The State of Fisheries
in Maine 2004
Richard
M. Crowley
Fisheries: The Issue in Context
Introduction
Fisheries are a global resource,
exploited by many different nations with varying levels of effort, monitoring,
controls, and success in ensuring both biologic and economic sustainability. National agreements, as well as regional and localized
management, are ways in which countries attempt to protect their fisheries for
current and future harvesting. Despite their economic and environmental value
fisheries, particularly in industrialized nations, are often poorly managed,
monitored, and fished unsustainably. Many of the world’s fish stocks have been overfished, and others appear to be heading towards similar
depletions1. A study of 230 different marine fish populations found
a median 83 percent reduction in breeding population size from know historic
levels2. Today’s large consumer species stocks are also much
lower than historical levels3. There have been surprising findings
that typically, industrialized fisheries are in worse condition then
non-industrialized fisheries. A 2003 study found that stock biomass is often
reduced by 80 percent within the first 15 years of industrialized fishing, and
the remaining biomass is typically around 10 percent of pre-industrialization
levels4. Examples which are often cited when demonstrating this
trend are the Cod and groundfish collapses in the northern Atlantic and the Peruvian anchovy fisheries
crash of the 1970’s4,5.
Proper management should be effective
at correcting declining fish stocks however fisheries failures still occur with
alarming regularity. Fisheries are a complex issue, and although scientists and
policy makers understand how single stocks function they may not understand the
more complex dynamics of entire fisheries and how they respond to
industrialized explotation4. To further exacerbate the complexity of
fisheries management, scientific monitoring of fisheries often does not take
place until after the stock reductions occur4. Once management
strategies are finally enacted industrialized fishing has often been underway
several years, resulting in attempts to stabilize fish stocks at already depleted
biomass levels4.
Legislation and Law
The majority of fisheries legislation occurs intra-state or
in agreements among several nations rather then as global initiatives and internationally
binding laws. This said, there have been treaties ratified
into law which affects national fisheries.
The most significant international policy which has
influenced how nations manage their fisheries has been the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). UNCLOS deals with many different
facets of the marine environment. Part five in particular has important
ramifications for national fisheries. It addresses the creation and limits of
individual nation’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Under article 56 states are
granted “sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting,
conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living… [in waters extending no more than] 200 nautical miles from the
baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured”6.
Through this declaration, states assume control over any fish stocks which occur
within 200 nautical miles of their shores rather than having international regulations
regarding how all fish stocks should be managed. The living resources of the
EEZ are managed “taking into account the best scientific evidence available to
[the resource… by which the state] shall ensure through proper conservation and
management measures that the maintenance of the living resources in the
exclusive economic zone is not endangered by over-exploitation” as per articles
61 and 626. In article 64 UNCLOS addresses fish stocks which are not
confined to one nation’s EEZ stating that the burden of managing straddling and
highly migratory species falls on the “concerned parties”, and these parties
must create a policy they can both agree on6. The status of
migratory and straddling fish stocks was reevaluated and adjusted in 1995
through the implementation of a new agreement which built on the existing UNCLOS
declarations in article 647.
The US has managed fisheries in general
though various regional and federal agencies and laws. The major federal
legislation which governs US fisheries is the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries
Conservation and Management Act. This act addresses different aspects of the US fisheries including national
management, monitoring, and authority regarding fish resources. It is the
principle guiding legislation for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
who acts as the overseer for US fisheries8,9.
Historical Context
Pre-industrialization fisheries had
a significantly different role than they do today. Historically fisheries were
viewed as a common area with open access granted to all, although there were
some forms of management, particularly of costal resources, based on explicit
fishing rights similar to conventional property rights which was overseen by a
local regulatory board10. In utilizing the fisheries as a commons
resource, rationale would dictate that individuals exploit it for every
possible unit to be gained, despite the fish stock being a limited commodity –
creating a situation which Garrett Hardin identified as “the tragedy of the
commons”11. Many of the effects of a commons type resource were negated
due in part to artisanal fishing methods and the fact that fisheries managed
using traditional knowledge were usually sustainable10. The world’s
population has grown rapidly over the past centuries, and historically smaller
populations meant demand for marine resources was driven by local needs rather than
large market forces10.
There is a historical lack of data
collection in many fisheries which continues through the present10. In
the past stock sizes were not areas of major concern, so data collection for stock
population estimates was rarely carried out. Although some of the failure to
collect data was due to scientific limitations of the time, much of the failure
lies with past ideological views of the environment and natural resources as
inexhaustible, existing primarily for mankind’s exploitation12.
Finally, as with
any industry, as time advances technology improves10. Fishing
vessels have become larger and more seaworthy, as well as cheaper and easier to
build. Vessel propulsion moved from sails to internal combustion engines which
require fewer individuals to operate and created larger profits for individuals
engaged in fishing. Gear developments created lower maintenance gear which
lasted longer and resulted in more efficient harvesting of fish. An especially
large technological advance was the ability to move fresh seafood further and
more efficiently using ice or live transportation rather then canning or
salting the catch.
Recent Issues
Today many fisheries are still
managed under a limited commons type of system in which access to entry may be
regulated and controls of fishing effort may be in place – especially in
industrialized nations10. Commonly used controls include gear
restrictions and quotas10. Many of the fisherman
in this commons system display what is considered a rational response to the
limits placed on them by attempting to take the maximum amount of fish they can
remove from the water, even though they may be at odds with traditional and
scientific knowledge13. Finally, as with any commons system, there
is always the concern of individuals receiving a free ride though failure to
follow the established rules13.
Another facet of modern fisheries
management which is playing an increasingly larger role is scientists and
policy makers being asked to manage multi-species relationships as well as
entire ecosystems, despite limited understanding of population dynamics for
single species of fish10. The difficulty of this task is further
compounded when one takes into account that modern fisheries are not
necessarily managed within community boundaries nor
within ecosystem boundaries but rather on large scale political maps5.
This may create “complex and often conflicting socio-economic issues” which may
present conflicting objectives with scientific goals and knowledge10.
Other modern concerns of fisheries include the loss of biodiversity, loss of
stock biomass, and reduced recruitment rates.
Fisheries: The Issue in Maine
Introduction
One of Maine’s largest resources is its oceans
and coastline. There are many potential economic gains to be derived from this
resource, ranging from the scenic views and sandy beaches generating tourism to
an exploitable resource in fishing – generating local income and jobs. Currently,
the Maine Department of Marine Resources (DMR) lists seventy-five commercially
exploited marine species14. In 2003 the direct value of Maine’s commercial fish landings exceeded
315 million dollars, and this figure migrates towards the one billion dollar
range if you take all fisheries related industry into account14,15.
As illustrated in Table 1 and Table 2
the North American lobster (Homarus americanus, henceforth referred to as lobster) is the dominant
Maine commercial fish species due in part
to collapses in the historical fisheries1,3,5,16.
Fisheries are a highly variable industry because of differences in methodology
used to fish, physical attributes of species, and species specific management
strategies and objectives. This paper uses lobsters as one indicator of the
health of Maine’s fisheries and the primary focus
of discussion and analysis. The broader implications and lessons which follow
are readily applicable to many additional fisheries.
There are two major families of
lobster worldwide. Clawed lobsters, such as Homarus americanus, are in the family Nephropidae, which is
composed of around 30 species. The other family of lobsters is Palinuridae which is comprised of clawless lobsters and
contains around 45 different species. Palinuridae
tend to be a warmer water species then Nephropidae. Clawed
lobsters are preferred by consumers over clawless lobsters because the meat in
the claws is softer, and because there is more body edible mass on same sized
individuals of the different families. Clawless lobsters are traditionally sold
as lobster tails, shredded lobster, and are used at some restaurants such as
Red Lobster. It is generally accepted that Homarus americanus can live past one hundred
years. Maximum recorded body weights have been in the high thirty pound range,
although the most common weight of commercial lobsters is in the pound and a half
to two pound range (three and a half to four inch carapace length)18.
The Maine lobster is a relatively sedentary species, and can produce
around 7,000 eggs for each pound of its body weight5.
Legislation and Law
Although Maine is subject to all federal laws and
any international treaties which the US is signatory to, the bulk of its
fisheries management occurs at the state level. The Department of Marine
Resources (DMR) is responsible for scientific researching, monitoring,
enforcement, and management of the marine resources inside of Maine’s
territorial waters (3 miles from shoreline)19. Due to their
sedentary nature and preference for shallow waters, much of Maine’s annual lobster landings fall
within state regulation. These regulations are defined in the Maine state statues title 12, Chapter 619
which covers lobster and crab fishing. Specific regulations include apprentice
programs (§6422), measurement limits (§6431), vessel and trap limits (§6431),
gear restrictions (§6432, 6433), and reproducing stock regulations (§6436)20.
Some of these regulations, such as a maximum legal size are unique to Maine’s lobster fishery when compared
with the rest of the north Atlantic lobster fishery; other regulations, such as
disallowing the removal of egg-bearing females, were historically unique to Maine but have now been adopted by other
states in an effort to aid their overexploited lobster stocks.
Historical Context
Historically, lobsters were so
plentiful in Maine that they were used as fertilizer
by native Americans and prison food during the colonial period16,21. They were considered a food for the lower
classes, and only the starving would willingly consume them22. In
the state of Maine it was considered cruel and unusual
punishment to feed your servants more then 3 meals of lobster a week, and this
was taken so seriously that there was an uprising on Mount Desert Island over lobster meals22. Traditional
lobstering was done by hand along the shoreline and
tidal zone until 1850 when traps came into use21. Live lobsters were
transported using a boat type called “smacks” along the northeastern seaboard
until the late 1800’s when lobster pounds became commonplace21. World
war II saw a rapid increase in lobster consumption as
people searched for a non-rationed food to fulfill their protein requirements21.
One of the strengths of Maine’s lobster fishery is that many of
the current regulations were first used informally among lobstermen before they
became legally binding15. This resulted in a ‘bottom-up’ management
approach rather then the modern ‘top-down’ management approach which often
encounters problems due to its apparent creation of an adversarial stance
between fisherman and policy makers10,13,15. Maine lobstermen began implementing informal
conservation measures as early as the 1930’s15. Through this early
action, the fisheries experienced steady catches up through the 1980’s and saw
historically high recruitment rates into the 1990’s15. Lobster
fisheries were (and still are) informally linked to certain communities along
with an unwritten understanding that lobster fisherman will only fish in their
area21. This can result in community-specific regulations which are
generally not taken into account by history.
Technological changes also impacted
the Maine lobster fishery. Two of the most significant advances were
the move from sail powered friendship sloops to modern lobster boats, which
drastically reduced the amount of time and effort to get from one trap string
to the other, and the move to heavy gauge wire traps from wooden ones allowing
fisherman to work significantly more traps due to reduced maintenance demands.
Recent Issues
Currently, the Maine lobster fishery is experiencing
unprecedented catch rates (Figure 2) which have been rising since the beginning
of the 1990’s. Three years ago concern was voiced regarding a population crash,
which has not occurred16. Industry value is steadily increasing and
recruitment rates have remained in the region where they assure a healthy stock
several years down the road16. In 2003 more people were engaged in
lobstering than at almost any time in Maine’s history.
Despite the current prosperity of the
lobster industry, there is already concern over what factors may be driving the
surge in landings, and what effect this could be having on the ecosystem. Many reports
demonstrate that the success of the lobster and similar fisheries to failures
of higher trophic level fisheries1-5,10,16.
There is a growing concern that the trends of the lobster industry indicate an
ecosystem which is out of natural balance, and could potentially be proceeding
down the same path as the cod and groundfish industries before it3,16. As oceans warm, diseases and predators may
advance further northward to impact lobster stocks16.
Indicators, Policy and Analysis
Introduction
The following indicators attempt to examine the health of Maine’s fisheries using lobster as the
primary species of analysis. This analysis compares current lobster trends to
the historical trends of other Maine fisheries in order to highlight and
draw upon similarities which may provide an idea of what the future may hold
for the lobster fishery. Additionally, this analysis suggests several areas
where additional research and data collection are needed to better monitor and
understand the implications of these trends. An indicator that shows the
approach of a potential problem allows action to be taken proactively,
minimizing the friction between fishers and non-fishers2.
Indicator 1: Historical Trends in Maine
Fisheries
In Maine the major historical fish species
are all exhibiting declines from their landing peaks, many times by scales of
75 percent or greater (Figure 1). All of the species displayed in Figure 1
(excluding lobster) are found at higher trophic levels of the food chain, and
decreases in these upper level species biomass results in fishing efforts being
intensified on lower trophic level populations25. Additionally,
these declines lower competition for mid trophic level species resulting in
population increases through a process of compensatory increases of the
species’ numbers1,3-5,16. It is possible that
this mechanism could be one of the driving forces of the rapid lobster landing
increases.
Once a species has crashed it rarely
undergoes a rapid recovery. Most crashed fisheries exhibit little to no change
in species abundance even fifteen years after the actual decline, as seen in Figure
12. The decline and resulting low landings are due to reduced
reproducing populations and subsequently lower recruitment rates of juveniles.
Individual species fecundity may also play a role in the lack of recovery as
well as individual species fecundity to growth dynamics2,26,27.
Lobster recruitment rates are at a historical high, which has been attributed
to the extended period of predatory fish absence.
The trends indicated by Figure 1
serve as a caution to Maine. Despite the relatively high
recruitment and general health of the lobster fishery, all of the major Maine fishing industries which came
before lobster experienced stock declines. These fisheries were all subject to
the same phenomenon of compensatory growth through predator depletion as the
lobster fishery is experiencing now but failed to achieve sustainable catches.
Policy Recommendations
Fish population dynamics is a
complex topic in which errors can and will occur. Most major fisheries have some type of data regarding
expected stock size in relation to how many fish are being removed from the
environment each year. This does not hold true to Maine’s lobster population – only the total
pounds landed are recorded with no recording of how many individuals are landed24.
Maine should mandate that the total
number of lobsters landed be recorded on landing forms in addition to the total
poundage of lobster. If Maine were to record these data then
through the use of scientific models such as SIMLOB and other related programs
the potential stock size could be established. It will become apparent how much
of the stock each yearly landing is removing, resulting in transparency of how
much remaining stock needs to be protected and providing potential catch limits
with concrete data justifying them. Additionally, by having total stock
population size fluctuations over several years Maine can begin to study how larval
recruitment affects the lobster stock into the future, furthering the ability
to predict crashes before they happen and take preventative action.
Indicator 2: Historical Trends in Northeast Lobster
Fisheries
Since the
mid to late 1990’s there has been a noticeable decrease in the total pounds of
lobsters caught in four out of the seven north Atlantic lobster fisheries
(Figure 2). In most situations, the decrease was a rapid occurrence, taking
less then five years for landings to drop to less than half of their peak value.
Maine is the only state to experience
steady growth over the same time period, with a threefold increase in pounds
landed. The concern is at what point will Maine’s lobster fishery peak, and
once this occurs will Maine experience level to slowly declining landings as Massachusetts
did or face a rapid collapse as the other northeastern fisheries did.
A factor often credited for
collapses is disease16. While disease may have played an assisting
role in fisheries collapse they could not have accounted for the entire decline
in catch. All of the fisheries dealt with the same species of lobster. This
leads one to expect that such a devastating disease would have spread quickly
with minimal regard for political boundaries – similar to how the long-spined
sea urchin (Diadema antillarum)
die off in the Caribbean occurred. Figure 3 depicts otherwise. The crashes do not occur in a
steady northward moving pattern, and stop abruptly at the Massachusetts border before resuming in New Hampshire. Massachusetts’ stock appears completely
unaffected by any disease, as does Maine. Recent reports have noted that
declines in lobster stock were already underway before diseases commonly
implicated in the crashes became prevalent28. The emerging view of
the disease theory is that while present, they played only a supporting role in
stock declines28.
A second possible explanation for the trends is a lack of
understanding of lobster population dynamics complicating management. It is
possible in fisheries with high depletion rates that localized extinction can
occur despite close monitoring – particularly for species which have late ages
of maturity such as lobster4. This coupled with the fact that size
selective fisheries such as lobster lose 80 percent of their of their adult
population each year may have resulted in a loss of a viable reproducing stock2,28. Maine has seen extremely high
recruitment, explaining its continued growth15,16.
Maine’s implementation of a maximum legal
commercial size on lobsters is unique to the lobster fishery and could be
implicated as the reason for these high recruitment rates through protection of
high fecundity species.
The historical trends of northeastern lobster fisheries
indicate that despite its apparent success, Maine may be following the same path as
the other north Atlantic lobster fisheries. Utilizing a precautionary
principal, without indisputable scientific evidence of a factor differentiating
Maine’s lobster population dynamics from
the others, management should be taken proactively to avoid any potential
causes implicated in other lobster stock crashes.
Policy Recommendations
Maine currently has the strictest
regulations of all the north Atlantic lobster fisheries (discussed in “recent
issues”) which is the first step in protecting stock
sizes. Prior to additional policies being implemented, Maine needs to ascertain several
important statistics about its lobster population.
All of the protection on legal sized
lobster is geared towards conserving the females. Through these protections,
one would expect that the oversized lobster population will be skewed heavily
towards females. The issue which arises is that lobster mating is size
dependent, and although neither male nor female are monogamous there may be a
shortage of mating males15,22. The first
step which should be undertaken is to determine the actual ratio of oversized
male lobsters to females. Maine does not require lobstermen to
report the number of caught oversized lobster. Lobstermen should be regulated
to collect this data, as well as to record the sex of the lobsters – which will
allow the computation of population ratios.
Lobstermen should also be encouraged
to record the number of female lobsters that they V-notch throughout the
season. This figure used in conjunction with the total number of lobsters
captured will provide an idea of how much of the annual stock is composed of
reproducing females. As these females progress to oversized lobsters the population
ratio will become more accurate.
Research should be funded to
determine how many females a male lobster will mate with given natural
conditions in a two year period to determine the optimum amount of male
lobsters to female lobsters. Comparing this result to the ratio established
though V-notching and oversized recording will allow policy makers to quickly
see if more male lobsters need to be protected. Once these ratios are
established, if male populations are too low corrections can be made by setting
a quota of male lobsters need to be V-notched. These regulations would not
place any cost burden on the lobster fisherman and will potentially increase
their annual catch in the long run.
Indicator 3: Individuals in the industry versus licenses
issued
Despite the moderately stable number
of licenses issued, the total landed pounds has been increasing steadily, and despite
a static license total the potential effort in the industry has been steadily
increasing. This phenomenon was documented in the Canadian lobster fishery as
well5. The correlation between individuals in the fishery and the
pounds landed is strong over the period data is available for. Increasing the
number of fisherman by 63 percent increased the pounds caught by 52 percent, or
increasing the fisherman by a multiple of 1.6 increased the pounds of fish
caught by a multiple of 1.9. The increase of effort is a result of a new
licensing scheme which was enacted in 1990. Maine implemented a system which uses
three different types of licenses, each of which limits the number of
assistants (sternmen) that a vessel can have. Class I
allows only the fisherman to work on the boat, class II allows one assistant,
and class III allows two assistants. Figure 5 provides a more accurate assessment
of the effort in the Maine fishery than does the total number
of licenses issued. There is a clear shift from a license I industry, which is
a low intensity fishery, to a license type II and III fishery which is a more
intense effort fishery. The analysis of the license type instead of total licenses
dispels the false impression that catches are increasing despite steady effort.
Policy Recommendations
Due to Maine’s uses of three different license types,
a solution would be to limit the number of each type of license issued rather
than cap the total number of licenses issued, which is done independent of the
license type. This would not totally bar individuals from entering the
industry, but would limit how many boats in the fleet have more than one person
working the traps – lowering the effort. The potential cost that would arise is
this approach could make working conditions more dangerous for fisherman though
the loss of assistants.
Through limiting license types, Maine would also indirectly limit the
number of traps worked by each boat, resulting in a cut-back of the total traps
in the water. A boat working a single crew man will have a harder time tending
to 800 traps then a boat working three crewmen, and as a result lobstermen
would run shorter sets. While this could mean less lobsters removed from the
water, the price would go up to reflect increased effort expenditure and product
scarcity.
Conclusion
Maine’s lobster fishery is in good
health. Additionally, barring any
unforeseen factors Maine’s lobster fishery appears to be
assured success for the near future. The
concern for Maine should be less of a question of “is
the fishery healthy” and more a question of “what makes Maine’s lobster fishery exempt form the
collapses that the other northeast states experienced.” This is a much more complex question, and
what the policy recommendations for indicators attempted to address.
Before Maine begins to implement any new policy,
there is a clear need for more data collection and research. Once these data have
been collected, then the recommendations which have been given in this paper
can be better evaluated. Additionally, the collection of this data will allow
evaluation of other areas. Maine should make a concentrated effort
to establish a trend on the average weight of the lobsters caught in the traps.
This is essential to establish the dominate age class of lobsters in the
population. The results will also provide baseline data on any possible genetic
shift in the growth rates of the lobster via the time from larval settlement to
minimum cacheable size. Studies have documented the heritability of growth
rates in fish, and if there is a longer larval to minimum legal size time
interval then there is increased potential for predators and diseases to impact
the population2.
Literature Cited
1. Hilborn, R. et al. State of the World Fisheries. Annual Review of
Environmental Resources 28,
359-399 (2003).
2. Hutchings,
J. A. & Reynolds, J. D. Marine Fish Population Collapses: Consequences for
Recovery and Extinction Risk. Biological Science 54,
297-309 (2004).
3. Jackson,
J. B. C. et al. Historical Overfishing and the Recent Collapse of Costal
Ecosystems. Science
293, 692-639 (2001).
4. Myers,
R. A. & Worm, B. Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature 423, 280-283 (2003).
5. Charles,
A. T. Fisheries management in Atlantic Canada. Ocean and Coastal Management
35, 101-119 (1997).
6. United
Nations. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
(1982).
7. United
Nations. Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the
Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish
Stocks. 1-40 (1995).
8. Magnuson-Stevens
Fisheries Conservation and Management Act. (1996).
9. National
Marine Fisheries Service. NOAA Fisheries Feature: Legislation. www.nmfs.noaa.gov/legislation.htm accessed 11/15/04 (2004).
10. Caddy,
J. F. & Cochrane, K. L. A review of fisheries management
past and present and some future perspectives for the third millennium. Ocean and Coastal Management
44, 653-682 (2001).
11. Hardin,
G. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science 162, 1243-1248 (1968).
12. Anderson,
N. & Herst, B. personal communication. (2004).
13. Gavaris, S. Population stewardship rights: decentralized
management through explicit accounting of the value of uncaught fish. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Science 53,
1683-1692 (1996).
14. Maine Department of Marine Resources. Preliminary 2003 Maine Landings by
Species. http://www.maine.gov/dmr/commercialfishing/2003LandingsBySpecies.htm
accessed 11/22/04 (2003).
15. MacDonald,
B. personal communication. (2004).
16. Powell,
M. Tracking Maine's Crustacean Bounty. Washington Post (2003).
17. National
Marine Fisheries Service. Landings Database. (2004).
18. Gulf
of Maine Aquarium. A Lobsters Life. http://octopus.gma.org/lobsters/society.html
accessed 11/16/04 (1998).
19. Maine Department of Marine Resources. Maine Department
of Marine Resource Strategic Plan. www.maine.gov/dmr/organization.html
accessed 11/16/04 (2001).
20. Maine Department of Marine Resources. Lobster and Crab
Fishing Licenses. (2003).
21. Gulf
of Maine Aquarium. Lobstering History. http://octopus.gma.org/lobsters/allaboutlobsters/lobsterhistory.html
accessed 11/16/04 (2000).
22. Mills,
D. personal communication. (2004).
23. Maine Department of Marine Resources. Maine Department
of Marine Resources. http://www.maine.gov/dmr/commercialfishing/comfishlandings.htm
accessed 11/16/04 (2003).
24. Holt,
H. personal communication. (2004).
25. Pauly, D., Christensen, V. & Dalsgaard,
J. Fishing down marine food webs. Oceanographic Literature Review (1998).
26. Rhode
Island Division of Fish and Wildlife Marine Fisheries. Management
Plan for the Crustacean Fishery Sector. 1-13 (2003).
27. Maine Department of Marine Resources. Maine Department
of Resources research priorities for lobsters. (2004).
28. Rhode
Island Division of Fish and Wildlife. Rhode Island Fisheries Stock Status: an
overview. (2004).
