• 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/UF00027569/00012
 Material Information
Title: Commercial fishing activity and facility needs in Florida Dade and Monroe counties
Series Title: Commercial fishing activity and facility needs in Florida
Uniform Title: Industry report - University of Florida. Florida Agricultural Market Research Center ; 79-3
Physical Description: Book
Creator: Mathis, Kary
Cato, James C.
Degner, Robert L.
Landrum, Paul D.
Prochansko, Fred J.
Publisher: Florida Agricultural Market Research Center, Univerity of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 1979
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
Florida -- Monroe
Florida -- Dade
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027569
Volume ID: VID00012
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%20IR79-3 ( 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
    Survey results
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        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
    Conclusion
        Page 31
        Page 32
    Appendix
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        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
    Reference
        Page 67
        Page 68
Full Text


INDUSTRY REPORT 79-3


II A^'I' 4








COMMERCIAL FLI
ACTIVITY AND .FA CLI.
NEEDS IN FLORIDA:


Dade and Monroe Counties


FEBRUARY 1979














ABSTRACT


Information on the commercial seafood industries of Dade and Monroe

Counties was obtained from published reports and from a mail survey of

commercial fishermen and seafood dealers. Total seafood landings in the

two counties were valued at $14.6 million in 1971. By 1976, landings

had increased in value to $26.6 million. About 950 people were engaged

in commerical fishing and 50 firms were registered as dealers. Registrations

of commercial boats declined in Dade County but increased in Monroe County

from 1963-4 to 1977-78, while pleasure boat registrations nearly tripled

in the two counties together. Fishermen and dealers noted improvements

they felt were needed in facilities and services in the oorts and landing

areas used.




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









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














COMMERCIAL FISHING ACTIVITY AND FACILITY NEEDS IN FLORIDA:

DADE AND MONROE COUNTIES









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
Development Foundation, Inc. and Florida Sea Grant







The Florida Agricultural Market Research Center
a part of
The Food and Resource Economics Department
Institute of Food dnd Ayriculturdl Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville, 32611














The Florida Agricultural Market Research Center

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


The purpose of this Center is to provide timely, applied research

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

cultural and marine industries. The Center seeks to provide research

and information to production, markeLing, and processing firns, groups

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 range of expertise which can be applied

as determined by the requirements of individual projects.














TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

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

LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES .................................... vi

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................ ....... vl

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................ viii

SUMMARY ..................................................... ix

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

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

THE COMMERCIAL FISHING INDUSTRY IN THE REGION ................... 6

Boat Registrations ........................................ 6
Landings .................................. .............. 6
Dade County ......................................... 6
Monroe County ........................................ 8

SURVEY RESULTS .................................. ............ 14

Characteristics of Fishermen .............................. 16
Volumes Handled ..................... ................ 16
Distances Traveled .................. ................. 16
Landing Areas Used ................................. 20
Port Facilities: Use and Rating by Fishermen ............... 21
Dade County ........................................ 22
Monroe County ............................,, .......... 22
Dealer Characteristics, Facilities Provided and Ratings .,.. 28
Dade County ............................ .......... .. 28
Monroe County ........................................ 29

CONCLUSIONS ........................................ ............. 31

APPENDIX ...................................... .............. 33

Questionnaires ............................................. 59
Mail Survey Procedures and Responses ,...................... 63
Additional Information Sources ............................ 66

REFERENCES .......................................... ........... 67













LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1 Florida counties with fish and shellfish landings in excess
of $1 million and state rank in 19/6........................ 3

2 Population, Dade and Monroe Counties, 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970,
1977, and projected 1980, 1990, 2000........................ 5

3 Boats registered annually, in Dade and Monroe Counties, 1963-
64 through 1977-78 .......................................... 7

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

5 Volume and value of landings, Monroe County, 1971-1976...... 10

6 Questionnaire dispositions and responses, fishermen survey,
Dade and Monroe Counties ................................... 15

7 Questionnaire dispositions and responses, dealer survey, Dade
and Monroe Counties.................................... 17

8 Classification of commercial fishermen in Dade and Monroe
Counties by volume of fish and shellfish sold in 1977....... 18

9 Distance from home to port and from port to fishing grounds,
Dade County commercial fishermen............................ 19

10 Distance from home to port and from port to fishing grounds,
Monroe County commercial fishermen.......................... 19

11 Landing areas used by commercial fishermen in Dade and Monroe
Counties, 1978............. .............. ............... 20

12 Groups of facilities and services evaluated by port users in
the central and south Florida survey, 1978................. 21

13 Current and projected use of seafood port facilities by
commercial fishermen in Dade County. 1978.................. 23

14 Ratings of seafood port facilities by commercial fishermen
in Dade County, 1978............ ......................... 24

15 Current and projected use of seafood port facilities by
commercial fishermen in Monroe County, 1978............... 25

16 Ratings of seafood port facilities by commercial fishermen
in Monroe County, 1978................ ..................... 27










LIST OF TABLES Continued


Table Page

17 Classification of seafood dealers in Dade and Monroe
Counties by volume of fish and shellfish handled in 1977.... 29

18 Port facilities and services in Dade and Monroe Counties:
Facilities offered and those needing improvement, according
to one or more dealers, 1978.............................. 30













LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES


Table Page

1 Average monthly landings of fish and shellfish for Dade
and Monroe Counties from 1971-1976......................... 34

2 Total landings of selected fish and shellfish species by
months, Dade County, 1971-1976 .......... ................. 35

3 Total landings of selected fish and shellfish species by
months, Monroe County, 1971-1976........................... 47

4 Questionnaire disposition and responses, commercial fisher-
men, all counties and Dade and Monroe Counties............... 64

5 Questionnaire dispositions and responses, dealer survey, all
counties and Dade and Monroe Counties..................... 65















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure Page

1 Value of fish and shellfish landings by county in Florida,
1976 ....................................... .................. 2

2 Central and south Florida coastal counties Included In study... 4

3 Volume and value of seafood landings, Dade County, 1971-1976... 11

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

5 Volume and value of seafood landings, Monroe County, 1971-1976. 12

6 Average monthly landings of fish and shellfish, Monroe County,
1971-1976..................................................... 13











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,

Program 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 Murray was a valuable adviser throughout this

project. Several staff members of the Food and Resource Economics

Department provided valuable assistance. Mr. Scott Woolley was most

comnpetent in performing staListicdl and computer 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










SUMMARY


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

Dade and Monroe Counties have experienced differing population growth
rates since 1960. Population in Dade County has increased greatly and
further increases are projected for the future. Monroe County population
has grown relatively slowly and will continue to do so.

The number of pleasure boats registered in these two counties has
increased from 18,930 in 1963-64 to 46,401 by 1977-78. Commercial boat
numbers increased from 3,302 to 3,809 during the same period.

Landings in Dade County declined from 1971 to 1976 in both volume
and value while 1976 Monroe County volume and value were greater than in
1971. Total landings in both counties were valued at $26.6 million in
1976, with shellfish making up 84 percent of that value.

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

It is estimated there are about 1,250 commercial boat owners actively
fishing and 50 dealers operating in the two counties. About 70 percent of
all Dade County fishermen and Monroe County shellfish operators who participated
in the study catch 5,000 pounds or less. About 40 percent of Monroe County
fishermen handled over 25,000 pounds of shellfish.

About 45 percent of fishermen returning questionnaires from Dade
County said they landed in Miami. The majority of Monroe County fishermen
landed at Marathon or Key West.

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

Dealers offer most facilities for handling the catch and provide
consumable supplies such as bait, ice and fuel, but offer very few repair
facilities.

Fishermen feel docking needs improvement in most landing sites, along
with gear and diesel repair, and ice plants. 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.
















COMMERCIAL FISHING ACTIVITY AND FACILITY NEEDS IN FLORIDA:
DADE AND MONROE COUNTIES

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


INTRODUCTION


The commercial seafood industry is an important source of income

and employment along 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. The relatively small number of major seafood ports, in the state,

are all in counties with $1 million or more in landings values (fable

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

and north Florida has put great pressure on commercial fishermen and seafood

dealers operating there. Counties with seafood landings under $1 million

have significant numbers 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


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



































W = Over $2,000,000

K = $1,000,000 to $2,000,000

: = $500,000 to $1,000,000

: = Less than $500,000


-- /
4/


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










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

Indian River, Lee, Manatee, Martin, Monroe, Palm Beach, Pasco, Pinellas,

St. Lucie, Sarasota, and Volusia (Figure 2). The research reported here

was done as a continuation of a larger project concerned with the

feasibility of seafood industrial port development in north Florida. Results

of the more detailed study are reported in a separate publication (see

reference list).

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


Value of landings
County Fish Shellfish Total Rank in state

----------------$ ,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, Summary of Commercial
Marine Landings, 1976.

This report is organized into four 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


































=Counties included in this report,



= Counties included in other reports
in the series.


r' *1;'


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







5


first two sections. Summaries of responses by fishermen and dealers on the

mailed questionnaires provided information for the third section. Information

and survey findings are reviewed and conclusions drawn in the final section.


Population Growth

All 17 counties included in this phase of the overall seafood port
study have experienced almost explosive population growth in the past two

decades. Dade County, the most populous in the state, has increased 57

percent in population from 1960 to 1977. Present population is three times

the 1950 census level (Table 2). The number of people in Monroe County is
almost twice the 1950 count, but growth since 1960 has been relatively slow.

Population is projected to increase in both counties over the next
two decades. Dade County is projected to have 35 percent more people in

2000 than in 1980. Population in Monroe County is projected to increase

by 33 percent in the same period (Table 2).


Table 2.--Population, Dade and Monroe Counties, 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970
1977, and projected 1980, 1990, 2000.


Year Dade Monroe

1940 267,739 14,078
1950 495,084 29,957
1960 935,047 47,921
1970 1,267,792 52,586
1977 1,468,270 55,124

Projected

1980 1,525,500 56,000
1990 1,782,900 64,200
2000 2,064,300 74,300


Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research.









THE COMMERCIAL FISHING INDUSTRY IN THE REGION


Population growth and accompanying residential and recreational develop-

ment, have 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


Commercial boats registered in Monroe County have increased in number

over the past 15 years, contrary to a decline in the other 16 counties

included in this series of reports. Commercial registrations in 1977-78 in

Dade County dropped slightly from the 1963-64 level (Table 3). Commercial

boat registrations reached their highest levels in both counties in 1965-66,

then declined until 1975-76, when Monroe County registrations exceeded the

high of a decade earlier.

Pleasure boat registrations increased throughout the period shown, except

for a small drop in Dade County in 1977-78. The 1978 count was, however, more

than double the 1963-64 number. Pleasure boat numbers increased by about

5,900 in Monroe County during the same period (Table 3).

Landings


Fish and shellfish landings are large in both counties. Trends in recent

years have followed differing patterns, however.

Dade County

Both volume and value of seafood landings in Dade County increased sharply

from 1971 to 1972, then declined steadily and substantially by 1976 (Figure 3).

Fish landings dropped to about their 1971 level by 1976, although value was














Table 3.--Boats registered annually, in Dade and Monroe Counties, 1963-64 through 1977-78.



Boats registered
Dade Monroe
Year a Commercial Pleasure Total Commercial Pleasure Total


-----------------------------Number---------------------------------


1963-64
1964-65
1965-66
1966-67
1967-68
1968-69
1969-70
1970-71
1971-72
1972-73
1973-74
1974-75
1975-76
1976-77
1977-78


1,118
1,242
1,698
1,466
1,144
1,350
1,303
1,224
1,162
1,149
1,056
1,043
1,299
1,103
1,026


16,695
17,966
19,707
21,928
24,205
26,632
28,253
29,235
31,406
31,999
31,983
36,010
38,220
38,668
37,373


17,813
19,208
21,405
23,394
25,349
27,982
29,556
30,459
32,568
33,148
33,039
37,053
39,519
39,771
38,399


2,134
2,311
2,856
2,778
2,3D9
2,542
2,576
2,657
2,563
2,550
2,392
2,512
2,873
2,706
2,749


2,235
2,242
2,407
2,635
3,149
3,460
3,676
4,083
4,820
5,167
4,800
6,690b
7,217
7,733
8,121


4,419
4,553
5,263
5,413
5,458
6,002
6,252
6,740
7,383
7,717
7,192
9,202
10,090
10,439
10,870


july 1 to June 30.
bBefore January 1, 1975,
required to be registered.


pleasure boats with engines of less than 10 horsepower were not


Source: Bureau of Boat Registration, Florida Department of Natural Resources.










much higher due to higher prices (Table 4). Shellfish landings almost

doubled from 1971 to 1972 then dropped to only one-fifth the 1972 volume

by 1976. This decline in shellfish landings occurred when spiny lobster

fisheries in Bahamian waters were closed to U. S. commercial fishermen by

the Bahamian government in 1975. Until that time, about one-half of all

spiny lobsters landed in Florida were caught in Bahamian waters. Value

in 1976 was just under the 1971 level, but less than half the 1972 value

(Table 4).

Dade County landings are seasonal with fish landings highest in

December through March. Shellfish volume drops in January and February

and again in the April-July period from highs in March and August through

December (Figure 4 and Appendix Table 1).

Leading fish species in Dade County during the 1971-76 period were

ballyhoo, grouper and silver mullet. Spiny lobster accounted for nearly

all shellfish landings, with relatively small volumes of stone crab landed

(Appendix Table 2).

Monroe County

Monroe County leads the state in volume and value of seafood landed.

Landings increased in both volume and value from 1971 to 1976 (Figure 5).

Fish volume increased substantially and value nearly tripled, while shellfish

value nearly doubled even though volume dropped (Table 5).

Average monthly landings in Monroe County show the greatest variation

during the year of any of the 17 counties in this series of reports. Shell-

fish account for the majority of this variation. Landings are highest in the

winter, from December through March, and drop to very low levels in the April-

July period (Figure 6 and Appendix Table 1).



















Table 4.--Volume and value of landings, Dade County, 1971-1976.


Fish Shellfish Total

Year Volume Value Volume Value Volume Value


Pounds Dollars Pounds Dollars Pounds Dollars

1971 745,063 206,126 3,313,958 2,824,426 4,059,021 3,030,552

1972 923,852 274,857 6,012,135 5,992,451 6,935,987 6,267,308

1973 1,127,527 372,734 5,450,330 5,570,287 6,577,857 5,943,021

1974 1,169,929 318,196 4,000,403 4,897,116 5,170,332 5,215,312

1975 983,485 451,058 2,511,476 3,598,661 3,494,961 4,049,719

1976 776,396 520,658 1,241,809 2,463,534 2,018,205 2,984,192


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




















Table 5.--Volume and value of landings,4onroe County, 1971-1976.


Fish


Year


Volume


Shellfish


Value


Volume


Value


Pounds

23,278,435

20,497,370

26,170,763

29,591,605

22,286,183

27,165,966


Dollars

11,564,621

13,742,060

17,261,481

19,135,575

18,067,755

23,605,652


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


Total


1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976


Vol ume


Pounds

6,459,774

4,617,238

8,261,134

10,870,530

6,869,647

11,922,104


Value


Dollars

1,347,830

1,217,389

2,153,097

2,818,073

1,973,L68

3,640,578


Pounds

16,818,661

15,880,132

17,909,629

18,721,075

15,416,536

15,243,862


Dollars

10,216,791

12,524,671

15,108,384

16,317,502

16,094,287

19,965,074















Value
$1,000


Voluee
1,000 Ibs.
8.000




6,000.


1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976

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


2,000















800

700

600

5w5
g 500

a 400

300

200

100


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


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
























Volume
1,000 lbs.

30,000-1


Value
$1,000

- 25,000




-20,000




-15,0JO




10,000




5,000


1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976

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























4,000





3,500 -





3,000





A 2,500
C




2,000 -
I.




1,500 ....L'%d -c Total




:LLLLLLL
1,000 ^^^^ yShellfish:
L LLLLLLL
L L Lm L L i




LLLL LLLLLLLLLLL

LLLLLLLLLL -----
LLLL LLL



500 .. L "
LLLLLLLL
L L L iL L L L L t l - -- I




SLLL L LiLLL L L
IL LLLLL L i




F e 6.--ALLL LIverage mothly landings o. fh ad sell
SL L191-19 .L I II-- l- l
o LL LLLLL L"hLLLL L L L

500 LLLL L
.LLLL LLLLLLL F LL LYLLLLLLLLLLL L


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


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










Principal fish species landed in Monroe County are Spanish mackerel,

grouper and yellow tail snapper. Shrimp and spiny lobster represent the

bulk of shellfish volume. Monroe County is also a major supplier of stone

crabs in the state (Appendix Table 3).


SURVEY RESULTS


The mail survey conducted during the fall of 1978 provided considerable

insight into fishing industry problems in Dade and Monroe Counties. Question-

naires were mailed to all residents in each county having a commercial boat

registered during 1977-78 with the Florida Department of Natural Resources.

All seafood dealers listed with the National Marine Fisheries Service in 1976

were also surveyed. Copies of the questionnaires used are included in the

Appendix. Several dealers and fishermen in both Dade and Monroe counties were

also interviewed in person.

A total of 2,181 questionnaires were sent to commercial boat owners in

both counties with 742 or 34 percent returned (Appendix Table 4). A total

of 1,604 questionnaires went to Monroe County which also had the higher

percentage return (Table 6).

Fifty-two percent of Dade County respondents and 59 percent of those

from Monroe County still owned one or more boats and were actively fishing.

It was assumed that people who did not return the questionnaire were active

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

The percentage actively fishing was multiplied times the total number of

boat registrations to provide the estimate of total active commercial fisher-

men in each county. These estimates indicate that there are 306 boat owners

actively fishing in Dade County and 946 in Monroe County (Table 6).















Table 6.--Questionnaire dispostions
Dade and Monroe Counties.

Disposition or
response Dade


Total mailed

Returned, unable to
deliver

Individuals receiving
questionnaires

Individuals receiving
questionnaires

Questionnaires not
returned

Questionnaires
returned

Questionnaires returned

No longer own boat

No longer in businessa

Still in business

Estimated active b
commercial fishermen


Number

577


59


518


and responses, fisherman survey,


County
Monroe


Percent

100


Number

1,604


Percent

100


1,461


1,461


aNot fishing commercially but had commercial boat registration in 1977.

bEstimate is based on the proportion of the respondents still in busi-
ness, the total 1977-78 commercial boat registrations. The number shown in
each county includes only boat owners and not crew members.










Thirteen of the 32 dealers from Monroe County responded, while 9 of

26 in Dade County returned questionnaires. Three of the Monroe County respondent

and one from Dade County were no longer in business (Table 7). The 58 dealers

in the two counties represented 31 percent of all dealers in the 17 coastal

counties in the study (Appendix Table 6).


Characteristics of Fishermen


Volumes Handled


Over two-thirds of Dade County fishermen returning questionnaires handled

less than 5,000 pounds of fish and shellfish in 1977 (Table 8). About the

same percentage of Monroe County fishermen sold less than 5,000 pounds of

fish, but 55 percent of those handling shellfish sold more than 5,000 pounds.

More respondents caught fish than shellfish in each county (Table 8).


Distances Traveled


Dade County fishermen live somewhat farther away from the ports they

use than do fishermen in Monroe County. Some 43 percent of Dade County fishermen

live more than 10 miles from their port and another 29 percent live two to

10 miles away (Table 9). Only 21 percent of Monroe County fishermen live more

than seven miles from their port (Table 10).

Fishermen in both counties do not travel far from their port to their

normal fishing grounds. The same proportion in each county, 37 percent, go

10 miles or less to their normal fishing area. Another sizeable percentage

in each county normally travel from 11 to 25 miles offshore (Tables 9and 10).

Only 11 percent in Dade County and 12 percent in Monroe County go more than

50 miles to fish.












Table 7.--Questionnaire dispositions and responses, dealer survey,
Dade and Monroe Counties.


County
Disposition or Co
response Dade Monroe


Number Percent


Total mailed

Returned unable
to deliver

Individuals receiving
questionnaires

Individuals receiving
questionnaires

Questionnaires not
returned

Questionnaires
returned


Number Percent


26 100


30 100


Questionnaires
returned


No longer in business

Still in business


9 100

1 11

8 89


13 100

3 23

10 77














Table 8.--Classification of commercial fishermen in Dade and Monroe Counties by volume of fish and
shellfish sold in 1977.



Fishermen selling


Under 5,000

5,000-10,000

10,000-25,000

Over 25,000


Fish Shellfish
Dade Monroe Dade Monroe


Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

45 69 172 68 31 72 69 45

8 12 34 14 5 12 25 16

2 3 21 8 2 5 32 21

10 15 25 10 5 12 29 19


Total












Table 9.--Distance from home to port and from port to fishing grounds,
Dade County commercial fishermen.


Home to port Port to fishing gruds
Miles Fishermen Miles Fishermen


Number Percent JubE, Percent

I or less 9 11 10 or less 30 37

2-3 4 5 11-25 34 42

4-6 10 12 26-50 8 10

7-10 24 29 51-75 2 2

Over 10 35 43 Over 75 7 9

Total 82 100a 81 100a


a
Percentage may not sum to 100 due to rounding.


Table 10.--Distance from home to port and from port to fishing grounds,
Monroe County commercial fishermen.



__ Home to port Port to fishing1rounds_
Miles Fishermen Miles Fishermen


Number Percent Number Percent

1 or less 133 48 10 or less 109 37

2-3 45 16 11-25 106 36

4-6 42 15 26-50 44 15

7-10 26 9 51-75 21 7

Over 10 32 12 Over 75 14 5

Total 278 100a 294 100a


a
Percentage may not sum to 100 due to rounding.










Table 11.--Landing areas used by commercial fishermen
Counties, 1978.


in Dade and Monroe


Dade Monroe
Landing area Fishermen Landing area Fishermen


Miami 33 Marathon 126
Marathon 7 Key West 67
Goulds 5 Key Largo 11
Key Largo 5 Islamorada 9
Key West 5 Big Pine Key 7
Homestead 3 Conch Key 7
Ft. Pierce 3 Summerland Key 6
Islamorada 2 Tavernier 6
Tavernier 2 Cudjoe Key 3
Crandon Park 2 Matecumbe Key 3
Card Sound 1 Bokeelia 2
Dinner Key 1 Bay Point 1
Naples 1 Coral Key 1
Parker 1 Key Colony Beach 1
Port Everglades 1 Plantation Key 1
Riviera Beach 1 Stock Island 1
Stock Island 1 Sugarloaf Key 1
Total 7 Cortez 1
Everglades City 1
Ft. Pierce 1
Naples 1
Tampa 1
Total 258



Landing Areas Used


As might be expected with a large number of fishermen in each county,

many landing areas were reported. However, 33 of the 74 Dade County fisher-

men reporting landed in Miami (Table 11).' Several others used landing sites

in Monroe County and other south Florida counties.

Marathon and Key West were the ports used by 75 percent of Monroe County

fishermen. Several used Key Largo and Islamorada, and some landed as far away

as Tampa and Ft. Pierce (Table 11).











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 two 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 categories shown in Table 12. The

mail survey asked fishermen to indicate those facilities and services used in

each 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 fishermen and seafood dealers

were given the opportunity to add comments.
Table 12.--Groups of facilities and services evaluated by port users in the
central and south Florida survey, 1978.


Handling and processing

Shrimp Jnloading house
Crab unloading house
Lobster unloading house
Fish house
Processing unused fish
Freezer and cold storage

Supplies

Bait sales
Ice plant
Fuel sales
Groceries

Waste removal

Solid waste
Liquid waste


Docking and repair

Docking facilities
Gear storage
Gear repair
Gear supply
Electronics service
Engine repair
Marine railway

Retail

Restaurant
Retail seafood market
Fishermen's meeting room


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










Dade County


Over half the commercial fishermen completing questionnaires used fish

houses, bait and fuel sales, and docking. From 25 to 40 percent used lobster

houses, and ice plants, bought groceries, used gear supply and repair, and

electronics and diesel repair (Table 13). Only gear storage and a meeting

room would be used by more than ten of those responding.

Docking was the facility that more fishermen said needed improvement

than any other (Table 14). A significant proportion or those responding also

noted that bait supplies, ice and fuel sales, and diesel repair services could

be improved.

Nearly 30 of the 93 fishermen responding wrote additional comments. One-

third of those comments dealt with the need for improving docks. Shortage of

space, high and increasing rates and poor dock conditions were all mentioned.

Several fishermen commented on the need for improving all landing facilities,

such as providing electricity and water at docks and unloading places, Ice and

fuel services and security in unloading areas. Lack of space for gear storage

was also noted. This is a particular problem for lobster and stone crab fisher-

men who have difficulty finding space to store their traps.

Many Dade County operators had previously fished in Bahamian waters which

are now closed to U.S. fishermen. The problems caused by this closing were

mentioned by several Dade County respondents.


Monroe County

Monroe County, with the largest number of commercial boat registrations

in the state, had the largest number of responses to the mail survey in the

17 county area. From 52 to 81 percent of the 334 Monroe County fishermen use

fish houses, bait, ice and fuel sales and docking (Table 15). Another 33 to

46 percent use lobster houses, buy groceries and gear, and use electronics,








23



Table 13.--Current and projected use of seafood port facilities by
commercial fishermen in Dade County, 1978.


Fishermen
Facility Currently use Would use

Number Percent Number Percent

Shrimp house 3 3 2 2
Crab house 6 7 4 4
Lobster house 26 28 3 3
Fish house 56 60 4 4
Processing unused fish 5 5 7 8
Freezer, cold storage 18 19 6 7

Bait supply 49 53 6 7
Ice plant 40 43 7 8
Fuel sales 54 58 5 5
Groceries 31 33 4 4

Docking 54 58 9 10
Gear storage 17 18 11 12
Gear supply 26 28 6 7
Gear repair 23 25 5 5
Electronics repair 26 28 5 5
Diesel repair 37 40 8 9
Marine Railway 18 19 5 5

es ,rnt 16 17 7 8
Retail seafood market 12 13 9 10
Fishermen's meeting room 7 8 12 13

Solid waste 11 1? 6 7
Liquid waste 14 15 5 5


Total responses










Table 14.--Ratings of seafood port facilities by commercial fishermen
in Dade County, 1978.



Fishermen
Rating Saying needs
Facility facility improvement


Number Number Percent

Shrimp house 3 1 33
Crab house 6 1 17
Lobster house 25 5 20
Fish house 52 15 29
Processing unused fish 5 1 20
Freezer, cold storage 18 5 28

Bait supply 45 16 36
Ice plant 39 17 44
Fuel sales 50 23 46
Groceries 28 6 21

Docking 52 34 65
Gear storage 17 4 24
Gear supply 26 6 23
Gear repair 23 4 17
Electronics repair 26 8 31
Diesel repair 33 13 39
Marine railway 18 8 44

Restaurant 13 3 23
Retail seafood market 12 5 42
Fishermen's meeting room 7 3 43

Solid waste 11 5 46
Liquid waste 14 8 57













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


Fishermen
Facility Currently use Would use


Number Percent Number Percent

Shrimp house 36 11 2 1
Crab house 60 18 3 1
Lobster house 143 43 3 1
Fish house 269 81 4 1
Processing unused fish 20 6 34 10
Freezer, cold storage 60 18 19 6

Bait supply 172 52 8 2
Ice plant 193 58 12 4
Fuel sales 242 73 4 1
Groceries 112 34 6 2

Docking 170 60 14 4
Gear storage 81 24 20 6
Gear supply 110 33 14 4
Gear repair 70 21 19 6
Electronics repair 129 39 13 4
Diesel repair 152 46 19 6
Marine railway 125 37 15 5

Restaurant 63 19 5
Retail seafood market 46 14 8 2
Fishermen's meeting room 42 13 16 5

Solid waste 24 7 20 6
Liquid waste 15 5 22 7

Total responses 334










diesel and marine railway repair services.

Although large volumes of shrimp are landed in Monroe County, very few

shrimpers replied to the survey. This is almost certainly due to the fact that

most Monroe County shrimpers had not returned from the western Gulf in October

when questionnaires were mailed and thus did nut complete them. Also, many

boats registered in other Florida counties and in other states will catch and

land shrimp in Key West during the shrimping season, and their owners did

not receive questionnaires either.

Bait and ice supplies, docking, gear storage, supply and repair, and diesel

repair were the main facilities and services needing improvement according to

the largest number of Monroe County fishermen (Table 16). Over 70 respondents

included writLen LouientLs on their questionnaires and many of those elaborated

on the needs just noted.

Dock space is very restricted in Key West. Large waterfront areas are

currently used by the U.S. Navy. Also, available private space is already in

use and overcrowded with commercial boats. Very little space is available for

storing nets and traps. Channels to docking areas are shallow and contain

obstructions according to many fishermen.

Docking is also limited in Marathon and other areas of the Keys outside

Key West. Fishermen pointed out shallow channels and docking basins as problems

as well. Lobster and stone crab trap storage is a serious problem in the upper

Keys.

Heavy use and crowding of unloading, dock and repair facilities throughout

the Keys prompted many fishermen to comment on the need for improving those

facilities. Expanding ice plants, the need for more bait supplies, and for

year and diesel repair services also received comment. The need for facilities

to process bycatch and for greater use of underutilized species was also mentioned.







27



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


Fishermen
Rating Saying needs
Facility facility improvement


Number Number Percent

Shrimp house 35 5 14
Crab house 55 8 15
Lobster house 130 22 17
Fish house 245 40 16
Processing unused fish 15 3 20
Freezer, cold storage 56 14 25

Bait supply 161 53 33
Ice plant 185 60 32
Fuel sales 220 40 18
Groceries 101 9 9

Docking 163 79 49
Gear storage 75 34 45
Gear supply 102 40 39
Gear repair 64 25 39
Electronics repair 116 31 27
Diesel repair 141 55 39
Marine railway 108 22 20

Restaurant 55 5 9
Retail seafood market 39 7 18
Fishermen's meeting room 38 13 34

Solid waste 23 8 35
Liquid waste 15 4 27











Fishermen were concerned about overfishing, fishing during spawning

seasons, and destruction of habitat in Keys fisheries. Several respondents

suggested closed seasons, catch limits, more stringent regulation of traps

and spearfishing, licensing commercial fishermen, and increased enforcement

of existing laws as desirable.

Dealer Characteristics, Facilities Provided and Ratings


A total of 59 dealers in the two counties were sent questionnaires --

26 in Dade and 32 in Monroe County. Nine returned the survey from Dade

County and 13 from Monroe County. One dealer in Dade and three in Monroe

County were no longer in business (Table 7).


Dade County

Of the eight Dade County dealers who responded and are still operating,

five handled fish and seven shellfish in 1978. Only one dealer handling each

category reported less than 50,000 pounds and four fish dealers and three shell-

fish operators said they handled over 300,000 pounds of each type (Table 17).

Dade County dealers responding to the survey handle crabs, lobster and

fish, process unused fish and provide freezer and cold storage facilities.

They also supply bait and ice, provide dock and gear storage space, and offer

diesel repair. One operates a retail seafood market and some provide solid

waste disposal (Table 18). One or more dealers said practically all facilities

and services in Dade County landing areas needed improving.

Shortage of dock space and the problems caused by closing of Bahamian

waters to U.S. fishermen were emphasized by Dade County dealers. The competition

from pleasure craft and waterfront development has reduced the number of boats

landing catch in Dade County, and caused dealers to bring seafood from the Keys

and other areas in Florida. Dealers also mentioned that fishermen, faced with












rising operating costs and restricted fishing grounds, were turning to other

business enterprises.

Table 17.--Classification of seafood dealers in Dade and Monroe Counties by
volume of fish and shellfish handled in 1977.


Pounds Fish Shellfish
handled Dade Monroe Dade Monroe

--------------------Number -------------- ---------------

Under 50,000 1 2 1 0

50,000-100,000 0 0 1 1

100,000-300,000 0 0 2 3

Over 300,000 4 5 3 5

Total 5 7 7 9


Monroe County


Most of the Monroe County dealers returning questionnaires handled fairly

large volumes of seafood. Five handling fish and five handling shellfish reported

over 300,000 pounds of each type in 1978 (Table 17).

One or more of the dealers responding from Monroe County offer all facilities

and services listed except electronics and diesel repair and a marine railway.

All facilities and services except bait supply need improving, according to

dealers (Table 18).

Dealers in the Marathon area of Monroe County commented on potential export

markets for underutilized fish species and the need for developing and expanding

these products in these markets. They also noted the serious lack of gear storage

space and docking area, sports fishing competition for marine resources and the

need for channel opening in the Marathon area.











Table 1G.--Port facilities and services in Dade and Monroe Counties:
Facilities offered andthose needing improvement, according to
one or more dealers, 1978.


Dealers
Facility Dade Monroe
Need Need
Offer improving Offer improving


Shrimp house X X X
Crab house X X
Lobster house X X X X
Fish house X X X X
Processing unused fish X X X X
Freezer, cold storage X X X X

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

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

Restaurant X X X
Retail seafood market X X X X

Solid waste X X X
Liquid waste X




Key West dealers were even more emphatic on the need for more waterfront

space for commercial fishing. These dealers also pointed out a lack of ice

plant capacity and a shortage of labor to head shrimp in the winter season.

The great difference between shrimp landings in the peak winter season and

slack summer and fall periods causes several problems in facilities and services.

Diesel repair and marine railways are overloaded in the winter but have difficulty

covering costs in the summer.











CONCLUSIONS


Commercial fishing is an important industry in both Dade and Monroe

counties. Total landings were valued at $3,0 million in Dade County and

$?3.6 million in Monroe County in 1976, ranking those counties seventh and

first respectively, in Florida. Volume and value of landings declined in Dade

County but increased significdn ly in Monroe County from 1971 to 197G.

About 1,250 commercial fishermen operate one or more boats from the two

counties, with Monroe County having about 950 commercial boat owners. A

total of 59 dealers operate in the two county area with 32 of these in Monroe

County. The number of commercial boats registered in Dade County has declined

during the last 15 years, but commercial registrations in Monroe County

increased. Pleasure boat registrations have more than doubled in Dade County

and grown even more rapidly in Monroe County.

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

along the lower east coast and in the Keys. Total population in the two-county

region increased more than threefold from 1950 to 1977, and population projected

for 2000 is 40 percent more than the 1977 level. This r-o:wth has benefitted

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

Heavy pressure on fishery 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 generally available in ports and landings areas used by fishermen

in both counties. Fish houses and other outlets handling catch need improvement.

Docking space is particularly restricted (Tables 14 and 16). Fishermen in both

counties feel ice plants need improving, as do diesel repair and marine railway

facilities. Gear storage is a serious need, especially for lobster and stone

crab fishermen.






32



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 assistance.

Sources for marine economics information and publications are listed in the

Appendix.





































APPENDIX













Appendix Table 1.--Average monthly landings of fish and shellfish for Dade and Monroe Counties
from 1971-1976.

Dade Monroe Two County Total

Month Fish Shellfish Total Fish Shellfish Total Fish Shellfish Total
------------------------------------1,00 pounds-------------------------------


January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December


1,800
1,208
1,611
256
346
353
313
183
143
144
194
1,002


2,104
1,466
1,641
1,148
943
552
429
1,296
1,084
1,687
1,702
1,812


3,904
2,674
3,252
1,404
1,289
905
742
1,479
1,227
1,831
1,896
2,814


,902
1,375
1,744
313
399
402
382
227
186
216
272
1,094


2,318
1,703
1,989
1,254
1,082
722
627
1,682
1,473
2,065
2,009
2,199


4,220
3,078
3,733
1,567
1,481
1,124
1,009
1,909
1,659
2,281
2,281
3,293


Source: Florida Landings, monthly issues, U.S. DeFartment df Commerce.













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


King Silver Mutton Red Yellowtail
Year Month Ballyhoo Grouper mackerel mullet snapper snapper snapper


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


January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December


12,143

8,572

4,000

6,429

5,143

2,750

1,572

2,572

3,164

28,571

42,857

57,143


3,334

4,671

1 ,678

2,992

9,742

1 ,979

1,594

1,379

967

2,926

2,737

4,443


9,124

3,950

7,339

1,274

1,626

16

77

1,178

205

20

190

0


11,750

11,500

12,505

13,000

8,000

6,700

8,000

7,000

4,826

13,759

10,000

8,500


507

98

650

820

2,829

865

1 ,501

77

1 ,475

1 ,749

3,605

951


7,524

4,500

7,011

1,502

3,386

0

2,903

1,368

2,559

3,496

1,375

3,41C


2,285

2,691

6,615

8,677

11,306

2,361

12,034

3,264

2,600

5,319

2,083

978


38,442 24,999 115,540


Total 174,916


15,127 39,034 60,213













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


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

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

1971a January 1,409 16,328 199,712 59,545 217,306 276,851

February 7,108 14,626 218,135 50,807 233,174 283,981

March 412 10,221 435,501 48,312 446,845 495,157

April 387 1,561 0 37,764 3,392 41,156

May 0 707 0 44,539 2,338 46,877

June 0 0 0 21,075 1,836 22,911

July 0 0 0 30,433 1,442 31,875

August 0 0 375,579 26,495 376,315 402,810

September 0 0 396,242 18,436 398,076 416,512

October 0 7,973 418,608 61,953 427,684 489,637

November 140 11,814 511,187 68,620 523,445 592,065

December 75 17,018 430,139 78,670 447,996 526,666

Total 9,531 80,248 2,9E5,103 5L6,649 3,079,849 3,626,498



a
Includes Broward County.













Appendix Table 2.--Total landings of selected "ish and shellfish species by months, Dade County,
1971-1976--Continued


King


Silver Mutton


Year Month Ballyhoo Grouper mackerel mullet

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


1972 January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December


42,857

57,143

2,000

6,428

2,778

3,686

2,750

2,714

15,880

50,000

69,771

23,457


4,497

4,568

8,304

5,255

2,944

5,676

2,953

6,266

4,223

5,567

1,580

6,161


10,250

10,310

21,045

2,418

3,992

54

791

638

290

3,668

3,867

10,048


11,575

9,053

9,000

15,536

8,330

11,300

11,200

13,400

12,800

7,500

10,950

7,130


snapper


563

1,258

2,280

1,465

1,016

2,082

2,391

1,886

1,324

2,406

1,210

1,756


Red Yellowtail
snapper snapper


5,442

4,600

5,889

5,277

381

2,586

1,910

5,930

9,112

18,326

3,625

1,820


4,187

5,161

9,996

6,376

3,526

17,378

19,886

6,810

13,193

7,803

2,634

6,281


57,994 67,371 127,774 19,637


Total 279,464


64,898 103,231













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


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

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

1972 January 29 9,160 233,843 99,056 244,283 343,339

February 2,010 11,669 383,976 104,766 396,580 501,346

March 27,251 10,954 611,569 99,118 624,772 723,890

April 100 3,750 34,806 47,289 39,876 87,165

May 0 484 98,425 26,004 99,877 125,881

June 0 0 91,149 46,136 91,961 138,097 co

July 52 0 272,613 93,985 273,535 367,520

August 0 0 586,887 52,502 587,895 640,397

September 10 0 816,660 76,987 817,571 894,558

October 719 4,949 778,105 159,619 784,274 943,893

November 444 9,192 393,855 98,165 403,271 501,436

December 1,468 9,468 709,295 58,235 720,463 788,698


Total 32,083


59,626 5,011,183 971,862


5,084,358 6,056,220













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


King Silver Mutton Red Yellowtail
Year Month Ballyhoo Grouper mackerel mullet snapper snapper snapper


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

1973 January 29,957 2,069 1,699 7,900 588 4,716 6,378

February 11,971 2,920 2,266 8,800 228 4,791 2,016

March 2,000 10,294 2,484 14,530 4,219 2,871 7,556

April 5,000 5,119 198 13,125 1,498 1,060 5,021

May 2,571 9,801 1,159 16,443 8,386 8,907 16,025

June 2,172 3,680 1,182 12,430 9,457 2,300 10,005

July 11,428 3,883 834 6,500 1,445 5,651 14,828

August 2,995 3,704 1,920 11,000 4,107 6,300 1,527

September 12,142 9,281 5,683 7,633 4,946 6,700 3,210

October 37,312 2,404 452 10,500 4,864 7,735 2,696

November 88,594 2,886 311 8,900 2,385 7,608 3,447

December 115,085 1,633 2,112 10,378 4,751 5,500 1,730


57,674 20,300 128,139 46,874


Total 321,227


64,139 74,439














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


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


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

1973 January 45,459 4,530 390,813 104,613 396,411 501,024

February 82,996 5,633 490,369 125,922 497,701 623,623

March 5,464 5,913 705,198 286,736 3,522 290,258

April 181 10,702 210,930 55,967 222,656 278,623

May 1,697 3,778 277,731 90,539 282,879 373,418

June 55 0 419,268 58,718 421,420 480,138

July 90 0 323,672 51,835 325,421 377,256

August 300 0 390,193 46,685 392,938 439,623

September 2,700 0 462,400 70,506 464,624 535,130

October 4,725 4,196 301,112 75,808 306,840 382,648

November 86 3,408 352,334 118,705 356,874 475,579

December 2,516 3,416 569,593 154,240 574,357 728,597


43,576 4,893,613 1,240,274


__ __


Total 146,269


4,245,643 5,485,917













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


King Silver Mutton Red Yellowtail
Year Month Ballyhoo Grouper mackerel mullet snapper snapper snapper

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

1974 January 64,286 8,532 45,435 8,602 1,862 5,800 4,874

February 30,714 7,651 11,516 4,372 1,610 3,721 1,227

March 22,858 47,065 27,080 15,204 4,164 20,882 11,406

April 5,000 21,148 1,741 16,292 2,018 7,654 2,400

May 3,857 11,749 1,675 7,497 3,715 9,935 12,403

June 2,000 7,651 788 11,736 2,839 16,706 16,356

July 1,285 7,724 456 11,722 2,900 25,557 6,694

August 1,571 3,143 105 7,200 4,642 18,868 2,523

September 2,571 4,814 1,630 4,500 3,806 9,200 1,063

October 15,714 3,357 2,015 6,908 3,359 10,200 2,680

November 8,571 3,382 1,221 8,044 1,877 3,976 1,956

December 19,142 2,332 2,751 9,511 1,501 7,917 1,341


128,548 96,413 111,588 34,293


Total 177,569


140,416 64,923














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


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

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

1974 January 62,845 2,028 225,746 212,697 230,359 443,056

February 111,590 4,154 236,285 177,695 241,880 419,575

March 65,788 7,524 643,126 233,575 653,192 886,767

April 5,181 8,688 179,661 73,920 190,272 264,192

May 983 3,610 167,812 60,041 173,062 233,103

June 19 0 240,453 65,227 242,551 307,778

July 0 0 263,932 60,217 265,562 325,779

August 54 0 432,978 43,746 424,766 468,512

September 20 0 349,934 28,316 350,738 379,054

October 80 10,728 424,778 53,389 436,517 489,906

November 90 7,980 315,391 36,634 323,798 360,432

December 59,659 9,013 372,045 108,985 390,845 499,830


53,725 3,852,141 1,154,442


Total 306,309


3,923,542 5,077,984













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


King Silver Mutton Red Yellowtail
Year Month Ballyhoo Grouper mackerel mullet snapper snapper snapper

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

1975 January 21,429 11,834 566 4,437 2,279 3,720 1,364

February 17,143 18,699 5,763 9,284 1,453 5,218 3,835

March 8,571 22,844 22,844 11,211 1,348 9,684 3,470

April 857 19,349 20 11,200 2,094 8,842 2,651

May 2,000 13,240 0 8,700 4,267 13,644 5,297

June 2,429 31,337 54 3,000 3,139 6,618 9,857

July 0 13,025 86 653 2,977 6,108 3,095

August 0 11,170 1,008 8,180 2,379 6,200 2,618

September 6,486 4,866 148 7,200 2,400 6,472 1,535

October 17,143 2,792 1,568 6,034 2,949 3,225 4,371

November 71,428 1,860 811 7,659 1,683 3,500 3,050

December 65,503 4,624 799 7,780 2,146 4,400 1,165


212,989 155,640 33,667 85,338 29,114 77,631 42,308


Total I














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


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

------------------------------- ounds---------------------------------------

1975 January 948 6,942 126,047 57,278 149,292 206,570

February 9,581 8,832 199,631 462,670 7,727 470,397

March 74 8,192 252,333 63,074 280,527 343,601

April 16,681 5,928 93,776 80,008 130,592 210,600

May 11 2,100 206,661 59,774 237,089 296,863

June 0 0 203,355 73,120 231,541 304,661

July 463 0 224,961 42,855 250,816 293,671

August 525 0 294,076 47,292 323,188 370,480

September 553 0 122,213 42,297 140,592 182,889

October 576 600 90,840 43,404 113,888 157,292

November 343 1,796 40,557 97,429 66,321 163,750

December 354 1,768 29,588 92,255 50,888 143,143


36,158 1,884,038 1,161,456


1,982,461 3,143,917


Total 30,109












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


King Silver Mutton Red Yellowtail
Year Month Ballyhoo Grouper mackerel mullet snapper snapper snapper

----------------------------n----- Pounds---------------------------------------

1976 January 17,143 19,555 29 4,000 2,974 2,650 1,037

February 38,500 14,756 94 4,721 3,694 3,547 2,449

March 1,043 20,045 1,499 862 2,801 L60 5,155

April 4,000 12,983 4,219 6,702 3,428 3,L60 3,675

May 3,571 8,864 2,557 6,530 4,418 3,025 3,061

June 3,571 6,074 0 6,000 2,214 6,200 5,334

July 2,429 20,318 0 4,500 2,710 0 4,651

August 3,000 4,979 210 420 1,795 2,500 4,755

September 1,071 700 6 7,400 2,519 25 1,474

October 8,571 3,718 19 4,500 4,947 0 10,421

November 17,400 2,314 1,793 3,600 4,959 20 9,295

December 22,857 7,652 419 4,000 929 2,354 1,574


10,845 53,235 37,388 24,241


Total 123,156 121,958


52,881














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


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


1976 January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Total


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

34 750 15,391 79,206 49,036 128,242

839 1,836 13,814 83,266 42,205 125,471

186 1,770 48,489 67,250 78,034 145,284

102 3,023 13,176 49,543 45,978 95,521

84 5,038 8,094 37,140 36,487 73,627

0 0 8,352 31,859 32,885 64,744

10 0 45,98L 135,423 72,327 207,750

4 0 192,091 L9,681 211,462 261,143

0 0 149,683 22,611 165,263 187,874

9 4,084 180,698 39,566 197,545 237,111

350 3,868 146,447 49,799 170,205 220,004

33 6,746 106,596 52,239 139,168 191,407

1,651 27,115 928,815 697,583 1,240,595 1,938,178


Source: Florida Landings, monthly issues,


- I ~---------


U.S. Department of Commerce.













Appendix Table


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


King Silver Mangrove Mutton Yellowtail
Year Month Dolphin Grouper mackerel mullet Pompano snapper snapper snapper


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


1971 January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December


232

510

1,704

3,019

3,328

2,352

4,092

2,493

187

320

608

3,268


65,625

29,721

61,729

46,404

51,208

56,121

27,502

18,563

11,408

14,148

7,208

24,049


232,654

228,878

85,452

1,258

693

634

217

164

94

178

2,559

8,038


9,923

19,668

29,959

38,332

51,078

14,081

20,930

20,510

14,476

26,802

16,531

15,904


8,822

8,449

4,778

16,905

799

308

445

87

379

190

6,765

16,644


17,557

12,359

13,522

15,906

12,560

49,260

46,768

7,132

3,162

6,370

3,198

11,125


9,113

8,565

11,889

15,859

19,334

42,033

5,416

2,782

2,854

6,477

3,896

8,713


56,120

37,458

80,174

36,595

104,775

169,473

48,300

11,711

10,611

42,600

9,274

27,877


22,113 413,686 560,819 278,194 64,571 198,919 136,928 634,968


Total















Appendix Table


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


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


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


1971 January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December


1,373,495

409,292

681,396

876

79

72

45

10

234

478

13,023

356,312


66,797

118,175

107,541

61,981

18,839

0

0

0

0

58,737

47,983

109,193


307,864

194,835

210,356

0

0

0

0

664,157

478,296

618,724

630,782

282,902


1,262,303

1,490,648

1,572,307

1,286,827

964,555

482,391

339,274

263,586

485,042

1,243,338

637,511

1,152,472


1,897,171

827,446

1,013,188

222,784

282,484

367,667

173,747

73,711

53,163

133,521

97,614

524,591


1,637,451

1,804,235

1,891,011

1,358,526

985,327

485,305

339,789

928,073

964,050

1,947,198

1,316,479

1,548,897


3,534,622

2,631,681

2,904,199

1,581,310

1,268,011

852,972

513,536

1,001,784

1,017,213

2,080,719

1,414,093

2,073,488


5,667,087 15,206,341 20,873,628


-- --


Total 2,835,312


589,246 3,387,916 11,180,254













Appendix Table


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


King Silver Mangrove Mutton Yellowtail
Year Month Dolphin Grouper mackerel mullet Pompano snapper snapper snapper

-----------------------------P---ounds---------------------------------------


1972 January

February

March

April

Nay

cune

July

August

September

October

November

December


1,032

7,384

2,872

1,902

12,217

769

1,715

1,716

1,674

964

14

178


25,602

38,338

48,673

39,017

68,568

43,649

27,930

37,293

40,673

28,695

17,613

26,114


20,410

64,327

7,297

620

1,564

34

105

404

343

641

6,512

51,514


18,960 14,502 10,488

21,065 7,029 13,037

21,654 13,490 14,809

4,595 7,990 13,604

11,029 11,649 21,697

23,295 157 19,182

15,207 0 93,826

15,735 1,630 36,320

15,568 404 13,491

18,709 492 8,705

19,296 895 6,019

18,910 13,074 15,916


32,437 442,165 153,771 204,023 71,312 267,094 122,448 623,716


7,573

10,425

14,917

8,387

29,077

15,575

7,215

6,383

6,540

7,899

4,264

4,188


44,247

35,317

52,036

48,621

73,334

124,039

58,746

46,810

45,770

39,347

21,729

32,720


Total














Appendix Table


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


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


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


1972 January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December


529,931

175,142

928,494

7,745

244

120

84

54

207

159

789

83,119


134,648

94,755

142,840

43,407

50,277

0

0

0

0

42,360

39,702

71,026


443,895

389,523

165,074

0

34,318

49,104

40,818

619,420

658,990

835,726

408,282

518,978


1,366,130

1,453,800

1,795,831

840,625

700,695

425,790

457,933

466,796

251,833

281,671

698,474

1,358,207


752,294

430,222

1,158,124

158,157

267,501

247,531

230,806

170,141

149,798

133,860

108,082

325,758


1,947,640

1 ,41,017

2,104,918

399,747

885,033

475,956

499,409

1 ,101,809

917,406

1,169,075

1,146,886

1,948,579


2,699,934

2,371,239

3,263,042

1,057,904

1,152,534

723,487

730,215

1,271,950

1,067,204

1,302,935

1,254,968

2,274,337


1,726,088 619,015 4,214,128 10,097,785


----`


Total


4,132,274 15,037,475 19,169,749












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


King Silver Mangrove Mutton Yellowtail
Year Month Dolphin Grouper mackerel mullet Pompano snapper snapper snapper

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

1973 January 1,0-0 33,174 138,238 23,169 36,725 16,812 7,402 50,774

February 809 22,538 64,574 22,852 15,852 13,532 6,965 27,810

March 1,386 62,432 1,179,789 34,117 10,750 27,694 12,374 68,631

April 6,638 29,998 1,954 52,613 4,334 8,251 8,355 68,705

May 24,472 110,055 1,411 51,385 1,225 21,380 61,196 175,086

June 20,829 76,590 456 52,125 0 31,316 20,597 87,368

July 7,940 52,351 732 47,843 10 109,285 10,089 83,453

August 1,884 33,678 777 45,333 562 29,041 6,672 45,691

September 131 19,651 1,046 40,476 119 7,975 4,818 32,956

October 836 10,921 1,485 52,957 383 6,526 5,628 17,948

November 1,056 24,545 15,828 21,033 3,090 6,273 8,865 40,916

December 825 16,327 33,675 28,464 18,757 7,228 6,616 23,106


67,816 492,260 1,439,965 472,367 91,817 285,313 159,577 722,444


Total














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


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


---------------------------------- PounJs------


1973 January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December


615,928

1,118,220

625,410

221

3,437

243

138

38

117

431

44,704

1,120,444


36,458

88,376

52,517

80,585

62,596

0

0

0

0

21,654

51,870

76,732


371,060

268,981

226,068

36,008

83,661

88,119

46,341

908,748

686,229

805,562

716,888

584,465


2,445,327

1,146,348

1,261,799

1,068,430

1,129,336

584,372

342,391

355,435

621,377

886,572

1,387,354

914,992


1,025,566

1,371,803

2,397,748

210,749

494,531

393,586

455,410

314,667

131,870

126,344

226,219

1,348,387


2,858,516

1,509,877

1,547,763

1,185,433

1,276,378

573,320

398,545

1,265,028

1,307,910

1,714,413

2,156,434

1,576,636


3,884,082

2,881,680

3,645,511

1,396,182

1,770,909

1,066,906

853,955

1,579,695

1,439,780

1,840,757

2,382,653

2,925,023


3,529,331 470,788 4,822,130 12,145,233 8,196,880


Total


17,470,253 25,667,133













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


King Silver Mangrove Mutton Yellowtail
Year Month Dolphin Grouper mackerel mullet Pompano snapper snapper snapper


-----------------------------P----- Pounds---------------------------------------

1974 January 599 49,042 192,575 41,321 8,176 20,309 9,062 54,269

February 947 29,315 254,773 15,108 5,631 13,053 7,583 40,631

March 0 126,356 1,650,800 50,568 12,001 36,386 25,441 112,899

April 0 75,306 2,093 27,968 1,138 10,579 14,576 45,466

May 0 9-,909 1,174 37,178 1,815 16,177 32,979 104,844

June 0 104,090 975 34,757 1,445 25,413 34,858 151,728

July 25 39,806 652 20,420 375 79,882 9,195 74,500

August 0 6,761 1,022 34,114 0 12,195 16,316 17,876

September 0 18,139 106 33,710 8,324 3,914 8,421 15,336

October 0 10,017 434 77,846 6,771 5,812 6,310 21,732

November 0 15,801 2,328 3,450 6,550 5,154 5,731 16,145

December 264 25,385 80,712 19,708 17,885 8,946 8,189 21,912


1,835 594,927 2,187,644 396,148 70,111 237,820 178,661 667,338


Total















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


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


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


1974 January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Total


1,958,628

783,272

1,206,384

280

440

216

46

18

110

148

8,841

97C,748

4,929,131


101,008

88,874

280,513

95,127

30,910

0

0

802

0

50,010

67,759

117,943

832,946


156,086

124,566

289,202

113,482

132,253

116,913

48,675

910,862

597,667

1,472,927

500,702

990,559


2,375,948

733,859

1,017,917

820,458

652,727

525,030

404,043

297,002

359,287

702,988

1,692,564

1,423,088


5,453,894 11,004,911


2,467,190

1,202,001

3,314,903

217,391

346,073

448,538

245,310

104,990

111,806

167,828

89,369

1,227,524

9,942,923


2,633,358

956,136

1,590,130

1,030,626

817,866

642,921

452,970

1,209,185

957,548

2,226,315

2,261,876

2,533,425

17,312,356


5,100,548

2,158,137

4,905,033

1,248,017

1,163,939

1,091,459

698,280

1,314,175

1,069,354

2,394,143

2,351,245

3,760,949

27,255,279













Appendix Table


3.--Total landings of selected fish and shellfish species by months, Monroe County,
1975-1976--Continued


King Silver Mangrove Mutton Yellowtail
Year Month Dolphin Grouper mackerel mullet Pompano snapper snapper snapper


------------------------------------ ounds--------------


1975 January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December


376

127

814

1,665

32,654

26,540

16,358

13,382

0

277

25

1,347


42,884

62,699

60,971

70,947

96,509

92,368

66,363

42,097

47,391

41,119

21,118

37,'77


134,965

9,902

60,971

1,454

832

232

136

182

332

3,184

26,641

'96,586


25,854

24,039

33,678

21,925

44,862

14,650

41,089

27,322

27,967

23,579

28,712

37,461


1,880

1,536

2,939

9,254

1,053

0

0

6,693

8,004

3,049

8,580

44,09'


8,804

14,626

7,638

7,113

7,265

11,297

71,178

11,862

4,754

5,329

4,086

4,041


9,430

10,491

13,472

15,923

27,416

44,687

21,244

4,984

6,751

6,198

6,086

4,367


38,624

54,170

40,612

47,226

91,293

89,626

53,306

17,167

16,539

24,797

18,697

26,826


93,565 681,643 435,417 351,138 87,079 157,993 171,049 518,883


Total














Appendix Table 3.--Total landings of selected fish and shell-ish species by months, Monroe County,
1975-1976--Continued


Year Month




1975 January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Total


Spanish
mackerel Stone crab


Spiny
lobster


Total
Shrimp Total fish shellfish


Total


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


1,096,701

240,323

445,941

67,163

104

2,652

66

5

37

193

13,378

992,313


92,726

114,655

84,862

77,029

13,742

0

0

0

0

57,187

165,482

117,456


240,294

126,768

157,987

65,796

37,908

39,934

68,528

1,435,219

867,305

826,956

545,536

347,148


1,397,940

880,610

1,195,437

766,549

833,372

453,814

338,255

459,034

539,619

875,196

69?,504

1,093,411


1 ,432,374

474,643

652,861

295,746

348,055

349,535

292,748

156,469

164,B18

143,667

175,277

1,407,220


1,748,613

1,148,718

1,460,813

933,013

894,704

493,743

407,564

1,895,088

1,415,750

1,760,785

1,403,949

1,563,742


2,878,876 723,139 4,759,379 9,537,741 5,893,413 15,126,492
)


3,180,987

1,623,361

2,113,679

1,228,759

1,242,759

843,283

700,312

2,051,557

1,580,568

1,904,452

1,579,226

2,970,962

21,019,905


--













Appendix Table


a--Total landings of selected fish and shellfish species by months, Monroe County,
1975-1976--Continued


King Silver Mangrove Mutton Yellowtail
Year Months Dolphin Grouper mackerel mullet Pompano snapper snapper snapper


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


1976 January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December


202

81

1,954

6,065

11,493

18,635

22,399

9,136

1,907

307

809

224


48,515

76,144

146,879

113,388

112,703

136,344

202,609

139,665

87,062

49,542

39,777

43,694


418,839

567,074

395,618

1,007

585

245

313

792

47,426

1,330

7,091

152,300


48,365

35,977

60,045

105,868

40,344

31,282

45,181

21

23,748

22,816

18,460

22,624


30,178

21,635

11,623

22,448

401

2,385

1,045

1,314

206

17

19,399

35,909


6,474

7,326

16,587

11,362

10,232

15,921

45,139

17,439

14,764

5,990

8,611

7,188


3,209

7,104

10,645

15,432

5,561

6,494

6,512

5,499

3,851

8,076

6,605

7,18B


25,800

40,574

84,801

105,532

101,562

57,757

104,369

46,418

41,040

36,216

708

30,944


73,212 1,196,322 1,592,620 454,731 146,560 167,033 86,177 675,771


Total














Appendix Table I--Total landings of selected fish and shellfish species by months, Monroe County,
1975-1976--Continued


Spanish Spiny Total
YPar Month mackerel Stone crab lobster Shrimp Total fish shellfish Total


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


1976 January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Total


2,548,993

2,097,931

627,988

4,820

1,129

682

339

46

128

96

261,701

812,396

6,356,249


158,452

184,425

55,168

130,667

33,676

0

0

0

0

45,515

164,351

110,561

882,815


255,792

133,979

250,179

187,155

5,562

1,720

112,602

1,035,567

579,202

798,368

581,876

310,531

4,252,533


1,382,600

1,106,001

1,115,111

1,159,372

754,289

537,754

356,607

338,947

354,804

454,203

1,177,316

1,276,577

10,013,581


3,227,332

2,943,150

1,431,048

429,999

341,427

310,359

480,140

275,858

250,724

159,530

463,896

1,180,232

11,493,665


1,797,340 5,024,672

1,437,562 4,380,712

1,434,073 2,865,121

1,479,755 1,909,754

796,648 1,138,075

539,629 849,988

477,757 957,897

1,379,982 1,655,840

938,949 1,189,673

1,302,947 1,462,477

1,928,523 2,392,419

1,700,052 2,880,254

15,213,217 26,706,882


monthly issues, U.S. Department of Commerce.


- - - - - -


Source: Florida Landinas,






















FLORIDA SEAFOOD

PORT STU D9







Ittar Scattiod I) alar'

7 Air commercial fishing facilit.es adequate in
i I area The Gult and Suuth Atlartli Flrshrie--
7 E)cs iupnlienit Foundation and your industry assouaid
U trions have asked us Co determine the reed for new -"
"e e- or iro'd pone tacilties atnd possible locations (fm
o tm th.m.

Your opinions are important to us. Even if you are not now a seafood dealer, please complete the part
Si lof the form that pertains to you and return it to us today it will only take a few minutes. Your answers
will show whether or not Lommenlcal fishing port improvements are needed.

S' Your prompt attention is appreciated.
S, Sincerely,



Stmes C. Cato
z Marine Econorist



Fred I Prochiska
Marine Econormist

JCC.FJP pb

I 0 zo A Cooperatre Piroect of:
S0 Florida Agricultural Narket Research Center
r n'w Gulf & South Atlantic F iherie! Development Foundation, Inc.
0 Florida Sea Grant



























SEAFOOD DEALER PROCESSOR SURVEY


S You were a seafood dealer aid/or processor in 1927
according to our records Are you itdll in this business?

O vD s -- please cot-nu
EO I----
||No o, please return today so we -wi
know you received the questtonnairc.
(NO POSTAGE REQUIRED
Thank Vou.

2 If you are in tr seafooa business please check the most
important produc-r you handiP


FISH

Grouper

Spani'h rrackre r

King mack'ea



Red r appry

Ali otner rnappe

Sea rroui

Bait

Orn-IIIriri


SHELLFISH

Blue crabs

Siorn craibs

Scallops

Sh e mli

Spivy iobste

OThel eillfish
list l


3 Please complete the following about your seafood business
A. In column A, check the facilities and services you now oier 1 hen.
B In column B, check the facilities and senoces you would ke added or, rpro d


Farindtlet or servan e



1 Shrimpunloading house
2 Crab unloading
3. Lobster house
4 Fish house
5. Processinq of unused fish
6 Balt ales arnd supply
7 Dockng faculties
8 Freezer and cold storage
9 Ice house
10 Gear storage area
1 Gear supply
12 Gear reiatn service

13 Elect ronlcs servic
14 Engine repair srrvce
15. Marie railway
16 Fu'i sdiae
17 Goce res
18 Restaurant
19 Retail seafood mark-e
20 Liqud waste ltsposal
21 Soid waste disposal (lhr-rp heb.ds
fsh scrap, etc
22 Otherilisti


C Column 8
Those you 'eThId like
now eo i-i I Id I ol ITI)IIve'd


h5 i n ny oui ds Ih 1 ,1! W
ICONHDE TIAI I

S151- SliELLF ISH

O or inol00o.op 1 U.1 5ooo00C oo,

O ,Ol an nl00 oo.ii [ 50,000 100000
o l 000 o 0300.00 11 1w (o00 300 00. I

S -0 o o00 0 i1 00 ,,. 300000 ',


Cfemini r,


Sr i r' ii


l!atl o r u p)lt ur Ir 1


i t)r l ld apli

C]

ED

ED

Li

ED


















FLORIDA SEAFOOD

PORT SWTU






Dear Commuerual Boat Owner


i I

iwII


Are ucomrircjit a fishing fa tio"us adcquati i-
your area Thef (;uf and South Atlantc Fishcries
[)'cl ipnllmentri Foundatioll and your industry assou la
[Ions hate asked us to determine tif need fol newi 4
k. II..i .i.. po t facilities and possible lIocAtior s for I

YOi: opinions are importadl tu us, Even if you are not engaged in comne -caid' fishing, please complete
ihe pal ofI hle form that pertains to you and retu-n i to us Ludda wil1 o1ll take a Fe minutes. Your
,iln\wes \ uill r !llow ietihe i l not Lumi lntlrl f lishint pol t irnpro\tmc-nlts ar nt. d'ci


L'' pt r III. l lllnlo io pp o atl



Jame c( CatU
Marine ELconmi t



Marine Economist


111511BBU 111111


JfC If P Ih


A Coopea,,,, Project of
Florila Agricultural Marcet Research Center
Gulf & South Atlantic Fisheries Development Fouudation, n
Florida Sea Grant


"i-i





















COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN SURVEY
1. You owned a commercial I shing boat ;n 19/7 c aid g l sl ote boot regltrotion records. Do you still oi ore nou- e commecial boaus
] Yes- e!e coilnu. [ No i n o plene reituoday ,o we nooow you r Ld the queshiorriN(I POSACE REQOU RE Thnk you
S Do yo se youl bioor nmernl ash rg
C ei.- eor'ii. Que N ni, please reurl d so we Iwkno il ou rnce erd lle quer.ornrO C rNO POSACE REOQURE),. Tl, i
'. In c u n A hi e re nouilles an d erc thoa yoV now use.
,S In1 cr Hrli ,he ,bh ifcns cr seleirce yoi uld use ti rvae,ble or improved.


" lipl-e


S1 f to, ip 1, -, ,,


. r. ,ii, r, n i sl ,..., 1*. Hc 'r TM i


1 Shrimp uplaod'n *io i
2 Crob unlnad,'l
3. Lobster hOus
4. Fish house
5. Processigoi u use ;
6 Ban soles and su o
I Docking ci,9 i -h
8 Freezer ird cold sl,
9. Ice house
10. Ge-o storage area
11 Gear sGup I
12 Gear repair isrc ce
13. Electron cs service
JI. Enq.ne repair service
15. Marine ra uyo
16. Fuel sones

IS. Restouiant
19. Retal sercod market
29. Fshermens m 1ee, ig
21 A qord -no ir pe r
2? Solid waste dspool
2). Other i 'st'


Check cn,
ltose yo< use

O

0
El
0
El
0
E]
O
O
El




O
0
[]
D]
D]
a]
D]
---D


Colouri A
Rannl]
OK

O i
D
El

O
El


O
O
O
O
E)
0
E]





O






0
13
D

O
O
O
[]
D]
a]
D-
D]


Colun B
Check Ilos you ouul uso
NFeeds r.provng i a, l0b o irpilrv ed


'IL L .L !SH


D 00 'i,000 r

[ i0 300 ';,,O]l Ibs
[] 2 OOO* <,, ...


ED L



O ?r.ujo


," 000 Ib,

b.U









Mail Survey Procedures and Responses


Each of the two questionnaires shown previously were sent to

commercial fishermen or seafood dealers, as appropriate, in the 17

county areas 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 Department of

Natural Resources (Appendix Table 4). A total of 190 seafood whole-

salers and/or processors, registered with the National Marine Fisheries

Service in 1976, received the dealer questionnaire. A second copy of

the appropriate questionnaire was sent to those who had not responded in

each group approximately four weeks after 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 4).

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

were or were not active commercial fishermen in the same proportion as

boat owners returning the questionnaires. Applying the percentage that

active fishermen in each county are of respondents from the county to

total county boat registrations gives an estimated 3,574 commercial

fishermen still active of the 6,114 registered commercial boat owners

in this 1/ county region (Appendix Table 4).

The response from the total number of seafood dealers in the 17

county area were about 27 percent for the first mailing which was much

higher during the same period of time than for the commercial fishermen







64

the same period of time than for the commercial fishermen. At the end

of the second mailing, 45 percent or 86 dealers returned questionnaires,

resulting in a slightly larger net rate of return than commercial fishermen

response (Appendix Table 5). Of these 86 respondents, 77 were still

active dealers.


Appendix Table 4.--Questionnaire disposition and responses, commercial
fishermen, all counties and Dade and Monroe Counties.


Dade and Monroe
Disposition or Dade and Monroe Counties as a
response All counties Counties share of total


Number Percent Number Percent Percent

Total mailed 6,114 100 2,181 100 36

Returned unable
to deliver 410 7 202 9 49


Individuals receiving
questionnaires 5,704 93 1,979 91 35

Questionnaires not
returned 3,217 53 1,237 57 39


Questionnaires
returned 2,487 41 742 34 30

Respondents:

No longer own boat 350 6 102 5 29

No longer fishing 683 11 213 10 31


Still active 1,454 24 427 20 29










Appendix Table 5.--Questionnaire dispositions and responses, dealer survey,
all counties and Dade and Monroe Counties.



Dade and Monroe
Disposition or Dade and Monroe
response All counties


Number Percent Number Percent


Percent


Total mailed

Returned unable
to deliver


Individuals recieving
questionnaires

Questionnaires not
returned

Questionnaires
returned


58 100


7 12


92 51 88


46 29 50


45 22 38


Respondents:


No longer dealer


77 40 18 31


Still active










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 Program Directory write:

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

or contact your local county Cooperative Extension Service Office.













REFERENCES


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

Florida Department of Natural Resources. "Commercial Boat Registrations
1977-78." Tallahassee: 1978.

Summary of Florida Commercial Marine Landings, 1971 through
1976. Tallahassee.

Mathis, Kary, James C. Cato, Robert L. Degner, Paul D. Landrum and Fred
J. Prochaska. Commercial Fishing Activity and Facility Needs in
Florida: Citrus County. Industry Report 78-2, Florida Agricultural
Market Research Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, July 1978.

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

SCommercial Fishing Activity and Facility Needs in Florida:
Dixie and Levy Counties. Industry Report 78-4, Florida Agricultural
Market Research Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, July 1978.

Commercial Fishing Activity and Facility Needs in Florida:
Okaloosa and Santa Rosa Counties. Industry Report 78-5, Florida
Agricultural Market Research Center, University of Florida, Gaines-
ville, July 1978.

Commercial Fishing Port Development in North Florida. Industry
Report 78-6, Florida Aqricultural Market Research Center, University
of Florida, Gainesville, July, 1978.

__ Commercial Fishing Activity and Facility Needs in Florida:
Brevard, Broward, Indian River, Martin, Palm Beach, St. Lucie, and
Volusia Counties. Industry Report 79-1, Florida Agricultural
Market Research Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, February
1979.

Commercial Fishing Activity and Facility Needs 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 Report 79-3. Forida Agricultural
Market Research Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, February
1979.







68



;lathms, 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 Fishery Products in
the U.S., 1976." U.S. DepdrLtlenrL of Coiinerce, Washington, D.C.

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




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