Impacts from proposed conservation plans in the US Atlantic menhaden industry are examined in this paper. The regulations have been proposed because of concerns that fishing pressure has been too intense on juvenile menhaden. The impacts are examined by the use of a bioeconomic model in which a time-dynamic and geography-specific framework is employed. The results indicate that a shorter fishing season would redistribute the existing pattern of catches and income. The whole industry would experience a net gain but the gainers and losers are clearly delineated spatially and temporally.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AMAC, 1982, “Final copy of AMAC report on status and management recommendations for the purse-seine fishery”, Atlantic Menhaden Advisory Committee, National Marine Fisheries Service Laboratory, Beaufort, NC 28516–9722, USA
2.
ASMFC, 1981, “Fishery management plan for Atlantic menhaden”, Fisheries Management Report Number 2, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 1717 Massachusetts Avenue, Washington, DC 20036, USA
3.
BiomoV JOrbachMMaioloJ, 1983, “Estimated socio-economic impacts in North Carolina of a shortened menhaden season” University of North Carolina Sea Grant College Program Working Paper 83–4, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27650
4.
EpperlyS P, 1982, “Management alternatives for Atlantic menhaden fishery from analysis of season closure strategies” Report submitted to the Atlantic Menhaden Advisory Committee (AMAC), National Marine Fisheries Service Laboratory, NC 28516–9722, USA
5.
EpperlyS PLenarzW HMasseyL LNelsonW R, 1979, “A generalized computer program for yield per recruit analysis of a migrating population with area-specific growth and mortality rates”, copy available from the National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center, Beaufort, NC 28516–9722, USA
6.
GatesJ MNortonV J, 1974, “The benefits of fisheries regulation: A case study of the New England yellowtail flounder fishery” Marine technical report number 21, Department of Resource Economics, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island 02881
7.
HuppertD D, 1980, “An analysis of the United States demand for fish meal”Fishery Bulletin75267–276
8.
NCDMF, 1975–81, Unpublished data, North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, PO Box 769, Morehead City, NC 28557–0769, USA
9.
RickerW E, 1975, “Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations”Department of Environment, Bulletin 191, Fisheries Research Board, Ottawa, Canada
10.
SchmitzASecklerD, 1970, “Mechanized agriculture and social welfare: The case of the tomato harvester”American Journal of Agricultural Economics52569–577
11.
The Feed Bulletin1982, December issue (Jacobsen Publications, Chicago, IL)
12.
US Department of Commerce, 1974–84Fisheries of the United States (Government Printing Office, Washington, DC)
13.
von BertalanffyL, 1938, “A quantitative theory of organic growth. II: Inquiries on growth laws”Human Biology10181–213
