Skip to main content

Full text of "A Study of Areal and Seasonal Abundance of The American Eel (Anguilla Rostrata) At Selected Sites in Southeastern Coastal Louisiana-Technical Bulletin"

See other formats


'^r 



17 ^5" 




-mi- 



LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 



A STUDY OF AREAL AND SEASONAL ABUNDANCE OF 

THE AMERICAN EEL (ANGUILLA ROSTRATA) 

AT SELECTED SITES IN SOUTHEASTERN COASTAL LOUISIANA 




L. Brandt Savoie 

AND 

Keith L. Casanova 



Technical Bulletin No. 34 



^ JlfJ^igt'mtif^SP.^ 



May, 1982 




This public document was published at a cost of $.88 per copy by Baton Rouge 
Printing Co., Inc., P. O. Box 97, Baton Rouge, LA 70821, under authority of 
special exception by the Division of Administration. This material was printed 
in accordance with the standards for printing by state agencies established 
pursuant to R.S. 43:31. 



LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 

A STUDY OF AREAL AND SEASONAL ABUNDANCE OF 

THE AMERICAN EEL (ANGUILLA ROSTRATA) 

AT SELECTED SITES IN SOUTHEASTERN COASTAL LOUISIANA* 



BY 

L. Brandt Savoie 

AND 

Keith L. Casanova 



Technical Bulletin No. 34 



May, 1982 



*THIS PROJECT WAS CONDUCTED IN COOPERATION WITH THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, 
NOAA, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, PUBLIC LAW 88-309, PROJECT 2-270-R. 



David C. Treen 

Governor 

Wildlife and Fisheries Commissioners 

J. C. Gilbert, Chairman Sicily Island 

Charles A. Riggs, Vice-Chairman Hackberry 

Wayne C. Ducote New Orleans 

James C. Farrelly Metairie 

Jesse Knowles Lake Charles 

Bobby Orgeron Golden Meadow 

George N. Gray Shreveport 



DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES 

Jesse J. Guidry 

Secretary 



John D. Newsom 

Assistant Secretary 

Open 

Deputy Secretary 



Gregory A. Weimar 

Undersecretary 



Harry E. Schafer, JR., Chief 
Seafood Division 

Max W. Summers, Assistant Chief 
Seafood Division 

Federal Aid Section 
William S. Perret, 88-309 Coordinator 



T. B. Ford 

Assistant Secretary 
Marian "Pie" Pendley 

Executive Assistant 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2011 with funding from 

LYRASIS members and Sloan Foundation 



http://www.archive.org/details/studyofarealseas34depa 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Acknowledgements vi 

Abstract vii 

Introduction 1 

Area Description 1 

Materials and Methods 3 

Biology 3 

Hydrology 23 

Discussion and Recommendations 26 

Literature Cited 27 



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

Thanks are owed to many individuals of the Seafood Division, Louisiana Department of 
Wildlife and Fisheries, for their valuable assistance in the completion of this project. The 
supervision, guidance, and comments by Messrs. Harry E. Schafer, Max. W. Summers, 
William S. Perret, and Claude Boudreaux are appreciated. We also acknowledge the valuable 
collaboration afforded by Messrs. I. B. Byrd and David Pritchard of the National Marine 
Fisheries Serivce. 

Special thanks are extended to Messrs. John Burdon, Richard Boe, and Karl Mapes for 
their diligent assistance in field sampling and data analysis, and to other Seafood Division 
biologists for their thoughts and comments. Thanks are also extended to Mr. Dace Gisclard 
for typing the manuscript. 



ABSTRACT 

Three areas of southeastern coastal Louisiana were sampled for American eel (Anguilla 
rostrata) twice monthly from April 1, 1979, through March 31, 1981. Areas sampled were 
selected from data collected during three months of preliminary investigation conducted 
from January through March 1979. Data from the selected sites were analyzed to deter- 
mine the areal and seasonal availability of eels in this portion of coastal Louisiana. Results 
of data analysis are presented to enable the formulation of sound management recom- 
mendations to govern any future development of the eel fishery in Louisiana. 

Eels were taken using locally designed commercial-type eel traps. Eels taken were 
recorded individually by both length and weight; incidental catch was recorded by total 
number and total weight of each species encountered. Hydrological and climatological 
data were also recorded. Eel catches were correlated with recorded salinities and tempera- 
tures and are presented in this manner. 



I^^^RODUCTION 

The eel fishery in this country, although still 
underdeveloped, dates back to the time of the Pil- 
grims. Eels have been shunned, however, by most 
people in the United States, and the eel fishery has 
never really flourished in this country (Lane 1978). 
According to Berg et. al. (1975), many Europeans and 
Asians have long considered eel a delicacy, and the 
number of Americans who like eels is increasing. 
Recent favorable prices and publicity have generated 
considerable interest in developing an eel fishery in 
coastal southeastern states (Abbas 1977). The de- 
mand-supply situation has created conditions favor- 
able for an eel fishery (Berg et. al. 1975). 

From 1965 to 1973, the United States landed only 
8,708 tons (7,900 metric tons) of eels while European 
countries landed 196,872 tons (178,600 metric tons) 
(Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 
Nations 1974). Duringl972, 14 states landed approx- 
imately 750 tons (680 metric tons) of eels, with a 
dockside value of over $400,000 (Lane 1978). During 
1975, 350 eel fishermen in North Carolina brought 
home more than $600,000 for their efforts (Seltz 
1976). Seltz also stated that during the same year. 
North Carolina provided an estimated 15 percent of 
the national eel export, and the economy received a 
$6 million boost from eel-related expenditures. Far- 
rin (1972) reported that in Europe and Asia, stable 
markets exist for elvers as well as for mature eels. He 
further noted that foreign demand for live and 
smoked eels has resulted in renewed interest in this 
important fishery. Berg et. at. (1975) found a year- 
round eel fishery to exist in the coastal areas of North 
and South Carolina. As early as 1945, Firth reported 
that the United States eel fishery extended from 
Maine to North Carolina and that the annual catch of 
more than a million pounds was valued at approx- 
imately $100,000 at that time. At today's prices, eel 
fishing can be a profitable enterprise. 

From 1960 through 1970, yearly landing of eels in 
North Carolina averaged 39.3 thousand pounds, 
valued at $1.9 thousand. Average price per pound 
was $.05 during that time, and increased to an aver- 
age $.16 per pound in 1971 and 1972. From 1973-76, 
landings averaged 333,307 pounds per year, with an 
average value of $.42 per pound (Easley and Freund 
1977). During 1979, local buyers in southeastern 
Louisiana were paying $.60 per pound for live eels. 

American eels have recently showed signs of be- 
coming an important commercial fishery in South 
Carolina. Export of eels to Europe and the Orient is 
increasing yearly. American eel stock is being used 
to supplement an increasing, though still largely 
foreign, demand for eels (Harrell 1977.) Demand for 
eels in 1972 was 24,000 tons for Europe; 25,000 tons 
for Japan; and 5 to 10 tons for Central Europe, the 
Soviet Union, and China ( Jurgensen and Crow 1977). 
The demand for eels has increased, and over- 
exploitation of this resource has reduced natural 



has resulted in oversells dealers offering fishermen 
in the U.S. and Canada good prices for eels (McCord 
1977). 

Recent activity in the eel market prompted some 
local seafood wholesalers to examine the potential for 
marketing Louisiana eels. From sampling efforts by 
private interests, some information was gathered on 
the availability of eel stocks in the southeastern por- 
tion of coastal Louisiana. These preliminary samples 
indicated a sufficient supply of eels to encourage in- 
vestigation into the possibility of establishing an ac- 
tive eel fishery in this state. Because there has been 
no eel fishery in Louisiana or in any other Gulf Coast 
state, no regulations have yet been established for 
such a fishery. The Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries 
Commission passed a resolution on March 21, 1978, 
to allow eel fishing in the state on a special permit 
basis. Since that time, 34 permits have been issued. 

Prior to this study, no data were available on eels 
in Louisiana waters. This study was particularly 
timely because the fishery is just beginning, and the 
only information available to prospective fishermen 
is from studies on Atlantic Coast states. The results 
of this study should provide much-needed informa- 
tion for the establishment of a viable fishery manage- 
ment program. 

AREA DESCRIPTION 

The study area was located in southeastern coastal 
Louisiana, north and east of the Mississippi River 
Gulf Outlet (Figure 1). This area includes portions of 
St. Tammany, Orleans, and St. Bernard parishes. To 
effectively determine optimal environmental con- 
ditons for eels, three general areas were selected 
(Figure 1). The principal difference among the 
selected areas was salinity range. Area No. 1 was 
located in St. Tammany Parish along the lower por- 
tion of the Pearl River system. Water depths at this 
location are greatly affected by rainfall and to some 
extent by tidal level. Depths range from 5 to 30 ft., 
and water current is generally strong. Salinities in 
this area ranged from 0-1 part per thousand (ppt), 
and turbidity levels were generally high. Area No. 2 
was located in Orleans Parish in the vicinity of Chef 
Menteur Pass. Water levels in this area are influ- 
enced primarily by tidal action and to a lesser degree 
by rainfall. Depths range from 5-30 ft., and currents 
were moderate to strong at most times. During tidal 
changes, water movement was slack for short periods 
of time. Salinities in this area range from 2-10 ppt, 
and turbidity levels were moderate. Area No. 3 was 
located in St. Bernard Parish in the vicinity of Bayou 
LaLoutre. This station included areas of broken 
marsh and extensive bayou systems. Water levels in 
this area are affected primarily by tidal action and, 
on rare occasions, by rainfall. Depths range from 5-15 
ft., and currents, although slight to moderate, were 
slack during tidal change. Salinity range was from 
5-25 ppt, and turbidity levels were slight to mod- 
erate. 



J 
-" f }f iq J i ( 

S !■ J, 1 lib - rii 







3! -, 'N ,A ,-. ■' T ■ , Figure 1. Sampling locations. 

/noil anvv ■j§rf6T >{1inffefi .sj^r 

-bofi! <.>J ■tcfpi!?, ^iirf-- elnv^.! y ;, 



MATERIALS AND METHODS 

Eels were collected in locally designed commercial- 
type traps (Figure 2). These traps are cubical, and 
measure 17 in. (43.18 cm) along all sides. They are 
constructed of 0.5 x 1 in. ( 1.27 x 2.54 cm) vinyl-coated 
wire mesh. Entrance is gained through two parallel 
funnel openings near the bottom of the trap. These 
funnels measure 5 in. (12.7 cm) across the front and 2 
in. (5.08 cm) across the back. The trap is divided into 
upper and lower sections by an inverted V-shaped 
layer of vinyl-coated wire mesh. This layer contains 
two cylindrical openings that measure 2 in. (5.08 cm) 
in diameter and extend 3 in. ( 7.62 cm) towards the top 
of the trap, allowing access to the upper section. A 
4x4x4.5 in. (10.16x10.16x11.43 cm) high bait box is 
positioned near the center of the lower compartment 
and has a hinged door for easy accessibility. The top 
of the trap has a hinged door at one corner to facili- 
tate removal of eels. A treated nylon line is used to 
fasten the trap to a stationary object. 




Figure 2. Eel trap used during this project. 

Each of the three study areas was sampled twice 
monthly. Six traps were set in each area and re- 
trieved after 24 hours. Traps were set in pairs, with 
one of each pair baited with fresh-frozen shrimp 
heads, and the other with fresh-frozen cracked crab. 
Upon retrieval, all species were removed and cata- 
logued by individual trap. Samples were packed in 
ice in the field and transported to the lab for analysis. 

Data recorded from each trap included bait type, 
individual length of eels to the nearest 5 mm group- 
ing, individual weight of eels to the nearest ounce, 
total number of each incidental species, and total 



weight of each incidental species. 

Hydrological parameters were recorded as each 
trap was set and at the time of retrieval. Salinities 
and water temperatures were recorded utilizing a 
Beckman RS-5 salinometer. Turbidity was measured 
with a Secchi disc; wind speed was measured with a 
hand-held anemometer; and air temperature was 
measured with a thermometer. Additionally, date, 
time of day, cloud cover, water depth, and wind direc- 
tion and speed were recorded. 

BIOLOGY 

Field sampling for American eel (Anguilla rostra- 
ta) began April 1, 1979, and continued through 
March 31, 1981. During the sampling period, a total 
of 864 traps were set; 1 1 traps were lost during the 
study. Catch data were recorded from the 853 traps 
retrieved. Data collected revealed a total catch of 626 
eels having a total weight of 358.4 pounds (162.9 kg) 
(Table 1). Analysis of these data showed a calculated 
catch per effort ( C/E ) of 0.7 eels ( Figure 3 ) per trap per 
24 hr. sampling period. Average monthly C/E at all 
locations using both bait types revealed that catches 
of eels varied greatly. The most productive period 
was from November 1979 through March 1980. The 
least productive period occurred from July through 
September 1980 (Figure 3). During the study period, 
monthly C/E of eels reached or exceeded the overall 
average C/E during 12 months, while monthly C/E 
also fell below the overall average C/E during 12 
months (Figure 3). C/E during summer months 
(June-August) of both 1979 and 1980 was well below 
the project average. 

Of the 853 traps retrieved, 422 had been baited 
with shrimp heads, and 431 had been baited with 
cracked crab. Traps baited with shrimp heads 
accounted for 466 of all eels caught and revealed a 
calculated C/E of 1.1 eels (Table 2). There were 160 
eels taken in traps baited with cracked crab, for a 
calculated C/E of 0.4 eels (Table 2). These data clear- 
ly show that shrimp bait produced larger numbers of 
eels during this study. Monthly catches of eels, by 
bait type, are also presented in Table 2. Traps baited 
with shrimp heads out-fished those baited with 
cracked crab during every month except July 1980 
(Table 2). The largest monthly catch was recorded 
from traps baited with shrimp heads during Decem- 
ber 1979. When monthly C/E was plotted by bait 
type, the same pattern was observed. Monthly C/E 
using shrimp heads exceeded C/E from traps using 
cracked crab during every month except July 1980. 
During that month, C/E in traps baited with cracked 
crab was twice as high as the C/E recorded from those 
baited with shrimp heads. Traps baited with shrimp 
produced a monthly C/E at least twice as large as 
those baited with crab during all other months sam- 
pled. Highest monthly C/E for shrimp bait occurred 
in December 1979, when an average of 3.9 eels were 



taken per trap (Figure 4). Highest monthly C/E for 
crab bait was during March 1980, when an average of 
0.8 eels per trap was recorded (Figure 5). 

Of the three locations sampled (Figure 1), area 2 
produced the most eels. A total of 361 eels were col- 
lected at this site from 286 traps, giving an average 
C/E of 1.3 (Table 3). Eels taken from this area repre- 
sented 57.7% of the total eel catch. When monthly 
C/E was plotted against the areal C/E (Figure 6), 
numbers of eels varied greatly throughout the study 
period. The most productive months were November 
1979 through March 1980. During that period, catch- 
es were considerably greater than the areal C/E (Fi- 
gure 6). In November and December 1981, catches 
again exceeded the average C/E, but to a lesser de- 
gree. All other months during the project revealed 
catches at or well below the areal C/E, with the period 
of June through August being the poorest in both 
1979 and 1980 (Figure 6). 

Area 1 accounted for the second highest catch, with 
158 eels taken in 282 traps, representing 25.2% of the 
total catch, and an areal C/E of 0.6 eels (Table 3). 
Catches at this location did not vary from the areal 
C/E as much as in area 2 (Figure 7). Highest C/E at 
this station occurred in May of both 1979 and 1980, 
when the C/E exceeded one eel per trap. Monthly C/E 
fell below the areal C/E during 15 months, while 
numbers exceeded the areal C/E during only nine 
months (Figure 7). 

Area 3 exhibited the poorest catch, with only 107 
eels (Table 3) being taken from 285 traps, represent- 
ing 17.1% of the total catch, and an areal C/E of 0.4. 
Catches from this location, like those recorded from 
area 1, did not vary greatly from the areal C/E (Fi- 
gure 8). The C/E exceeded one eel per trap only dur- 
ing the months of April 1979 and June 1980 (Figure 
8). During every other month sampled, catches were 
well below one eel per trap. 

Numbers of eels collected monthly and total 
weight in ounces, by location, are presented in Table 
4. As Table 4 indicates, area 2 produced the most eels, 
and catches were greater during winter months 
throughout the project. Although area 3 had the 
lowest catch rate, the eels collected at this location 
did exhibit the largest average size. Eels taken from 
area 3 averaged 11.3 ounces (320.9 g), while calcu- 
lated average weights from areas 1 and 2 were 8.8 
ounces (249.9 g) and 8.7 ounces (247.1 g), respective- 
ly. The average weight of eels calculated from all 
locations was 9.2 ounces (261.3 g). Average weight of 
eels taken, by month, is presented in Figure 9. When 
the average monthly weight of eels was calculated by 
bait type (Table 5), little difference was observed 
between catches. Although individual monthhly 
averages varied (Figures 10 and 11), the overall aver- 
age weight was 9.2 ounces (261.3 g) for each bait type. 
These data indicate that of the two bait types used 
during this study, neither one was more selective 
than the other regarding size of eels captured. Num- 
ber of eels taken monthly and total weight, by each 
bait type, are presented in Table 6. 



The individual length of each eel captured was also 
recorded. Eels ranged in total length from 12 in. (305 
mm) to 29.5 in. (750 mm), with a mean length of 19.4 
in. (492.2 mm). 

All other species trapped were also catalogued 
(Table 1). Although other species were captured, all 
of these animals could be realeased unharmed from 
the traps. During the study, all traps were set and 
emptied within a 24 hr. period, and using this sche- 
dule, it was observed that all organisms collected 
were still alive and in excellent condition when the 
traps were emptied. 

Catch data showed a total of 34 incidental species 
(Table 1) taken in eel traps. These species accounted 
for 3,280 individuals and had a total weight of 422.6 
lbs. (191.9 kg). The blue crab was the most prevalent 
organism, with a total catch of 1,377 specimens and a 
total weight of 167.7 lbs. (76.1 kg). Blue crabs 
accounted for 41.9% of the incidental catch by num- 
bers of individuals and 39.7% by weight. Other com- 
mercially important species captured included pond 
crawfish, river shrimp, stone crab, channel catfish, 
yellow bullhead, mangrove snapper, sheepshead, 
Atlantic croaker, sand seatrout, and southern floun- 
der. Numbers and total weight of these species are 
presented in Table 1. Additionally, several species of 
freshwater game fishes were encountered, including 
orange spotted sunfish, longear sunfish, bluegill 
warmouth, redear, rock bass and white crappie 
(Table 1). 

The largest incidental catch was taken from area 3, 
with 1,773 individuals (Table 7) and a total weight of 
233.6 lbs. (106.1 kg). Catches from this location rep- 
resented 54.1% of the total incidental catch and 
55.3% by weight. Area 2 yielded the second largest 
incidental catch (Table 7) with 873 specimens 
weighing 115.3 lbs. (52.4 kg). Area 1 followed, with 
643 individuals weighing 73. 6 lbs. (33.4 kg) (Table 
7). 

It should also be noted that shrimp bait, which 
produced the greatest number of eels, also yielded the 
largest incidental catch (Table 8), with a total of 
2,001 individuals having a total weight of 269.6 lbs. 
(122.4 kg). Only 1,279 specimens, weighing a total of 
153 lbs. (69.5 kg) (Table 8), were recorded from in- 
cidental catch taken in traps baited with cracked 
crab. 



Table 1. 

Systematic List of Species Caught in Eel Traps from April 1, 1979 — March 31, 1981 by 

Bait Type, Showing Number Caught and Total Weight in Pounds. 



BAIT TYPE 

Shrimp Crab 

Total No. Total Wt. Total No. Total Wt. 



Class Crustacea 
Order Decapoda 
Family Astacidae 

Procambarus blandingi (Girard) — Pond crawfish 
Family Palaemonidae 

Macrobrachium ohione (Smith) — River shrimp 
Family Portunidae 

Callinectes sapidus (Rathbus) — Blue crab 
Family Xanthidae 

Menippe mercenaria (Say) — Stone crab 

Rhithropanopeus harrisii (Gould) — Mud crab 

Class Osteichthyes 
Order Anguilliformes 
Family Anguillidae 

Anguilla rostrata (Lesueur) — American eel 
Family Ophichthidae 
Ophichthus gomesi (Castelnau) — Shrimp eel 



Order Cypriniformes 
Family Cyprinidae 
Pimephales uigilax (Baird and Girard )- 



-Bulhead minow 



Order Siluriformes 

Family Ictaluridae 
Ictalurus punctatus (Rafinesque) — Channel catfish 
Ictaluras natalis (Lesueur) — Yellow bullhead 
Notorus gyrinus (Mitchill) — Tadpole madtom 

Family Ariidae 
Arius felis (Linnaeus) — Sea catfish 
Bagre marinus (Mitchill) — Gafftopsail catfish 

Order Atheriniformes 
Family Cyprinodontidae 
Fundulus grandis (Baird and Girard) — Gulf killifish 



Order Batrachoidiformes 
Family Batrachoididae 
Opsanus beta (Goode and Bean)- 



-Gulf toadfish 



Order Perciformes 

Family Centrarchidae 
Lepomis humilis (Girard) — Orange spotted sunfish 
Lepomis megalotis (Rafinesque) — Longear sunfish 
Lepomis macrochirus (Rafinesque) — Bluegill 
Lepomis gulosus (Cuvier) — Warmouth 
Lepomis microlophus (Gunther) — Redear 
Amblophites rupestris (Rafinesque) — Rock bass 
Pomoxis annularis (Rafinesque) — White crappie 

Family Lutjanidae 
Lutjanus griseus (Linnaeus) — Mangrove snapper 

Family Pomadasyidae 

Orthopristis chrysoptera (Linnaeus) — Pigfish 

Family Sparidae 
Logodon rhomboides (Linnaeus) — Pinfish 
Archosargus probatocephalus (Walbaum) — Sheepshead 



12 


0.8 


18 


1.1 


26 


1.1 


22 


0.9 


69 


107.7 


508 


60.0 


3 


1.1 


2 


0.1 


2 


1.1 


2 


0.1 



466 266.9 

1 0.3 



99 



30 
11 

2 

347 
1 



50 



17 



3.0 



2.7 



4.8 



160 



139 



5.8 


21 


5.1 


4 


0.2 


— 


58.3 


122 


0.3 


1 



21 



91.5 



6.7 



3.7 
1.3 



20.5 
0.1 



0.1 



5.3 



18 


4.5 


15 


2.8 


111 


12.8 


81 


7.3 


154 


14.7 


71 


6.3 


10 


2.0 


15 


1.5 


1 


0.3 


1 


0.2 


16 


2.0 


14 


1.8 


— 


— 


3 


0.4 


1 


0.2 


1 


0.1 


1 


0.2 


- 


— 


60 


8.4 


79 


9.7 


114 


15.9 


59 


8.8 



18 


6.3 


20 


5.5 


1 


0.8 






4 


0.8 


3 


0.7 


— 


— 


8 


0.7 


1 


0.1 


1 


0.1 


1 


0.1 


_ 


_ 



Family Sciaenidae 

Micropogonias undulatus (Linnaeus) — Atlantic croEiker 

Cynoscion arenarius (Ginsburg) — Sand seatrout 

Bairidella chrysura (Lacepede) — Silver perch 
Family Ephippidae 

Chaetodipterus faber (Broussonet) — Atlantic spadefish 

Order Pleuronectiformes 
Family Bothidae 

Paralichthys lethostigma (Jordon and Gilbert) — Southern flounder 
Family Soleidae 

Trinectes maculatus (Bloch and Schneider) — Hogchoker 

Order Tetraodontiformes 
Family Tetraodontidae 
Sphoeroides nephelus (Groode and Bean) — Southern puffer 17 1.1 41 2.9 

Class Amphibia 
Order Urodela 
Family Proteidae 
N ecturus maculosus (RaSinesque) — Gulf Coast Waterdog 2 0.4 — — 

Amphiuma tridactylum (Curvier) — Three-toed amphiuma — — 2 3.5 

Class Reptilia 
Order Chelonia 
Family Kinosternidae 

Sternotherus odoratus (Latreille) — Stinkpot 3 0.9 1 0.1 







CO cNi 'I q 
cj oi oi cj 



3/0 

7 



Table 2. 
Monthly fishing effort, number of eels caught, and catch per effort (C/E), by 

type. 



bait 







Shrimp Bait 






Crab Bait 




Year/ 


Fishing 


No. of 




Fishing 


No. of 




Month 


Effort* 


Eels 


C/E 


Effort* 


Eels 


C/E 


1979 














April 


17 


20 


1.2 


18 


8 


0.4 


May 


11 


16 


1.5 


20 


6 


0.3 


June 


18 


15 


0.8 


18 


9 


0.5 


July 


18 


10 


0.6 


17 


5 


0.3 


August 


18 


11 


0.6 


18 


3 


0.2 


September 


18 


15 


0.8 


18 


9 


0.5 


October 


18 


13 


0.7 


18 


10 


0.6 


November 


18 


40 


2.2 


18 


12 


0.7 


December 


18 


70 


3.9 


18 


12 


0.7 


1980 














January 


18 


29 


1.6 


18 


13 


0.7 


February 


18 


30 


1.7 


18 


3 


0.2 


March 


18 


29 


1.6 


18 


14 


0.8 


April 


18 


16 


0.9 


18 


4 


0.2 


May 


18 


17 


0.9 


18 


11 


0.6 


June 


18 


17 


0.9 


18 


3 


0.2 


July 


18 


3 


0.2 


18 


8 


0.4 


August 


18 


4 


0.2 


18 








September 


18 


9 


0.5 


17 








October 


18 


16 


0.9 


17 


6 


0.4 


November 


18 


20 


1.1 


18 


9 


0.5 


December 


17 


30 


1.8 


18 


6 


0.3 


1981 














January 


18 


2 


0.1 


18 








February 


18 


15 


0.8 


18 


5 


0.3 


March 


17 


19 


1.1 


18 


4 


0.2 


TOTALS 


422 


466 


1.1 


431 


160 


0.4 



*One fishing effort is equivalent to one trap retrieved after a 24 hour period. 




Ji 

0, 



o 
t 

o • 






3/0 

9 




- Q 




- < 



- Q 



< 



) 



- s 



■9 

s 
•a 

,£1 
a 

I 



6^ 
i . 

p v 



B r 1 



3/0 
10 




a 
o 



11 



Table 3. 
Monthly fishing effort, number of eels caught, and catch per effort (C/E), by location. 



Area 1 



Area 2 



Area 3 



Year/ 


Fishing 






Fishing 






Fishing 






Month 


Effort* 


Eels 


C/E 


Effort* 


Eels 


C/E 


Effort* 


Eels 


C/E 


1979 




















April 


12 


4 


0.3 


11 


7 


0.6 


12 


17 


1.4 


May 


7 


6 


1.2 


12 


15 


1.3 


12 


1 


0.1 


June 


12 


8 


0.7 


12 


10 


0.8 


12 


6 


0.5 


July 


11 


6 


0.5 


12 


6 


0.5 


12 


3 


0.3 


August 


12 


7 


0.6 


12 


3 


0.3 


12 


4 


0.3 


September 


12 


12 


1.0 


12 


9 


0.8 


12 


3 


0.3 


October 


12 


8 


0.7 


12 


7 


0.6 


12 


8 


0.7 


November 


12 


6 


0.5 


12 


31 


2.6 


12 


15 


1.3 


December 


12 


2 


0.2 


12 


79 


6.6 


12 


1 


0.1 


1980 




















January 


12 


9 


0.8 


12 


32 


2.7 


12 


1 


0.1 


February 


12 


6 


0.5 


12 


24 


2.0 


12 


3 


0.3 


March 


12 


12 


1.0 


12 


28 


2.3 


12 


3 


0.3 


April 


12 


10 


0.8 


12 


7 


0.6 


12 


3 


0.3 


May 


12 


19 


1.6 


12 


8 


0.7 


12 


1 


0.1 


June 


12 


6 


0.5 


12 


1 


0.1 


12 


13 


1.1 


July 


12 


10 


0.8 


12 








12 


1 


0.1 


August 


12 


3 


0.3 


12 








12 


1 


0.1 


September 


12 


2 


0.2 


12 


5 


0.4 


11 


2 


0.1 


October 


12 


5 


0.4 


12 


12 


1.0 


11 


5 


0.5 


November 


12 


3 


0.3 


12 


20 


1.7 


12 


6 


0.5 


December 


12 


2 


0.2 


11 


28 


2.5 


12 


6 


0.5 


1981 




















January 


12 








12 


2 


0.2 


12 








February 


12 


7 


0.6 


12 


10 


0.8 


12 


3 


0.3 


March 


12 


5 


0.4 


12 


17 


1.4 


11 


1 


0.1 


TOTALS 


282 


158 


0.6 


286 


361 


1.3 


285 


107 


0.4 



*One fishing effort is equivalent to one trap retrieved after a 24 hour period. 



12 





CO 



al 



3/0 

13 




a I 



3/0 

14 



Table 4. 
Number of Eels Taken and Weight in Ounces by Month and Location. 





Area 1 




Area 2 




Area 3 




Year/ 


Number of 


Total 


Number of 


Total 


Number of 


Total 


Month 


Eels 


Weight 


Eels 


Weight 


Eels 


Weight 


1979 














April 


4 


28 


7 


35 


17 


210 


May 


6 


52 


15 


144 


1 


11 


June 


8 


59 


10 


99 


6 


69 


July 


6 


43 


6 


57 


3 


45 


August 


7 


101 


3 


26 


4 


41 


September 


12 


119 


9 


80 


3 


42 


October 


8 


106 


7 


67 


8 


101 


November 


6 


44 


31 


302 


15 


141 


December 


2 


22 


79 


672 


1 


12 


1980 














January 


9 


100 


32 


277 


1 


22 


February 


6 


52 


24 


186 


3 


35 


March 


12 


83 


28 


273 


3 


29 


April 


10 


40 


7 


80 


3 


23 


May 


19 


142 


8 


48 


1 


7 


June 


6 


46 


1 


10 


13 


175 


July 


10 


122 








1 


19 


August 


3 


13 








1 


10 


September 


2 


27 


5 


43 


2 


27 


October 


5 


27 


12 


83 


5 


50 


November 


3 


39 


20 


183 


6 


68 


December 


2 


12 


28 


228 


6 


35 


1981 














January 








2 


13 








February 


7 


79 


10 


79 


3 


16 


March 


5 


36 


17 


154 


1 


16 


TOTALS 


158 


1,392 


361 


3,139 


107 


1,204 



15 




IM OAV 
16 



Table 5. 
Average Weight of Eels in Ounces by Month and Bait 

Type. 

Shrimp Bait Crab Bait 

Year/ Average Weight Average Weight 

Month Eels Eels 



1979 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 



9.8 
9.1 
10.1 
10.6 
12.7 
10.0 
12.2 
10.2 
8.7 



11.5 

13.3 

8.4 

5.9 

7.8 

8.3 

8.8 

22.7 

33.6 



1980 

January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 



9.8 

7.9 

7.9 

6.9 

7.2 

12.5 

16.3 

5.8 

10.8 

7.5 

8.6 

7.8 



15.8 

13.1 

12.7 

6.2 

6.8 

11.8 

2.7 

1.2 

5.4 

6.7 

9.6 

13.8 



1981 

Janaury 

February 

March 



6.5 
9.3 

8.7 



0.7 
7.8 
9.7 



TOTALS 



9.2 



9.2 



17 







o JS 






^ «i 



< ■£ 



fc E 



IM OAV 

18 



.Cj' :)]•• 



eavf' k iiBi:i hn& 



H X 



i!"2?«^{>M yd ..^ooitfiC^ ffi ,3ii>S56j^ri'' iBJoT '::inM ry.&:Jiii' &l:oA tc 



■nAB. a Ah:} 



o 

LU 


5 


-3 




o 


d 


cc 


> 


Q. 


< 







iM OAV 

19 



Table 6. 
Number of Eels Taken and Total Weight, in Ounces, by Month and Bait Type 



Year/ 
Month 
1979 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 

1980 

January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 

1981 

January 

February 

March 



SHRIMP BAIT 




Number of Eels 


Total Weight 


20 




195 


16 




146 


15 




151 


10 




106 


11 




140 


15 




150 


13 




159 


40 




408 


70 




606 


29 




285 


30 




236 


29 




229 


16 




111 


17 




122 


17 




213 


3 




49 


4 




23 


9 




97 


16 




120 


20 




172 


30 




235 


2 




13 


15 




140 


19 




165 



CRAB BAIT 




Number of Eels 


Total Weight 


8 


78 


6 


61 


9 


76 


5 


39 


3 


28 


9 


91 


10 


115 


12 


79 


12 


100 


13 


114 


3 


37 


14 


156 


4 


32 


11 


75 


3 


18 


8 


92 














6 


40 


9 


118 


6 


40 








5 


34 


4 


41 



TOTALS 



466 



4,271 



160 



1,464 



20 



Table 7. 
Incidental Catch by Number of Individuals, Total Weight in Ounces, Month, and 

Location. 



YearMonth 

1979 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 

1980 

January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 

1981 

January 

February 

March 



Area 1 




Area 2 




Area 3 




Number of 


Total 


Number of 


Total 


Number of 


Total 


Individuals 


Weight 


Individuals 


Weight 


Individuals 


Weight 


14 


16 


71 


132 


54 


252 


26 


28 


45 


120 


45 


105 


45 


37 


48 


110 


69 


153 


24 


24 


44 


94 


70 


207 


38 


51 


41 


77 


49 


107 


19 


73 


47 


66 


103 


226 


92 


139 


25 


45 


73 


174 


83 


149 


4 


14 


37 


94 


30 


95 


13 


35 


68 


100 


18 


35 


37 


61 


319 


290 


3 


9 


16 


25 


79 


76 


8 


22 


62 


141 


46 


126 


13 


17 


53 


119 


49 


165 


17 


32 


47 


111 


90 


242 


30 


70 


65 


155 


76 


187 


24 


66 


58 


117 


108 


229 


35 


77 


50 


94 


130 


302 


26 


43 


76 


153 


107 


229 


13 


24 


17 


33 


96 


274 


14 


30 


9 


23 


28 


68 


22 


38 


20 


69 


13 


32 


16 


32 


8 


14 


25 


35 


15 


49 


8 


18 


18 


30 


9 


22 


9 


19 


21 


35 



TOTALS 



634 



1,178 



873 



1,845 



1,773 



3,738 



21 



Table 8. 



Incidental Catch by 


Number of In 


dividuals, To 


»tal Weil 


ght in Ounces, 


Month, and Bait 








Type. 








IsiaT 


\o 'iiifer-it' 


Shrimp 


Bait "^ 


l<Aii>'T 


.:. Kir- / 1 •; 

'• "^" -' Crab Bait rH- jcM-sBSiY 




fc;r;!,rb:\.'' 






vdvJ^Vr 






Year/ 




Number of 


Total 




Number of 


Total ''^SI 


Month 




Individuals 


Weight 


?'. 


Individuals 


Weight •'-'^^^ 


1979 


07 






"f 




>>M 


April,; f, 


93;,/ 


314 


' •- 


46^ 


86 ^•'•-f' 


Majf.y': 


46:^ 


131 


""•- 


762 


122 '-.''•^'^ 


Jun^^.v 


t.'i- 


83;; 


: 140 


'.- 


7§^-^ 


160 ^si^SwA 


July- , 


'cJO.i 


83^:^ 


204 


.■ji 


58- 


I2jiii'ii'.is1q»ci 


July 


t'S 


62:;: 


-■ 109 


'??:! 


66^ 


126 '''sdoJoO 


August 


\ <:.- 


lie:;. 


: 226 


6i- i 


53'' 


139-^5-5 (r.avoM 


September 


83 


116 ' 


245 


■■^G 


7^'. 


113'V^rfrri035a 


October 




83 


176 




41 


81 


November 


o <■• 


8r.. 


. 186 




30 


33 0«er 


December 


^■y 


iy 




C''' 




OSUAiil- 




A ^- 


g£ 







157 


y-fEUTds''! 


1980 


Oi". 


77^: 


;' 243 


-;■- 


21 


143 .i=-r.M 


January 


OS 
801 


: 82 


SS 


28 


28 '^''-i'*^ 


February 


881^: 


: : 224 


52^ 


65 V^^^ 


March 
April ^ 


63::';: 

96,f/ 
108,:. 


r. 173 

*".', 237 


06 




128 sfitil' 
148 V'"^'=-> 


May " 


^J\j.':. 


:;:: 291 


' ' 


77' 


121 'S^si;A 


Juiie " 


',0l 


113^"' 


235 


E~- 


7^ 


lY^odrasJqsS 


Juiy^ 


U>0 


136;!' 


; 321 


"'' 


SS 


152 f':"'"-^"*^ * 


August 


SI 




j:, 266 


OC 


4d 


15gfpdrfiSTOW 


September 


-' 220 


-■'■ 


2^ 


llirs)dfri>5j3{j 


October 




22 


59 




27 


62 


November 


-■, 


28, 


83 






56 ^8«; 


December 


ci' 


■-■' 


-3 


I'P 


ai. 


OisKi'S-J 




81 


3|^ 


C: 


.Jr. 


i^ 


'/XE.'.rjdV? 


1981 


iCi 


24- 


57 


VV 


i7 


24 rfitsM 


January 





l&.p . 


58 




23,. 


39 


February 


S \ ■> , J 


:?■£,' 


^' 33 


'---,- 


-'' • 


43.SJATOT 


March 




2,001 


4,313 




1,279 


2,448 


TOTALS 















22 



HYDROLOGY 

Salinity seems to be the primary factor affecting 
concentrations of eels. During the study period, area 
1 consistently had the lowest salinity, always less 
than 1 ppt; area 2 had an average salinity of 5.5 ppt; 
and area 3 exhibited the highest salinity, with an 
average of 11.4 ppt. Average monthly salinities for 
each location and the corresponding project aver- 
ages are presented in Table 9. Area 2, which had a 
moderate salinity, produced by far the most eels. The 
next highest catch came from area 1, which had the 
lowest salinity. Area 3 produced the fewest numbers 
of eels. These data show that within the area sam- 
pled, eels were most concentrated in those locations 
having moderate-to-low salinities. 

Water temperature was apparently another impor- 
tant factor affecting eel catches. Average monthly 
water temperatures varied only slightly among loca- 
tions (Table 10), however, average temperatures 
varied significantly from month to month. Eel catch- 
es were generally larger during winter months, when 



average water temperature was below 25.0°C. Of the 
eels taken during this study, 77% were captured dur- 
ing months when the average water temperature 
was lower than 25.0°C. Generally, as average water 
temperature decreased, C/E of eels increased. During 
January 1981, however, average water temperature 
fell to 9.1°C. (Table 10), and the lowest monthly catch 
of eels throughout the study period was recorded at 
this time. These data may indicate that eels feed 
most actively when water temperature is between 
ICC and 25°C, and that feeding falls off drastically 
when water temperature falls below 10°C or exceeds 
25°C. 

Turbidity was also recorded each time traps were 
set and retrieved. Monthly average turbidities are 
presented in Table 11. For each month, the average 
turbidity by area was compared to the catch of eels. 
This data did not indicate a direct relationship be- 
tween turbidity and eel catch. In areas 2 and 3, the 
turbidities (Table 11) for the study period were near- 
ly identical, yet area 2 produced the greatest number 
of eels, while area 3 produced the fewest. 



Table 9. 
Average monthly salinities in parts per thousand (ppt) and project averages, by area. 



Year/Month 
1979 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 

1980 

January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 

1981 

January 

February 

March 

AVERAGES 



Area 1 


Area 2 


Area 3 


Salinity ppt 


Salinity ppt 


Salinity ppt 





2.6 


6.6 





0.7 


3.4 





1.4 


7.5 


0.1 


3.6 


11.3 





4.0 


12.4 





3.9 


7.9 





6.7 


12.8 1 


0.1 


6.8 


12.3 





6.2 


10.9 

1 





3.9 


8.5 1 





3.3 


6.7 





3.8 


7.7 


0.1 


2.7 


3.8 ; 


0.1 


3.0 


9.8 


0.2 


2.2 


10.9 


0.1 


3.4 


15.7 


0.2 


8.7 


19.4 


0.3 


9.1 


23.1 


0.3 


11.4 


16.6 


0.4 


9.0 


12.3 


0.3 


8.9 


14.4 
14.8 


0.2 


9.0 


11.8 


0.3 


9.1 


14.1 


0.3 


8.4 





0.12 



5.5 



11.4 



23 



Table 10. 
Average monthly water temperatures in degrees centigrade (°C) and project averages 

by area. 

Area 
Year /Month 
1979 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 

1980 

January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 

1982 

January 

February 

March 

AVERAGES 



Area 1 


Area 2 


Area 3 


Temperature °C 


Temperature °C 


Temperature 


20.7 


21.5 


23.2 


23.7 


22.2 


24.7 


29.2 


28.3 


29.8 


26.3 


30.0 


31.2 


30.0 


30.6 


30.9 


28.4 


25.5 


25.0 


18.7 


23.4 


22.9 


9.5 


15.9 


15.2 




9.8 


10.9 


12.0 




11.7 


8.6 


11.5 


14.6 


13.4 


9.8 


18.6 


17.4 


17.3 


20.9 


20.8 


19.1 


25.4 


27.9 


24.8 


30.0 


28.8 


28.5 


31.4 


30.2 


30.8 


31.3 


28.8 


30.6 


29.2 


20.5 


29.1 


22.0 


17.4 


20.8 


14.9 


12.7 


16.3 
14.2 


17.4 


8.3 


8.1 


11.0 


10.9 


10.0 


14.1 


15.0 


15.5 


16.4 



20.0 20.6 21.8 



24 



Table 11. 
Average monthly turbidity in ft. and project averages, by location. 

Area 1 

Year/Month Feet 
1979 

April 1.0 

May 1.1 

June 1.0 

July 1.3 

August 1.5 

September 1.3 

October 1.4 

November 1.7 

December 1.0 

1980 

January 1.1 

February 1.0 

March 1.0 

April 1.0 

May 0.5 

June 1.0 

July 1.2 

August 1.8 

September 1.0 

October 1.0 

November 1.3 

December 1.2 

1981 

January 1.6 

February 1.3 

March 1.0 

AVERAGES 1.2 2.6 2.5 



^rea 2 


Feet 


1.8 


1.4 


2.4 


1.8 


3.0 


2.4 


3.5 


3.8 


3.4 


2.2 


1.3 


1.3 


1.6 


1.8 


2.5 


1.6 


3.5 


2.9 


3.2 


3.0 


4.2 


3.9 


2.0 


3.0 



^rea 3 


Feet 


1.6 


1.5 


1.7 


1.7 


2.0 


2.7 


2.1 


3.3 


4.3 


3.0 


2.5 


2.5 


2,0 


2.2 


2.1 


1.4 


2.4 


1.9 


2.2 


3.4 


3.4 


4.6 


3.0 


3.2 



25 



DISCUSSION AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS 

The greatest setback encountered in the attempt to 
estabhsh an eel fishery in Louisiana has undoubted- 
ly been a lack of interest on the part of the local 
commercial fishermen. Traditionally, shrimp has 
been the largest and most attractive commercial 
fishery in this state. Whenever shrimp are plentiful, 
everyone wants to fish for this species. During poor 
shrimp seasons or closed season, many shrimpers 
will fish for other species (i.e., crabs, oysters, and 
spotted seatrout), but they always return to shrimp- 
ing when catches improve. Some fishermen actively 
pursue oysters, crabs or finfish on a full-time basis 
and will harvest shrimp only during good shrimp 
seasons. These fishermen will eventually return to 
their primary fishery when shrimp crops are re- 
duced. The problem with the eel fishery is that no 
local fishermen have ever made eel fishing their 
primary goal. It is difficult to communicate to the 
fishermen that in order to successfully trap eels, one 
must learn the habits and tendencies of the species 
and actively fish on a continuing basis. The lack of 
full-time eel fishermen, therefore, leads directly to a 
second critical limiting factor in the development of 
any fishery. That factor is the establishment of a 
stable local market for the product. 

When eel fishing was first proposed in Louisiana, 
several wholesale seafood buyers indicated an in- 
terest in handling the product. However, after a re- 
latively short period, these buyers found that be- 
cause of the lack of interest shown by local fishermen 
and poor catches by those fishermen who did attempt 
eel fishing, they were unable to obtain sufficient 
quantities of eels to warrant handling the product. 
Without local buyers, the eel fishery has virtually 
collapsed in Louisiana. Some wholesalers insist that 
they will buy eels if they can obtain sufficient quanti- 
ties, but fishermen will not trap eels unless they can 
be assured that buyers will handle whatever they 
bring, however small the quantity. The fishery is 
therefore caught in a no-win situation. The fisher- 
men will not fish without a market, and the buyers 
cannot create a market without the fishermen. 

Another significant problem is the expense in- 
volved in entering the eel fishery. Traps are very 
expensive, and equipment necessary for keeping eels 
alive is generally out of financial reach for most local 
fishermen. Buyers are also reluctant to spend the 
necessary funds to constuct holding tanks and freez- 
ers capable of "quick freezing" the live eels. These 
freezing units are essential since improper freezing 
renders the eels virtually worthless. Holding tanks 
are also necessary because the eels must be kept alive 
until they can be separated by size, packaged, and 
"quick frozen". 

Data collected during this study did not indicate 
the presence of a sufficient number of eels to consti- 
tute a potential for the development of an eel fishery 



in this portion of the state. Of the three locations 
sampled (Figure 1), only area 2 revealed a sufficient 
concentration of eels to possibly support a limited 
fishery. In addition to the samples taken within the 
study area, a limited amount of eel sampling was 
conducted by Department biologists throughout 
coastal Louisiana. These data also failed to indicate a 
sufficient number of eels to support even a limited 
fishery. Consequently, considering the problems in- 
volved in marketing eels and the substantial finan- 
cial investment required for gear, it would not seem 
advisable to enter into the eel fishery at this time. 
Since anyone engaging in eel fishing in Louisiana 
at this time would be working under an experimental 
permit, there is no need to establish firm guidelines 
regarding trap design or mesh size. Under the pre- 
sent permit systems, a fisherman is required to have 
his particular gear approved by the Department of 
Wildlife and Fisheries prior to the issuing of a per- 
mit. This requirement appears sufficient at this time. 
Little is known of the movement and migration pat- 
terns of eels in this state, and since eels apparently do 
not spawn within state waters, it is unnecessary to 
establish a season for this fishery. No regulations are 
recommended regarding establishing size limits be- 
cause eels are kept alive until they are graded and 
sold, and it is possible for buyers to release unharmed 
any undersized eels taken. Eel fishermen should, 
however, be restricted from the taking of elvers, since 
the capture of these young eels would surely reduce 
the adult population and preclude the possibility of 
any future development of this fishery. 



26 



LITERATURE CITED 



Abbas, L. 1977. To eel or not to eel: an economic 
analysis of a part-time eel fishing enterprise. 
North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, Publ. UNC- 
SG-77-02, 8 pp. 

Berg, D. R., W. R. Jones, and G. L. Crow, 1975. The 
case of the slippery eel. North Carolina State 
Univ., Raleigh, Publ. UNC-SG-75-20, 20 pp. 

Easley, J. E., Jr., and J. N. Freund. 1977. an economic 
analysis of eel farming in North Carolina. North 
Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, Publ. UNC-SG-77- 
16, 21 pp. 

Farrin, A. 1972. Observations, facts and suggestions 
regarding the American eel (Anguilla rostrata). 
Marine Dept. of Inland Fisheries and Game. 5 pp. 

Firth, F. E. 1945. Eel fishing and eel pots. U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service. Fishery Leaflet 127: 9 pp. 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 
Nations. 1974. FAO (Food Agric. Organ. U.N.) 
Yearb. Fish. Stat. 36, 590 pp. 



Harrell, R. M. 1977. Age, growth, and sex ratio of the 
American eel, Anguilla rostrata (Lesueur), in the 
Cooper River, South Carolina. Masters Thesis. 
Clemson University. 55 pp. 

Jurgensen, K. M., and Gene Crow. 1977. The $6- 
million eel, or from bait to delicacy in four years. 
Trans. 42nd North American Wildlife and Natural 
Resources Conf. 1977. Publ. Wildlife Management 
Inst., Washington, D.C., pp. 329-335. 

Lane, J. P. 1978. Eels and their utilization. Marine 
Fisheries Review. NOAA. NMFS. MFR paper 
1303. 40(4): 20 pp. 

McCord, J. W. 1977. Food habits and elver migration 
of American eel, Anguilla rostrata (Lesueur), in 
Cooper River, South Carolina. Masters Thesis. 
Clemson University. 47 pp. 

Seltz, J. 1976. North Carolina Sea Grant aids eel 
fishermen. Sea Grant 70's. Texas A&M Univ. Sea 
Grant Program. 7(2):2-3. 



27