AN ABSTRACT OF T TISIS OF
Walter Guy Jones for the Master of Science in the (Name) (Degree)
Department of Fish and Game Management (Major) Date thesis is presented /6 7
Title - The Mink Food Fishery of Oregon in1953and 195L. Signature redacted for privacy. Abstract approved (Major professor)
This study was conducted to ascertain thekinds and amounts of fish landed for mink farm useby the Oregon otter-trawl fleet during1953andl95L.and to analyze some of the important factorsinvolved in the expanding mink-food fishery. The Oregon trawl fishery f or mink-foodgained impetus following World War II. The numbers of mink on Oregon ranches increasedfrom approximately 56,000 animals in 19L.5 to about 2OLj,000 inl95Li.. Fish carcasses from the fillet producers made upthe major part of the fish portions of ranchmink diets until 1953. Reduction of deliveries of fish for the fillet markets in 1953and 195L. brought about sub- stantial increases inthe landing of whole fish for mink-food in those years. Approximately5.0and 6.0 million pounds of fish were landed formink- food in1953 and 195L1. respectively.This amounted to around one-half of the productionfor the fillet processors in both years. The principal fish species landed for thefur ranchers in the two years combined were asfollows:
FISH Approximate Weight Species in Millions of Pounds Arrowtooth Sole, Atheresthés stomias 3.0 Rockfishes, Sebastodes, .,main1y 1.6 Rex Sole, Glytocephalus zachirus i.li. Dover Sole, Nicrosomus pacificus l.I.. English Sole, Paropbrys vetulus 1.0 (2)
Starry Flounder, Platichthys. stellatus 0.6 Bellinghain Sole, Isopotta isolepis 0.5 Petrale Sole, Eopsetta jordan! 0.1 Misc. Fish, (25 to 35different species) l.L1. Three of the above species, Dover Sole, English sole and petrale sole are the dominant flatfish landed for the fillet processors. Stocks of those species have declined on the principal trawling grounds utilized by the Oregon fleet. The nubers of these fish landed f or mink-food are of concern to the fishing industry.
About 1.8 million Dover sole were landed for mink-food. Of these 236,000 fish were smaller than the 36 centimeter minimum size length imposed by the fillet producers. Considerably more undersize Dover sole were discarded at sea from fillet market fishing than were delivered for animal food. In1953and 1951i. about 1.6 million English sole were landed for mink-food. Of these87 per cent were smaller than the33centimeter minimum fillet market size limit. Approximately 1.6 million English solo were discarded at sea from the fillet market fishery. Neglible numbers of petrale sole were landed for the fur farm market.
All but a very few of the Lj.0 vessels in the Ore- gon trawl fleet participated to some extent in the l953-5Lmink-food fishery. Four trawlers fishing ex- clusively for mink-food out of Newport, Oregon accounted for approximately 6.6 million pounds of the fish delivered for mink-food in the two year period. At Astoria 12 vessels landed the majority of theL.3 million pounds of animal food deliveredthere.Only a very few vessels fishedexclusively for mink-food. About eighty percent of the animal food was delivered incidental to or in conjunction with fillet market fishing. The fishery for mink-food in1953andl95!. was concentrated within a 20 to 30 mile radii of the mouths of the Columbia and Yaquina rivers. As awhole, the trawl fishermen in the two years under studyderived approximately one-fourth of their fishing income through the sale of fish for mink- food. - THE MINK FOOD FISHERY OF OREGON IN 1953 AND 1954 by WALTER GUY JONES
A THESIS
aubmit ted. to OREGON STME COLLEGE
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE
June 1958 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Appreciation and thanks are expressed to Professor B. E. Dimick, Departmentof Fish and (lame Management at Oregon State College, and to Dr. George I. Harry, Jr., Dirootor of Research of the Oregon Fish Oonission, for their help and advice in the preparation of this thesis.
Gratitude is extended to S. J. Weatrheim who was in charge of the otter-trawl investigations of the Oregon Fish Commission at the time this material was gathered and who assisted with the field work and the analysis of the data. Thanksare heartily given to David Leith and to the other biologists who helped. with thegathering and oompila-' tion ofthe field data. Special thanks are conveyed to Mrs. Phyllis Watt Wustenberg andto the other members of thefur farming industry who suppliedinformation about mink ranching. The cooperation and patience of the members of the fishing industry, both boat and plant operators, extended to the biologists in the collection of the field data, is gratefully acknowledged. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page INTRODUCTION 1
HISTORY OF THE OREGON MINK FOOD FISHERY . . . 2
METHODS AND MATERIALS ...... 5
Specific problems S Production statistics a . a 5 Scientific and. ooion names of fish species 6 Sampling procedure 9 Astoria sampling procedure... 10 Newport sampling procedure 11 Sampling procedure at other ports . 12 Total species composition computations 13 Determination ofsize composition of Dover, English, and petrale soles 14 Length-weight relationship 15 Length-frequency distribution . 15 Analyses of some effects of mink'-food fishery on the Oregon trawl fishery . 17 Methods of comparing production of mink-food fishery with trawl fishery . . . . . 17 Computation of numbers of mink on Oregon ranches 18 Computation of fish requirement of mink ranchers . 19 Methods of evaluating theintensity of the mink-food fishery . . . 21 Fishing intensity by area 21 Fishing intensity by boat 23 Fishing intensity on Dover, English and potrale soles. .. 24 ECONOMIC EFFECT OF THE MINK-FOOD FISHERY ON THE TRAWL FISHERY 26 VALIDITY OF ANALY3ES OF SAMPLING DATA 27
Production records 27 Reliabilityof samples 28 Projection of sampling data 29 Accuracy ofconversion weights 29 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
RESULTS.... 31
Trawl fisheries production of mink-food 31 Species composition of mink-food landings 34 Results of sampling 34 Totallandings by species 38 Size composition of the Dover, English and petrale sole 43 Dover sole 43 English sole 44 Petrale sole 48 SOME EFFECTS OF THE MINK-FOOD FISHERY ON TOTAL TRAWL PRODUCTION OVER A TEN YEAR PERIOD . . . 50
Production increase over a ten year period 50 Fishrequired 50 Numbers of mink on Oregon ranches . 50 Fish available . . . . 62 Intensity ofthe mink-food, fishery .... 53 Byboatandbymonth .. 53 Incidental compared to active mink- food fishing 58 On fishing grounds 61
Intensity on Dover solo . . . . . 66 Intensity on English sole 70 Economic value of the mink-food fishery 73
DISCUSSION '75
Total production . 75 Individual species production . . . 77 Arrowtooth sole 77 Rex sole 78 Bellingham sole 78 Starry flounder 79 Rockfishes 79 Miscellaneous fishes , . . . 80 Size composition and numbers of principal fillet market soles 82 Dover sole 83 English sole 83 Petrale sole 85 Boats and landings 86 Areas fished 86 Regulations 87 Economic effect 88 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page
SUMMARY 89 BIBLIOGRAPHY 94 APPENDIX 97 LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Common and. scientific names of fish that were counted in the mink-food samples, Astoria and Newport, 1953 and 1954 . . . 7
2Test of homogeneity ofmultiple samples from individual landings of mink-food, Astoria and Newport, 1954 ...... 32 3 Oregon trawl landings for mink food and filletmarkets, 1953 and 1954 33
4 Species oomposition of the fish in samples taken of landings of mink-food, Astoria and.Newport, 1953 35 5Species composition of the fishin samples taken of landings of mink-food, Astoria and Newport, 1954 36
6 Calculated weights by species of the trawl fish delivered for mink-food in Oregon, 1953 39
7 Calculatedweights byspecies or the trawl fish delivered for mink-food in Oregon, 1954 40 8Thecomputed numbersof mink on Oregon ranches andthe calculated pounds offish available and required for mink-food in Oregon, 1945-1954 ...... 51
9 Distribution of the landings of mink-food at Astoria and Newport, 1953 . 54 10 Distribution of the landings of mink-food at Astoria and.Newport, 1954 55
11 Average annual weight of mink-food fish delivered by each of the Astoria trawl vessels in 1953 and 1954 and the number of landings by each vessel ...... 57
12The distribution by areacaughtof the catch and landings of trawl fish for minkfood, Oregon, 1953 ...... 62 LIST OF TA&S (continued) Table Page 13The distribution by areacaught of the catch and landings of trawl fish for mink-food, Oregon, 1954 ...... 63 14Disposition of the catch at sea of the estimated numbers of Dover solo caught in the Oregon trawl fishery, 1953 and. 1954 ,,...... 68 15 Disposition of the catch at sea of the estimated numbers of English solecaught in the Oregon trawl fishery, 1953 aM 1954 71 16 Calculated monetary valuereceived by the Oregon trawlfishermen for fish delivered in 1952, 1953 and 1954...... 74 17Calculated total monetary value received by the Oregon trawl fishermen from sale of whole fish and fillet scrapfor mink-food, 1952, 1953 and 1954 76
Appendix Tables INumbers of fish by species sampled from mink-food landings at Astoria, 1953 ... 97 IINumbers of fish by species sampled from mink-food landings at Newport, 1953 . . . 101
IIINumbers of fish by species sampled from mink-food landings at Astoria, 1954 . . . 105
IV Numbers of fish by species sampledfrom mink-food landings at Newport, 1954 . . . 113 VLength-frequency distributionof the numbers of Doversole in the mink-food and fillet market samples, 1953 and 1954 119 VI Length-frequency distribution of the numbers of English sole in themink-food and. filletmarket samples, 1953and 1954 122 VII Length-frequencydistributionof the numbers of petrale sole in the mink-food and fillet market samples, 1953 and 1954 124 LIST 0? FIGURES Figure Page 1 Relative length-frequency distribution of the Dover sole measured in samples of mink-food and fillet market landings 45 Relative length-frequency distribution of the English solemeasured in samples of mink-food and fillet market landings...... 46 3 Relative length-frequency distribution of the petrale sole measured in samples of mink-food and fillet market landings ...... 49 Distributionof the proportion of mink-food fish in total landings from individual catches, Astoria, 1953 and 1954 . . 60 Relative distribution of catch and landings of mink-fooddeliveries from known areas, Oregon, 1953 and 1954 . . . 65
6 Length-frequency distribution, weighted to catch, of the estimated numbers of Dover sole landed in Oregon, 1963 and 1954 ... 69
7 Length-frequency distribution, weighted to catch, of the estimated numbers of English sole landed in Oregon, 1953 and 1954 ...... I S IIIII S 72 TEE MINK ROODFISHERY OF OREGON IN 1953 AND 1954
INTRODUCTION
This study was conducted to ascertain the kinds and amounts of fishes landed for mink farm use by the Oregon otter-trawl fleet during 1953 and 1954 and to analyze some of the important factors involved in the expanding mink food fishery. It is part of an overall investigationbegun in 1948 by the Research Department of the Oregon Fish Coission to study the effects of the Oregon ottertraw1 fishery on the stocks of fish utilized by the Oregon trawl fleet.
The Oregon trawl fishery, also called drag or bottom fishery, in 1953 and 1954 was conducted in waters ranging from Cape Blanco off southern Oregon to Vancouver Island,
British Columbia, and. extending in depths from 15 to over
200 fathoms. The type ofnet most widelyused by the Oregon trawlfleet is known as the "Eastern"otter-trawl net and is towed by means of wire ropesecured from stanohions on both sides of the stern of the vasasi. This is a method of trawling peculiar to the Pacific coast of the United States, in contrast to methods used for trawling on the east coast of the United States (13, p. 171, 172).The Oregon trawl vessels ranged in length from 50 to 90 feet, with capacities from 15 to 50 tons of fish. Many types of marinelife which inhabit the ocean floor are vulnerable to the otter trawl fishery. However, the principal fish species deliveredtotrawl fish markets are called "Soles" and rockfiahes, in thefamilies Pleuronectidae and Soorpaenidae.
HISTORY OF T OGON MINK FOOD FIS
The Oregon trawl fisherybegan in 1936 and. with it an incidental fishery for mink'.'fooddeveloped.Theamount of whole fish landed for minkfood was small beforeWorld War II.Only those mink rancherswho lived on the coast and had easyaccess to the delivery portsutilized trawl fish. BRed meats"obtained from horses and young dairy calves composed the staple portion of the dietsfed to ranch mink, Mustela vison (Schreber), (9, p.4), up to and throughout World War II During the war,horsemeat became increasingly difficult and expensive to obtain. In contrast, abundant supplies of filleted fish carcasses
(the portion remainingafter the fillet has been renved) wereavailable for minkfood.Increasing numbers of rancherstook advantage of this inexpensivesource of protein food.Following the war, with the scarcity of horsomeat, moreranchers became dependent on trawl caught fish as the main constituent in mink diets.By 1950, bottom fish,both whole fish and filletcarcasses, made up from 50 to 70 per cent of the dietsfed to ranch mink in 3
Orogon west of the Cascade mountains (16, p. 10).
Mink ranchers in general utilized fillet carcasses in preference to fish largely because they wore cheaper and
easier to obtain. Until 1953, the supplies of filleted
carcasses were usually more than adequate to supply the demand. However, occasional curtailment of bottom fish production occurred due to inclement weather, strikes within the fishing industry and the fluctuations in the economic conditions of the fillet marketing industry.The production curtailment often occurred during the suimner
and fall months when the need for fish by the ranchers was
the greatest.The mink ranchers then found it necessary to buy more whole flab. directly from the boats. Prior to 1951 each ranober generally made his own arrangements with the captains of the trawl vessels for the delivery of fish which were made at any one of several
different docks. In order to centralize and stabilize the supply of both whole fish and fillet carcasses, a group of
mink ranchers organized a consumers' cooperativeknown as
the Oregon Fur Producers Association. This organization procured freezing and. storage facilities in Astoria for receiving and holding trawl fish.Operation of the Astoria plant began in 1951 and in June of 1953 similar
facilities began receiving fish at Newport. The species of bottom fish preferred prior to 1951by 4
the ranchers were in general the same species that were used for han consumption. There are several reasons for
this preference, of which three principal, ones were: (1)the storage and. food qualitiesof these species were known; (2) the ranchers were accustomed to feeding these species in the form of fillet carcasses; and, (3) these were often the predominant species caught by thetrawlers
a the fish too small. for the fillet market could easily be saved for mink-food.Until 1955 there was no Oregon trawl regulation restricting the use of anytrawl fish for
animal food. The increasing dema for trawl fish for mink-food
created.some concern and contention among thetrawl fish-
ermen. Some of the fishermen feared that themink-food fishery would expand. to such an extent that the stocksof filletmarketfish, principally Dover sole,Microstomus pacificus (Lookington); English sole, Parophrysvetulus Girard;and. petrale sole, settajordani (Lockington) (5, p. 327,328, 321, 322, 316, 317),would become depleted. The 1953 and 1954 mink-food aspectofthe otter-trawl investigation wasintensifiedin order to evaluate the problems involved in the mink-food fisheryin relation to
the otter-trawl fishery asawhole. 5
METHODS AND MLTERIAL
Specific Problems
The 1953-1954 mink food fishery study was conducted primarily to determine four factors, namely: The annual total production of fish for mink- food taken by the Oregon trawl fleet for each port and for the state as a whole; The poundageof each species of whole fish landed for minkfood; The size composition and the numbers of the three principal fillet market soles mentioned above landed for the mink food market; The effects of the mink food fishery on the production and the economics ofthe Oregon trawl fishery.
Production Statistics
The annual total production by weight offish for mink-food by the Oregon trawl fleet includes the pounds of whole fish andfilletcarcasses sold.for mink-food. The pounds of the whole fish landed for mink-food were compiled from reportsfiled monthly with the Oregon Fish Commission by fish processing firms or persons receiving fishfor resale.The total weight of each 6 species of fish received by aprocessingplant is required to be reported on official forms (12, p. 66, 67) for the purpose of taxation.The data from these reports wore compiled,to determine the pounds of fish laded at each port by month arid by each fishing vessel. The amount of fillet carcassesutilized for mink-food is computed from the weight of trawl fish landed for the fillet markets.Between 70 and 80 per cent ofthe initial. weightof the fish remains as carcass after the fillets have been removed, depending on the size, species and con- dition of the fish.All of the fillet carcasses were not used for mink-food, since some of thespecies were not desirable and occasionally the carcasses, through spoilage, could not beutilized. Mr. Marvin BlUe, man- ager of the Oregon Fur Producers Association's storage plant, estimated that about 60 per cent of the original landedweightof the filletmarket fish can beused as mink-food. For thepurposes ofthis study the fillet carcassesavailable for mink-food wore computed at 60 per centof the production for the fi11t markets.
Scientific andCommon Names ofFish SDeciea
The trawl fisheryproduction of mink-food includes a wide variety of species, many of which are known by differentcommon namesin the industry and among the 7 scientific personnel along the Pacific coast of North
America, depending on geographic location.
TABLE I COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF FISH THAT WERE COUNTED IN THE MINK FOOD SAMPLES, ASTORIA AN]) NiW1ORT, 1953 AN]) 1954.
American Oregon Fisheries Society Fish Commission Scientific Names Common Names * Common Names Flatfish Atberethestomias Arrowtoothed Hali-Arrowtootb but Sole, Turbot
Citharicbthys a ordidue Sand Dab Pacific Sand Dab Bopeetta jordani Roundnose FlounderPetrale Sole G1ptocephalus Longfin Flounder Rex Sole zachirus
Ltippogloaa oides Flathoad Flounder Flathead Sole elas sodon Isopsetta isolepis Scalyf in Flounder Bellingham Sole Lepidopetta bum'- Rock Flounder Rock Sole eata
Lyoisetta exilis Slender F1ouner Slender Sole
Micros tomus DacificusSlippery Flounder Dover Sole
Paroithrys ye tulus Lemon Flounder English Sole
Platichthys stellatusStarry Flounder Starry Flounder
Peotticlithys Sand Flounder Sand Sole melanostietus TABLE I (continued)
Miscellaneous Fish
A1084 sapidiasima American Shad Shad Anopoloma fimbria Sablefish Black Cod, Sablofi eli
Agonidae species Poachers Sea Poachers
Cottidae species Seulpin Seulpin
Zoarcidae species Eel Pout Eel Pout Gadus macrocehalus Pacific Cod True Cod
Hydro].agus colliei Ratfish Ratfish Merluocius produc tue Pacific Hake Hake
Mi croadus t,roximus Pacific Tom Cod Tom Cod Opbiodon elongatus Ljng Cod Ling Cod
Ra1a . Skate Skate SQualus auchleyi Pacific Spiny Dogfish Dogfish
Trachurus symmetricusHorse Mackerel Jack Mackerel
Rookti eli
Sebastodes alutus Longjaw Rockfiah Pacific Ocean Perch, Rosofish
S. brevispinis Shortapine RockfishGrouper, Salmon Rockfish
S. orameri Blackmouth RockfishBlaekmouth Rookfish
.diploproa, Lobejaw Rockfish Two Button Rockfish TABI 1 (continued)
S. elongatus Greenstripod Greenstriped Rockfish Rockfish . flavidus Yellowtail Rockfish Yellowtail Rockfish Green Rockfish . poodie Chili -pepper Chiuipepper S. melanops Black Rookfish Black Rockfish S. mystinus Priestfi ah Gray Rockfish . paucispinis Booacoio Bocaocio, Salmon Grouper
. pinniqo)? Orange Roekfish Bed Snapper S. rubrivinctus Flag Rockfish Hollywood Rockfiah
. saxicola Popeye Rockfish Rosefish Sebastolobus Slim Thornhead., Idiotfish alascanus Channel Rockfish
* If the common name of a fish was not listed in the American Fisheries Society's SpecialPublication No. 1, the cornn name listed in current Pacific Coast publications was used.
Sam1ig Procedure
The equipment used forsampling theminkfood fish was as follows: (1)a twowheeledmetal cart which held from 1000 to 1500 pounds of fish;.(2) a "pugh (a one pronged pitchfork) which was used for separating the 10 species of fish; (3) a measuring boardcalibrated in centimeters; (4) a clipboard, pencil, and tabulating paper for recordingdata; and. (5) spring weighing scales. A method of unloading trawl fish in general use at Oregon docks allowed about the same sampling technique to be used at Astoria and Newport in 1953 and 1954. When a boat is to be unloaded, a wooden box which holds between
500 and 900 pounds of fish, is lowered by means of a mechanical hoist from the dock into the hold.The boat crew then rakes, shovels or"pugha"the fish from one or two of the several bins in the hold of the boat into the box. The full box of fish is then hoistedanddumped Into a cart.
Astoria Sampling Procedure
To obtain a sample of fish landed for minkfood at Astoria, the bioloiat in charge, with thepermi8sion of the plant foreman, selected one or two of the boxesbeing unloaded.An effort was made to select fish which cane from the middle twothirda of a bin in the hold or were mixed from two or more bins. This was done inorder to obtain as random a sample as practical. The fish were then spilled into a cart which was weighed and. taken to an out of the way part of the plant wherethe fish were dwed on the floor to facilitate sampling.The biologist 11 counted and recorded al]. of the fish in the sample by species as they were "pughed" back into the cart, with the exception of Dover, English and petrale soles which were put aside for measurement. In most cases, each fish of these three species thus separated were measured (fork length) tothe nearestlower centimeter; i.e., a fish which measured 29,8centimeters in length was recorded as 29 centimeters. Measurements to the nearest lower eenti meter were taken to facilitate measuring arid, to reduce possible bias by the samplers.
In addition to the data derived from the samples, average weights ofmost ofthe species were obtained. This was accomplished by weighing from 10 to 100 fish of a speciesfromas many samples as practical throughout the suninor.
Newport Sampling Procedure
Approximately the same tech que was used for obtaining samples of the mink'.food landings at Newport. An exception was that when a cart could notbe used, the individual boxes of fish were not weighed. The unloading procedure atthe Newport dockswas to dump the box of fish into a hopper from which the fish were conveyed through a washing operation and then into a truck. A box of fish Was selected in the same manner as at Astoria. The fish 12 were dumped on the dock next to the hopper and the samp].ing proceeded the same as at Astoria.
8amp1in Procedure at Other Ports
The fish sampled in the Coos Bay area in 1953 were not counted or measured in the same mAnner as at the other ports. Instead, a biolOgist stationed in the area obtained a visual estimate of the per cent compositionin numbers of each species as the fish were loaded into the fur ranchers' trucks. In 1954 there were no samples taken in the Coos Bay area, since biologists could not be spared from other projects.The smallamount of fish landed for mink-food in the Coos Bay area did not warrant the expense of sending a biologist from Astoria to sample therela- tively few landings there. Comparatively small landings of mink-food werealso made by a trawler operating out of Tillamook Bay.It was not practical to take samples landed therebut the unloading operations were observed bybiologists and notes taken as to the approximate speciescomposition. For this analysis all fish landed formink-food at ports south of Astoria are included in theNewport land- ings unless noted otherwise.This procedure was necessary as it is the policy of theOregon Fish Coisaion not to publish information concerning individuallandings 13 assignable to any particular boat.The grouping of the landings at Coos Bay and. Tillamook Bay with those from
Newport has little if any effect on the species composi- tion analysis, since the deliveries at these two ports amounted to less than one per cent of thetotal landings.
Total Species Composition Computations
The species composition of the total mink-food production was computed from the dataobtained in the samples and landing records,The numbers of each speoies counted in thesamples were totaled by port.Total fish numbers werethen converted to total weight of each species by means of conversion weights with the exception of Dover, English and petrale soles.The total weights of each of the latter speolea were computed, wherever possible, from length-weightrelationship tables as explained in a following section.The conversion weight used for each species, except as noted, was the meanof the averageweightstaken of each species in the samples and are shown in Appendix tables I, II, III and IV.
The per cent composition of the total weightof each species in the samples ateach port was computed for 1953 and 1954, Appendix tables V and VI.The per cent composi- tion obtained was then applied to thetotal annual production of each port where applicablefor computing the 14
total pOunds of each species landed.The total annual production of eachspecies for the state was then obtained by adding the port totals for eachspecies.Forexample, the total number of arrowtooth soles counted in the mink' food samples taken at Astoria in 1954was 2,311 fish.The average weight of arrowtooth soles was found to be 3.0 pounds, resulting in a totalweightof 6,933 pounds. This was 29 per cent of the 23,594 pounds of fish sampled at Astoria.Thetotal annual production of arrowtooth sole landed at Astoria in 1954 was computed as 29 per cent of all the mink-fooddelivered, to that port.The same pro- cedure was used. to ascertain the pounds of this species
landed at Newport. The two part totals were then added to obtain the annual production of arrowtooth soles for
Oregon.
Determination of Size Composition of Dover, English
Petrale Soles
The measurements taken of the three major fillet
market soles found in the mink-food samples were applied
to compute the total numbers and weight of each species landed for mink-food at each port, and to construct a relative length-frequency distribution curve of thefish
measured in the samples. 15
Length-Weight Relationship
To determinethe totallanded weight ofeach ofthe three species it was first necessary to compute the weight of the sampled fish.This was done by applyinglength- weight tables to thetotal length-frequency distributions compiled from the samples.Theformtilas as determined from research in previous years (10, p. 49) employed to derive the length-weight tables used in this analysiswere as
follows:for Doversole, W - 0.0000205L3°18; for English 187; sole, w o.O000].].OL and for petrale sole,
:O.0000050L3459.The weights at each oentiter interval were totaled to obtain the totalweightsampled. The total woight8 of theDover, English andpetrale soles sampled in the mink-food landings at Astoriaand at Newport were applied in a similar manner asexplained for ax'rowtooth sole tocalculatethe total annual weight landed.
Length-Frequency Distribution
Distribution curveswere constructed foroomparteon of the relative length-frequencydistributions bynumbers of the three fillet marketsoles landed for mink-food, at the two major ports and. withthose species landed for the fillet marketsin Astoria. Length-frequency distribution# compiled from the mink-food samplesand from samples of 16 the three species landed. for the fillet markets were utilized for this purpose. Sampling of fillet market Dover sole landings for age and. size composition by sex was conducted throughout the summers of 1953 and 1954.No market samples, however, were taken of English and. petrale soles during these two years, but these species were sampled. in 1948 through 1951. For this analysis, the length-frequency distributions of these two species were oompiled from the four years sampled and were combined and used as the -best estimate available of the sizes of these fish landed for the fillet markets in 1953 and 1954.
In order to smooth out the size distribution curves, the imbera of fish measured at each length weregrouped. by twos at evennumbered centinster size intervals.The percentage of the total sampled at each sizeinterval was computed and. utilized for constructing therelative length-frequency curves. The total numbers of Dover, Englishand petrale soles at each size interval taken for themink-food and. fillet markets were computed by weighting thesample distribu- tions to the total catch.The factor used to project sample numbers to total numbers at eachsize interval was determined. by dividing the total weightof the species landed. annually by the weight of thespecies in the sa1ea. Totaling the projectednumbers of fish at each 17 size intervalproduced the estimated total number of each species landed annually. This total was checked by employing the ratio TN * Sn x T , where TN is the total number of fish landed annually, Sn is the numbers sampled,
is is the total weight of fish landed annuaUy, andSW the totalweightof the fish sampled.
Analyses Some Effects Mink-food Fishery Oregon Trawl Fishery
The analyses presented in evaluating the effects of the mink-food fishery on the trawl fishery are of necessity of a gross nature. Available time and assist- ance were too limited to permit a thoroughlydetailed analysis of the mink-food fishery. Nevertheless, some measure of the effects of the mink-food fishery onthe otter trawl fishery can be attained from the following information: (1) total Oregon trawl production, (2) the intensity of the trawl mink-food fishery as measuredby production byarea and month fished. and by boat,and (3) some of the effects of the mink-food fishery onthe economics of the trawl fishery.
Methods of ComparingProduction of Mink-Food Fishery with Trawl Fishery
The effect of the mink-food fishery onthe total 18
Oregon trawl production was measured by a comparison covering the ten year period from 1945 to 1954 of the filletmarket production(whole fish andfillet scrap), to the mink-food whole fish production, the numbers of Oregon ranch mink, and the estimated amount of fish required for mink food. The method of finding the fillet market production of whole fish and of fillet scrap used. f or mink-food has been explained as has the methodof determining the production of whole fish for mink-food. in.1953 and 1954.Prior to
1953 landings of fish fox' mink-food were not reported separately to the Oregon FishCoiasion; consequently, the production for theyears 1948 through 1952 are esti mates obtained from questionnaires sent toOregon fur ranchers (10, p311-31?).
Computation of Numbers of Mink onOregon Ranches
The numbers of mink on Oregon ranches werecalculated. from informationderived from a bulletinand letters received from the Statistical Division of theNational
Board of Fur Farm Organizationsand from the Oregon Exten- sion Service at Oregon State College(6, p. 4). From these data the numbers ofmink kits produced on Oregon ranches and the numbers of adult breeders usedto produce them were estimated. In some years only the minkkit 19 production was recorded. In these circumstances the total number of mink on Oregon ranches was calculated by the formula: Total Number of Mink (mink kit produc-
tion) - (Mink kit production) (Mink kit production) 3.25 .25 4
The constant 3.25 is the average number of kits (immature mink) produced by each adultfemale as was determined from the average kit production per female in those years when the numbers of adult females ard the kit productions were available. The mink kit production divided by the number of kits per female gives an estimate of thenumber of adult female mink. The ratio of adult male mink to adult female mink is approximately one to fouraccording to information gatheredin interviews with mink ranchers. The number of adult female mink dividedby four then gives an estimate of the numbers ofadult male mink on Oregon ranches.
Computation of Fish Requirement of MinkRanchers
The estimated amount of fishrequired for mink-food was computed from thenumbers of mink on Oregon ranches and. the estimated average pounds offish (76.4 pounds) consumed each year by a ranch mink. The number of pounds
of fish estimated to beconsumed a year by one ranch mink was calculated on'theassumptions that a mink is fed an 20 average of eight ounces of feed a day according t information received from mink ranchers, and that 65 per cent of the daily ration is fish cn a yearly average (16, p. 9, 10) on ranches west of the Cascade mountains. The breeder mink are led daily, as a rule, throughout the year and. the mink to be pelted are fed for approximately six months. A "family unit" (so called for ease of exp1ana tion) consisting of 18 mink (one male, four females and
13 kits) will be fed approximately 2,116 pounds of feed in
a year of which 1,375 pounds (2,116 x .65) will be fish.
It follows then that the average consumption of fish per mink on Oregon ranches is estimated as 175 : 76.4 pounds. 18 The amount of fish estimated to be required for feed
for Oregon mink is very probably a mini.niuu figure. The estimated annual requirement of fish does not take into
consideration the increase of breeder stock held over
each year in the expanding Oregon mink farming industry, nor does it allow for any wastage of fish by the
ranchers.Some of these factors would probably be balanced out by the use of less fish by ranchers east of
the Cascade mountains but there are comparatively few
mink ranches in that area. 21
Methods of Evaluating the Intensity of Mink-Food
Fi shel7
The intensity of the mink-food fishery was measured in three waya First, the pounds of mink-food fish caught in a specified area, the number of landings of mink-food made from that area, and the number of boats that fished each specified area; second, the pounds of mink-food fish landed by each vessel, the number of landings of mink-food made by each vessel, and whether or not a vessel was actively fishing for mink-food; and, third, the concen- tration of the fleet on fishing for certain species for mink-food.
Fishing Intensity by Area
The fishing area where each landing of mink-food was
caught was determined from interviews with the boat
captains. Frequently the catch was made in more than one area in which case the captain usuallyreported the area
where most of the fish were obtained.The area system employed by the Fish Conission biologists wasestablished
in 1948 and was a modification of theCalifornia block
system (3, p. 37-39). In this system the fishing grounds are divided into approximatelyten mile square blocks. The sides of the blocks coormwith the minute latitude
and longitude lines.Since eachblock is numbered, the 22 captain usually reported the numbers of the blocks in which he fished. The position on the fishing grounds was determined by moans of loran bearings In conjunction with fathometer readings. The areas fished by individual fishermen were kept confidential.FOr this reason it Is believed that most of the fishermen generally accurately reported the areas in which they fished.A few fishermen either gave no information or inaccurate records concerning the area fished. Occasionally when this condition occurred cross checks with other fishermen would indloate the general areain which the wary boat operators were fishing. For this particular study a more general area system was devised iü which the trawlinggrounds off Oregon and. Washington coasts were divided into five sections.These areas were defined by prominentheadlands or other land- marks and each molded a particular fishing ound utilized by the Oregonfleet.Theareas were numbered from Area I north of themouth of Willapa Bay in Wash- ington, to Area V south of Heceta Head inOregon. The bases forthe boundary lines of the areas inbetween were Tillamook Rock and. Cascade Head. The pounds of fish landed for mink-foodand the numbersof landings from each of these general areas were compiledto indicate the intensity of the mink-food. fishery Ineach area. 23
Fishing Intensity by Boat
The pounds of mink-food landed andthe number of landings made by each boat were compiled and compared to indicate some measure of the intensity of the mink-food fishing between boats for each of the two years included in this study. The comparison of the number of boats actively fishing for minkfood and boat8 catching mink- food incidental to fillet market fishing should show some indication of the intenSity of the mink-foodfishery in relation to the fillet market fishery. The problem involved in such a comparison is to differentiate between active and incidental fishingfor mink-food.A boat was considered to be incidentally fishing for mink-food then
only fish- wassaved for mink-food which would ordinarily be discardedin a normal fishing trip forthefillet market. The amount of fish discarded varied with the demand by the filletmarkets, the type and mesh size of the trawl net used, the 8peciosof fish caught, and the grounds fished. owever, according to datagathered while sampling trawlcatches at sea in 1950, the averagediscard at sea from a normal fillet marketfishingoperation was estimated as 56per cent of the total catch(10, p. 264). Only part of the discarded catch from afillet fishing operation could be used formink-food. Some species are not generallyaccepted by the mink ranchers. 24
Interviews with the fishermen have indicated that usually between 40 and. 80 per cent by weight, with an average of about 60 pox' cent, of the discard at sea is of fish which could. be sold for mink-food. Thus, if 56 per cent of the catch from a fillet market fishing trip isdiscarded and if 60 per cent of the discard could be sold formink-food, then for every 100 pounds of fi3h caught, 44pounds are fillet market fish, 34 pounds may be used. formink-food, and 12 pounds would be discarded.
Ba8ed. on this assumption, a trawl vesselcould be considered actively fishingfor mink-food if the fish delivered for the fur farmers amounted to 43per cent (34 78) or moreby weight of all the fish landedfrom a single trip.The mink-foodportion, inper cent, of the total landings from a fishing trip worecalculated for the
Astoria mink-food landings.The landings were grouped by five percentage points and adistribution curve con- structed, figure 4, of the groupedfrequencies. This
distribution tends to substantiatethe above assumption
aswill be explained ina following800tiOfl.
Fishing Intensity on Dover,English, and. Petrale Soles
The effect ofthe mink-food fishery onthe numbers
of fish of all species landedby the trawl fishery is certainly worthy of note butof primary interest in this 25 study are the total number8 of Dover, English and petrale sole s landed for mink-food and human consumption, and those discarded at sea from fillet market fishing.
An explanation of the procedure employed to find the total numbers of the three filletmarket soleslanded for mink-food er4 human consumption from the length-frequency distributions has been given in a previous section.The distribution tables were also utilized to compute the estimated numbers of each species landed for the fur rancher markets which were smaller than theminimum size generally accepted by the fillet markets. These minimum sizes are as follows: Dover solo, 36 centimeters (approximately 14 inches); and English and petrale soles,
33 centimeters (13 inches). It was found that petrale sole contributed only about one per cent ofthe mink-food
deliveries, so it was excluded from this part ofthe
analysis. The best estimates available of thenumbers of Dover
and English soles discarded at sea fromfillet market
fishing were the results of severalsamplings at sea trips
conducted in 1950 (10, p 260-264) o The numbers of Dover and English soles discarded from thesetrips were
estimated at 20.4 and 50.]. per cent,respectively.From the information obtained of thetotal numbers caught for
the fillet market, the numbers ofDover sole discarded 26 were computed from the formula: Discard a Number of fillet market Dover x 20.4. 79.6 The estimatednumbers of English solediscarded at sea were approximately the same as the numbers delivered for the fillet market. Not all of the Dover and English sole estimatedto have been discarded at sea were thrown overboard, however.
Some of these fish weresaved for mink-food, but not enough information is available to determine the amount.
Boats that made fishing trips primarily for the fillet markets oftensaved mink-food, from the last day or two of a three to five day fishing trip.For thisanalysis the amounts of Dover and English sole saved formink-food from thediscardatsea were not estimated.
ECONOMIC EFFECT OF THE MIIK-FO0D FISHERY
ON THE TRAWL FISHERY
The mo8t obvious and easiest measuredeconomic effect of the mink-food fishery on the trawlfishery as a whole is the additional income receivedby the fishermen from the sale of mink-food fishattwo and a half cents a pound.An indirect effect is the increasein price the fishermenreceive forfish delivered to the filletmarkets through the sale of fillet scrapf or mink-food. This increase is estimated to be approximately one-half cent a pound. Less tangible effects of the mink-food fishery, both beneficial anddetrimental, arebelieved to occur but are not measurable. These will be discussed briefly in another section.
VALIDITY OF ANALYSIS OF SAMPLING DATA
From the foregoing it is obvious that thevalue of the results of the analysis of themink-foodlandings depends on whether the samples wererepresentative of the mink-food landings, on how accurate were theproduction records, and on the validity of thetecbnique used for
analysis.
Production Recor
The production records canbe presumed to be fairly accurate since they are a part ofthe official records of
the Fish Commission of Oregon,although, they no doubt
present the very minimum figuresof the actual landings
of the trawl fishery. The landing records arerequired mainly for the purpose oftaxation and only the minimum poundages could be expected tobereported.It is known
that there were a number oflandings of mink-food inboth 1953 and1954 which did not appear onthe official records. 28
No attempt has been made to include an estimate of such landings in this report.
Reliability of Samples
The mink-food sampling program was initiated mainly to determine the species composition ofthe fish lande4 for mink-food and the size composition of the three principal fillet market fish. The hypothesis was that the species composition of the samples taken wasrepresenta- tive of the species composition of the fish lauded for mink-food.The principal assumptions were that the samples were randomly selected from a normal population.
Dual samples were takon of son of the mink-food landings in 1954 to determine if the percentage composi- tion of each species was the same in both samples. Two such samples were taken at Astoria and seven atNewport. More dual samples would have been desirable atAstoria but usually time and assistancewerelimiting factors. Contingencyohi-squaretests (8, p. 187-190) were perform- ed to teat the hypothesis that each set of dualsamples came from the same population.A five per cent level of significance was chosen. The results of the ehi-square tests are shown in table 2.In only three of the nine tests wasthe hypothesis accepted that the dualsamples camefrom thesame population.This meant that many of 29 the samples could not necessarily be considered repre- sentative of the landing from which they were taken. However, this does not void the premise that all of the samples together might be representative, or nearly so, of the total landings of mink-food during the sampling period. It was assumed that if enough samples could be taken from as many landings by differentboats as possible that the total species and size compositionof the fish in the samples would be representative of thespecies and size compositionof the fish in the total mink-food landings.
Projection of Samplin& Data
A valid question couldbe raised as to the advisa- bility of expandingthe dataderived from sampling in the summer months to cover theentire year. It is readill admitted that there is some differencein the species composition of the fish landed in thespringand summer months. However, this difference isprobably reduced in that a little over two-thirdsof the total minkfood. landings were delivered during thesampling period in both 1953 and 1954.
Accuracy of Conversion Weigts
Another question might be raisedabout the accuracy 30 of the average weightings used to convert numbers offish to pounds of fish,(the weights of each species of fish may varyfromseason to season and from area toarea). A test of the accuracy of the weights can be made by comparing the total observed weight of the sampleswith
the computedweight.Theobserved weight of a sample is the weight of the box of fish at the timeof sampling loss
a certain percentage, usuallyfive per cent, that is
deducted for ice and slime. The computed weight was the total of the convertedweightsof all the species in the
sample. The difference of the computed sampleweights from the observed sample weights atAstoria in 1953 and
1954 was 3.7 per cent and 2.? per cent,respectively, of
the sample weights. At Newport in 1953 this difference was 1.3 per cent but in1954the differenceamounted to 19.5 percent.however, the samples taken atNewport were not actually weighed. The averageweight perbox of fish
as estimated by theplant foreman was used. This could easily lead to an error in casesof observed sample
weights. Since the average weights inthe Astoria samples appeared reliable, it was decidedto use the Newport computed sample weights for analysis.
It should be emphasized thatmuch of the data presented in this study were computedestimates derived from as much information ascould be obtainedunder the 31 circumstances.Although the specific information concern- ing the fish species should not be taken as absolute, the data does indicate the magnitude of the mink-food fishery as a whole and the relativemagnitude of the species within the fishery. It is realized that, if future studies warrant it, the sampling programcan be greatly improved to give a widerrange ofdata and morespecific informa- tion which would in turn improve the analysis techniques.
RESULTS
Trawl Fisheries Production of Mink-foo4
Approximately 5.0 million pounds of whole trawl caught fish were delivered for mink-food atOregon ports in 1953, table 3. Of this amount 42 per cent, 2.1 million pounds, was delivered at Astoriaand 58 per cent, 2.9 million pounds, at Newport and otherports.Inthesame yearapproximately 10.4 million pounds of trawlfish were delivered for thefillet markets, principally atAstoria. Sixty per cent, 6.2 millionpounds, of the landed weight of the fillet marketfish was available formink-food as fillet scrap. Thetotalamount offishavailable for mink-food was estimated to be 11.2million pounds.
In 1954 the landings of wholefish f or mink-food in Oregon amounted to approximately6.0million pounds, 32
TABLE 2 TEST OF HOMOGENEITY OF MULTIPLE SAMPLES FROM INDIVIDUAL LANDINGS OF MINK FOOD, ASTORIA AND NEWPORT, 1954
Computed Ciii -Sqare Sample Location Ciii -Square Value Numbers of Samples Value D. F. at 5% Level
2A.-2B Astoria 273.8 7 14.07
5A5B Astoria 51.0 8 15.51
lA-lB Newport 59.4 5 11.07
3A-3B Newport 11.7* 6 12.59
4A-4B Newport 8.8* 5 11.07
7A-7B Newport 1.0* 4 9.49
9A-9B Newport 21.3 5 11.07 bA-lOB Newport 180.4 7 14.0? ilL-biB Newport 94.9 6 12.59
* Not significant. table 3, an increase of over a million pounds from thu
1953 landings. The Astoria percentage of the total landings decreased to 39 per cent, 2.4 million pounds, while Newport and other ports received 61 per cent, 3.7 million pounds, of the mink-food whole fish. The increased landings of mink-food at Newport in 1954 were due mainly to 12 months of operation by the Oregon Fur
Producers Association's plant. In 1953 the plant did not OREGON TRAWL LNDINGS FOR MINK FOOD AND FTr.TET MARKETS, 1953 AN]) 1954 TABLE 3 Year Whole Fish Landed for Newport and Mink Food Total LandingsMarketFillet AvailableFillet Scrap for Mink Food 1953 Astoria Pounds Other Ports*2,900,000 Pounds 5,000,000 Pounds 10,400,000 Po'unds 6,200,000 Pounds 1954* Tillamook Bay ax 2,300,0002,100,000 Coos Bay 3,700,000 6,000,000 12,000,000 ?,200,000 34 begin receiving mink-food fish until June. The fillet markets received 12 million pounds of fish in 1954, an increase of 1.6 million pounds over 1953 land- inga. This made approximately /.2 million pounds of fillet scrap available for mink-food, again principally
in the Astoria area, with a total of 1.3 million pounds
of whole fish and fillet scrap available to the fur
ranchers.
Species Composition of the Mink-Food Landin
Results of Sampling
Twenty-one sampleawere taken of fish landed for the
mink-food markets at Astoria and Newport in 1953 during
the months of May through September. Thirteen of these were obtained from nine boats at Astoriaand seven from
tour boats at Newport. In 1954 a total of 40 samples was obtained fromJune
through September at the two ports.Twenty-one samples
were from 19 landings of sevenboats at Astoria, while at Newport twelve landings made by four boatscontributed
19 samples. The numbers and weights of each species in the
individual samples are shown in Appendixes Ithrough IV.
In order to facilitate the analysis ofthe data, all the rookfisbes were grouped together and the fisheswhich TABLE 4 Fish Species SPECIES COMPOSITION OF THE FISH IN SAMPLES TAKEN OF LANDINGS OF MINK FOOD, Numbers of Fish in Mink Food. Samples ASTORIA AND NEWPORT, 1953 Newport Computed. Weight of Fish in Mink Food Samples Newport Dover Sole Numbers 1,0201,843 Astoria Per Cent 14 8 Numbers 1,676 907 Per Cent 2614 Pounds Per Cent1,44?1,110 Astoria 11 8 Pounds Per Cent 837998 1619 PetraleBellinghsmArrowtooth Sole SoloSoleigliah Sole 1,6082,108 6? 1612 1 636120 99 10 2 1,0124,824 59 *Traoe 36 8 720318 90 13 62 RexRockfiehosStarry Sole Flounder 4,911 550 42 *Trace 3? 4 1,916 156 6 *Traoe 30 3 1,3752,455 85 3.810 1 350958 15 *Trace 18 7 Misc.*Total Trace-less Fishes than 0.5 per 13,172 1,023 cent 8 6,356 840 3.3 13,466 1,099 8 1,0135,299 19 SPECIES COMPOSITION OF TBE FISH IN SAMPLES TAKEN OF LANDINGS OF MINK FOOD, Numbers of Fish in Mink Food Samples ASTORIA AND NwkORT, 1954 TABLE 5 Computed Weight of Fish in Mink Dover Sole Fish Species Numbers 2,298 Astoria Per Cent 11 Numbers 1,019 Newport Per Cent 11 Pounds Per Cent2,8'TO Astoria 12Food Samples Pounds Per Cent1,560 Newport 11 EnglishArrowtoothPetrale Sole Sole Sole 2,3112,356 1'?'? 11 1 2,594 925 92 1027 1 6,9302,026 194 29 19 4,669 421 88 35 13 StarryRexBelllngham Sole Flounder Sole 1,5268,4551,045 41 75 1,533 619 7 raee16 6 3,0524,228 522 1318 2 248460 29 raoe 32 RockfisheeTotalMisc.* Trace--less Fishes than 0.5 per cent 20, 8121,5881,256 67 1,9309,632 913 20 9 23,5941,3352,439 10 6 14,222 1,9434,804 1433 37 generally amounted to less than five per cent of the total number, with the exception of petrale sole, were grouped as miscellaneous fish. A eunmiary of the numbers and. weights of the major species and. groups of species compiled from the samples in 1953 and 1954 are given in tables 4 and 5. In 1953 at Astoria, 13,172 fish comprising 29 species were counted in the samples. Of these, rex sole amounted to 3? per cent of the total, more than twice the next most numerous species, Bellingham sole. Over one third of the sampleweights,13,466 pounds, was attributed to arrowtooth sole which amounted to twice theweight, 18 per cent of the total, for rex sole, second in rank by weight. The Newport samples in 1953 were composed of28
species totaling 6,356 fish.Aat Astoria, rex sole was most numerous, 30 per cent, followed by Englishsole,
26 per cent. Byweight,Dover sole was the dominant single species with 19 per cent of the 5,299pounds
sampled.Rex sole and English sole contributedalmost as much with 18 and 16 per cent of the weightsampled. The sampling program expandedin 1954, resulting in
a total of 20,812 fishof 38 species counted. in Astoria. Again rex sole was found to be the most numerousspecies,
accounting for 41 per cent of the total,which amounted 38 to almost four times the number8 of each of the threenext most numerous species, Dover, Engll8h, andarrowtooth solos each comprising 11 per cent of the fishsampled..
Despite the large numbers of rex sole, theyamounted to only 18 per cent of the 23,594 pounds of fishsampled. Arrowtooth sole, larger insize than rex sole, contributed 29 per cent, Dover sole, 12 per cent, and.ng1i8h sole, nine per cent. Fewer samples were obtained. at Newport where9,632 fish were counted.,representing 30 species of which arrowtoothsole and assorted rockfiabes totaled 27and 20 per cent respectivelyof the numberscounted. These fish accounted f or two-thirds of the weight of'the 8amplea with the rockfishea being slightly greater.
Total Landings by Species
The number of pounds for each of themajor species landed. for mink-food in Oregon in 1963and 1954 as computed. from the samples are shown intables 6 and 7, respectively. Over a million pounds ofarrowtooth sole, 22.7 per
cent of the total landings, wassold for mink-food in
1953. In 1954 almost two millionpounds of arrowtooth sole wore landed. for mink-foodwith an increase to 31.5 per cent of the totallandings.Thisspecies was 39
TABLE 6 CAIULATED WEIGHTS BY SPECIES OF THE TRAWL FISH DELIVERED FOR MINK FOOD IN OREGON, 1953
Species Astoria Newport Total and Others Pounds Pounds PoundsPer Cent
Dover Sole 167,065 547,090 714,155 14.7 English Sole 229,714 460,707 690,421 13.9 Petrale Sole 8,355 57,588 65,943 1.3 Arrowtooth Sole 751,791 374,325 1,126,116 22.7 Bellingbm Sole 167,065 172,765 339,830 6.8 Rex Sole 375,895 518,296 894,191 18.0 Starry Flounder 208,830 8,638 217,468 4.4 Rockfishes 20,883 201,559 222.442 4.5 Misc. Fishes 158,710 538.453 697,163 140
Total 2,088,308 2,879,421 4,967,729 40
TABLE17 CALCULATED WEIGHTS BY SPECIES OF THE TR&WL FISH DELTJERED FOR MINK FOOD IN OREGON, 1954
Species Astoria Newport Total and Others Pounds Pounds PoundsPer Cent
Dover Sole 2'?6 ,555 411,854 688,409 11.4 English Sole 207,416 112,324 319,740 5.3 Petrale Sole 23,046 37,441 60,487 1.0 Arrowtooth Sole668,342 1,235,563 1,903,905 31.5 Bellingham Sole46,093 112, 324 158,417 2.6 Rex Sole 414,83 74,883 489,716 8.1 Starry Flounder299,602 7,488 307,090 5.1 Rockfishos 138,277 1,235,562 1,373,839 22.7 Misc. Fishes 230,463 516,690 747,153 12.4
Total 2,304,627 3,744,129 6,048,756 41 dominant in the Astoria landings for both years and in
Newport during 1954. The most numerous species of fish landed for mink- food at Astoria in 1953 and 1954 and at Newport in 1953 was rex sole. By weight it ranked second in the total landings in 1953 with 894,000 pounds, 18.0 per cent. In
1954 the total landings of rex sole were reduced to 490,000 pounds, contributing only 8.1 per cent to the total landings. This was due to the decrease In the landings of this species at Newport. Dover sole regularly occurred in the mink-food landings in the two years studied. In 1953, 714,000 pounds were landed, 14.7 per cent of the total;and. in 1954, 688,000 pounds, 11.4 per cent of the total, were landed. English sole accountedfor alittle more than 690,000 pounds, 13.9 percent, of the 1953 mink-food landings but dropped to about 320,000pounds, 5.per cent, in1954.The results of the samples showed a decrease in English sole in the mink-foodlandings at both Astoria and Newport in 1954, butmoat of the decrease was due tothe reduction in Newport landings.Probably ire English solo werelanded at Newport than is indicated here, but insufficient samples wereobtained to substantiate this supposition. 42
Starry flounder was notedprimarily in the mink-food deliveries at Astoria. The total for both ports accounted for 4.4 per cent, 217,468 pounds in 1953and for 5.1 per cent in 1964, 307,090 pounds.
Bellingham sole accounted for 6.8 per cent, 340,000 pounds of the fish landed in 1953, with approximately equal amounts delivered to both ports. In 1954 less
Bellingham sole was found in the mink-food landed at
Astoria, 46,000 pounds, than at Newport, 112,000 pounds. The total landings of Be].lingham sole in 1954 amounted to a little over 158,000 pounds, 2.6 per cent. Rockfishes were of considerably more importance in the Newport mink-food landings than at Astoria.Only 21,000 pounds were delivered atAstoria in1953 while about 202,000 pounds were landed at Newport.In 1954the same pattern prevailedalthough the Astoria landings increased to 138,000 pounds whilethose at Newport jumped to 1,236,000 pounds. The total landingsofmiscellaneous fish amounted to about 700,000 pounds, 14.0 per cent, in 1953 andto about 750,000 pounds, 12.4 per cent, in 1954. By weight the Newport landings of miscellaneous fish in the mink-food deliveriesamounted toconsiderably morethan twice the weightof miscellaneous fish landed at Astoria. 43
Size Composition of the Dover, English az. Petrale Soles
The 1953-54 relative length-frequency distribution of the Dover sole measured in the samples of mink-food landings at Astoria and Newport and the fillet market landings of Dover sole are presented in Appendix V.These distributions are graphically compared in figure 1.Only 15 Dover sole from one sa1e were measured at Newport in 1953 and. these were not included in the graph.
Dover Sole
The Dover sole in the mink-food landings at Astoria in 1953 ranged from 18 to 60 centimeters in lengthwith the mode at 36 centimeters.A considerable proportion, 48 per cent, of the total numbers of mink-food Dover solo was smaller than the minimum size requiredby the fillet markets. Asmall proportion, 11 per cent, of thefillet market fish was also smaller than the discardlength since some marginal fish are unavoidablykept by the fishermen while sorting the fish at sea.The fillet market fish ranged from 28 to 66 centimeters in length with themode between 38nd40 centimeters. The Dover 8010 in the 1964 mink-foodsamples were a little larger than in 1953 with themode at 38 centi- meters. The range was about the same, 18 to 62centi- meters. Only 29 per cent of the fish measured were 44
smaller than the discard length. The fillet market Dover 8010were also slightly larger with the mode at 40 centi- meters. The size distribution curve of the Dover sole measured in the uiink-food samples at Newport in 1954
corresponds roughly to the size distribution ofthie
species delivered to the Astoria fillet markets. The size range, 24 to 60 centimeters, of the Newport fish is from
one to two centimeters to the left of that found in the Astoria fillet market fish as depicted in the graph.
English Sole
The 1953-54 relative length-frequency distribution
of the English sole measured in the samples ofmink-food landings at Astoria and Newport are graphically compared
in figure 2, with the combined relative length-frequency distribution of the fillet market samples of English sole
taken in 1948 through 1951 as applied to thenumbers of English sole landed in 1963 and 1954. This graph was
drawn from the size distributions ascompiled in
Appendix VI. The size range of the English sole in theAstoria mink-food in 1953 ranged from 14 to 51 centimeters as
compared to the 22 to 54 centimeter size rangeof the
fillet market fish.The English sole measured in the Newport samples were considerably smaller,16 to 40 45 Maod Lsth 1953 As tarts )tnk Food 0
Aatcria lust Fish P?,695
S
0 16 20 24 2 32 40 444 52 56 6064 Astoria fink Food 0- 1954 12,298 15 --0-- .p I.port fink Food 0 .. N1,016 . AatoriaFillet Fi.h.o.. 0o d N5,16 'I '40 '9 '4'O 'S'S I F . 'I'4'. lb O%.O.
0's'I I I I "a 24 2 32 36 40 44 52 56 60 64 Lsgth in C.tin.t.rs P1gm. 1.Rolsti Length-Prsqusb M.tributios, (houp.d by Two's, of th. Du Solessanr.d in Sanpi.. of fink Food and Fillet )rket Landings.
- ., 47 centimeters, than those measured in the Astoria mink-food. It should be noted, however, that the English sole in only one sample were measured at Newport in 1953. This distribution is bimodal at 20 and 26 centimeters as compared tothe single mode at 32centimeters in the size distribution of the Astoria mink-food English sole.The modes in both of these distributions are several centi- meters less than the mode at 36 centimeters of the fillet-market English sole. This is further emphasized when it is noted that about 61 per cent of the Astoria mink-food English sole and 96 per cent of theNewport mink-food English sole wore smallerthan the 3centimeter fillet market discard length. Sixteen per cent ofthe fillet-market Englishsole were also smaller than the discard length. The size rangeof the English sole delivered for the fur ranchers in the samples taken at Astoria in 1954 were shorter, 20 to 50 centimeters, than those measured in
1953. This species in the Newport samples in 1954, however,ranged from 14 to 52 centimeters in length. The Newport size distribution was again bimodal as in1953 but the modes at 22 and30 centimeterswere caused by larger fish than was the case in 1953. The mode of the Astoria mink-food English sole distribution, between 32 and34 centimeters, likewise shows an increase in the aiziof 48 the English sole in the 1954 samples over those sampled in 1953.This 1. reflected in the smaller percentage, 47 per cent at Astoria and82 per cent at Newport, of the numbers of English solo smaller than the discard size.
Petrale Sole
Comparatively few petrale solewore measured in the mink-food samples at Astoria and Newport in 1953 and 1954 as can be seen in Appendix VII. Because of thIs the distribution curve Is erratic as illustrated In figure 3. Nevertheless, a rough estimation can be made ofthe size distribution of petralo solemeasured inthe mink-food samples.The fillet market size distribution is of petrale sole sampled in 1948 through 1951. Those measured in the mink-food samples taken atAstoria indicated a mode of 30 eentiters on the distribution curve with approxi- mately 73 per cent of the fish less than the 33 centimeter discard size. The peak of the fillet market distribution curve occurs at 38 centimeters with 10 per cent of the fjah less than the discard length.The petral. sole measured in the1954 mink-food samples at Astoria were larger in size as was noted to be true of the Dover and
English sole in the 1954 samples. The mode of the petrale sole measured In the 1954 mink-food samples occurred at 52 centimeters and only 52 per cent were smallerthan the 49
30 Disod L.ngth 2? 1953 £atsrts E 7.Sd t
24. *M 21 I' 1z14a flhl$ Ttsh ....
0 S 0' . S o 4 S . SI . SI 0 4 S S 6 0 So. I I 0 S
:3 0.0 -S \ \b'!0c.O 0 I /1 16 20 24 a 32 36 4044 4 52 56 60 21 195.4 A.tcri* Mink Food
ie 4 S I.,p.rt Mink Food J15 oS istaria Piil.t Fish "o" 12 '. (194$.1951) 3 S 149- 'I . I 04. I . I S 0, 6. I 5) S I Pr. I,S S 0 0 : S .A 3. S : p .01 ' # SI 0 52 5660 16 2O242S%4O444L.mgth in C.ntia.tars Figurs 3 Rdativ L.t.h-7rsqnsocy Diatribstion,Grouped by No' a, of Petrel. Sole Ns..nr.d in $i.. of Mink Food andFilistrk.t landings. 50 minimum fillet aizø. The petra].. sole in the Newport mink-food samples in 1953 and 1954 appeared to have a fairly wide distribution generally between 16 and. 52 centimeters.
SOME EFFECTS OF THE MINK-FOOD FISHERY ON THE TRAWL FISHERY PRODUCTION OVER A TEN YEAR PERIOD
Production Increase Over a Ten Year Period
Fish Required
The amount of fish, whole flab and fillet scrap required for mink-food Is in direct proportion to the
numbers of ranch mink produced in the state. The amount of whole fish required by fur ranchers depends to a large extent on the amount of fillet scrap available for mink-
food. The relationship of these factors over a ten year period, 1945 through 1954, are shown in table 8.
Numbers of Mink on Oregon Ranches
The numbers of minkon Oregonranches have almost quadrupled. from an estimated 56,300 in 1945 toabout
204,000 in 1954.The landings of fillet market fish bye fluctuated from a high of 26.0 million pounds In1945 to
a low of 10.4 million pounds in1953. The amount of available fillet scrap varies directly with theamount of THE OOMPuTu NUMBERS OFOF MINK FISH ONAVAILABLE OREGON RINCHES AND REQUIRED AND TIrE FOR CALCULATED MINK FOOD POUNDS IN OREGON, 1945 - 1954 TABLE 8 Year Thousands Mink of Fillet FishPounds Landed of Whole Millions of Fillet MillionsScrap ofAvailable Pounds forof PishMink Food Whole Fish Total Millions of Fish Requiredfor Mink Food Calculated of Pounds 1948194'?19461945 68.590.679.056 3 14.120.125.526 0 12.115.315.6 8.5 Unknown 3.32.8 Unknown 11.315.4 6.96.04 5.23 195019491951 128.2 91.499.9 16.022.020.2 13.212.1 9.6 4.52.0 15.214.1 9.87.67.0 195319521954 171.6141.3203.5 12.010.421.3 12.8 7.26.2 6.25.02.0 11.214.813.4 15.513.110.8 52 the fillet landings. Until 1953 the fillet scrap alone would have been adequate provided the supply was constant,
However, some whole fish were needed to fill in the periods of short supply of fillet scrap and to balance adequately the diets of mink.A few fur ranchers preferred to use only whole fish whenever possible.
Fish Available
Fish delivered for mink-food was not reported assuch before 1953. The estimates of whole fish available for mink-food for 194'? through 1952 were computed primarily from the results of questionnaires submittedto the mink
ranchers (10, p. 311-317).These indicate that between two and four and a halfmillion pounds ofwhole fish were delivered for mink-food in those years. It can be noted
that the amount of whole fish requiredby the fur ranchers is in inverse proportion to the amountof fillet scrap
available. The total poundsof fish required for mink-food are calculated estimates as explainedpreviously.They are
subject to some errors, oneof which is that the same proportion of fish was computed asused in the mink diets
in all ten years. This is somewhat doubtful forthe years previous to 1950. It is believed, however, that the estimates from 1950 through1954 are reasonably 53 accurate.This being the case, it appears that there were insufficient amounts of fish, about two million pounds each year, delivered for mink-foodin 1955-54. It is known that some fish was imported. for mink-food inthose years, but probably not the amountind.icated.An alternative explanation was that not all of the mink-food whole fish was reported to the state.This was known to be the case.
Intensity of the Mink Food Fishery
By Boat and. By Month
All but two vessels of the Oregon trawlfleet of 40 boats in1953 reported at least onelanding of whole fish for mink-food.There were 34 boats fishing regu- larly out of other Oregon ports, mainlyNewport The boats deliveredthe mink-food to borne ports except for three Astoria boats which were forcedinto Newport by
storms and made one landing each there.
The 1953 distributions, bymonth, ofthe landings of rnink.food at Astoria and.Newport are presented in table 9.About 92 per cent of themink-foodwas landed from April through October.The Newport boats did not start fishing regularly formink-food until June and no landings were made in December.The four boats fishing out of Newport, with the threedeliveries of the Astoria DISTRIBUTION OF THE LAiDINGS OF MINK FOOD BY MONTH AT ASTORIA AND NEWPORT, 1953 TABLE 9 Month LandingAstoria MinkNumber Food of Boats 2 Newport AstoriaNumber of Landings of Mink Food2 Newport Astoria 8,460 Pounds of Mink Food Landed Newport None Total8,460 Per Cent Trace Feb.Jan.Mar. 2025 7 593913 450,905201,54069,095 None 450,905201,54069,095 941 Apr.JuneMay 151016 46 113635 1425 394,928263,063 56,830 726,689306,333 None 783,519394,928596,396 1612 8 Aug.JulyOct.Sept. 11 7 445 213024 182225 135,565205,271209,360 632,942577,176540,944 750,304768,507782,447 161615 Dec.Nov.Total 7 4 291 1110 105 1 2,088,308 71,76121,530 2,813,464 4,901,772 29,380 101,141 21,530 Trace 2 DISTRIBUTION OF THE LA1DINGS OF MINK FOOD BY MONTH AT ASTORIA AND NEWPORT, 1954 TABLE 10 Jan.Month AstoriaLanding MinkNumber Food of Boats 9 Newport 2 AstoriaNumber of Landings 12of Mink Food Newport 2 Astoria105,255 Pounds of Mink Food Landed Newport 87,765 193 020Total Per Cent 3 Apr.Mar.Feb. 1118 6 14 2132 9 832 213,'75973,13820,267 88,63584,823 5,535 108,902157,961219,294 342 MayJune 685 454 1921 7 232221 121,698370,578 30,850 519,270544,85054,395 656,093915,428550,120 151]. 9 Sept.Aug.JulyOct. 495 4 2146 8 2124 7 953,583109,138292,976 715,097172,455559,810 1,868,680 852,786281,593 1428 5 Dec.Nov.Total 63 13 216 12 8 140 3.6 2,399,700 61,18547,273 3,541,490 188,39040,465 5,941,190 101,650235,663 24 56 boats there, made 105 landings totaling a little over
2.8 millionpOund8of fish. At Astoria 32 boats made 291 landings totaling about 2.1 million pounds of fish for mink-food. The Astoria boats averaged a little over 7,000 pounds per landing compared to about 27,000 pounds per lathing by the Newport boats. In 1954 landings of mink-food were mad. throughout the year at both Astoria and Newport but due to poor fishing weather a smaller proportion of the landings were made in April and Octoberas shown in table 10.Eighty- four per cent of the mink-food fish was landed from April through October with approximately twice as many fish landed in August as in any other month. At Astoria 26 boats made 216 landings of mink-food totaling about 2.4 million pounds in 1954. As in 1953 the four Newport boats landed substantially moremink- food, 3.5 million pounds in 140 landings, than the Astoria boats. There were two deliveries at Newport by Astoria boats. The average weight of the Astoria landings increased to 11,000 pounds, while the Newport average pounds per trip decreased to 25,000 pounds. The total pounds of mink-food landed by eachboat that delivered mink-food in the Astoria area in1953 and.
1954 are shown in table 11.The largest annual landing by a single boat in 1953 was about175,000 pounds while 57
TABLE 31 AVERAGE ANNUAL WEIGHT OF MINX FOOD FISH LANDED BY EACH OF THE ASTORIA TRAWL VESSELS IN 1953 AND 1954 AND THE NUMBER OF LANDINGS BY EACH VESSEL
Boat No.Pouzs of Mink Number of Average Weight of Food. Landed Landinga Landinga 1953 1954 19531954 1953 1954 1 118,205 13,695 10 4 11,821 3,423 2 15,900 0 3 0 5,300 0 3 90,950 0 8 0 11,369 0 4 39,820 31,478 4 3 6,655 lO,492 5 48,719 87,010 9 11 5,412 7,910 6 17,935 15,789 2 7 8,967 2,255 7 7,125 0 1 0 7,125 0 8 15,785 0 4 0 3,944 0 9 81,380 69,510 6 2 13,563 34,755 10 122,287 15,000 9 1 13,563 15,000 11 125,140 0 7 0 17,87? 0 12 29,163 23,600 5 5 5,832 4,720 13 34,008 0 6 0 5,668 0 14 7,620 72,772 2 19 3,810 3,830 15 112,362 645,973 11 31 10,215 20,837 16 69,543 22,852 19 4 3,660 5,713 17 25,585 0 3 0 8,528 0 18 74,630 204,452 14 24 5,331 8,519 19 174,625 418,068 1 20 10,272 20,903 20 65,150 234,380 12 10 5,429 23,438 21 105,188 34,730 16 3 6,574 11,57? 22 15,255 9,134 4 3 3,814 3,045 23 12,015 33,195 5 8 2,403 4,149 24 104,155 41,223 25 10 4,166 4,122 25 24,500 25,261 3 4 8,167 6,315 26 12,200 57,603. 1 6 12,200 9,600 2? 140,775 2,368 11 2 12,798 1,184 28 130,863 112,280 30 9 4,362 12,475 29 37,665 0 5 0 7,533 0 30 96,606 84,36? 18 13 5,367 6,490 31 33,550 0 3 0 11,183 0 32 99,604 89,790 18 9 5,534 9,977 33 0 21,205 0 1 0 21,205 34 0 10,105 0 2 0 5,052 35 0 2,862 0 5 0 4,772
Total 2,088,308 2,399,700291 216 58 the largest in 1954 was 848,000 pounds made by another boat.There were 12 boats in 1953which each landed more than 90,000 pounds of mink-food and in total accounted for
68per centof the landingsat Astoria.In 1954 six boats, landing more than 90,000 pounds each, accounted for
67 per cent of the Astoria mink-food landings. Two of the six boats accounted for 44per cent of the Astoria mink- food landings.The highest average landing per boat in
1953 was about 18,000 poundscompared with 35,000 pounds in 1954. The mink-food landings In Astoria in 1953ranged from 500 pounds to 40,000 pounds per trip ascompared to
300 pounds to 50,000 pounds in 1954.At Newport the individual landings ranged from 1,000 to 65,000pounds with an average of 26,800 pounds in 1953, while in1954 the landings ranged from 900 pounds to 56,000pounds with an average of 25,300pounds per landing.
Incidental Compared to Active Mink-rood Fishing
As has been mentioned, the four boatsfishing out of Newport which landed nearly all of themink-foodat that port had markets only for mink-food.None of the Astoria boats fishedexclusively for mink-food.However, manyof them actively sought mink-food Inconjunction with catches for the fIllet markets in contrast tosaving mink-food caught incidentally in thefillet market fishery.A few 59 of the Astoria boats fished exclusively tc' mink-food during part of the year.
The distributions of the proportions of ininkfood. in landings which contained both mink-food and fillet market fish at Astoria are very similar for both .ara as illustrated in figure 4. There appears to be three groups in the distributions as follows: incidsntal mink-food fishing,inwhich the mink-food amounts to less than 46 per cent of the landing (the landings are grouped by five percentage points); actively fishing for mink-food, in which the mink-food constituted from 51 to about 80 per cent of the landings; and. exclusively fishing f or mink- food, in which thelandings were composed of more than 80 per cent mink-food.The percentages of the landings that fall into each of the three groups are trikingly similar for 1953 and 1954 in that 46 and 45 per cetit, respectively, of the mink-food landings were fish caught incidentally during fillet market fishing; about ?5per cent, both years, of the mink-food landings were from fishing trips in which the animal food was activelysought in conjunction withfillet market fishing; and 29 and 30 per cent, in the two respective years,of the landings were from trips made almost exclusivelyfor mink food. 'r.tsl 4. GrouPe' b yt.") h.tOt, Poe' the 7rOpO 'jO TrtP of .e' 1954. 90 61
On Fishing Grounds
The fishing ground.e utilized the heaviest for mink- food in both 1953 and 1954 were located generally within a 20 mile radius of the mouths of the Colum.a and. Yaquina rivers.This included area II, defined as the fishing grounds off Astoria between the mouth of Willapa Bay and. Tillamook Rock; and area IV off Newport, located b.tw.en Cascade Head and Heceta Head. Approximately 88 per cent, 1.8 million pounds, of the fish sold for mink-food at Astoria in 1953 were taken from area II with the remaining percentages about squally divided among the other four areas, table 12.At Newport in 1953, table 12, about 72 per cent, 2.0 million pounds, of the mink-food deliveries were from catches made in area IV.The fishing grounds south of Heceta Head, areaV, supplied approximately one-fourth, 0.7 million pounds, of the Newport mink-food.No Newport boats ventured north of the Columbia river.The origin of the catch of a little over three and one per cent of the poundage delivered to Astoria and Newport respectively could not be determined. The weight percentage distributions by areas of the mink-food delivered at Astoria in 1954, table 1, were very similar to that in 1953.Area II produced 87 p.r cent, 2.1 million pounds, with the other areas THE DISTRIBUTION BY AREA CAUGHT OF THE CATCH ANI) LANDI NUS OF TABLE 12 *Are a Astoria Per Land- Per TRAWL FISH FOR MINI( FOOD, NewportPer Land- Per OREGON, 1953 Total Land- Per Area III 1,829,780 87.6 Pouxda 64,375 Cent inge 3.1 255 12 Cent87.6 4.1 Pounds 30,159 Cent ings 1.1 2 Cent 1.9a a 1,859,939 38.0 Pounds 64,375 CentPer 1.3 ings 257 12 64.9Cent 3.0 AreaArea III VIV 61,93538,29024,630 3.01.81.2 638 1.02.82.1 2,013,464 '71.6 686,405 24.470,725 2.5 1978 3 18.174.2 2,075,3992.9 42.3 686,405109,015 14 0 2.2 8622 9 21.7 5.6,2.3 TotalUnknown 2,088,308 69,298 3.3 291 7 2.4 2,813,464 37,341 1. 105 3 2.9 4,901,772 106,639 2.2 396 10 2.5 * Area I - North of Willapa BayArea IVIIIVII - - - -South Cascade WillapaTillsmook of Head.HecetaBay Rook to to HeadTillamook toHeceta Cascade Head Rook Head. TABLE 13 Pounds THE DISTRIBUTION BY AREA CAUGHT OF THE CATCH AND LANDINGS OFAstoriaCentPer inge TRAWL FISH Land-FOR MINK Per FOOD, OREGON, 1954 Cent Pounds Newport CentPer inga Land Per Cent Pounds CentPerTotal Land inge Per Cent AreaArea III III 2,085,283 86.7 66,19095,793 4.02.8 183 13 9 84.7 6.04.2 266,67568,500 -- 7.51.9-- -- 10 2 1.47.1 2,153,783- 36.2 332,86595,793 5.81.6 185 1913 52.0 3.75.3 UnownArea VIV 102,001 29,22821,205 1.2 0.94.2 15 0.52.3 2,239,427 879,12387,765 63.224.8 2.5 9729 2 69.320.7 2,260,6321.4 40.0 116,993981,124 16.5 1.9 3498 7 27.5 9.62.0 *Total Area I - North of Wil].apa BayArea IVVIIIII - - WillapaSouth Cascade of BayHecetaHead to to Tlllarnook Head Hoceta Head Rook 2,399,700 Tillamook Rock to Cascade Head 216 541,490 140 5,941,190 356 64 contributing from one to 4 per cent of the volume. The
Newport boats extended their range in 1954, principally to the areas adjacent to area IV.Area IV produced 63 per oent, 2.2 millIon pounds; area III produced about 8 per cent, 0.3 millIon pouth8; and. area V produced 25 per cent, 0.9 mIllion pounds. The per cent by numbers of fishing trips made to each area coincides roughly with the percent volume from each area in both years indicating that noparticularlylarge or small landings ofmink-food wore madefrom any particular area. The relative distributions of the total catchand numbers of landings of mink-food delivered in1953 and 1954 are graphically compared in figure 5.Area I contributed 1.3 per cent of the catch and 3.0 percent of the landings in 1953 compared to 1.6 per centof the catch and 3.7 per cent of the landings in 1954.ThIrty-eight per cent of the catch and 65 percent of the landings were producedfrom Area II In 1953.In 1954 this area produced a slightly smaller percentageofthe total catch, 36per cent, and an appreciable smallerproportion, 52 per cent, of thelandings. AreaIII was a middle ground for the boats from the two ports, and only alittle over 2.0 per cent of the 1953 catch and landingscompared to between 6.0 and 5.0 per cent of the catchand. landings in 1954
66 were taken in this area. The fishing grounds producing thelargest volume of milik-food in both 1953 and. 1954 were in area IV where 42 and. 40 per cent, respectively, of the catches were made. Landings from this area amounted to 22 and 28 per cent respectively in the two years.Area V ranked third after Area II in mink-food production in both years.The fishing grounds off the entrances of the several rivers south of Heceta Head aregenerally fairtrawling groundS but the distances from Astoria are prohibitive for heavy fishing by beats from that port, although some Newport boats fish regularly in that location. Fourteen per cent of the catch and 5.6 per cent of the landings weremade from area V in1953.In 1954 the catch from this area increased to16.5 per cent and the landing. to 9.6 per cent.The areas for 2.5 per cent of landingsin 1953 and 2.0 per cent of the landings in 1954 werenot determined.
Intensity on Dover Bole
As has been mentioned,the total numbers of Doverand English sole caught by theOregon trawl fishery areof primary interest in studyingthe effect of the mink-food fishery on the stocks ofthese species.Of particular importance are the totalnumbers of Dover andEnglish sole landed at Astoria formink-food that are smallerthan the 67 minimum fillet market size length of these speoles.
A little over 2.0 million Dover solo were calculated to have been caught by the Oregon trawl fleet in 1953 as indicated in table 14.Approximately 1.4 million of these were delivered to the fillet market and375,000 were acid for mink-food. The remainder, 351,000, were estimated to have been discarded at sea by the fillet marketfishery as based on studies made ofdiscard at sea in 1950. A total of 469,000 Dover sole which were smallerthan the discard were estimated to have been caught in1953. The mink-food landings accounted for about 118,000 ofthese.
An estimated 351,000 fish of this species werediscarded at sea. In 1954, approximately 3.1 millionDover sole were caught by the trawl fishery.Two-thirds of these, about 2.1 million, were taken for the filletmarket and the remainder was divided between thediscard at sea, 540,000, and mink-food landings, 480,000. The same numbers, approximately 118,000, of Dover sole inthe mink-food landings were smaller than the discardlength as in 1953. The number of the small fishdiscarded at sea in 1954 increased over 1953 to about 540,000. This was due
primarily to the increased catch forthe fillet markets
in 1954. The sire distributionsof the total numbers ofDover 68
TABLE 14 DISPOSITION OF THE CATCH AT SEA OF THE ESTIMATED NUMBERS OF DOVER SOLE CAUGHT IN THE OREGON TRAWL FISHERY, 1953 AND 1954
1953 1954 Total Numbers Total Numbers Numb e i's Sinai ler Numbers Sinai ler Caught than Caught than Discard Discard Length Length
Astoria Mink Food 154,000 74,000 221,000 64,000
Newport Mink Food 221,000 44,000 269,000 54,000 Fillet Market 1,370,000 2,088,000
Discard at Sea 351,000 351,000 540,000 540,000
Total 2,096,000 469,000 3,118,000 658,000
sole, weighted to catch, lathed for themink-food markets and for the fillet markets in 1953 and 1954 areillus- trated in figure 6. The numbers of Dover sole landed for mink-food in 1953 and in 1954 amounted toapproximately one-fourth of the fillet market landings ineach of the respective years.Thirty-two per cent of the mink-food Dover sole landed in 1953 wore smaller in8izethan the discard length as compared to 28 percent in 1954.The fillet market Dover sole in 1954 were alsoslightly larger L.ngth in Cstia.t.ri ?igr. 6.Lmgth-?r.qn.noy Distributiot, Grcup.d by Two's, and U.ight.d to h. Catch, ofth. Tmtinat.d birs of D..r Landd in'qon in 1953 and 1954. 70 than those landed in 1953 as indicated by the modes at 40 centimeters in the 1954 distribution and 38centi- meters in the 1953 distribution.
Intensity on English Sole A comparison of the disposition of the total catch of English sole landed bythe Oregon trawl fisheries in 1953 and 1954 is given in table 15.In 1953 more than three times as manyEnglish solo were landed at Newport, 923,000, than at Astoria, 293,000, formink-food as compared with 831,000 landed in the fillet market. Approximately 831,000 fish of thisspecies were discarded at sea. The calculated total catch of English sole in
1953 amounted to 2.9 million fish.About 1.9 million fish of the total numbers caught were smaller than the discard length of 33centiiters. The mink-food landings at Astoria and Newportaccounted for 179,000 and 886,000, respectively, of these smaller fish.
In 1954 it was estimated in comparison tothe 1953 landings that considerably fewer English solo(247,000) were landed for mink-food at Newport,but, an increase to about 241,000 fish was found in the Astoriamink-food landings. The total numbers of English sole inthe 1954 fillet market landings decreased to725,000. About 725,000 English sole were discarded at seain the 1954 TABLE 15 DISPOSITION OF THE ESTIMATED NUMBEIS OF ENGLISH SOLE CAUGHT IN ThE OREGON TRAWL FISHERY, 1953 AND 1954
1953 1954 Total Numbers Total Numbers Numbers Smaller Numbers Smaller Caught than Caught than Discard Discard Length Length
Astoria Mink Food 293,000 1'79,000 241,000 113,000
Newport Mink Food 923,000 886,000 247,000 203,000
Fillet Market 831,000 725,000 Discard at Sea 831,000 831,000 725,000 725,000
Total 2,878,000 1,896,000 1,938,000 1,041,000
fillet market fishery.A little over one million English sole were smaller than the discard size inthe 1954 catch of this species.The mink-foodlandings at Astoria and Newport accounted for 113,000 and 203,000 ofthese under- size fish. The size distribution of the totalnumbers of English sole weighted to catch landed formink-food and for the filletmarket are shown in figure 7. The smaller mode in the bimodal distribution of themink-food landings is due principally to the numbers of English solelanded at 150
100
0
200
150
100
50
0 1 18 22 26 30 34 38 42 46 50..54 Lsugtb 1* C.mtl..t.r.
P14r. 7,Latb4r.qu.b Maitio, oupsd by Tvo' I, and V.ikt.4 totb. Catoh, of tho ktla.t.d Pib.rs of fr1iah 3.1. Lsnd.din'.gon in 1953 and 154. 73
Newport.The fish landed in 1954 were slightly larger than in 1953 as indicated by the large mode at 32 centi- meters in 1954 as compared to 30 centimeters in 1953.
Also, in 1953, 88 per cent of the English sole were smaller than the discard length while in 1954 only 65 per cent were smaller. This difference is in part due to insufficient sampling of the 1954 mink-food landings at Newport which is refleoted in the smaller numbers of this species calculated tohave been landed for mink-food.
Economic Value of the Mink Food Fishery
The dollar values estimated to have been received by the trawl fishermen for whole fish delivered formink-food and for the fillet markets in 1952, 1953, and 1954 are given in table 16. Thevalue of the fillet market fish is based on an average of five cents a pound andmink-food fish was valued at two and one-half cents apound. In 1952, a year of comparatively high fillet marketproduc- tion, the fishermen grossed approximately$50,000.00from landings of mink-food and over one milliondollars for the fish sold for human consumption. In 1953 the mink- food landings were calculated to be worth$125,000.00 compared with $520,000.00 for fillet market fish. In
1954, as in 1953, the value of themink-food fish, $155,000.00, amounted to approximately one-fourth ofthe CAIULATED MONETARY VALUE RECEIVED B THE TRAWL FISHERMEN TABLE 16 DestinationMarket 1952 FOR FISH DELIVERED IN 1952, 1953,Total AND Pounds 1954 Landed 1953 1954 1952Received by the FishermenComputed Dollar Value 1953 1954 TotalMinkFillet Food 23,300,00021,300,0002,000,000 15,400,00010,400,0005,000,000 12,000,00018,200,0006,200,000 1,115,0001,065,000 50,000 125,000645,000520,000 155,000755,000600,000 75 fillet market fish value, *600,000.00. As indicated in a previous section, the fishermen derive an additional monetary value from the mink-food market indirectly through the sale of fillet scrap for mink-food. It is estimated. that the fishermen receive one-half cent a pound more for the fillet market fish than would have been the case if there were no market for the fillet scrap. In 1952 the indirect value amounted to about *106,500.00 as compared to $52,000.00 in 1955 and
$60,000.00 in 1954, table 17. The ratio of the sale of mink-food fish as compared to the sale of all trawl caughtfish in 1952 was $156,500.00 to $1,115,000.00 while in 1953 and 1954 this ratio was $177,000.00 to $645,000.00 and $215,000.00 to $755,000.Q0, respectively.
Thus in 1953 and 1954 the trawl fishermen derived about
2per cent and. 28 per cent, respectively,of their fishing income from the sale cf mink-food fish as compared to 14 per cent in 1952.
DISCUSSION
Total Production
The sharp increase in landings of trawlcaught whole fish for mink-food in 1953 and 1954 was dueprimarily to
the decrease in the amount of fillet scrapavailable for 76
TABLE 17
CALCULATED TOTAL MONETARY VALUE RECEIVED BY TEE OREGON TRAWL FISKER14E1 FROM SALE OF WHOLE FISH AND FITTET SCRAP FOR MINK FOOD, 1952, 1953, AND 1954
Dollars Received. 1952 1953 1954
*Direct Value $50,000 $125,000 $155,000 *Indirect Value 106,500 52,000 60,000
Total 156,500 177,000 215,000
* Pounds of Whole Mink Food. x 2i *IPounds of Fillet Market Fish x
mink-food.The fillet market landings in 1953 and 1954 dropped to about half of what they were in 1951 and 1952 which was due in part to economic conditions within the fillet marketing industry.The increase in the numbers of mink produced. by ranchers in Oregon and other western states also contributed to the increased demand for trawl fish as mink-food.. In 1953 and 1954 a limited amount, how much is not 1own exactly, of trawl fish, principally fillet scrap, was shipped to out-of-state mink ranchers, but most of the fish was utilized by ranchers within
Oregon. The increased. landings of whole fish for mink-food Pr?
caused considerable controversy among thefishermen about the effect of the mink-food fishery on the stocks of fish used forthe fillet market. A few fishermen took a critical view of otherfishermen who would deliver fish for animal food. The restricted market for fillet fish in 1953 end 1954 caused many of the fishermen to deliver fish for mink-food, sometimes in opposition to their viewpoints.
Individual Species Production
Arrowtooth Sole
Little or no concern was felt overthe deliveries of arrowtooth sole (turbot) for mink-food. Although caught in considerable quantities forthe fillet market in 1943 and 1949 (4, p. 24), it has not since then been used by
the fillet markets. Arrowtootb sole was little used for mink-food before 1952 as mink ranchers considered it too
soft for good mink-food. However, dietstudies involving this species fed to mink on the experimental furfarm at Oregon StateCollege in 1950 (16, p. 81-85) and subsequent years (1) (7), indicated that up to 50 percent arrowtooth
sole could be satisfactorily included in mink diets. These experiments were in part responsible for the dominance by weight of this species in the 1953 and 1954 landings of mink-food.Arrowtooth sole is found in large 78 quantities and at times it is considered a nuisance to the fishermen, on moat of the trawl fishing grounds oft the Oregon and. Washington coasts.The use of thi8 fish for mink-food insures the mink rancher of a stable supply of fish and allows the fishermen to sell greater proportions of their catches.
Rox Sole
Rex sole, the species most numerous in the mink-food landings, is involved to a certain extent in the mink- food versus fillet market controversy.Although rex sole is an excellent eating fish, it is thin andtherefore difficult to fillet.It was accepted only in compara- tively small quantities, less than 400,000 pounds, in each 1953 and. 1954, by the fresh fish fillet producers. Rex sole appears to beabundant in shallower waters, (less than 50 fathoms) off the Oregon coast.It isich sought after for minkfood.
Bellingham Sole
The Bellingham soletaken In Oregonwaters does not attain alarge enough sizóto be attractive to thefillet producers.It is a goodquality mink-food fish but is somewhat seasonal in occurrence since it ispresent in largest quantity during the summer monthsin shallow 79 waters, usually less than 30 fathoms. Bollingham sole 18 generally avoidedby the fishermen since it gills badly in the nets. It has not been fully utilized for mink-rood.
Starry Flounder
Starry flounderaccessible to thetrawl fishery appear to occur in greatest abundance near themouths of thelarger coastal rivers. It Is considered bySOme &8 a good quality fresh fillet market fishbut is not oh sought afterby the Oregon fillet producers. Flounder is also considered a good quality mink-food fish although somewhat difficult to process because of its size and inflexibility.
Rookflsh
Most of the several species of rookfishead.liv.r.d for mink-food are palatable for h'øconsumption but
only Pacific ocean perch, Sebastodes, alutus(Gilbert)
(5, p. 215-216), orange rockfish, Sebastodea,pinniger (Gill) (5, p. 210-212), and thegreen rookfisb, Sobastodes flavidus Ayres (5, p. 207-208), areexten-
sively used for filleting.Of these three species, the orange rockfish and Pacific oceanperch along with the spiny obeeked rockfish, Sebastolobus alascamisBean 80
(5,p 230, 231), and the split-nose rockfish, Sebastodes d.i1oproa (Gilbert) (5,p.217-219), were moat prominent among the rockfishes landedfor mink-food. Moat mink ranchers consider rockfisha very desirable constituent of mink-food rations. In the Astoria area this need is supplied to a large extent by fillet carcasses although some whole rockfiab are utilized. A certain amount of reluctance is displayed by many of the
Astoria fishermen in delivering the important fillet market rockflshea for mink-food. This accounts in part for the smaller landings of rookfishea at Astoria. The
Newport trawl boats fish grounds on which rookfiah species appear to be more diversified and abundant,which accounts forthe dominance of rock.flsbesin the deliveries of mink-food fish there.
Miscellaneous Fishes
The miscellaneous group of fishes noted in th.mink- food landings contained several species of fish alsoused to a limited extent by the fillet processors inOregon. Notable of these are black cod (sablefish),Anoplopoma fimbria (Pallas) (14, p. 170), hug cod,Ophiodon elongtu8 Girard (14, p. 172), and true cod, Gadus macrocephalus Tilesius (14, p. 154). None of these
species are prominent in the annualtotal landings of 81 mink-food.Occasionally, hug cod or black cod. is prominent in anindividual landing. Small black cod, less than 30 inches, are sometimes very susceptible to the otter trawl fishery (2, P. 44) but moat mink ranchers do not like black cod for mink-foodbecause of its extreme oiliness. None of the miscellaneous soles listed in the mink- food samples are used in Oregon for fillet fish. Most of them are not caught in any quantity by the trawl fishermen.Sand dab, Citharichthys sordidas (Girard) (5, p. 308, 309), and slender sole,Lyosetta exilis (Jordan and. Gilbert) (5, p. 314, 315), are too small in size to interest the Oregon fillet processors. Hake, skatesand. dogfish are obtainablein great abundance by thetrawl fishery,but are not used. for mink-food except in very limited quantities. As yet experiments with these species in the diets ofmink on the OregonState Collegeexperimental fur farms have not proven entirely successful(1, p. 3 and '7, p. 3). However, studies are continuing and it ishoped that ways may be found. to use moreof the largepotential
source of animal protein thatcould be provided by hake,
skates and dogfish. 82
Size CompositionandNumbers ofPrincipal Fillet Market Soles
The principalcause of the mink-food versusfillet market fish controversy is the quantities of Dover, English and petrale soles included in the minkfood landings.The stocks of Dover, English and petrale $0108 have declined in the "local area" off the Columbia river
(11, p. 11). This area is heavily fished by both the mink-food fishery and the fillet market fishery out of Astoria. The numbers ofDover, English andpetrale soles caught by the otter-trawl fishery are of concern tothe biologists butof particular interest is the catchof fish smaller than the minimum fillet sizes. The fish in these size ranges form the source from whichbreeding stocks are recruited. It is not likely that anyone species of ocean bottom fish can be completelyannihilated because, principally, oven though otter-trawlingis a very efficient fishing method,there are always areas of rough grounds not accessible totrawling. However, the fishery itself can be destroyed,or nearly so, ifthe stocks offishare reduced to the pointwhere it is not economically practical to fish. This isthe reason for which many of the fishermen object todeliveries of
fillet market species for mink-food. 83
Dover Sole
As noted in table 14, the numbers of Dover sole delivered for mink-food which were smaller than the discard length amounted to about one-third of the numbers estimated to have beendiscarded at sea from the fillet market fishery. All of the Newport landings of Dover sole enter the mink-food fishery.Thus for the two years under study approximately 236,000 Dover sole smaller than the discardlengthwere accounted for by themink-food fishery.This amounted to about '7.0 percent of the numbers of Dover soledelivered to the fillet markets.
English Sole
If a similar analysis is performed on thenumbers of English sole delivered to the trawl markets in 1963and
1954, table 15, it will be found thatapproximately 2.9 million English solo smaller thanthe discard size were caught bythe trawl fishery for the two yearscombined. Approximately1.4 million of these were due tothe, mink- food fishery.This amounts to about 89 percent of the numbers taken inthe fillet market fishery.A large majority of the small English solelanded f or mink-food in the two years under studycan be attributed to landings of one or two boatsat Newport. These boats fished close inshore where largenumbers of small English 84 sole wer, congregated..
it should be noted, however, that the maximum size attained by maleEnglish soleoff Oregon is generally smaller than the discard length imposed by the Oregon fillet processors (10, P. 299, 300).Also, the males often outnimbor the females in the English sole landed. for mink-food. According to two samples of English sole taken in 1953 and to samples taken in 1949 through 1952
(10, p. 306), the sex ratio was at often about 2 males to 1 female,Thus, it is possible thatfrom one-half to two-thirds of the small Englisholelanded for mink-food would not attain filletable size if the 2:1 sex ratio wereconstant.Such a sex ratio is probably not constant throughout theyear in the trawl fishery, but if it were, and the males were deducted from the small English sole attributed to the mink-food fishery, there would still be over 500,000 small English soletaken by the mink-food fishery which could be regarded as potential fillet market fish. The actual discard at sea of the Dover and English soles may be lessthan the numbers presented in tables 14 and 15 as an unknown number of each species weresaved for mink-food from the discard from filletmarket fishing.
Therefore, the estimates ofthe numbers of the species smaller than the minimum fillet size which weredelivered 85 for the mink-food markets should be considered maximum figures and are probably less thanindicated. Even so, it is evident that considerable numbers of these species are used for animal food which would have been available to the fillet market fishery in a few years. On the other hand,alarge quantityofDover and. English sole are discarded at sea, usually dead, which could be better used as animal food if the fishermen could be persuaded to save them.
Petrale Sole
Petrale sole composed only a small portion of the mink-food catch and the numbers of this species in the mink-food landings are inconsequential compared. to the numbers landedforthe fillet market and discarded at sea. Petrale sole is the moat sought after species by the fishermen of all the fillet marketsoles" since the fishermen receive from one and a half to three cents a pound more for this species on the fillet market. One of the reasons f or the small quantities of petrale solo found in themink-food is a 8elf-imposed restriction by the fishermen against delivering this species formink- food.Other possible causesfor thecomparatively few petralesole inthemink-food landings is that there simply were not as many available to the fishery,and the 86 fishermen sort the fish closer. Small petrale sole landed for mink-food other than from fillet market fishing contributes to the decline in the stocksof this species, which are considered in poor condition.
Boats and Lax4ins
The Oregon mink-food fishery was shared In by prac- tically all of the Oregon trawl fleet In both 1953and
1954. The majordifference was that in 1953 the catch was more evenly divided among moreboats than in 1954. In 1954 a few boats out of Astoriafished mainly for mink-food, at least part of the time, thus accountingfor fewer numbers of landings while delivering moremink-food fish than in 1953.
Areas Fished
The boats that fished exclusivelyfor mink-food, such as at Newport, worked ongrounds as close to port as possible in order to reduce trip expenses. Thiswas also
true of boats out of Astoria thatfished both mink-food
fish and fillet market fish. Some boatsthat made longer trips out of Astoria forfilletfish wouldoften make a tow or two for mink-foodoff the Columbia river as they were coming to port. For these reasons most ofthe mink- food fish was caught within a20 to 30 mileradius of the 87 mouths of the Columbia and Yaquina rivers. Since there was no fillet market at Newport of any consequence, there was no competition between fillet market and mink-food fisheries.The "local area" off the Columbia river is rather intensively fished for the fillet markets.The competition offered by Astoria boats fishing mainly for mink-food, particularly in 1954 somewhat increased the mink-food versus fillet market controversy whioh seemed to reach a peak in 1954.
Regulations
As has been mentioned previously the main concern of Oregon Fish Commission biologists involved with trawl research was the condition of the stocks of the Dover, English and petrale soles.Although it is not a part of this particular study, it should. be mentioned that recommendationswere drawn up by the biologists in1954 for theregulationof the mesh size of the nets used by trawlers and for the amount of Dover, Englishand petrale soles to be deliveredfor mink-food.These recommenda- tions were based in part on the 1953-1954mink-food study.In 1955 the Oregon Fish Commissioneffected mesh size regulations on the trawl fishery(Fish Commission General Order No. XX) and. restricted thelandings of Dover, English and. petrale soles formink-food, (Fish 88
Commission General Order No.WI) to 20 per cent of the mink-food landing.This was changed in 1958 to include the total landings from a fishing trip.
Economic Effect
The mink-food fishery in 1953 and 1954 contributed substantially to the income of many of the trawlfisher- men and in lesser amounts to others.For some it Was their main income, and for others it meant the difference between profit and loss. Several speciesof the bottom fish not used for human consumption have been consumed in themink-food market.This allowed for better utilization of the catch and reduced the waste at sea of discarded fish. On the other hand, the mink-food fishery mayhave partly contributed to the depletion ofstocks of Dover,
English and petralesoles, particularly in the "local area" off the Columbia river. In general the Oregon mink-food fisheryhad a bene- ficial effect on the Oregon trawl fisheryin 1953 and
1954. It isbelieved that possible deleterious effects can be reduced throughregulations. It is hoped that the beneficial effects can be Increased throughthe use of
more of the so-called"scrap" fishes for mink-food and through greater utilization ofdesirable mink-food species 89 that are discarded at sea from fillet market fishing operations.
SUMMARY
This stdy was conducted primarily to obtain a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the landings of whole fish for mink-food, by the Oregon trawl fleet in 1953 and 1954. The Oregon trawl fishery for mink-food developed along with the trawl fishery for the fillet market but remained only of very minor importance until after World War II. After 1945, mink ranching in Oregon began to expand and by 1954 estimated numbers of mink on Oregon ranches had increased to about 204,000 from approxi- mately 56,000 in 1946. In their search for an inexpen8ive source of animal protein minkranchers foundanadequate and stable supply in the fillet scrap.The fillet scrap supplemented with some whole trawl caught fish was more than adequate to supply the mink ranchers'needsuntil 1953.In 1953 and 1954 the Oregon trawl landings forthe fillet markets droppedto between 10 and 12 million pounds, about half the poundage landed inprevious years. The consequentdecrease in fillet scrap and the continuing increasein fur farm minkproduotion caused an increase in the demand for whole fishfrom the trawl 90 fishery.The production of whole fish for mink-food increased from approximately 2.0 million pounds in 1952 to 5.0 million poundsand. 6.0 million pounds in 1953 and 1954, respectively.More whole fish was landed for mink-food at Newport, where there were practically no fillet markets, than at Astoria in both 1953 and 1954. The species compositionof the trawl land.ing8 for mink-food in the two years under study was computed from data found In official reoois or Oregontrawl landings and from data obtained by sampling landings oftrawl fish for mink-food at Astoria and Newport.Analysis of these data showed that a large variety of fish species were landed for mink-food but that afew species were dominant as follows: Arrowtootb sole (turbot) -Predominant bytotal weight landed in both 1953 and 1954. Rex sole - Predominant by numbers landed, but econd in importance by total weight landed in 1953 and. fourth in 1954 with a greater dominance in theAstoria landings. Dover sole - Third in importance by totalweight landed in 1953 and in 1954. English sole - Fourth in importanOby total weight in 1953 but decreased to fifth in rank by 1954.
Be11inghasole - Fifth in importance bytotal weight in 1953 but decreased toseventh in rank by weight in 1954. Rockfishes (a varietyofspecies) - Sixth in importance in total weight landed in 9].
1953 but increased to second in importance in the 1964 landings, primarily due to the landings of these species at Newport. Starry flounder - Seventh in importance in 1953 and sixth in importance by total weight landed in 1954.
Petra].e sole - Eighth in importance by total weight landed in 1953 and 1954. Three of the above species of fish, Dover, English andpetrale soles are the dominant "soiea landed for the fillet market.The size composition of these species included in the mink-food landings was determinedfrom measurements of the three apeoie8 in the mink-food samples. The Dover sole landedfor mink-foodranged in size from 18to 62 centimeters; the size of theEnglish sole ranged from 14 to 52 centimeters; and thepetralesole rangedin size from 16 to 52 centimeters. It was estimated that approximately 5.2million Dover sole were caught by the trawl fisheryin 1953 and 1954 combined. Of these, roughly two-thirds, 3.4 million, were delivere4 to the filletmarkets and the remaining third, 1.8 million, aboutequally divided between the mink-foodmarket andthe discard at sea of fish too small, less than 36centimaters in length, to process for human consumption. A little over one- fourth, 236,000, of the Doter soledelivered for mink- food weresmaller thanthe filletmarket discard length. 92
Approximately 4.8 million English sole were caught by the trawl fishery in the combined two years. The fillet market fishery, the mink-food fishery, and the discard at sea of fish le8a than3oentimeters in length each accounted for roughly 1.6 million fish. About 87 per cent of the English sole delivered formink-food were
smaller than the discard length. All but a very few of the boatsin the Oregon trawl
fleet participatedin the 1953-54 mink-food fishery. The Newporttrawlers delivered fish exclusivelyfor fur ranchers.At Astoria many boatsfished mink-food incidentally to fillet market fishing; some boats actively fished for mink-food and fillet marketfish; and a few fished exclusively for theanimal foodpart of the time.The boats in the latter group landed themajority of the fish, particularly in 1954. The fishery formink-food in 1953 and. 1954 was concentratedwithin a 20 to 30 mile radii of the mouths of the Columbia and Yaquina rivers.Each of these areas contributed between 36 and 42 per cent,respectively,
of the trawl fish landed formink-food. The trawl fishermen in both 1953 and1954 derived approximately one-fourth of their incomefrom fishing tbrough the sale of minkfood. In addition, the fishery
for mink-food allowed the fishermento makebetter utilization of the total catch. 94
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adair, John. Mink nutrition research.Corvallis, 1955.5 P.(Oregon.Agricultural experiment station.Department of Fish and Game Management. Progressreport No. 5) Bell, Heward F. and Alonzo T. Prutor. The Washington andOregon eablefish fishery. Portland, Oregon, Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission, 1954.
Clark, G. H.Logs on California trawlers. The commercial fishcatch ofCalifornia for the years 1930-1934, inclusive. Sacramento, 1935. 126 p. (California. BureauofCommercial Fisheries. Division of Fish and Game. Fish Bulletin No. 44)
Cleaver, F. C. (ed.) Fisheries etatisics of Oregon. Portland, Oregon,Oregon Fish Commission. 1951. 176 p. (Contributions No. 16) Clemens, W. A.and G. V. Wilby. Fishes of the Pacific coast of Canada. Ottawa, Fisheries Reaearch Board, 1946. 368 p.
Dahi, F. H.Facts and figures on Oregon's miscellaneous animals 1935-1953. Corvallis, 1954. 8 P. (Oregon State College. Extension Service. Extension circular 574)
Davis, Kenneth G. Mink nutrition research. Corvallis, 1953. 6P. (Oregon. Agricultural experiment station. Department of Fish and Game Management. Progress report No. 4) Dixon, Wilfred J.andFrank J. Massey, Jr. Introduction to statistical analysis. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1951. 370 p.
Hannson, Artur. The physiology of reproduction in mink (Muatela vison Sobreb.) with special reference to delayed implantation.ActaZoologica 28:1-136. 1947. 95
Harry,George Yost,III. Analysis and history of the Oregon otter-trawl fishery. Ph.D. thesis. Seattle, University of Washington, 1956. 328 numb. leaves. MoKernan, Donald L.The biological research program. Portland,Oregon, 1948. 23 p. (Oregon. Fish Commission.ResearchBriefs No. 1, Vol. 1)
Oregon. Fish Conunission. Oregon Commercial Fisheries Code. Portland, the Commission, 1953-1954. 160 p. Rounsefell, George A. and W. Harry Evsrhart.Fishery science - its methods and applications.New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1953.444 p. Schultz, Leonard P. Keys to the fishes of Washing- ton, Oregon and closely adjoining regions. 3d. ed. Seattle, University of Washington, 1948. p. 103- 228. (Washington. University. Publications in Biology, Vol. 2, No. 4)
Trossler,Donald K. and James MeW. Lemon.Marine products of commerce: theiracquisition, handling, biological aspects and the science and technology of their preparation and preservation. New York, Reinhold, 1951. 782 p.
Watt, Phylli Ruth. The effects of certain marine fishes in the diets of mink.Master's thesis. Corvallis, Oregon State College, 1951. 110 rmmb. leaves. 96
APPENDIX 9?
APPENDIX I NUMBERS OF FISH BY SPECIES SAMPLED FROM MINK FOOD LANDINGS AT ASTORIA, 1953
Sample Number 1 2 3 4 Dover sole '73 2 178 63 English sole 35 685 165 152 Petrale sole 6 2 14 2 Bellingham sole 0 1,201 30 591 Starry flounder O 7 0 257 Rex sole 218 0 1,141 449 Arrowtooth sole 668 0 132 65 Flathead. Sole 0 0 56 0 Saud dab 8 56 137 7 Sand sole 0 0 0 0 Slender sole O 0 8? 5'
Black cod O 0 59 0 Dogfish 0 0 0 0 Eel pout 0 0 1 5 Hake 0 0 0 Ling cod 0 1 0 0 Ratfish 0 0 0 Sea, poacher O 0 0 0 Shad 0 0 0 0 Skate 0 0 5 0 Tom cod 0 0 0 0 True cod. 9 14 34 0 Rookfishes S. alutus 0 .0 0 1 L crameri 0 0 5 0 L elongatue 0 0 10 0 S. flavidus 2 1 0 0 .melanops 0 0 0 0 .paucieinis 0 0 1 0 . pinniger 0 0 0 0 Number sampled 1,009 1,969 2,055 1,397 Weight of sample 2,261 1,107 1,117 1,066 Weight of lauding 32,397 29,045 5,075 4,980 Date sampled 5-15-536-17-537-13-538-19-53 98
APPENDIX I (continued)
Sample Number 5 6 7 8 Dover sole 89 79 131 166 English sole 114 10 32 20 Petrale solo 1 0 13 2 Bellingham sole 102 0 0 0 Starry flounder 160 0 0 0 Rex sole 625 163 700 351 Arrowtootb sole 31 24 25 39 Flathead sole 0 2 0 0 Saxdab 1 0 33 10 Sandsole 0 0 0 0 Slender sole 0 1 8 6 Blackeod 1 3 2 2 Dogfish 0 0 1 0 Eel pout 25 0 39 5 Hake 9 0 10 0 Lingood 2 0 0 0 Ratfish 0 0 0 0 Sea poacher 2 0 2 0 Shad 0 0 0 5 Skate 79 3 1 0 Tomcod 1 0 5 0 Truecod 0 20 0 0 Rockfishes S.alutus 0 0 0 0 Lorarneri 0 0 0 0 S. elongatus 0 0 0 0 L flavidus 0 0 0 1 . melanops 0 0 0 0 L Daucispinis 0 0 0 1 . pinniger 0 0 0 0 Number sampled 1,142 545 1,002 608 Weight of Sample 1,076 937 660 607 Weight of Landing 16,010 8,160 4,935 15,740 Date sampled 8-20-538-21-538-24-53 9l53 99
APPE1DIX I (continued)
Sample Number 9 10 1]. 12 13
Dover sole 2? 16 46 40 110 English sole 22 3 369 198 38 Petralo sole 1 0 12 7 7
Bollingham sole 0 18 127 237 2 Starry flounder 0 10]. 25 0 0 Rex sole 319 119 288 201 447 Arrowtooth sole 105 52 93 100 34
Flathead sole 0 0 0 0 0 Sand dab 1 0 0 23 5 Sand solo 0 0 0 2 0 Slender sole 11 8 0 0 4
Black cod 5 5 0 0 6 Dogfish 0 0 0 0: 0 Eel pout 0 0 0 0 5 Hake 0 0 0 0 0 Ling cod 0 0 0 1 2 Ratfish 0 0 0 0 0 Sea poacher 0 0 0 0 0 Shad 0 0 0 0 0 Skate 0 6 51 80 2 Torn cod 0 0 2 5 2 True cod 7 1 3 4 18
Rockfishe a S. alutus 0 0 0 0 0 L orameri 0 0 0 0 0 L elougatus 0 0 0 0 0 . flavithis 5 0 2 1 1 0 . melanops 0 0 0 1 S. paucispinis 6 0 0 0 0 !. pinnier 0 0 3 1 0
Number sampled. 509 329 1,021 901 683
Weight of Sample 663 511 1,203 1,192 593 Weight of Landing 9,360 8,68014,825 8,120 9,320
Date sampled 9-3-53 9-9-53 9-16-53 9-21-539-28-53 100
APPENDIX I (continued)
Species TotalPer Cent Conversion Total Per Numbers or WeightsComputedCent total Weights of Numbers Weight
Dover sole 1,020 7.7 0 1,110 8.2 English sole 1,843 13.9 0 1,447 10.7 Petrale sole 67 0.5 0 59 0.4
Bellingh&ni sole 2,108 16,0 .48 1,012 7.5 Starry flounder 550 4.2 2.5 1,375 10.2 Rex sole 4,911 37.3 0.50 2,456 18.2 Arrowtooth sole 1,608 12.2 3.0 4,824 35.8
Flathead. sole 58 0.4 0.5 29 0.2 Sand dab 281 2.1 0.4 112 0.8 Sand. sole 2 Tx'. 1.0 2 Pr. Slender sole 130 0.9 0.2 26 0.2
Black cod 83 0.6 1.0 8 0.6 Dogfish 1 tr. 6.5 7 0.1 Eel pout 80 0.6 0.1 8 0.1 Rake 19 0.1 2.5 48 0.4 Ling cod 6 0.1 2.0 12 Ratflah 0 0 0 0 0 Sea poacher 4 tx'. 0.5 2 Tx'. Shad 5 Pr. 2.0 10 0.1 Skate 227 1.7 1.70 386 2.9 Tom cod 15 0.1 0.1 2 Tx'. True cod 110 0.8 3.5 385 2.9
Rockfi shea S. alutus 1 Tx'. 0.7 1 Tx'. . crameri 5 Pr. 0.3 2 Tx'. . elonatus 10 0.1 0.3 3 Pr. Lflavidus 13 0.1 3.0 39 0.3 Lmelanops 1 Tx'. 3.0 3 Pr. S. pauciainis 1 Tx'. 4.0 4 Tx'. Lpinnigor 11 0.1 3.0 33 0.2 Number sampled13,170
Weight of sample 12,993
Computed weight of sample 13,480
Weight of landing 196,647 NUIERS OF FISH BY SPECIES SAMPI LANDINGS AT NEWPORT, 1953 APPENDIX II FROM MINK FOOD SamplePetraleEnglishDover soleNumber sole 185 17721 531 132 8 150308 123 15321'7 4 5 5 10 173 196 3 751 4815'7 1,676NumberTotal 907 99 ArrowtootbRexStarryflounderBelllnghaa sole sole 446 071 408 11 305 454 061 815 008 95 01 146 04 227 44 02 1,916 636120 6 SandRocksoleSlenderSand sole dab sole 107 0O0 104 0 331 0 11 035 54 00 11 0 1460 0 602 '731625 LingJackHakeBlack cod.mackeral cod. O0 01 040 00 36 0 12 011 60 37 161 SculpinRattishTrueTomSkateShadSea poachercod. cod. OoO02 13 00O 7003 40O05 003 30 1116 002 4920 032 APPE1DIX II (continued) RockfiSample she Number a S. alutus 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 610 2 0 NumberTotal 10 2 LE. flavidu8brovispiniselongatus. goodieorameridiploproa 0 0 0o 00 00 1210 09 0 1210 09 L flryStiflU8Dinnigerpaucispinis,saxicola. melanoa. rubrivinotus 00 00 070; 00 54 06 1819 009 0 71519 00 DateWeightNumber Sampled ofsampledof Sample landin a 7-15-53 7-22-5329,091 426839 26,3961,097 585 30,4328-1-531,283 780 8-10-53 8-19-5348,274 9-23-531,226 9-23-53 740 44,060 1,340 251 24,192 465620 23,3101,196 730 6,366 Species PerNumbersof CentTotal APPENDIX II (continued) Conversion Weights WeightaComputedTotal WeightPer Cent of DoverRexStarryBellinghamPetraleEnglish sole sole flounder solesole sole 30.110.026.414.3 1.60.1 0.50.91.12.5 958838318998 1589 16.318.619.4 0.36.21.7 SandRookArrowtoothSand dabsole sole sole 0.30.49.50.11.9 0.21.00.40.56.0 720241 25 3 14.0 0.10.54.7 EelpoutDogfishBlackJackHakeSlender codmackerel sole Trace 01.1 03.02.02.5 219 302 Trace 0.104.3 TrueTomSkateSculpinRatfishLing cod cod Trace 0.80.].0.60.3 3.50.11.72.06.0 Trace222 111283 2 Trace 1.60.24.30.2 Species Per Cent APPENDIX II (continued) Conversion Weights ComputedTotal Per Cent Rookfi she. S. alutus . breviapinis Numbersof Total Trace 0.2 0.7 Weights 673 Weight 0.1 of A'.A.L goodie pinnigrsaxicola ., elongatua flavidusauciapinis 0.31.20.20.1 0.34.03.03.5 277 6027 64 0.15.41.2 TotalComputedRecorded numbersweight weightWeight of in landings ofsamplesof samplessamples 225,755 5,1525,221 Sample Number NUMBERS OF FISH BY SPECIES SAMPLED FROM MINK FOOD LANDINGS AT ASTORIA, 1954 1 2A APPENDIX III 2B 3 4 5A SB 6 DoverBollinghainFetraleEnglish sole sole sole 361520 0 60 00 14 142 199 55 59 393 0 231 128824 353 91263]. 20? 1129 2 ArrowtoothRexFlatheadStarry sole flounder sole sole 211537 0 212 57 0 182140 040 430 9823 0 123202 0 129218 018 16214? 20 0 355177 18 00 RocksoleSlenderSandsoleSanddab sole 12 030 128 36 07 6728 71 013 1417 01 07 O05 03 LingoodBolpoutDogfishBlackRatfishHake cod 18 0 0104 004 1400 03 03 005 010 TruecodTomoodSkateShadSeapoacherSkate (large) (small) 003 010 00 018 13 00 18 0122 20 081 902 APPENDIX III (continued) SampleRookfi she ntunber a 1 o 382A 652B 3 0 4 7 5A 0 SB 0 6 0 LS. orameri alutus . elongatusdiploproabroviapinia tiavidusmelanopa o0 0o2 02 02 20 07 13 00 03 0 LLS. nyatiniasaxicolapinnier rubrivinotuspaucispinis o0 117 10 533 030.2 06 085 0 01 0 WeightTotal numbers of samples sampledL app. .b. a].asoanus 855940 0 1,087 665 0 1,061 912 0 959853 0 1,2161,114 301 1,112 '757 0 1,083 879 0 800814 0 DateWeight sampled of landings 6-18-54 5,2*70 6-22-54 23,260 7-20-54 7-21-5423,410 12,135 7-23-5415,530 7-23-54 27,280 0 APPENDIX III (oontinued) DoverPetraleEnglishSample tole Number sole 247 3].7 1 218 228 5 290 649 2 268 1025 137 1136 3 245 9912 5 142 13 40 149480 6 ArrowtoothRexStarryBelling2iam sole flounder sole 118589 9559 2 910 77 02 104452 024 291 50 040 1,279 2555 40 794 461065 0 352 68 0 518 194251 0 SlenderSandsoleSandRookeoleFlatheadsole dab sole 39 10 4012 011 120 500 10 10 10 080 170 17 0 LingoodBakeBelpoutDogfishBlaokcod 0 03 00 00 0 01 03 010'7 SkateShadSeapoacherRatfishTruecodTornoôdSkate (large) (small) 166 16 002 06 03 01 22 0024 21 00 20 002 4718 40 0 APPENDIX III (continued) RookfiSample shea Number S. alutus 7 o 00 0 10 0 11 0 12 0 13 01 14 0 LS. breviapinia flavidue. elongatusarameridiploproa melanops 0o02 00 00 0 0 00 1091 00 1021 Lspp.L mystinisrubrivinctussaxicolaeb.a1asoanua. paucispinis pinniger o0.00 00o 010 0 0 00 10 05 WeightTotalDate Number sampled of sampleslandings sampled 7-26-54 7-28-5441,890 1,2631,348 24,4101,1681,256 7-30-54 20,2001,149 924 8-2-54 7,0001,007 780 8-4-5441,650 8-10-541,1591,578 8-12-54 8-12-54 46,670 1,3051,121 9,9401,120 702 20,000 927986 Sample Number 15 APPENDIX III (continued) 16 17 18 19 Numbers Total PetraleEnglishDover sole sole 171 28 7 206 64 120 '70 4 216 30 5 188493 2,3562,298 117 RezBellinghamArrowtoothStarry sole flounder solo sole 182299 9429 354250 8126 642 9163 3 105575 0 590 599097 1,5261,0458,4552,311 SlenderSanddabRocksoleFlathead sole solo 02 0 10 062 80 03 379 6437 43 EelpoutDogfishBlackSand.soleHake cod 00 00 023 101 0 183 11 63 RatfishLingeodSkateShadSea poacher (large) 20 00 00 02 012 0015 9851 12 TruecodTomcodSkate (small) 104 00 20 0 13 0 00 10 6 456 21 L) Sample Number 15 APPENDIX III (continued) 16 17 18 19 Number Total 8 Rookfishe LL crameriS. breviepinis alutus . diploproa S oo 0o 00 0 0 110 1620 71 LS. melanopemystinis elongatuspinnigerflavidus. paucispinis 0o 0 0 0 05 17131093 2 L!. rubrivinotussaxicola. app. . alas canus 0 946 00 0 944 00 0 20,815 301650 9 DateWeightTotal sampled. numbers of sampleslandings sampled 8-16-54 49,550 936973 8-23-5446,0001,035 8-24-54 21,4401,014 964 8-31-5413,310 1,159 9-2-54 1,11787,3301,157 Species Per CentAPPE1DIX III (continued) C onve ra ion Total Per Cent DoverPetraleEnglish sole sole Numbersof Total 1111.0 3 0.9 Weights 0 WeightsComputed 2,0262,870 194 Weight 12.2 0.88.6of BellingkiamArx'owtoothRexStarry sole flounder sole sole 11.140.6 7.35.0 0.503.002.000.50 6,9334,2283,052 523 2 2917,912.9 4 2.2 SandRockFlatheadSlender 8010 dabsole solesole Trace 0.30.21.8 0.290.420.501.00 159518 193? 2 Trace 0.20.70.1 LingEelDogfishBlackRake pout cod ood TraceTrace 0.10.20.9 7.2706.502.002.502.83 Trace 371 1520 2 Trace 0.11.60.12.2 TrueTomSkateShadSeaRatfish poachercod cod (small)(large) TraceTrace 0.30.10.52.2 4.521.134.76o0.102.00 Trace 307515466 42 TraceTrace 1.32.22.0 Specie 8 Per CentAPPENDIX III (continued) Conversion Weights Computed Total Per Cent Rockfishe a S. alutus Numbersof Total Trace 0.5 5.251.56 Weights 172 6 Weight Trace 0.7of LS. diploproa orameri. elongatusmelanosflavidus. mystini.sbrevispinis TraceTrace 0.40.1 3.004.001.001.20 279 68164024 7 Trace 1.20.30.20.1 L paucispiniapinnigerapp. . rubrivinotus'saxicola. alasoanus TraceTrace 1.40.13.1 1.000.500.984.663.405.23 325295 4452 9 Trace 1.21.40.2 WeightComputed of samplesweightlandings of samples 456,275 23,61022,391 NUMBERS OF FISH BY SPECIES SAMPLED FROM MINK FOOD LANDINGS AT NEWPORT, 1954 APPENDIX IV DoverPetraleEnglishSample sole Number sole 53lÀ 01 36lB 0 104 2 30 933A 21 110 3B 0 624A 01 534B 0 5 004 1684 5 BellinghamArrowtoothRexStarry sole flounder sole sole 268 25 0 265 2? 0 131 22 0 123208 00 210 87 00 66 04 67 07 014 270 5924 0 RookSlender3ai.Sariddab solesole sole 32 0 090 49 00 1051 0 1662 0 0802 902 0 0940 DogfishBlackLingHakeEel pout codcod. 0 0 031 02 02 00 00 00 002 SeaRatfishTrueTomeodSkateSba.d. poacher cod (medium) (small 00 0102 0045 16 007 006 06 03 00 010 RoekfiSample shesNumber 1A lB APPENDIX IV (continued) 3A 3B 4A 4B 5 6 L S.elongatuscrameri alutus diploproaflaviths 10 0o 32 0o2 34 1104 04 105 125 041 1'?? 03 130 03 L!. S. pauciepinissaxioolaspp. pinriipjereb.. rubrivinctue alascanus 15 0o 5111 07 012 0713 15 01 3610 0 431]. 0 437 20 02 00 DateWeightTotal SampledNumber of SamplesLandings Sampled 650404 6-11-5435,140 660443 6 _Q_54 22,070 600365 650529 '1-1-5421,645 650516 600331 7-13-5430,470 650381 7-14-54 41,360 650472 8-4-5416,980 650481 APPENDIX IV (continued) DoverPetraleEnglishSample sole Number sole 217A o 7B36 o0 573 318 4 319A 40 4?9B 60 1OA 17 15 141lOB 56 8 12hA 7T 4 111liB 3826 3812 10 ArrowtoothRexStarryBellingham sole flounder sole 1836 0 1636 00 1,474 07 278 86 0 305 71 0 124 26 00 101 35 010 69 03 132 06 3527 0 BlackRockSlenderSandsoleSand solecod. dab sole 052 03 190 003 1465 01 50 00 20 405 82 180 090 0912 90 EelDogfishLingHake pout cod 001 00 03 010 01 00 02 001 001 0101 Shad.SeaRatfishTrueTomSkate poacher codcod. (medium) (small) o07 03 0016 10 900 0603 103 005 0525 020 06 RookfiahesSample Number 7A 'lB APPEI1DIX IV (continued) 8 9A 9B 1OA lOB hA 11B 12 LLS. diloproa 91UtU8elongatus. crameri. flavidue 104 37 02 150 34 002 00 03 03 012 010 072 40 122 98 002 LS.L pauoispiniaS. rubrivinctussaxicola app. eb.. Dinniger alascanus 36 0072 59 062 0 064 01 48 023 1I 0 o09 13 0 36 80714 WeightDateWeightTotal samplednumber of of samples landings sampled 2'78550 32,5258-5-54 600347 8-6-5429,680 2,292 700 650513 35,3858-18-54 493650 500262 8-19-5420,440 650452 600327 8-20-5424,255 600349 9-8-5411,600 650397 APPEIDIX IV (continued) Spocie8 NumbersTotal1,019 PerNumbersof CentTotal 10.6 Conversion Weights 0 ComputedWeights1,560Total WeightPer Cent10.9 of StarryBellinghamPotraleEnglishDover soleflounder sole sole 1,533 619925 92 7 16.0 0.11.09.6 00.44.20.30 248460421 8829 1.70.23.20.63.0 RockArrowtoothRexS1enderSandSai. sole soledab sole sole sole 2,594 202291 31 Trace27.0 6.42.13.0 1.80.21.00.30.5 4,669 408? 13 Trace32.8 0.30.6 LingEelDogfishBlackHake pout cod. cod 254 10 1435 Trace 0.12.6 10.6 06.52.02.82.0 71].106 33 802 Trace 0.?00.20.15.0 SkateShad.SeaRatfishTrueTomSkate poacher (medium)cod cod (snal1) 5180 1052 Trace 0.501.0 6.00.19.303.5 179744 30 00 1.300.205.2 Species NumbersTotal APPENDIX IV (continued) NumbersofPer Total Cent Conversion Weights WeightsComputedTotal WeightPer Cent of Rockfi she s LL orameriS. diploroaelontus a].utus 359531 1271 3 Trace 0.73.70.15.5 4.01.11.21.01.6 431850 1278 0.16.00.53.00.1 LL flavidus app. eb.. saxicola.pinnier alascanusrubrivinotuspaucispinis 539210 10915054 0.11.00.60.52.25.6 1.00.54.74.95.2 2,641 210254260 1046 18.6 1.50.10.31.8 WeightComputedRecordedTotal numbers of weightweightlandings sampled ofof samples 9,632 321,72014,22311,900 119
APPENDIX V LENGTH-FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION (GROUPED BY TWO' 8) OF TKE NUMBERS OF DOVER SOLE IN MINK FOOD AND FILLET MARKET SAMPLES, 1953 AND 1954 Astoria Mink Food Sanlple8 1953 1954 Cm. Numbers Per Cent Numbers Per Cent 10 12 14 16 18 1 0.]. 1 Trace 20 1 0.1 3 0.1 22 4 0.4 12 0.5 24 9 0.9 21 0.9 26 30 3.1 46 2.0 28 50 5.1 91 4.0 30 92 9.3 120 5.2 32 138 14.0 172 7.5 34 145 14.7 207 9.0 36 164 16.7 313 13.6 38 145 14.7 328 14.3 40 72 7.3 304 13.2 42 51 5.2 211 9.2 44 18 1.8 163 7.1 46 27 2.7 94 4.1 48 18 1.8 80 3.5 50 11 1.1 35 1.5 52 5 0.5 33 1.4 54 2 0.2 27 1.2 56 1 0.1 20 0.9 58 0. 0.0 8 0.4 60 1 0.]. 8 0.4 62 1 Trace 64 66
Total 985 2,298 120
APPENDIX V (continued.)
Astoria Fillet Market Samples 1953 1954 Cm. Numbers Per Cent Numbers Per Cent
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 1 Trace 28 5 0.1 13 0.3 30 58 0.8 45 0.9 32 220 2.9 140 2.7 34 572 7.4 333 6.4 36 980 12.7 559 10.8 38 1,139 14.8 680 13.2 40 1,117 14.5 742 14.4 42 942 12.2 637 12.3 44 727 9.4 525 10.2 46 603 7.8 458 8.9 48 431 5.6 380 7.4 50 291 3.8 255 4.9 52 210 2.7 150 2.9 54 182 2.4 116 2.2 56 128 1.7 80 1.5 58 56 0.7 33 0.6 60 14 0.2 17 0.3 62 1 0.2 4 0.1 64 3 Trace 66 1 Trace
Total7,695 5,168 121
APPENDIX V (continued)
Newport Mink Food Samples 1953 1954 Cm. Numbers Per Cent Numbers Per Cent 10 12 1 14 0 16 0 18 1 20 0 22 0 24 1 2 0.2 26 5 4 0.4 28 4 9 0.9 30 1 36 3.5 32 1 61 6.0 34 0 90 8.9 36 0 128 12.6 38 0 116 11.4 40 1 116 11.4 42 122 12.0 44 108 10.6 46 84 8.3 48 65 6.4 50 33 3.2 52 23 2.3 54 13 1.3 56 5 0.5 58 0 0 60 1 0.1 62 64 66
Total 15 1,016 122
APPENDIX VI LENGTH-FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION (GROUPED BY TWO'S) OF THE NUMBERS 'OF ENGLISH SOLE IN MINK FOOD AND FILLET MABItET SAMPLES*, 1953 AND 1954
Astoria Mink Food Samples Fillet Market Samples 1953 1954 1948-1951 Cm. Nos. Per Nos.Per Nos. Per Cent Cent Cent
10 12 14 1 Trace 16 7 0.4 18 9 0.5 20 16 0.9 2 0.1 22 11 0.6 14 0.6 2 Trace 24 16 0.9 36 1.5 0 0 26 48 2.6 82 3.5 15 0.1 28 175 9.6 164 7.0 77 0.7 30 408 22.3 342 14.5 406 3.9 32 420 22.9 473 20.0 1183 11.3 34 272 14.8 472 20.0 1912 18.2 36 154 8.4 313 13.3 2030 19.3 38 101 5.5 174 7.4 1832 17.4 40 86 4.7 110 4.7 1397 13.3 42 75 4.1 82 3.& 888 8.4 44 22 1.2 53 2.2 499 4.7 46 7 0.4 26 1.1 200 1.9 48 3 0.2 11 0.5 61 0.6 50 1 Trace 2 0.1 12 0.1 52 1 Trace 54 1 Trace
Total 1,832 2,356 10,516
* No Fillet Market Samples were takenin 1953 and 1954. Percentage composition of thecombined fillet rket samples as obtained in 1948 through1951 were used as base. 123
APPEI4DIX VI (continued)
Newport Mink Food. Samples 1953 1954 Cm. Numbers Per Numbers Per Cent Cent 10 12 14 1 0.1 16 9 2.5 26 2.8 18 29 8.0 51 5.5 20 44 12.2 106 11.5 22 31 8.6 116 12.5 24 63 17.4 93 10.0 26 76 21.0 88 9.5 28 60 16.6 82 8.9 30 26 7.2 101 10.9 32 10 2.8 94 10.2 34 6 1.7 58 6.3 36 2 0.6 56 64 38 3 0.8 38 4.1 40 2 0.6 9 1.0 42 3 0.3 44 1 0.]. 46 1 0.1 48 0 0 50 0 0 52 1 0.1 54
Total 361 925 124
APPENDIX VII LENGTH-FREQuENCY D ISTRIBtET ION (GROUPED BY TW' 5) OF THE NUMBERS OF PETRALE SOLE IN M]3IK FOOD AND FITI.RT MARKET SAMPLES*, 1953 AND 1954
Astoria Mink Food Samples Fillet Market Samples 1953 1954 1948-1951 Cm. Nos. Per Nos.Per Nos. Per Cent Cent Cent
16 18 20 2 Trace 22 2 3.3 0 0 24 2 3.3 4 2.3 1 Trace 26 3 5.0 5 2.8 7 0.1 28 13 21.7 15 8.4 64 0.7 30 1? 28.3 32 18.1 259 2.9 32 7 11.7 36 20.3 564 6.4 34 7 11.7 23 13.0 868 9.9 36 3 5.0 19 10.7 1206 13.7 38 4 6.7 12 6.8 1366 15.5 40 2 3.3 10 5.6 1264 14.4 42 9 5.1 1106 12.6 44 7 4.0 755 8.6 46 1 0.6 584 6.6 48 1 0.6 429 4.9 50 2 1.3. 234 2.7 52 1 0.6 118 1.3 54 49 0.5 56 7 0.1 58 2 Trace
Total60 177 8,796 * No Fillet Market Samples were taken in 1953 and 1954. Percentage cOmpO8itiOfl of the combined length- frequencies of fillet inarlcet samples as obtained in 1948 through 1951 were used as base. 125
APPEIDIX VII (continued)
Newport Mink Food BamDlea 1953 1954 Cm. Numbers Per Cent Numbers Per Cent
16 2 2.2 18 8 8.7 20 6 12.5 10 10.9 22 4 8.3 3 3.3 24 11 22.9 5 5.4 26 9 18.7 3 3.3 28 3 6.2 6 6.5 30 3 6.2 9 9.8 32 1 2.1 7 7.6 34 3 6.2 9 9.8 36 0 0 4 4.3 38 4 8.3 10 10.9 40 1 2.]. 6 6.5 42 0 0 3 3.3 44 0 0 0 0 46 1 2.1 1 1.1 48 1 2.1 5 5.4 50 0 0 1 1.1 52 0 0 54 1 2.1 56 58
Total 48 92