Monkfish/by Robert Shetterly ©Blue Ocean Institute
Monkfish/by Robert Shetterly ©Blue Ocean Institute

Monkfish

Lophius americanus

Sometimes known as Allmouth, Angler, Anglerfish, Fishing Frog, Goosefish or Molligut.

This species is wild-caught.

Summary

Monkfish were traditionally caught as bycatch and discarded until the 1980s when market demand for the species first grew in Asia and Europe. The rapid growth of the fishery landed Monkfish on the overfished species list. Abundance increased initially after fishery managers implemented protective measures in 1999, but then started a declining trend, indicating that stronger management is needed. Many fisheries in New England and the Mid-Atlantic catch Monkfish, but the majority are caught in gillnet and trawl fisheries. Trawls can harm the seafloor.

Criterion Points
Life History 2.75
Abundance 0.50
Habitat Quality and Fishing Gear Impacts 1.50
Management 2.25
Bycatch 2.75
Final Score (average of criteria) 1.95
Color
Final Score Color
2.60 - 4.00
2.20 - 2.59
1.80 - 2.19
1.40 - 1.79
0.00 - 1.39

Last updated July 19, 2006.

Life History

Core Points (only one selection allowed)

If a value for intrinsic rate of increase (‘r’) is known, assign the score below based on this value. If no r-value is available, assign the score below for the correct age at 50% maturity for females if specified, or for the correct value of growth rate ('k'). If no estimates of r, age at 50% maturity, or k are available, assign the score below based on maximum age.

1.00
Intrinsic rate of increase <0.05; OR age at 50% maturity >10 years; OR growth rate <0.15; OR maximum age >30 years.
2.00
Intrinsic rate of increase = 0.05-0.15; OR age at 50% maturity = 5-10 years; OR a growth rate = 0.16–0.30; OR maximum age = 11-30 years.
3.00
Intrinsic rate of increase >0.16; OR age at 50% maturity = 1-5 years; OR growth rate >0.30; OR maximum age <11 years.

Intrinsic rate of increase for is unknown. Most male Monkfish reach sexual maturity at 4 years of age; females are mature by age 5 (NEFSC 1999). Growth rate (K) is 0.06-0.1 (Fishbase 2004). Maximum age is 15-20 years (NEFMC 2004).

Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed)

-0.25
Species has special behaviors that make it especially vulnerable to fishing pressure (e.g., spawning aggregations; site fidelity; segregation by sex; migratory bottlenecks; unusual attraction to gear; etc.).

Little is known about the behaviors of Monkfish. Consequently, we neither add nor subtract for this criterion.

-0.25
Species has a strategy for sexual development that makes it especially vulnerable to fishing pressure (e.g., age at 50% maturity >20 years; sequential hermaphrodites; extremely low fecundity).
-0.25
Species has a small or restricted range (e.g., endemism; numerous evolutionarily significant units; restricted to one coastline; e.g., American lobster; striped bass; endemic reef fishes).

Monkfish are found in the Atlantic Ocean from the southern and eastern portions of the Grand Banks and northern Gulf of St. Lawrence to the east coast of Florida. Typically, however, they're found north of North Carolina (NEFSC 1999). We consider this a small range.

-0.25
Species exhibits high natural population variability driven by broad–scale environmental change (e.g., El Nino; decadal oscillations).
+0.25
Species does not have special behaviors that increase ease or population consequences of capture OR has special behaviors that make it less vulnerable to fishing pressure (e.g., species is widely dispersed during spawning).
+0.25
Species has a strategy for sexual development that makes it especially resilient to fishing pressure (e.g., age at 50% maturity <1 year; extremely high fecundity).
+0.25
Species is distributed over a very wide range (e.g., throughout an entire hemisphere or ocean basin; e.g., swordfish; tuna; Patagonian toothfish).
+0.25
Species does not exhibit high natural population variability driven by broad-scale environmental change (e.g., El Nino; decadal oscillations).
2.75
Points for Life History

Abundance

Core Points (only one selection allowed)

Compared to natural or un-fished level, the species population is:

1.00
Low: Abundance or biomass is <75% of BMSY or similar proxy (e.g., spawning potential ratio).

Monkfish are managed in two separate areas: the Northern Fishery Management Area (NFMA), which extends from Maine to Massachusetts, and the Southern Fishery Management Area (SFMA), which includes areas south of there. Both populations were found to be overfished in 1999, so the species is under a rebuilding plan. Framework 2, of the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan, implemented in May 2003, established biomass targets for monitoring the rebuilding process for Monkfish. There are no reliable estimates for total biomass, so weight/tow (in kg/tow) from trawl surveys is used as a biomass proxy. The target rebuilding year is 2009, with a biomass target (Btarget) of 2.5 kg/tow for the northern population (population in NFMA) and 1.85 kg/tow for the southern population. If biomass for either population falls below the biomass threshold limit (Bthreshold), that population is considered overfished (NEFMC and NMFS 2002).

In 2003, the three year average for biomass of Monkfish in the NFMA was 2.030 kg/tow, which is above the threshold biomass of 1.25 kg/tow, and about 81% of the rebuilding target of 2.5 kg/tow. The three year average for biomass of Monkfish in the SFMA was 0.930 kg/tow, which is equal to the threshold biomass of 0.093 kg/tow, and about 50% of the rebuilding target of 1.85 kg/tow. The biomass of the northern population reached its 2003 target of 1.49 kg/tow, but the southern population is below its target of 1.02 kg/tow (NEFMC 2004).

We awarded a score of one for this core point because both populations are below their rebuilding target biomasses, and the southern population remains significantly below.

2.00
Medium: Abundance or biomass is 75–125% of BMSY or similar proxy; OR population is approaching or recovering from an overfished condition; OR adequate information on abundance or biomass is not available.
3.00
High: Abundance or biomass is >125% of BMSY or similar proxy.

Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed)

-0.25
The population is declining over a generational time scale (as indicated by biomass estimates or standardized CPUE).

Abundance increased initially after management was implemented in 1999, but then started a declining trend. Declines in abundance are most significant in the northern area, showing a continuous declining trend from 2000 to 2004. In the southern area, abundance had been showing signs of increasing since 2000, but is now dropped back to 2000 levels. Fishery scientists are particularly concerned about the four year declining trend in the north (Richards, Pers. Comm. 2004).

-0.25
Age, size or sex distribution is skewed relative to the natural condition (e.g., truncated size/age structure or anomalous sex distribution).

Research surveys conducted in 2001 and 2004 show that there are very few large Monkfish, compared to before the Monkfish fishery began. There are signs, however, that the size structure is improving. The sex ratio in the sampled areas varies with fish size and region. In the north, sex ratios are approximately 50:50 until fish reach approximately 60 cm in length, when the sex ratio becomes skewed towards females. In the south, sex ratios are 50:50 until around 40 cm, when the population becomes skewed towards males in the 40-60 cm range, then shifts to a preponderance of females. In both areas, all individuals larger than about 70 cm are females (Richards, Pers. Comm., 2004).

-0.25
Species is listed as “overfished” OR species is listed as “depleted”, “endangered”, or “threatened” by recognized national or international bodies.

The Monkfish Monitoring Committee has determined that neither the southern nor northern populations are currently overfished (NMFS 2004).

-0.25
Current levels of abundance are likely to jeopardize the availability of food for other species or cause substantial change in the structure of the associated food web.
+0.25
The population is increasing over a generational time scale (as indicated by biomass estimates or standardized CPUE).
+0.25
Age, size or sex distribution is functionally normal.
+0.25
Species is close to virgin biomass.
+0.25
Current levels of abundance provide adequate food for other predators or are not known to affect the structure of the associated food web.
0.50
Points for Abundance

Habitat Quality and Fishing Gear Impacts

Core Points (only one selection allowed)

Select the option that most accurately describes the effect of the fishing method upon the habitat that it affects.

1.00
The fishing method causes great damage to physical and biogenic habitats (e.g., cyanide; blasting; bottom trawling; dredging).

Monkfish are targeted in multispecies fisheries, as well as caught incidentally and landed in other fisheries. Consequently, there is no true “directed” fishery. The NEFMC has defined the directed fishery for Monkfish as that which includes all trips that take more than 400 pounds of Monkfish. The non-directed fishery includes trips that take less than 400 pounds of Monkfish. Fishers catch Monkfish with trawls, scallop dredges and gillnets. Bottom otter trawls and bottom gillnets are the most commonly used gear in the directed fishery for monkfish (NEFMC 2004). Fishers are prohibited from using dredge gear to target Monkfish, however Monkfish are regularly caught incidentally and landed by fishers in the scallop dredge fishery. Monkfish score a 1 here because bottom trawls and dredges are damaging to the seafloor.

2.00
The fishing method does moderate damage to physical and biogenic habitats (e.g., bottom gillnets; traps and pots; bottom longlines).
3.00
The fishing method does little damage to physical or biogenic habitats (e.g., hand picking; hand raking; hook and line; pelagic long lines; mid-water trawl or gillnet; purse seines).

Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed)

-0.25
Habitat for this species is so compromised from non-fishery impacts that the ability of the habitat to support this species is substantially reduced (e.g., dams; pollution; coastal development).
-0.25
Critical habitat areas (e.g., spawning areas) for this species are not protected by management using time/area closures, marine reserves, etc.

No critical habitat areas have been identified for Monkfish. They do not form aggregations, and they spawn in the water column. However, much remains unknown about the behavior and reproduction of Monkfish.

-0.25
No efforts are being made to minimize damage from existing gear types OR new or modified gear is increasing habitat damage (e.g., fitting trawls with roller rigs or rockhopping gear; more robust gear for deep-sea fisheries).
-0.25
If gear impacts are substantial, resilience of affected habitats is very slow (e.g., deep water corals; rocky bottoms).
+0.25
Habitat for this species remains robust and viable and is capable of supporting this species.
+0.25
Critical habitat areas (e.g., spawning areas) for this species are protected by management using time/area closures, marine reserves, etc.
+0.25
Gear innovations are being implemented over a majority of the fishing area to minimize damage from gear types OR no innovations necessary because gear effects are minimal.

Amendment 2 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Monkfish, implemented in May 2005, has measures in place to help protect habitat from gear damage. Two deep-sea canyons which border areas where the offshore Monkfish fishery operates are now closed to vessels fishing on a Monkfish permit. This measure will protect known concentrations of deep-sea corals and sponges, and essential fish habitat for other species. Also, trawl vessels in the southern area are now limited to using roller discs of a maximum of 6 inches in diameter, which will prevent the fishery from expanding into areas of more complex bottom along the continental margin, and into the canyons. Most, if not all of the vessels in the trawl fishery are also multispecies permit holders, and as such are subject to the restrictions applicable under that FMP (NEFMC 2004).

+0.25
If gear impacts are substantial, resilience of affected habitats is fast (e.g., mud or sandy bottoms) OR gear effects are minimal.

Monkfish live in a range of habitats throughout their lives, including pelagic and demersal waters, saltmarsh creeks, seagrass beds, mudflats and open bay areas, as well as on mud, sand and structured habitat that contains sponges and other biota. Monkfish seem to be more densely congregated in mud and sandy bottoms, which have a high resilience to the effects of bottom trawlers and gillnets (NEFMC 2004). We therefore add points for this criterion.

1.50
Points for Habitat Quality and Fishing Gear Impacts

Management

Core Points (only one selection allowed)

Select the option that most accurately describes the current management of the fisheries of this species.

1.00
Regulations are ineffective (e.g., illegal fishing or overfishing is occurring) OR the fishery is unregulated (i.e., no control rules are in effect).
2.00
Management measures are in place over a major portion over the species’ range but implementation has not met conservation goals OR management measures are in place but have not been in place long enough to determine if they are likely to achieve conservation and sustainability goals.

A Fishery Management Plan (FMP) was implemented in November 1999 in response to industry concerns that the populations of Monkfish were decreasing. Management measures in the FMP include a multi-level limited access program, target catch levels (Total Allowable Catch, or TACs), days-at-sea limitations, trip limits, bycatch allowances, minimum fish sizes, minimum mesh sizes, gear restrictions, spawning season closures, and permitting and reporting requirements. However, rebuilding targets have not yet been met (NEFMC 2004).

3.00
Substantial management measures are in place over a large portion of the species range and have demonstrated success in achieving conservation and sustainability goals.

Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed)

-0.25
There is inadequate scientific monitoring of stock status, catch or fishing effort.

Monitoring of catch and fishig effort is adequate. Current data sources are adequate for monitoring trends in abundance of Monkfish, but inadequate for conducting detailed age-structured analyses. However, data collections are in progress, which are likely to allow age-structured assessments in the future. No points were subtracted here to account for the work underway to improve monitoring of the age structure of the population (Richards, Pers. Comm. 2004).

-0.25
Management does not explicitly address fishery effects on habitat, food webs, and ecosystems.
-0.25
This species is overfished and no recovery plan or an ineffective recovery plan is in place.
-0.25
Management has failed to reduce excess capacity in this fishery or implements subsidies that result in excess capacity in this fishery.
+0.25
There is adequate scientific monitoring, analysis and interpretation of stock status, catch and fishing effort.
+0.25
Management explicitly and effectively addresses fishery effects on habitat, food webs, and ecosystems.
+0.25
This species is overfished and there is a recovery plan (including benchmarks, timetables and methods to evaluate success) in place that is showing signs of success OR recovery plan is not needed.

Monkfish were declared overfished in 1999 when the FMP took effect. Consequently, managers instituted a 10-year rebuilding plan. Monkfish are no longer considered overfished, indicating that the recovery plan is working (NEFMC 2004).

+0.25
Management has taken action to control excess capacity or reduce subsidies that result in excess capacity OR no measures are necessary because fishery is not overcapitalized.

During the 1970s, there was a 17-fold increase in Monkfish landings due to a sharp increase in demand for Monkfish tails in Europe and livers in Japan and other Asian countries. Monkfish became overfished because there were no quotas in place, which allowed for excessive fishing effort. Since 1999, management has responded by implementing quotas that may be adjusted annually and a limited access program. These measures combined with the fact that there are no subsidies in place for the fishery helps to keep the fishery from becoming overcapitalized. However, boats that catch Monkfish, but which are targeting other species, create excess capacity. Consequently, no points were added here.

2.25
Points for Management

Bycatch

Core Points (only one selection allowed)

Select the option that most accurately describes the current level of bycatch and the consequences that result from fishing this species.

The term, "bycatch” used in this document excludes incidental catch of a species for which an adequate management framework exists.

The terms, “endangered, threatened, or protected,” used in this document refer to species status that is determined by national legislation such as the U.S. Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act (or another nation's equivalent), the IUCN Red List, or a credible scientific body such as the American Fisheries Society.

1.00
Bycatch in this fishery is high (>100% of targeted landings), OR regularly includes a “threatened, endangered or protected species.”
2.00
Bycatch in this fishery is moderate (10-99% of targeted landings) AND does not regularly include “threatened, endangered or protected species” OR level of bycatch is unknown.

Monkfish are caught in both directed fisheries and as incidental catch in trawl, gillnet, and scallop dredge fisheries. In 2002 (the latest year for which information is available), the majority of Monkfish landed in the northern area was caught in multispecies trawl fisheries, while fisheries in the southern area primarily landed Monkfish with large mesh gillnets. Discards of Monkfish in northern multispecies fishery is higher and more variable than the southern large mesh gillnet fishery, where discards of Monkfish are low. In 2002, for example, the 11% of Monkfish catches were discarded relative to total Monkfish landings in the northern trawl fishery, whereas there were no discards in the southern large mesh gillnet fishery. These estimates, however, only represent a snapshot in time, as the number of trips observed is low (NEFMC 2004).

Directed Monkfish fisheries also discard other species. In the northern area, Winter Skates and Dogfish are the species most frequently discarded. In the southern area, these same two species are make up the majority of discards, with the addition of Thorny Skates. Discards usually occur because the species caught are either too small to sell, are under the minimum size allowed by the fishery, or there is no demand in the market for them (NEFMC 2004).

3.00
Bycatch in this fishery is low (<10% of targeted landings) and does not regularly include "threatened, endangered or protected species."

Points of Adjustment (multiple selections allowed)

-0.25
Bycatch in this fishery is a contributing factor to the decline of “threatened, endangered, or protected species" and no effective measures are being taken to reduce it.
-0.25
Bycatch of targeted or non-targeted species (e.g., undersize individuals) in this fishery is high and no measures are being taken to reduce it.
-0.25
Bycatch of this species (e.g., undersize individuals) in other fisheries is high OR bycatch of this species in other fisheries inhibits its recovery, and no measures are being taken to reduce it.
-0.25
The continued removal of the bycatch species contributes to its decline.
+0.25
Measures taken over a major portion of the species range have been shown to reduce bycatch of “threatened, endangered, or protected species” or bycatch rates are no longer deemed to affect the abundance of the “protected” bycatch species OR no measures needed because fishery is highly selective (e.g., harpoon; spear).

Measures are in place to reduce interactions between Monkfish fisheries and protected species including marine mammals and sea turtles. Monkfish gillnet fisheries are subject to both the Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan and the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan. To reduce bycatch of Harbor Porpoises, gillnets fisheries are subject to time and area closures, and in some cases, gillnets must use acoustic deterrant devices and modify their fishing gear. Measures to reduce the likelihood of entangling large whales include gear modifications, time and area closures, disentanglement efforts, and other efforts including outreach and surveillance programs. In addition, there are seasonal closures for large mesh gillnets off of Virginia and North Carolina to reduce the impact of gillnet fisheries on endangered and threatened sea turtles (NEFMC 2004).

+0.25
There is bycatch of targeted (e.g., undersize individuals) or non-targeted species in this fishery and measures (e.g., gear modifications) have been implemented that have been shown to reduce bycatch over a large portion of the species range OR no measures are needed because fishery is highly selective (e.g., harpoon; spear).

There are minimum mesh sizes in place for gillnet fisheries-10" for square mesh and 12" for diamond mesh-which have been shown to reduce the take of skates and other groundfish (NEFMC 2004).

+0.25
Bycatch of this species in other fisheries is low OR bycatch of this species in other fisheries inhibits its recovery, but effective measures are being taken to reduce it over a large portion of the range.

Before the 1980s, Monkfish were caught as bycatch in scallop and groundfish fisheries, and were generally discarded. Since then, a major commercial fishery has developed for the fish (Seafood Business 2003).

Monkfish are taken as bycatch in many fisheries on the U.S. east coast. To reduce discards, all vessels that catch Monkfish may retain them. The amount of incidental catch from the previous year is deducted from the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) available to the directed fishery each year. However, observer coverage is poor, and discards probably go unreported (FMP 2004).

There are minimum mesh sizes in place for gillnet and trawl fisheries- 10" for square mesh and 12" for diamond mesh, which have been shown to reduce the take of juvenile Monkfish (NEFMC 2004).

+0.25
The continued removal of the bycatch species in the targeted fishery has had or will likely have little or no impact on populations of the bycatch species OR there are no significant bycatch concerns because the fishery is highly selective (e.g., harpoon; spear).
2.75
Points for Bycatch

References

Fishbase. Available online at: http://www.fishbase.org. Accessed 27 August 2004.

New England Fisheries Management Council (NEFMC). 2004. Monkfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Draft Amendment 2.

New England Fisheries Management Council (NEFMC) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2002. Monkfish Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation for the 2001 Fishing Year (SAFE).

New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC). 2004. Memorandum: Scallop Management Advice. 1 September 2004.

New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC). 2003. Final Amendment 10 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan with a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Regulatory Impact Review, and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. Newburyport, MA, USA.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2004. National Marine Fisheries Service 2003 Report to Congress, The Status of U.S. Fisheries. Available online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov.

Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Goosefish, Lophius americanus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-127.

Richards, Anne. 2004. NOAA. Personal Communication.

Seafood Business Magazine. Finfish Focus: Monkfish. November 2003.

BLUE OCEAN INSTITUTE

34 Muttontown Lane, PO Box 250, East Norwich, NY 11732 • 1-877-BOI-SEAS • seafood@blueocean.org