). Other 

areas may be fished in any given year, but are generally 

fished in an exploratory fashion, with low 

catch per unit of effort rates and no concentration 

in any single area (ODFW 2000). 

The directed fishery for spot prawns was established 

in 1993, when a fisher/vessel with “California 

trawling technology” came to Oregon and 

“pioneered” the fishery (Bob Hannah, ODFW— 

Marine Program. Pers. comm., March 2001). Three 

vessels participated in the fishery and landed 

approximately 40,212 pounds—the first significant 

landings of spot prawns in the history of the fishery. 

The only other recorded landing prior to 1993 

was 74 lbs. by one vessel in 1989. 

The spot prawn fishery is open to both trawl 

and pots. Except in the 1994 season, trawlers have 

dominated landings. This is the primary gear type 

fished today. Pot landings peaked in 1994 at 20,398 

lbs., and trawl landings peaked in 1998 at 130,081 

lbs. As of 26 May 2000, the trawl fishery had landed 

14,158 lbs.; the pot fishery had zero landings. 

Analysis of both fish tickets and logbook data suggest 

that Oregon CPUE has been declining for the 

last three years. The Washington fishery has largely 

driven the rise and fall in Oregon landings during 

this time period. Logbook data illustrate that a large 

percentage of spot prawns landed in Oregon are 

actually caught in Washington. For example, in 1997, 

of the 86,510 lbs. landed, 16% came from Oregon 

waters, 84% from Washington. In 1998, the percentages 

were even more extreme: Of the 137,625 lbs. 

landed, 9% originated in Oregon, 91% in 

Washington. 


Spot prawn landings in Oregon are sporadic and 

small. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(ODFW) is of the view that this may ultimately 

compromise the long-term ecological and economic 

viability of the fishery. They have expressed 

concerns that the long-term conservation of spot 

prawns may be threatened by the fact that critical 

habitat—i.e., key fishing areas—are limited and 

may not be ecologically compatible with trawling. 

The Department stated in a recent document, 

“The small size of these areas cannot be overstressed. 

None of these sites are more than 6 

miles in diameter. The logbook data for 2000 

shows 2 boats making 80 tows within a triangular 

area only 8 miles across at its widest point. 

With trawling being focused in small, confined 

areas, habitat damage in these areas could be 

severe. This begs the question of how long spot 

prawn trawls can be used in an area of high relief 

before the habitat is altered to the point where it 

is no longer suitable for prawns” (ODFW 2000). 

The Oregon Developmental Fisheries Board (see 

description of the Board below) has not yet taken 

a position on the ecological vulnerability of the 

species, although local experience and knowledge 

seems to support the conservation concerns expressed 

by ODFW. According to fishers involved in 

the fishery, spot prawn areas fished in 1993 never 

recovered to initial abundance levels (Hannah, 

ODFW—Marine Program. Pers. comm., March 

2001). 

Examination of fishing in the “prawn patch” indicates 

that “heavy fishing” of a spot prawn population 

can drive down the localized population to the point 

where it is not economically viable to fish the area 

any longer. This analysis also gives some indication 

of the time it may take a population to recover after 

intensive fishing. According to ODFW (2000), “CPUE 

[in the prawn patch] in late 1993 was approximately 

25 lbs./hour SRE [single rig equivalents]. In 1997 a 

few tows in the area yielded 21 lbs./hour SRE. In 1998 

a few exploratory tows yielded no prawns, and in 

1999 there were no tows at the prawn patch recorded 

in logbooks. Year 2000 logbooks show renewed activity 

at the site and a CPUE of 21 lbs./hour SRE. This 

suggests that about three years may be necessary for 

spot prawn populations at a given site to recover to 

levels where fishing becomes worthwhile again.” 



Spot prawns in Oregon can be fished year-round, 

36


with either trawls or pots. During the open fishery 

for pink shrimp, regulations allow the use of smallmesh 

trawl nets. Larger mesh size is required when 

the groundfish fishery is open. Spot prawns can be 

legally retained as bycatch during the shrimp season. 

Prawns are not actively targeted by the pink 

shrimp fishery and are caught only incidentally. 

Pink shrimp nets are easily destroyed in spot 

prawn habitat, and as a result do not lend themselves 

to actively fishing prawns. Pots have been 

tested, particularly in nearshore areas, but have 

proved uneconomical compared to trawling. As a 

result, pot activity is low. 

There is no recreational fishery for spot prawns 

in Oregon. 

The Developmental Fisheries Program 

Spot prawns are managed under ODFW’s Developmental 

Fisheries Program. The Oregon 

Legislature created the Developmental Fisheries 

Program in 1993 “to allow for the controlled development 

of new commercial fisheries” (McCrae 

1994). The Program was created in order “to institute 

a management system for developmental 

fishery resources that addresses both long term 

commercial and biological values, and that protects 

the long term sustainability of those 

resources through planned commercial development 

when appropriate” (ODFW 2001). 

The Developmental Fisheries Board is made up 

of a wide range of commercial fishing interests— 

harvesters, processors, and agencies. It was established 

to assist ODFW in the annual determination 

of species to be included in the Developmental 

Fisheries Program. The Developmental 

Fisheries Board and the Oregon Fish and Wildlife 

Commission establish annual harvest conditions. 

The Program is seen as encouraging “controlled 

development” of fisheries for species that suffer 

from a lack of biological information. “Controlled 

development is a means of collecting sufficient 

information to: 1) understand the effects of fishing, 

2) establish sustainable harvest levels, and 

3) determine how to minimize impacts on other 

marine resources. This information is required 

by Statewide Planning Goal 19 (Ocean Resources) 

and the Territorial Sea Plan” (ODFW 2001). 

The 2001 Developmental Fisheries Program includes 

73 species that fall into one of three categories: 

•Category A species (“those with the most potential 

for a viable fishery”) are managed under a 

limited-harvest program. A developmental fishery 

permit, in addition to a commercial fishing 

and/or boat license, is required to catch these 

species. A permit is not needed to catch these 

species as bycatch in other established fisheries. 

Category A permits are non-transferable, but can 

be renewed annually if minimum renewal 

(landings) requirements are met. 

•Category B (“those with less potential for a 

viable fishery”) and Category C (“already under 

another state or federal management plan”) 

species do not require developmental fishery 

permits for harvest. 

Spot prawns fall into Category A. A maximum of 

six trawl and 10 “other gear” permits are allowed. 

The annual renewal requirements (landings/ 

pounds) are 5/100 lb. or 1/1,000 lb. (round weight). 

For a fishery to become “developed,” information 

must be collected that will allow for the creation of 

a fishery management plan that includes: 

•understanding the effects of fishing 

•establishing sustainable catch levels 

•determining how to minimize the impacts of 

fishing on other marine species and the marine 

environment 

Logbook requirements are a component of holding 

a permit and are means of collecting vital biological 

and management information through 

Developmental Fishing Permits. Fishers may also 

be required to supply biological samples or allow 

ODFW observers on-board to collect data. 

Additional Regulatory Requirements 

Fish-eye bycatch excluder devices are required 

in all spot prawn trawls. This regulation was established 

in order to address potential concerns regarding 

the bycatch of red rockfish in the fishery. 

There is no compliance monitoring. Because the 

catch limits are low, ODFW believes that there is a 

natural incentive for fishers to use bycatch-reduction 

devices (Hannah, ODFW—Marine Program. 

Pers. comm., March 2001). 

Reciprocal landing laws have been put into effect 

to prevent vessels from landing Washington spot 

prawns in Oregon ports in order to circumvent 

Washington fishing regulations. 


There is little basic biological knowledge about 

37


spot prawns in Oregon. What information exists 

suggests that spot prawns are abundant only in 

limited habitat types with little or no migration 

between areas. According to ODFW, the fishery’s 

biological potential appears finite. ODFW is concerned 

that, given the scale of spot prawn distribution 

in Oregon, localized depletions are likely, and 

the population is at risk due to overfishing. The 

long-term sustainability of the fishery requires 

that basic biological and ecological information is 

acquired and reflected in management and regulatory 

systems. The short- and long-term effects of 

harvesting spot prawns on spot prawns, other 

marine species, and the ecosystem must be determined. 

According to ODFW, spot prawns should 

continue to be “managed under the developing 

fisheries program with conservative numbers of 

permits and landing restrictions” (McCrae 1994). 

The Department has identified the following areas 

for further inquiry: 

•Acquire the scientific information needed to 

determine the biological status, distribution, 

and life history of spot prawns by: 

1. obtaining area-specific biological samples, 

as well as on-board and dockside samples 

2. recording gear, effort, location, depth, and 

time data in logbooks 

3. analyzing existing trawl survey and commercial 

fishery incidental catch data 

•Develop an understanding of the effects of fishing 

on marine habitats and ecosystems and 

other species 

•Improve fishing practices and equipment to 

protect the ocean resources, particularly by: 

1. developing fishing methods that reduce 

the impact of trawl gear on marine habitat 

2. developing fishing methods that reduce 

incidental catch of non-target species 

•Identify and protect critical marine habitat 

and other important biological habitats for spot 

prawns, by identifying juvenile, spawning, and 

rearing areas 

CALIFORNIA SPOT PRAWN FISHERY 


Spot prawns in California are distributed in the Santa 

Barbara Channel and at the head of submarine canyons 

such as Monterey Canyon, its tributary Carmel 

Canyon, and the canyons of the Southern California 

Bight. Spot prawns are also associated with ocean 

features such as offshore banks, ridges, and islands 

like the Channel Islands. Exploratory biological surveys 

carried out by the California Department of Fish 

and Game (CDFG) in the 1960s revealed the presence 

of spot prawns coast-wide. Estimates of population 

size were not made at that time. Additional surveys 

carried out in the 1980s focused on species distribution 

and range. 

At present, few data are available regarding the status 

of the stock, other than that an annual harvest level 

exceeding 300,000 pounds has been maintained for 

most of the last ten years. CDFG does not have the 

resources to conduct biological surveys. Catch per 

unit of effort (CPUE) and total catch are considered 

by managers to be the best indicators available of 

resource status. These indicators “appear to be sustainable 

at this time” (Paul Reilly, CDFG. Pers. 

comm., February 2001). 


The California spot prawn fishery has a fairly long 

history, beginning in the 1930s, when Monterey 

Bay fishers started landing spot prawns incidentally 

caught in octopus traps. It did not develop 

into a commercial-scale fishery until the 1970s. 

Statewide annual landings never exceeded 10,000 

pounds until 1974, when Santa Barbara trawlers 

caught more than 182,000 lbs. of spot prawns. The 

Santa Barbara area became the focus of the spot 

prawn fishery, and trawl the primary gear type. 

By 1994, the spot prawn fishery consisted of four 

principal geographical components: northern 

California trawl, northern California trap, southern 

California trawl, and southern California trap. 

In the northern fishery (north of Morro Bay), the 

number of trawlers has fluctuated between 1 and 

27 vessels over the last 20 years; trap vessels have 

varied between 4 and 13. In the southern fishery, 

trawlers have numbered from 17 to 51, trap vessels 

from 1 to 66. Statewide landings nearly doubled 

between 1994 and 1998, reaching a historic peak 

of 772,900 lbs. All elements of the fishery showed 

significant growth: northern trawl showed a 14- 

fold increase, northern trap a 4-fold increase, 

southern trawl a 4-fold increase, and southern 

trap almost doubled. 

The rapid development of the fishery is attributable 

to a number of different factors, including: 

•increased market demand 

•increased fishing effort due to California and 

38


Washington fishers displaced from collapsed 

or overcapitalized fisheries 

•changes in gear design, in particular the advent 

of large rollers on trawl gear (rock hopper gear), 

which allowed fishers to fish areas that previously 

had been unfishable due to the rocky nature 

of the habitat. “These areas had previously acted 

as de facto reserves providing new recruits for 

adjacent areas traditionally worked by trawl 

vessels” (Larson, in press) 

•Strong recruitment years in 1996 and 1997 

In 1999, statewide landings decreased 21%, even 

though fishing effort continued to increase. The 

combination of these factors led to the proposal 

and discussion of a range of new management 

and regulatory measures. These included: 

•limits on landings made with trawl roller 

gear larger than 8 in. 

•bycatch-reduction devices in trawl gear 

•limits on the number of allowable traps 

•future phase-out of trawl gear, pending 

observer data 

•seasonal closures 

•observer coverage implemented in both the trap 

and trawl fishery and funded by fees assessed 

on the industry 

•establishing a qualifying date for future 

limited-access programs 

Not all of these measures have been adopted. Of particular 

interest is the fact that roller gear has not been 

limited in the trawl fishery, despite the fact that the 

Pacific Fishery Management Council adopted rollergear 

and mesh restrictions in order to protect severely 

depleted rockfish species. 


Commercial Fishery 

In 1999, the California spot prawn fishery consisted 

of a total of 95 vessels (46 trap, 49 trawl). Some of the 

vessels landed in more than one port, and more than 

half the landings were in the Santa Barbara area (see 

chart on p. 41 for detailed analysis of landings by gear 

type and port). The present-day trawl-fishing effort 

is widely dispersed north of Point Conception. In 

Southern California, effort tends to focus around 

California Fishing Areas 

Image Courtesy Valerie Taylor, CDFG 

39


offshore islands. The fleet operates coast-wide from 

Bodega Bay to the Mexican Border, with one of four 

ports—Monterey, Morro Bay, Santa Barbara, or 

Ventura—used as a home port. A number of vessels 

also operate out of Washington State ports in fall 

and winter. The fleet consists of vessels that range 

in length from 28 to 85 feet. 

The trap fleet operates from Monterey Bay to 

Southern California. The Monterey-based fleet 

consists of approximately six vessels of 30–60 feet in 

length that fish 10 months a year, fishing for salmon 

in the summer months. The Southern California fleet 

consists of vessels ranging from 20 to 75 feet in length. 

Both the trap and trawl components of the fishery 

exhibit significant landings now. In 1992, traps took 

nearly 75% of all prawn landings; 25% were taken 

with trawls. Yet by 1999, 68% of landings were by 

trawl and 32% were by trap (Reilly, CDFG. Pers. 

comm., March 2001). 

Compared to other California fisheries, a relatively 

small number of vessels participate in the spot 

prawn fishery in any given year; total landings are 

accounted for by only a small percentage of the total 

number of boats participating in the fishery. For 

example, between 1992 and 1998, about 30 trawl 

vessels accounted for 95% of trawl landings. Approximately 

50 trap vessels accounted for 95% of total 

trap landings. 

It is important to note that, historically, a much 

larger number of vessels have participated in the 

fishery on an occasional or incidental basis. For 

example, between 1992 and 1998, 171 trawlers 

and 169 trap fishers made at least one spot prawn 

landing. This fact is significant in that it belies a 

Spot Prawn Trawling Zones 

Image Courtesy Valerie Taylor, CDFG 

40


potentially important management and/or conservation 

concern: the latent possibility of a 

significant increase in fishing effort. 

Statewide trawl landings peaked in 1997 at about 

566,000 pounds. Trap landings peaked in 1991 at 

about 260,000 lbs. Throughout most of its history, 

the spot prawn fishery has been characterized by 

periodic declines in catch followed by periods of 

increasing catch. The reasons for fluctuations in 

landings are poorly understood but may be due in 

part to variability associated with environmental 

change as well as variable fishing effort. 

Recreational Fishery 

Due to the depth at which spot prawns are found, 

presently there is virtually no recreational fishery 

for spot prawns. Some recreational traps have 

been set on occasion in the Carmel Bay Ecological 

Reserve. 

Landings, Landed Values, and 

Markets 

In 2000, coast-wide spot prawn landings declined 

from the previous year’s 615,000 pounds to 439,000 

lbs. According to CDFG biologists, these landings 

are much closer to the historical average (National 

Fisherman 2001). The effects of El Niño and the 

relocation of fishing effort are believed to partially 

explain these lower landings. The 1997–98 El Niño 

is believed to have led to increased spot prawn 

abundance. Relocation of effort can be explained 

by the increased value of Dungeness crab, following 

the shortfall of Opilio crab in Alaska. The price 

of Dungeness increased again in the 2000 fishery, 

and 41 trawl vessels as opposed to 49 made spot 

prawn landings. Fewer trap landings were evidenced 

as well—37 landings, as opposed to 46 in 

1999 (National Fisherman 2001). 

Southern Trap and Trawl Landings 

Landings in the southern half of the fishery fluctuate 

widely. During the past two decades the trawl 

fishery has exhibited two major spikes in landings, 

the trap fishery three. Environmental variability 

has been identified as one causal factor; in the 

trawl fishery, expansion of effort was identified 

as another. A study in the Santa Barbara Channel 

during the 1980s suggested that “declining catches 

and CPUE, coupled with increasing total effort, portend 

a resource in distress” (Sunada 1984, p. 102). 

Northern Trap and Trawl Landings 

In the northern half of the state, the trap fishery 

is characterized by relatively low fishing effort 

and steady landings. By contrast, beginning in 

1993 the trawl fishery exhibited a large increase 

in landings. Similar to the southern fishery, this 

increase in effort and, subsequently, catch can 

be explained by the migration of displaced vessels 

from the West Coast groundfish fishery as a 

result of overfishing and subsequent reduction 

in allowable catch. 

Many prawn fishers market their own catches 

or sell to the live market via smaller buyers. The 

result is a high-valued product. Approximately 

80% of the spot prawns landed in California are 

sold alive. Typically, trawlers make multiple-day 

fishing trips, but refrigeration units for seawater 

keep the prawns near a desired temperature of 

40˚ Fahrenheit. Most trap vessels and some 

Spot Prawn Landings (Metric Tons) By Port Area And Gear Type 

Adapted from Fisheries Review, CalCOFI Rep. 2000 

41


trawlers fish single-day trips and have developed 

methods to keep prawns cold and alive 

without elaborate refrigeration systems. 

In 1997 spot prawns commanded an average exvessel 

price of $16.50 per kilogram ($7.50/lb.). In 

1999, the ex-vessel price for live product ranged 

from $3.50 to $10.60/kg. The estimated total value 

of the fishery to the State was approximately US 

$4.3 million in 1999. In that year, the fishery was 

ranked 32nd among California’s commercial fisheries 

in terms of total volume. It ranked eighth in 

total value, based on ex-vessel prices and ex-vessel 

price per pound, coming in second, behind lobster. 

The fishery was 3.0% of the 1999 value of 

California’s commercial fisheries. Currently, the 

price for live prawns is between $8 and $11 per 

pound dockside. Dead prawns are valued at 

between $3 and $4 per pound (National 

Fisherman 2001). 



The spot prawn fishery in California is managed 

through a series of regulations that have become 

more restrictive in recent years (Reilly, CDFG. Pers. 

comm., March 2001). Since stock assessments are 

unavailable for the spot prawn resource, management 

and regulatory systems have primarily been 

developed in response to the examination of 

trends in landings and CPUE data. Consultations 

with fishers and the fishing community have also 

informed and directed the development of the 

existing management regime. 

Summary of Trawl Regulations 

•Trawlers are required to purchase a $30 shrimp 

and prawn trawl permit. Not more than one permit 

shall be issued to any one person. 

•A statewide seasonal closure from November 1 

through January 31 is in effect in order to protect 

egg-bearing females. 

•Trawling is prohibited within three miles of the 

shore (both the mainland and islands), and in 

waters less than 25 fathoms deep. Trawling is 

also prohibited in Santa Monica Bay. 

•Trawl nets with single-walled cod ends are 

required to have a minimum mesh size of 1.5 in. 

and a functional finfish excluder with a minimum 

surface area of 36 in. Finfish excluders are 

required to minimize bycatch, particularly of 

species of concern, such as rockfishes. The minimum 

mesh size for double-walled cod ends is 

3 in.; these are not required to have bycatchexcluder 

devices. 

•Incidental catch restrictions are in place for all 

fish, particularly federally managed groundfish 

species. Not more than 1,000 pounds of any incidentally 

caught fish may be retained. During the 

seasonal closure for spot prawns, hauls may not 

contain more than 50 pounds, or 15% spot 

prawns by weight. 

Summary of Trap Regulations 

•Trap vessels are required to carry a $35 general 

trap permit. 

•Trap vessels are not subject to any area closures. 

In practice, trap fishing is limited to available 

spot prawn habitat that does not overlap with 

trawlable waters. 

•The trap fishery is closed from November 1 

through January 31 south of Point Arguello, and 

from May 1 to July 31 north of Point Arguello, in 

order to protect egg-bearing females. 

•Traps are required to have a minimum mesh 

size that is no less than 7/8 in. by 7/8 in., such 

that a 7/8-in.-square peg can fit through the 

mesh without stretching it. The regulations provide 

for only plastic or wire mesh; nonetheless, 

some fishers use monofilament. 

•All traps must have at least one destruct device 

in order to create an escape opening of at least 5 

in. diameter in the top or upper half of the trap 

when the device material corrodes or fails. 

•Each vessel is limited to 500 traps, except within 

three miles north of Point Arguello, where only 

300 traps are allowed. 


Management Recommendations 

The capitalization and effort in California’s spot 

prawn fishery have increased rapidly in the last 

10 years. The increasing market demand for 

prawns, in combination with a growing number 

of displaced fishers due to the overfishing and 

collapse of other fisheries, guarantees that this 

growth will not taper off in the near future. To 

ensure long-term sustainability, management 

recommends the following measures: 

42


•“Limited entry for both the trap and trawl fleet. 

•“Development of a coast-wide spot prawn GIS 

database, which would identify historic and current 

fishing areas as well as preferred habitats. 

•“Coast-wide fisheries-independent population 

survey of spot prawn resource. 

•“Evaluation of the effectiveness of the current 

management scheme” (Larson, in press). 

Restricted Access Fishery 

The spot prawn fishery is currently an open-access 

fishery for both trap and trawl fishers. The full 

capitalization of both of these fisheries led CDFG 

to initiate discussions regarding the development 

of a restricted-access fishery. In February 2000, the 

California Fish and Game Commission adopted a 

restricted-access program and set 1 January 1999 

as a qualifying date. Any fisher who did not make 

at least one landing of spot prawns prior to this 

date will not be included in the restricted-access 

fishery. 

To prioritize development of a restricted-access 

program for the nearshore finfish fishery, CDFG 

temporarily suspended development of the 

restricted-access program. Work on the restrictedaccess 

program for traps recently resumed, with 

an implementation target date of 1 April 2002 

(Reilly, CDFG. Pers. comm., March 2001). At the 

California Fish and Game Commission meeting in 

October 2001, the trap restricted-access program 

was adopted and will become effective in April 

2002. The program has two tiers. To qualify for 

Tier 1 permits, vessels must have had a spot 

prawn landing prior to 1999. Approximately 17 

vessels qualify for Tier 1. Qualifying requirements 

for Tier 2 permits are ten 1,000-lb. landings by 

1998. An estimated 13 vessels qualify for Tier 2 

permits. Tier 1 permits are non-transferable; 

Tier 2 permits are transferable. 

Observer Program 

The California Fish and Game Commission considered 

phasing out the trawl fishery in early 2000. 

Testimony was heard at the 4 February 2000 

Adoption Hearing. Instead of implementing a 

trawl phase-out, the Commission directed CDFG 

to develop an on-board observer program funded 

from an observer fee assessed on all vessels landing 

spot prawns. A stated reason for the establishment 

of the observer program was bycatch of overfished 

groundfish species—e.g., lingcod, canary 

rockfish, cowcod, bocaccio, and other shelf rockfish 

species—and concerns about damage to the 

bottom habitat on which these fish depend. 

THE ADOPTION HEARING — TESTIMONIES 

Arguments for the phase-out fell into the following 

broad categories: 

•A phase-out of trawl vessels would minimize 

the impact of trawling on the seafloor, benthic 

communities, and other fragile marine habitats 

(i.e., corals). 

•A phase-out of trawl vessels would reduce the 

bycatch of vulnerable marine species such as 

rockfish. 

•A sustainable fishery requires that the impacts 

of trawling on marine species and ecosystems be 

assessed prior to allowing potentially destructive 

gear such as trawls into the fishery. 

•Spot prawn trawls operate in the same depth 

range that depleted rockfish inhabit, with finer, 

smaller mesh trawls and bigger roller gear than 

are allowed in the federally managed groundfish 

fishery. 9 

Arguments against the phase-out fell into the 

following broad categories: 

•Arguments for the trawl phase-out are founded 

in a “plethora of misinformation spreading 

doomsday fears” about the trawl industry. The 

trawl fishery is “efficient and selective.” 

•There is no science to justify a trawl phaseout. 

•A trawl phase-out would cause severe economic 

hardship to fishers and coastal communities. 

•Conversion of trawl vessels to trap vessels is not 

practical or financially viable, and ultimately 

would negatively effect the trap fishery, which 

is already fully capitalized. 

•Rockfish species of ecological concern are 

found on the continental shelf. The spot prawn 

trawl fishery takes place on the continental 

slope. Rockfish bycatch concerns will therefore 

not be resolved via a trawl phaseout. 

The CDFG responded by stating: 

We believe that the proposed spot prawn 

trawl phase-out is unnecessarily restrictive, 

places an unfair burden on trawl fishermen, 

and a conversion of trawl permits to trap 

permits would result in overcrowding of 

__________________________________________________________ 

9 Recently, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) adopted 

trawl-gear restrictions in order to protect vulnerable groundfish species. 

“Previously, fishers had been allowed to use footropes equipped with 

large rollers—often truck tires—to target shelf rockfish species residing 

in high relief habitat. Beginning in 2000, trawl landings of shelf 

rockfish were prohibited if large footrope trawls (gear with footropes 8 

in. in diameter) were onboard the vessel. ...Although the effect of 

these gear requirements on bycatch of depleted rockfish species has 

yet to be validated through observation, a review of tow locations 

from 1999 and 2000 logbooks does suggest that many areas where 

canary rockfish were previously caught are no longer being trawled” 

(PFMC 2001). 

43


existing trapping grounds with subsequent 

economic impacts for all trappers. We believe 

an onboard observer program is needed to 

assess the type and magnitude of bycatch in 

trap and trawl fisheries. After a year of data 

collection, potential bycatch problems in the 

fisheries can be addressed from a scientific 

basis. Certain gear restrictions or area closures 

may become necessary to minimize 

bycatch, particularly for shelf rockfish 

species. In addition, the establishment of a 

restricted-access fishery program for trap 

and trawl vessels should reduce the amount 

of fishing effort and its consequent impact 

(California Fish and Game Commission 

2000a). 

SPOT PRAWN BYCATCH — STATUS OF THE 

OBSERVER PROGRAM 

The numbers of bycatch observations and data 

available from the spot prawn fishery are limited. 

Many variables affect both the amount and type 

of bycatch caught, particularly in trawl gear. 

These factors range from location, time of year, 

tow speed, tow duration, type and diameter of 

roller gear, mesh size, presence or absence of a 

fish-excluder device, and the type of excluder 

used (Reilly, CDFG. Pers. comm., June 2001). 

These factors, in combination with limited observation 

and analysis, have restricted the CDFG’s 

capacity to determine the nature and extent of 

bycatch issues in the fishery. As a result, the 

CDFG stated, in a memo to the California Fish 

and Game Commission, that a “more extensive 

observer program would be desirable if the funds 

were available” (CDFG 1999). 

The Commission approved the request for an 

observer program effective July 2000. As of late 

2000, 21 trap vessels and 21 trawl vessels were participating 

in the program. To date, CDFG has collected 

observations from approximately 80 spot 

prawn trawl tows, representing fishing grounds 

off Fort Bragg and south to the northern Channel 

Islands off Point Conception. Data have also been 

gathered from about 200 trap strings, covering fishing 

grounds from Monterey south to San Diego, 

and including the islands off Southern California 

(Reilly, CDFG. Pers. comm., June 2001). 

California’s Observer Program is funded through 

an observer fee. Fees have been set as follows: 

•$250 for each trap vessel, $250 for any trawl vessel 

with spot prawn landings of less than 1,000 

pounds in 1998 and 1999. 

•$500 for each vessel landing 1,000 pounds or 

The field of Ecological Economics 

“is not a single, new paradigm 

based in shared assumptions and 

theory” (Costanza et. al. 1997, p. 50). 

It is a transdisciplinary field that 

uses methods and information 

from economics, ecology, and other 

fields to address the difficult areas 

of development and environmental 

sustainability. The discipline 

works from the initial premise that 

the “earth has a limited capacity for 

sustainably supporting people and 

their artifacts determined by combinations 

of resource limits and 

ecological thresholds” (Costanza et 

al. 1997, p. 75). It places the human 

economic system as a subset of, 

and entirely dependent on, natural 

ecosystems. The relationship is 

explicit. 

Ecological Economics incorporates 

the strengths of traditional economics 

and includes additional 

ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS 

areas critical to development and 

natural resource management in 

the 21st century. There are four 

general categories of decisionmaking 

criteria: 1) economic scale, 

environmental impacts, and sustainability; 

2) fair distribution of 

opportunity and benefits; 3) economic 

efficiency; and 4) democracy 

in governance. 

Traditional economics assumes 

that with economic growth, problems 

of sustainability, distribution, 

and efficiency will be solved. Issues 

of governance and democracy are 

believed to be beyond the scope of 

economics. Ecological Economics, 

on the other hand, does not 

assume that growth is a cure-all. 

Ecological sustainability, fairness, 

economic efficiency, and democratic 

decision-making processes must 

be part of the definition of success 

for any development project or 

management system, and must be 

directly integrated into plans and 

policy from the beginning. 

For example, the World Bank and private 

financiers have provided thousands 

of loans for shrimp aquaculture 

in developing nations.Yet neither 

the project plans nor the 

appraisal reports included the: loss 

in value associated with the reduction 

or destruction of ecological 

services such as water purification; 

declining coastal fisheries; compromised 

water quality; salinization of 

coastal farmland; or displacement of 

coastal communities.These loans are 

now recognized as having been 

profitable for shrimp farmers, but 

also responsible for creating much 

greater social costs overall. Some 

countries, like India, have banned 

shrimp farming nationwide. 

Fisheries management failures and 

resulting fisheries collapses can be 

directly attributed to the failure of 

traditional economic analysis to 

consider the negative externalities 

44


more, but less than 10,000 pounds in either year. 

•$1,000 for each vessel landing 10,000 pounds or 

more in either year. 

The fee requirement expired 31 March 2001, but 

the Observer Program will continue until all 

monies collected have been spent (Reilly, CDFG. 

Pers. comm., February 2001). 

Due to the sensitivity of the issue, the data will 

remain confidential until a larger sample size is 

available. The data presently available “may not 

be representative of the fishery as a whole and it 

could be misleading to disseminate it” (Reilly, 

CDFG. Pers. comm., February 2001). 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Approach of the Recommendations 

The disciplines of Ecological Economics and 

Ecosystem Health are indispensable tools for 

achieving the long-term sustainability of the 

spot prawn fishery. (See the “Ecological Economics” 

and “Ecosystem Health” boxes for details of 

these academic fields.) APEX’s recommendations 

for the spot prawn fishery are set in the context of 

these disciplines. The discussion is divided into 

four problem areas: ecological sustainability and 

appropriate scale for the fishery, fair distribution of 

fishing privileges and benefits, democratic regulation 

and management, and economic efficiency. 

1. Ecological Sustainability and 

Scale of the Fishery 

In the world’s oceans we find the last of the great 

wildernesses. Places where the hunter-gathers of 

days gone by still exist. The “last buffalo hunt [is] 

occurring on the rolling blue prairies of the oceans” 

(Safina 1998, p. xvi). Marine ecosystems still provide 

human society with a wild diversity of products and 

services. Managing human intervention in these 

systems and the resulting flow of goods and services 

is therefore central to maintaining healthy, resilient, 

stable, and complex marine ecosystems. It is important 

to recognize, though, that regulating humans’ 

interactions with the marine realm is much more 

complicated than, for example, managing modern 

farming’s monocultures. 

In order to ensure the long-term productive 

potential of a fishery, the ecological sustainability 

and ecosystem health of the entire system must be 

maintained and prioritized over the short-term 

economic potential of, say, a particular fishing season. 

This is justified even using strictly economic 

or the true costs (environmental, 

social, cultural) associated with natural 

resource management systems 

or projects. Ecological Economics, and 

the analytical models it employs, 

improves on traditional economic 

and resource management systems 

in numerous ways. 

These include: 

•clearly defining ecological sustainability 

in an applied context 

•appropriately valuing ecological 

services, biodiversity, fisheries, and 

other irreplaceable assets 

•analyzing true uncertainty (traditional 

economic theory converts all 

uncertainty to risk, which in some 

cases, such as global warming, is 

not possible) 

•implementing the precautionary 

principle to avoid uncertain but 

potentially catastrophic events 

•examining the costs and benefits 

of projects beyond traditional 

cost/benefit analysis 

•methodologies for examining the 

economic and environmental 

impact of capital flow 

•measuring welfare benefits of 

different management decision 

options at the community as well 

as national level 

•a critique of trade theory and positive 

suggestions for changes in 

trade policy 

•examining the details of free trade 

and problems with both competitive 

and comparative advantage 

•constructing alternatives to the 

GNP (in response to the critiques of 

GNP, the World Bank has recently 

introduced the concept of sustainable 

income, an improvement that 

still has many flaws) 

•changing tastes and preferences 

•examining institutions and social 

traps that lead to economically and 

socially inefficient results 

•exploring alternative, incentivebased 

regulatory systems that are 

more economically efficient and 

environmentally appropriate than 

command and control 

•specific tax and regulatory policies 

to support ecological sustainability, 

greater equity, economic efficiency, 

and democratic regulatory institutions 

•examining community-based 

resource management systems 

•dealing with issues of intergenerational 

equity, which generally are 

ignored by traditional economics 

•fitting economic criteria with 

Ecosystem Health criteria for 

resource management 

•combining economic theory with 

environmental impact statements, 

consumer labeling, and other NGO 

initiatives 

Ecological Economics is a dynamic 

field with a great deal of research 

still under way. Nevertheless, the discipline’s 

existing strengths and benefits 

are numerous.There is little 

doubt that Ecological Economic theory 

and tools have the capacity to 

move fisheries management 

beyond rhetoric and create management 

systems that are ecologically 

sound, economically viable, and 

socially equitable, thereby achieving 

true fisheries sustainability. 

45


considerations, because the vast majority of economic 

benefits from the fishery are held in the 

future, and cannot be harvested without protecting 

ecosystem health and developing sustainable 

management systems. 

Fisheries can be harvested sustainably or unsustainably. 

They can be thought of as a stock of 

short-term benefits or as a potentially infinite 

flow of benefits. If, in the name of maximizing 

profits or the bottom line, we harvest too many 

fish or destroy critical marine ecosystems, we prevent 

the potentially permanent, sustainable flow 

of marine benefits that in the end provides society 

with the greatest return. Human activities in the 

spot prawn ecosystem must be regulated so as 

not to destroy the ecosystem on which spot 

prawns depend. It should be regulated to ensure 

the sustainability not only of a single species, but 

of the system as a whole. To this end, a “sea ethic” 

should be adopted and integrated into decisionmaking 

systems as a guiding principle (see 

“Fostering a Sea Ethic” box). 

The limited ecological information about the spot 

prawn fishery and its ecosystems increases the risk 

of fishery or ecosystem collapse. Avoidance of the 

vast and often irreversible costs of collapse requires 

a precautionary approach to spot prawn management. 

The precautionary approach is discussed in 

Section 1. Sound information about the spot prawn, 

the ecosystem, fishing technology, fishing behavior, 

and markets is an essential prerequisite for reducing 

uncertainty and improving management. The 

importance of ensuring adequate environmental 

information is argued in Section 2. Clearly, sustainable 

management requires that critical habitat is 

protected and the environmental impacts of fishing 

reduced to the lowest possible levels. In the case of 

the spot prawn fishery, management must be systemic 

and spatial in order to meet these needs. 

This is considered in Section 3. The critical role 

that marine reserve networks play in achieving precautionary 

management, in protecting critical 

marine habitats and ecological processes, and in 

providing areas for information gathering and 

research, is outlined in Section 4. 

The need for a discipline like Ecosystem 

Health arose because of the 

failure of the current economic paradigm 

to sustain the natural environment 

and the ecological and social 

processes dependent on it.This is 

disturbingly ironic for practitioners of 

Ecosystem Health, as the ecosystem 

is the very foundation of our economic 

systems. Ecosystem Health is 

inherently grounded in a paradigm 

of protecting sustainability or restoring 

it where it has been compromised.“The 

goal of this dynamic 

process [sustainable management] is 

to protect the autonomous, self-integrative 

processes of nature as an 

essential element in a new ethic of 

sustainability”(Costanza et al. 1992, p. 

4). An ecosystem “is healthy and free 

from ‘distress syndrome’ if it is stable 

and sustainable—that is, if it is active 

and maintains its organization and 

autonomy over time and is resilient 

to stress”(Costanza et al. 1992, p. 9). 

“Distress syndrome”is used to 

describe the irreversible process of 

system breakdown that inevitably 

leads to ecological collapse. 

According to Ecosystem Health, a 

ECOSYSTEM HEALTH 

“healthy” system is valuable beyond 

simply its consumptive or use values.There 

are myriad examples of 

where a narrow focus on short-term 

economic requirements or strictly 

utilitarian ecosystem values has led 

to system collapse and inestimable, 

often unrecoverable ecological, economic, 

and sociocultural costs. Consider 

the effects of the New-foundland 

cod collapse.This fishery had 

sustained coastal communities and 

the marine environment in the 

region for hundreds of years.The 

effect of ecosystem collapse on the 

region’s economy and ecology, not 

to mention its spirit, was devastating. 

Recovery (broadly defined) has 

not yet happened, and is not predicted 

or expected to occur any time 

soon. Ecosystem Health is a vital tool 

for avoiding these types of disasters. 

It ensures that the complexity and 

interconnectedness of the ecosystem 

is recognized and evaluated in 

a way that reflects and protects overall 

system performance, not just a 

desired ecological species or service. 

Ecosystem Health is an important 

characteristic of all natural ecosystems.“Since 

fast-changing human 

cultures are embedded in largerscale, 

slow-changing ecological systems, 

we must develop policies 

that allow human cultures to 

thrive without changing the life 

support functions, diversity, and 

complexity of ecological systems” 

(Costanza et al. 1992, p. 4). An Ecosystem 

Health approach allows for 

the necessary ecological-economic 

integration—an acknowledgment 

that ecological systems are a subset, 

a foundation, of our economic 

systems. To this end, five ecological 

management axioms have been 

offered as a framework for defining 

and implementing an 

Ecosystem Health approach to natural 

resource management. These 

include: 

•The Axiom of Dynamism:Nature is 

more profoundly a set of processes 

than a collection of objects; all 

is in flux. Ecosystems develop and 

age over time. 

•The Axiom of Relatedness:All 

processes are related to all other 

processes. 

•The Axiom of Hierarchy:Processes 

are not related equally but unfold 

in systems within systems, which 

differ mainly regarding the temporal 

and spatial scales on which 

46


1.1 Manage According to the 

Precautionary Approach 

A recent paper by the Commission of European 

Communities (2000) argues that the precautionary 

approach is necessary due to the history of difficult 

fisheries management decisions being “rejected, 

delayed or watered down” on grounds of uncertainty 

as to their necessity. Uncertainty has regularly been 

used as a stalling tactic that has resulted in the “necessary 

evidence only becoming available after the 

event it intended to prevent takes place.” Precautionary 

management of spot prawns is essential not only 

because of the uncertainty surrounding biology and 

management, but also because of: 

•life history characteristics, such as low spot prawn 

fecundity 

•the lack of basic ecological information in most 

areas 

•the susceptibility of the species to recruitment 

overfishing because the catch includes the 

“entire female size range and the largest males” 

•the “hierarchical spatial structure of shellfish 

stocks,” which lends itself to patchy distribution 

and a vulnerability to localized depletions 


Precautionary management does not mean a zerorisk 

management approach but a directive to proceed 

with caution. The level of precaution applied 

is a function of the amount of information available; 

precaution increases as the amount of knowledge 

decreases. Precautionary management eschews 

the “resource-by-resource, area-by-area 

approach” that, according to Orensanz et al. (1998), 

inevitably leads to reactive, ad hoc management 

decisions that are unable to predict or prevent serial 

depletion and recruitment overfishing. 

While the precautionary approach has been 

enshrined in international law, it is only in recent 

years that policymakers and managers have begun 

grappling with how one would actually go about 

managing a fishery with precaution. The FAO Code 

of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO 1995c) 

details how and when the precautionary approach 

should be applied to a fishery: 

they are organized. 

•The Axiom of Creativity:The 

autonomous processes of nature 

are creative and represent the 

basis for all biologically based 

productivity. The vehicle of that 

creativity is energy flowing 

through the systems, which in 

turn find stable contexts in larger 

systems, which provide sufficient 

stability to allow self-organization 

within them through repetition 

and duplication. 

•The Axiom of Differential Fragility: 

Ecological systems, which form the 

context for all human activities, 

vary in the extent to which they 

can absorb and equilibrate 

human-caused disruption in their 

autonomous processes. 

(Costanza et al. 1992, p. 6) 

The process of defining Ecosystem 

Health for a given ecological system 

requires the identification of 

essential health indicators, endpoints, 

and parameters.These criteria 

must reflect the complexity of 

ecosystems.They must recognize 

the inherent uniqueness of ecological 

systems and the fact that natural 

systems are dynamic—continually 

changing, shifting, and adapting 

in response to external, oftentimes 

unpredictable, conditions. 

The development of effective criteria 

is a challenge. Some guidelines 

include: 

•Health should not depend on criteria 

based on the presence, 

absence, or condition of a single 

species. 

•Health should not depend on a 

census or even inventory of large 

numbers of species. 

•Health should reflect our knowledge 

of normal succession or 

expected sequential changes that 

occur naturally in ecosystems. 

•While the optimal health measures 

should be single-valued (monotonic) 

and vary in a systematic and 

discernible manner, ecosystem 

health does not have to be measured 

as a single number. Single 

numbers compress a large number 

of dimensions (one for each type 

of item) to a point that geometrically 

has zero dimensions. 

•Health measures should have a 

defined range. 

•Health criteria should be responsive 

to change in data values but 

should not show discontinuities 

even when values change over 

several decades. 

•Health measures should have 

known statistical properties, if 

these are relevant. 

•Criteria for health assessment must 

be related and hierarchically 

appropriate for use in ecosystems. 

•Health measures should be dimensionless 

or share a common 

dimension. 

•Health measures should be insensitive 

to the number of observations, 

given some minimum number 

of observations. 

(Costanza et al. 1992, p. 8) 

The Ecosystem Health approach 

offers some important and effective 

tools for ensuring the long-term 

sustainability of the marine environment. 

While the health model is 

an innovative and useful tool for 

thinking about natural systems, the 

science is still in its development 

stages.The Ecosystem Health professional, 

unlike the health professional, 

does not have at his or her 

disposal “a compendium of known 

diseases and stress with associated 

symptoms and signs” (Costanza et 

al. 1992, p. 10). It is important that 

this type of research is carried out 

and the work of categorizing ecological 

stresses and their effects on 

the ecosystems (symptoms) begun, 

so that “appropriate treatments” for 

ailing systems can be determined. 

47


•States should apply the precautionary approach 

widely to conservation, management, and 

exploitation of living aquatic resources in order 

to protect them and preserve the aquatic environment. 

The absence of adequate scientific 

information should not be used as a reason for 

postponing or failing to take conservation and 

management measures. 

•In implementing the precautionary approach, 

States should take into account uncertainties 

regarding the size and productivity of the stocks, 

biological reference points and stock condition 

in relation to them, the level and distribution of 

fishing mortality, and the impact of fishing activities 

including discards, on non-target and associated 

or dependent species, the ecosystem, and 

fishing communities and economies. 

•In the case of new or exploratory fisheries, States 

should adopt as soon as possible cautious conservation 

and management measures including 

catch limits and effort limits. Such measures 

should remain in force until enough data have 

been collected to allow assessment of the impact 

of the fisheries on the long-term sustainability of 

the stocks, whereupon conservation and management 

measures based on that assessment 

should be implemented. The latter measures 

should, if appropriate, allow for the gradual 

development of fisheries. 

•If a natural phenomenon has a significant 

adverse impact on the status of living aquatic 

resources, States should adopt conservation and 

management measures on an emergency basis 

to ensure that the fishing activity does not exacerbate 

adverse impacts. States should also adopt 

such measures on an emergency basis where 

fishing activity presents a serious threat to sustainability 

of such resources. Measures taken on 

an emergency basis should be temporary and 

should be based on the best scientific information 

available. 

The UN FAO Technical Paper 379 (1995a) details 

the use of precautionary reference points and 

management systems. The data requirements for 

establishing precautionary reference points can be 

considerable. The paper recommends that the 

following factors be taken into account: 

•established management procedures and the 

impact of these systems on the stock 

•the range of management tools available 

•robustness of the assessment process 

•the species’ stock structure 

•the nature of predator-prey relationships 

•identification of ecological or environmental 

relationships that affect recruitment and growth 

•distribution of the stock with respect to the distribution 

of the fishery 

•key spawning, rearing, and juvenile areas 

•migration patterns 

•effect of population density on growth and/or 

distribution 

•nature of the stock-recruitment relationships 

•extent of recruitment variability, and factors 

contributing to that variability 

•the nature of the fleet—number of vessels, level 

of effort, species targeted, selectivity, etc. 

•possibility of catastrophe and the likelihood of 

recovery 

For each of us, then, the challenge 

and opportunity is to 

cherish all life as the gift it is, 

envision it whole, seek to know 

it truly, and undertake—with 

our mind, hearts and hands— 

to restore abundance. It is said 

that where there is life there is 

hope, and so no place can 

inspire us with more hopefulness 

than the great, life-making 

sea—that singular wondrous 

ocean covering the blue 

planet (Safina 1998, p. 440). 

FOSTERING A SEA ETHIC 

Aldo Leopold, one of the central figures 

in the history of the conservation 

movement, recognized the importance 

of developing an ethical 

system to guide humans’ interactions 

with the land. He came to the conclusion 

that “An action is right when it 

tends to preserve the integrity and 

stability and beauty of a living community, 

and wrong when it tends to 

do otherwise”(Leopold 1949).“Rightness”implies 

a sense of balance—a 

value system that recognizes that 

there is a limit to what humans can 

“take”from the land. 

The fact that humans are landdwelling 

creatures means that our 

ethical systems have co-evolved 

with our relationship to the land, 

and are thus more advanced than 

our relationship and system of 

marine values. It is time that we 

extend ethics beyond the high-tide 

mark. It is time that our millenniaold 

relationship to the oceans is 

honored; it is time that we apply 

Leopold’s ideas about ethics to the 

marine realm. In Song for the Blue 

Ocean (1998), Safina writes,“A sea 

ethic would allow society to extend 

its sense of community responsibility 

beyond the needs of humanity to 

encompass the whole, living 

seascape.” 

48


The Commission of European Communities 

recently approached ICES to facilitate a better 

understanding of the precautionary principle in 

the context of setting annual catch quotas. According 

to ICES, reference points or thresholds are one 

of the centerpieces of precautionary management. 

These thresholds typically are used to identify a 

spawning biomass level below which the sustainability 

of the stock or species is placed at risk 

(Commission of European Communities 2000). 

Zhang (1999) explores the idea that managers 

can use two distinct types of precautionary reference 

points: a management or target reference 

point (TRP) and a conservation or limit reference 

point (LRP). The TRP indicates the exploitation 

target for management purposes; the LRP 

defines the biological limit of the stock or population 

in question. The paper describes a number of 

different empirical equations and fisheries assessment 

models that can be used to derive the reference 

points based on the characteristics of the 

species and the fishery. 

Once the reference points or thresholds are 

established, the fishery will need to be frequently 

monitored in order to “ensure that the exploitation 

pattern does not change” (Boutillier and 

Bond 1999b). Within the bounds of these safety 

margins or reference points is room for many different 

types of management strategies. Managers 

must define the environmental, economic, and 

sociocultural goals they are seeking to maximize; 

e.g., ecosystem health, sustainability, yield by 

weight, the economic value of catches, community 

stability, jobs, etc. Multi-annual decision-making 

regimes can then be established that outline 

the guidelines, criteria, and thresholds needed 

to sustainably manage a fishery. 

1.2 Ensure the Adequacy of Environmental 

Information 

The history of fisheries management reads like 

a good novel: crisis, ruin, intrigue, noble aspirations, 

“good guys” and “bad guys,” fortunes 

won and lost. The numbers tell the same tale, 

both globally and in the US. According to the 

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization 

(FAO 1997), nearly 70% of the world’s fish 

stocks are overfished, depleted, or fully exploited. 

In the US, almost 50% of the fisheries for which 

there are data are overfished or in decline. 

The crisis in fisheries management does not exist 

because of a lack of attempts to manage. In the US, 

the National Marine Fisheries Service, in its various 

organizational iterations, has been actively managing 

and regulating fishing since the 1800s. Collapses 

are directly attributable to a lack of ecological 

information, a resultant uncertainty in science, 

and a failure to manage with precaution due 

to these information limits. Scientific and management 

uncertainty stems from a number of 

sources: 

•dearth of information regarding the status of fish 

populations 

•numerous unknowns regarding ecological 

relationships and factors affecting population 

abundance and distribution, and the cumulative 

effect of these variables on the population or 

ecosystem 

•unpredictability surrounding the nature, inci- 

Our marine economies are whollyowned 

subsidiaries of the marine 

environment.The services and products 

provided by the sea secure our 

dependence on it. Not only does 

the ecological state of the world’s 

oceans mandate a higher level of 

concern and a greater stewardship 

role, but we must also acknowledge 

the fact that we are not as removed 

from the ocean as we often assume. 

“We are, in a sense, soft vessels of 

seawater. Seventy percent of our 

bodies is water, the same percentage 

that covers Earth’s surface.We 

are wrapped around an ocean within.You 

can test this simply enough: 

Taste your tears” (Safina 1998, p. 

434). 

“Recognizing our interrelationship 

does not imply notions of some 

unreal ocean utopia wherein all 

creatures swim at peace” (Safina 

1998, p. 440). A sea ethic is not 

some new, naïve mythology. Rather, 

a sea ethic is a concept that will 

allow us to expand the concept of 

humanity and the richness of our 

human experience. 

Such a perspective frees the 

mind and opens doors: to a lifetime 

of boundless inquiry, to a 

wealth of enriching insights and 

reflection, to the chance to be 

more fully human, to the possibility 

of making a meaningful 

contribution.The only prerequisites 

for taking this path are 

respectfulness and an extravagant 

desire for exploration— 

both impulses that build an elevated 

sense of vitality and purpose 

(Safina 1998, p. 440). 

Fostering a “sea ethic” in spot prawn 

management would require that 

the ecological footprint of the fishery 

be continually minimized.The 

destruction of critical marine habitat 

or high levels of avoidable bycatch 

cannot be justified in ecological or 

economic terms.These actions are 

potentially damaging to the spot 

prawn, to marine ecosystems, and to 

the fishing industries and communities 

that depend on them. 

49


dence, and effect of environmental factors and 

ecological systems 

•natural fluctuations in a fish stock or population 

The lack of knowledge about spot prawns and 

their role in the marine ecosystem is a serious risk. 

Sufficient ecological information of adequate quality 

is the cornerstone of sustainable management. 

Without baseline data, it is difficult to determine 

how a fish population will be affected by human 

use, let alone managed in a way that will prevent 

overexploitation. Without the collection and effective 

use of information, important ecological and 

economic assets like the spot prawn fishery can 

not be managed sustainably. The costs will be 

borne by the environment, and by the industries 

and communities that depend on the fishery. 

There will always be gaps in our marine knowledge. 

The unknowns regarding spot prawns and 

their role in the ecosystem are unlikely to ever be 

fully resolved. Nevertheless, because the risk of 

localized or serial depletion is very real, the lack 

of scientific information should not be used as a 

reason to postpone proactive, preventive measures 

that will protect the species and prevent 

environmental degradation. Precautionary 

management should be the rule rather than 

the exception. 

Scientific and management information must be 

shared between managers and scientists throughout 

the spot prawn’s range. A spot prawn research 

strategy can then be developed in collaboration 

with a wide range of stakeholders and provide 

clear direction and goals for data and information 

collection initiatives. A coordinated research strategy 

would ensure that resources are focused on 

the most critical information needs and data gaps. 

APEX believes that the following areas of research 

should be prioritized: 

•determination of spot prawn biology, life 

history, recruitment, and genetic structure 

•identification of critical habitats for both juvenile 

and adult life stages 

•understanding the relationships between spot 

prawns and other species in the ecosystem 

•estimation of the effects of parasite and disease 

on spot prawns 

•appraisal of the impact of environmental variability 

on spot prawns 

•assessment of the effect of spot prawn fishing 

on spot prawns, on other marine species, and 

on the ecosystem 

•evaluation of the range of factors that impact 

spot prawn success/sustainability, and the 

cumulative effect of these factors on the species; 

for example, mortality associated with other 

fisheries should be determined and integrated 

into spot prawn management 

Marine information is diverse and comprises both 

formal and informal data from scientific research, 

commercial activity, and local and traditional ecological 

knowledge. Given the extent and complexity 

of the spot prawn fishery, it is essential that efficient 

use be made of all sources of data available, 

and the knowledge used to formulate an integrated 

approach to spot prawn management that 

reflects the species’ biology and ecology. 

Additional research and information analysis 

could be supported in part by a cost-recovery system. 

This system would be developed in partnership 

with scientists, managers, and the users of the 

resource, and be based on an equitable formula 

for the collection of fees. For example, the amount 

that commercial fishers pay should reflect the total 

tonnage and value of their catch. 

1.3 Reduce the Environmental Impacts of 

Fishing to the Lowest Possible Level 

THE PROBLEM WITH BYCATCH 

Determination of the environmental impacts of 

spot prawn fishing and of fishing on spot prawns 

is an essential prerequisite for sustainable management. 

It is important that the level of spot 

prawn incidental mortality in the fishery and in 

other fisheries is established, especially with 

regard to the bycatch and mortality of juvenile 

spot prawns. In addition, the incidental catch of 

at-risk species, like certain rockfish species, may 

speed up the rate of fisheries collapse and/or prevent 

the recovery of depleted species or stocks. 

As long as precise, per-species bycatch levels 

remain unquantifiable, reliable sustainable harvest 

levels cannot be established, and estimates 

of stock size and recruitment will be inaccurate 

(Glavin 1996). 

PROMOTING SELECTIVE GEAR — 

PHASING OUT TRAWLING 

The promotion of selective gear—gear that minimizes 

the waste of target species and minimizes 

the bycatch of non-target species—is an internationally 

recognized imperative for sustainable 

fisheries. The impact of trawling on the benthos 

and other critical marine habitats (algal beds, 

seagrass beds, and hard-bottom seafloor eco- 

50


types) has been a cause for ecological concern 

for centuries. As early as 1376, the English House 

of Commons protested to the King about the likely 

damage that fishing boats dragging trawl nets 

were causing to seafloor vegetation (Galvin 1996). 

Despite the prevalence of longstanding concerns 

and disputes about the environmental effects of 

trawling, there have been few attempts to quantify 

trawling damage. The studies that do exist provide 

data that support the need for a more sustainable 

approach. A number of trawling bans have been 

established around the world to protect benthic 

organisms and ecosystems from the potentially 

destructive effects of trawling. Localized trawling 

bans exist in Australia, Indonesia, Canada, and 

in several states in the United States, including 

Alaska, Washington, North Carolina, and Florida. 

Only a small percentage of overall effort in the 

spot prawn fishery is trawl effort. Spot prawn 

trawling bans are in place for ecological reasons 

in Alaska, British Columbia, and Washington’s 

inshore fishery (a phase-out plan is being developed 

for the coastal fishery). Many of the managers 

and scientists interviewed for the Status 

Report questioned whether, given spot prawn 

biology, a trawl fishery was even “appropriate.” 

Spot prawn trawl gear is non-selective and 

destructive, an important ecological consideration 

given the sensitivity of the spot prawn habitat 

and associated species (e.g., bocaccio). Fishing for 

spot prawns with traps or pots is more likely to 

result in an ecologically sound and economically 

viable fishery for spot prawns and for ecologically 

interrelated species such as rockfish. Spot prawn 

trap fisheries are already viable and lucrative. 

Moreover, trap-caught prawns offer a range of 

higher-value product types that could result in 

an even more profitable fishery in the long run. 

Serious consideration should be given to phasing 

out the trawl fishery throughout the spot prawn’s 

range. There is no doubt that there will be shortterm 

economic costs associated with phasing 

trawls. On the other hand, reducing the ecological 

impact of fishing has been proven time and again 

to be investment in natural capital that provides a 

more than substantial return in the long run. 

1.4 Management should be Systemic and 

Spatial in Orientation 

Precautionary management is spatial and multidimensional 

in orientation and calls for concentration 

on spatial stock structure and the processes 

or factors that influence it. Management systems 

that emphasize the use of overall quotas 

have not proven particularly useful in the management 

of shellfish species that have a primarily sessile 

adult phase—a characteristic that often makes 

these types of animals susceptible to serial depletion 

(Orensanz et al. 1998). According to Garcia 

(1996), the potential risk of negatively affecting 

through fishing pressure the fecundity of latematuring 

shrimp like spot prawns is high. 

Spot prawn fecundity is naturally very low. 

Compared to finfish like cod, the number of eggs 

released by a female spot prawn is significantly 

lower. The species’ reproductive potential to create 

large year classes is therefore limited. This is particularly 

significant for management because the fishery 

tends to target larger animals; i.e., females. Dr. Paul 

Anderson of the Kodiak Fisheries Research Center 

argues that in targeting the largest animals, the fishery 

is “hitting the oldest, most fecund, and most 

valuable animals the hardest, and thereby destroying 

the chances of maintaining a viable spot prawn 

population.” The fishery would be better off targeting 

smaller, younger male animals, some of which 

would have anyway naturally died off before 

changing sex and becoming sexually mature 

(Paul Anderson, KFRC. Pers. comm., August 2001). 

Jim Boutillier of Fisheries and Ocean Canada 

offers an alternative view. In his view, future forecasting 

in order to protect older, larger animals is 

critical. Ensuring that the population has a sufficient 

number of females, and thus is large and 

strong enough to be sustainable, is essential. 

British Columbia’s spawner index is a real-time 

assessment tool that ensures that the brood stock 

is protected and the female spot prawn population 

healthy enough to sustain the population. It offers 

the possibility for real-time decision-making and 

management—the crux of the sustainability riddle. 

The development of recruitment-related reference 

points, rather than quotas, is also seen as central 

to sustainable spot prawn management. In order 

for quota systems to be effective, the effect of fishing 

on the population needs to be fully understood. 

This requires a minimum of 15–20 years of 

data (Zheng et al. 1993). The authors note that the 

research phase may be even longer if strong environmental 

conditions or environmental variability 

affect recruitment. This has been shown to be the 

case with some pandalid species. 

51


Spot prawn management should take place on a 

very fine spatial scale in order to reflect patchy 

distribution and overcome these patches’ vulnerability 

to depletion (Boutillier, Fisheries and 

Oceans Canada. Pers. comm., June 2001). “If one 

manages the fishery on too large a spatial scale, 

the likelihood of sequential localized overfishing 

is a very real possibility. One would then have to 

rely upon a metapopulation process to provide 

the necessary recruitment for the areas that were 

overfished. If a metapopulation does not exist or 

the net flow is low and the overfished populations 

are isolated, then it is very possible to reduce the 

populations to a level where fishing will be halted 

for an indeterminable amount of time” (Boutillier 

and Bond 1999a). Management should be iterative 

and adaptive so that it can rapidly respond to 

localized declines, shifts in environmental conditions, 

or changes in the capitalization and effort 

of the fleet. 

Data or information that is useful in the development 

of spatially determined management 

regimes includes: 

•spatial distribution of abundance from surveys, 

particularly those that provide information 

about the large-scale spatial distribution of 

stocks 

•spatial patterns of effort and CPUE data 

•spatial information regarding spot prawn migration 

patterns and/or “gregarious” behavior 

•spatial representation of larval dispersal, movement, 

concentration (Orensanz et al. 1998) 

DEVELOP A NETWORK OF MARINE 

PROTECTED AREAS 

Marine protected areas or reserves are spatially 

determined management tools that are potentially 

important elements in the precautionary management 

toolbox. “If we look at fisheries that have 

been successful over the long term, the reason 

for their success is not to be found in assessment, 

learning and management models, but in the existence 

of a spatial accident, something about the 

spatial structure of the population dynamics interacting 

with regulatory systems or about the behavior 

of the species and fishers, that creates a large 

scale refuge for a substantial segment of the 

spawning population” (Walters 1995, cited in 

Orensanz et al. 1998). 

Marine reserves benefit fish, fishers, and the 

marine environment and are effective as proactive 

or reactive management tools. Numerous 

studies have shown the ability of protected areas 

to enhance fish populations inside and outside 

reserve boundaries. The densities and sizes of fish 

are often larger within the reserve than in the fishing 

grounds (Rowley 1994, Schlining and Sprat 

1999, Schlining 1999). Large marine reserves 

reduce catch variability from one fishing season 

to the next and help buffer fish populations from 

declines due to management errors and/or environmental 

change (Murray et al. 1999, Sladek 

Nowlis and Roberts 1999). They are also increasingly 

recognized as a tool for restoring exploited 

fish populations and protecting threatened marine 

habitat. Finally, research that cannot take place 

on the fishing grounds can take place in marine 

reserves. Not only does this research enhance the 

state of marine ecosystem knowledge, it also provides 

a reference area that gives context and 

meaning to research in fished areas. 

Spot prawns’ patchy distribution and vulnerability 

to serial depletion make marine reserves or a 

reserve network vital management tools. The closure 

of some areas to fishing would protect the 

stocks in those areas, possibly provide a recruitment 

source for other regions, and protect critical 

spot prawn habitat. Spot prawn drift across reserve 

boundaries could serve as a potential source for 

augmenting local catch. Schlining’s (1999) preliminary 

look at the Carmel Bay Ecological Reserve 

showed that CPUE sampled in the Reserve was significantly 

higher than an area one kilometer outside 

the Reserve. The CPUE in this area was in turn 

significantly higher than an area five kilometers 

from the Reserve. To design effective spot prawn 

reserves, it is important that the movement and 

habitat requirements of all essential life stages are 

understood. The areas set aside should be monitored 

pre- and post-reserve designation so that 

effectiveness can be determined and the need for 

changes or adaptations established. 

Fair Distribution — Democracy in 

Regulation and Management 

The ecological scale of a fishery and criteria for 

ecological sustainability are defined by scientific 

evidence. At the present time, this level of knowledge 

does not exist for spot prawns. The fishery 

must therefore be protected through a precautionary 

approach to management. Within precaution’s 

boundaries, achieving fair distribution of fishing 

privileges and benefits is essential to ensuring 

sustainable management systems. 

Were there no limit to the spot prawn population, 

accomplishing fair distribution and a democratic 

52


management system would be easy. Anyone and 

everyone could fish; fishing capacity and effort 

would not need to be constrained in any way. 

However, spots prawns, like all fisheries, do have 

clear biological limits, and recognition of these 

limits must be reflected in distribution and management 

regimes. A failure to limit the privilege or 

capacity to fish will result in overfishing, ecological 

collapse, and market failure. The market cannot 

detect the ecological limits of the fishery, which 

is why we need regulation. 

Determination of fair distribution systems is not 

a science. Distribution decisions are often guided 

by social wants, economic bottom lines, and cultural 

needs or ethics and values. All of these factors 

are difficult to balance and quantify in the 

decision-making equation. Nevertheless, the difficulty 

of making these decisions cannot be used 

to ignore things like biological limits or scientific 

uncertainty, thereby easing the challenge or 

diminishing the unpopularity of any decision 

that needs to be made. 

There many different ways in which fair distribution 

and democratic management can 

be achieved. Ultimately, the best system is one 

that reflects and grows out of the context—economic, 

social, ecological—within which a given 

fishery is rooted. The spot prawn fishery currently 

employs a range of options for distributing fishing 

privileges. These include open access, trip limits, 

limited entry, and gear restrictions, among others. 

In order for fair distribution and democracy to be 

attained in the spot prawn fishery’s regulation and 

management, the following should be considered: 

2.1 Control Overcapitalization 

Systems to better control and manage overcapitalization 

and fishing effort should be instituted in all 

regions, and should be applied to both commercial 

and recreational fisheries. These systems 

should strive to be equitable so that benefits and 

costs are distributed as equitably and fairly as possible 

across fishery participants. Mechanisms that 

will allow effort to continue to be ratcheted down, 

if need be, should be part of the system. 

Controlling burgeoning effort is important for 

obvious ecological reasons. It is also important for 

economic reasons. Derby fisheries pose a problem 

for processors and the market. Flooding the market 

with product interferes with supply and 

demand systems, and may also affect the desirability 

of a particular product or source. Derbies 

tend to strain processing capacity, leading to 

wasted or inferior product. 

2.2 Create a System of Economic Incentives 

Economic incentive systems play an important 

role in fair distribution and the development of 

democratic and efficient management. Incentivebased 

instruments are a fundamental component 

of sustainable management because they have 

the capacity to correct or prevent the type of 

market failures that often compromise the longterm 

viability of fisheries. Economic incentives 

can be used to: ensure that externalities are properly 

accounted for; overcome the “tragedy of the 

commons” by assisting in the equitable delineation 

of property rights; correct myopic time discounting; 

manage under conditions of uncertainty 

or incomplete information. 

Incentive-based systems can take any number of 

forms, and in order to be effective will ultimately 

need to consider the context and characteristics 

of the fishery to which they are being applied. 

The spot prawn fishery should consider the use of 

a green tax. A green tax would serve to ensure that 

resource flows from the environment to the economy 

are sustainable, while also creating incentives 

for fishers to develop fishing technologies, techniques, 

and processes that minimize the ecological 

impacts of fishing. 

Related to this, an incentive system should be 

developed that would reward the stewards of the 

spot prawn resource and ecologically sound fishing 

behaviors. Preferential quota allocation is an 

example of this type of incentive system that has 

been discussed at length in fishery management 

circles. Finally, in order for any incentive system 

to be effective, illegal fishing activity must be 

severely penalized. Monitoring and enforcement 

systems must be sophisticated and well-funded 

so that illegal fishing and “bad stewards” are not 

inadvertently rewarded. 

2.3 Foster Collaboration and Cooperation in 

Decision-Making and Management 

Collaborative or cooperative natural resource 

management is an idea that has gained considerable 

currency in recent years. Collaborative management 

consists of formal or informal arrangements 

between individual or groups of fishers, 

other stakeholders, and the various levels of government 

responsible for the management and conservation 

of marine fisheries and the environment 

(Ostrom 1990, White et al. 1994). Cooperative man- 

53


agement is grounded in a belief that management 

will be more effective, and ultimately sustainable, if 

all those with an interest in the resource participate 

in the development and implementation of natural 

resource management policy. 

Broadly participatory management systems allow 

different knowledge, experiences, and visions to be 

incorporated into decision-making. Local or traditional 

ecological knowledge can be tapped where 

scientific data are incomplete or scarce. The equitable 

and legitimate participation in decisionmaking 

and management ensures that individual 

and/or community commitment and belief in the 

given resource-management policies and systems 

are increased and enhanced. The incentive shifts 

from maximizing individual gains to maximizing 

communal returns. The accepted time scale for 

returns lengthens and fosters a greater recognition 

of the links between ecological systems and economic 

systems. 

The structure of the regime, and the nature and 

degree to which management responsibilities are 

evenly shared between players, are contextual. The 

dynamics and characteristics of an effective community-based 

system necessarily reflect the ecological, 

social, political, cultural, and economic conditions 

within which it is based. Cooperative or community-based 

management has the potential to: 

“promote conservation and enhancement of fish 

stocks; improve the quality of data and data analysis; 

THE MARINE STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL’S PRINCIPLES & 

CRITERIA FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES 

population to produce longterm 

potential yields. 

The three Principles of the MSC 

Standard (See MSC 1998 for complete 

details) are the condition of 

the fish stock, the impact of the 

fishery on the marine environment, 

and the fishery management 

systems in place. These 

Principles are detailed below: 

PRINCIPLE 1 

A fishery must be conducted in a 

manner that does not lead to overfishing 

or depletion of the exploited 

populations and, for those populations 

that are depleted, the fishery 

must be conducted in a manner 

that demonstrably leads to 

their recovery. 

Criteria: 

1. The fishery shall be conducted 

at catch levels that continually 

maintain the high productivity 

of the target population(s) and 

associated ecological community 

relative to its potential productivity. 

2. Where the exploited populations 

are depleted, the fishery 

will be executed such that 

recovery and rebuilding is 

allowed to occur to a specified 

level consistent with the precautionary 

approach and the 

ability of the populations to 

produce long-term potential 

yields within a specified 

time frame. 

3. Fishing is conducted in a manner 

that does not alter the age or 

genetic structure or sex composition 

to a degree that impairs 

reproductive capacity. 

PRINCIPLE 2 

Fishing operations should allow for 

the maintenance of the structure, 

productivity, function, and diversity 

of the ecosystem (including habitat 

and associated dependent and ecologically 

related species) on which 

the fishery depends. 

Criteria: 

1. The fishery is conducted in a 

way that maintains natural functional 

relationships among 

species and should not lead to 

trophic cascades or ecosystem 

state changes. 

2. The fishery is conducted in a 

manner that does not threaten 

biological diversity at the genetic, 

species, or population levels, 

and avoids or minimizes mortality 

of or injuries to endangered, 

threatened, or protected species. 

3. Where exploited populations 

are depleted, the fishery will be 

executed such that recovery and 

rebuilding are allowed to occur 

to a specified level within specified 

time frames, consistent with 

the precautionary approach and 

considering the ability of the 

PRINCIPLE 3 

The fishery is subject to an effective 

management system that respects 

local, national, and international 

laws and standards and incorporates 

institutional and operational 

frameworks that require use of the 

resource to be responsible and sustainable. 

Management System Criteria: 

1. The fishery shall not be conducted 

under a controversial unilateral 

exemption to an international 

agreement. 

The management system shall: 

2. demonstrate clear long-term 

objectives consistent with MSC 

Principles and Criteria and contain 

a consultative process that is 

transparent and involves all interested 

and affected parties so as 

to consider all relevant information, 

including local knowledge. 

The impact of fishery management 

decisions on all those who 

depend on the fishery for their 

livelihoods, including but not 

confined to subsistence, artisinal, 

and fishing-dependent communities, 

shall be addressed as part 

of this process; 

3. be appropriate to the cultural 

context, scale, and intensity of the 

fishery—reflecting specific objectives, 

incorporating operational 

54


reduce excessive investment by fishermen in competitive 

gear; make allocation of fishing opportunities 

more equitable; promote community economic 

development, and reduce the conflict between government, 

fishermen, and fishermen’s groups” 

(Pinkerton and Weinstein 1995). While cooperative 

management is not a panacea, it offers a practical 

way to overcome the entrenched positions and 

deadlocks that typify so much of the modern fisheries 

management process, and has the potential 

to move society toward long-term sustainablility in 

a collaborative fashion. 

3. Economic Efficiency 

The market should operate freely within the ecological 

boundaries and regulated distribution of 

fishing privileges, as long as the producers and 

purchasers of spot prawns capture the full costs 

and benefits. One way of overcoming economic 

and market inefficiencies is the development of 

the types of economic incentive systems described 

above. In addition, assistance should be provided 

to fishers to continually increase the quality and 

value of their catches. One aspect of accomplishing 

this would be to pursue Marine Stewardship 

Council (MSC) certification and the MSC eco-label 

for all or part of the fishery. 

3.1 Marine Stewardship Council Certification 

The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) was 

formed in 1997 through a partnership between 

World Wildlife Fund, an international environmen- 

criteria, containing procedures for 

implementation and a process for 

monitoring and evaluating performance 

and acting on findings; 

4. observe the legal and customary 

rights and long-term interests 

of people dependent on 

fishing for food and livelihood, 

in a manner consistent with 

ecological sustainability; 

5. incorporate an appropriate mechanism 

for the resolution of disputes 

arising within the system; 

6. provide economic and social 

incentives that contribute to 

sustainable fishing and shall not 

operate with subsidies that contribute 

to unsustainable fishing; 

7. act in a timely and adaptive 

fashion on the basis of the best 

available information using a 

precautionary approach, particularly 

when dealing with scientific 

uncertainty; 

8. incorporate a research plan— 

appropriate to the scale and 

intensity of the fishery—that 

addresses the information 

needs of management and provides 

for the dissemination of 

research results to all interested 

parties in a timely fashion; 

9. require that assessments of the 

biological status of the resource 

and impacts of the fishery have 

been and are periodically conducted; 

10.specify measures and strategies 

that demonstrably control the 

degree of exploitation of the 

resource, including but not limited 

to: 

a) setting catch levels that will 

maintain the target population 

and ecological community’s 

high productivity relative to its 

potential productivity, and 

account for the non-target 

species (or size, age, sex) captured 

and landed in association 

with, or as a consequence 

of, fishing for target species; 

b) identifying appropriate fishing 

methods that minimize 

adverse impacts on habitat, 

especially in critical or sensitive 

zones such as spawning 

and nursery areas; 

c) providing for the recovery 

and rebuilding of depleted 

fish populations to specified 

levels within specified time 

frames; 

d) putting mechanisms in place 

to limit or close fisheries 

when designated catch limits 

are reached; 

e) establishing no-take zones 

where appropriate; 

11. contain appropriate procedures 

for effective compliance, monitoring, 

control, surveillance, and 

enforcement which ensure that 

established limits to exploitation 

are not exceeded, and 

specify corrective actions to be 

taken in the event that they are. 

Operational Criteria: 

Fishing operation shall: 

12. make use of fishing gear and 

practices designed to avoid the 

capture of non-target species 

(and non-target size, age, and/or 

sex of the target species); minimize 

mortality of this catch 

where it cannot be avoided, and 

reduce discards of what cannot 

be released alive; 

13. implement appropriate fishing 

methods designed to minimize 

adverse impacts on habitat, 

especially in critical or sensitive 

zones such as spawning and 

nursery areas; 

14. not use destructive fishing practices 

such as fishing with poisons 

or explosives; 

15. minimize operational waste 

such as lost fishing gear, oil 

spills, on-board spoilage of 

catch, etc.; 

16. be conducted in compliance 

with the fishery management 

system and all legal and administrative 

requirements; and 

17. assist and cooperate with management 

authorities in the collection 

of catch, discard, and 

other information of importance 

to effective management of the 

resources and the fishery. 

55


tal organization, and Unilever, one of the largest 

seafood companies. Both organizations were motivated 

by the looming crisis in the world’s oceans 

and a desire to protect fish populations and marine 

environments. The MSC is now independent of 

both organizations and works to enhance the 

“responsible management of seafood resources” 

through green business partnerships that “harness 

consumer purchasing power to generate change 

and promote environmentally responsible stewardship 

of the world’s most important renewable 

resource” (www.msc.org). 

The MSC has developed an environmental 

Standard for sustainable and well-managed fisheries. 

The MSC voluntary certification program 

allows an independent certifier to evaluate a given 

fishery against the MSC Standard. It then inspects 

the biological status of the fish population or 

stock, the effects of fishing on the environment, 

and existing management systems. 

If the fishery meets the Standard, the MSC ecolabel 

is awarded and the fishery designated “a 

well-managed and sustainable fishery.” Often, 

certification is contingent on a set of conditions 

being met by the fishery. The label is awarded 

despite these conditions, but in order for it to 

be retained the fishery must make the requisite 

changes. The MSC eco-label allows consumers 

concerned about the sustainability of their 

seafood to choose products that are the “Best 

Environmental Choice in Seafood.” Consumers 

may not, however, be aware of the conditionality 

of the MSC eco-label. Certification conditions 

offer the MSC an important educational opportunity. 

Presently this is not being capitalized on, 

and should be. 

The MSC Standard is based on the MSC’s (1998) 

“Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries.” 

(See “The Marine Stewardship Council’s Principles 

and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries” box.) The 

Principles and Criteria are “indicators against 

which a fishery may be compared to enable it to 

make a claim that the fish it sells on to retailers, 

processors, and consumers emanates from a sustainable 

and well-managed source” (MSC 1998). 

The Principles and Criteria were developed based 

on the assumption that a sustainable fishery “is 

conducted in such a way that: 

•it can be continued indefinitely at a reasonable 

level; 

•it maintains, and seeks to maximize, ecological 

health and abundance; 

•it maintains the diversity, structure, and function 

of the ecosystem on which it depends, as well as 

the quality of its habitat, minimizing the adverse 

effects that it causes; 

•it is managed and operated in a responsible 

manner, in conformity with local, national, and 

international laws and regulations; 

•it maintains present and future economic and 

social options and benefits; 

•it is conducted in a socially and economically 

fair and responsible manner” (MSC 1998). 

Consumer interest in seafood continues to grow. 

Overlaying this growth is a phenomenal increase 

in market demand for organic and sustainable 

foods. Certification is an exciting opportunity 

for the spot prawn fishery to capitalize on these 

trends. A recent US survey found that 70% of 

those surveyed would prefer to purchase seafood 

that was eco-labeled as having been harvested 

from a sustainable source (www.riaes.org/ 

resources/library). MSC certification in all or a 

portion of the spot prawn fishery would formally 

recognize good management practices, provide 

incentives for innovative and improved management 

systems, offer preferential supplier status, 

expand markets for new product, and potentially 

improve financial returns for the industry. 

WHERE TO FROM HERE 

The spot prawn fishery has great potential to be 

an exception to the ecological and social destruction 

that typifies other shrimp fisheries. It provides 

an avenue for actively illustrating what is meant by 

marine sustainability. APEX’s Spot Prawn Project 

will apply the principles of Ecological Economics 

and Ecosystem Health to the marine environment 

for the first time. It will show how the real-world 

application of these theories can effectively shift a 

fishery toward long-term ecological, economic, 

and sociocultural sustainability. 

The Spot Prawn Fishery: A Status Report details 

the state of ecological knowledge and the range and 

diversity of existing science and management systems, 

and outlines a series of recommendations 

aimed at charting a more sustainable course for the 

fishery. The Status Report is the first review of its 

kind. It is a work in progress and will therefore 

require improvement and revision. APEX plans to 

update it in the next 12–18 months. Nevertheless, in 

its current form it serves as an effective platform for 

envisioning a sustainable fishery and initiating col- 

56


laborative discussion of the changes necessary to 

guarantee the sustainability of the spot prawn fishery. 

APEX hopes to obtain comments and criticisms 

from as wide a range of interests as possible. We 

expect that this information will be obtained 

through informal discussions and meetings. In 

addition, APEX will host a series of more formal 

meetings. First, we plan to organize a gathering at 

which scientists and managers can come together 

to share information, management strategies, and 

possibly a vision for the future. This will be followed 

by a series of regional workshops where all 

interested parties can roll up their sleeves and 

start the hard work of moving past rhetoric to 

begin co-creating a sustainable future for the 

spot prawn fishery. 

REFERENCES 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2000. 

Commercial Shellfish Fishing Regulations. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1985. Alaska 

Habitat Management Guide, Southcentral Region, 

Volume 1: Life Histories and Habitat Requirements 

of Fish and Wildlife: Shrimp—Pandalus: borealis 

goniurus, platyceros, hypsinotus, and dispar. 

Juneau, Alaska: ADFG—Division of Habitat. 

Anderson, P. Kodiak Fisheries Research Center. 

August 2001. Pers. comm. 

Aronson, R.B. 1989. Brittlestar beds: low-predation 

anachronisms in the British Isles. Ecology 

70:856–865. 

Associated Press. 21 September 2001. More 

International Cooperation Needed on Fishing, 

Says U.N. 

Aubert, H., and D.V. Lightner. 2000. Identification 

of genetic populations of the pacific blue shrimp 

Penaeus stylirostris of the Gulf of California, 

Mexico. Marine Biology, 137:875–885. 

Berenboim, B.I., I.Y. Panomarenko, and N.A. 

Yaragina. 1996. On “predator-prey” relationship 

between cod and shrimp Pandalus borealis in the 

Barents Sea. ICES-CM-1986/G:21. 

Bishop, G. ADFG. March 2001. Pers. comm. 

Boutillier, J.A. Pacific Biological Station: Fisheries 

and Oceans Canada. October 2001. Pers. comm. 


and Oceans Canada. September 2001. Pers. comm. 


and Oceans Canada. June 2001. Pers. comm. 


and Oceans Canada. April 2001. Pers. comm. 


and Oceans Canada. March 2001. Pers. comm. 

Boutillier, J.A., and J.A. Bond. 1999a. A Progress 

Report on the Control of Growth and Recruitment 

Overfishing in the Shrimp Trap Fishery in British 

Columbia. Research Document 99/202. Fisheries 

and Oceans Canada: Pacific Biological Station. 

Boutillier, J.A., and J.A. Bond. 1999b. Implications 

on Assessment of the British Columbia Prawn 

Populations with the Adoption of a Quota 

Management System. Research Document 99/130. 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Pacific Biological 

Station. 

Bower, S.M., G.R. Meyers, and J.A. Boutillier. 1996. 

Stained prawn disease (SPD) of Pandalus platyceros 

in British Columbia, Canada, caused by rickettsial 

infection. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 

24:41–54. 

Bower, S.M., and J.A. Boutillier. 1990. Sylon 

(Crustacea: Rhizocephala) Infections on the 

Shrimp in British Columbia. In Pathology in 

Marine Science. Perkins, S.O., and T.C. Cheng 

(eds.). Academic Press. 

Butler, T.H. 1980. Shrimps of the Pacific Coast of 

Canada. Canadian Fisheries Bulletin of Aquatic 

Science 202:280. 

Butler, T.H. 1970. Synopsis of biological data on 

the prawn (Pandalus platyceros, Brandt 1851) FAO 

Fisheries Synopsis 95:1289–1315. 

Butler, T.H. 1964. Growth, reproduction and distribution 

of pandalid shrimp in British Columbia. 

Journal of Fisheries Research Canada 

21:1403–1452. 

Cain, T. WDFW. September 2001. Pers. comm. 

Cain, T. WDFW. March 2001. Pers. comm. 

57


California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries 

Investigations Reports. 2000. Fisheries Review 

41:12–13. 

California Department of Fish and Game. 1999 

(May 5 and 6). Department Report on Commercial 

Spot Prawn Fishery and Request for Authorization 

to Publish Notice of Commission Intent to Amend 

Section 120.3, Title 14, CCR, RE: Commercial Spot 

Prawn Fishery. Fish and Game Commission 

Meeting: Sacramento, California. 

California Department of Fish and Game. 1995. 

Draft Environmental Document: Spot Prawn Commercial 

Fishing Regulations. State of California, The 

Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. 

California Fish and Game Commission. 2000a. 

State of California Fish and Game Commission— 

Final Statement of Purpose for Regulatory Action. 

California Fish and Game Commission. 2000b. 

California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 

120. 

Commission of the European Communities. 2000. 

Application of the Precautionary Principle and 

Multiannual Arrangements for Setting TACs. 

Communication from the Commission to the 

Council and the European Parliament. COM 

(2000) 803 Final. Brussels. 

Costanza, R., J. Cumberland, H. Daly, R. Goodland, 

and R. Norgaard. 1997. An Introduction to 

Ecological Economics. Florida: St. Lucie Press. 

Costanza, R., B.G. Norton, and B.D. Haskell (eds). 

1992. Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environmental 

Management. California: Island Press. 

DeVore, J. Pacific Fisheries Management Council. 

October 2001. Pers comm. 

Ebbesmeyer, C.C., G.C. Cannon, and C.A. Barnes. 

1984. Synthesis of current measurements in Puget 

Sound, Washington. Volume 3. Circulation in Puget 

Sound: An interpretation based on historical 

records of currents. NOAA-Technical Memo. 

FAO. see United Nations Food and Agriculture 

Organization. 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2001. Pacific 

Region—Integrated Fisheries Management Plan: 

Prawn and Shrimp by Trap, Internet Information 

Supplement. www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ops/fm/ 

shellfish/Prawn. 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2000a. Pacific 


Prawn and Shrimp by Trap, April 2000 to March 2001. 

www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ops/fm/shellfish/Prawn. 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2000b. Pacific 


Shrimp by Trawl, 2000/2001. www.pac.dfompo.gc.ca/ops/fm/shellfish/Prawn. 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2000c. Prawn 

Fishery—Pacific Region: Prawn Biological 

Sampling. www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ops/fm/shellfish/Prawn/prawnbio.htm. 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2000d. Prawn 

Fishery—Pacific Region: Prawn Gear. www.pac.dfompo.gc.ca/ops/fm/shellfish/Prawn/ 

prawn gr.htm. 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2000e. Prawn 

Fishery—Pacific Region: History of the Fishery. 

www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ops/fm/shellfish/Prawn/ 

history.htm. 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 1999a. Prawn, 

Pandalus platyceros, off the West Coast of Canada. 

DFO Science and Stock Status Report C6-07. 

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 1999b. 10 Year 

Commercial Fishery Trends. www.pac.dfompo.gc.ca/ops/fm/shellfish/Prawn/trends.htm. 

Fyfe, D. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. 

June 2001. Pers. comm. 

Fyfe, D. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. 

May 2001. Pers. comm. 

Garcia, S.M. 1996. Stock-Recruitment Relationships 

and the Precautionary Approach to Management of 

Tropical Shrimp Fisheries. Marine and Freshwater 

Research 47:43–58. 

Glavin, T. 1996. Dead Reckoning: Confronting the 

Crisis in Pacific Fisheries. Seattle: The Mountaineers. 

Hannah, B. ODFW—Marine Program. March 2001. 

Pers. comm. 

Hickey, B.M. 1997. Response of a narrow submarine 

canyon to strong wind forcing. Journal of Physical 

Oceanography 27(5):697–726. 

58


Hickey, B.M. 1995. Coastal Submarine Canyons. 

Proceedings of the University of Hawaii’Aha 

Huliko’a Workshop on Flow Topography 

Interactions, Honolulu, Hawaii: SOEST Special 

Publication. Mueller, P., and D. Henderson (eds). 

Kimker, A., W. Donaldson, and W.R. Bechtol. 1996. 

Spot shrimp growth in Unakwik Inlet, Prince 

William Sound, Alaska. Alaska Fisheries Research 

Bulletin 3(1):1–8. 

Klinck, J.M. 1996. Circulation near submarine 

canyons: A modeling study. Journal of Geophysical 

Research 101(C1):1211–1223. 

Koeneman, T., and C.A. Botelho. 2000a. Report to 

the Board of Fisheries—Southeast Shrimp Otter 

Trawl Fishery—Regional Information Report No. 

1J99-47. Alaska Department of Fish and Game— 

Division of Commercial Fisheries: Juneau, Alaska. 

Koeneman, T., and C.A. Botelho. 2000b. Report to 

the Board of Fisheries—Southeast Alaska Shrimp 

Beam Trawl Fishery—Regional Information Report 

No. 1J99-47. Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game—Division of Commercial Fisheries: Juneau, 

Alaska. 

Koeneman, T., and C.A Botelho. 2000c. Report to 

the Board of Fisheries—Southeast Alaska Shrimp 

Pot Fishery—Regional Information Report No. 

1J99-47. Alaska Department of Fish and Game— 

Division of Commercial Fisheries: Juneau, Alaska. 

Larson, M.L. Spot Prawns. In California’s Living 

Marine Resources and their Utilization. Sea Grant 

Extension Publication, in press. 

Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County Almanac. New 

York: Ballantine Books. 

Levins, R. 1969. Some demographic and genetic 

consequences of environmental heterogeneity for 

biological control. Bulletin of the Entomological 

Society of America 15:237–240. 

Love, D. ADFG. September 2001. Pers. comm. 

Love, D. ADFG. June 2001. Pers. comm. 

Love, D. ADFG. May 2001. Pers. comm. 

Love, D. ADFG. April 2001. Pers. comm. 

Love, D. ADFG. March 2001. Pers. comm. 

Love, D. ADFG. February 2001. Pers. comm. 

Lowry, N. University of Washington School of 

Fisheries. May 2001. Pers. comm. 

Lowry, N. 2000. Spot prawn structure and management. 

Sea Grant Project Summary: Washington 

Sea Grant Program 2001, 2002, 2003. 

http://students.washington.edu/lowry/prawns/ 

seagrantsummary.html. 

Marine Fish Conservation Network. 13 February 

2001. Media Release: Commerce Department finds 

record high number of U.S. fish stocks in jeopardy—Conservationists 

and fishermen seek 

stronger laws and enforcement. www.conserve 

fish.org. 

Marine Stewardship Council. October 1998. 

Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing. 

Arlie House Draft. Issue 1. 

Marine Stewardship Council. www.msc.org. 

Marliave, J.B., and M. Roth. 1995. Agarum kelp 

beds as nursery habitat of spot prawns Pandalus 

platyecerus. Brandt, 1851 (Decapoda, Caridea). 

Crustaceana 68(1). 

MCBI. 1998. Troubled Waters: A Call to Action. 

www.mcbi.org. 

McCrae, J. 1994. Oregon Developmental Species: 

Spot Prawns (Pandalus platyceros). Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Marine Program: 

Newport, OR. 

www.hmsc.orst.edu/odfw/devfish/sp/prawn.html. 

McGinn, A.P. 1998. Rocking the Boat: Conserving 

Fisheries and Protecting Jobs. Worldwatch Paper 

142. Worldwatch: Washington DC. 

Murray, S.N. et al. 1999. No-take reserve networks: 

Sustaining fishery populations and marine ecosystems. 

Fisheries 24(11):11–25. 

National Fisherman. 2001. Pacific Prawns. June:19. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. July 1999a. 

Fisheries of the United States, 1998. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 6 July 1999b. 

www.st.nmfs.gov/ows-trade_cmprsn_prdct_ 

allcntys.sh. 

59


Northwest Indian Fisheries Commision (NWIFC). 

2000. Commission Comprehensive Tribal Shellfish 

Management 

www.nwifc.wa.gov/ctnrm/2000_shellfish.htm. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Marine 

Program. 2001. Developmental Fisheries Program. 

www.hmsc.orst.edu/odfw/devfish/index.html. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Marine 

Program. 2000. Update on the Spot Prawn 

Developmental Fishery in Oregon. 

Orensanz, J.M., J. Armstrong, D. Armstrong, and R. 

Hilborn. 1998. Crustacean resources are vulnerable 

to serial depletion—The multifaceted decline of crab 

and shrimp fisheries in the Greater Gulf of Alaska. 

Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries. 8:117–176. 

Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The 

Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. 

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

O’Toole, M. WDFW. June 2001. Pers. comm. 

O’Toole, M. WDFW. May 2001. Pers. comm. 

O’Toole, M. WDFW. March 2001. Pers. comm. 

Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC). 

November 2001. Evaluation of Bycatch and 

Discard in the West Coast Groundfish Fishery. 

Exhibit C.3 Supplemental Attachment 3. 

Pacific Ocean Conservation Network. 2001. 

Marine Reserves. 

Paust, B. University of Alaska, Marine Advisory 

Program. June 2001. Pers. comm. 

Pinkerton, E., and M. Weinstein. 1995. Fisheries 

That Work: Sustainability through Community 

Management. Vancouver: David Suzuki 

Foundation. 

Reilly, P. CDFG. June 2001. Pers. comm. 

Reilly, P. CDFG. March 2001. Pers. comm. 

Reilly, P. CDFG. February 2001. Pers. comm. 

Rowley, R.J. 1994. Marine reserves in fisheries 

management (case studies and reviews). Aquatic 

Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 

4:233–254. 

Safina, C. 1998. Song for the Blue Ocean: 

Encounters along the World’s Coasts and Beneath 

the Seas. New York: Henry Holt and Co. 

Schlining, K.L. 1999. The spot prawn (Pandalus 

platyceros) resource in Carmel submarine canyon, 

California: Aspects of fisheries and habitat associations. 

M.Sc. thesis, California State University, 

Stanislaus, May 1999. 

Schlining, K.L., and J.D. Sprat. 1999. Assessment of 

the Carmel Bay spot prawn, Pandalus platyceros, 

resource and trap fishery adjacent to an ecological 

reserve in central California. In The Biodiversity 

Crisis and Crustacea: Proceedings of the Fourth 

International Crustacean Congress, Amsterdam, the 

Netherlands, July 20–24, 1998. 

Sladek Nowlis, J., and C.M. Roberts. 1999. Fisheries 

benefits and optimal design of marine reserves. 

Fisheries Bulletin 97:604–616. 

Suchanek, P. ADFG. April 2001. Pers. comm. 

Sunada, J.S., and J.B. Richards. 1992. Spot Prawns. 

In California’s Living Marine Resources and their 

Utilization: Spot Prawns. W.S. Leet, C.M. Dewees, 

C.W. Haugen (eds). Sea Grant Extension 

Publication: UCSGEP-92-12:10–11. 

Sunada, J.S. 1984. Spot Prawns (Pandalus platyceros) 

and Ridgeback Prawn (Sicyonia ingentis) 

Fisheries in the Santa Barbara Channel. In 

California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries 

Investigations Reports. I. Barrett, H. Frey, J. Reid 

(eds). XXV:100–104. 

Toy, K. Tulalip Tribe Fisheries Department. 

September 2001. Pers. comm. 

Trowbridge, C. 1994. Prince William Sound 

Management Area 1994 Shellfish Report to the 

Alaska Board of Fisheries 2A94-10. Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game. 

United Nations’ Food and Agriculture 

Organization (FAO). 1997. The State of World 

Fisheries and Aquaculture, 1996. Rome:FAO. 

United Nations’ Food and Agriculture 

Organization (FAO). 1995a. Precautionary 

Reference Points and Some Proposals for Their 

Use in Data Poor Situations. Technical Paper 379. 

Rome:FAO. 

60


United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization 

(FAO). 1995b. Precautionary Approach to Capture 

Fisheries. Technical Paper 350. Rome:FAO. 

United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization 

(FAO). 1995c. Code of Conduct for Responsible 

Fisheries. Rome:FAO. 

United States Department of Agriculture— 

Economic Research Service. 10 October 2001. 

Aquaculture Outlook—Supplement to the 

Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Situation Outlook. 

Vandermeer, J., and R. Carvajal. 2001. 

Metapopulation Dynamics and the Quality of the 

Matrix. American Naturalist 158(3):211–220. 

Wargo, L. WDFW. September 2001. Pers. comm. 

Wargo, L. WDFW. May 2001. Pers. comm. 

Wargo, L. WDFW. March 2001. Pers. comm. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(WDFW). 2001a. Puget Sound (Excluding Hood 

Canal) Pandalid Shrimp Harvest Management Plan. 


(WDFW). 2001b. 2001 Hood Canal Shrimp Harvest 

Management Plan Between the Point No Point 

Treaty Tribes and the State of Washington. 


(WDFW). 2001c. Spot Prawn: History of the 

Washington Coastal Fishery (Draft). 


(WDFW). 2000. Puget Sound Shrimp Quotas and 

Landings. 


(WDFW). 1999. Puget Sound Shrimp Quotas and 

Landings. 


(WDFW). 1998. Puget Sound (Excluding Hood 

Canal) Pandalid Shrimp Harvest Management 

Plan. 

Watson, L.J. 1994. ADFG Wildlife Notebook Series: 

Shrimp. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 

White, A.T., L.Z. Hale, Y. Renard, and L. Cortesi 

(eds). 1994. Collaborative Community-Based 

Management of Coral Reefs: Lessons from 

Experience. Connecticut: Kumarian Press. 

Williams, P. Suquamish Tribe Fisheries 

Department. May 2001. Pers. comm. 

Witman, J.D., and K.P. Sebens. 1992. Regional variation 

in fish predation intensity: A historical perspective 

in the Gulf of Maine. Oecologia (Berlin) 

90:305–315. 

Wong, S. SeaPlus. September 2001. Pers. comm. 

Wong, S. SeaPlus. June 2001. Pers. comm. 

www.riaes.org/resources/library 

Zhang, Z.Y. 1999. A Review of Assessment Tools for 

Data Limited Fisheries. Research Document 

99/194. Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Pacific 

Biological Station. 

Zheng, J., T.J. Quinn II, and G.H. Kruse. 1993. Comparison 

and Evaluation of Threshold Estimation 

Methods for Exploited Fish Populations. In Proceedings 

of the International Symposium on Management 

Strategies for Exploited Fish Populations 

(Kruse, G., et al., eds). Alaska Sea Grant College 

Program Report No. 93-02. University of Alaska, 

Fairbanks. 

CONTACTS AND INTERVIEWEES 

Alaska 

Paul Anderson 

Kodiak Fisheries Research Center 

301 Research Court 

Kodiak, AK 99615 

phone 907.481.1723 

paul.j.anderson@noaa.gov 

Gretchen Bishop 

ADFG—Juneau 

P.O. Box 25526 

Juneau, AK 99802 

phone 907.465.4269 

gretchen_bishop@fishgame.state.ak.us 

Dorothy Childers 

Alaska Marine Conservation Council 

P.O. Box 101145 

Anchorage, AK 99510 

phone 907.277.5375 

fax 907.277.5975 

dorothy@akmarine.org 

61


www.akmarine.org 

Rich Gustafson 

ADFG-Homer 

3298 Douglas Place 

Homer, AK 99603 

phone 907.235.8191 

Kathy Hansen 

Southeast Alaska Fishermen’s Alliance 

9369 North Douglas Highway 


phone 907.586.6652 

seafa@gci.net 

http://home.gci.net/~seafa 

Dave Jackson 

ADFG—Kodiak 

211 Mission Road 


phone 907.486.1840 

dave_jackson@fishgame.state.ak.us 

David Love 

ADFG—Petersburg 

Petersburg, AK 99833 

phone 907.772.5238 

david_love@adfg.state.ak.us 

Brian Paust 

University of Alaska 

Marine Advisory Program 

P.O. Box 1329 

Petersburg, AK 99833 

bcpaust@alaska.net 

John Scoblic 

Norquest Seafood 

P.O. Box 6092 

Ketchikan, AK 99901 

phone 907.225.6664 

jscoblic@norquest.com 

Scott Smiley 

University of Alaska 

Fishery Industrial Technology Center 

118 Trident Way 


phone 907.486.1500 

fax 907.486.1540 

ffsts@uaf.edu 

Paul Suchanek 

ADFG—Sportfish 

P.O. Box 240020 

Douglas, AK 99824 

Paul_Suchanek@adfg.state.ak.us 

Charles Trowbridge 

ADFG-Homer 

3298 Douglas Place 

Homer, AK 99603 

phone 907.235.1726 

Doug Woodby 

ADFG—Commercial Fisheries Division 

P.O. Box 25526 


doug_woodby@adfg.state.ak.us 

British Columbia 

Jim Boutillier 


Pacific Biological Station 

3190 Hammond Bay Road 

Nanaimo, BC, Canada V9R 5K6 

phone 250.756.7048 

fax 250.756.7138 

boutillierj@pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca 

Mike Kattilakoski 





phone 250.756.7315 

fax 250.756.7118 

kattilakoskim@pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca 

Natalie Lerch 

Keith Symington 

Canadian Parks and Wilderness 

475 Howe Street, Suite 502 

Vancouver, BC, Canada V6C 2B3 

phone 604.685.7445 

marine@cpawsbc.org 

www.cpaws.org 

Jim Morrison 





morrisonj@pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca 

Tom Orr 

1007 Damelart Way 

Brentwood Bay, BC, Canada V8M 1H7 

phone 250.652.4608 

mtorr@home.com 

62


Stephen Wong 

SeaPlus 

3900 Viking Way 

Richmond, BC, Canada V6V 1N6 

phone 604.273.6686 

seapluscan@telus.net 

Washington 

Therese Cain 

Shellfish Management 

WDFW—Pt. Whitney Shellfish Lab 

1000 Point Whitney Road 

Brinnon, WA 98320 

phone 360.586.1499 ext. 210 

caintac@dfw.wa.gov 

Rich Childers 

Fish Program 

WDFW—Pt. Whitney Shellfish Lab 

1000 Point Whitney Road 

Brinnon, WA 98320 

phone 360.796.4601 ext. 400 

fax 360.796.4997 

childrkc@dfw.wa.gov 

Isabel de la Torre 

Industrial Shrimp Action Network 

14420 Duryea Lane 

Tacoma, WA 98444 

phone 253.539.5272 

fax 253.539.5054 

isatorre@seanet.com 

David Fyfe 

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 

P.O. Box 498 

Suquamish, WA 98392 

phone 360.598.6077 

dfyfe@nwifc.wa.gov 

Jim Gibson 

Skagit Fisheries 

P.O. Box 368 

LaConner, WA 98257 

phone 360.466.7238 

fax 360.466.4047 

biology@sos.net 

Randy Hatch 

Point-No-Point Treaty Council 

7999 Salish Lane 

Kingston, WA 98346 

phone 360.297.6536 

rhatch@silverlink.net 

Jim Humphreys 

Marine Stewardship Council 

2110 N. Pacific Street, Suite 102 

Seattle, WA 98103 

phone 206.691.0188 

fax 206.691.0190 

Jim.Humphreys@msc.org 

www.msc.org 

Steve Kuchin 

13042 Thompson Road 

Anacortes, WA 98221 

phone 360.293.8495 

fax 360.293.6255 

Nick Lowry 

University of Washington 

School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences 

P.O. Box 355020 

Seattle, WA 98195-5020 

phone 206.221.6884 

lowry@washington.edu 

www.fish.washington.edu/people/nlowry 

Mark O’Toole 

WDFW—LaConner 

P.O. Box 1100 

LaConner, WA 98257 

phone 360.466.4345 ext. 241 

otoolmfo@dfw.wa.gov 

Kelly Toy 

Tulalip Fisheries 

7615 Totem Beach Road 

Marysville, WA 98271 

phone 360.651.4489 

ktoy@tulalip.nsn.us 

Lorna Wargo 

WDFW—Montesano 

46 Devonshire Road 

Montesano, WA 98563 

phone 360.249.1221 

wargollw@dfw.wa.gov 

Paul Williams 

Shellfish Program Manager 

Suquamish Tribe 

P.O. Box 498 

Suquamish, WA 98392 

phone 360.394.5253 

fax 360.598.4666 

pwilliams@suquamish.nsn.us 

63


Oregon 

John DeVore 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 200 

Portland, OR 97220-1384 

phone 503.326.6352 

john.devore@noaa.gov 

Bob Hannah 

ODFW—Shellfish 

Hatfield Marine Science Center 

2030 SE Marine Science Drive 

Newport, OR 97365 

phone 541.867.4741 ext. 231 

bob.hannah@hmsc.orst.edu 

Keith Matteson 

ODFW—Marine Resources Program 




phone 541.867.4741 

keith.matteson@hmsc.orst.edu 

Jean McCrae 

ODFW—Developmental Fisheries Program 




phone 541.867.4741 

jean.mccrae@hmsc.orst.edu 

California 

Jennifer Bloeser 

Pacific Marine Conservation Council 

phone 707.822.4494 

jennifer@pmcc.org 

Bruce Campbell 

1471 Watson Way 

Vista, CA 92083 

Rod Fujita 

Environmental Defense 

5655 College Avenue 

Oakland, CA 94618 

phone 510.658.8008 

fax 510.658.0630 

rfujita@environmentaldefense.org 

Karen Garrison 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

71 Stevenson Street, Suite 1825 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

phone 415.777.0220 

fax 415.495.5996 

kgarrison@nrdc.org 

Joe Geever 

American Oceans Campaign 

6030 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 400 

Los Angeles, CA 90036 

phone 323.936.2242 

jgeever@americanoceans.org 

John Guth 

California Lobster and 

Trap Fishermen’s Association 

29955 Robbie Lane 

Vista, CA 92084 

phone 760.631.7438 

Burr Heneman 

Bolinas, CA 

phone 415.868.1460 

burr@igc.org 

Julia Novy Hildesley 

World Wildlife Fund 

171 Forest Avenue 

Palo Alto, CA 94301 

phone 650.323.3538 

julia.novy@wwfus.org 

Douglas Knapton 

Lobster Lounge—Live Seafood 

3721 Ingraham 

San Diego, CA 92109 

phone 619.890.0624 

Mary L. Larson 

CDFG—Los Alamitos 

4665 Lampson, Suite C 

Los Alamitos, CA 90720 

phone 562.342.7186 

fax 562.342.7139 

mlarson@dfg.ca.gov 

Paul Reilly 

CDFG—Monterey 

20 Lower Ragsdale Drive 

Monterey, CA 93940 

phone 831.649.2979 

preilly@dfg.ca.gov 

Karen Reyna 

Pacific Ocean Conservation Network 

116 New Montgomery Street, Suite 810 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

phone 415.979.0900 

fax 415.979.0901 

64


kreyna@oceanconservancyca.org 

www.oceanconservancy.org 

Kyra Schlining 

MBARI 

7700 Sandholdt Road 

Moss Landing, CA 95039 

phone 831.775.1700 

fax 831.775.1620 

schlin@mbari.org 

Valerie Taylor 

CDFG—Los Alamitos 

4665 Lampson Avenue, Suite C 

Los Alamitos, CA 90720 

phone 562.342.7170 

fax 562.342.7139 

vtaylor@dfg.gov.ca 

Michael Weber 

228-1/2 South Juanita Avenue 

Redondo Beach, CA 90277 

phone 310.316.0599 

fax 310.316.8509 

MleoWeber@aol.com 

Steve Webster 

Monterey Bay Aquarium 

886 Cannery Row 

Monterey, CA 93940 

phone 831.648.4864 

swebster@mbayaq.org 

65

The Spot Prawn Fishery: A Status Report - Earth Economics

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?