FISHERIES REVIEW: 1985<strong>CalCOFI</strong> Rep., <strong>Vol</strong>. XXVII, <strong>1986</strong>The 1985-86 season opened July 1, 1985. The Pacificmackerel biomass was estimated to range between178,000 and 260,000 tons, providing a season fisheryquota of 40,000 tons. The season started off slowly,because Terminal Island processors were 'closed formuch of July. Southern <strong>California</strong> purse seiners fishedup the coast to Morro Bay in August, when landings increasedsubstantially.On September 9, urgency legislation (AB 1197) waspassed. This law (1) requires CDFG, by February 1 ofeach year, to estimate the total Pacific mackerel populationsize for the current season, and the expected sizeat the beginning of the next season; (2) sets the quota at30% (up from 20%) of the population above 20,000tons when the total biomass is between 20,000 and150,000 tons; (3) allows for no quota restrictions (openfishery) when the biomass is greater than 150,000 tons;(4) allows CDFG to adjust quotas during any portion ofthe season; (5) increases the pure-ton interseason restrictionsfrom 3 to 6 tons; and (6) eliminates the 10-inch size limit. Quota restrictions for the remainder ofthe 1985-86 season were subsequently lifted upon considerationof the estimated biomass range.Landings were high in September, but declined inOctober during a dispute over landing limits andprices. Fishing resumed in November, with landinglimits remaining in place and the price reduced to $155per ton. Landings were limited by a lack of orders, particularlyin northern <strong>California</strong>. December landingswere high, for fish were locally abundant, and ordersincreased.By the end of December approximately 22,870 tonsof Pacific mackerel had been landed for the 1985-86season. Landings for 1985 reached 38,100 tons, ofwhich only 7% was landed in northern <strong>California</strong>. Thisis a decrease from the 18% northern <strong>California</strong> contributedto mackerel landings last year. As in 1984, the1980 and 1981 year classes of Pacific mackerel accountedfor the majority of landings. Fish 3 years ofage and younger showed better recruitment than in1984, but the 1982 and 1983 year classes still appearvery weak. The strong showing of the 1984 year class,as 1-year-olds, is encouraging. Young-of-the-year fishdid not enter the fishery during 1985, and sea surveyexperimental cruises to assess recruitment of Pacificmackerel off southern <strong>California</strong> gave preliminary indicationsthat the 1985 year class may be weak.MARKET SQUIDThe <strong>California</strong> market squid (Loligo upalescens)fishery landed 10,881 tons during 1985, a very large increaseover the last two years' landings (Table 1).However, this was still 23% below the last ten-yearaverage. The <strong>California</strong> squid fishery is best describedas two separate fisheries: the northern <strong>California</strong> (orMonterey) fishery, and the southern <strong>California</strong> fishery.In Monterey the fishery normally follows a summerfallseason, but has been atypical the last three years.This year the fishery started earlier than normal. Largesquid (seven to eight per pound) were caught in April,although there were signs that they were not abundant.In good years the boats are usually at the dock unloadingtheir catch shortly after sunrise. This year, boatsspent more time looking for squid and arrived at thedock as late as noon, with highly variable fishing success.The initial price was $600 per ton.Fishermen voluntarily increased the spawning escapementby giving the squid two weeks to spawnundisturbed in May. Squid landed during May werestill large, but many were spent, and the overall qualitywas poorer than two weeks earlier. The price droppedto $400 per ton.During the summer, fishing moved northerly, awayfrom the traditional grounds near Monterey to the areabetween Afio Nuevo and Pigeon points. Fishing rangedfrom excellent to spotty, with landings through mid-September. Despite continued effort, commercialboats were unable to catch squid after that time. Partyboats,however, were still successfully jigging squidfor bait in November.For the Monterey fishery, squid were scarcethroughout the year. Although demand was strong,only 4,286 tons were landed. This is a great improvementover the past two years, but is still only 30% ofthe 14,000 tons landed in 1981, the best single year inthe past 40 years.The southern <strong>California</strong> squid fishery typically has afall-winter season, running from early Novemberthrough February. This pattern had not been followedsince 1982, because of a lack of squid, which was probablyrelated to El Nifio. This year, however, the patternresumed; significant landings began in October andcontinued through the winter. Early in the year, squidwere very large, averaging about 5 per pound; later inthe year, they ranged from 8- 11 per pound.Southern <strong>California</strong> landings totaled 6,595 tons,75% of which were landed during the last quarter of theyear. The price at the beginning of the year, when squidwas still in very strong demand, went as high as $700per ton. The price then dropped steadily until the end ofthe year, stabilizing at $200 per ton.PACIFIC HERRINGThe Pacific herring (Clupea harengus pallasi) fisheryrecovered in 1985 from the transitory effects of the1982-84 El Nifio. The 1984-85 seasonal (December-March) catch of 8,264 tons exceeded the 7,590-tonstatewide quota and nearly tripled the 1983-84 seasonal10
FISHERIES REVIEW: 1985<strong>CalCOFI</strong> Rep., <strong>Vol</strong>. XXVII, <strong>1986</strong>catch of 3,000 tons. Annual catch figures for 1985 alsoimproved, more than doubling the 1984 catch (Table1). There was a corresponding economic improvementin the fishery. The base price for 10% roe recovery increasedto $1,000 per ton and resulted in an ex-vesselvalue for the 1984-85 fishery of over $9 million.Population estimates from 1984-85 spawninggroundsurveys in Tomales and San Francisco baysparalleled the improvement in the fishery. After thepoor 1983-84 season, almost 6,600 tons of herring returnedto Tomales Bay this past season, and in SanFrancisco Bay the population increased 15%, to46,000 tons.Herring exhibited good growth characteristics during1984; weight lost during the period of poor growthcaused by El Nifio was regained. The generally goodcondition of herring this year contributed to the successof the 1984-85 fishery.Based on the 1984-85 population estimates, thestatewide herring quota for 1985-86 was increased to8,690 tons. Early 1985-86 season catches have beenexcellent. This, coupled with an increase in the exvesselprice for 10% roe recovery to $1,200 per ton,should result in another very good herring season.GROUNDFISH<strong>California</strong>’s 1985 commercial groundfish landings(Table 3), including <strong>California</strong> halibut (Paralichthyscalijornicus), were 43,730 metric tons (MT) with anex-vessel value of $28 million. This represents an increaseof 2,658 MT or 6% from the previous year, butis still 18% less than the record 1982 catch of 52,152MT. <strong>California</strong> landings constituted 38% of the total1985 Washington-Oregon-<strong>California</strong> (WOC) commercialgroundfish harvest. Trawl vessels continued theirhistorical domination of the fishery, landing 81% of<strong>California</strong>’s 1985 commercial catch.Trawl landings of the principal groundfish species,with the exception of lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus)and Pacific ocean perch (Sebastes alutus), increasedfrom 4% to 41% over 1984 levels. Dover sole (Microstomuspacificus), sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria),and Pacific whiting (Merluccius productus)-speciesof particular sensitivity to market fluctuationsregisteredincreases due in part to robust marketdemand and, in the case of Dover sole, to the continuedexpansion of the Morro Bay flatfish fishery. Trawlcaughtrockfish (Sebastes spp.) landings remainedrelatively stable. The setnet fishery for rockfish andlingcod continued its expansion.Federal and state management regulations for theWOC area restricted the harvest of sablefish, widowrockfish (S. entomelas), and other rockfishes duringthe year. The coastwide widow rockfish optimum yieldTABLE 3<strong>California</strong> Groundfish Landings (Metric Tons)SpeciesDover soleEnglish solePetrale soleRex soleThorn yheadsWidow rockfishOther rockfishLingcodSablefishPacific whitingOther groundfish19849,7749525905682,1242,78114,7<strong>27</strong>9504,8232,3351,4481985”12,1591,0738639062,9753,06511,8126965, I673,0231.991Percentchange24%13%46%60%40%IO%- 20%- <strong>27</strong>%7%29%38%TOTAL 41.072 43,730 6%*Preliminary(OY) was set at 9,300 MT, and the sablefish OY wasset at 13,600 MT. Vessel trip and frequency limits werethe regulatory measures used to provide a year-roundfishery without exceeding harvest quotas or guidelines.The year began with a coastwide widow rockfishtrip limit of 30,000 pounds once per week, but with theoption to land 60,000 pounds biweekly. For the thirdconsecutive year, a 40,000-pound trip limit without afrequency restriction was retained for the rockfishcomplex for the waters from Cape Blanco, Oregon, tothe Mexican border. Unrestricted landings of sablefishwere allowed, with the provision that landings of fishless than 22 inches total length could not exceed 5,000pounds per trip in all areas north of Point Conception.The rapid pace of the WOC fishery necessitated inseasonregulatory measures. On April 28 the biweeklywidow rockfish trip limit was rescinded to reduce therate of landings. This proved to be insufficient, and onJuly 21 the widow rockfish trip limit was reduced to3,000 pounds per trip without a frequency limitation.The latter measure sustained the fishery throughout theyear. It became necessary to impose a sablefish triplimit of 13% of a trawl vessel’s total weight of fishlanded per trip, effective November 25, by which time90% of the OY had been harvested. Sablefish harvestsby other gear types were unaffected. This limit remainedin effect until December 5, when the sablefishOY of 13,600 MT was captured, and landings wereprohibited.DUNGENESS CRAB<strong>California</strong> Dungeness crab (Cancer magister) landingsduring the 1984-85 commercial season totaled4.75. million pounds. This was 0.58 million poundsless than the previous season.In northern <strong>California</strong>, fishing began on December4, after a price settlement of $1.25 per pound. The
- Page 1: REPORTSVOLUMECICTCIBERXXVll1986
- Page 4 and 5: EDITOR Julie OlfeSPANISH EDITOR Pat
- Page 7: COMMITTEE REPORTCalCOFI Rep., Vol.
- Page 10 and 11: FISHERIES REVIEW: 1985CalCOFl Rep.,
- Page 14 and 15: FISHERIES REVIEW: 1985CalCOFl Rep.,
- Page 16 and 17: FISHERIES REVIEW: 1985CalCOFl Rep.,
- Page 18 and 19: BINDMAN: 1985 NORTHERN ANCHOVY SPAW
- Page 20 and 21: BINDMAN: 1985 NORTHERN ANCHOVY SPAW
- Page 22 and 23: ~~ ~BINDMAN: 1985 NORTHERN ANCHOVY
- Page 24 and 25: BINDMAN: 1985 NORTHERN ANCHOVY SPAW
- Page 26 and 27: BINDMAN: 1985 NORTHERN ANCHOVY SPAW
- Page 28 and 29: WOLF AND SMITH: MAGNITUDE OF SARDIN
- Page 30 and 31: WOLF AND SMITH: MAGNITUDE OF SARDIN
- Page 32 and 33: WOLF AND SMITH: MAGNITUDE OF SARDIN
- Page 34 and 35: PUBLICATIONSCalCOFI Rep., Vol. XXVI
- Page 37 and 38: Part I1SYMPOSIUM OF THE CALCOFI CON
- Page 39 and 40: PETERSEN ET AL.: NEARSHORE HYDROGRA
- Page 41 and 42: PETERSEN ET AL.: NEARSHORE HYDROGRA
- Page 43 and 44: PETERSEN ET AL.: NEARSHORE HYDROGRA
- Page 45 and 46: PETERSEN ET AL.: NEARSHORE HYDROGRA
- Page 47 and 48: PETERSEN ET AL.: NEARSHORE HYDROGRA
- Page 49 and 50: PETERSEN ET AL.: NEARSHORE HYDROGRA
- Page 51 and 52: PETERSEN ET AL.: NEARSHORE HYDROGRA
- Page 53 and 54: PETERSEN ET AL.: NEARSHORE HYDROGRA
- Page 55 and 56: LAVENBERG ET AL.: SOUTHERN CALIFORN
- Page 57 and 58: LAVENBERG ET AL.: SOUTHERN CALIFORN
- Page 59 and 60: LAVENBERG ET AL.: SOUTHERN CALIFORN
- Page 61 and 62: LAVENBERG ET AL.: SOUTHERN CALIFORN
- Page 63 and 64:
LAVENBERG ET AL.: SOUTHERN CALIFORN
- Page 65 and 66:
LAVENBERG ET AL.: SOUTHERN CALIFORN
- Page 67 and 68:
STEPHENS ET AL.: LARVAL FISH RECRUI
- Page 69 and 70:
STEPHENS ET AL.: LARVAL FISH RECRUI
- Page 71 and 72:
STEPHENS ET AL.: LARVAL FISH RECRUI
- Page 73 and 74:
STEPHENS ET AL.: LARVAL FISH RECRUI
- Page 75 and 76:
STEPHENS ET AL.: LARVAL FISH RECRUI
- Page 77 and 78:
STEPHENS ET AL.: LARVAL FISH RECRUI
- Page 79 and 80:
STEPHENS ET AL.: LARVAL FISH RECRUI
- Page 81 and 82:
STEPHENS ET AL.: LARVAL FISH RECRUI
- Page 83 and 84:
STEPHENS ET AL.: LARVAL FISH RECRUI
- Page 85 and 86:
STEPHENS ET AL.: LARVAL FISH RECRUI
- Page 87 and 88:
LOVE ET AL.: INSHORE SOFT SUBSTRATA
- Page 89 and 90:
LOVE ET AL.: INSHORE SOFT SUBSTRATA
- Page 91 and 92:
LOVE ET AL.: INSHORE SOFT SUBSTRATA
- Page 93 and 94:
LOVE ET AL.: INSHORE SOFT SUBSTRATA
- Page 95 and 96:
LOVE ET AL.: INSHORE SOFT SUBSTRATA
- Page 97 and 98:
LOVE ET AL.: INSHORE SOFT SUBSTRATA
- Page 99 and 100:
LOVE ET AL.: INSHORE SOFT SUBSTRATA
- Page 101 and 102:
LOVE ET AL.: INSHORE SOFT SUBSTRATA
- Page 103 and 104:
LOVE ET AL.: INSHORE SOFT SUBSTRATA
- Page 105 and 106:
LOVE ET AL.: INSHORE SOFT SUBSTRATA
- Page 107 and 108:
LOVE ET AL.: INSHORE SOFT SUBSTRATA
- Page 109:
Part 111SCIENTIFIC CONTRIBUTIONS
- Page 112 and 113:
BAILEY ET AL.: FORECASTING HAKE REC
- Page 114 and 115:
BAILEY ET AL.: FORECASTING HAKE REC
- Page 116 and 117:
ESPINO AND WOSNITZA-MENDO: PERUVIAN
- Page 118 and 119:
ESPINO AND WOSNITZA-MENDO: PERUVIAN
- Page 120 and 121:
ESPINO AND WOSNITZA-MENDO: PERUVIAN
- Page 122 and 123:
ESPINO AND WOSNITZA-MENDO: PERUVIAN
- Page 124 and 125:
MacGREGOR: SEBASTES ABUNDANCECalCOF
- Page 126 and 127:
MacGREGOR: SEEASTES ABUNDANCECalCOF
- Page 128 and 129:
MacGREGOR: SEBASTES ABUNDANCECalCOF
- Page 130 and 131:
MacGREGOR: SEBASTES ABUNDANCECalCOF
- Page 132 and 133:
-~ ~MacCREGOR: SEBASTES ABUNDANCECa
- Page 134 and 135:
MacGREGOR: SEBASTES ABUNDANCECalCOF
- Page 136 and 137:
MacGREGOR: SEBASTES ABUNDANCECalCOF
- Page 138 and 139:
LLUCH-BELDA ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFOR
- Page 140 and 141:
LLUCH-BELDA ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFOR
- Page 142 and 143:
LLUCH-BELDA ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFOR
- Page 144 and 145:
DuracionQUINONEZ-VELAZQUEZ Y GOMEZ-
- Page 146 and 147:
FIEDLER: OFFSHORE ENTRAINMENT OF AN
- Page 148 and 149:
FIEDLER: OFFSHORE ENTRAINMENT OF AN
- Page 150 and 151:
FIEDLER: OFFSHORE ENTRAINMENT OF AN
- Page 152 and 153:
FIEDLER: OFFSHORE ENTRAINMENT OF AN
- Page 154 and 155:
FIEDLER: OFFSHORE ENTRAINMENT OF AN
- Page 156 and 157:
SCHMITT: SELECTIVITY AND FEEDING OF
- Page 158 and 159:
SCHMITT: SELECTIVITY AND FEEDING OF
- Page 160 and 161:
SCHMITT: SELECTIVITY AND FEEDING OF
- Page 162 and 163:
SCHMIlT: SELECTIVITY AND FEEDING OF
- Page 164 and 165:
MOSER ET AL.: EARLY STAGES OF OCEAN
- Page 166 and 167:
~MOSER ET AL.: EARLY STAGES OF OCEA
- Page 168 and 169:
MOSER ET AL.: EARLY STAGES OF OCEAN
- Page 170 and 171:
MOSER ET AL.: EARLY STAGES OF OCEAN
- Page 172 and 173:
ARCOS AND FLEMINGER: CALANOID COPEP
- Page 174 and 175:
ARCOS AND FLEMINGER: CALANOID COPEP
- Page 176 and 177:
ARCOS AND FLEMINGER: CALANOID COPEP
- Page 178 and 179:
ARCOS AND FLEMINGER: CALANOID COPEP
- Page 180 and 181:
ARCOS AND FLEMINGER: CALANOID COPEP
- Page 182 and 183:
ARCOS AND FLEMINGER: CALANOID COPEP
- Page 184 and 185:
ARCOS AND FLEMINGER: CALANOID COPEP
- Page 186 and 187:
ARCOS AND FLEMINGER: CALANOID COPEP
- Page 188 and 189:
ARCOS AND FLEMINGER: CALANOID COPEP
- Page 190 and 191:
TRUJILLO-ORTIZ: ACARTlA CALIFORNIEN
- Page 192 and 193:
TRUJILLO-ORTIZ: ACARTIA CALIFORNIEN
- Page 194 and 195:
TRUJILLO-ORTIZ: ACARTIA CALlFORNlEN
- Page 196 and 197:
TRUJILLO-ORTIZ: ACARTIA CALIFORNIEN
- Page 198 and 199:
TRUJILLO-ORTIZ: ACARTIA CALIFORNIEN
- Page 200 and 201:
TRUJILLO-ORTLZ: ACARTIA CALIFORNIEN
- Page 202 and 203:
TRUJILLO-ORTIZ: ACARTIA CALIFORNIEN
- Page 204 and 205:
TRUJILLO-ORTIZ: ACARTIA CALIFORNIEN
- Page 206 and 207:
TRUJILLO-ORTIZ: ACARTIA CALIFORNIEN
- Page 208 and 209:
CHEN: VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PELA
- Page 210 and 211:
CHEN: VERTlCAL DISTRIBUTlON OF PELA
- Page 212 and 213:
CHEN: VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PELA
- Page 214 and 215:
CHEN: VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PELA
- Page 216 and 217:
JOOCHEN: VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF P
- Page 218 and 219:
CHEN: VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PELA
- Page 220 and 221:
CHEN: VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PELA
- Page 222 and 223:
CHEN: VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PELA
- Page 224 and 225:
CHEN: VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PELA
- Page 226 and 227:
CHEN: VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PELA
- Page 228 and 229:
CHEN: VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PELA
- Page 230 and 231:
BRINTON ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFORNIA
- Page 232 and 233:
BRINTON ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFORNIA
- Page 234 and 235:
BRINTON ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFORNIA
- Page 236 and 237:
BRINTON ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFORNIA
- Page 238 and 239:
BRINTON ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFORNIA
- Page 240 and 241:
BRINTON ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFORNIA
- Page 242 and 243:
BRINTON ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFORNIA
- Page 244 and 245:
BRINTON ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFORNIA
- Page 246 and 247:
BRINTON ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFORNIA
- Page 248 and 249:
BRINTON ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFORNIA
- Page 250 and 251:
BRINTON ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFORNIA
- Page 252 and 253:
BRINTON ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFORNIA
- Page 254 and 255:
BRINTON ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFORNIA
- Page 256 and 257:
BRINTON ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFORNIA
- Page 258 and 259:
BRINTON ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFORNIA
- Page 260 and 261:
BRINTON ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFORNIA
- Page 262 and 263:
BRINTON ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFORNIA
- Page 264 and 265:
BRINTON ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFORNIA
- Page 266 and 267:
BRINTON ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFORNIA
- Page 268 and 269:
BRINTON ET AL.: GULF OF CALIFORNIA
- Page 270 and 271:
METHOT: FRAME TRAWLCalCOFI Rep., Vo
- Page 272 and 273:
METHOT: FRAME TRAWLCalCOFI Rep., Vo
- Page 274 and 275:
METHOT: FRAME TRAWLCalCOFI Rep., Vo
- Page 276 and 277:
METHOT: FRAME TRAWLCalCOFI Rep., Vo
- Page 278 and 279:
METHOT: FRAME TRAWLCalCOFI Rep., Vo
- Page 280 and 281:
METHOT: FRAME TRAWLCalCOFI Rep., Vo
- Page 283 and 284:
-130' 125. 120' 11.5. 110.I I I I I