prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: How are the relationships between catch per set and fishing behavior variables different for different measures of catch per unit effort (CPUE)?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 1: Overfishing is a major threat to the survival of shark species, primarily driven by international trade in high-value fins, as well as meat, liver oil, skin and cartilage  The Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) aims to ensure that commercial trade does not threaten wild species, and several shark species have recently been listed on CITES as part of international efforts to ensure that trade does not threaten their survival  However, as international trade regulations alone will be insufficient to reduce overexploitation of sharks, they must be accompanied by practical fisheries management measures to reduce fishing mortality  To examine which management measures might be practical in the context of a targeted shark fishery, we collected data from 52 vessels across 595 fishing trips from January 2014 to December 2015 at Tanjung Luar fishing port in East Lombok, Indonesia  We recorded 11,920 landed individuals across 42 species, a high proportion of which were threatened and regulated species  Catch per unit effort depended primarily on the number of hooks and type of fishing gear used, and to a lesser degree on month, boat engine power, number of sets and fishing ground  The most significant factors influencing the likelihood of catching threatened and regulated species were month, fishing ground, engine power and hook number  We observed significant negative relationships between standardised catch per unit effort and several indicators of fishing effort, suggesting diminishing returns above relatively low levels of fishing effort  Our results suggest that management measures focusing on fishing effort controls, gear restrictions and modifications and spatiotemporal closures could have significant benefits for the conservation of shark species, and may help to improve the overall sustainability of the Tanjung Luar shark fishery  These management measures may also be applicable to shark fisheries in other parts of Indonesia and beyond, as sharks increasingly become the focus of global conservation efforts 
Copyright: © 2018 Yulianto et al  This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited 
Funding: Data collection of this study was funded by the Darwin Initiative (grant number 2805)  The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript 
Overfishing is the greatest global threat to marine fish stocks [1–5]  Several shark species (Selachimorpha) are particularly vulnerable to overexploitation due to their conservative life history strategies, large body sizes and the high economic value of their preserved body parts [6–8]  With increasing fishing pressure in recent decades, primarily driven by international demand for a range of consumer goods (including fins, liver oil, skin, cartilage and meat), it is estimated that annual fishing mortality now exceeds the intrinsic rebound potential of most commercially exploited species [5, 9, 10]  This fishing pressure is taking its toll, with an estimated one in four Chondrichthyan species now threatened with extinction, making sharks amongst the most threatened species groups in the world  
It is also increasingly acknowledged that sharks play a critical role in maintaining functional and productive ocean ecosystems , as well as providing an important source of food and income for many coastal communities   Recognising both the plight and importance of shark populations, there is growing professional and public interest to improve shark conservation, and the management of shark fisheries and trade   This is reflected in several recent policy decisions to afford new international regulations for 12 species of sharks across seven genera under the Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)  This is a promising step for shark conservation; however, in order to create tangible outcomes for species conservation CITES must be implemented through domestic measures that are adapted to national and local contexts 
Indonesia is the world’s largest shark fishing nation [9, 14], and a global priority for shark conservation   Until recently Indonesia’s shark fishery has largely functioned as de facto open-access [12, 16]  However, in the past five years the Indonesian government has demonstrated a clear commitment to shark conservation and resource management, with domestic measures put in place to implement international obligations under CITES   Exploitation of all CITES-listed species is now regulated, either through full species protection or export controls (these species are hereafter referred to as ‘regulated’ species)  However, CITES only affords protection to a small number of Indonesia’s 112 known shark species , of which 83 are threatened with extinction according to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (i e  Vulnerable (VU), Endangered (EN) or Critically Endangered (CR) , these species are hereafter referred to as ‘threatened’ species), many of which continue to be landed throughout the country   Further, these policy measures predominantly regulate trade at the point of export, but do not necessarily influence fisher behaviour or local demand at the point of catch, such that the ‘trickle-down’ impacts on species mortality are unknown  In addition, effectively implementing species-specific shark mortality controls remains challenging due to the non-selectivity of fishing gears, and practical and cultural barriers to changing fisher preferences for certain gear-types and fishing methods  As such, existing regulations alone (e g  Indonesian Law on Fisheries 31/2004 and its derivative regulations) will likely be insufficient to curb mortality of threatened and regulated species, as fishers must be both willing and able to change their fishing behaviour   Moreover, most of Indonesia’s shark fisheries are small-scale, and in relatively poor coastal communities where there are often no legal, sustainable marine-based alternatives to shark fishing that offer similar financial returns [22, 23]  It is therefore imperative to consider the ethical and socioeconomic impacts of shark trade controls  Most shark species listed under CITES are listed on Appendix II, which is designed for sustainable use  International trade is permitted for CITES Appendix II species provided it is non-detrimental to wild populations of the species, as proven through a scientific non-detriment finding (NDF) report and implemented through a system of export permits  However, in Indonesia there is currently a lack of species-specific trade data for conducting NDFs and setting sustainable export quotas, such that the Indonesian government has to introduce trade bans for these species in order to meet CITES obligations  With new CITES-listings for thresher sharks (Alopias spp ) and silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) recently coming into force, this is likely to have huge implications for Indonesia’s economically important shark industry, and the coastal communities depending on it  In order to balance conservation and socioeconomic objectives, robust management systems must be put in place that ensure and allow sustainable fishing and trade  This necessitates the identification of practical management measures that can reduce mortality of threatened and regulated species at the point of catch, and provide realistic options for fishers to effectively and measurably improve the sustainability of their fishing practices 
This study analyses two years of qualitative and quantitative data from one of Indonesia’s targeted shark fisheries in Tanjung Luar, West Nusa Tenggara Province  We outline the key characteristics of the fishery, including fishing behaviour and overall catch volumes and composition  We analyse the impacts of different fishing techniques, and present factors influencing overall catch per unit effort (CPUE) of individual shark fishing trips, as well as factors influencing the likelihood of catching threatened and regulated species  Finally, we discuss the implications of our findings, and provide practical recommendations for fisheries management measures, which can support CITES implementation for sharks and reduce the catch of threatened and regulated species, in Indonesia and beyond 
This work was conducted under a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and Technical Cooperation Agreement (TCA) between the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF), Ministry Marine Affairs and Fisheries (MMAF) and the Marine and Fisheries Agency (MFA) of West Nusa Tenggara Province  These documents were approved and signed by Sonny Partono (Director General of Conservation of Natural Resources and Ecosystem MoEF), Sjarief Widjaja (Secretary General MMAF), and Djoko Suprianto (Acting Head of MFA of West Nusa Tenggara Province)  Due to this MoU and TCA no specific research permit was required  We collected data by measuring sharks that were already caught, dead, and landed by fishers in Tanjung Luar, with no incentives, compensation or specific requests for killing sharks for this study  WCS participates in the Conservation Initiative on Human Rights and the rules and guidelines of our Internal Review Board ensures that any research protects the rights of human subjects  We did not apply for an IRB permit for this study because our study design focused on collecting fish and fisheries data as opposed to personal socio-economic data  The FDGs and interviews were conducted to obtain early scoping information about fishing practices, and to establish protocols for more detailed fisheries data collection (as used in this study), and socio-economic data collection (as used in a later study (Lestari et al ), which underwent further ethical review due to the specific focus on human subjects) 
Tanjung Luar, located in East Lombok, West Nusa Tenggara Province, Indonesia (Fig 1), is a landing site for one of Indonesia’s most well-known targeted shark fisheries  Tanjung Luar serves at least 1,000 vessels, and the majority of these are less than 10 gross tonnes (GT) in size   A group of specialised fishers operating from Tanjung Luar village and a neighbouring island, Gili Maringkik, specifically target sharks  Shark catch is landed in a dedicated auction facility at the Tanjung Luar port  The shark industry is well established in Tanjung Luar, with product processing facilities and trade connections to local, national and international markets  Research by Lestari et al   indicates that the shark industry is significantly more profitable than non-shark fisheries in Tanjung Luar, particularly for boat owners  Strong patron-client relationships exist between boat owners and fishers, with shark fishers exhibiting high dependency on shark fishing, limited occupational diversity and low adaptive capacity for shifting into other fisheries  
Fig 1  Sharks landing monitoring site and fishing grounds of shark fishers that land at Tanjung Luar 
In January 2014 we conducted preliminary scoping research to better understand the operational and socioeconomic characteristics of Tanjung Luar’s shark fishery  During a three-week scoping visit a team of four trained Indonesian enumerators conducted semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions (FDGs) with fishers, boat owners and traders, alongside naturalistic observation in the field  Respondents were selected through purposive sampling, since the research was exploratory in nature and a priori sampling decisions were not possible   We conducted a total of 34 semi-structured interviews (S1 File) and four FDGs, which were attended by a total of 30 individuals  All interviews and discussions took place in Indonesian, with the help of a local enumerator who was fluent in the Tanjung Luar local dialect  Interviews took approximately 30 minutes, with no remuneration for participating  All respondents gave their full prior and informed consent before contributing to the research  During the interviews and FDGs we gathered information on number of boats, fishing gears used, fishing grounds, fishery operational characteristics, and shark supply chain, including estimated volumes and value of shark catch relative to other fisheries  We improved the accuracy of information on shark fishery characteristics and fishing behaviour through informal daily interactions and discussions with 131 shark fishers during our daily landings data collection and community engagement activities  More detailed socioeconomic data were collected in a full household survey in 2016, as outlined in Lestari et al   
Shark landings data were collected by three experienced enumerators, who were trained in species identification and data collection methods during a two-day workshop and three weeks of field mentoring to ensure the accuracy of the data collected  Landings were recorded every morning at the Tanjung Luar shark auction facility where shark fishers usually landed dead sharks, from 5am to 10am from January 2014 to December 2015  The enumerators recorded data on catch composition and fishing behaviour (Table 1) from 52 different vessels across a total of 595 fishing trips  The enumerators also measured the weight of selected sharks to calculate biomass and length-weight relationship 
Table 1  Types of data collected on fishing behaviour and catch composition during daily landings data collection at Tanjung Luar 
From fishing behaviour and catch data we calculated the overall species composition of catch  We calculated catch per unit effort (CPUE) by number of individuals using both catch per set (hereafter CPUE per set) and catch per 100 hooks per set (hereafter standardised CPUE) [25,26]  This was deemed necessary since different vessels and gear-types systematically deploy different numbers of hooks, and standardised CPUE allows for a more meaningful comparison 
To understand factors influencing overall CPUE we log transformed CPUE per trip to fit a normal distribution, and fitted linear models (LMs) of CPUE per trip to fishing behaviour variables (Table 1)  We considered all variables and used minimum AIC values with stepwise analysis of variance to identify the best fit and most significant influencing variables 
To inform the development of practical fisheries management measures (e g  gear restrictions), we also specifically analysed differences in CPUE for surface and bottom longline gears employed in the fishery, using two-way ANOVAs 
Factors affecting catch of threatened and regulated species 
To identify variables influencing the catch of threatened and regulated species we conducted a two-step process  In the first step, we identified factors influencing the likelihood of catching any threatened/regulated species during a given fishing trip, by creating binary response variables for whether a threatened species had been caught during a trip (yes = 1, no = 0), and separately for whether a regulated species had been caught during a trip (yes = 1, no = 0)  We then fitted generalised linear models (GLMs) with binomial errors to the binary response variables, separately for catch of threatened species and catch of regulated species  In the second step we identified variables that significantly influenced the CPUE of threatened species and the CPUE of regulated species, given that any were caught  We removed all records in which no threatened or regulated species were caught, log transformed standardised CPUE of threatened and regulated species, and fitted linear models (LMs) of standardised CPUE of threatened species and standardised CPUE to regulated species to fishing behaviour variables  Again, we considered all meaningful models and used minimum AIC values with stepwise analysis of variance to identify the best fit  and most significant influencing variables  This approach was necessary since catch of threatened and regulated species is zero-inflated, and creating binary response variables with a binomial error structure allowed for a simpler and more powerful statistical analysis  Note that we conducted two separate analyses, one for threatened species only and one for regulated species only, but used the same methods and process, as outlined above, for each analysis  We did not group threatened and protected species together, since although some species are both threatened and protected, this is not the case for all shark species landed in Tanjung Luar 
A total of 52 shark fishing vessels operate from Tanjung Luar, all of which are classified as small-scale according to the Indonesian Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (MMAF) vessel categorisation system, with <7GT capacity  These vessels are operated by approximately 150 highly-specialised shark fishers, from Tanjung Luar village and Gili Maringkik, who make up roughly 5% of the local fisher population  The shark industry is more profitable than non-shark fisheries, and shark fishers report high household dependency on shark resources, low occupational diversity, and limited capacity and aspirations to move into other fisheries or industries 
Surface and bottom longlines are used as the primary fishing gears to target sharks, with pelagic fish (e g  Euthynnus spp , Rastrellinger spp ) used as bait  Surface and bottom longlines systematically vary in length, depth deployed, number of sets, number of hooks used, and soak times (Table 2)  Gear types are typically associated with certain vessel types, and fishers–captain and crew—tend to exhibit preferences for specific gear types  Shark fishers also use gillnets and troll lines as secondary gears, to catch bait and opportunistically target other species, such as grouper, snapper, skipjack and mackerel tuna 
Table 2  Characteristics of surface and bottom longlines 
The shark fishing vessels can be divided into two broad categories according to fishing behaviour: larger vessels (≥14 m) with higher horsepower (HP) engines spend more time at sea than smaller vessels (≤12m) (p<0 001), and reach fishing grounds outside of West Nusa Tenggara  These vessels primarily fish in southern Sumbawa and Sumba Islands, however, they also reach as far as eastern Flores, Timor Island, and the Java Sea (Fig 1)  Larger, higher HP vessels also tend to employ surface longlines (p<0 001), and since they spend more time at sea, have a higher number of sets per trip than smaller vessels (p<0 001)  Smaller vessels (≤12 m) with smaller engines tend to remain in waters around West Nusa Tenggara only, carrying out shorter fishing trips using bottom longlines (Table 3) 
Table 3  Characterisation of the different fishing vessels used to target sharks in Tanjung Luar 
During the study period we recorded shark catch from a total of 595 fishing trips  We recorded 11,678 individual sharks, with an average total catch of 963 individuals per month (SD ± 434) and 19 7 individuals per trip (SD ± 15 6)  Standardised CPUE (per 100 hooks per set) ranged from 0 05 to 22 13 individuals, with an average of 0 96 and a mode of 0 20  Catch consisted of 42 different species from 18 families (Table 4)  22% of all landings were classified as threatened species (i e  VU, EN, CR) according to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, and 73% were near threatened  Almost half (46 3%) of landings were regulated (i e  CITES-listed) species  The most commonly caught species were silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis), black tip shark (Carcharhinus limbatus) and scalloped hammerhead (Sphyrna lewini) 
Table 4  Sharks species landed in Tanjung Luar from January 2014 –December 2015 (VU = Vulnerable, EN = Endangered, NT = Near Threatened, LC = Least Concern, NE = Not Evaluated (VU and EN classified as ‘threatened’ in this study); II = CITES Appendix II, N = Not CITES-listed (II species classified as ‘regulated’ in this study)) 
Measures of CPUE for the Tanjung Luar shark fishery vary spatially and temporally, and with several aspects of fishing effort including gear type, hook number, engine power and number of sets  An initial comparison of average catch per trip and catch per set of the two major gear types, surface longline and bottom longline, indicates that CPUE of surface longlines was significantly higher than that of bottom longlines (ANOVA, p<0 001)  CPUE (individuals per set) was also positively associated with number of hooks, engine power, and number of sets (Fig 2)  However, these relationships are for unstandardised CPUE i e  without controlling for number of hooks 
Plots of CPUE: Number of individuals per set (A) and number of individuals per 100 hooks per set (standardised CPUE) (B) by gear type (1), number of hooks (2), number of sets (3) and engine horsepower (4) 
When controlling for hook number using standardised CPUE (individuals per 100 hooks per set) the relationships were reversed, with standardised CPUE of bottom longlines significantly higher than that of surface longlines (ANOVA, p<0 001; Fig 2)  A similar pattern was observed when comparing relationships between CPUE (individuals per set) and standardised CPUE for other measures of fishing effort, including numbers of hooks, engine power and number of sets (Fig 2)  There was a positive relationship between unstandardised CPUE (individuals per set) and number of hooks, number of sets and engine power, but a negative relationship between CPUE and these fishing behaviour variables when CPUE was standardised by hook number (individuals per 100 hooks per set) 
The best fit LM of standardised CPUE indicated that the most significant factors influencing standardised CPUE were fishing gear and number of hooks (p<0 001)  Month, engine power, number of sets and fishing ground were also identified as significant variables (Table 5), although there was considerable covariance between these factors  Standardised CPUE was significantly lower in January, and decreased with higher numbers of hooks, despite a higher total catch per trip and set (Fig 2) 
Table 5  Analysis of variance for linear model of standardised CPUE (individuals per 100 hooks per set) data from Tanjung Luar; significant values (p<0 05) are given in bold 
Best fit GLMs indicated that the most significant factors influencing the likelihood of catching threatened species were month (January and November were significantly lower: p<0 001 and p<0 05, respectively) and fishing ground (Other (i e  fishing grounds outside of WNTP and ENTP) was significantly higher: p<0 01)  Significant factors associated with standardised CPUE of threatened species were number of hooks (p<0 001), fishing ground (other: p<0 001, ENTP p<0 05), engine power (p<0 001) and trip length (p<0 001) (Table 6 and Fig 3) 
Plots of most significant factors affecting standardised CPUE (number of individuals per 100 hooks per set) of threatened species: a) hook number, b) fishing ground, c) engine power and d) trip length 
Analysis of variance for the best fit models of factors affecting: a) the likelihood of catching and the standardised CPUE of threatened species b) the likelihood of catching and the standardised CPUE of regulated species 
The most significant factors influencing the likelihood of catching regulated species were month (January was significantly lower: p<0 001), number of hooks (p<0 001) and engine power (<0 01)  Significant factors associated with standardised CPUE of regulated species were number of hooks (p<0 001), fishing gear (<0 001), number of sets (p<0 001), engine power (p<0 01) and month (November and January: p<0 05) (Table 5 and Fig 4) 
Plots of most significant factors affecting standardised CPUE (number of individuals per 100 hooks per set) of regulated species: a) hook number, b) gear type, c) number of sets 
Although Tanjung Luar’s targeted shark fishery is small in scale, considerable numbers of shark are landed, including a large proportion of threatened and regulated species  A key finding is that measures of CPUE, for all sharks and for threatened and regulated species, vary spatially and temporally, and with several aspects of fishing effort including gear type, hook number, engine power and number of sets  Moreover, the relationships between CPUE and fishing behaviour variables are different for different measures of CPUE (CPUE per trip, CPUE per set, CPUE per 100 hooks per set)  This highlights the importance of using appropriate standardisation for meaningful comparisons of CPUE across different gears and vessel types, and has important implications for fisheries management 
Unstandardised CPUE (individuals per set) was significantly lower in January  This is during the west monsoon season, which is characterised by high rainfall and adverse conditions at sea for fishing  Unstandardised CPUE was also significantly lower in West Nusa Tenggara Province (WNTP) than East Nusa Tenggara Province (ENTP) and other provinces, suggesting a lower abundance of sharks in this area  Engine power had a significant positive influence on unstandardised CPUE, and was also associated with longer trips and more sets, which was likely due to the ability of vessels with larger engines to travel longer distances, over longer time periods, and with higher numbers of sets, to favoured fishing grounds  Unstandardised CPUE was also significantly higher for surface longlines than bottom longlines  However, when standardising CPUE for the number of hooks (i e  individuals per 100 hooks per set) this relationship was reversed  Bottom longlines exhibit a higher standardised CPUE, with negative relationships between catch per 100 hooks per set and number of hooks and frequency of sets  Vessels with moderate engine horsepower (50-59hp) also had the highest standardised CPUE  Since surface longlines systematically employ significantly more hooks than bottom longlines (400–600 vs 25–200 hooks), and tend to be associated with larger boats, longer trips and more sets, these findings suggest that although increasing fishing effort increased total catch for these gears and trips, there were diminishing returns of this increased effort above low to moderate levels 
A large proportion of Tanjung Luar’s shark catch consisted of threatened (22%) and regulated species (46%)  Month is a significant factor in explaining standardised CPUE of both threatened and regulated species, which could indicate seasonal variation in the abundance of these species in the Tanjung Luar fishing grounds, or seasonal impacts on CPUE due to poor weather conditions  Fishing ground was a significant factor in explaining the catch of threatened species but not the catch in regulated species  This may be due to differences in range, distribution and relative abundance of species within these groups  Threatened species make up a relatively small proportion of Tanjung Luar’s catch in comparison to regulated species, which make up almost half of the catch (46%)  As such, regulated species may generally be more abundant and spatially diffuse than threatened species, and therefore caught more uniformly across fishing grounds  For example, regulated species catch is dominated by silky sharks (Carcharhinus falciformis), which are circum-tropical and coastal-pelagic, and exhibit limited site-fidelity or aggregation behaviour, while threatened species catch is dominated by scalloped hammerheads (Sphyrna lewini), which are known to aggregate in schools  These schools of scalloped hammerheads may be more restricted to specific aggregation sites outside of WNTP and ENTP waters, while silky sharks are found in uniform abundance throughout fishing grounds 
As with CPUE of all catch, there was a positive relationship between unstandardised CPUE (catch per set) of threatened and regulated species and number of hooks, but a significant negative relationship between standardised CPUE (catch per 100 hooks per set)  This was likely due to diminishing returns of adding additional hooks, and indicates that the effort for threatened and regulated species was exceeding maximum sustainable yield effort, such that increases in effort (e g  hook number) were leading to decreases in catch [28–30] 
Due to the profitability of the shark industry in Tanjung Luar, and limited adaptive capacity and willingness of shark fishers to move into other industries, it is necessary to identify practical and ethical management interventions that can improve the sustainability of the fishery whilst also mitigating the negative socio-economic consequences for coastal communities  Our findings indicate that spatiotemporal closures and restrictions on fishing effort could improve the overall catch per unit effort and sustainability of the Tanjung Luar shark fishery, and lead to positive conservation outcomes for priority species 
Since the location of shark fishing grounds plays a significant role in determining the likelihood of catching threatened species and their associated CPUE, improved marine spatial planning, with the identification of marine protected areas (MPAs) that protect critical shark habitat and shark populations, could reduce catch of species of conservation concern [31–33] and increase abundance of sharks [34, 35]  Provincial governments in West Papua and West Nusa Tenggara have already established ‘shark sanctuary’ MPAs, which protect critical shark habitat and ban shark fishing within their boundaries [16, 36], and monitoring data indicates positive impacts of shark-specific closures on shark abundance [37, 38]  Strengthening Indonesia’s existing MPA network for shark conservation, such as making all MPAs no-take zones for sharks and expanding spatial protection to critical shark habitat, including aggregation sites or pupping and nursery grounds for species of conservation concern, could have considerable conservation benefits  It should be noted, however, that MPAs may only be effective for certain species, such as those with small ranges or site-fidelity   More research is required to identify critical shark habitat and life history stages  For Tanjung Luar these efforts could focus on better understanding scalloped hammerhead (Sphyrna lewini) aggregation sites  Well-targeted spatial closures for this species could significantly reduce catch of threatened species in this fishery 
The relationships between gear type, several aspects of fishing effort (i e  hook number, engine power, number of sets, trip length), standardised CPUE of all shark species and standardised CPUE of threatened and regulated species suggest that there is an optimal effort that could increase overall CPUE of the fishery and significantly reduce fishing mortality of species of conservation concern  For example, our data suggest that CPUE peaks with low to intermediate trip lengths and gear sets, intermediate engine power and hook numbers of less than 75 per set longline  Although standardised CPUE of threatened and regulated species is also higher when fewer hooks are deployed, the catch per set and overall mortality is significantly lower  Regulations that control the number of hooks in combination with incentives for shark fishers to tightly manage the number of hooks they deploy could significantly reduce mortality of threatened and endangered species, maximise the overall CPUE of the fishery, and reduce operational costs for fishers, making shark fishing in Tanjung Luar more sustainable and more cost effective [39–41] 
Acknowledging that almost half of Tanjung Luar’s shark catch consists of CITES-listed species, developing measures that ensure both the sustainability of the fishery, and full traceability and control of onward trade, will be crucial for implementing CITES   The Indonesian government has demonstrated a strong commitment to regulating shark trade and implementing CITES [17–18], as demonstrated through several policy decisions to confer full and partial protection to CITES-listed shark and ray species (Marine Affairs and Fisheries Ministerial Decree No 4 /KEPMEN-KP/2014, Regulation No  48/PERMEN-KP/2016)  This includes zero quotas/export bans for hammerhead and oceanic whitetip sharks  However, these export bans should be considered intermediate policy measures as monitoring systems and data availability are improved, and sustainable quotas are established  This will be challenging, as shark products are often traded in large volumes of fresh and/or preserved body parts, with high morphological similarity between products from regulated species and non-regulated species  To guarantee that trade is not detrimental to the survival of species, sustainable fisheries management will need to be complemented with species-specific trade quotas  This will require catch documentation systems which trace shark products from point of catch to point of export and rapid, low-cost species identification methods 
As baseline data on shark population health are limited, and there is no standardised, fisheries-independent system for monitoring long-term changes in shark populations, indirect bio-indicators (e g  endo- and ectoparasites, [43–45]) could help to elucidate the impact of management measures on fisheries and populations of wild species  In the future, shark conservation and fisheries management could benefit from long-term monitoring of agreed indices of population abundance and health status 
These lessons may also apply to shark fisheries in other parts of the world  As sharks increasingly become the focus of global conservation efforts it should be acknowledged that species protection alone will not be enough to reduce mortality of priority species  More needs to be done to identify practical fisheries management measures that can reduce pressure on the most vulnerable species and populations, but also support sustainable use of species that are less susceptible to overfishing  Shark fishing forms an integral part of the livelihood strategies of many coastal communities [22, 23], and prohibiting catches will not necessarily lead to positive conservation outcomes [21, 46]  Management interventions must take into account local context and the motivations and well-being of fisher communities in order to be ethical, feasible and impactful 
S1 Dataset  Data of landed sharks at Tanjung Luar auction that had been used for this study 
S1 File  Questionnaires have been used to interview shark fishers, collector, traders, and processors 
We wish to acknowledge the support provided by fishers in Tanjung Luar for their great cooperation during fieldwork  We also thank I Made Dharma Aryawan, Muhsin, Abdul Kohar, and Abdurrafik for their assistance during field research, Benaya M Simeon, Peni Lestari, and Siska Agustina for helping with data processing, Ken Kassem for carefully reading the manuscript and providing useful inputs, and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments 
3  Hutchings JA, Reynolds JD  Marine fish population collapses: consequences for recovery and extinction risk  AIBS Bulletin  2004 Apr;54(4):297–309 
4  Costello C, Ovando D, Clavelle T, Strauss CK, Hilborn R, Melnychuk MC, et al  Global fishery prospects under contrasting management regimes  Proceedings of the national academy of sciences  2016 May 3;113(18):5125–9 
5  Davidson LN, Krawchuk MA, Dulvy NK  Why have global shark and ray landings declined: improved management or overfishing?  Fish and Fisheries  2016 Jun 1;17(2):438–58 
6  Stevens JD, Bonfil R, Dulvy NK, Walker PA  The effects of fishing on sharks, rays, and chimaeras (chondrichthyans), and the implications for marine ecosystems  ICES Journal of Marine Science  2000 Jun 1;57(3):476–94 
9  Dent F, Clarke S  State of the global market for shark products  FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper (FAO) eng no  590  2015 
12  Christensen J, Tull M, editors  Historical perspectives of fisheries exploitation in the Indo-Pacific  Springer Science & Business Media; 2014 Apr 1 
13  Simpfendorfer CA, Heupel MR, White WT, Dulvy NK  The importance of research and public opinion to conservation management of sharks and rays: a synthesis  Marine and Freshwater Research  2011 Jul 21;62(6):518–27 
14  Lack M, Sant G  The future of sharks: a review of action and inaction  TRAFFIC International and the Pew Environment Group  2011 Jan:44 
15  Bräutigam A, Callow M, Campbell IR, Camhi MD, Cornish AS, Dulvy NK, et al  Global priorities for conserving sharks and rays: A 2015–2025 strategy  The Global Sharks and Rays Initiative; 2015  27p 
16  Satria A, Matsuda Y  Decentralization of fisheries management in Indonesia  Marine Policy  2004 Sep 30;28(5):437–50 
17  Dharmadi , Fahmi , Satria F  Fisheries management and conservation of sharks in Indonesia  African journal of marine science  2015 Apr 3;37(2):249–58 
20  Sembiring A, Pertiwi NP, Mahardini A, Wulandari R, Kurniasih EM, Kuncoro AW, Cahyani ND, Anggoro AW, Ulfa M, Madduppa H, Carpenter KE  DNA barcoding reveals targeted fisheries for endangered sharks in Indonesia  Fisheries Research  2015 Apr 30;164:130–4 
21  Clarke S  Re-examining the shark trade as a tool for conservation  SPC Fisheries Newsletter  2014:49–56 
22  Jaiteh VF, Loneragan NR, Warren C  The end of shark finning? Impacts of declining catches and fin demand on coastal community livelihoods  Marine Policy  2017 Mar 24 
24  Cohen D, Crabtree B  Qualitative research guidelines project  Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Princeton  2006 Available from: http://www qualres org/index html Cited in August 2016 
25  Skud BE  Manipulation of fixed gear and the effect on catch-per-unit effort  FAO Fisheries Report (FAO)  1984 
26  Damalas D, Megalofonou P, Apostolopoulou M  Environmental, spatial, temporal and operational effects on swordfish (Xiphias gladius) catch rates of eastern Mediterranean Sea longline fisheries  Fisheries Research  2007 Apr 30;84(2):233–46 
27  Burnham KP, Anderson DR  Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach  Springer Science & Business Media; 2003 Dec 4 
28  Schaefer MB  Some aspects of the dynamics of populations important to the management of the commercial marine fisheries  Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission Bulletin  1954;1(2):23–56 
29  Fox WW Jr  An exponential surplus-yield model for optimizing exploited fish populations  Transactions of the American Fisheries Society  1970 Jan 1;99(1):80–8 
30  Purwanto P, Nugroho D, Suwarso S  Potential production of the five predominant small pelagic fish species groups in the Java Sea  Indonesian Fisheries Research Journal  2014 Dec 1;20(2):59–67 
31  Barker MJ, Schluessel V  Managing global shark fisheries: suggestions for prioritizing management strategies  Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems  2005 Jul 1;15(4):325–47 
34  Ward-Paige CA, Worm B  Global evaluation of shark sanctuaries  Global Environmental Change  2017 Nov 30;47:174–89 
35  Speed CW, Cappo M, Meekan MG  Evidence for rapid recovery of shark populations within a coral reef marine protected area  Biological Conservation  2018 Apr 30;220:308–19 
36  West Nusa Tenggara Provincial Government  2017  [Management and zoning plan of Lunyuk Marine Protected Area]  Mataram: West Nusa Tenggara Provincial Government; 2017  Indonesian 
37  Jaiteh VF, Lindfield SJ, Mangubhai S, Warren C, Fitzpatrick B, Loneragan NR  Higher abundance of marine predators and changes in fishers' behavior following spatial protection within the world's biggest shark fishery  Frontiers in Marine Science  2016 Apr 7;3:43 
39  Kumoru L  The shark longline fishery in Papua New Guinea  InReport prepared for Billfish and bycatch research group, at the 176th meeting of the standing committee on Tuna and Billfish, Mooloolaba, Australia, 9th-16th July 2003 2003 Jul 
40  Cartamil D, Santana-Morales O, Escobedo-Olvera M, Kacev D, Castillo-Geniz L, Graham JB, Rubin RD, Sosa-Nishizaki O  The artisanal elasmobranch fishery of the Pacific coast of Baja California, Mexico  Fisheries Research  2011 Mar 31;108(2):393–403 
42  Vincent AC, Sadovy de Mitcheson YJ, Fowler SL, Lieberman S  The role of CITES in the conservation of marine fishes subject to international trade  Fish and Fisheries  2014 Dec 1;15(4):563–92 
43  Palm HW  Fish parasites as biological indicators in a changing world: can we monitor environmental impact and climate change?  InProgress in Parasitology 2011 (pp  223–250)  Springer Berlin Heidelberg 
44  Palm HW, Yulianto I, Piatkowski U  Trypanorhynch Assemblages Indicate Ecological and Phylogenetical Attributes of Their Elasmobranch Final Hosts  Fishes  2017 Jun 17;2(2):8 
46  Booth H  Using the case of illegal manta ray trade in Indonesia to evaluate the impact of wildlife trade policy (Master Thesis, Imperial College London) 
47  White WT, Last PR, Stevens JD, Yearsley GK  Economically important sharks & rays of Indonesia  Austr-alian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR); 2006 
Context 2: Probably one of the most frustrating things about building experimental aircraft, especially when starting with a minimum of pre-fabricated parts, is to start building and ending up with an unexpected result  Every builder starts a new project by wanting it to go "perfectly " So when things aren't going well, especially at the beginning, the frustration can lead to an unfinished airplane 
This is the first article in a series dedicated to helping builders of the Rand Robinson KR series planes build a straight and true fuselage -- the first part of the construction process  Borrowing from modern boatbuliding techniques, focus will be on the KR-2S, but the principles apply to the entire lineup of KR-1 & KR-2 series planes 
While building the KR-2(s) a common surprise is encountered by builders when the completed fuselage sides are laid into position to form the fuselage box section  With many hours spent building the sides flat, finding the once straight longerons that now bow up from the building surface, form a most dissatisfying "banana" shape  Especially when using the preformed fiberglass parts, this curve in the top longeron is not acceptable  The builder is left wondering what went wrong and no amount of clamping or brute force forming will solve the problem to any degree of satisfaction  The problem is not the builder's fault  The solution starts by understanding the three dimensional relationship of the assembled parts being built 
First understand that the plans show the finished form of the plane  They show the "projected" form as you would expect to see it if viewing an actual plane from the top, ends and from the side  Since the sides are sloped (flared) outward, looking from the side, the distances given by measuring the profile drawing are "foreshortened" and don't give the proper shape for building the fuselage with a flat top longeron  What needs to be done is to "develop" the "true" distances and shape of the flat panel so that when it is curved into position, the longerons lay flat 
Second, understand that the dimensions called for in the plans put a twist in the sides that tends to work the panel in two directions of curvature  This twist makes the panel "undevelopable" meaning that that shape cannot be unrolled into an equivalent flat shape  This is important when laying out the side and bottom panels onto flat plywood  To illustrate this, try forming a piece of paper around a soda can  The paper can be formed flat around the can either straight or at a diagonal to it's length  It has only one direction of curvature and is by definition "developable"  Now try to form the same piece of paper around a baseball  It won't lie flat on the surface without some deformation (folding, wrinkling or tearing) of the paper  The ball has curvature in more that one direction and is a "compounded" shape  Paper (or plywood) can only be readily formed in developable shapes as opposed to aluminum or other metal which can accept in plane deformation  A developable surface is needed to lay out a curved surface when the materials used can't be deformed with any degree of in-plane strain 
Initially, the fuselage sides are laid out flat with reference to the top longeron measured to a straight chalk line  The bowing problem starts when the side panels are bent and sloped to form the fuselage box section  If the sides were not sloped (tumbled home), the section formed would be cylindrical and the longerons would lie flat  Since the sides are tumbled home, the section formed is now conical  When a conical shape is cut with a plane (building surface) not perpendicular to it's axis, the shape formed is elliptical -- exactly what happens with the top longeron  When it's built flat, bent to form a cylindrical section, and sloped to form a conical section, it takes on an elliptical shape firewall to tailstock 
This method borrows heavily from proven techniques used in the marine trades  It should be stressed at this point that although the layout procedure is not complicated, it is important to take your time  If the layout is not going well initially, start over! Better to erase layout errors now than to have them built it and cause surprises later 
Layout to ensure a fair and true fuselage starts by drawing a reference line (baseline) on the building surface  Refer to figures 2 & 3 and use a wire guide to draw a very straight baseline  About 500 lbs  Of tension should be adequate  One could use a chalk line, but we're talking airplanes here, not house framing 
The main layout difference is that the baseline isn't used as a reference for the top longeron  The baseline references the mid point of the firewall for the developed (and true dimensioned) side panel  Although the baseline will still be the reference, the top and bottom longerons will be laid separately 
Layout differences don't end there  Each of the stations (vertical members) will be laid out with a calculated separation so that when the panels are formed into position, they land on the spacing called for in the plans  Another major difference is that the bottom & side panels are applied after forming the fuselage box section  This is mainly to obtain the ability to "fair" the side and bottom surfaces and insure a straight and true shape 
Refer to figure 1 for the layout of the new developed side panel  The firewall (station a) is layed out perpendicular to the baseline  Longitudinal (station) measurements are given along the length of the baseline from the firewall  Vertical dimensions are given to reference the angle and breadths of the station at the baseline 
Notice that the top longeron is bowed outward and that the stations are spaced slightly greater than called out in the plans  When the panels are formed into the box frame section ,they will work into the dimensions specified in the plans 
Strike a centerline, longer than is needed on the building surface using a wire guide  Draw off the firewall line perpendicular to the centerline at one end 
Using the distances listed in the balloons, mark them off on the centerline  Distances are measured to the nearest sixteenth of an inch  Take time to mark them off carefully  Don't mark off the distances in a cumulative fashion  Use the firewall as a common reference 
Using the angles listed at each station, mark off a station line longer than is needed  The angles are measured to the nearest hundredth of a degree  Take time to mark them off carefully 
At each station, start by marking off each short (bottom longeron) line distance from the centerline  Use your set of trammels or beam compass for doing this  Mark the intersection of the short line with the station line 
At each station, mark off each long (top longeron) line distance from the intersection of the short line distance and the station line  Again the trammels or beam compass is best for completing this step  Mark the intersection of the long line distance with the station line 
Using the longeron as a batten, trace out the inside and outside curves of the longeron  After the batten is secure, in between each station, fasten a keeper block inside and outside to preserve the shape of the longeron taking care to avoid potential future interference with the diagonal members to be installed later  The fairing blocks can be removed or left in place if they won't interfere with building  The vertical station members and their diagonals can now be measured and positioned  Remember to refer to the plans for the material thickness direction 
After vertical and diagonal members are cut and fitted, take time to draw their outlines on the building surface to cut down on time and confusion when laying out the opposite side 
Finishing the side panel is accomplished in a manner similar to that called for in the handbook with the exception that the side and bottom skin panels will be attached later 
The next article in the series will discuss jigging and building techniques to ensure alignment and straightness of the flat built side panels  Also covered will be building a "strongback" jig to assure alignment of the side panels when they are formed into their final shape 
Part 3 in the series will cover assembly of the side panels using the jigs  Some joint details will be discussed that will ensure a stronger and more fair fuselage assembly  Also covered will be the layout & attachment of the side and bottom ply skins 
U S  Mail: Densmore Associates, inc 
ANSI "D" size, computer generated plots of all the layout drawings in this series are available from the author for $30 plus postage & handling  Full (true size) scale plots may be made available depending on demand 
"Scarfing" is the practice of splicing plywood so that short pieces of plywood can be used to span long distances  On the KR, it is required on both the fuselage skins and spar webs  The angle of the splice should be 10 to 12 degrees to maintain strength across the joint  Also, joints should coincide with structural members, such as spar webs or fuselage truss members 
This scarfer is made by mating a regular plunge router (this one costs about $50) to a table saw  Obviously, you really only need a table saw to cut the chamfer, but it does make a nice heavy table for scarfing  You could just as easily use a large work table as the base First, set the table saw for a 5 5 degree cut (for a 1:12 joint, or 6 5 degree cut for a 10:1 joint), and run a 1 x 6 through on edge to chamfer a corner on the board  Then drill the board for three router mounting holes (two are countersunk) and connect the assembly to the table saw with two 1/4 inch bolts  Use a long (2-3 inch) straight cutting bit to do the cutting  Adjust the bit so it doesn't interfere with your table top, and go to town  Keep pressure on the plywood to ensure contact with the table while you're scarfing  Make sure you feed your material from the same end as you would if you were sawing, or the router will take your plywood away from you and put a big dent in your garage door 
In the late 60's Ken Rand and Stuart Robinson were working as flight system engineers for Douglas Avionics  Ken was working as an electrical engineer, having previously worked for Sperry as an autopilots project engineer, while Stu's degree was in aeronautical engineering from Northrop University  They were two of the guys at the end of the DC-8,9, and 10 assembly lines responsible for correcting some of the nits and picks in various systems before delivery to the customer 
They both wanted to build a fast, inexpensive airplane which was also economical to maintain  Several designs were considered, and plans were bought first for the Jeanie's Teenie and then the Taylor Monoplane  The Monoplane was more to their liking, but would require some modification to fit their needs  A cooperative redesign effort ensued, with virtually no dimensions left untouched  Only the basic fuselage structure, airfoil, and powerplant were retained  The tail shape was Stu's, and came directly from the big DC-8s parked on the ramp outside his office window  The landing gear was designed by Ken, after seeing the gear on a Dewey Bird at Santa Paula airport 
Ken was killed in his KR2 a short time later while flying over Cajon Pass in what was apparently a bad weather / low fuel accident  Ken's wife Jeanette became owner of RR overnight, and stepped up to keep the plans and parts coming  Much of the engineering needs are handled by Bill Marcy of Denver, who's been helping out since early '79 
To date, almost 6000 KR1, 9200 KR2, and 760 KR2S plan sets have been sold  1200 KR2s are estimated to be flying, with 5 KR2Ss now in the air  Much of the development work done on KR's is now done by the builders themselves  KR builders tend to be innovative, which leads to some interesting modifications  Some of the mods that work eventually creep into the plans  The KR2S is a case in point  Many builders who'd heard of the pitch sensitivity and tight cabin of the KR2 began to build an enlarged version, with the length determined by the most commonly available longeron material  The result is a KR2 that is stretched 2" between firewall and main spar, and 14" behind the main spar  Higher gross weights dictated more wing area, with the new standard becoming the Diehl wing skin  Those who plan to carry passengers commonly stretch the cabin width a few inches, although 1 5 inches is the limit if you still want to use RR's premolded parts 
Mike Stearns addresses the KR Forum crowd 
This year's KR Forum featured guest speakers Mike Stearns, Steve Trentman, and Bill Marcey  Mike Stearns spoke on several topics, including the many sources for KR and homebuilding information available on the Internet  He also mentioned KRNet, the list server devoted entirely to KR aircraft, as well as several notable World Wide Web home pages  He also brought a sample of the new Rand Robinson wing skins with him, and discussed their high temperature core prepreg construction  His KR2S will receive the first set, which is currently being installed at Hinson Composites 
Steve Trentman spoke on his turbine installation  It uses a turbine engine which saw duty as an A7 attack jet starter engine  Total weight is about 85 pounds, while putting out around 90 horsepower  There is a small stockpile of these engines available from government surplus  sources  This engine can only be throttled back to 52% power, which leads to some pretty interesting landings  One inflight failure has been logged so far, with very little damage to the aircraft  More on this exciting development in next month's issue of KROnline 
Les Palmer's KR2 N202LP won Best KR2, Best Engine Installation, and People's Choice awards at the 1995 KR Gathering at Columbia, TN  After researching the KR series, and reading Neil Bingham's "A Critical Analysis of the KR2" (Jan 88 Sport Aviation), Les decided to build his as a single seater, stretched 24" in the tail, while maintaining a stock width firewall  His fuselage is made from Douglas fir, which weighs in at 4 lbs heavier than if constructed from spruce  It is skinned with 1/8" birch plywood  Spars are covered with plywoood on both fore and aft sides, ala KR2S  Diehl wing skins provide the lift  Horizontal stabilizer and elevator were stretched 7" longer on each side, while the vertical stabilizer and rudder were stretched 8" taller    The fuselage to cowling junction was made more graceful by adding 1 5 inches to the height of the firewall end of the fuselage sides 
Les's canopy is a Dragonfly, using a four linkage system to swing forward when opening  The canopy frame fits snugly into a recess in the foward deck, providing an excellent wind and water seal  The fiberglass work is exemplary 
Seating is luxurious for one 
The cowling is also a work of art, and uses NACA ducts for efficiency  Female molds were made for all the fiberglass parts on Les's plane, so he could proabably be persuaded to make more, if demand dictates  Les also machines a multitude of KR aluminum and steel parts which he now offers for sale 
The firewall was reinforced with aluminum brackets and angles bolted between the longerons in anticipation of the 200 lb Subaru EA-81 engine installation  His 100 HP Asian version is outfitted with an American Holley 5200 caburetor and manifold  It uses a PSRU of Les's own design, featuring two spur gears with a 1 69:1 reduction ratio and a toothed belt  Other than tapping the crank for larger bolts to mount the redrive, no other engine modifications were required  Also, this is probably the only air conditioned KR2 on the planet  The prop is a 60/63 Hegy 
Originally built as a taildragger, the fixed gear is made from 4130 steel tubing  Custom cast 6 00x6 aluminum wheels and steel rotors are mated with 6" Cleveland calipers for braking  An early taxi test accident damaged the main gear, and prompted Les to change to tricycle gear  Again, he designed his own fiberglass main gear, and uses a Diehl nose wheel fork with a 4130 strut and 6" wheel up front



ground_truth: The relationships between catch per set and fishing behavior variables differ when comparing unstandardized CPUE and standardized CPUE.

prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: What is the purpose of the baseline in the layout procedure?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 2: 
Early tests revealed cooling problems, which prompted a radiator move from the firewall to a lower cowling location 
The first flight was almost a disaster, as test pilot Randy Smith lost power right after takeoff  He managed a 180 with a safe downwind landing with only minor nosewheel pant damage  The culprit proved to be a spark plug with too much reach, which was quickly remedied  Subsequent flights have shown water temp to be about 210 degrees, oil temp is 220-230, and airspeed is about 180 mph 
Shopping for the Partially Built KR 
This story starts about twenty years ago when I first started looking at the KR-2 as the plane I'd like to build  The only problem at that time was a lack of money, lack of knowledge, and a lack of job stability  I liked the design, except for the low ground clearance of the retractable gear and that a KR was going to be a tight fit for me to fly 
Over the past twenty years I've owned a number of planes, but still always wanted to build my own  I needed one that would fit me, my budget requirements, and have the speed and performance that I wanted  When "KITPLANES" published the article featuring Roy Marsh's new KR-2S, it was the first I had heard of any major modifications or improvements to the same old KR design  I believe that article and Roy Marsh's workmanship have probably been the greatest boon to Rand Robinson (RR) in the last twenty years  It certainly caught my eye! Here was the same design I had decided I wanted to build twenty years ago, with all of the improvements I wanted  It was sitting on fixed gear with some reasonable ground clearance  It had the capability to be built large enough to accommodate me  It has enough prefab parts available that it didn't have to be 100% scratch built if I decided to hurry the project along  And it had the speed I wanted  I knew that Roy's published speeds were probably not realistic expectations for the average KR, but after knocking around for the last three years in my Champ, anything over 90 mph seems pretty fast to me 
After purchasing the info kit and the sales video from Rand Robinson, the next step after deciding for sure to build this plane was to order the KR-2 plans and the KR-2S addendum  I finally got my plans and was putting together my first order to start the plane, when my partner in the Champ pointed out that there was a partially completed KR-2S for sale in Trade-a-plane  My initial answer was "No, I don't even want to look at it  I want to build my own from scratch " My partner insisted that for the advertised price and the fact that it wasn't too far away, I ought to at least give the guy a call and investigate it  "No, I don't think I want to buy someone else's problems," I persisted  That night I went home and crunched up some numbers on the calculator and finally came to the conclusion that for the sake of my budget for the next several years, I really should give this guy a call 
Three days later, I flew to his place about 400 miles away to take a look at his project  At this point I should probably mention that I consider myself to be fairly knowledgeable about airplane construction, although the vast majority of my experience is with tube and fabric  The rest of this article deals with what I looked for and more importantly what I missed and have had to repair in the last year since I purchased the project 
When we went to the seller's house, I found that the left wing was built using the Dan Diehl wing skins and the right wing skins were leaning against the wall inside the house  Also the canopy was in the house with the canopy covered with paper and tape  I wanted to inspect the fuselage first, so off we went to the shop 
There I found a fuselage sitting on it's gear painted in primer gray  The first step was to inspect the quality of workmanship of what could be seen as it sat  The interior of the fuselage looked as if it had been built with a great deal of care  The fit and finish of all of the interior wood was very nice  Even the gussets looked like they had been painstakingly perfectly fitted  The glass work on the turtle back also looked very precise and clean  It was evenly faired into the vertical and horizontal stabs  The tail also appeared to be well built with the exception of a depression directly over the front and rear spars in the horizontal stabs  He explained that when he moved recently, that he had shot the plane with gray primer to protect it from the weather since he wouldn't have ready access to a shop to put it in right away  It ended up sitting out in the hot south Texas summer sun for a few weeks before he got a shop rented to work in  That caused the glass (or possibly the foam inside the horizontal stab) to swell, except that it held onto the spar, so it was slightly ballooned in front of and behind the spars  His recommendation was to fill it back smooth with micro 
I also found a small linear crack in the lower left wing spar cap on the left wing stub  It appeared to be from over tightening the rear spar wing attach fitting bolts  His explanation was that the crack wasn't important because the rear spars only job is to keep the wings from folding back  I also noticed that the holes for attaching the outer wing to the wing stub were badly rounded out on the rear spar  He explained that the Diehl wing skins require the rear spar to be swept slightly more forward than the stock wings  This won't allow you to use the rear spar attach fittings from RR and that I would need to fabricate a new set of rear spar attach fittings 
I also found that the aileron bellcranks were not built or installed as per plans, but found that they looked professional  I couldn't check for function since the right bellcrank and sheeve wasn't installed, the left wing also wasn't installed, and the right wing didn't exist yet 
Next we pulled the inspection panels off of the fuselage and tail and looked at everything I could see with a good flashlight  I didn't find anything else that might be questionable about the fuselage except for a cracked elevator trim tab that was damaged when it fell off it's hanging place on the wall 
Next we spent some time going over his builders log and builders photo album  I still hadn't seen anything that would dissuade me from buying this project 
At this point it was starting to get late and my ride down needed to get airborne for the flight home  I needed to make a decision about whether I wanted this project or not, but I hadn't inspected the wings and canopy yet  I took a cursory look at the left wing and saw lots on micro built up on it and some bubbles in the leading edge, but nothing that looked seriously wrong to my amateur eye  The right wing was only a set of spars in the shop and the Diehl wing skins in the house, so there wasn't much to look at there  The canopy was wrapped in paper and tape, so there wasn't much to look at there either  I decided that even if there were serious problems in the wing that was built, I would be money ahead to go ahead and buy the project  For the advertised price, I could build a new set of wings and still be way ahead financially  We negotiated a final price, shook hands, took my ride to the airport, and started off in search of a U-haul to haul the project home 
Now, at this point, some of you are thinking about what I surely must have forgotten to inspect and why didn't I take a local A & P or EAA member along for the ride  First of all, I don't know any mechanics locally that have any experience with glass and our EAA chapter of which I am VP is woefully lacking in fiberglass knowledge  Secondly, as you will see, I missed plenty  Some by ignorance, some by just not looking close enough 
Now for a list of the problems that I found over the last year and a few of the fixes that I came up with 
I found that the lower set of rear spar attach fittings on the left rear spar were installed backwards with the longer spaced hole towards the fuselage  Since this is the same place that also had the cracked spar cap, it required a major change  Also in the same area he had drilled through the rear spar with a hole saw to create a place for the aileron cable to pass through and managed to cut out the second from the outside vertical brace in the spar  Then he chose to install the aileron bellcranks in front of the rear spar, and cut another hole through the rear spar for the aileron push rod  He also managed to cut out the outside vertical brace in the spar  Since the holes were already drilled through the spar, the choices were to either cut out that section of spar cap and scarf a new piece in, cut the whole rear spar carrythrough out of the fuselage including ruining the left lower wing skin, or do something else creative to reinforce the spar cap and install a custom built set of attach fittings 
I also found that after I built and installed the right side wing stub ribs and skin that the aileron bellcrank setup would not work as installed  The cable that crosses between the two bellcranks had a sharp uphill from the sheeve to the bellcrank in the last 12 inches on either side  This combined with the radius that the bellcranks turn caused the cross cable to pull up tight when the ailerons were pushed to either end of their travel, but allowed the cables to go very slack when the ailerons were centered  Also the Aileron pushrods needed to pass directly through the lower set of rear wing attach fittings to attach to the aileron  This whole rear spar and aileron bellcrank setup was going to either have to be redesigned or cut out and built to plans  The bottom line is that the problems I observed when I inspected this part were much more serious than expected when I had to fix it 
I decided that I had to remove the rear fittings from the left wing to be replaced with the new set that my neighborhood machinist was cutting out for me  When I put the wing on the work bench to start removing the rear fittings, I thought I had better take a closer look at the bubbles in the leading edge  I found that as I pushed on the leading edge, it delaminated between the glass lay-up on top and the upper and lower wing skin edges that were floxed together underneath  I concluded that that area had to come apart and took a belt sander to the leading edge  What I found was that the leading edge had been floxed together and glassed over, but the mold release had never been scrubbed off the leading edge of the wing  It peeled apart for rebuild quite easily 
When I got back to removing the rear spar attach fittings, I noticed that the woodwork inside the wing looked awfully dull  The reason was that the wing had been closed up without varnishing any of the woodwork  This was rectified with a small hole saw, a number of extensions and a modified undercoating sprayer 
I also found that the aluminum drain fitting in the bottom of the left wing tank had been glassed into place upside down  The tapered pipe threads were tapered the wrong way to install the draincock into the tank  Retapping the fitting the right direction seemed to be a good fix for that problem 
When I finally got around to attaching the wing to the fuselage, I found that the front spar attach fittings were badly misaligned  Although they could be forced into alignment, I didn't think I needed that kind of preload on the main spar fittings  This problem was fixed by calling on my local neighborhood machinist to build me an aligning fixture and reaming the attach holes to the next larger size and ordering the new sized bolts 
On the fuselage I found that although it had new Cleveland wheels and brakes on it, one of the brakes had a severe wobble to it  I must complement the manufacturers for taking care of that problem  One call to the Cleveland factory and they shipped me a new set of wheels and brakes even though the receipt for this set was over four years old and in the original builders name  Their only concern was that this set had never been placed in service yet 
I chose to sand the load of micro off the left wing to see what it was covering  When I got down to the glass, I found that there was no glass for the aft inch and a half of the underside of the wing in front of the aileron hinge  With the Diehl wing skins, you build the wings, then cut the ailerons out of trailing edge of the wing  He had mismeasured and cut too much material off the bottom side of the trailing edge in front of the aileron  It was filled by floxing a piece of spruce into the gap to fill the space between the back edge of the fiberglass and the aileron mount  I chose to wrap the trailing edge of that wing, and the other wing to match with a couple of lay-ups of glass 
When I sanded the primer off the aforementioned damaged trim tab, I found that the hinge was floxed to the leading edge of the foam insides of the tab, but not the glass  I also chose to wrap the front of the trim tab with a lay-up of glass 
I decided to pull the paper off the canopy and take a look at it before I'm ready to bolt it on and fly  The original builder had blown his own canopy and after some of the previous problems, I was beginning to have some concerns about not having looked it over closely enough  The canopy turned out to have been blow a little too large  It ended up with a little larger bubble for headroom, which I didn't object to  However, it had more headroom on the right side than the left  Yes, it was just a little bit lopsided  The main problem was that the canopy is stretched thin enough that it can be easily pushed in with one hand when the weather is warm   My fear was that this is just thin enough that it may decide to lay on my head or in my lap when flying on a warm day  It will have to be replaced 
I'm sure that many that are reading this could see several of the potential problems before I mentioned them, but some others may not have and I'm sure that there could have been many other problems that didn't but could have existed on this project  This is also not intended to be critical of the gentleman that started this project as many parts of it, especially the wood work are better than I could have done and much of his work is outstanding  I prefer to think that I'll end up with a better plane with his woodwork combined with my glasswork  This article is intended to feature some of the problems that you may run into in buying someone else's project 
The final question is, knowing what I have found over the past year, would I have still purchased this project  The answer is yes, but primarily because the price was right in that I am still money and work ahead of where I would be if I had started the project from scratch  There are a few things that I would have done differently, but nothing that I can't live with  Although I won't be able to say that I built it all from scratch, I have built and rebuild enough of the plane that I should have no problem qualifying under the 51% rule 
You can send comments directly to the author via e-mail at "jscott@LANL GOV" 
Here is an brief explanation of how I built my turtledecks  The jig was constructed from scrap plywood and a few 1x4s that I ripped into stringers  I made two temporary bulkheads from the plywood, one for each end  Remember the forward bulkhead needs to be shaped in a way that will closely match the aft end of your canopy frame  Make an aft bulkhead by placing a straight edge at the top of your forward bulkhead and the trailing edge of your horizontal stabilizer  This will give you an idea of how tall your aft bulkhead needs to be  As far as location, I placed my aft bulkhead just forward of the lower/front of my vertical fin  I constructed the jig on the fuselage, it is glued together with automotive bondo 
After the bulkheads were bondoed to the fuselage I used the stringers that I ripped from the 1x4s and bondoed them to the bulkheads  This gave me a male form to cover with thin plastic or posterboard  I stapled two layers of posterboard to the jig(thin plastic would work better)  The posterboard wraps down two inches onto the fuselage  After I was satisfied with the way it looked, I then covered the entire thing with duct tape (fiberglass will not stick to duct tape) On top of this I wetout one layer of tri-ply cloth (22oz) that I had left over from an earlier project, and one layer of 8oz  bid  Remember to mask off your fuselage so you don't get epoxy on it  If you are not familiar with composite lay-ups, you should plan on razor cutting your lay-ups 4 to 6 hours after wetout while the lay-up is still soft enough to cut with a razorblade 
After the lay-up cured (2 or 3 days) it was removed from the jig, and the jig was removed from the fuselage and discarded  (be careful, the bondo sticks very well to the spruce, you could splinter your wood during removal) I now have a fiberglass skin that tends to hold the shape of the jig but is still flexible enough to work with  I made two bulkheads out of 1/4 last-a-foam (AS&S) using the plywood formers from the jig as a guide  I covered these foam bulkheads with one 8oz layer of glass on each side, with a glass to glass edge on the bottom  After cure these bulkheads were bondoed into place (to the fuselage)and the fiberglass skin was pulled down tight and floxed to the bulkheads  When the flox cured the bondo joints were broken, again being careful not to harm the wood  The turtledeck was removed from the fuselage and 2 inch tapes added to the bulkheads inside and out 
At this point the turtledeck looked great and only weighed about 5lbs  but I noticed you could deform the skin by pushing hard on the outside  So I flipped the turtledeck over and from 1/4 inch last-a-foam, I cut two inch wide strips that would run the entire length, forward and aft inside the turtledeck  In effect these would act as composite stringers, I made enough of these two inch wide strips to make up three stringers  One down the center (sort of a backbone) and one on each side of the "backbone" half the distance to the edge of the turtledeck  I sanded the edge of the foam so that when covered with a layer of bid @ 45degrees there would be a nice transition from the turtledeck skin up onto the foam and then back onto the turtledeck I scuff sanded and glued the foam stringers in with micro  I covered the foam stringers with one layer of 8oz bid @ 45degrees 
You can also send me email at: mikemims@pacbell net if you have any questions or want to share your ideas 
KROnline is an online KR Newsletter devoted to sharing KR information with other builders and pilots in a timely manner  The first issue (September 96) is now available as a zipped MicroSoft Word file at http://members aol com/bshadr or as an html document at kronline9 html  If you'd like to submit articles or photos, email Randy Stein at BSHADR@aol com ------------------------------------------------------------ Don't bother to email Randy though  KROnline has been retired since the KR Newsletter has improved 
Context 3: A Brief History of Benjamin Franklin's Residences on Craven Street, London: 1757 - 1775 - Journal of the American Revolution
Benjamin Franklin House, 36 Craven St, London  (Photo by Elliott Brown | Wikimedia Commons)
If one looked into Benjamin Franklin’s time on Craven Street, they might initially believe he lived at 36 Craven Street the entirety of his two stays in London based on the plethora of articles on the internet that say so  If they dug a little deeper they might read that he lived at No  27 Craven Street, previously numbered 7, but now numbered 36; or that he lived exclusively at No  7 Craven Street; or that he lived in multiple residences on Craven Street; or that he moved out of No  36 to another house on Craven Street and then moved back into No  36 the last year of his residence  What is one to believe with all of the conflicting accounts? What does the historical record have to say about Franklin’s time on Craven Street?
Figure 1  Spur Alley 1685  “A map of the parish of St Martins in the Fields, taken from ye last survey, with additions (1685)”  (© The British Library Board, Shelfmark: Maps Crace Port  13 2, Item number: 2)
Before Craven Street existed there was Spur Alley, a narrow passageway sandwiched between the Hungerford Market to the north (now Charing Cross Station) and Scotland Yard and the Northumberland House and Garden to the south  It was flanked on both ends by major thoroughfares, the Strand on the west, connecting Westminster to London by road, and the River Thames on the east, not only connecting the two cities to each other and to Southwark on the south side of the Thames, but connecting the entire metropolis to the rest of the world  Being located in the City of Westminster, Spur Alley had escaped the devastation of the Great Fire of London in 1666 leaving its wooden structures, built in the early part of seventeenth century, intact, but also in dire need of restoration or demolition  “The ratebooks show that during the last thirty years or so of their existence the houses in Spur Alley were in a very bad condition  Few of them were rated at more than a few shillings and many of them were unoccupied ”[1] The landowner, William, 5th Baron Craven, desiring to increase the profitability of his assets, tore down the derelict structures on Spur Alley around 1730 and leased the newly established lots to builders  By 1735, twenty brick houses in the Georgian style had been built on the west side and sixteen on the east side of the way now called Craven Street [2]
Figure 2  Craven Street 1746  (John Rocque London, Westminster and Southwark, First Edition 1746, Motco Enterprises Limited, motco com)
Letters to Franklin during his residence with Mrs  Margaret Stevenson, his landlady on Craven Street, were addressed rather vaguely; “Craven Street/Strand”, “Mrs  Stevensons in Craven Street”, or “Benjamin Franklin Esqr ” are but a few examples  Letters from Franklin referenced “London,” or sometimes “Cravenstreet,” but never included a number  Despite the absence of numbered addresses in Franklin’s correspondence, there was a sense of one’s place in the neighborhood based on entries in the Westminster Rate Books (tax assessments)  The Rate Books did not list house numbers during Franklin’s time there, but they did list the residents of Craven Street in a particular order that became the default numbering system for the street  Number one was associated with the first resident listed under “Craven Street” in the Rate Books and was the northernmost house on the west side of the street  The numbers increased counter-clockwise down the west side and up the east side in accordance with the list of residents  In 1748, the first year of Margaret Stevenson’s (Stevens in the Rate Books for that year) residence on Craven Street, she is listed as the twenty-seventh resident, the second house north of Court Street (later Craven Court, now Craven Passage) on the east side of the street [3]
In 1766, Parliament passed the London Paving and Lighting Act (6 Geo  3 c  26), “An act for the better paving, cleansing, and enlightening, the city of London, and the liberties thereof; and for preventing obstructions and annoyances within the same; and for other purposes therein mentioned ”[4] One of the other purposes therein mentioned was the numbering of houses  With an aim to bring order to the chaotic numbering systems or lack thereof on London streets the Act provided that “… the said commissioners … may also cause every house, shop, or warehouse, in each of the said streets, lanes, squares, yards, courts, alleys, passages, and places, to be marked or numbered, in such manner as they shall judge most proper for distinguishing the same ”[5] This was quite an undertaking that took years to accomplish  It was a decade later before numbered addresses on Craven Street in the City of Westminster appeared in The London Directory (1776)  The London Directory and its competitors were published primarily by booksellers or printers to supplement their income and were highly profitable  To say they were competitive is an understatement  “Some of the most hotly disputed struggles over copyright in the century concerned guidebooks  Many were optimistically emblazoned with a royal license and a notice that the work had been entered at Stationers’ Hall  Various struggles between rival guides intensified as the potential for profits became clear ”[6] The London Directory boldly proclaimed to contain “An ALPHABETICAL LIST OF THE NAMES and PLACES of ABODE of the MERCHANTS and PRINCIPAL TRADERS of the Cities of LONDON and WESTMINSTER, the Borough of SOUTHWARK, and their Environs, with the Number affixed to each House ”[7] Kent’s Directory made a similar proclamation: “An Alphabetical LIST OF THE Names and Places of Abode OF THE DIRECTORS of COMPANIES, Persons in Public Business, MERCHANTS, and other eminent TRADERS in the Cities of London and Westminster, and Borough of Southwark WITH THE NUMBERS as they are affixed to their Houses agreeable to the late Acts of Parliament ”[8] Mrs  Stevenson wasn’t included in the directories because she didn’t meet the criteria of being a merchant or trader, not because she was a woman  Although it is rare to see women listed in the directories, some examples do exist [9] If Mrs  Stevenson had appeared in the directories in 1776 it would not have been on Craven Street as she had moved to Northumberland Court, a stone’s throw away, the previous year [10] A comparison of Craven Street residents whose names and addresses do appear in the directories with the same residents as they appear in the Westminster Rate Books determines if the numbering systems were congruent  For the most part they were  For example, Joseph Bond at No  30, William Rowles at No  31, Samuel Sneyd at No  32, and Jonathan Michie at No  35 in The London Directory coincide with their places of residence in the Westminster Rate Books; however, errors did occur  The 1776 edition of The London Directory lists Brown & Whiteford, wine merchants, at No  9 Craven Street while the Westminster Rate Books list them as the twenty-ninth residents  Obviously, it makes no sense to have Brown & Whiteford at No  9 in The London Directory and their next-door neighbor, Joseph Bond, at No  30  The same error appears in Baldwin’s The New Complete Guide for 1783  The New Complete Guide may have “borrowed” the error from The London Directory  It was not uncommon for the owner of one directory to copy entries from another to save both time and money  Beginning in 1778 and contrary to The London Directory, Kent’s Directory faithfully followed the numbering system of the Westminster Rate Books in all of its editions and listed Brown & Whiteford at No  29 as did Bailey’s Northern Directory in 1781  Perhaps realizing their error, The London Directory changed their listing of Brown & Whiteford from No  9 to No  29 in their 1783 edition and maintained that listing thereafter 
Sometime prior to 1792, the embankment on the Thames at the south end of Craven Street had been sufficiently extended allowing for the construction of ten new houses below the original houses: “ … four houses, Nos  21–24, were built on the west side, and six houses, Nos  25–30, on the east side of the way ”[11] In a note in the same report, the new numbering system is explained  “The houses in the street, which had previously been numbered consecutively down the west side and up the east side, were then renumbered on the same system to include the additional houses ”[12] Because the new houses (21-24) on the west side were built below the existing houses (1-20), houses 1-20 retained their original numbering 
Figure 4  Craven Street 1799  (Richard Horwood’s Map of London, Westminster and the Borough of Southwark 1799, Motco Enterprises Limited, motco com)
One would think that the numbers of the sixteen original houses on the east side, Nos  21 – 36, would simply increase by ten with the addition of the ten new houses, but such was not the case; they increased by nine  How could that be? The only possible explanation is that No  21 of the original houses was demolished to make way for the construction of the northernmost of the six new houses on the east side (No  30)  Evidence of No  21’s demolition appears in the lease granted to Charles Owen by William, 7th Baron Craven, in 1792, which describes No  22 as: “All that messuage in Craven Street late in the occupation of Francis Deschamps undertaker … being the Southernmost house in the Old Buildings on the East Side of the said Street numbered with the No  22 ”[13] The lease describes No  22 as being the southernmost house in the old buildings on the east side of Craven Street  Clearly the house previously at No  21 did not exist when the lease granted to Charles Owen was written in 1792 as it used to be the southernmost house  It is also worth noting that in 1790, The London Directory listed Jacob Life at No  21 (original numbering)  In 1791-2, it listed him at No  6  With No  21 vacated, it would allow for its demolition and the construction of the tenth new house  By utilizing lot No  21 for the new construction, only nine additional lots were needed to build the ten houses, hence, Margaret Stevenson’s former residence at 27 became 36 (27 + 9) in the renumbering and not 37 
For nearly a century and a half after Franklin departed London for America in March of 1775 the scales were tipped heavily in favor of his residence having been No  7 Craven Street  As early as 1807 in London; Being An Accurate History And Description Of The British Metropolis And Its Neighborhood, Volume 4, one would have read: “In Craven Street is a house, No  7, remarkable for having been the residence of Dr  Benjamin Franklin [14] In 1815, the identical phrase appeared in The Beauties of England and Wales [15] After 23 editions of not mentioning Franklin, his name finally appeared in the 24th edition of The Picture of London in 1826: “The house, No  7, Craven Street, in the Strand, was once the residence of Dr  Benjamin Franklin ”[16] In 1840, Jared Sparks referred to Franklin’s Craven Street residence appearing in London guide books in his voluminous The Works of Benjamin Franklin: “In the London Guide Books, ‘No  7, Craven Street,’ is still indicated as the house in which Dr  Franklin resided ”[17] In 1846, George Gulliver F R S , in his book, The Works of William Hewson, wrote: “She [Polly] had been upon terms of the warmest friendship with Dr  Franklin
Figure 5  No  7 Craven Street with Memorial Tablet  (Photo courtesy of British History Online, and the Survey of London)
since she was eighteen years of age  That eminent philosopher resided with her mother, Mrs  Margaret Stevenson, at No  7, Craven Street, Strand, during the fifteen years of his abode in London ”[18] Guide books mentioning Franklin at No  7 continued to proliferate throughout the century: Handbook for London; Past and Present, Volume I (1849);”[19] Handbook for Modern London (1851);”[20] The Town; Its Memorable Characters and Events (1859);”[21] London and Its Environs (1879) [22] There was an anomaly when London In 1880 Illustrated With Bird’s-Eye Views of the Principal Streets, Sixth Edition (1880) placed Franklin at 27 Craven street [23] The anomaly lasted for six years until his place of residence was changed to No  7 in the revised edition, London  Illustrated by Eighteen Bird’s-Eye Views of the Principal Streets (1886) [24] London Past and Present; Its History, Associations, and Traditions, Volume 1 (1891), copied the 1849 Handbook for London almost word-for-word and included, “The house is on the right from the Strand ”[25] In October of 1867, The Society of Arts in London declared that: “In order to show how rich the metropolis is in the memory of important personages and events, which it would be desirable to mark by means of tablets on houses, the Council have caused an alphabetical list to be prepared, … ”[26] Franklin had been elected a corresponding member to the Society in 1756 and was a popular choice among Council members deciding who they were to memorialize [27] By January of 1870, a tablet honoring him was affixed to the house they believed to have been his residence while in London, No  7 Craven Street in the Strand on the west side of the street [28] A majority of historians writing about Franklin in the nineteenth and early twentieth century placed him at No  7: O  L  Holley, The Life of Benjamin Franklin (1848); E  M  Tomkinson, Benjamin Franklin (1885); John Torrey Morse, Benjamin Franklin (1891); Paul Elmer More, Benjamin Franklin (1900); John S  C  Abbot, Benjamin Franklin (1903); Sydney George Fisher, The True Benjamin Franklin (1903)  A notable exception is D  H  Montgomery’s His Life Written by Himself published in 1896  He has Franklin at No  27 Craven Street  It seems then that depending upon the source, Franklin was thought to have lived at either No  7 or No  27, but not both, the overwhelming majority favoring No  7  As late as 2011, Franklin is still mentioned as living at No  7 [29]
In 1913, No  7 was scheduled to be torn down  An article in the March 1914 edition of The Book News Monthly, describes the situation:
As is well known to informed American pilgrims, it has been possible for all admirers of the famous philosopher and statesman to pay their respects to his memory before that house, No  7 Craven Street, just off the Strand, which was his chief home during his two sojourns in the British capital, but even as these lines are being written the London newspapers are recording that that interesting shrine is soon to be pulled down to make room for a restaurant  It is some mitigation of this misfortune to remember that at the most the Craven Street house was nothing more than a reproduction of the one in which Franklin had his suite of four rooms, for the structure has been rebuilt since Franklin’s time  When, then, some one makes a piteous plea that at least the philosopher’s bedroom shall be preserved, the soothing answer is that the apartment in question is only a replica of that in which the illustrious American enjoyed his well-earned slumbers in 1757-62 and 1764-75  The restaurant-builder, however, with an eye doubtless to possible American patronage, has assured the world that every effort will be made to preserve as much as possible of the entire structure [30]
Concerned with the possible demolition of Franklin’s residence, the Royal Society of Arts (formerly the Society of Arts[31]) initiated an inquiry into the matter [32] The London County Council, having taken over the responsibility of placing memorial tablets on notable houses from the Royal Society, was charged with the investigation  It ultimately fell to Sir George Laurence Gomme, a clerk to the Council, to come up with a response  A few years earlier Sir George had discovered Margaret Stevenson residing at No  27 Craven Street in the Westminster Rate Books  He must have wondered why No  7 on the west side of Craven Street was being celebrated as Franklin’s residence when the evidence clearly showed otherwise 
Sir George and his staff examined the various London directories discussed earlier and came up with a novel explanation for the discrepancy  They concluded that there had been two numbering systems on Craven Street  An anonymous author echoes Sir George’s conclusion about the two numbering systems in an article in The Journal of the Royal Society of Arts:
…an inspection of the directories of that time proves that there were at least two systems of numbering in Craven Street before the erection of the additional houses  According to one of these the numbers started from the top (Strand end) on the west side of the street, and ran down to the bottom to No  20, then crossed over and went back to the Strand along the east side – 21 to 36  According to the other system, the east side of the street was numbered from the bottom upwards, starting at No 1  This was not apparently in general use, but there is evidence that this numbering was at all events occasionally used 
The evidence of these two systems of numbering, and for believing that Mrs  Stevenson’s house was first No  7 under the oldest system, next No  27 under the second system, and finally No  36 under the latest and existing system, is to be found in the various directories and the Westminster rate-books [33]
The “evidence” mentioned above consisted of The London Directory’s listing of Brown & Whiteford at No  9: “The rate-books for 1781 and 1786 show the house next but one to the north of Mrs  Stevenson’s house as in the occupation of Brown and ‘Whiteford,’ while the old directories mention the business of the firm as wine merchants, and give their address as 9, Craven Street – then a little later, down to 1791, as 29, Craven Street  Curiously enough, in the years 1778 to 1780, or 1781, Lowndes gives it as No  9, and Kent as 29 ”[34] Ignoring Kent’s Directory having Brown and Whiteford as 29 and The London Directory (Lowndes) having Brown and Whiteford “a little later” as 29, and knowing that Mrs  Stevenson lived two doors south of them, Sir George concluded that her house must have been numbered 7, even though there is no listing in any of the directories of her residence ever being No  7  He surmised that the No  7 on the west side of Craven Street with the memorial tablet thought to have been Franklin’s residence had simply been confused with number 7 (27) on the east side  Again from The Journal of the Royal Society of Arts:
Taking all the evidence together, there cannot be any doubt whatever that Mrs  Stevenson’s house, in which Franklin lodged, was the house two doors north from Craven Court, first numbered 7, afterwards 27, and finally 36, and consequently that the house in which Franklin lived was that now numbered 36, not the one now numbered 7, on which the tablet is placed [35]
A response to The Royal Society of Arts was issued: “… the London County Council … informed the Society that it had made a mistake and that No  36 Craven street was the building that deserved commemoration ”[36] The Society accepted the Council’s conclusion, and despite assurances of preservation by the restaurant builder, No  7 was torn down the following year 
Sir George’s assertion “that Mrs  Stevenson’s house, in which Franklin lodged, was the house two doors north from Craven Court” was correct, however, his assertion that it was “first numbered 7, afterwards 27”, was not  It was only by association with the errant entry of Brown & Whiteford at No  9 from 1776-1782 in The London Directory that Mrs  Stevenson’s address was conjured to be No  7  The problem with associating her address exclusively with that of Brown & Whiteford at No  9 during those years is that, as previously demonstrated, The London Directory also listed four other Craven Street residents, Bond, Rowles, Sneyd, and Michie, who’s addresses did conform to the numbering system in The Westminster Rate Books  If Brown & Whiteford at No  9 was indicative of a numbering system different from The Westminster Rate Books, Bond, Rowles, Sneyd, and Michie would have been listed as Nos  10, 11, 12, and 15, respectively  So on one hand Sir George was relying on the Westminster Rate Books to establish Mrs  Stevenson at No  27 and on the other hand he was dismissing the Westminster Rate Books to establish her at No  7  Instead of using the anomalous listing of Brown & Whiteford at No  9, he could have just as easily, and more logically, used the Bond et al  listings, or the post-1782 Brown & Whiteford listing in the London Directory at No  29 to establish Mrs  Stevenson at No  27  Even if there had been two numbering systems, his assertion that No  27 was first numbered 7 would still be false  The earliest numbering system was the Westminster Rate Books dating from the early 1730s when the houses were constructed  Brown & Whiteford at No  9 didn’t appear until 46 years later and then only for a brief period 
There is ample evidence in Franklin’s correspondence and in a memoir by Polly Hewson (Mrs  Stevenson’s daughter) that Benjamin and Mrs  Stevenson lived in not one, but two houses on Craven Street  On July 6, 1772, Polly wrote to Benjamin from her house at Broad Street North in London: “My Mother I must tell you went off last friday week, took our little Boy with her and left Mr  Hewson [Polly’s husband, William] the care of her House [27 Craven Street]  The first thing he did was pulling down a part of it in order to turn it to his own purpose, and advantage we hope  This Demolition cannot affect you, who at present are not even a Lodger [Benjamin was traveling at the time], your litterary apartment remains untouch’d, the Door is lock’d …”[37] In a memoir about her husband written after his death Polly writes: “He [William Hewson] began his Lectures Sept  30, 1772, in Craven-street, where he had built a Theatre adjoining a house which he intended for the future residence of his family ”[38] On October 7, 1772, Benjamin wrote to his son William: “I am very well  But we [Mrs  Stevenson and I] are moving to another House in the same street; and I go down tomorrow to Lord LeDespencer’s to [stay a] Week till things are settled ”[39] To his son-in-law, Richard Bache, on the same day he wrote: “We are moving to another House in the [street] leaving this to Mr  Hewson ”[40] Writing to a friend on October 30, 1772 he explained: “I should sooner have answered your Questions but that in the Confusion of my Papers, occasioned by removing to another House, I could not readily find the Memorandums …”[41] On November 4, 1772 Benjamin informed his wife Deborah of the move  “We are removed to a more convenient House in the same street, Mrs  Stevenson having accommodated her Son-in-Law with that we lived in  The Removing has been a troublesome Affair, but is now over ”[42]
An agreement had been struck between the parties  Margaret and Benjamin would move to another house on Craven Street and allow Polly and William to move into No  27, the large yard behind the house being spacious enough to accommodate the anatomy school William wished to build [43] Perhaps the idea was inspired by Margaret’s next-door neighbor at No  26, Dr  John Leake, a man-midwife and founder of the Westminster Lying-in Hospital, who had built a theater adjoining his residence in which he practiced anatomy and taught midwifery [44]
After Margaret and Benjamin vacated No  27, Polly, William, their son William Jr , and William’s younger sister, Dorothy Hewson, took up residence there [45] In the 1773 Westminster Rate Books for Craven Street, Mrs  Stevenson’s (Stephenson in the Rate Books) name has been crossed out and replaced with “William Hewson ”[46] Further proof that the Hewsons had indeed moved into 27 Craven Street has been confirmed by the discovery of human and animal remains buried in the basement of No  36 (formerly No  27 and now the Benjamin Franklin House), a by-product of the dissections that took place at William’s anatomy school [47]
So what house on Craven Street did Mrs  Stevenson and Benjamin move into after vacating No  27? An examination of the Westminster Rate Books for the years 1774 and 1775 reveal them living not at No  7 on the west side of Craven Street as one might expect from the overwhelming consensus of nineteenth century guidebooks and biographies, but surprisingly at No  1 [48] The controversy of No  7 being torn down was all for naught as it had never been Franklin’s residence  Sir George was correct on that point  Unfortunately, No  1 was torn down as well in the early part of the twentieth century  The first time No  1 is mentioned as Franklin’s second residence is in the Survey of London: Volume 18, St Martin-in-The-Fields II: the Strand published by the London County Council in 1937, ironically the same County Council that had declared No  36 as Franklin’s only residence twenty-four years earlier 
From 1748 until 1772 Margaret ‘Stephenson’ occupied this house [No  27 (36)], and it was there that Benjamin Franklin settled after his arrival in London in 1757 as Agent to the General Assembly of Pennsylvania … In October, 1772, Mrs  Stevenson and Franklin removed to No  1, Craven Street (now demolished), and No  36 was for the next two years occupied by William Hewson, surgeon, who had married Mary Stevenson



ground_truth: The baseline is used as a reference for the mid point of the firewall for the developed side panel.

prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: When did the London Paving and Lighting Act pass, which mandated the numbering of houses?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 3: [49]
In the spring of 1774, William Hewson died unexpectedly of septicemia two weeks after cutting himself while dissecting a cadaver  Polly was left to care for their two young sons and was pregnant with a daughter she would give birth to in August of the same year  Is it possible that Margaret and Benjamin moved back into No  27 to assist Polly after the death of her husband as suggested in The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin?[50]
If the Westminster Rate Books are to be believed, the answer is no  For the year 1774, the Rate Books list Margaret Stevenson at No  1 and William Hewson at No  27  For the year 1775, they list Margaret Stevenson at No  1 and Magnus Falkner (Falconer/Falconar) at No  27  Magnus was William’s assistant at the anatomy school and fiancé to William’s sister, Dorothy  On his death bed, William instructed Polly, “let Mr  Falconar be my successor ”[51] Magnus would immediately take over the running of the anatomy school and continue William’s unfinished research  Four months later, he and Dorothy would marry [52] Essentially only two things changed at 27 Craven Street after William’s death: Polly gave birth to her daughter, and Magnus replaced William as the lease holder, so even if Margaret and Benjamin had wished to move back into No  27, there would have been no room for them  It is also interesting to note that considering the multiple times Benjamin wrote of his move out of No  27 (and complained of it), he never once mentioned moving back into No  27 in any of his correspondence after Mr  Hewson’s death 
Figure 6  No  36 Craven Street  (Photo courtesy of David Ross, britainexpress com)
In sum, based on the Westminster Rate Books[53] and Franklin’s correspondence, Mrs  Stevenson is known to have resided at No  27 (36) Craven Street from 1748 to 1772  It follows that, aside from the two years Franklin spent in Philadelphia from 1762 to 1764, he resided there from 1757 to 1772  Franklin’s correspondence also reveals that in the autumn of 1772, he and Mrs  Stevenson moved to another house on Craven Street  The 1773 Westminster Rate Books show her name crossed off at No  27 and William Hewson’s inserted  The following year the Rate Books list her at No  1 Craven Street  Evidence for Mrs  Stevenson and Benjamin remaining at No  1 after William’s death appears in the Westminster Rate Books for 1775 which have Mrs  Stevenson still residing at No  1 and Magnus Falkner residing at No  27  Further evidence can be construed from the lack of any mention of a move back into No  27 in Franklin’s correspondence  Despite the many theories one could devise as to why Franklin was thought to have lived at No  7 Craven Street by so many guide books and Franklin biographers of the nineteenth century, one thing is certain; at some point after Franklin’s departure to America in March of 1775, and no later than 1807, someone mistakenly associated him with No  7 on the west side of Craven Street, and it soon became his de facto residence  Credit must go to D  H  Montgomery in 1896 and Sir George in 1913 for setting the record partially straight by placing Franklin at No  27(36)  In 1937, the London County Council gave us the first accurate account of Franklin’s residences on Craven Street in the Survey of London at No  27(36) and No  1  It has been shown conclusively that No  27 was never previously numbered 7  It was, however, renumbered 36 in 1792 after ten additional houses were built at the southern end of the street and remains No  36 to this day 
[1] “Craven Street and Hungerford Lane”, in Survey of London: Volume 18, St Martin-in-the-Fields II: the Strand, ed  G H Gater and E P Wheeler (London, 1937), 27-39, Early History of the Site 
http://www british-history ac uk/survey-london/vol18/pt2/pp27-39
[2] “England, Westminster Rate Books, 1634-1900,” from database with images, Craven Street – 1735, FamilySearch from database by FindMyPast and images digitized by FamilySearch; citing Westminster City Archives, London 
[3] Ibid , Craven Street – 1748 
[4] The Statutes at Large, From Magna Charta to the End of the Eleventh Parliament of Great Britain  Anno 1761 Continued, Vol  XXVII, ed  Danby Pickering, (Cambridge, John Archdeacon, 1767), 96 
[6] James Raven, Publishing Business in Eighteenth-Century England, (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2014), 201 
[7] The London Directory For the Year 1776, Ninth Edition, (London: T  Lowndes, 1776), title page 
[8] Kent’s Directory For the Year 1778, Forty-Sixth Edition, (London: Richard and Henry Causton, 1778), title page 
[9] A listing in Kent’s Directory for the Year 1882 on p  28 reveals, “Brown Sarah, Leather-seller, 1, Westmoreland-buildings, Aldersgate-street”, and in Kent’s Directory for the Year 1883 on p  175, “Whiteland Mary, Wine & Brandy Mercht  Jermyn-str  St  James ”
[10] “The Papers of Benjamin Franklin,” Sponsored by The American Philosophical Society and Yale University, Digital Edition by The Packard Humanities Institute, 22:263a 
http://franklinpapers org/franklin
Mrs  Stevenson wrote to Benjamin Franklin a letter from her new home at 75 Northumberland Court on November 16, 1775: “In this Court I have a kind friend, Mr  Lechmoen he comes and seats with me and talks of you with a hiy regard and friendship ”
[11] Survey of London, Early History of the Site 
[12] Survey of London, Footnotes/n 10 
[13] Survey of London, Historical Notes/No  31 
[14] David Hughson, LL D , London; Being An Accurate History And Description Of The British Metropolis And Its Neighbourhood, To Thirty Miles Extent, From An Actual Perambulation, Vol  IV, (London: W  Stratford, 1807), 227 
[15] The Reverend Joseph Nightingale, The Beauties of England and Wales: Or, Original Delineations, Topographical, Historical, and Descriptive, of Each County, Vol  X, Part III, Vol  II (London: J  Harris; Longman and Co ; J  Walker; R  Baldwin; Sherwood and Co ; J  and J  Cundee; B  and R  Crosby and Co ; J Cuthell; J  and J  Richardson; Cadell and Davies; C  and J  Rivington; and G  Cowie and Co , 1815), 245 
[16] John Britton, F S A  & Co , ed , The Original Picture of London, Enlarged and Improved: Being A Correct Guide For The Stranger, As Well As For the Inhabitant, To The Metropolis Of The British Empire Together With A Description Of The Environs, The Twenty-Fourth Edition (London: Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, and Green, 1826), 479 
[17] Jared Sparks, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Vol  VII, (Philadelphia: Childs & Peterson, 1840), 151 
[18] George Gulliver, F R S , The Works of William Hewson, F  R  S , (London: Printed for the Sydenham Society, MDCCCXLVI), xx 
[19] Peter Cunningham, Handbook for London; Past and Present, Vol  I, (London: John Murray, 1849), 245 
[20] F  Saunders, Memories of the Great Metropolis: or, London, from the Tower to the Crystal Palace, (New York: G P  Putnam, MDCCCLII), 138 
[21] Leigh Hunt, The Town; Its Memorable Characters and Events, (London: Smith, Elder and Co , 1859), 185 
[22] K  Baedeker, London and Its Environs, Including Excursions To Brighton, The Isle of Wight, Etc : Handbook For Travelers, Second Edition, (London: Dulau and Co , 1879), 133 
[23] Herbert Fry, London In 1880 Illustrated With Bird’s-Eye Views of the Principal Streets, Sixth Edition, (New York: Scribner, Welford, & Co , 1880), 50 
[24] Herbert Fry, London  Illustrated By Eighteen Bird’s-Eye Views of the Principal Streets, (London: W  H  Allen and Co , 1886), 40 
[25] Henry B  Wheatley, F S A , London Past and Present; Its History, Associations, and Traditions, Vol  1, (London: John Murray, New York: Scribner & Welford, 1891), 473 
[26] The Journal of the Society of Arts, Vol  XV, No  778, (October 18, 1867): 717 
[27] D  G  C  Allen, “Dear and Serviceable to Each Other: Benjamin Franklin and the Royal Society of Arts,” American Philosophical Society, Vol  144, No  3, (September 2000): 248-249 
Franklin was a corresponding member in 1756 because he was still residing in Philadelphia  He became an active member the following year when he moved to London 
[28] The Journal of the Society of Arts, Vol  XVIII, No  894, (Jan  7, 1870): 137 
“Since the last announcement, the following tablets have been affixed on houses formerly occupied by – Benjamin Franklin, 7 Craven-street, Strand, W C ”
[29] Franklin in His Own Time, eds  Kevin J  Haytes and Isabelle Bour, (Iowa City, University of Iowa Press, 2011), xxxvii 
“Takes lodgings with Margaret Stevenson at No  7 Craven Street ” It is unknown if the editors are referring to No  7 on the west side of Craven Street or No  36 on the east side using Sir George’s explanation of No  36 being previously numbered 7 
[30] Henry C  Shelly, “American Shrines on English Soil, III  In the Footprints of Benjamin Franklin,” in The Book News Monthly, September, 1913 to August, 1914, (Philadelphia: John Wanamaker, 1914), 325 
[31] The Journal of the Royal Society of Arts, Vol  LVI, No  2,880, (Jan  31, 1908): 245 
http://babel hathitrust org/cgi/pt?id=mdp 39015058423073;view=1up;seq=251
“His Majesty the King, who is Patron of the Society, has granted permission to the Society to prefix to its title the term ‘Royal,’ and the Society will consequently be known in future as the ‘Royal Society of Arts ’”
[32] Nineteenth Annual Report, 1914, of the American Scenic and Historic Preservation Society, (Albany: J  B  Lyon Company, 1914), 293 
http://babel hathitrust org/cgi/pt?id=wu 89072985302;view=1up;seq=4;size=150
[33] The Journal of the Society of Arts, Vol  LXII, No  3,183, (Nov  21, 1913): 18 
http://babel hathitrust org/cgi/pt?id=mdp 39015058422968;view=1up;seq=26
[36] Allen, “Dear and Serviceable,” 263-264 
[37] Papers of Benjamin Franklin, 19:20 
[38] Thomas Joseph Pettigrew, F  L  S , Memoirs of the Life and Writings of the Late John Coakley Lettsom With a Selection From His Correspondence, Vol  I, (London: Nichols, Son, and Bentley, 1817), 144 of Correspondence 
[39] Papers of Benjamin Franklin, 19:321b 
[40] Ibid , 19:314 
[41] Ibid , 19:353a 
[43] Simon David John Chaplin, John Hunter and the ‘museum oeconomy’, 1750-1800, Department of History, King’s College London  Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the University of London , 202 
“Following Falconar’s death [1778] the lease [27 Craven Street] was advertised, and the buildings were described as:
A genteel and commodious house, in good Repair, with Coach-house and Stabling for two Horses…consisting of two rooms and light closets on each floor, with outbuildings in the Yard, a Museum, a Compleat Theatre, and other conveniences  (Daily Advertiser, 27 August 1778)”
[44] Simon Chaplin, “Dissection and Display in Eighteenth-Century London,” in Anatomical Dissection in Enlightenment England and Beyond: Autopsy, Pathology and Display, ed  Dr  Piers Mitchell, (Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2012), 108 
“Given that a nearby building at 35 [ No  26 in Franklin’s time] was occupied by the man-midwife John Leake, who advertised lectures – including lessons in the art of making preparations – at his ‘theatre’ between 1764 and 1788, it is possible that some facilities were shared  In both cases, however, the buildings [Leake’s residence at No  26 and Hewson’s residence next door at 27] served a dual function as domestic accommodation and as sites for lecturing and dissection ”
[45] George Gulliver, F R S , The Works of William Hewson, F  R  S , (London: Printed for the Sydenham Society, MDCCCXLVI), xviii 
[46] Westminster Rate Books, Craven Street – 1773, courtesy of the City of Westminster Archives 
[47] S W  Hillson et al , “Benjamin Franklin, William Hewson, and the Craven Street Bones,” Archaeology International, Vol  2, (Nov  22, 1998): 14-16 
http://dx doi org/10 5334/ai 0206
[48] Westminster Rate Books, Craven Street – 1774, 1775, courtesy of the City of Westminster Archives 
[49] Survey of London, Historical Notes/No  36, Craven Street (not sourced) 
[50] Gordon S  Wood, The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin, (New York: The Penguin Press, 2004), 261 
[51] Pettigrew, Memoirs, 146 of Correspondence 
[52] http://founders archives gov/documents/Franklin/01-22-02-0178, note 7  “Falconar married Hewson’s sister five months after the Doctor’s death; most of the Craven Street circle attended the wedding, and BF gave away the bride: Polly to Barbara Hewson, Oct  4, 1774, APS” (American Philosophical Society); “England Marriages, 1538–1973 ,” database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch org/ark:/61903/1:1:V52W-TGS : accessed September 15, 2015), Magnus Falconar and Dorothy Hewson, September 12, 1774; citing Saint Martin In The Fields, Westminster, London, England, reference ; FHL microfilm 561156, 561157, 561158, 942 B4HA V  25, 942 B4HA V  66 
[53] I chose to rely on the Westminster Rate Books for the numbering system on Craven Street  The books were consistent throughout the eighteenth century in the ordering of residents on the street and were used as the basis for the 1792 re-numbering  For the most part, commercial directories aligned with them as well  If by chance a directory didn’t initially align, it would inevitably produce future editions that did 
Benjamin Franklin, Benjamin Franklin House, London
More from David Turnquist
If one looked into Benjamin Franklin’s time on Craven Street, they might   
I think it’s very ironic that on the street maps included in your excellent article, Craven Street is so close to Scotland Yard  Because following the back and forth juxtapositions of numbers 7, 27 and 36 Craven Street (throw in 75 Northumberland Court and 1 Craven Street, too) was a case that could confound Sherlock Holmes 
Excellent job of deciphering street renumbering material spanning sixty years, including that of a wrong house number (# 7) being erroneously identified and then perpetuated in subsequent street map printings  It’s gratifying at least to know that the present day #36 Craven Street is the correct house for Ben Franklin tourists to visit  Except for #1 Craven Street for the last three years Franklin was in London, but we won’t get into that 
Again, excellent article, David!



ground_truth: 1766.