• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Abstract
 Title Page
 Center information
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 List of Figures
 Acknowledgement
 Summary
 Introduction
 Commercial fishing industry in...
 Survey results
 Conclusion
 Appendix
 Reference






Group Title: Industry report - University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station ; no. 79-2 (
Title: Commercial fishing activity and facility needs in Florida
ALL VOLUMES CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027569/00011
 Material Information
Title: Commercial fishing activity and facility needs in Florida Charlotte, Collier, and Lee counties
Series Title: Commercial fishing activity and facility needs in Florida
Alternate Title: Industry report - University of Florida. Florida Agricultural Market Research Center ; 79-2
Physical Description: Book
Creator: Mathis, Kary
Cato, James C.
Degner, Robert L.
Landrum, Paul D.
Prochaska, Fred J.
Publisher: Florida Agricultural Market Research Center, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 1979
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
Florida -- Lee
Florida -- Collier
Florida -- Charlotte
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027569
Volume ID: VID00011
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

Comm%20Fishing%20Activity%20Facility%20Needs%20IR79-2 ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Abstract
        Abstract
    Title Page
        Page i
    Center information
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
    List of Tables
        Page iv
        Page v
        Page vi
    List of Figures
        Page vii
    Acknowledgement
        Page viii
    Summary
        Page ix
        Page x
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
    Commercial fishing industry in the region
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
    Survey results
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
    Conclusion
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
    Appendix
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
    Reference
        Page 87
        Page 88
Full Text




FEBRUARY 1979


TY


COMMERCIAL
AND FACILITY
CHARLOTTE,
LEE COUN


, .. .-. '.`;- -:.< f' ,.
"- "' :.'- .
~4 .


Friday, July 14, 2006.max


rRY REPORT 79-2














ABSTRACT


Information on the commercial seafood industries of Charlotte,

Collier and Lee Counties was obtained from published reports and from a

mail survey of commercial fishermen and seafood dealers. Total seafood

landings in the three counties were valued at $6.8 million in 1971. By

1976, landings had increased in value to $14,9 million. Abouth 650

poeple were engaged in commerical fishing and 25 firms were registered

as dealers. Registrations of commercial boats declined in the three

counties from 1963-64 to 1977-78, but pleasure boat registrations tripled.

Fishermen and dealers noted improvements they felt were needed in facilities

and services in the nrirt; and landing areas used.



Key words: Fish and shellfish landing trends, port improvements,
characteristics of Florida commercial fishermen and seafood dealers.


Friday, July 14, 2006.max


This research was supported in oart by -inft-, from the
Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation, Inc. and from
the State University System of Florida Sea Grant College.













i.:F1Mr IAL FISHING ACTIVITY AND FACILITY NEEDS IN FLORIDA:

CHARLOTTE, COLLIER AND LEE C:JUI:.;IES









a report by
Kary Mathis, James C. Cato, Robert L. Degner,
Paul D. Landrum and Fred J. Prochaska














a research project conducted for the
Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries
Develo':,rernt Foundation, Inc. and Florida Sea Grant










The Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
a part of
The Food and Resource Economics e[-.-artrme:nt
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville, 32611


Friday, July 14, 2006.max












The Florida Agricultural lliJet Research Center

A Service of
the Food and Resource Economics Department
of the
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences




The ur,:ltost of this Center is to provide timely, applied research

on current and emerging marketing problems affection Florida's agri-

cultural and marine industries. The Center seeks to provide research

and information to production, marketing, and processing firms, i .

and organizations concerned with improving and expanding markets for

Florida agricultural and marine products.

The Center is staffed by a basic group of economists trained in

agriculture and marketing. In addition, cooperating personnel from

other IFAS units provide a wide i-rrnp of -e. rc-tise which can be -! :lied

as determined by the requirements of individual projects.






















ii


Friday, July 14, 2006.max













TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES .................................... ......... iv

LIST OF .FPENt IX TABLES ....................................... vi

LIST OF FIGURES ...................................... ......... vii

,'ii. !'i r l.,,, EDGEMENTS .................................. .... ...... .. viii

.i P ,A Y ................ ......................................... ix

INTFP :. 1 ....................... ............ ........... .. .

Population Growth........................................ 5

COMMERP.T i. FISHING INDUSTRY IN THE REGION ....................... 6

Boat Registrations ......................................... 7
Landings ....... ............................ .......... 8
Charlotte County .................................... 8
Collier County ...................................... 8
Lee County ............................................ 13

R'U 'Fir RESULTS ............................................. .... 17

Characteristics of Fishermen .............................. 19
Volumes Handled ....................................... 19
Distances Traveled ................................... 19
Landing Areas Used .................................... 23
Port Facilities: Use and Rating by Fishermen .............. 25
Charlotte County ... .......................... ....... 26
Collier County ...................................... 26
Lee County .......................................... 31
Dealer Characteristics, Facilities Provided and Ratings .... 34
;l,:lotte County ..,..... .......................... 34
Collier County ....................................... 36
Lee County ............................... ... ........ 36

Cr:.'i : USIONS ...................................................... 37

APPENDIX ............................... ........................ 40

Questionnaires ................... ........ ......... 78
Mail Survey Procedures and Responses ....................... 82
Additional Information Sources ............................ 86

RE L RENC .. .......... ... .............. .................. 87


iii


Friday, July 14, 2006.max













LIST OF TABLES


Table 'a ge

1 Florida counties with fish and shellfish landings in excess
of $1 million, 1976, and rank in state, 1976............... 2

2 Population, Charlotte, Collier and Lee Counties, 1940, 1950,
1960, 1970, 1977, and projected 1980, 1I'90, 2000............ 5

3 Boats registered annually in Charlotte, Collier and Lee
Counties, 1963-1964 through 1977-78 ......................... 8

4 Volume and value of landings, Charlotte County, 1971-1976... 9

5 Volume and value of indino., Collier County, 1971-1976..... 10

6 Volume and value of landings, Lee County, 1971-1976......... 14

7 Questionnaire disposition and responses, fisherr.arn survey,
Charlotte, Collier and Lee Counties......................... 18

8 Questionnaire dispositions and responses, dealer survey,
Charlotte, Collier and Lee Counties......................... 20

9 Classification of commercial fishermen in Charlotte, Collier
and Lee Counties by volume of fish and shellfish sold in
1977............ ............... ...... .................... 21

10 Distance from home to port and from port to fishing grounds,
Charlotte County commercial fishermen....................... 22

11 Distance from home to oort and from port to fishing grounds,
Collier County commercial fishermen......................... 22

12 Distance from home to port and from Dort to fishing grounds,
Lee County commercial fishermen............................ 23

13 air.din. areas used by commercial fishermen in Charlotte,
Collier and Lee Counties, 1978 .. .... ..... ..... ........ ... .. 24

14 Groups of facilities and services evaluated by port users
in the central and south Florida survey, 1978............... 25

15 Current and projected use of seafood port facilities by
commercial fishermen in Charlotte County, 1978............. 27

16 Ratings of seafood port facilities by commercial fishermen
in Charlotte County, 1978 ................................... 28


iv


Friday, July 14, 2006.max









LIST OF inued


Table

17 -. -rent and projected use of -,,,, port -. ilities by
commercial fishermen in Collier ^ ., 1978................ 29

18 tings .- seafood port -. ilities by commercial fishermen
in Collier ty, 19"` ....................................

19 Current and ...'. ted use of .' facilities I
commercial fishermen in Lee County, 1 ................... 32

20 of seafood port facilities by commercial fishermen
in Lee County, 1978. ...................................... 33

21 Classification of dealers in -'- lotte, Collier and
Lee ties volume of fish and shellfish handled in
1 ...................... ........... ........ 34

22 Port facilities and services in ^ -lotte, Collier and Lee
Sties: Facilities : and those needing .. t,
accord : to one or more -lers, 1978......................

23 Port facilities and services needing .. as rated
50 .- -. or more commercial fishermen and dealers
r 'ing from Charlotte, -.llier and Lee ^ ties, 1978...




























V


Friday, July 14, 2006.max









LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES


Table Page

1 Average monthly landings of fish and shellfish for Charlotte,
Collier and Lee Counties from 1971-1976........................... 41

2 Total landings of selected fish and shellfish species by months,
Charlotte County, 1971-1976................. ...... ............. 42

3 Total landings of selected fish and shellfish species by months,
Collier County, 1971-1976...................................... 54

4 Total landings of selected fish and shellfish species by months,
Lee County, 1971-1976 .................................. 66

5 Questionnaires mailed and responses or disposition, commercial
fishermen, all counties and Charlotte, Collier, and Lee Counties.. 83

6 Questionnaires mailed and responses or disposition, dealer survey,
all counties and Charlotte, Collier and Lee Counties.............. 84

7 Questionnaires sent, questionnaires returned, and estimated total
active commercial fishermen, 17 central and south Florida counties,
1978 .............................................................. 85





























vi


Friday, July 14, 2006.max









LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Value of fish and shellfish landings by county in Florida,
1976 .............................................................. 3

2 Central and south Florida coastal counties included in study...... 4

3 Volume and value of seafood landings, Charlotte County, 19711-1I/i". 11

4 Average monthly landings of fish and shellfish, Charlotte County,
1971-1976................................... ..................... 11

5 Volume and value of :,.e:,'dJ landings, Collier County, 1971-1976... 12

6 ,,e'-'age monthly larndinru of fish and shellfish, Collier County,
1971-1976................................................ ...... 15

7 Volume and value of seafood landings, Lee County, 1971-1976....... 15

8 ,,.'..,il monthly landings of fish and shellfish, Lee County,
1971-1976........................................................ 16































vii


Friday, July 14, 2006.max












ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


Many people are due thanks for their help in the seafood port study

and in preparing this publication and the others in the series. Financial

support from the Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation,

Inc., and assistance from its Executive Director, Dr. Roger Anderson,

are much appreciated. The Florida Sea Grant program also provided funds

partially supporting this study, and Dr. Hugh Popenoe, FPr.g-.':i Director

is to be thanked.

Mr. Bob Jones of the Southeastern Fisheries Association provided

invaluable assistance, for which we are all grateful. The Florida

Department of Natural Resources was most helpful with a great deal of

valuable information.

Extension Agent Tom '1ir-ray was a valuable adviser throughout this

:.rjiect. Several staff members of the Food and Resource Economics

Department provided valuable assistance. Mr. Scott Woolley was most

competent in performing statistical and cuinmp:ter work, and Mrs. Nancy

Melton provided invaluable expertise in computer programming. Ms.

Patricia Beville and Ms. Ellen Bishop were extremely efficient in

handling the typing and secretarial work, as were Miss Sarah Miller,

Mrs. Becky Hoover and Mrs. Shirley Harris. Miss Carolyn Almeter and

several other career service employees of the Food and Resource Economics

Department spent many hours preparing and mailing questionnaires.

Finally, all the Florida fishermen and seafood dealers who took the

time to complete questionnaires and add comments have our thanks.


viii


Friday, July 14, 2006.max















This is one of a series of four reports on published data and
survey findings cuc ernir" with commercial fishing activity and needed
onshore facilities and services in 17 counties of central and south
Florida: Brevard, Broward, Charlotte, Collier, Dade, Hill;i-..:.t,
Indian River, Lee, Manatee, Martin, Monroe, Palm Beach, Pasco, Pinellas,
St. Lucie, Sarasota, and Volusia.

The three counties discussed here, Charlotte, Collier and Lee,
have experienced very rapid population growth since 1960 and further
increases are projected for the future.

The number of pleasure boats registered in these three counties has
increased from 5,:r L in 1963-64 to 26,331 by 1976-77. Commercial boat
numbers declined from 2,341 to 2,206 duri".- the same period.

Landings in the three counties declined from 1971 to 1976 in volume
but values are greater than in I---. Total landings in all three counties
were valued at $14.9 million in 1976, with shellfish making up 70 percent
of that value.

Landings are highly seasonal in the region, averaging highest in
the winter, and r popping substantially during the summer months.

It is estimated there are about 650 commercial boat owners actively
fishing and 25 dealers operating in the three counties. About half of
all fishermen responding catch 5,000 pounds or less, with 20 percent of
Collier and Lee County fishermen landing 25,.,0i' pounds or more. About
35 percent of Charlotte County fishermen handled over 25,000 pounds.

Most fishermen returning questionnaires from Charlotte County said
they landed at Placida, while the majority from Collier County landed at
Naples or Everglades City. /'b.-,t a third of Lee County fishermen used
Ft. Myers Beach, with a number of others landing at Bokeelia, St. James
City. Pine Island and Matlacha.

Fisnermen use a variety of facilities and services at these landi-.
sites, but fish houses, ice and fuel sales and docks are used by the
greatest number of boat owners. Also, a sizeable number of Lee County
fishermen use repair and supply services.

Dealers offer most facilities for handling the catch and provide
consumable supplies such as bait, ice and fuel. Charlotte and Collier
County dealers offer very few repair facilities, but gear, engine,
electronics and hull repair services are offered by Lee County dealers.



ix


Friday, July 14, 2006.max









Fishermen feel docking needs improvement in most landing sites,
along with gear and electronics repair freezer and cold storage, and
waste disposal facilities. Dealers also would like improved docking and
said they would like improved fish, shrimp and lobster houses, ice
plants, and freezer and cold storage facilities.

Information and assistance is available to groups or individuals
interested in improving commercial seafood facilities and services in
this region. The County Extension Office and other agencies should be
contacted by those desiring help.













































x


Friday, July 14, 2006.max












j.''MIFCIAL FISHING ACTIVITY AND FACILITY E'CD IN FLORIDA:
CHARLOTTE, COLLIER AND LEE :_.li;l.iES

Kary Mathis, James C. Cato, Robert L. Degner,
Paul D. Landrum and Fred J. ru ii.i'ka

,;I; '. -1. 1-. 1UO 11

The commercial seafood industry is an important source of income

and employment al,". Florida's extensive coastline. Values of marine

landings for coastal counties are shown in Figure 1. Of the 35 coastal

counties in Florida, 18 had seafood landings of $1 million or more in

1976. There are however, relatively few major seafood ports, and all of

these are in counties with $1 million or more in landi'. :. values (Table

1). Urban and recreational development in most coastal areas of central

and north Florida has put great pressure on commercial fishermen and

seafood dealers operating there. Counties with seafood landings under

1S million have significant number of fishermen but port and landing

facilities are often limited. Even though the remaining counties have

substantial volumes of seafood and significant numbers of fishermen,

port and landing facilities are often limited. These limitations and

other restrictions may hamper the seafood industry in these areas.

This publication is one of a series of four which reports analysis

of data from published sources and from surveys of commercial fishermen

and seafood dealers in 17 counties of central and south Florida.

Counties included are: Brevard, Broward, Charlotte, Collier, Dade,

Hillsborough, Indian River, Lee, Manatee, Martin, Monroe, Palm Beach,

Pasco, Pinellas, Saint Lucie, Sarasota, and Volusia (Figure 2). The

Kary Mathis, James C. Cato and Fred J. Prochaska are associate pro-
fessors, Robert L. Degner is assistant professor and Paul D. Ln~rilr'Ji is
assistant in food and resource economics, University of Florida.


Friday, July 14, 2006.max






2



Table l.--Florida counties with fish and shellfish landings in excess of
$1 million, and rank in state, 1978.



Value of landings
County Fish Shellfish Total Rank in state

------------- $1,000--------

Bay 3,247 1,790 5,037 5

Brevard 1,120 1,496 2,616 9

Citrus-Pasco 471 1,018 1,489 14

Collier 666 732 1,398 15

Dade 520 2,463 2,984 7

Duval 687 1,702 2,388 10

Escambia 927 1,752 2,679 8

Franklin 431 7,837 8,268 3

Gulf 305 865 1,170 17

Hillsborough 107 2,933 3,103 6

Lee 3,434 9,284 12,718 2

Manatee 1,350 298 1,648 13

Martin 1,013 3 1,016 18

Monroe 3,640 19,965 23,605 1

Nassau 213 1,733 1,946 12

Pinellas 2,169 3,070 5,239 4

St. Lucie 2,353 12 2,365 11

Volusia 662 592 1,254 16

Source: Florida Department of Natural Resources, Summaryof Commer
cial Marine Landings, 1976.


Friday, July 14, 2006.max

















I. I -. -=


3













~'i~ 7,~ I-


K. ..J- ., \ ,











= $1 ,.1 to $2,000,000 '


00,000 to 000,000


SOess than 1:::.. x














Figure l.--Value of fish and shellfish landings by county in Florida.
1976.
1976.


Friday, July 14, 2006.max


, ,' ;
S.,



































SCounties included in this
report.


SCounties included in other
reports in the series.


Figure 2.--Central and south Florida coastal counties included in study.


Friday, July 14, 2006.max







-esearch reported here was done as a continuation of a lee i-roc::t

concerned with the feasibility of seafood industrial port development in

north Florida. Results of the more detailed .'l..ry are reported in a

separate publication (See reference list).

This report is organized into "ou.- major sections: this introduction,

a discussion of the commercial fishing industry in the region, results

of the mail survey, and conclusions. Relevant published data were used

in the first two sections. Summaries of responses by fishermen and

dealers on the mailed questionnaires provided information for the third

section. Relevant information and survey findings are reviewed and

conclusions drawn in the final section.


Population Growth


All 17 .-c;ulties included in this phase of the overall seafood port

stui.. have experienced almost explosive population growth in the past

two decades. ".dIrlotte, Collier and Lee Counties have been one of the

fastest-growing regions in Florida and, indeed, in the entire United

States in recent years. Population in Charlotte and Collier Counties

more than doubled from 1960 to 1970, and grew almost as rapidly in Lee

Count,,, (Table 2).


Table 2.--Population, Charlotte, Collier and Lee Counties, 1940, 1950,
1960, 1970, 1977, and projected 1980, 1990, 2000.



Year Charlotte Collier Lee


1940 3,;ibi 5,102 17,488

1950 4,286 6,488 23,404

1960 12,594 15,753 54,539


Friday, July 14, 2006.max









Table 2.--Continued


Year Charlotte Collier Lee


1970 27,559 38,040 105,216

1977 44,313 68,900 172,330

Projected

1980 51,100 83,800 200,800

1990 70,500 122,500 279,100

2000 81,600 141,800 323,100



Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research.


By 1977, population in each county was more than three times the

1960 level. Moreover, the number of people in this three-county area

is projected to continue increasing to the year 2000.


THE COMMERCIAL FISHING INDUSTRY IN THE REGION


Population growth, and accompanying residential and recreational develop-

ment, has put heavy pressure on waterfront property used by the fishing

and seafood industry. Docking space has been converted from commercial

to recreational use as the number of pleasure boats has increased in the

region.


Boat Registrations

The number of-commercial boats registered in each of.the three

counties has declined over the past 15 years, while the number of pleasure
boats has more than quadrupled. Charlotte County pleasure boat regist-

rations increased from 1,145 in 1963-64 to 4,748 by 1976-77, while


Friday, July 14, 2006.max








commercial registrations dropped from 258 to 180 (Table 3). Commercial

boat numbers in Collier County were almost the same in 1:'Ir.-77 as 15

years earlier, but pleasure boat registrations increased from 1,306 to

6,753, Lee County had the largest number of boats of the three

counties, with 1,345 commercial boats and 14,380 pleasure boats in

1976-77 (Table 3), The patterns of change were similar to those in the

other two counties.


Landings

Charlotte County


Fish make up most of the volume of seafood landings in Charlotte

County (Table 4). Total landings increased substantially from 1971 to

1972, but generally declined from 1972 thlirL-iI. 1976. Values of total

landings increased steadily during the same period, however (Figure 3).

Av.',r.igr monthly landings in Charlotte County are hiolhest in the

winter, with ',-'en:er, December and January the highest months. Landings

drop sharply in February, increase slightly, then drop to another low in

July (Figure 4 and Appendix Table 1). Major fish species landed in

Charlotte County are black mullet, footedd sea trout and red drum.

Blue crab and shrimp constituting virtually all of shellfish landings

(Appendix Table 2).


Collier County

Collier County landings art:e also mainly fish, though shellfish
Yrtequently represent a greater prrcn'potion of value (Table 5). Total

landings declined from 1971 to 1973, jumped sharply in 1974, then d'opp.ed

to 1973 levels by 1976 (Figure 5).


Friday, July 14, 2006.max










Table 3.--Boats registered annually in Charlotte, Collier and Lee Counties, 1963-64 through 1977-78.


Charlotte
Commercial -Pleasure Total


258
248
282
274
222
257
261
243
198
194
139
150
229
180
155


1,145
1,126
1,248
1,305
1,324
1,367
1,496
1,687
1,952
2,163
2,355
3,661b
4,431
4,748
5,167


1,403
1,374
1,530
1,579
1,546
1,624
1,757
1,930
2,150
2,357
2,494
3,811
4,660
4,928
5,322


Boats registered
Collier
Commercial Pleasure Total


686
698
791
771
615
131
766
769
648
625
557
624
785
681
608


1,306
1,411
1,670
1,917
2,226
2,579
3,178
3,631
3,951
4,572
4,784
6,227b
6,574
6,753
6,064


1,992
2,109
2,461
2,688
2,841
2,710
3,944
4,400
4,599
5,197
5,341
6,851
7,359
7,434
7,572


Commercial


1,397
1,415
1,703
1,668
1,387
1,483
1,476
1,490
1,295
1,255
1,121
1,213
1,456
1,345
1,226


Lee
Pleasure Total


3,529
3,715
4,106
4,480
4,053
5,524
6,182
6,874
7,706
8,665
9,304
12,015b
13,427
14,830
15,368


4,926
5,130
4,809
6,148
6,440
7,007
7,658
8,364
9,001
9,920
10,425
13,228
14,883
16,175
16,594


a
July 1 to June 30.
bBefore January 1, 1975, pleasure boats with engines of less than 10 horsepower were not required to be
registered.

Source: Bureau of Boat Registration, Florida Department of :'l.. 1 Resources.


Yeara


1963-64
1964-65
1965-66
1966-67
1967-68
1968-69
1969-70
1970-71
1971-72
1972-732
1973-74
1974-75
1975-76
1976-77
1977-78


--- -- ~---


I


~--------LI---~I---~

















Table 4.--Volume and value of landings, Charlotte Count


Fish Sh(

Year Volume Value Volume


1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976


Pounds

2,525,981

4,244,873

3,667,500

3,690,849

2,939,408

2,203,439


Dollars

310,667

458,923

524,800

547,557

525,913

499,941


ellfish Total

Value Volume Value


Dollars Pounds Dollars

157,048 3,334,054 467,715

201,460 4,850,046 660,383

218,151 4,196,240 742,951

274,088 4,302,715 821,645

261,709 3,395,044 787,622

313,942 2,906,733 813,883


issues, U.S. Department of Commerce.


--------


--C---- ___ ----


:y, 1971-1976.


--~11-~---~~-~111------


Source: FLorida Landings, monthly

















Table 5 .--Volume and value of landings, Collier County, 1971-1976.

Fish Shellfish Total


Volume Value Volume Value Volume Value

ur..-. Dollars Pounds Dollars Pounds Dollars

5,330,211 740,176 719,317 374,499 6,049,528 1,114,675

3,223,668 562,668 922,755 565,928 4,146,423 1,128,596

2,891,920 405,964 1,046,616 724,492 3,938,536 1,130,456

7,600,731 1,533,542 1,281,861 982,731 8,882,592 2,516,273

3,910,711 825,062 1,056,379 872,144 4,967,090 1,697,206

2,639,047 665,917 817,434 731,659 3,456,481 1,397,576


Source: FLorida Landigs, monthly issues, U.S. Department of Commerce.


Year



1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976







11



Vol ue V lue
1,000 Lbs. $1,000

S,000 1,000

Volume


4,/000 0


'"C' Value

3,000 / 600
/



2,000 400




1,000 200





1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976

Figure 3.--Volume and value of seafood landings, Charlotte County, 1971-1976.






800 -

00 -

600








So. .... ... -., -
400 Total

"00

200 _LL


IL I 'L- LILI L L I L I I L L i i

L, 6
Jan. Feb. Mar. April May June July Aug. Spt. Oct. Dec.

Figure 4.--Average monthly landings of fish and shellfish, Charlotte County,
1971-1976.


Friday, July 14, 2006.max



















Value
Vol u $1,000
1,000 Lbs.
10,000 3,000




8,000 2,400

Volume/
/ Value
6,000 1a u- 1,800




4,000 200



6- 00
42000




2,000 600





1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976

Figure 5.--Volume and value of seafood landings, Collier County, 1971-1976.


Friday, July 14, 2006.max








Both fish and shellfish landings show a pronounced seasonal pattern,

with December-March making up most of the year's total (Figure 6 and

Appendix Table 1). As in Charlotte County, black mullet is the leading

fish species landed, but king and Spanish mackerel and grouper are major

species in Collier County. Stone crab is the most important shellfish,

with some landings of spiny lobster (Appendix Table 3). The large

increase in landings in 1974 was due to larger than average volumes of

black mullet, king and Spanish mackerel and stone crab.


Lee County


Landings in Lee County are the largest of the three counties and also

the most stable over the 1971-76 period l(Tale 6). Volume increased

slightly to 1974 then dropped to the 1971 level by 1976, while value of

landings increased throughout (Figure 7).

As with landings in Charlotte and Collier Counties, Lee County volume

is highest in the winter, with December the peak month for both fish and

shellfish. There is somewhat less summer decline than in the other two

counties, however (Figure 8 and Appendix Table 1).

Black mullet is by far the leading fish species in Lee County

landings volume, with spotted sea trout and grouper next in importance.

iJ-parn:an and king and Spanish mackerel are also important species. Shrimp,

stone crab and blue crab make up shellfish landings in Lee County

(Appendix Table 4).


Friday, July 14, 2006.max

















Table 6.--Volume and value of landings,


Fish

Year Volume Value


Pounds Dollars

1971 10,065,603 1,931,728

1972 11,696,862 2,452,932

1973 12,233,031 2,629,934

1974 13,052,575 3,372,722

1975 11,859,726 3,255,965

1976 10,260,332 3,434,445


Source: Florida Landings, monthly


Shellfish

Volume Value


Pounds

5,240,616

5,162,315

5,692,469

6,027,135

5,271,510

5,347,905


Dollars

3,249,382

4,343,213

5,687,475

5,603,121

6,236,398

9,283,720


Total

Volume Value


Pounds

15,306,219

16,859,177

17,925,500

19,079,710

17,131,236

15,608,237


Dollars

5,181,110

6,796,145

8,317,409

8,975,843

9,492,363

12,718,165


issues, U.S. Department of Commerce.


_C--* __~_______;__L;L-r_--Li-1IP-Li_~Cn-iE


_I_ ~ -


- ~------


Lee County, 1971-1976.









1,100 -

1,000

90 -\














S/ATotal
200 ~ SheIf h
I 700

600




400

300
Total

200Shellfish

100
Fish

Jan. Feb. Mar. April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. 0ec.

Figure 6.--Average monthly landings of fish and shellfish, Collier County,
1971-1976.






1,000 Lbs. Value





15,000 12,000




10,000- -- 8,000
Value



5,000 4,000


Friday, July 14, 2006.max


1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976

figure 7.--Volume and value of seafood landings, Lee County, 1971-1976.





























2,400 -



2,200 -



2,000 -



1,800 -



1,600 -



2 1,400 -
0

1,200 -

0
fo


M 1,000 -



800 -



600 -



400 -



200


L
C








4.. :44. L 4 Total L. L .
L L

LI. LI. ..I q ILL I I I t L I L L
Le
LLUL





4. LIII' 4. IL L 4.4.4. I L I L I L 1.4.4.4.11 L- .1 ILL. LI


I IL L I jr -" -- ,ii ----- -r. III IL ii. L L. L. ILi 4.4 Ill 4. .1 .4 1 t IL i-L 4.44.
I LIL LLI .L 44 LI LI 14r. L>.I LI .l l .. 1 LLLI L LL L L. I. >. LL L^I, .
L L.L L l L LLLL. L 4 .. L L L lLLL. L L LI 4LLL.LL
4.14.1 1.4 1 L l L LL ^lI. I LL. L-^ L 6 LLL4 .
14t.1~.4. LI. L L4. ILL I. LLLL .1.II LLLLL L.
Sh L. lL L L L L L
l. t-t-f ll ke l lfish L 6 4 t L C L C 1.
L lN L L LL L L l. L 6C L
L L LLLLL U LILLLLLLLLLL



ULL U. LLI I -L.. .LLLL l. ll L L LL L k L L LLL L U IU
LU. L L L I LL L I L L 4. I LL LL.U L l .4l l L. 6.U. &
l L L L L L ,L t& 6. ll-t. k


SL 1.4.L L L L 6 4L. L L I I L 6L L I .. L U. IL 4. t LII IL
SL L 4 L IL LI L L LL U14L 4 L L LL.4. L L U. L L
4.I.44.UI IIL I -L LL LI .1L III.LCL ILI 4.414.11
L L L L t L L L L IL L LL 1 I. L L. L. L L L L L L .L L 6 L
.L L L U 4 .L L.L4 L 6 L UL LL L L L L L 4.LL L L L L 1 L L L L LI U L U
U .LLL6 L U L 4. L L L L 6L L C L LU L L L&L I% U-6LLLLL.L'
, L LL LLILUCI LULLL 0-LLLCLFL S LL %. L L L L LL L LI L L LL U 1L


SL L L L L L L L L L ILL L LL L L. L L L LL4 L LL L L IL
4 LLI LLL L U C L LLLLL LL L LL6LkUL L L L IL L L. L L L L L L U LL L L i- L LL L L LUL I
L L L L.L. ..l L L L L..L .L I L L L 1 i L LU L
LLL LL 4LUt .LLLL L L i. L lL L. L LL L L L I L .L4 L PL L tUI
4.4.41..4.4.4 .. 14 L4.4.L L L L 1 1 L t14.. 4 LI 1 U \1 14.11
SL l L L L L L L L L L L L L L L. L .L L L L L L L
" L L U6UI L L 4 1, L L L .1L ,L 4.4.L L 1. L L iLi L L U L L L.
SL. L. L L L L L L L LL L L. l. L L L L L. L L L L4 4 L I
AL L L L U L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L._. L Ii. L- L L
14.4.6 4. L14.4L.1114.4.4.4 UL .1, -.4.4.14.4.4.14.114.11114.1.4.14.4.14.4

LL144.4L '1U 6 U LLLLLLLLL4.L LL. L 14.114tL1. L I L


Jan. Feb. Mar. April Hay June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.



Figure 8.--Average monthly landings of fish and shellfish, Lee County,
1971-1976.


Friday, July 14, 2006.max









SURVEY RESULTS


The mail survey conducted during the fall of 1978 provided con-

siderable insight into fishing industry problems in Charlotte, Collier

and Lee Counties. Questionnaires were mailed to all residents in each

county having a commercial boat registered during 1977-78 with the

Florida Department of Natural Resources, and to all seafood dealers

listed with the National Marine Fisheries Service in 1976. Copies

of the questionnaires used are included in the Appendix.

A total of 1,059 questionnaires were sent to commercial boat owners

in all three counties, and 468 or 44 percent were returned (,ADue-rdix

Table 5). The largest number of questionnaires, 677, went to Lee County,

followed by Collier County and Charlotte County (Table 7). The l.rie-t

largest number and percentage of returns were also from Lee County, with

323 or 50 percent

Of the individuals responding, 71 percent in Ch,.lotte County and

jL percent in both Collier County and Lee County still owned one or more

boats and were actively fishing (Table 7). It was assumed that people

who did not return the questionnaire were or were not active commercial

fishermen in the same proportion as those completing the survey. The

percentage still fishing was multiplied times the total number of boat

registrations to provide the estimate of total active commercial fisher-

men in each county. Based on these returns, it was estimated that there

are 67, 176, and 406 commercial fishermen in Charlotte, Collier, and Lee

Counties, respectively (Table 7).

Nine of the 14 dealers responded from Lee County, which had the

largest number of dealers, with four of the six dealers responding from


Friday, July 14, 2006.max









Table 7.--Questionnaire disposition and responses, fisherman survey,
Charlotte, Collier and Lee Counties.



Disposition or County
response Charlotte Collier Lee


Number Percent Number Percent


Number Percent


Total mailed


Returned unable
to deliver

Individuals receiving
questionnaires

Individuals receiving
questionnaires

Questionnaires not
returned


Questionnaires
returned

Questionnaires
returned


5 15


95 273


54 169


46 104


No lrjie? own boat

No longer in business

Still in business

Estimated active
commercial fishermen


12 11 11

17 30 29

71 63 60


176


50 15

80 25


406


a
Not fishing commercially but had commercial boat registration in 1977.


bEstimate is based on the proportion of the respondents still in
business of the total 1977-1978 commercial boat registrations. The number
shown in each county includes only boat owners and not crew members.


Friday, July 14, 2006.max


288


38


639








Charlotte and three of nine from Collier Counties (Table 8). The three

counties together had 29 dealers, 15 percent of the 190 dealers in the

17 coastal counties (Appendix Table 6). Of the 12 dealers returning

questionnaires, four were no longer in business (Table 8).


Characteristics of Fishermen


Volumes Handled


About half of the fishermen responding to the survey from each county

reported catching relatively small amounts of fish. In Charlotte and Collier
,Cunt ies, jst under 50 percent of fhe fischermn ctcrh 5,000 pounnl1 or less

of fish, with 57 percent of respondents in Lee County landing in that volume

category (Table 9). About 35 percent of Charlotte County fishermen and

just over 20 percent of the fishermen in the other two counties are on

the other end of the volume range, catching over 25,000 pounds of fish

annually.

A higher percentage of fisherner selling shellfish in Collier and

Lee Counties handled over 25,Q00 pounds per year than did those handling

fish, but 25 percent of Charlotte County fishermen handled over 25,000 pounds

of shellfish CTable 9).

Distances Traveled


Most Charlotte County fishermen live relatively close to the port or

harbor where their boats are docked and, on the average, do not go far

Of'-hnre. Sixty percent of fishermen in Charlotte County live within three

miles of the port they use, and 79 percent fish within 25 miles of shore

(Table 10). Collier and Lee County fishermen live slightly farther away

from their ports, where 46 and 48 percent, respectively, are within three


Friday, July 14, 2006.max










Table 8 .-Questionnaire dispositions and responses, dealer survey, Charlotte,
Collier, and Lee Counties.


Disposition or




Total mailed

Returned unable
to deliver

Individuals receiving
questionnaires

Individuals receiving
questionnaires

Questionnaires not
returned

Questionnaires
returned

Questionnaires
returned
No longer in business

Still in business


Charlotte


Number Percent

6 100


0 0


6 100


6 100


2 33


4 67


4 100
2 50

2 50


Friday, July 14, 2006.max


County
Collier


Number Percent

9 100


0 0


9 100


9 100


6 67


3 33


3 100
0 0

3 100


Lee


Number

14


0


14


14


9


5


5
2

3


100


0


100


100


64





100
40

60


II


-- --




























9 .--Classification of commercial fishermen in Charlotte, Collier and Lee counties by volume of fish and shellfish sold in 1977.

Fishermen selling

Fish fish

Charlotte Collier Lee Charlotte Collier Lee

S* Percent '.: .:. Number Percent Percent Number Percent

Under 5,000 11 48 24 47 77 57 5 5 31 10 21

5,000-10,000 3 13 10 20 18 13 0 0 3 19 5 11

10,000-25,000 1 4 6 12 12 9 1 12 1 6 7 15

Over 25,000 8 35 11 22 28 21 2 25 7 44 25 53

23 100 51 100 135 100 8 100 16 100 47 100









Table 0.--Distance from home to port and from port to fishing grounds,
Charlotte County commercial fishermen.



Home to Port t- to f 'jf1
Miles Fishermen -1i T i i rir er


Number Percent Number Percent

1 or less 13 52 10 or less 14 58

2-3 2 8 11-25 5 21

4-6 4 16 26-50 3 13

7-10 3 12 51-75 0 0

Over 10 3 12 Over 75 2 8

Total 25 100a 24 100a


Percentage may not sum to 100 due to rounding.


Tablell .--Distance from home to port and
Collier County commercial fish



Home to port


Miles Fi


Number

1 or less 17


2-3

4-6

7-10

Over 10

Total


shermen


Percent

28

18

21

13

20

100a


from port to fishing grounds,
ermen.



Port to fishing grounds
Miles Fishermen


Slufber Percent

10 or less 27 46

11-.b 19 32

26-50 11 19

51-75 2 3


Over 75


0 0

59 100a


Friday, July 14, 2006.max


a
Percentage may not sum to 100 due to rounding.


-~-----









Table 12--Distance from home to port and from port to fishing grounds,
Lee County commercial fishermen.


Miles


1 or less

2-3

4-6

7-10

Over 10

Total


Home to port


Number

56

24

17

18

52

167


Fishermen


Percent

34

14

10

11

31

I uUn


Port to fishinggrounds
Mi es Fishermen

Number Percent

10 or less 93 56

11-25 27 16

26-50 7 4

51-75 7 4

Over 75 32 19

166 1i00


Percentage may not sum to 100 due to rounding.


miles (Tables 11 and 12). About the same proportion as in Charlotte

County fish within 25 miles of shore, however, with 78 percent from Collier

anUd 72 percent from Lee CountU y Ireporting that the usual rIyange of fishing.


Landing -reas Used


Fishermen completing questionnaires indicated their usual landing

areas. Most of the Charlotte County fishermen used Placida (Table 13),

while most Collier Couty fishermen landed in either Naples or Everglades

City. Fishermen from Lee County reported the largest number of landing

places, but about one-third used Fort Myers Beach, with sizeable numbers

landing in Bokeelia, St. James City, Pine Island and Matlacha (Table

13).


Friday, July 14, 2006.max









Table 13.--Landing areas used by commercial fishermen in Charlotte,
Collier and Lee Counties, 1978.



Landing areas Fishermen Landing place Fishieri-iei


Charlotte


Lee


Placida

Punta Gorda

Boca Grande

Total


Collier


Naples

Everglades City

Chokoloskee

Goodland

Bonita Springs

Ft. Myers Beach

Key West

Marathon

Tarpon Springs

Total


Ft. Myers Beach1

Bokeelia

St. James City

Pine Island

IMat LI acha

Ft. Myers

Boca Grande

Piney Point

Estero Island

Punta Rassa

Everglades City

Naples

Key West

Marco Island

Port ",LI i' rt

Port Salerno

St. Lucie

Total


Friday, July 14, 2006.max


48

25

23

17

13

8

5

2

1

1

4

2

1

1

1

1

1

155


-~-- II






25

Port Facilities: Use and Rating by Fishermen


Inadequate, deteriorated or unsuited port facilities can seriously

hamper commercial fishing in a region and retard or prevent growth in

the commercial seafood industry. An important step in identifying

fishing port needs in the five counties studied was determining facilities

available in each port and how well those facilities serve the fishing

industry. The mail survey described earlier asked fishermen and dealers

to specify which facilities and services they used and to evaluate those

facilities.

Port services were grouped into five cate'nriies shown in Table 14.

The mail survey asked fishermen to indicate those facilities and services

used in their port and to rate them as satisfactory or needing improvement.

Dealers were asked which facilities and services they provided and to

indicate those needing addition or improvement. Both commercial fisher-

men and seafood cdalers were given the opportunity to add comments.

Table 14.--Groups of facilities and services evaluated by port users in
the central and south Florida survey, 1978.



Handling and processing Dockinand re

Shrimp unloading house Docking facilities
Crab unloading house Gear storage
Lobster unloading house Gear repair
Fish house Gear supply
Processing unused fish Electronic service
Freezer and cold storage a-ine re:~ir
Marine railway
Supplies Retail
Retail
Bait sales
Ic t Restaurant
Fuel sales Retail seafood market
Groceries Fishermen's meeting room
Waste removal
Solid waste
Liquid waste


Friday, July 14, 2006.max








Charlotte County


The largest number of respondents in Charlotte County used fish

houses, with ice and fuel services being used heavily, as well (Table

15). Docking, marine railway, crab houses, gear supply and diesel

repair were used by significant percentages of fishermen. Only facilities

for processing unused fish and ice plants would be used by more than 20

percent of the fishermen responding, if those facilities were improved

(Table 15).

Docking was the only item needing improvement noted by a significant

share of fishermen. Nine rated docking facilities, with five or 56

percent saying improvement was needed (Table 16).


Collier County


Facilities and services most used in Collier Counity were fish

houses, fuel and ice sales, and docking (Table 17). From 10 to 19

percent of fishermen responding would use gear storage, supply and

repair facilities, and electronics and diesel repair services if added

or improved (Table 17).

Docking was the item used by large numbers of Collier County fisher-

men that they rated most in need of improvement (Table 18). From one-

third to one-half of the fishermen who rated equipment supply and repair

said improvement was needed.

A number of Collier County fishermen made additional comments in

space provided on the questionnaires. Some of the items noted most

often were needs for more dock space and for channel improvement. These

were related to other concerns over waterfront development, river and

estuary pollution, and large numbers of sports fishermen. Commercial


Friday, July 14, 2006.max





27



Table 15.--Current and projected use of seafood port facilities by
commercial fishermen in Charlotte County, 1978.


Fishermen
Facility Currently use Would use

,iunr be' Percent Number Percent

in-rrpi house 4 14 3 10
Crab house 7 24 2 7
Lobster house 0 0 0 0
Fish house 21 73 0 0
Processing unused fish 0 0 6 21
Freezer, cold storage 2 7 3 10

Bait supply 4 14 0 0
Ice plant 12 41 6 21
Fuel sales 14 48 2 7
Groceries 3 10 2 7

Docking 9 31 2 7
Gear storage 1 4 1 4
Gear supply 7 24 1 4
Gear repair 0 0 0 0
Electronics repair 0 0 1 4
Diesel repair 6 21 2 7
Marine railway 9 31 2 7

Restaurant 0 0 2 7
Retail seafood market 2 7 2 7
Fiiniriar's meeting room 1 4 3 10

Solid waste 3 10 0 0
Liquid waste 2 7 1 4

Total responses 29


Friday, July 14, 2006.max











Table 16.--Ratings of seafood port facilities by commercial fishermen
in Charlotte County, 1978.



Fishermen
Rating Saying needs
Facility facility improvement


Number Number Percent

Shrimp house 4 1 25
Crab house 6 1 17
Lobster house
Fish house 20 5 25
Processing unused fish -- --
Freezer, cold storage 2 0 0

Bait supply 3 2 67
Ice plant 11 2 18
Fuel sales 12 2 17
Groceries 3 2 67

Docking 9 5 56
Gear storage 0 0 0
Gear supply 7 1 14
Gear repair
Electronics repair -- --
Diesel repair 5 2 40
Marine railway 7 2 29

Restaurant -- --
Retail seafood market 2 0 0
Fishermen's meeting room 1 0 0

Solid waste 3 2 67
Liquid waste 2 1 50


Friday, July 14, 2006.max






29


Table 17.--Current and projected use of seafood port facilities by
commercial fishermen in Collier County, 1978.


Fishermen
Fac litL L"UrILYtl" use WoUiU Use


Number Percent "'I ,i l Percent

Shrimp house 1 2 0 0
Crab house 15 24 1 2
Lobster house 3 5 1 2
Fish house 54 86 0 0
Processing unused fish 1 2 4 6
Freezer, cold storage 11 18 2 3

Bait supply 15 24 2 3
Ice plant 31 49 2 3
Fuel sales 36 57 0 0
Groceries 9 14 3 5

Docking 32 51 4 6
Gear storage 10 16 6 10
Gear supply 13 21 12 19
Gear repair 9 14 6 10
Electronics repair 11 18 8 13
Diesel repair 17 27 7 11
Marine Railway 14 22 4 6

Restaurant 7 11 3 5
Retail .eafood market 4 6 3 5
Fisherman's meeting room 6 10 5 8

Solid waste 4 6 2 3
Liquid waste 3 5 1 2

Total responses 63 -


Friday, July 14, 2006.max










Table 1&.--Ratings of seafood port facilities by commercial fishermen
in Collier County, 1978.



Fishermen
Rating Saying needs
Facility facility improvement


Number Kibr le Percent

Shrimp house 1 0 0
Crab house 15 6 40
Lobster house 3 0 0
Fish house 51 12 24
Processing unused fish 1 0 0
Freezer, cold storace 11 1 9

Bait *..,ouiy 14 5 36
Ice plant 29 6 20
Fuel sales 32 3 9
Groceries 8 3 38

Docking 31 11 36
Gear storage 9 3 33
Gear supply 12 4 33
Gear repair 8 4 50
Electronics repair 10 5 50
Diesel repair 15 5 33
Marine railway 13 4 31

Restaurant 6 1 16
Retail seafood market 4 1 25
Fishermen's meeting room 6 2 33

Solid waste 4 0 0
Liquid waste 3 0 0


Friday, July 14, 2006.max








fishermen also stressed the need for more regulation and more enforcement

of measures aimed at conserving fishery resources.


Lee County


Fish houses, ice and fuel sales and docking were most used by Lee

County fishermen, while significant numbers used supply and repair

services (Table 19). From 11 to 17 )-ercent of those currently using

each of the facilities said they would use fish processing, freezer and

cold storage, gear storage and a meeting room, if these were added or

improved.

Docking was in need of improvement, according to 44 percent of the

Lee County fishermen who rated those facilities (Table 20). Marine

railway facilities are particularly needed, along with gear and diesel

repair and gear -.S. 4.-e. Added ice, freezer and cold storage capacity

would be useful, according to fishermen.

A large number of respondents from Lee County -- 37 percent of the

193 active fishermen -- made comments on the questionnaires. Many of

these were similar to those from Collier County: development and 0o.'ulation

pressures resulting in loss of dock space and location for fish houses,

pollution and excessive pressure on fishery resources; the need for .r. ter

conservation measures affecting seasons, size and habitat.

Two other areas were noted by many Lee County fishermen. One of

these was to require licenses for all salt-water fishing with considerably

higher fees for out-of-state residents, and requiring coLmuercia fishermen

to participate regularly in professional im:.r-vetnrt programs. The

other area expressed by many respondents was the need for improved

marketing and distribution of mullet.


Friday, July 14, 2006.max











Table 19 .--Current and projected use of seafood port facilities by
commercial fishermen in Lee County, 1978.



Fishermen
Facility Currently use Would use

Number Percent Number Percent

Shrimp house 41 21 4 2
Crab house 14 7 10 5
Lobster house 2 1 1 1
Fish house 143 74 2 1
Processing unused fish 5 3 32 17
Freezer, cold storage 24 12 23 12

Bait supply 40 21 9 5
Ice plant 97 50 12 6
Fuel sales 110 57 7 4
Groceries 51 26 6 3

Docking 99 51 9 5
Gear storage 15 8 21 11
Gear supply 52 27 11 6
Gear repair 34 18 14 7
Electronics repair 45 23 9 5
Diesel repair 71 37 14 7
Marine railway 52 27 10 5

Restaurant 27 14 6 3
Retail seafood market 23 12 3 2
Fisherman's meeting room 21 11 22 11

Solid waste 10 5 10 5
Liquid waste 8 4 13 7

Total responses 193 -


Friday, July 14, 2006.max









Table 20.--Ratings of seafood port facilities by commercial fishermen
in Lee County, 1978.



Fishermen
Rating Saying needs
Facility facility improvement


Number Number Percent

Shr imp house 40 11 28
Crab house 14 5 36
Lobster house 2 1 50
Fish house 125 36 28
Processing unused fish 4 2 50
Freezer, cold storage 21 10 50

Bait supply 37 9 6
Ice plant 88 31 35
Fuel sales 101 21 21
Groceries 42 5 12

Docking 92 40 44
Gear storage 12 10 83
Gear supply 48 15 30
Gear repair 30 11 38
Electronics repair 42 7 17
Diesel repair 64 21 33
Marine railway 49 27 55

Restaurant 22 2 9
Retail seafood market 19 5 26
Fishermen's meeting room 17 4 24

Solid waste 10 2 20
Liquid waste 8 3 38


Friday, July 14, 2006.max









Dealer Characteristics, Facilities Provided and Ratigs


As noted earlier, eight dealers who are still in business

three-county region returned questionnaires (Table 8). Six of

dealers handled fish and all eight handled shellfish. Five of

fish dealers reported volumes of over 300,000 pounds for 1977,

of the shellfish dealers had volumes of 100,000 pounds or more

21).


in the

those

the six

while six

(Table


Table 21.--Classification of seafood dealers in Charlotte, Collier and
Lee Counties by volume of fish and shellfish handled in 1977.



Dealers
-',,ur,,i-n h..in-.'.ed Fi s Shell fish


Under 50,000

50,000-100,000

100,000-300,000

Over 300,000

Total


1

0

0

5

6


Dealers' responses concerning facilities and services are summarized

in Table 22 indicating where one or more dealers in each county offer

each of the items, and where one or more dealers felt facilities needed

imnprrove renit.


Charlotte County


Charlotte County dealers completing the questionnaire handled

shrimp, crab and fish, provided freezer and cold storage facilities and


Friday, July 14, 2006.max










Table 22.--Port facilities and services in Charlotte, Collier and Lee
Counties: Facilities offered and those needing improvement,
according to one or more dealers, 1978.



Charlotte Collier Lee
Nee--e- Need Need
Facility Offer improving Offer improving Offer improving



Shrimp house X X X
Crab house X X
Lobster house X
Fish house X X X X
*':*r-e-ing unusedlm fish X X
Freezer, cold storage X X X X X

Bait supply X X
Ice plant X X X X
Fuel sales X X X
Groceries

Docking X X X X X
Gear storage X X x
Gear supply X X X
Gear repair X
Electronics repair X
Diesel repair X X
Marine railway X X X

Restaurant X
Retail seafood market X X X X

Solid waste X X
Liquid waste X X


Friday, July 14, 2006.max










sold bait, ice and fuel. They also provided docking and e.: supply,

and o iited a retail seafood market (Table 22). One or more of the

dealers noted improvements were needed in shrimp and fish houses, pro-

cessing for bycatch, docking and the retail market.


Collier County


Dealers responding from Collier County did not handle shrimp but

did handle lobster, and provided the same facilities and services as in

Charlotte County, except for gear supply. In addition, Collier County

dealers offered gear storage, marine railway, a restaurant and liquid

waste disposal (Table 22). Freezer and cold storage and ice plants were

the only items noted as needing improvement by the Collier County dealers.


Lee County


Lee County dealers handled shrimp and fish, had freezer and cold

storage, and sold fuel but not bait or ice. Docking and all repair and

supply services were offered by one or more dealers in Lee County, in

contrast to those in the other two counties (Table 22). Solid waste

disposal was also available.

Improvements were felt to be needed by the dealers in freezer and

cold :7.one facilities, ice supply, docking and marine railway (Table

22). There are more dealers operating in Lee County than in the other two

counties di^,^sse, here, and they handle more seafood from more fishermen

than in Charlotte or Collier Counties.


Friday, July 14, 2006.max









CONCLUSIONS


Commercial fishing is an important industry in the three-county

area of Florida's lower west coast covered in this report. Total

landings in Lee County were valued at over $12.7 million in 1976,

placing that county second in Florida, while Collier County ranked 15th

with $1.4 million in landings. Charlotte County, with smaller numbers

of fishermen, still had over $813,000 in landings in 1976. Landings

volumes in 1976 were about 1971 levels but values increased considerably

during the 1971-76 period as average prices for fish and shellfish rose.

About 650 commercial fishermen operate one or more boats from the

three counties, with Lee County having over 400 fishermen. About 25

dealers operate in the area, 12 in Lee m-outy, nine in Collier County

and four in Charlotte County. The number of commercial boats registered

in the three counties has declined during the last 15 years while

pleasure boat registrations have increased more than threefold.

The rapid rise in pleasure boat numbers is a result of population

growth in the west coast area. Total population in the three-county

region more than tripled from 1960 to 1976, and population projected

for ,'i"i0 is more than double the 1976 level. This growth has :,e-l'itted

the seafood industry of the area in many ways but problems have also

developed. Heavy pressure on fish ", resources, pollution, destruction

of habitat and competition for waterfront property have affected the

fishing industry adversely.

Shore facilities and services for the commercial fishing and seafood

industry are oene~ialy available in ports and landings areas used by

fishermen in the three counties. However, docking space is restricted,

particularly in Charlotte and Lee Counties, according to users (Table 23).


Friday, July 14, 2006.max








Table 23.--Port facilities and services needing improvement, as rated by
50 percent or more commercial fishermen and dealers responding
from Charlotte, Collier, and Lee Counties, 1978.a



Charlotte Collier Lee
Facility Fishermen Dealers FT- 1sn- -Ier Fishermen Dealers


;hr-ilr house X
Crab house
Lobster house X
Fish house X
'rc.:e:r ing unused fish X X
Freezer, cold storage X X

Bait -supply X X
Ice plant X
Fuel sales X
Groceries X

'-c ing X X X
Gear storage X
Gear --pply
Gear repair X
Electronics repair X
Diesel repair
Marine railway X X

Restaurant
Retail seafood market
Fishermen's meeting room

Solid waste X
Liquid waste X


a
See tables 15 and 20 for numbers of fishermen using and rating each item
in each county.


Friday, July 14, 2006.max








Processing for underutilized fish is needed in Charlotte and Lee

County, and both fishermen and dealers iagjre that freezer and cold

storage facilities are needed in Lee County. Dealers in Lee County feel

ice supply needs improving, and both fishermen and dealers there feel

marine railway facilities could be improved (Table 23). The only repair

services noted as needing improvmenet were gear and electronics repair

in Collier County.

Groups or individuals interested in improving conditions in the

seafood industry in these counties can use this report as a starting

point for identifying problems and for working toward possible solutions.

The County Extension Director in each county can assist groups in organizing

to solve problems and in contacting other groups and agencies for assist-

ance. Sources for marine economics information and publications are

listed in the Appendix.


Friday, July 14, 2006.max







































,"P- rIIX


Friday, July 14, 2006.max





















Appendix Table l.--Average monthly landings of fish and shellfish for Charlotte, Collier and Lee Counties from 1971-1976.



o__t _____ F e _____.e .. .... _...-_--
Month 'ish Fish Shellf>-h Total Fish Shellfish Total

------------- ----------- ----------------- 1,,000_pounds --------------------------------------- -------


1,736

1,442

1,412

1,352

1,361

1,056

915

1,033

1,041

1,147

1,739


2,444

1,310

1,850

1,060

1,109

956

1,008

1,279

1,364

1,371

1,833


2,232 2,757


1,000

966

875

861

683

442

260

224

205

372

802


3,444

2.

2,725

1,921

1,792

1,398

1,268

1,503

I -,

1

2,635


922 3,679


Source: Florida Landings, monthly issues, U.S.


January

February

March

April



Jume

July

August

September

October

November

December


1,041

598

965

264

116

98

120

170

189

235

391


1,044

721

809

714

819

714

760

919

947

929

1,184


927 1


. ; of Commerce,











-"ix Table 2.--Total Tandi of selected fish and shellfish species by months, Charlotte County,
1971-1


Year Month




1971 January

February



1


June

July


October


Sdrum


10,759

9,392

6,523

6,352

2,177

5 -^^"

8,717

8,637

21 -"

11,869

3,

1,198


14, -

6,119

13,---

8,149



19,- --

16,613

13,036

4,778

10,753

1,7-

8,161


Black
mullet




116,915

49,1--

100,641

78.. ^"

141, -

109,120

1 --,

108,993

212,^--

114,



316,400


a..l-1 128,290 1,716,-. 26


84,7 114 ^^^ 34,515


Spotted
sea trout




15 2,945 12,978 4,-

1,009 746 10,048 5,309

8,557 7.-- 3,554

7,650 .,290 9,727 1,1l-

2.-1 27,336 7,593 1,024

1,719 7,008 8,053 2,"

1.-17 4,022 4,487 2,288

673 1, 9,752 4. -

2,771 1,715 8," 2 ^

4,^-7 2,- 22,-. 2,-

4, 1,264 7, 1,

2,971 1 -- 5,397 4,


Total










x Table




Year




1971 January





I

May

June


Z--Total landings of selected fish and shellfish "es by months, Charlotte y,
1971-1 ..tinued


Spanish B. Total
mackerel crab Total fish shellfish Total


---------------------------------- Pounds----------------------------------------


31---.

31
-)0

41,415

1 -.7

166


July


August



October


Total


445

36

375

37,560

31,- -

151,157


79 --4

51,212

86,581

^" ^ .-

5

39



30,1"

32,604

52,318

59,084

" 137


4.



7,:

7, :

6,384

13,-

5,742

0

0

2,476

32,093

48,275


664,'-" 135,836


173,446

90,083

192,387

198,489

209,800

173,078

154,542

160,971

268,008

1-,277

---.506

383.""

2,525,981


:,125

59,412

94,016

102 ^-'"

56,639

53,417

"-,262

30,109

32,604

54,

91,177

106,412


* ,571

149,"-

286,403

300,.

---,439

226,

189

191,-

300,612



,-7 6

489,806


3 "- ."br


--~-~-'











S'ix Table 2.--Total landi-..- of selected fish and shellfish species by months, Charlotte
1 --197. tinued.


Black Sand
Year Month drum .mullet perch sea trout

------------------------------------.. Pounds---------------------------------

1972 January 11,850 2,481 1,483,929 706 592 14,102 6,076

February 8, "* 1,043 1^,690 937 3,- 11,929 5,471

6,727 6,-- 108,513 6,176 1, 11,183 3,013

S1 2,545 7,082 93,775 8~" 15,076 7,692 1,539

3,448 4,- 252,^7- 3,939 11,839 9,1 831

June 5. 70 10,^- 123, "1 1,508 9,675 5,682 1,7^

July 0 8,460 0 0 0 229 0

8,418 11,608 173,710 1, 5,--3 7 1,

S' 19,." 9,1 227,574 2,300 5- 17,-- 1,690

10,230 5,083 2re ^- 5,751 1, "7 10,601 1,816

4,151 1," 373.-^4 2,163 1,453 9 -^7 1 ^

4,126 549 --,^ 5 438 17 5,191


Total -^,928


'",031 3,- ,165 ', 56,027 1,103









Appendix Table 2.--Total landings of selected fish and shellfish species by months, Charlotte County,
1971-1976--Continued.


Spanish Blue Total
Year Month mackerel crab Shrimp Total fish shellfish Total


---------------------------------Pounds------


1972 January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December


3,275

138

18,371

19,640

231

125

0

102

40

21,489

2,123

27,580


39,533

36,011

36,664

36,485

30,754

21,207

46,096

35,293

37,377

36,590

33,380

29,895


43,651

14,019

21,280

17,939

12,325

15,330

13,589

10,581

13,529

7,672

6,873

4,699


1,527,629

174,040

170,677

173,976

296,315

166,281

9,348

217,477

299,803

275,807

402,661

326,059


83,184

50,030

57,944

54,424

43,124

36,537

59,685

45,874

50,936

44,280

40,288

34,594


1,610,813

224,070

228,621

228,400

339,439

202,818

69,033

263,351

350,739

320,087

442,949

360,653


419,285 181,487 4,040,073


--------------------


1_11____ ~11~


_~1_1_


-~--~


Total 93,114


600,900 4,640,973













.. ."x Table 2.--Total 1.:,; of selected fish and shellfish species by months, Charlotte "-:-
771 '-1- .- tinued.


Year Month


Red drum G .


lack Sand ;. tted
bullet .. sea trout


---------Pounds ----------------------------------------


1 January





April



June

July


December


1 .142

19,167

11 .

4. .5

3,098

4,'

12,168

15,901



6,7"

3,344

13,608


2,255

3,450

2,423

2,745

7,679

6 "

4 -*-

3,798

351

393

1


274,753

137,761

285,542

189,125

154,217

170.~"

172,002

252,779

276,472

,181

434,071

274,812


2,697



5,005

6,975

7,617

2,

1,248

752

445

327

441

19


1,873

2,-

3 --

4,738

27,713

27,176

5 -

4,288
2 "^

3,467

1


27,294

16,^1

18,871

11,028

15.-

10.^-7

10,724

16,684

16,- 3

12,161

9.--

--,167


35,422 2,897,657 28,912 86,075 1 *,317


7 1

5,010

4,313

1 .-^

2,103

1] qr

1,502

1,510

1,965

2,437

3,325

7,593

41 -


__ ~11~1 1~


Total 131,481









x Table 2.--Total landi of selected fish and shellfish
9197197r tinued.


'es by months,


Year -


islh
mackerel


Blue crab


Total fish


-------Pounds---------------


1973 ': 2,416 27,007 10,045

February 29 23,391 10,770

March 40,126 21,910 9,392

"1 21,481 8,349

31,201 11, :

June 65 :,- 16,629

July 40 38,-". 11,077

t 65 42,927 5,688

September 1,463 43,608 1,382

10,715 27,517 10,

34,150 19,661

December 296 26,--7 6,147

Total 64,459 ,l" 120,


Slotted


Total
shell" .


Total


37,052

34,161

31 --

30,026

43,--

50,710

49

48,653

45,001

48,899

61,678

47,-72

528,740


"-1



,188



236,298



^ ,539

307,996

331,029



484,- '-

329

3,667,500


--------------

388,424

^ ,116

428,490

274,394

-,743



4 -



376,030

371

",324



4,196,240


-~----XII------------- '"------=i----- ---- -----~--~~













Appendix Table 2.--Total landings of selected fish and shellfish species by months, Charlotte County,
1971-1976--Continued.


Year Month


1974 J a ,

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December


Black Sand
Red drum Grouper mullet Pompano perch

--------------------.------- -------- Pounds------------

10,904 2,454 396,886 927 57

6,754 572 114,580 1,447 946

42,218 5,804 299,394 4,176 1,076

2,198 685 102,175 5,369 10,595

6,307 221 110,544 3,413 10,808

1,178 711 86,462 1,950 10,022

64 1,902 115,178 2,105 4,646

11,863 141 138,018 1,530 3,847

10,356 756 150,332 4,913 3,204

8,841 278 421,660 5,774 7,029

4,271 532 432,748 14,828 5,798

4,351 176 483,387 187 863


Spotted
sea trout Sheepshead

-----------------------------

31,820 8,717

8,980 4,434

35,488 17,732

6,719 4,690

5,198 4,212

6,131 4,176

310 2,928

7,159 5,216

3,344 3,708

19,069 7,083

19,995 3,902

9,307 5,750


14,232 2,851,364 46,619 58,891


Total 109,305


153,520 72,548









Ap.pedix Table 2,--Total landings of selected fish and shellfish species by months, Charlotte County,
1971-1976--Continued.


Spanish Total
Year Month mackerel Blue crab Shrimp Total fish shellfish Total

----------------------------------- Pounds-------------------- --------------

1974 January 325 41,674 19,570 473,000 65,974 538,974

February 2,487 13,479 24,240 144,369 59,250 203,619

March 41,866 32,734 25,925 476,844 79,055 555,899

April 2,546 27,242 31,030 152,534 63,370 215,904

M.I, 553 17,042 14,946 156,098 34,978 191,076

June 25 13,537 18,866 115,537 32,403 147,940

July 18 32,328 16,501 145,755 48,836 194,591

August 21 41,084 4,749 173,400 45,833 219,233

September 631 29,805 10,126 194,333 39,967 234,300

October 15,774 20,774 7,003 548,335 33,680 582,015

November 37,734 26,789 21,877 599,411 55,406 654,817

December 559 31,773 15,729 511,233 53,114 564,347


Total 102,539


328,261 210,562 3,690,849


611,866 4,302,715












Appendix Table 2.--Total landings of selected fish and shellfish species by months, Charlotte County,
1971-1976--Continued .


Year Month


Black Sand Spotted
Red drum Grouper mullet Pompano perch sea trout Sheepshead


---------------------------------.-Pounds-------------------------------------


1975 January

February

March

April

May

June

July





October

November

December


29,916 2,238,554 44,836 76,652


8,953

4,132

1,147

4,022

1,283

1,489

2,613

2,611

10,447

7,349

4,552

4,833


1,567

425

285

1,033

2,823

6,327

1,514

3,308

3,650

2,959

3,489

2,536


227,398

49,732

43,374

116,097

125,416

112,038

69,282

176,586

194,776

212,529

382,602

528,724


163

4,254

6,152

2,758

3,497

4,489

2,884

1,167

1,027

3,898

5,943

8,604


249

0

1,629

21,933

25,739

9,614

3,122

4,533

3,929

3,539

1,715

650


12,412

15,127

6,944

9,681

14,186

11,799

9. _.

12,565

14,302

13,568

22,998

22,025


5,439

5,748

2,547

2,625

4,258

1,955

1,543

2,258

1,998

3,22

4,201

2,736


-~-


-~----. ---~-T~=Z


Total 53,431


164,890 38,530










Appendix Table 2.--Total landinns of selected fish and shellfish species by months, Charlotte County,
1971-1976--Continued.


Spanish


Total


Year Month mackerel Blue crab Shrimp Total fish shellfish Total


-----------------_.------------,---Pounds-----------------------------------------


1975 January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

iTo.--ital'

Total


3,831

12,925

9,476

9,116

2,133

50

492

41

1,809

11,846

33,621

10,076

95,416


27,825

26,684

28,428

15,315

9,965

8,610

10,916

6,320

7,104

43,593

33,642

35,643

254,045


22,984

29,515

20,131

5,962

13,337

18.2;:;9

9,369

10,481

8,032

10,290

4,627

7,264

160,281


272,899

108,729

78,596

185,747

192,371

159,978

106,446

224,464

241,356

279,680

480,132

609,206

2,939,408


52,347

62,291

54,751

24,125

23,774

27,743

21,691

18,695

17,791

55,421

47,178

46,965

452,772


325,246

171,020

133,347

209,872

216,145

187,721

128,137

242,963

259,147

335,101

527,310

656,171

3,392,180


~-~--











Appendix Table 2.--Total landings of selected fish and shellfish species by months, Charlotte County,
1971-1976--Continued.


Black Sand Spotted
Year Month Red drum Grouper mullet Pr-..i, perch sea trout Sheepshead

----------------. ---------------- Pounds----------------------------------------


1976 January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

Novmeber

December


22,143

16,341

1,524

199

1,470

1,579

4,620

7,036

7,181

6,542

4,344

4,514


1,285

933

1,368

7,005

4,767

4,103

3,923

4,768

3,854

520

11

1,071


259,651

67,455

115,466

119,929

87,335

52,159

133,686

101,608

144,088

98,526

153,966

715,865


427

77

22,456

4,395

1,999

2,794

948

2,561

2,460

4,428

9,681

71


4,Z6:-,

2,686

6,104

10,005

13,140

6,416

3,718

3,696

3,991

3,219

2,275

1,869


37,999

27,108

9,772

60,685

9,005

10,021

13,314

13,164

15,269

11,912

10,207

12,418


16,364

3,835

1,692

1,928

3,158

1,938

3,572

3,061

2,612

2,881

5,002

5,486


33,608 2,049,734 52,297 61,387


Total 77,493


230,874 51,529










Table 2.--Total landi.
-1


Year Month


1976


February


June

July


December

Total


ish
mackerel


142



33,289

1,713

186

133

160

23

42

1,799



0

46,1 ^


of selected fish and shellfish species by months, Charlotte County,
tinued


Total
Blue crab ... Total fish shellfish Total


-----------------------Pounds--------------------------------------


49,023

52,418

45,598

54

58,

57,322

52,721

46,157

42,-^

30,331

38,773

30 `

557,632


8,""-

9,382

6,785

0

10,666

17,329

12,589

3.-""

8.^-^

7,373

4,195

7,158

96,133


346. 1

141 -^

207,609

170 '-1

137,154

,501

122,749

155,--'

196,466

148,562

208,628

278.^-'

2.- ,440


64,

67,

59, :

66 ,

73 .

74,651

65,310

50,012

51


45 1.1

703 2


411 .

209,024

266,792

"-,445

210 -`

164,152

1^^ ."^

,636

248,

186,"'



324

".-,734


, monthly issues, U.S.


of Commerce.


Source:











Appendix Table 3.--Total landings of selected fish and shellfish species by months, Collier County,
1971-1976.


Jack King Black Silver
Year Month crevalle Grouper mackerel mullet mullet Pompano

--------------------------------Pounds-------------------------------------

1971 January 19,422 8,320 7,461 370,059 29,863 211

February 21,112 5,411 10,065 35,823 19,968 869

March 6,812 10,358 489,280 35,109 42,374 6,179

April 9,280 3,681 518,843 15,941 12,750 6,006

May 6,799 9,698 414 47,039 963 5,385

June 3,887 4,432 0 45,140 164 2,018

July 8,051 3,132 0 35,330 1,392 4,928

August 7,032 11,152 140 158,016 3,244 16,388

September 35,697 6,324 0 216,134 1,318 4,839

October 17,335 8,805 33 196,394 2,781 7,363

November 5,096 3,437 1,878 140,189 2,132 23,855

December 12,729 5,913 408,779 662,472 8,149 17,020

Total 153,252 80,663 1,436,893 1,957,646 125,098 95,061










Appendix Table 3.--Total landings of selected fish and shellfish
1971-1976--Continued.


ies by months, Collier County,


Year Month




1972 January

February



1 ,,

May

June

July

t



October



December

Total


Jack Ki- Black Silver
Crevalle G..... mackerel mullet mullet "....


-------------------------------- Pounds--

3,517 10,-1 63,421 299,555 8.^^, 11,316

6,4,957 0 66.""" 31,196 3.-^-

9 7"" 12,171 231 .^^- 65,138 29,314 8,120

7,732 7,376 12,471 67,126 23,468 10,680

1,632 18,459 85 63 ^ 2."' 15

2,923 1,339 65 3 .^ 339 9

12,^ 4,729 97 85 ^"7 1 3,

5,739 9," 0 88,717 18,514

12 11,875 0 105,456 854 20 ""

4 ^ 6," 212 98,"' 1,614 33,-

11,413 2,456 2,209 41,951 825 18,123

1 "r. 1,835 7, .. 6,326 9,.. .: 10,672

80,422 91,568 317,810 1,326,999 111,r-" 164,976


--------~I .^ I_ -- -- --~-










Appendix Table 3.--Total landings of selected fish and shellfish species by months, Collier County,
1971-1976--Continued.


Spanish Stone Spiny Total
Year Month mackerel crab lobster Total fish shellfish Total


------------------------------- Pounds -------------------------------------

1971 Jan.Jri. 11,633 114,644 1,032 472,284 127,940 600,224

February 96,436 113,028 186 219,145 121,510 340,655

March 167,831 76,526 0 781,505 82,438 863,943

April 5,036 84,790 0 601,785 84,790 686,575

May 1,053 12,850 0 103,780 14,566 118,346

June 457 0 0 104,196 1,690 105,886

July 1,035 0 0 85,467 2,570 88,037

August 5,596 0 1,047 212,329 6,140 218,469

September 1,737 0 507 313,114 2,907 316,021

October 33,J 15,588 11,331 295,990 26,919 322,Tr'-

November 88,750 70,974 6,184 289,272 77,176 366,448

December 424,042 129,160 1,445 1,568,351 130,765 1,699,116

Total 836,610 617,560 21,732 5,047,218 679,411 5,726,629










Appendix Table 3.--Total landings of selected fish and shellfish species by months, Collier County,
1971-1976--Continued.


Spanish Stone Spiny Total
Year Month mackerel crab lobster Total fish shellfish Total


--------------------------------Pounds----- -----------------------------

1972 January 413,079 158,508 1,226 835,616 162,198 99,814

February 344 178,184 227 133,127 179,452 312,579

March 20,772 177,462 723 410,785 178,185 588,970

April 4,095 97,862 0 154,258 97,862 252,120

May 943 17,032 0 128,275 17,461 145,736

June 629 0 0 52,344 2,891 55,235

July 2,005 0 0 131,520 3,019 134,539

August 406 0 855 147,151 1,847 148,998

September 2,867 0 2,482 171,318 6,619 177,937

October 2,666 32,536 5,970 161,015 38,692 199,707

November 32,090 76,772 2,561 119,842 81,901 201,743

December 270,738 136,'1 180 635,185 140,834 776,019

Total 750,634 875,336 14,224 3,080,436 910,961 3,991,397


_~~~2~


___ ----
---_I_~ _I











S x Table 3.--Total landi- of selected fish and shellfish species by months, Collier C
1971-1 tinued.


Jack King Black Silver
Year crevalle. mackerel mullet mullet



1973 .8 8."" 4,7 857 272,805 2,603 10,

February 12,624 1, --1 23 4--

March 3,657 7,563 2,957 54,766 15, 4,7-

April 1,2. 2,192 1,246 35,283 3,019 7 "^

2,404 12,119 45 40.-7 1,513 6,059

June 7,640 12,399 0 58 ^14 4,926 3,501

July 7,809 9.- 7 0 73,129 6,799 3,654

S14,-'" 5,721 0 135,620 18, 11,317

S* 10 :- 1," 0 76,151 1,620 539

5,663 2,115 ., 5 ^" 5,5^

12,963 1,815 4,010 110,496 93 17,763

14,721 1 -- 434 *. ,929 0 806

Total 102 -' 62,398 10.^~ 1,770,074 71,003 76,101










" x Table 3.--Total landings of selected fish and shellfish species months, Collier ,
1971-197- tinued.


Stone crab


^. iny
lobster


Total fish


1973 69,966 126,'"

February 1,083 145,^^

March 102,373 112,164

'1 174 1V 656

May 42,514

June 763 0

July 0

S. 312 0

2,876 0

'21,1 63,678

70 140,468

2,660 143,

Total 492,377 901.^'^


---------Pounds-------------------------

1,-' 396 ..8 128,038 524,916

477 70,243 148 -" 219,137

V" 213,125 114 "'7 328,022

0 73,136 128,374 201,510

0 -,1.. 44 "^ 132,698

0 124,287 2,262 126,549

0 114 ^^ 2 .- 117,381

8,684 9,108 211,637

1,633 116,-- 1,633 118."

3,566 133,526 67 -- 200,822

^"7 470,271 143,731 614,002

2,"- 837,904 146,519 984,423

19 2.'1, 937 -^' 3,7-,422


Spanish
mackerel


Year


Total
shellfish


Total


----------------------------











Apl-.-'d!ix Table 3.--Total landings of selected fish and shellfish species by months, Collier County,
1971-1976--Continued.


Jack King Black Silver
Year Month crevalle Grouper mackerel mullet mullet Pompano


1974 January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Total


--. ----------------------------. Pounds----------------------------------------

5,844 9,044 149,473 2,140,858 5,682 12,010

1,907 3,051 341,565 89,606 5,050 7,330

3,590 30,672 2,172,834 116,584 5,974 19,748

5,459 2,763 216 26,535 2,761 3,394

4,527 9,131 26 32,606 715 3,772

8,471 14,433 0 37,515 504 4,154

2,399 19,380 0 32,368 737 7,807

4,853 10,625 0 58,223 10,321 21,633

22,861 4,349 0 64,388 4,089 17,755

8,954 1,730 123 81,264 6,646 16,171

4,544 3,389 696 58,174 710 32,300

13,604 6,320 170 458,320 136 1,021

87,013 114,887 2,665,103 3,196,441 43,325 147,095










Appendix Table 3.--Total landings of selected fish and shellfish species by months, Collier County,
1971-1976--Continued.


Spanish Spiny Total
Year Month mackerel Stone crab lobster Total fish shellfish Total

-----------------------------Pounds ---.--------------------------------
1974 January 461,839 114,290 50,569 2,819,879 168,339 2,988,218

February 184,163 156,806 576 647,785 158,380 806,165

March 283,912 274,572 106 2,678,502 277,795 2,956,297
April 1,503 111,596 0 50,123 113,171 163,294
May 3,387 55,302 0 70,379 56,593 126,972
June 11,733 0 0 103,828 128 103,956

July 269 0 0 77,522 0 77,522
August 876 0 24,572 123,018 25,839 148,857
September 878 0 22,555 130,308 30,085 160,393

October 23,939 57,186 15,413 155,626 72,839 228,465
November 52,425 143,656 1,844 177,355 145,743 323,098
December 8,074 198,506 424 513,486 198,930 712,416

Total 1,032,998 1,111,914 116,059 7,547,811 1,247,842 8,795,653











Appendix Table 3.--Total landings of selected fish and shell "sh species by months, Collier '..
1971-197-. tinued.


Jack King Black Silver
Year crevalle mackerel mullet mullet


----------------------------------- Pounds-------------------------------


1975 January

February

March

April

May

June

July


Total


9,875

4,925

1,871

5,422

1,776

2

2,-

3,538

10,181

3.

4,

5,149

55,- -


1 I

10

3

12,402

29,^--

41,920

22 "-

20,921

12,189

2,516

4,1

182,


5.

967,223

10,917

471

0

0

0

0

0

1,413

17,579

24

1,027,775


310,570

39,"'

10,7~

13,532

11 .

: ,711

43,511

65,

62,731

53.--

65,547

455,693

1,152


11,045

10---

4

4,444

412

1, 3

6,561

15,286

13

635
-,

7

69,718


17 ^"





5,440

5,139

4 4

9

19,558

11,663

11 .^

7 ~

11,709

172,870











Appendix Table 3.--Total 1 ". of selected fish and shellfish es by months, Ilier
1 -1976--Continued,


Sish Stone Spiny Total
Year mackerel crab lobster Total fish shellfish Total


-----------------------------------Pounds ----------------------------------------

1975 January ,619 174, 657 176 ""7 834,103

Febr 351,913 138,671 0 1,482,583 1: ,671 1,- 1

S4,1 157.' 72 68,677 158,070 226,747
1 1,197 ,682 1 59,155 142 '-

212 18,648 0 61,312 18, 79, :.
June -- 0 0 89,875 0 89

July 115 0 0 132,' 0 1 ,

0 32 "7 152,975 32,237 1 ,212
S',054 0 21,- 9 149,798 21, 171, -'7

October 12 -- 64,- 12,082 115,266 76,126 191

224,939 171,090 13,426 184,516 523,772

81 16 1. ,282 3,1 601,632 129,077 ,709

Total -0,758 934 4 ,I 3,910,711 1,019,--- 4,930.









'ix Table 3.--Total land of selected fish and shellfish species by months, Collier
1971-1976--Continued.


Year Month


1976 January

February

March


"

June

July





October





Total


Jack


King


Black


Silver


crevalle mackerel mullet mullet


------------------------------------Pounds -------------------------------------

3,327 8,--^ 11,556 81,424 22, 1,227

2,133 7,1"^ 10.- 1 104,214 46,177 2,

3,482 8,478 427,129 24,032 34 .- 43,

5, 5. 1,302 0 15 --7 3

2.^'7 13 60 ^ '" 5 ""1 1,"^7

2,312 48,796 33 23,920 2,728 1,148

9,878 41,796 0 50,527 11,593 2,660

12,966 42,974 0 18,930 18,1'" 2, '

7," 42,106 5 97,102 4,^" 8,019

5,^^ 17,419 55 94,410 711 10,112

4,640 12,516 3,215 111,656 5 ^"- 3,-

3,215 6,734 25 498,160 1,476 "1

62,598 254,467 L .,241 1,128,678 168 -- 82,208


ty,


1= = ;5:__ ~ ~~__ _~
~ ~~ ~~I~ ____










Appendix Table 3.--Total landings of selected fish and shellfish species by months, Collier County,
1971-1976--Continued.


Spanish Stone Spiny Total
Year Month mackerel crab lobster Total fish shellfish Total


----------------------------------_ Pounds-----------------
1976 January 1,520 149,372 698 150,301 150,070 300,371

February 5,265 90,036 235 197,374 90,271 287,645
March 189,593 56,780 300 767,385 57,080 824,465
April 285 73,722 173 62,735 73,895 136,630
May 119 27,996 0 62,465 27,998 90,463
June 429 0 0 107,820 0 107,820

July 249 0 0 168,792 0 168,792
August 749 0 7,984 98,828 7,984 106,812
September 723 0 9,110 180,722 9,110 189,832
October 6,742 97,544 15,461 155,960 113,005 268,965

November 2,142 144,860 11,980 159,237 156,840 316,077
December 242 127,932 3,249 527,428 131,181 658,609
Total 208,058 768,242 49,190 2,639,047 817,434 3,456,481

Source: Florida Landings monthly issues, U.S. Department of Commerce.








.. 'ix Table 4.--Total 1 I
1971-1976.


of selected 'sh and shellfish


es by months, Lee County,


Year Month


drum Grouper


King B- .
mackerel mullet Pompano


Mangrove
sea trout


1971



March



May

June

July







November


28."""

'-,145

13 ^'

18,-

16,342

28,149

24,011

31,879

22.^^^

29, 2

26,463

15,327


69,476

61,715

65,518

89,584



56,763

97,547

41,672

61,014

51,708

24,372

59,573


1


56,301 479,.--

0 186,'-

79 "-- 109,802

09.^-- 122,651

32 ^^" 205,597

32 4 211,416

_ Q89 -


3,-"~

23, -:

13 ,""

13,851

49,086


468,439

504,325

356,160

637,184

1,187.7^1


433,818 4.- 7,214 451 ." 7.-,


5 .7"1

8.

21,036

35 -:-

32 ""

--,011

38,428

55 ^'^

46., _

34,065

83,002

54,348


68 -,1l

89,938

51,181

58,964

75,120

61,636

58,-'

46.,-:

7-,091

80,438

69,615

49,377


7,601

11,194

9,674

9,120

13,989

9 """

11,125

6,089

9

10,457

11,749

14,102


7,

11,409

11 "13

17

25.-^

10

28,914

7,568

14,--

9,922

12,765

13,


E~I~_ I_ ___ ^^I ___ ~____~ ~~ _~1~1~


~


Total "^',794 766


124,272 171 ^-^









able 4.--Total 1 of selected fish and shellfish species by months, Lee .
1971-7.--^ inued.


Yellowtail .,.'. Blue Stone Total
Year ""mackerel crab crab Total fish shellfish Total


~-----------------------------------Pounds ------------ --------------------


1971 January



March

April



June

July


Total


1,810

S.154

824

7



9,764

5,045

3,010

5,893

5,431

5,760

6, -


19,498

1,672

11'. 11)

65,851





22. -

34,028

25,989

66

85 ",

82,474


96,571

228.1

133 a-.

62,

37,

33,623

41,; :

.590

15,249

74,317

74,620

74,696


0 499 820 '


362

634



804

0

0

0

0

0

0

0


S-,729

409



2- .:95

43. -

19

38,131



427,179

652,676


100,394 573,437 899 :- 2,408 4,271,223


517.^

,430

691.-- 7

683,780

-2,895

1,408

754 -'~





1, -4,712

1,638,-

9,726,428


512,698 1

760,085 1 .- 042

658,429 1.

699,730 1,391

563."" 1,247,700

245,024 r~ "19

84.-' 885,934

46,117 ,687

65, 919, -

1,096.

--7,701 1,582,413

742,: -; 2. ,370

5 --,983 14. ',411


__~I~









Table 4.--Total landi,.. of selected fish and shellfish -m
1971-19- *tinued.


S Month


drum


K" Black
mackerel mullet


'ted .
sea trout


1972 January

February


^ .



June

July







November

December


29,

40,420

17.^ 7

^~,139

23,089

27 4

33,453

43 .2

38,772

450



24,067


. 909

58,322

42.,-

74,938

62,819

49,241

--575

39,240

59,625

74,



62,782


81,578

7,106

1 ---7

84,198

",867



21,587

14,963

29. "-

-",432

27,714

142,062


^r,134 14,745

"-,,770 40,:

202.^ 43,706

236,744 49

354,178 61,459

,696 35,126

442,674 46,761

515,094 -., .r-

599,428 43,827

543 "17 30,112

837,976 71,683

1,000,834 112,472


364,"-^ 692,888 670,656 5,918,149 608


--,228

66,545

52,579

54,

75,643

55,006

,932

76,:7:

75,986

73.""'

67.

84,885


10,665

12,681

12,776

11,152

14,902

11,811

12,601

10,470

13 "

13

14,957

19,140


7,590

11,130

19. ?"

--,114

28,

11

27,429

9,255

14,263

13,724

12,075

15,573


- --- ---~


!es months, Lee' ty,


r *


Total


831,468 158 "^ 190,364










Appendix Table 4.--Total landings of selected fish and shellfish species by months, Lee County,
1971-1976--Continued.


Y Yellowtail Spanish Blue Stone Total
Year Month snapper mackerel crab crab Shrimp Total fish shellfish Total


---------------------------. Pounds----------------------------------------


1972 January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Total


3,975

8,764

9,783

8,861

38,905

9,871

5,436

2,994

5,099

5,904

6,547

5,428

111,567


21,021

20,069

107,429

71,020

42,060

16,950

23,578

49,373

29,559

82,409

95,207

104,917

663,592


46,265

25,774

19,670

23,439

24,788

11,062

12,645

12,104

4,319

18,220

26,407

8,491


560 711,057 944,478

1,136 808,806 792,164

0 908,092 745,815

118 548,389 755,426

0 518,677 859,055

0 256,089 626,528

0 112,106 882,271

0 70,840 897,684

0 69,089 1,044,791

634 125,216 972,175

0 242,537 1,308,746

8,168 435,248 1,693,637


233,184 10,616


4,806,146


11,522,770


763,491

836,244

940,735

571,946

543,465

267,151

124,751

82,944

82,096

146,418

273,180

462,557


1,707,969

1,628,408

1,686,550

1,327,372

1,402,520

893,679

1,007,022

980,628

1,126,887

1,118,593

1,581,926

2,156,194


5,094,978 16,617,748










S Table 4.--Total 1 I" of selected fish and shellfish species by months, Lee County,
1971-1976--Continued.


Ki- Black Spotted
Year Month Red drum : el mullet sea trout -: snapper


1973 January

February

March

April

May

June

July



S er


27 -^^

34,384

28,424

24,588

36,684

,804

18,136

1 4

37,---

29,518

" .791

42,128


50,716

53,618

54.-



67,517

59 -.-

40,212

r^.935

-.,018

38,195

107,710


.135



45,520

80,728

47,631

43,358

:",412

19,751

39,-

19, --


1 ,312


252,

246.



373,



479,
^7 1


789,

626,


-,05,
1,075,


123 42,747

222 24,126

35,"

3 4 "

646 65,956

346 35,---

698 40,470

- 50 5"0

330 46,-

197 35,

S 64 "6

769 96,941


Total -7,625 696,758


91,273

64,457

66,116

54,071

77,751

79,443

66,478

75,

86 -

94,

86.35

135 "


13,112

14,993

12,. "-

12,514

21,104

. .. .

15.

16,;-

24,741

17

17,.

25,9011


]0 -.-'
10

10, -

17,200

18,404

33,001

35,265

22,557

7,727

17, :

12,466

10,224

14,^-


978,... ., .211,024


6 ---,478 573











... ;:x Table 4,.--Total landings of selected fish and shellfish es by months, Lee County,
1971-]-.- '-. tinued.


Yel !tail ish Blue Stone Total
Year mackerel crab crab Total fish shel Total


--------------------------------------Pounds----------------------------------------


1 '---,077

7. *. 77

724,910

682,510

941 ."

802,733

859 -'

973,527

1,241,047

1,044,543

1 :,055

1.-" ^"


667. 78

585,026

'- ,193

571,-1'-

684. :-

421,174

118,741

119,676

161,655

"",729



629


1,744--. -

1,183,603

1 ^^7,103

1



1,223,907

977,990

1, nn

1,402,702

1

2,255"

2,r ,


.1 105,637 655,'7: 100 "^ ,724 5 `-- "-- 12,233


1 -


June

July


4

5,438

8,956

7,983

35

8,974

-.053

2,

5, 7

5,

5,

6,542


S790

47,611

105,677

30,982





23,207

47,- '"

44,144



139,066

59,219


10,329

8,477

9,110

9,575

13,991

6,547
5 ,

8,

8 ^"1

9,025

5,

5,-


12 ",

19,418

26, ~

41,

12,806

0

0

0

0

8,036

16,524

48,


643,719



:^ -10

519

658,165

414,627

113,435

111,603

143,179

-.,652

925,

574 ^


_ __I_ ~


5, ,' ^ 17 ""
* s z' .* T









: .:. 'ix Table 4.--Total landi. : of selected fish and shell"
1971-1976--Continued.


'es by months, Lee


Year Month


1974 January

February



'1



June

July


Sdrum


29,785

6,754

64,402

28,490

51,

41,-'7

37,

11,863

51,

31,

41,197

30, -


K'" Black
. mackerel mullet


45

44 -^7

110,448

69,764

78,046

78,029

48,775

59. -:

57,750

87

45,195

63,022


103,442

103,

300, -

84,396

49,-

48,-^^

21,-

28,891

22,092

25,401

25,082

99,331


. 1,661

^,374

239,

325,725

302,7-

:',643

517

431,800

466,154

602 -"7

819,512


,360 913,125 5, -,210 705,022


sea trout


S Red
, ,- .


85,723

50,072

142

58 -.1

,651

75,-

74,346

91

-,956

89,320

88,630

95 '-


102,016

58. -

83, -

55,677

,997

53,128

38,039

38,736

59,

101


1 4

19,152

25."'"

15,753

24,437

18,756

19,754

18,539

20,

22,011

19,310

3,950


12,764

12,749

33,630

23,333

27,445

37.-~

12,646

23,556

5,155

12 "

9,768

6,197


--~~~------~ -~ ----"';----- ----


- ----


------------------------------------Pounds-------------------------------------------


Total 427,443


,015,612 ." --. 217,591











S;' T:le 4.--Total land
1971-1. "


of selected fish and shell' sh : es by months, Lee
ti .-


Yellowtail Spanish Stone tal
Year : snapper mackerel crab Total fish shellfish


1974 January

February



." I: 1

-

June

July

August



October





Total


5,893

8,763

21, -

9,983

29,741

19,851

3,217

8,903

6,548

6,783

7,684

8,749

1 ,


49,

28:.

386,744

36,945

47,"-7

21,323

47,121

25,-!'

^^.522

59,600

92,448

19,060

842,


26,612

71,218

L

0

14,288

0

0

0

0

392

0

0

1 ,906


4

S ,318

674,998

521 I

514,' 1

"- 3

323,192

232. "

85,019

46

612,151

5,801 ,689
5,801,689


1 .2-,599

768,-"^

1,849,134



953 -."



860,730

999,915



986,290

1,153,922

1,399,'-1

12,736,136


936,'1 -

697,488

720 -

560,161

"^^,274



324,,

233,'" -

S,155

210,772



742 -7'

6,024 -7


2 '. .7

1," 010



1,293,255

1,483

1,I1',719

1,185,715

I .^-,453

944,397

1,197 ^"^

1,771,163

2,141,986

18,760,223


~-~-----~I--^-~









Appendix Table 4.--Total landings of selected fish and shellfish species by months, Lee County,
1971-1976--Continued.


King
Red drum Grouper mackerel


Black Spotted Mangrove Red
mullet Pompano sea trout nr snapper


-Pounds------------------------------------------


1975 January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December


387,669 758,365 634,990 5,009,':' 594,961 915,413 255,704 218,178


Year


Month


21,260

21,298

47,5/

35,163

30,176

36,866

32,412

19,495

49,470

30,379

40,192

23,416


59,738

72,037

65,102

111,610

49,664

61,789

40,826

58,262

64,223

66,194

44,953

63,967


90,675

88,956

103,089

67,442

52,154

49,958

0

0

24,790

24,593

30,553

102,780


560,902

256,327

181,250

159,573

304,346

279,716

222,193

698,065

404,067

482,955

542,538

917,550


26,176

51,904

51,883

41,411

36,541

38,099

64,727

55,327

38,018

36,763

59,080

95,032


67,728

55,909

50,301

64,488

82,540

80,716

80,948

93,652

72,399

97,406

83,608

85,718


20,164

31,735

19,829

16,719

27,358

25,527

23,255

20,481

17,112

26,339

20,999

6,186


19,154

28,048

23,963

18,877

24,716

31,770

11,694

22,203

7,559

11,557

10,084

8,553


111-----~~ -- ~~-----~-~
_-----1__-__111~11~


~----~II~~-~~ ~.__~I-


-----------------------------------


Total










Appendix Table 4.--Total landings of selected fish and shellfish species by months, Lee County,
1971-1976--Continued.


Yellowtail Spanish Blue Stone Total
Year Month snapper mackerel crab crab Shrimp Total fish shellfish Total

------------------.-------------. Pounds-------------------------------..................----------..................


1975 January

February

March

April

May

June

July

Sin t

September

October

November



Total


8,972

6,965

4,573

9,894

3,968

2,673

4,983

7,031



8,564

10,843

8,674


21,427

42,083

48,954

22,763

50,296

12,630

50,344

28,722

33,561

62,128

110,358

27,659


0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

9,637

17,200


26,612

1,754

1,744

548

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0


534,121

617,712

720,737

539,572

463,095

414,624

150,438

131,660

89,546

171,475

337,628

683,827


1,031,563

784,434

78,596

733,703

817,946

745,181

612,948

1,148,; '

830,707

970,069

1,128,256

1,487,218


82,468 510,925 26,837 30,658 4,854,435 10,369,109


606,391

709,364

54,751

566,392

473,435

415,623

153,900

134,207

93,636

189,682

429,504

723,713

4,550,598


1,637,954

1,493,798

133,347

1,300,095

1,291,381

1,160,804

766,848

1,282,695

924,343

1,159,751

1,557,760

2,210,931

14,919,707









Appendix Table 4.--Total landings of selected fish and shellfish species by months, Lee County,
1971-1976--Continued.


Year Month


King
Red drum Grouper mackerel


Black


Spotted Mangrove Red


mullet Pompano sea trout


------------------------------------Pounds------------------------


1976 January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December


34,259

38,755

51,447

36,019

36,058

38,081

38,182

20,770

54,373

28,623

48,220

22,202


89,463

94,967

85,213

74,229

86,480

89,766

63,665

78,348

53,235

72,556

81,086

61,794


87,862

85,794

88,530

76,372

29,911

53,268

791

62

24,161

30,741

32,817

36,782


477,231

276,768

282,327

191,954

163,018

171,739

68,119

261,300

382,504

387,334

481,819

249,702


1 ,482

34,018

58,295

44,584

35,148

38,476

64,992

60,628

41,486

38,474

54,615

53,431


101,219

81,360

53,658

10. : ^

69,024

77,421

80,012

76,618

89,033

86,863

92,635

86,579


snapper riIppI- -r

-------------------

22,110 23,314

34,107 29,429

23,262 25,683

21,489 22,352

32,540 32,402

28,016 37,936

30,526 20,170

32,076 35,016

23,034 11,498

57,522 19,283

28,933 15,577

25,502 12,800


446,989 930,802 547,091 3,393,815


Total


525,629 904,702 359,117 285,460










Apiil.-pix Table 4.--Total landings of selected fish and shellfish species by months, Lee County,
1971-1976--Continued.
.=E-=_=~-Total-


Yellowtail Spanish Blue
snapper mackerel crab


Stone
crab


-------------------------------------Poun


Total
Shrimp Total fish shellfish Total


ds-----------------------------------.----


1976 January 8,743 22,396

February 7,893 27,671

March 4,783 68,758

April 12,347 27,738

May 5,461 18,530

June 3,471 11,447

July 6,898 146

I J.,.-.t 6,500 28,564

September 7,771 30,758

October 11,015 31,664

November 17,912 98,118

December 15,443 94,355

Total 108,237 460,145


949 12,164

0 12,164

39,349 12,165

31,406 12,168

0 7,000

0 0

0 0

408 0

2,087 0

554 9,810

0 8,606

0 9,632

74,753 83,709


623,410

654,083

666,359

797,169

449,480

333,399

123,026

65,479

69,610

80,421

541,397

581,394

4,985,227


1,045,921

863,922

880,333

687,579

655,439

694,571

544,495

738,505

854,712

873,174

1,133,222

1,288,459

10,260,332


664,053

738,272

762,833

860,215

461,118

338,327

125,678

67,537

75,505

92,025

555,759

606,583

5,347,905


1,709,974

1,602,194

1,643,166

1,547,794

1,116,557

1,032,898

670,173

806,042

930,217

965,199

1,688,981

1,895,042

15,608,237


Source: Florida Landings, monthly issues, U.S. Department of Commerce.


Year


Month


-~-----~---

















FLORIDA SEAFOOD

PORT ~ r'


t


D.ir I iionini ii B1ti Ownvr


Ar iv ii mmm al fishing fau ti t ador-JJt, ir,






Yo.u rp s ,n I,,. 11 ,* u, I v' Ii ;ni r .1,re d oi r nmt'm ti,.d f!,h Mg, prcaWe completee
the paj lwo th I lbarm l ph ilain ;. yo(; mnd rwin At t!< u ii, Al. l ,i n tke frj minutes Your
ins,, 11, .il slh11w Wha5 Ih. rio <.unin tl h ii p 1 im n ;'.m,'n ', arL., neac. d

UI i tiiUi;t-i- i, IU *i i idl ,eCU




liu.ln Econhn ti
1 a'! Icy Ilu 'haul' flI 'i ti' i 11 i (Il 4<4 w innut^ N


A C iier. ProUI' ; of
F ,ia A a N iJ- C, '
Fla-0a bii ea la


O L"
3 C-)
C Si


2'7 5 Q



?

n


iaa lit t 3
111111111





















Ql iii ,*o,.. ,,. Q Noi



Q lr ,, I. l ,n ,,, ,,i. 00 M a i
8. Inclumn8 heIf wf fff~


COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN SURVEY

to Io. ,o I 9t rof oidf Do yoi ,, owl eo- .r oro Cif--e-1 bwoo
fi'f 0- 'fOf do0 0 wfO k- i f0 y.. 00c,-fd thf qOO-tfoffof0 (NO POSIACE PEQUIRED), Th.k yo,


ff l doy -11 0'- ff00 fof of d f04 qoOfff fNO POSIACE REQUIRED). TkhaH y.,

-ld --WO -p .... d.


( oL!mn A
Rot
Or


2 F1 fL


22 il i ,t, el.. .....


CC61 ,icor yot wo.ed -
Icd 'ff1 uin 040f ooof'ob e I npooed


FISH


0 Q i- ,wo i-

ono, -- 10,000 b

1 I MOO 25,000 ilb
IL 250c0rrm


H- ~li P-i-id, didc


19)1," L:, ONFIDENT:AL


SHELLF:H


O u.0 0 iO,00G it.
1 ,.iOO0 25,000 Ibt
OL H 02

0i


___________1_111_11~ ~~ ..._~ ~


























Air mm lrtal tshing J l s adequate in
iP ou r re i the (i ul d S ia iiI Ailini fihi 's,,
i)'vtloplunllt I lind.tioi ai d (nl lyouri ldiijl ) a'%s t -
i s rhv arsk.ed i t detcrnlerm i thc nier(d lo5 n' w
i nsm po d ..s I p o E and p- wss e l tivonr for
Il, if,


j i1

I :

.., l'\%
'.. *


Alu it tr~Fr'
S ., .-' *
in; r .- *



^l ^.l. T
Cj .a




- I ( I ir
t- : -s ma


You! opminons are important to us. Even if you are not now a seafood dealer, pease complete the part
of the form that pertains to you and return it to us tod. it will only take a few minutes. Your answers
will show whether or not commercial fishing port improvements are needed.

Your prompt attention is appreciated
Sincerely,
S- ~- ^


Marine Economist

c- '''. $ .. -... ,.
Fred j P/ochaska
Marine Economist


JCC: I P:ph


IIIIHhIIlUhIBBN


A Cooperative Prolect of
Florida Agricultural Market Researcr. Center
Gulf & South Atlantic Fisheries Devwlopment Foundation, Inc
Flohida Sa Gant


C C 1 ^"
e q

I Q


C -

1
3



















SEAFOOD DEALEA PROCESSOR SURVEY


Yno- ee a Ori (rea a''le, vrocesa r n 1911
to o Ir -rcov Ar, o,, st.11 il as sa' t),,ae a



-U!w veli nFCC:V ed tnn a,lc,,tin lll-.N,
rNO POSTACE REQ00J P)
o Isak Yon

!fvoU wem the t rrheci C crc ,i Cr'
np rar-,nt pdwi-c (,.


El2


F1




Eli

Elr


DB-

Q3 s~;p, r
Ol B

D EOli

D Ela"
Ol

El


AIn coawh rA, "erisi ah ono i-,' ;a !.frf
B;'l 0r1; r -iresaI In lsr o4lu' 1,1. o;~rr~

-ivv rio ddu orJ) l's
Ipso COO r sv-fe ,rrrOrr iip~ocA


2 C'Ih uni jad, a
3 Lvh,.r h-si.,,
.1 F A


f casr ales 3hns i S~v
? olnifaciiihesr


U? In CI:;: r lasS- I 0:


12
13 E: r r
'4 L
1 a 5 rr'r a



Iq H r'' i I
19 ~ p iv,,, i r' .k
20 Lr asinrrrdi-


1 .l .


4.;.; I' 1,;; I :.; ,. I


11



El
El


iC.N 01N NII I IAi [ .






E l E., l l l I
O E -l O 1 1 .Eml !











Mail Survey Procedures and Responses

Each of the two questionnaires shown previously were sent to

commercial fishermen or seafood dealers, as appropriate, in thel7

county area of central and south Florida (Figure 2). The questionnaire

to commercial boat owners was sent to 6,114 holders of 1977-78 Florida

commercial boat registrations listed with the Florida D3 .. rtment of

Natural Resources (Aonper.dix Table 5). A total of 190 seafood whole-

salers and/or processors listed with the National Marine Fisheries

Service in 1976 received the dealer questionnaire (Appendix Table 6).

A second copy of the ip,-r'Lpriate questionnaire was sent to those who had

not responded in each group ,.Jn.,-r imately four weeks a're- the first

mailing.

The response from commercial boat owners, considered commercial

fishermen in this study, was about 16 percent from the first mailing

with a slightly higher rate of return from the second questionnaire.

Total return was 2,487 completed questionnaires from fishermen or about

41 percent of the initial number mailed. Of the 2,487 respondents,

1,454 were still active commercial fishermen (Appendix Table 5).

It is assumed that boat owners not replying after the second mailing

were active commercial fishermen in the same proportion as boat owners

returning the questionnaires. Applying the percentage that active fisher-

men still active of the 6,114 registered commercial boat owners in this

county region (Appendix Table 7).

About 27 percent of the total number of seafood dealers in the

17-county area replied to the first mailing. At the end of the second


Friday, July 14, 2006.max







83

mail'-., 45 percent or 86 dealers returned .'.onnaires '." :ix

Table 6). Of these "- r 77 were still active dealers.


S.-. x Table 5.- : .ires mailed and responses or disposition,
commercial -., all counties and Charlotte,
Collier, and Lee Counties.


ition or
All counties



Total mailed 6,114 100

Unable to deliver 410 7


Individuals receiving
questionnaires

-". ires not
returned


S. onnaires
returned


3, 7



2,487


The three
Slotted, Collier counties as a
and Lee Counties share of total



1 '' 100 17

58 6 14


1,001


*. boat 6 66 6 19

longer fi *.i .a 11 117 11 17


Still active 1,454 24 27


fishi-- commercially, but had al boat registration in
--77.


Friday, July 14, 2006.max






84

Appendix Table 6.--Questionnaires mailed and responses or disposition,
dealer survey, all counties and Charlotte, Collier
and Lee Counties.


D,-uosition or
response


All counties


Charlotte, Collier
and Lee Counties


The three
counties as a
share of total


Number Percent Number Percent


Total mailed 190 100 29 11

Unable to deliver 16 8 0



Individuals receiving
questionnaires 174 92 29 1i

Questionnaires not
returned 88 46 17



Questionnaires
returned 86 45 12

Respondents:

No longer dealer 9 5 4



Still active 77 40 8


Friday, July 14, 2006.max


Percent


15

0




17









'ix Table 7


.--Questionnaires sent, -:t:' ires returned, and
estimated total active commercial fishermen, 17 central
and south Florida counties, 1


Questionnaires Estimated total
In active commercial
Sent fishermen

---- -_----- .F t Number

Brevard 163 104 ^-7

d 161 72 28 39 63

Slotted 41 ^ 71 67

Collier ^^- 104 63 60 176

Dade 577 177 93 52 306

"llsborough 328 119 52 144

Indian River 173 68 44 65 112

Lee 677 323 193 60

Manatee 146 59 39 66

Martin 144 55 31 56 81

Monroe 1,604 565 334 59

-m Beach 253 116 74 64 162
142 ^ 44 64 91

Pinellas -1 239 139 302

Lucie 214 120 89 74 158

Sarasota 1 87 56 100

Volusia 2: 110 49 45 109


Total 6,114 2,487 1,454


58


3.- 4


Friday, July 14, 2006.max









Additional Information Sources



Research and extension education in marine economics constitutes an
important program segment of the Food and Resource Economics Department at
the University of Florida. A large number of publications relating to
economic activity in the general area of Florida commercial fishing as well
as specific publications on mullet, shrimp, spiny lobster, snapper, grouper,
blue crabs, king mackerel and Spanish mackerel are available on request.
For a listing of Publications in Marine Economics write:

James C, Cato
1170 McCarty Hall
Food and Resource Economics
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611

The Marine Advisory Program of the SUS Sea Grant Program also provides
educational services through the Florida Cooperative Extension Service.
For a Florida Sea Grant Prram Directory write:

Mr. Tom Leahy
G-022 McCarty Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611

or contact your local county Cooperative Extension Service Office.


Friday, July 14, 2006.max










REFFF F'j 'i ,


Bureau of Economic and Business Research. Florida Statistical Abstract.
University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

Florida Dep;:t. 'rni. of Natural oe ...-. "Commercial Boat Registrations
1977-78." Tallahassee: 1978.

Summanr of Florida Comnercial Marine Landings, 1971 through
1976. Tallahassee.

Mathis, Kary, James C. Cato, Robert L. Degner, Paul D. !andrum and Fred
J, Prochaska. Commerce.; r._i c r i.v., .: F. ;i it I;- I
Florida: Citrus .County. U u t", 'e:- "-- t I,-",._I- g- i.,ral
Market Research Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, July 1978.

Commercial Fishing Activity and Facility 'i ; in Florida:
Putnam and St. Johns Counties. Industry Report 78-3, F ida
Agricultural Market Research Center, University of Florida, Gaines-
ville, July 1978.

Commercial Fishing Activit and Facility Needs in Florida:
Dixie and Levy Countie. Industry Report 78-4, F lorida Aricutural
Market Research Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, July 1978.

Commercial Fishing Activity and Facility ';,:-.i in Florida:
Okaloosa and Santa Rosa Counties. Industry Report 78-5, Florida
A. i.!l tlur ': **'et 'ej o.-:i rh Cenrer, University of Florida, Gaines-
ville, July 1978.

SCommercial Fishing Port Development in ;.-,l1 Florida. Industry
Report 7 :;-.. F irld (1'.ri ] t r ;. t i 1' 1-.'-- n 0.r.iteCr., ; diversity
of Florida, Gainesville, July, 1978.

SCommercial Fishinq Activity and Facili_tyy Needs in Florida:
Brevard, E.-o rri, I rir. d i r '' riart 'l.i1 I h, t .-. iir.
Volusia Counties. Industry Report 79-1, Florida Agricultural
Market Research Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, February
1979.

Commercial Fishing Activity and Facility :. in Florida:
Charlotte, Collier, and Lee Counties. Industry Report 79-2, Florida
Agricultural Market Research Center, Unviersity of Florida, Gainesville,
February 1979.

Commercial Fishing Activity and Facility Needs_ in Florida:
Dade and Monroe Counties. Industry Ri,-,, r-'.-, ;lri da Agricultural
Market Research Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, February
1979.




87


Friday, July 14, 2006.max










Mathis, Kary, James C. Cato, Robert L. Degner, Paul D. Landrum and Fred
J. Prochaska. Commercial Fishing Activity and Facility Needs in
Florida: Hillsborough, Manatee, and Pasco Counties. Industry Report
79-4, Florida Agricultural Market Research Center, University of
Florida, Gainesville, February 1979.

National Marine Fisheries Service. "Processors of Fi.hir, Products in
the U.S., 1976." U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.

"Wholesale Dealers in Fishery Products in the U.S., 1976."
Unpu&iished. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.


Friday, July 14, 2006.max




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs