Trends in Sport Fisheries, Monterey Bay, Calif., 1959-86

Item Type article

Authors Mason, Janet E.

Download date 10/10/2021 22:03:14

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/1834/26468 Species Trends in Sport Fisheries, Monterey Bay, Calif., 1959-86

JANET E. MASON

Introduction comprising only 9% of the central and depths. The principal rockfishes taken northern California coastline, was the in this region at shallow depths are blue, The Monterey Bay region of Califor­ site of 30% of its marine recreational mystinus; olive, S. serra­ nia (Fig. 1) has been the site of a recre­ fishing effort (Miller and Gotshall, noides; , S. atrovirens; black, S. ational fishery for at least a century 1965). Although shore and pier-based melanops; brown, S. auriculatus; and (Young, 1969). Skiff, pier, and shore­ fishing received the most angler days gopher, S. carnatus, rockfish (Miller based fishing have long been present, of fishing in that period, bottom fishing and Geibel, 1973). There appears to be and since the late 1920's, commercial from boats had the highest catch rates a change in species composition at passenger fishing vessels (CPFV's) (>1 per hour). about 70-75 m in central California, and have provided recreational fishing for Two modes ofrecreational fishing are Miller and Geibel (1973) found yellow­ rockfish in this region (Clark and Croaker, now conducted from boats: CPFV and tail rockfish, S. flavidus; bocaccio, S. 1933). Starting in 1958, the region's skiff fishing. Both fisheries rely heavily paucispinis; chilipepper, S. goodei; recreational fisheries have been the sub­ on an inshore assemblage of about 30 widow rockfish, S. entomelas; green­ ject of the most extensive catch surveys species caught over fairly shallow rock spotted rockfish, S. chlorostictus; rosy in California (Miller and Gotshall, outcroppings (Miller et al. I). Rock­ rockfish, rosaceus; and starry rock­ 1965; Miller and Geibel, 1973; Miller S. , Sebastes spp., constituted the fish, S. constellatus, were the principal et al. I). From 1958 to 1961 this region, most frequently caught species group, species caught by anglers at greater

I Miller, D. J., M. W. Odemar, and D. W. Gotshall. and in the 1960 CPFV fishery they con­ depths. , Ophiodon elongatus, 1967. Life History and catch analysis of blue tributed 85% of the fish caught from are taken by recreational anglers mostly rockfish (Sebastodes mystinus) off central Cali­ central and northern California (Miller in rocky areas <70 m deep, although fornia, 1961-1965. Calif. Dep. Fish Game, Mar. Res. Off. Ref. 67-14, 130 p. and Gotshall, 1965). In the 1959 skiff they are also taken in commercial trawls fishery, rockfish contributed 54% of the at greater depths. Janet E. Mason is with the Pacific Fisheries En­ vironmental Group, Southwest Fisheries Science fish caught. White croaker, Genyo­ Assembling data from several sur­ Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, nemus lineatus, and flatfishes of vari­ veys into a time series provides a way NOAA, 1352 Lighthouse Ave., Pacific Grove, CA ous genera, caught over sandy sea to examine trends in relative abundance 93950. floors, contributed 16% and 8% of the of key species over an extended period. skiff catch (Miller and Gotshall, 1965). Species composition in the skiff and ABSTRACT-Three surveys spanning 28 years were examinedfor changes in species Rockfish caught from CPFV's and CPFV fisheries of the Monterey Bay caught by recreationalfishermenfrom small skiffs accounted for 74% and 20%, re­ region has previously been examined boats (skiffs) and commercial passenger spectively, of the rockfish caught in all only for isolated years (Miller and fishing vessels (CPFV's) in California's recreational fisheries for 1959-61 from Gotshall, 1965; Holliday, 1984) or for Monterey Bay region. As fishing effort in­ creased, the catch ofcertain nearshore spe­ central and northern California (Miller periods of a few years (Miller and 2 cies of rockfish, Sebastes spp., declined. and Geibel, 1973). Thus the CPFV and Geibel, 1973; Reilly et al. ). In commer­ CPFV fishing was conducted farther from skiff fisheries are the principal recre­ cial fisheries, as targeted stocks decline port and in deeper water to compensate for ational fisheries harvesting rockfish in this due to exploitation, fishing boats with declining abundance while most skiffs re­ region, and rockfish are the most impor­ mained in traditional areas close to port. more power or technology often move The trend toward deeper water CPFVfish­ tant species group to these fisheries. ing has been interrupted only temporarily The inshore assemblage of fishes in by increased availability ofnearshore spe­ the Monterey Bay region is composed 2 Reilly, P. N., D. Wilson-Vandenberg, D. L. Watters, J. E. Hardwick, and D. Short. 1993. On cies. Life history characteristics ofrockfish of many different species including at including residential behavior, variable re­ board sampling of the rockfish and lingcod com­ least 25 species of rockfishes, and sev­ mercial passenger fishing vessel industry in cruitment, and natural longevity contribute northern and central California, May 1987 to to a vulnerability to localized overfishing eral of these species can be categorized December 1991. Calif. Dep. Fish Game, Mar. for several species. into groups by their characteristic Res. Div. Admin. Rep. 93-4, 242 p.

57(1),1995 1 to other stocks (Deimling and Liss, 1994). The same is true in recreational fisheries within the confines of accept­ rAilo Nuevo ~PFV subarea able on-board travel time. Examining the catch in subareas of the region and 37°N comparing skiff with CPFY catches re­ Northern veals changes in locations and depths area Santa Cruz local fished by CPFY's to compensate for CPFV subarea declining catches near port. Methods Commercial passenger fishing ves­ sels and skiffs share similar fishing tech­ niques and catch many of the same spe­ cies. CPFY's are operated by hired skip­ Monterey local pers, charge fees to take passengers fish­ CPFV subarea ing, and may be open to the public or Southern chartered by groups. Skiffs include both area 36°30'N privately owned boats launched from trailers at launch ramps and small boats rented for the day with or without out­ rpo;ntsur board motors. Bottom fishing is the LPFV subarea most common fishing technique ofboth skiffs and CPFY's in the Monterey Bay region, and only bottom fishing is in­ cluded in this report. In bottom fishing, the boat does not move under its own power while fishing, and fish are taken Figure I, - Monterey Bay region showing fishing ports, CPFV areas and subareas, and skiff from the surface and mid-depths as well areas. as from the bottom. Trolling, fishing while the engine is moving the boat, is conducted primarily for Pacific , bor and Capitola or were rented from from 1977 to 1986 provide information Oncorhynchus spp., in northern Califor­ fishing shops on the piers or in the har­ on species composition and relative nia, and makes up a small percentage bor, and 95% of the fishing was con­ abundance. These catch surveys were (0.7% for 1959-86) of the total catch ducted within 7 km north or south of combined to allow examination of per year in the Monterey Bay region, Santa Cruz harbor (Fig. 1). In Monterey interannual variability and long-term and is not covered in this report. in the same year, skiffs were launched trends in the species composition. The Monterey Bay region extends or rented at the Monterey harbor and at Logbook Data from Point Ano Nuevo (lat. 3T 07"N, Lovers Point in Pacific Grove, and 90% long. 122° 20"W) to Point Sur (lat. 36° of the skiffs fished between Monterey . Information on fishing effort was 18"N, long. 121° 54"W) (Fig. 1), and and Point Pinos (Miller et al. I ). Larger available from summaries ofCPFY log­ represents the maximum distance trav­ boats and larger engines have extended books submitted to the CDFG. Logbook eled by CPFY's from the ports of Santa the range of skiffs in later years, but data include the number of passengers Cruz and Monterey. Santa Cruz CPFY's most of the Monterey skifffishing is still and the number of fish caught per spe­ generally fished in the northern area, concentrated between Monterey and cies group. Rockfishes were recorded from the edge of the Monterey Subma­ Cypress Point. as one group in the logbook. Unfortu­ rine Canyon north to Point Ano Nuevo. Several different programs have been nately these logbooks are not com­ CPFY's from Monterey fished the conducted by the California Department pletely accurate because not all trips are southern area from the edge of the ofFish and Game (CDFG) to survey the reported and catch is estimated by the Monterey Submarine Canyon, around marine fishes caught in the recreational skipper. Skippers reported 73% of the the Monterey Peninsula to Carmel Bay, fisheries in the Monterey Bay region. actual number of anglers and 71 % of and south to Pt. Sur (Miller and Geibel, Starting in 1947, CPFY logbooks pro­ the fish caught on trips observed by the 1973). Skiffs, restricted by rough seas, vide information on the number of pas­ CDFG in the Monterey Bay region from longer travel times, and smaller gas sengers fishing and the number of fish 1987 to 1991 (Reilly et al. 2). Logbook tanks, fished a more limited area. In the caught in the region, but do not indi­ data are only available summarized by Santa Cruz area in 1964, skiffs were cate individual species of rockfish. region; Santa Cruz and Monterey launched from ramps at Santa Cruz har- Catch surveys from 1959 to 1972 and CPFY's are grouped as one region.

2 Marine Fisheries Review Table 1.-Total fish sampled for species composition by area for CPFV's and skiffs for each sampling program: (N) NCMSFS, Northern California Marine Sport Fish Survey; 1959-72; (C) CCRS, California Cooperative Rockfish and therefore they were presumably Survey, 1977-86; (M) MRFSS, Marine Recreational Fish Statistics Survey, 1979-86. Blanks indicate no data available. under sampled.

Total fishes sampled in the Monterey Bay region Starting in 1979 the Marine Recre­ ational Fishery Statistics Survey CPFV Skiff (MRFSS), funded by the NMFS, sur- Ano Santa Mon- Point Santa Capi- Mon- Pacific veyed species and size of fish collected Year Survey Total Nuevo Cruz terey Sur Total Cruz tala terey Grove in all types of marine recreational fish­ 1959 N 6,714 6,714 31,178 4,688 10,212 16,077 201 1960 N 44,804 7,498 16,817 20,489 1,674 978 197 499 ing along the Pacific Coast (Holliday, 1961 N 18,281 5,252 5,850 7,179 3,894 1,645 1,186 1,063 1984). Species composition from 1979 1962 N 15,009 3,707 5,199 6,103 9,725 3,553 3,121 3,051 1963 N 21,049 3,788 5,255 12,006 14,914 3,374 4,027 6,796 717 through 1986 for skiffs and CPFV's 1964 N 25,475 2,212 5,956 17,307 19,584 6,048 4,530 8,807 199 from the Santa Cruz and Monterey ar­ 1965 1966 N 9,524 872 2.061 6,591 11,326 4,260 2,491 4,247 328 eas were used in this analysis. 1967 N 7,197 702 1,625 4,592 278 11,300 4,437 5,980 883 Two surveys, CCRS and MRFSS, 1968 N 7,312 492 1,721 4,516 583 15,458 3,587 10,266 1,605 1969 N 7,828 417 2,916 4,016 479 16,827 2,856 12,770 1,201 were conducted from 1979 to 1986. 1970 N 8,202 823 1,784 4,816 779 20,063 3,962 16,101 1971 N 7,696 353 1,171 5,736 436 10,670 10,670 During this period the number of fish 1972 N 3,849 750 3,099 8,386 1,750 6,636 sampled by CCRS declined and the 1973 1974 number sampled by MRFSS increased 1975 such that neither survey alone covered 1976 1977 C 7,863 340 1,547 4,635 1,341 the whole period adequately (Table 1). 1978 C 1,873 1,453 420 Species composition estimated for rock­ 1979 C 1,425 31 1,159 235 M 984 43 941 1,388 728 660 fish from the two programs showed 1980 C 1,431 32 1,332 67 M 3,002 34 2,968 1,591 982 609 similar trends in relative abundance, 1981 C 1,365 93 1,194 78 allowing data from these two surveys M 955 44 911 584 244 340 1982 C 868 158 695 15 to be combined for 1979 to 1986. Even M 2,688 362 2,326 1,288 730 558 after combining the two surveys, the 1983 C 1,373 207 1,139 27 M 3,251 622 2,629 2,193 1,032 6 1,155 number of fish sampled in the northern 1984 C 614 86 498 30 Monterey Bay area from 1978 to 1981 M 4,877 946 3,931 4,844 1,803 1,503 1,538 1985 C 609 29 537 43 was less than 200 fish per year, and was M 7,609 1,653 5,956 4,865 1,986 1,523 1,356 1986 C 68 68 insufficient for analysis of species com­ M 6,866 1,968 4,898 3,371 1,590 1,035 746 position (Table 1). ---- Totals 23,1701 26,754 66,382 133,754 4,811 195,123 50,233 29,831 109,925 5,134 In 1977 and 1978 when only CCRS data were available, adjustment for the bias toward rockfish and lingcod in Monterey Bay and Morro Bay areas was CCRS sampling was made. The mean Catch Surveys sampled for species composition (Miller proportion of nomockfish (not includ- Information on the species composi- and Geibel, 1973). Combining informa- ing lingcod) from the combined surveys tion ofthe catch from CPFV's and skiffs tion from these surveys provides spe- for available years was used as the pro­ was obtained from several surveys cov- cies composition data for skiffs from portion of nomockfish for 1977 and ering different time periods. The earli- 1959 to 1972 and for CPFV's from the 1978. For the northern Monterey Bay est survey began in 1959, and data from northern Monterey Bay area from 1959 area from 1982 to 1986, nomockfish the latest survey were available through to 1972 and the southern Monterey Bay averaged 6.7%, and for the southern 1986. Although surveys were not con- area from 1960 to 1972, with the ex- Monterey Bay area from 1979 to 1986 ducted in a few years, compiling the ception of 1965 when no samples were nonrockfish averaged 10.0% of the data from these surveys provides spe- taken (Table 1). number of fish caught. Rockfish and cies composition for 23 of the 28 years. No sampling of recreational fisher- lingcod percentages were proportion- Species composition in recreational ies was conducted in the Monterey Bay ally adjusted. fisheries was determined by the CDFG region from 1973 until 1977 when the The database created from these dif­ from 1959 to 1972 under the Northern California Cooperative Rockfish Survey ferent sampling programs includes spe- California Marine Sport Fish Survey (CCRS) was initiated by the CDFG and cies composition from CPFV's and (NCMSFS) and related surveys. Fish the National Marine Fisheries Service skiffs, expressed always as a percent- species were recorded throughout (NMFS) (Table 1). This survey col- age of total numbers of fish retained. northern and central California from lected information on species compo- CPFV trips in the Monterey Bay region 1958 to 1961 (Miller and Gotshall, sition and length of rockfish and ling- can be divided into two fishing areas for 1965) and from San Francisco to Yan- cod from the CPFV's operating out of the whole time series: Northern (from kee Point for 1962-64 and 1966. In Santa Cruz and Monterey. Species other Ano Nuevo to the northern edge of the other years, 1967-72, only the catch than rockfish and lingcod were not con- Monterey Submarine Canyon) and from skiffs and CPFV's from the sistently recorded in the CCRS survey, Southern (from the southern edge of the

57(1), 1995 3 Monterey Submarine Canyon to Point ranging from 82% to 95% of the catch mean effort was calculated from 6 years Sur). CPFV's travel up to 30 km from at 6.7 to 12.5 rockfish per day. The of surveys (Holliday, 1984). In the port at times to fish at Ano Nuevo or CPFV catch of all species declined from Monterey Bay region, annual angler Point Sur. Data from these distant fish­ 11 to 8 fish per angler per day from 1960 days for bottom fishing skiffs increased ing areas were distinguished from lo­ to 1961. Logbook records include Pa­ from 23,000 to 95,000 and average cal areas in the earlier surveys, but not cific salmon fishing trips, and a higher catch increased from 191,000 to in later years. Therefore, whenever pos­ proportion of effort was directed toward 681,000 fish per year between the sible, four CPFV areas were considered, salmon from 1961 to 1962 and from 1959-61 survey and the 1981-86 sur­ two near port (Santa Cruz and Mon­ 1985 to 1990, resulting in higher vey, a fourfold increase in anglers and terey) and two distant areas (Ano Nuevo catches of salmon but lower catch per in fish landed. Although these surveys and Point Sur). Because private and angler day of total fish since salmon differed in technique, they do indicate rental skiffs usually fish within 7 km of anglers ususally catch only 1-2 fish per a general increase in the fishing effort port, only the near port areas were avail­ day. In 1971 the limit on total rockfish and catch. This agrees with an estimated able, i.e. Santa Cruz (including Capi­ retained per day was reduced from 20 fourfold increase statewide for the same tola) and Monterey (including Pacific to 15 fish per angler, and there was a periods with adjusted data (Karpov et Grove). corresponding drop in catch per angler aI., 1995), and with the 59% increase day that lasted 2 years. Catch per an­ in skiff fishing effort observed from San Results gler day increased between 1979 and Francisco to Yankee Point between Effort 1983. High catch per angler day com­ 1959 and 1966 (Miller et al. I). bined with high numbers of anglers to Logbook data indicate trends in ef­ CPFV Species Composition produce all-time record catches of over fort in the CPFV fishery. Despite a de­ 500,000 fish per year from Monterey Combining data from all areas in the cline in effort from 1960 to 1963, the Bay CPFV's in 1981 and 1982. Monterey Bay region for all years sur­ number of anglers from ports in Mon­ The percentage of rockfish in the veyed, rockfish composed 90% of the terey Bay doubled between 1960 and CPFV catch varied more during the pe­ fish caught by CPFV anglers. Up to 45 1981 (Fig. 2a). There was a 50% reduc­ riod of the later surveys, from 1977 to species of fish occur in the sampled tion in fishing effort between 1981 and 1986, than during the period from 1959 catch per year. Species listed in Table 2 1985 as the number of CPFV anglers to 1972, and the mean percent of rock­ include all species ranking among the temporarily dropped, but effort recov­ fish declined slightly from 91 % in the ten most abundant species in at least one ered by 1988. earlier period to 89% in the later period of the six subareas (four CPFV or two Mean catch per angler day reported (Fig. 2c). Declines in the proportion of skiff) listed in the table. in logbooks has fluctuated between 8 rockfish in the CPFV catch reflect in­ ranked first in abundance (34%) in the and 13.5 fish (Fig. 2b), with rockfish creases in the catch of nonrockfish spe­ combined Monterey Bay region, fol­ cies. In 1972 lingcod jumped to 14% of lowed by yellowtail rockfish (20%), and the reported catch. In 1980 lingcod, sable­ chilipepper (6%). Other rockfish spe­ fish, Anoplopomafimbria, and chub (Pa­ cies each contributed less than 5% to cific) mackerel, Scomber japonicus, to­ the catch. Lingcod were the most im­ taled 15% of the reported catch. In both portant nonrockfish species. 1984 and 1985 chub mackerel and Pacific Different species are important in the whiting, Merluccius productus, together CPFV catch from the northern and totaled 11 % of the catch. southern halves of the Monterey Bay Skiff fishing has increased in relative region. In the northern area, yellowtail importance throughout northern and rockfish (25%) is the most abundant +-,---'--'"---'---'-_'"--415 central California (Karpov et aI., 1995). species followed by blue rockfish Reports of skiff fishing effort for the (20%), whereas in the southern area, o 10 ~ o Monterey Bay region were available blue rockfish (33%) are more abundant only from NCMSFS from 1959 to 1961 than yellowtail rockfish (15%). Canary 100 -t-'----'--"-----L---'--"------'t (Miller and Gotshall, 1965), and MRFSS rockfish, S. pinniger; , M:::~rV\f\~/ from 1981 to 1986 (Karpov etal., 1995). S. caurinus; greenstriped rockfish, S. These two surveys sampled effort in ~85V V VV­ elongatus; and greenspotted rockfish 80 different ways. NCMSFS surveyed ef­ are important in the northern area, 75 -'-'-_--'-_.L----L_--'-_.L------U fort at launch sites and skiff rental con­ whereas olive, widow, and rosy rock­ 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 cessions on various weekdays and fish are also important in the southern Figure 2. - Data from logbooks for weekends during one year and ex­ area. Chilipepper, bocaccio, and ling­ Monterey Bay region. A = Total fish panded effort for the total year. MRFSS cod are important in both areas. (x 100,000) line, total anglers (x 10,000) dashes. B =Total catch per angler day. calculated effort from a telephone sur­ Two subareas were distinguished in C = Percent rockfish in catch. vey of residents in coastal counties; the northern CPFV fishing area from

4 Marine Fisheries Review 1960 to 1977, the distant fishing area Two subareas were distinguished in the one but a number of species, and the around Point Ano Nuevo and the local southern CPFV fishing area. The distant species composition changes with the Santa Cruz area which included all ar­ subarea, Point Sur, included fishing areas depth fished. Some rockfish species eas from Davenport to the northern edge from Yankee Point south to Point Sur, and such as blue, black, and olive rockfish of the Monterey Submarine Canyon. the local Monterey subarea extended from are most commonly caught from mid­ The composition of the catch from the the Monterey Submarine Canyon south water aggregations consisting of one or Ano Nuevo subarea, available for 1960­ to Yankee Point. Data from the Point Sur more species in water <70 m. Other 71 and 1977, is dominated by blue rock­ subarea are available for 1967-71 and rockfish species, such as black-and-yel­ fish (49%), lingcod, copper rockfish, 1977-79 but comprise only 2% of the to­ low, S. chrysomelas; gopher, kelp, and black rockfish (Table 2) and is quite tal sampled fish. The Point Sur subarea brown, and grass rockfish, S. rastrelli­ different from the composition from any has a higher percentage of chilipepper, ger, dwell on or near the rocky bottom, other area. The catch for the same years widow rockfish, olive rockfish, and yel­ usually at depths <50 m (Miller and from the local Santa Cruz subarea has lowtail rockfish, and a lower percentage Geibel, 1973; Eschmeyer et al., 1983; a comparatively low percentage of blue of blue rockfish than the local Monterey Hallacher and Roberts, 1985). Fish of rockfish (10%) and relatively high per­ catch for the same years. both the midwater and bottom-dwell­ centages of yellowtail rockfish (37%), ing groups may be caught simulta­ CPFV Inter-year Variations chilipepper, and greenspotted rockfish. neously by anglers on a boat. Yellow­ Canary rockfish were important in both CPFV's fish primarily over rocky tail rockfish are another mid water subareas. outcroppings where they catch not just schooling variety of rockfish, but they are generally caught over outcroppings 70-100 m deep in this region. Deeper

Table 2.-CPFV species composition for total Monterey Bay Region, northern and southern areas, and four water species caught near the bottom on CPFV subareas: Ana Nuevo (Ana), local Santa Cruz (S.C.), local Monterey (Mon.), and PI. Sur (Sur). Skiff species rocky outcroppings, sand, or mud at 70­ composition for total Monterey Bay region and for two skiff areas: Santa Cruz (S.C.) and Monterey (Mon.). Time periods differ due to lack of subarea resolution in some years. The 17 most abundant rockfish species are 200 m include bocaccio, chilipepper, grouped with shallow-water species near the top, followed by indeterminate depth, and deeper-water species, greenspotted rockfish, and greenstriped and the five most abundant nonrockflsh species last. rockfish (Heimann, 1963; Miller and CPFV Skiff Lea, 1972; Eschmeyeretal., 1983; Love CPFVareas' CPFV subareas Skiff areas2 et al., 1990).

Comb. North South Ana3 S.C' Mon.4 Sur' Comb. S.C. Mon. Groupings by depth category were used for graphic presentation of the spe­ Rockfishes Blue. Sebastes mystinus 33.6 20.1 32.6 49.3 9.9 36.3 23.1 19.2 14.2 22.7 cies composition by year. Shallow wa­ Olive. Sebastes serranoides 4.5 .4 7.5 1.0 .2 4.9 9.6 2.8 1.0 4.1 ter blue rockfish and deep water yellow­ Brown, Sebastes auriculatus .6 2.2 .1 3.4 1.5 2 .0 2.9 6.4 .5 Gopher, Sebastes carnatus .8 1.0 .4 3.0 .3 .3 .5 3.2 3.3 3.1 tail rockfish, the most abundant species Black, Sebastes me/anaps 1.2 2.0 .1 6.0 1.1 .1 .1 1.8 3.0 1.0 China, Sebastes nebulosus .4 .5 .2 1.8 .0 .1 .1 .3 .2 .3 in most areas, are displayed individu­ ally. Species occurring in similar depth Copper, Sebastes caurinus 1.4 3.5 .6 6.8 1.5 .6 .6 3.3 2.4 4.0 Starry, Sebastes constellatus 1.3 1.2 2.0 .0 1.4 2.2 18 .7 .1 1.2 ranges are grouped together for analy­ Vermilion, Sebastes minia/us .7 1.0 .6 1.3 .9 .5 1.9 .8 .1 .7 sis of trends. Other than blue rockfish, Canary, Sebastes pinniger 3.3 5.7 2.0 5.4 6.0 2.1 1.7 2.7 3.8 2.0 Rosy, Sebastes rosaceus 3.4 1.9 4.3 .8 2.1 4.8 2.2 2.9 1.3 4.1 the seven most important rockfish caught at <70 m depth in either the Widow, Sebastes entome/as 4.7 1.8 5.6 .3 2.1 6.3 10.5 .3 .5 .1 Yellowtail, Sebastes tlavidus 19.4 25.1 14.9 5.4 36.7 14.7 16.1 3.0 27 3.2 CPFV or skiff fishery (black, brown, Greenspolted, Sebastes chlorostictus 2.3 6.1 1.3 .2 6.3 2.2 2.5 .3 .4 .3 gopher, kelp, black-and- yellow, grass, Greenstriped, Sebastes elongatus 1.1 3.1 1.1 .0 2.7 2.1 1.5 .1 .1 .0 and olive rockfish) are grouped together Chilipepper, Sebastes goode; 5.7 7.5 7.4 .0 10.7 5.2 14.0 .2 .1 .3 Bocaccio, Sebastes paucispinis 4.5 3.6 7.2 .3 4.8 7.7 7.3 .7 .5 .9 as shallow water rockfish. The four prin­ Other rockfishes 1.4 2.7 1.7 .4 1.5 1.9 3.1 5.9 8.6 7.0 cipal deep water red rockfish species Total % Rockfish 90.3 89.4 89.3 85.4 89.7 92.2 96.6 51.1 44.7 55.5 (greenspotted rockfish, greenstriped

Nonrockfishes rockfish, chilipepper, and bocaccio) Sablefish, Anoplopoma fimbria 1.4 2.7 1.3 1.1 4.3 .4 .5 .4 .3 .5 commonly caught at >70 m depth are Jacksmelt, Atherinopsis californiensis .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .1 .0 1.8 2.8 1.1 grouped together. Pacific sanddab, Citharichthys Some species of rockfish do not fit sordidus 1.1 1.2 1.1 0 1.5 1.5 .4 20.2 4.9 30.9 White croaker, Genyonemus these depth categories and are grouped lineatus .4 .5 .4 .1 .7 .3 .0 16.0 37.3 1.3 together in the "other rockfish" cat­ Chub mackerel, Scomber japonicus .8 .5 1.2 .0 a .0 .0 3.1 2.9 3.2 Lingcod, Ophiodon elongatus 4.2 3.7 3.6 11.6 2.0 3.8 2.2 3.3 31 3.4 egory. This group includes canary, cop­ Other 1.8 2.0 2.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 .3 4.1 4.0 4.1 per, and vermilion rockfish, S. miniatus, Total % nonrockfishes 9.7 10.6 10.4 14.6 10.3 7.8 3.4 48.9 55.3 44.5 which occur in shallow water as young '1960-72,1977-86. fish and in deeper water as larger adults 21959-1972,1979-1986. 3 1960-71, 1977. (Eschmeyer et al., 1983; Love, 1991). 41967-71,1977-79. It also includes widow rockfish which

57(1J, 1995 5 occur in deep midwater aggregations Canary rockfish and copper rockfish to 1980 and Pacific whiting from 1984 and are not commonly associated with from the "other rockfish" category were to 1986 reflect the deeper waters fished. deep water red rockfish. Rosy rockfish, both consistent components of the Ano The distant-water fishery to the Point classed with the deeper than 70 m group Nuevo catch, reaching highest propor­ Sur subarea began after large blue rock­ by Miller and Geibel (1973) but as most tions when blue rockfish were scarce. fish were discovered in the area by ­ common at 30-46 m by Eschmeyer et The deeper species were a minor pro­ CDFG exploratory fishing in 1962. In al. (1983), are also placed in this cat­ portion of the catch; yellowtail rockfish the late 1960's the leading species egory. Fish identified as rosy rockfish comprised less than 11 % per year, and caught in the Point Sur subarea fluctu­ prior to 1972 may have included two deep water red rockfishes were rare in ated between blue and yellowtail rock­ species similar in appearance found the catch from this area. fish (Fig. 4b). The species composition only in deep water: rosethorn rockfish, Species composition data from north­ was similar to the catch from the entire S. helvomaculatus (119-549 m); and ern area commercial passenger fishing southern area, but with higher percent­ swordspine rockfish, S. ensifer (70-143 trips that did not go to Ano Nuevo were ages of olive rockfish from the shallow m) which may have extended the depth grouped together as the local Santa Cruz water group (through 1971) and widow range (Eschmeyer et aI., 1983). These subarea (Fig. 3c). Yellowtail rockfish rockfish from the "other rockfish" group three species are also small and there­ dominated the catch in all years except in 1969 (49%). The catch shifted to deep fore are often thrown back. Species oc­ for 1964, 1970, and 1977. In 1964 water species by the 1977-79 period, curring infrequently «2%) and not chilipepper (deep water red rockfish) and chilipepper became the leading spe­ listed in the shallow or deep water cat­ dominated the catch; in 1970 blue and cies. This shift was even more pro­ egories are also included in the "other "other rockfish" (mostly canary rock­ nounced at Point Sur than in the rest of rockfish" category. fish) contributed more than yellowtail the southern area. After 1979, fishing Within each area there are differences rockfish to the catch, and in 1977 both locations were not usually recorded and over time in the relative importance of the deep water red group and the shal­ not enough fish were sampled for analy­ particular species. In the northern half low water blue rockfish ranked higher sis « 100 per year) from the Point Sur of the Monterey Bay region, blue rock­ than yellowtail rockfish in the catch. subarea (Table 1). fish (Fig. 3a, top) comprised over half Catches ofdeep water red rockfishes fluc­ Skiff Species Composition of the CPFV catch in 1959 but declined tuated widely and varied in dominant spe­ between 1960 and 1969 . It partially cies, chilipepper dominated in 1962, The species composition of the skiff recovered in 1970-72, but was rela­ 1964, and 1977 (19%, 53%, and 31%, catch differs from the CPFV catch in tively low when sampling resumed in respectively), bocaccio in 1966 (15%), the proportion of nonrockfish species. 1977 and extremely low from 1982 to and greenspotted rockfish in 1963 and in Nonrockfish species were a significant 1986. Yellowtail rockfish was the lead­ 1969 (11 % and 10%, respectively) . component of the skiff catch from the ing species during most of the 1960's In the southern half of the Monterey whole Monterey Bay region for all years and from 1982 to 1983, but it declined Bay region, CPFV's caught a higher sampled comprising 43% of the catch in the catch from 1984 to 1986. The proportion of blue rockfish than in the (Table 2). Blue rockfish was the leading deep water red rockfish group's impor­ local Santa Cruz area. Blue rockfish species from the combined areas, but was tance was sporadic at first but became were the most abundant species and closely followed by Pacific sanddab, increasingly important from 1983 to 1986. yellowtail rockfish were second in Citharichthys sordidus; and white croaker. The northern area is divided into two abundance from 1960 to 1971 except Examining the skiff catch by area, subareas. Boats fishing the distant Ario in 1961 and 1962 when yellowtail rock­ differences exist in the Santa Cruz and Nuevo subarea caught lingcod and a fish dominated (Fig. 4a). Blue rockfish Monterey species compositions. In variety of shallow water rockfish, es­ declined in the catch in 1972. When Santa Cruz, white croakers were the pecially blue rockfish, which dominated sampling resumed in 1977, the south­ most abundant species (38%), followed the catch from 1960 to 1971 (Fig. 3b). ern area catch had a relatively high pro­ by blue rockfish. , black Within that period there was a gradual portion of deep water species. Bocac­ rockfish, and jacksmelt, Atherionopsis decline in the proportion of blue rock­ cio was the most important deep water californiensis, were more important in fish from 1960 to 1968 and a sharp in­ red species through 1972, but chili­ Santa Cruz than in Monterey. Pacific crease in 1969. Lingcod ranked second pepper dominated the deep water red sanddab comprised only 5% of the catch in the proportion of fish caught in most group in 1977, 1978, 1984, and 1985. in Santa Cruz. years with highest catches in 1967 and Deep water species peaked in 1978 and In the Monterey skiff catch, Pacific 1968. The shallow water rockfish group then declined through 1980 as blue sanddab was the most abundant species was important in this area, especially rockfish reappeared in the catch. Blue at 30% of the catch. Blue rockfish was in years with reduced catches of blue rockfish did not remain the leading spe­ second in abundance in Monterey as in rockfish; it includes and cies for long, and as they declined, the Santa Cruz. Olive, copper, and rosy black rockfish which were important deep water species, especially chili­ rockfish were more important in the through 1968, and brown rockfish pepper, increased through 1986. In­ skiff catch from Monterey than from which was 20% of the catch in 1977. creased catches of sablefish from 1978 Santa Cruz. Canary, gopher, and yellow-

6 Marine Fisheries Review v, .:::::!..... >­ ..... \0 ~ 100 > 100 LL 90­ 0.. > A 0 90llRIIn 111111111 C LL N 0.. 80­ :::> 80­ 0 ~j I, I ce z 0 ce 70­ 70­ ; *:\ <{ UJ ~ ~ I 60 ­ ,! z 60 ­ ~ ~ t <{ ce 50­ I Ii C/) 50­ 0 -.J Z <{ , 40­ I 40­ 0 ~ ,I: 0 z -.J UJ 30­ , 30­ 0 ~ ce 20­ z 20­ UJ UJ 0.. 10­ 0ce 10­ UJ 0 0­ I I I 0 I I I I I I 60 65 70 75 80 85 60 65 70 75 80 85 100 > I I I BLUE RF LL B 0­ :~~ • 0 11111 I I I m SHALLOW RF 0 111111 > 70­ UJ :::> 60J II§III ~ I I III OTHER RF z IIIII 0 z 5Olll§~~ ~~111111 i I I D OTHER NONRF <{ , 40 ­ ~ ~:~ ~ Ij~ LINGCOD z 30-' I~IIIII III IIII Iii I I ~ UJ 0 20 1: 'i ... ce Ilm~~~ II ~ ~ 11111111111 11 • YELLOWTAIL RF UJ -I I I 0.. 10-. • ,. r>o....I __ 11 .... ro..JI ..... _...... - II DEEP RF ,unun1Illlu lI ,,, II o I I 1 1 60 65 70 75 80 85

Figure 3. - CPFV species composition in cumulative percentages: A =entire northern area, B =Aiio Nuevo subarea, C =local Santa Cruz subarea. Vertical orientation of species groups 'I is related to depth stratification, see text for definition of species groups. 100 BLUE RF > 90­ A LL • 0.. 80­ SHALLOW RF C) m a::Z 70­ UJ III OTHER RF I 60­ I­ :::J OTHER NONRF 0 50­ D (/) 40­ I­ ~ LINGCOD Z UJ 30­ C) a:: 20­ It YELLOWTAIL RF UJ 0.. 10­ .. DEEP RF 0 I I 60 65 70 75 80 85

Figure 4. - CPFV species composition in cumulative percentages: A = entire southern 100 area, B = Point Sur subarea. 90­ S >LL 80­ 0.. C) 70­ a:: :::J (/) 60­ t-= 0.. 50­ I-z 40­ UJ C) 30­ a:: UJ 20­ 0.. 10 ­

0 I I I I I 60 65 70 75 80 85 tail rockfish, lingcod, and chub (Pacific) Santa Cruz skiff catch (Fig. Sa), white population expanded after 20 years of mackerel each comprised 2-3% at both croaker was the leading species in all scarcity throughout California (MacCall locations. White croaker, the most abun­ years sampled except 1970, 1982, and et aI., 1985). lacksmelt was important dant species in Santa Cruz, comprised 1983. Lingcod provided a fairly con­ only in the early years from 1959 to < 2% of the Monterey catch. Although stant proportion of the catch through 1968, comprising 6% of the catch for lingcod did not provide a particularly 1982, after which it declined. Other that period and 0.3% thereafter. high percentage of the catch by num­ nomockfish species (grouped together Blue rockfish was the most fre­ bers, their relatively large size made in Fig. Sa) were present in smaller quently landed rockfish species for them an important component of the amounts in the catch, some for only a Santa Cruz skiffs, comprising from 7 catch in both areas. few years. Pacific sanddab comprised to 26% of the catch (Fig. Sa). Increases less than 10% of the catch except in in the relative abundance of blue rock­ Skiff Inter-year Variations 1980. Chub (Pacific) mackerel appeared fish in the Santa Cruz skiff fishery oc­ Examining variations between years as a significant part of the skiff catch curred from 1967 to 1970 and from among nomockfish species from the (9-22%) only from 1982 to 1984, as its 1981 to 1982. Yellowtail rockfish con-

8 Marine Fisheries Review LL 100 -.--...... rw- ---.r..-..... ----.rw-1...... rw-w1 BLUE RF LL 90­ ~ A • Cf) Ii SHALLOW RF N 80­ :::> a: 70­ OTHER RF o 60­ WTCROAKER ~ D z 50­ « ~ OTHER NONRF Cf) 40­

I­ 30­ ~ LINGCOD Z UJ 20­ o YELLOWTAIL RF a: 10 ­ UJ • DEEP RF a.. o.....LIIIL.+.IlII..IL&.....~I...B.J...... UjL...... L..----,Ir----~...... L.a...... ,L.&.I .. 60 65 70 75 80 85

100.,...... rw--.;...... r-----.-...... rT'1r'W1 LL BLUE RF LL 90­ B ~ • SHALLOW RF Cf) 80­ m >­ UJ 70­ OTHER RF a: UJ 60­ • I­ D P. SANDDABS Z 50­ a ~ OTHER NONRF ~ 40­ I­ 30- ; ~ LINGCOD Z UJ o 20­ YELLOWTAIL a: UJ 10 ­ • a.. DEEP RF o.....LIillUjL....LIiL.....I~...A.J...... UjL~L..----,Ir----~...... '-&.....,L.&.I IIIIJI 60 65 70 75 80 85 Figure 5. - Skiff species composition in cumulative percentages: A = Santa Cruz, B = Monterey. tributed no more than 6% (1982), and important from 1959 to 1964 but (Pacific) mackerel became the leading the highest contribution of the deep had practically disappeared by 1967. species for one year with 22% of the water red rockfish group (7%) came in Bottom dwelling gopher and black­ catch in 1981, and it was second with 1979 from young bocaccio which were and-yellow rockfish reached their high­ 19% in 1982. It was also caught by caught in shallow water near shore be­ est contributions to the catch when CPFV's in this area in 1981, a year fore they migrated to deeper water. The midwater blue rockfish catches were ahead of its increase in the Santa Cruz shallow water rockfish group was im­ low. skiff catch. Lingcod catches were high­ portant in the skiff catch in all years, Nonrockfish species were also impor­ est from 1979 to 1981. declining in proportion of the catch tant in the Monterey skiff catch. Pacific Blue rockfish alternated with Pacific when blue rockfish were abundant, but sanddab was either the most abundant sanddab as the most abundant species the relative contribution of individual or second most abundant species in all in all years except 1972 when blue rock­ species varied as displayed in Figure 6a. years except 1982 and 1983 (Fig. 5b). fish hit its lowest level in the Monterey Brown rockfish increased in abundance Sanddab was a preferred species be­ skiff catch (Fig. 5b). Blue rockfish, from 1960 to 1966 and remained im­ tween 1966 and 1972, and it may have dominant through 1963 (except for portant through 1986. Grass rockfish, diverted some effort away from rock­ 1961), dropped in abundance in 1964 the most shallow dwelling species, was fish (Miller and Geibel, 1973). Chub and did not reclaim its position as the

57(1),1995 9 LL 40 ~ GRASS LL ~ 35­ A (J) ~ BROWN N 30­ =>ec KELP () 25­ « D OLIVE f-z 20­ « ~ GOPHER (J) 15 ­ ~ f- BLACK&YELLOW Z 10­ w () III BLACK ec 5­ w • COPPER ll. 0 I I 60 65 70 75 80 85 Figure 6. - Cumulative percentages of shal­ low-water rockfish group and copper rock­ 40 fish caught from skiffs: A =Santa Cruz, B = LL Monterey. LL -~ 35­ B (J) >- 30­ w ffi 25­ f- z 20­ 0 ~ I 15­ f-z w 10­ () ec 5­ w ll. 0 I I 60 65 70 75 80 85 leading species until 1982-85, 1 year fish recovery in 1983 and 1984 (Fig. panded first along the shore and then to later than in the Monterey CPFV and 6b). Kelp, gopher, and black- and-yel­ deeper waters as fishermen became Santa Cruz skiff catches. Yellowtail low rockfish all increased in relative more mobile and fishing technology rockfish catches were generally low but abundance before and after the increase developed (Reiger and Loftus, 1972). peaked before and during the recovery in blue rockfish. Copper rockfish was The nearshore zone of the Monterey of blue rockfish. The deep water group at its highest proportion in the catch region has been subject to longline fish­ of species is rare in the Monterey skiff from 1966 to 1972, the period of high ing for rockfish since 1875 (Phillips, catch; highest catches were 4% in 1966 Pacific sanddab catches. 1964). Longline rockfish catches in cen­ (mostly bocaccio) and 5% in 1986 tral California declined between 1935 Discussion (mostly chilipepper). Shallow- water and 1942, but averaged 2 million rockfish became increasingly important The waters of the Monterey Bay re­ pounds per year (Bureau of Marine in the 1980's as the Pacific sanddab gion have been fished by both recre­ Fisheries, 1949). Development of new decreased. Olive rockfish, frequently ational and commercial fishermen for technology such as otter trawls has led caught in midwater with blue rockfish more than a century. As in many re­ to increased catches from deeper wa­ in this area, reached its highest propor­ gions, fishing pressures were heaviest ters since the 1950's (Heimann, 1963), tion in the catch during the blue rock­ near port in the early years, and ex­ and gillnet fishing has contributed to the

10 Marine Fisheries Review catch in recent years. Commercial velopment (Love et a\., 1991). Tagging clined as older fish were continuously catches averaged 3 million pounds in studies indicate that movements of more removed (Matthews, 1985). Blue rock­ the 1960's and over 4 million pounds than 3 km were rare for adult shallow fish populations depend on growth of in the 1970's in the Monterey region water benthic species including gopher young fish recruited as juveniles to the (from CDFG annual catch bulletins). and black-and-yellow rockfish (Larson, localized area rather than immigration Fishing pressure, both recreational and 1980) and brown rockfish and slightly of large numbers of adults from distant commercial, affected rockfish survival deeper copper rockfish (Hartmann, areas, and they are vulnerable to and species composition long before the 1987; Matthews, 1990). For shallow overexploitation if annual recruitment recreational fishing surveys used in this water non benthic blue (Miller and does not equal fish removed. study were conducted, making it impos­ Geibel, 1973) and olive rockfish (Hart­ Also contributing to the risk of sible to define the pre-exploitation spe­ mann, 1987),85% moved <1.6 km, and overexploitation is the high variability cies composition. only 2% moved >10 km. Among three of year-class strength in many species As in many heavily fished areas, nonbenthic species (bocaccio, yellow­ of rockfish including Pacific ocean larger species and older individuals have tail, and black rockfish) which reside perch, Sebastes alutus; chilipepper, and been heavily targeted for harvest first in shallow water as juveniles and deeper widow rockfish (Norton, 1987; Hol­ (Reiger and Loftus, 1972; Deimling and water as adults, some adults exhibit lowed and Wooster, 1992). Environ­ Liss, 1994). Recreational catches moni­ more extensive movements. Up to 30% mental conditions such as the warm tored in southern California showed of mature yellowtail rockfish moved water temperatures and decreased shifts over time from emphasis on rela­ >25 km (Stanley et aI., 1994), although equatorward flow characteristic of EI tively large species such as tunas, some yellowtail rockfish exhibited resi­ Nino events in central California may Thunnus spp.; giant sea bass, Stereo­ dential behavior and even returned to produce years of poor recruitment for lepis gigas; white seabass, Atractoscion their home sites when removed as far many species (Ralston3). Sea surface noblis; and California halibut, Para­ as 22 km (Carlson and Haight, 1972). temperatures that are either unusually lichthys californicus; to smaller variet­ For both black rockfish (Culver, 1987) cold or warm at the time of spawning ies including rockfish (Young, 1969; and immature bocaccio, 30% moved indicate environmental conditions that Skull et aI., 1987). In the Monterey area, more than 16 km, although all mature negatively impact survival of larvae of Pacific salmon was important in both bocaccio recaptured were still at the site blue and yellowtail rockfish (Ralston the commercial and recreational fisher­ of tagging up to two years later (Har­ and Howard, 1995). In southern Cali­ ies through the 1920's, but it became a tmann, 1987). The great diversity of fornia, young stripetail rockfish, S. depleted and undependable resource in rockfish behavior makes it difficult to saxicola, was more abundant in cooler this area by 1930 (Bureau of Marine generalize for all species, but rockfish years, whereas a more southerly distrib­ Fisheries, 1949), at which time rockfish do not have extensive seasonal migra­ uted species, calico rockfish, S. dalli, became the mainstay of the CPFV fish­ tions, and some species, especially deep was more abundant in warmer years ery (Young, 1969). As larger species, water species, have some individuals (Mearns et aI., 1980). Although the re­ higher on the food chain, become de­ that move several kilometers, while sponse to environmental conditions is pleted from heavy exploitation, fisher­ many rockfish, especially shallow wa­ not the same for all species, inter-year ies generally diversify to include more ter benthic species, remain in the same variability in recruitment is character­ varieties of fish and fish of lower trophic area where they settled as juveniles. istic of rockfish species. levels (Deimling and Liss, 1994). The higher degree of site fidelity ob­ A prolonged reproductive phase may Several of the life history character­ served in residential shallow water spe­ be crucial to the survival of rockfish istics of rockfish (residential behavior, cies may make these rockfish particu­ populations in the face of intermittent variable year-class strength, and longev­ larly susceptible to overexploitation. recruitment failures (Leaman and ity) contribute to high vulnerability to Increased vulnerability to overfishing Beamish, 1984). Rockfish species are localized overfishing. Residential be­ due to residential behavior was ob­ generally long lived with maximum havior reduces the potential for restock­ served in olive rockfish on heavily ages of greater than 30 years for 20 out ing a depleted area through immigra­ fished rocky outcroppings (Love, 1980), of 28 species reviewed (Love et aI., tion of adult fish. and in a comparison of two similar ar­ 1990). Yellowtail, widow, and canary Most of the species of rockfish stud­ tificial rock piles in Monterey Bay, one rockfish all may live for 60 years or ied are primarily residential as adults. marked for recreational fishing and one more (Leaman and Beamish, 1984) and The degree of movement does vary be­ unmarked. The recreationally fished reach reproductive maturity at 5-9 years tween different species with shallow location had a reduced total catch per of age (Wyllie Echeverria, 1987), giv­ water benthic species having the great­ angler hour (Solonsky, 1983). Although ing most species a potential reproduc­ est site fidelity, whereas deeper non­ limited recruitment of adult and sub­ benthic aggregating species are more adult fish to the exploited area contin­ likely to undergo movements, especially ued, the recruitment of large fish did not 3 Ralston, S. (Editor). 1993. Progress in rockfish recruitment studies. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA, ontogenetic movements from shallow to equal the harvest, and the average size NMFS Southwest Fish. Sci. Cent., Tiburon Lab., deeper water at some point in their de­ of rockfish at the exploited location de­ Admin. Rep. T-93-01, 42 p.

57(1), 1995 JJ tive life span of more than 20 years. 1960 for the local Santa Cruz CPFV (Miller et al.'), but by 1967 they were However exploitation tends to decrease catch and in 1961 for both the Monterey taking occasional trips south to Point the number of age classes in a popula­ CPFV and skiff catches. About 33-50% Sur. The species composition of the dis­ tion, and when this occurs in species of the blue rockfish caught in the local tant Point Sur area was similar to the with highly variable recruitment suc­ Santa Cruz area during 1960-64 were local Monterey area, but the availabil­ cess, it increases the risk of reproduc­ caught by skiff anglers (Miller et al.'). ity of larger fish made the longer trip tive failure (Murphy, 1968). This leaves In the Monterey area, catches of blue worthwhile (Miller and Geibel, 1973). residential long-lived species with in­ rockfish increased in 1963 'for both The southern area CPFV's were not as frequent recruitment success vulnerable skiffs and CPFV's, but in Santa Cruz dependent on distant-water fishing to recruitment overfishing near port. the catches remained low. through 1972 as the northern area CPFV's because of the extensive rocky Area and Depth Fished Recreational Fishery Development bottom fishing areas around the Mon­ Blue rockfish experienced heavy ex­ Santa Cruz CPFV skippers developed terey Peninsula. However, by 1977 there ploitation near port in both Santa Cruz two alternative ways to provide ad­ was a shift to fishing for deeper species and Monterey as they became the focus equate catches in the period of blue at the edge of the Monterey Submarine of the recreational fishery in the late rockfish scarcity. The first alternative Canyon at 100 m and occasionally 1950's. Blue rockfish comprised an es­ was to travel farther from port to find 200 m depths. timated 70-80% of the CPFV catch blue rockfish, and CPFV's traveled CPFV's have continued to fish pri­ from the northern area according to about 35 krn from Santa Cruz to fish on marily in deep water in recent years. In skippers interviewed during the devel­ rocky outcrops around Ano Nuevo a CDFG survey during 1987-91,61% opment of the catch survey by Miller where they found numerous schools of of the observed CPFV trips in the en­ (Miller and Geibel, 1973), and most of large blue rockfish in the early 1960's tire Monterey Bay region fished in wa­ those fish were caught within 10 krn of (Fig. 3b). One- fourth of the CPFV fish­ ter deeper than 40 m, 20% fished shal­ Santa Cruz. The high percentage of blue ing effort for the northern area was di­ lower than 40 m, and the remainder rockfish and other shallow water spe­ rected toAno Nuevo from 1961 to 1964, fished both shallow and deep locations cies implies a species composition near and over half the CPFV caught blue in the same trip (Reilly et al. 2). The four Santa Cruz similar to Ano Nuevo's for rockfish in the northern area came from deep water red rockfish species aver­ this period rather than the deeper water Afio Nuevo (Miller et al. I ). aged 42% of the catch, yellowtail rock­ species characteristic of the local Santa The second alternative to fishing for fish 8%, and blue rockfish 15% from Cruz subarea in the 1960's. blue rockfish near Santa Cruz was to the whole Monterey Bay region, Several changes in fishing techniques locate areas near port where other spe­ very similar to the 1985-86 species during the late 1950's may have con­ cies were available. Schools of yellow­ composition. tributed to heavy fishing pressure on tail rockfish were found on deep banks Over time, fishing more distant wa­ blue rockfish. Fishing effort that had off Davenport at 65-100 m. Deep banks ters appears to have been largely re­ been directed toward salmon trolling provided most of the local Santa Cruz placed by fishing nearer but deeper was redirected to bottom fishing after catch during the 1960's (Miller and waters. The previously unexploited 1956 as the relatively high salmon Geibel, 1973). The shift from yellow­ populations of large individuals at shal­ catches during 1953-56 declined tail rockfish to deep water red species low fishing grounds within a day's (Miller and Geibel, 1973). The mul­ by 1984 (Fig. 4c) reflects another relo­ travel from port were exhausted after a tiple-hook rig for rockfish, first used in cation to still deeper fishing areas in­ few years, and rockfish from distant 1957 in Monterey Bay (Smith, 1979), cluding the edge of the Monterey sub­ areas are now the same mean size as was particularly well suited to catching marine canyon. Santa Cruz skiffs, trav­ rockfish from local areas in the Mon­ schooling pelagic rockfish such as blue eling limited distances from port, con­ terey Bay region (Reilly et al. 2). The in­ and yellowtail rockfish. Earlier fishing tinued to catch shallow water rockfish. creased fuel prices in the 1980's have techniques using single hooks baited Yellowtail and deep water red rockfish made distant fishing trips more expen­ with sardines or may have been species increased in the skiff catch only sive, and during 1987-91, 75% of the more effective for catching larger, soli­ slightly, indicating a shift in fishing lo­ fish were caught less than 18 krn from tary fish which had become scarce. Sen­ cations by the CPFV's rather than in­ port (Reilly et aL2). Some trips are still sitive fathometers became widely used creased abundance of deep water spe­ made to more distant areas in search of about this time and may have aided cies near shore. particular species, but most of the fish­ skippers in locating schools of pelagic When localized reductions of blue ing is conducted closer to port in deeper rockfish (Smith, 1979). rockfish occurred in the Monterey skiff water. Blue rockfish populations were sub­ fishery in 1964, the CPFV fishery main­ jected to heavy fishing pressure not only tained high catches of that species by Variations in Recruitment from CPFV's but also from skiff anglers changing to slightly more distant fish­ Year-class strength can vary over in the late 1950's and the 1960's. The ing areas around the Monterey Penin­ both time and area. Midwater trawl sur­ percentage of blue rockfish dropped in sula and as far south as Yankee Point veys in northern California have docu-

12 Marine Fisheries Review mented inter-year variations in larval unexploited areas. To reduce the influ­ tion), but skiffs continue to fish in the rockfish abundance. The relatively ence of changes in fishing locations on shallow areas, and the increased rela­ strong year classes of blue and of yel­ the apparent abundance of blue rock­ tive catches ofother shallow water rock­ lowtail rockfish found in the trawls were fish, fisheries with clearly limited fish­ fish species confirm that blue rockfish confirmed by diving surveys of first­ ing areas were examined. The CPFV are less available during those periods. year juvenile recruitment to nearshore fishery at Ano Nuevo, confined to a few The preference to fish for blue rockfish, kelp beds at two sites 100 km apart in isolated rocky outcrops, and the skiff appears to continue in all areas except Sonoma and Mendocino counties fisheries in Santa Cruz and Monterey, the Santa Cruz CPFV fishery despite the (Ralston and Howard, 1995). The same limited to near shore areas within 10 km development of new alternate fishing ar­ relatively strong year classes (1985, ofport, were the most location specific. eas and depths, and Monterey CPFV's 1987, and 1988) were observed in a All three of these fisheries landed shal­ continue to target blue rockfish when study of first-year juvenile recruitment low water species from limited areas available. of blue rockfish to kelp beds near that were continuously exploited; thus 4 Multispecies Fishery Monterey (VenTresca et aI. ). Thus, they indicate temporal patterns of blue relatively strong year-classes of blue rockfish abundance. The multispecies nature of the recre­ rockfish can extend over large sections In some periods, increased abun­ ational fishery has both positive and of the coast. In some years, however, dance of blue rockfish was nearly syn­ negative effects on the survival of the recruitment for a particular species is chronous in both the northern and south­ species involved. One positive effect is spatially limited. During one year of the ern Monterey Bay areas. All areas ex­ the tendency of the fishery to prey recruitment to kelp beds studies (1991), perienced increased abundance of heavily on more abundant species and moderate recruitment of blue rockfish younger fish in 1969 or 1970 (Miller to shift to other species when one spe­ occurred at Monterey and Sonoma and Geibel, 1973) and again in 1981­ cies becomes difficult to catch or when counties but did not occur farther north 84. In other periods, increased blue only small individuals are available. at Mendocino county (VenTresca et a1. 4; rockfish abundance was limited to cer­ Sebastes is a very diverse , and Adams5). Whereas in 1993 blue rock­ tain areas. A marked increase in the different species occupy different fish recruitment was relatively strong at catch of blue rockfish in both the benthic and midwater habitats from tide Mendocino county, it was weak at both Monterey skiff and CPFV fisheries in pools to depths >600 m. Changing fish­ Sonoma county (Eldridge6) and Mon­ 1963 reflected young fish entering the ing depth or area can relieve fishing 4 terey (VenTresca et aI. ). Variation in fisheries in Monterey, but it had no cor­ pressure on a declining local population. patterns of coastal currents, eddies, up­ ollary at Santa Cruz or Ano Nuevo The tendency of the fishery to switch welling plumes, and jets can all affect where blue rockfish catches continued target species makes it difficult to quan­ the distribution of rockfish during the to decline (Miller et al. I). In 1979, blue tify changes in abundance of some spe­ pelagic larval and juvenile stages, lead­ rockfish catches increased dramatically cies because these changes can be hid­ ing to the patchy distribution observed for Monterey CPFV's but not for skiffs; den by increased abundance of alternate in CalCOFI surveys (Ahlstrom et aI., the fish were caught in Carmel Bay target species or shifts in location or 1978). Uneven spatial distribution of re­ which is beyond the range of most depth fished. It is unclear whether yel­ cruitment for these highly residential skiffs. Therefore, in some periods the lowtail rockfish, the dominant species species contributes to uneven distribu­ factors promoting strong recruitment of in the local Santa Cruz subarea, became tion of adults. blue rockfish may be present through­ scarce after 1983 or whether their pro­ Fluctuations in the proportion of par­ out the Monterey Bay region, whereas portion in the catch declined solely be­ ticular species in the recreational catch at other times strong recruitment to the cause of deeper fishing. Catch per hour do not always indicate increased abun­ fishery appears to be very localized. at specific locations would be needed dance because they reflect both actual Fluctuations in the species composi­ to evaluate these factors. increases in the population and reloca­ tion of the catch from the CPFV and A negative effect of the multispecies tions by the fishery to previously skiff fisheries in the Monterey Bay re­ fishery on the survival of some species gion reflect high variability in the num­ comes from the incidental catch and

4 VenTresca, D. A., J. L. Houk, M. J. Paddack, ber of young blue rockfish recruited. discard of small individuals. Many dis­ M. L. Gingras, N. L. Crane, and S. D. Short. In When fish of relatively strong year carded fish will not survive due to swim press. Early life history studies of nearshore rock­ fishes and lingcod along the central California classes grow to acceptable size (after 3­ bladder expansion and resultant ever­ coast from 1987 through 1992. Calif. Dep. Fish 4 years), fishing pressure of both skiff sion of the stomach. The incidence of Game, Mar. Res. Div. Admin. Rep. and CPFV fisheries focuses on blue mortality for discarded fish increases 5 Adams, P. B. (Editor). 1992. Progress in rock­ rockfish and these strong year classes from depths of more than 40 m (Cul­ fish recruitment studies. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA, NMFS Southwest Fish. Sci. Cent., are removed in 2-5 fishing seasons. ver, 1987) and is therefore more likely Tiburon Lab., Admin. Rep. T-92-01, 63 p. When blue rockfish are depleted, for CPFV's than for skiffs. Hook size 6 Eldridge, M. B. 1994. Progress in rockfish re­ CPFV's target other species in deeper confers some size selectivity, although cruitment studies. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA, NMFS Southwest Fish. Sci. Cent., Tiburon Labo­ water (relieving some of the fishing there are some species with relatively ratory, Admin. Rep. T-94-01, 55 p. pressure on the blue rockfish popula­ small bodies and large mouths such as

57(1), 1995 13 the rosy rockfish that are often dis­ remained scarce near Santa Cruz where terey area, since both olive and blue carded as being too small even when the kelp bed area decreased (Ecoscan 7). rockfish often aggregate near kelp beds fully mature. Other species are caught Differences in habitat availability (Love et aI., 1991) and both decreased and retained before they reach sexual across the bay are less apparent for some in abundance when kelp was experi­ maturity, decreasing the pool of ­ other species. White croaker and Pacific mentally removed (Bodkin, 1988). ers, and because the size of sexual ma­ sanddab are both caught over shallow Effect of Regulations turity varies greatly from one species sandy sea floors, but Pacific sanddab is to another, later maturing species, such consistently more abundant in the Regulations pertaining to recreational as black rockfish (50% of females are Monterey subarea and less abundant in catches of rockfish have changed only mature at 41 cm), are more vulnerable the Santa Cruz subarea where white once during the period covered by this to recruitment overfishing than are simi­ croaker and brown rockfish are abun­ report. In 1971 the limit for total rock­ lar appearing but earlier maturing blue dant. The greater proportion of white fish retained per day decreased from 20 rockfish (50% of females are mature at croaker and brown rockfish may be re­ to 15 fish. CPFV logbook records indi­ 29 cm) (Wyllie Echeverria, 1987; Reilly lated to their greater tolerance for higher cated a decrease mean catch from 10 to et aI. 2). The difficulty for anglers in dis­ turbidity and water temperatures com­ 7 rockfish per angler day, however it tinguishing species within the group of mon in the more extensive shallow wa­ lasted only 2-3 years, after which mean 59 rockfish species found along the ter zone near Capitola (Miller and reported catch returned to nearly 10 California coast (Lea, 1992) as well as Geibel, 1973). rockfish per angler day (Fig. 2b). the difficulty in avoiding incidental The Monterey Bay region is in a zone Catches are highest when blue rockfish catch of non-targeted rockfish species, where both northern and southern spe­ are abundant, and during those periods has led to management by CDFG of cies occur, and for some species, the two adequate regulations are especially impor­ rockfish as a species complex in the rec­ sides of the bay reflect the latitudinal tant to prevent excessive fish removal. reational fisheries, with no size limits variation in distribution. Black rockfish During other periods, the catch for most and a mixed species bag limit of 15 constitutes a significant percentage of anglers is less than the current limit and it rockfish. the recreational catch in Washington, is restricted by rockfish availability. The affinity of certain species for Oregon, and northern California (Cul­ Lingcod has always been important specific habitats affects the catch of the ver, 1987; Karpov et aI., 1995), but in to both the skiff and CPFV fisheries in skiff fishery and results in different spe­ Monterey Bay it is near the southern end the Monterey Bay region because of its cies compositions on the two sides of of its range. It is more abundant in both large size. The proportion of lingcod the bay. Habitat requirements for some skiff and CPFV catches from the north­ declined after 1980 in the Monterey species such as grass rockfish are well ern half of the Monterey Bay region, but CPFV catch and after 1981 in the skiff known. Grass rockfish was most abun­ it declined in the catch after 1967. It catch from both areas. Two changes in dant in the skiff catch from Santa Cruz. reappeared briefly in both Santa Cruz lingcod regulations took place in 1980 It was caught primarily from eelgrass and Monterey skiff catches in 1985 and 1981. The limi t on lingcod de­ beds near Capitola in water <17 m deep which may indicate a pulse of recruit­ creased from 10 to 5 fish per day in in the early 1960's (Miller et aLl), but ment of young fish in both areas; how­ 1980, but catches remained high in 1980 it declined in the catch after 1966 along ever, the pulse was brief in both areas. and 1981. Most anglers caught <5 ling­ with another very shallow dwelling spe­ Black rockfish during 1987-91 showed cod per day so the regulation had little cies, black-and-yellow rockfish. This signs of being heavily fished, and few net effect. Part of the decline after 1981 may reflect a decline in abundance or of the fish had reached the size of sexual could be due to the 559 mm (22-inch) less fishing in water shallower than 20 maturity (Reilly et aI. 2). size limit instituted in 1981; however, m, and it does coincide with increased Olive rockfish was most abundant the percentage of fish taken in northern skiff catches of midwater blue rockfish from Monterey county south to Ventura California that were under this size de­ from slightly deeper locations. county and declined to the north in rec­ clined from 44% in 1980 to 17% for Kelp rockfish habitat requirements reational catches surveyed by MRFSS 1981-89, a decrease of only 26% of the are also well known. Kelp rockfish was (Karpov et aI., 1995). Olive rockfish lingcod catch (Silberberg and Adams, most abundant in the Monterey skiff were more abundant in both the skiff 1993). In Monterey, the proportion of catch because of its close association and CPFV fisheries in the southern half lingcod in the CPFV catch declined by with giant kelp, , of the Monterey Bay region than in the 86% from 15 to 2% from 1981 to 1985 (Van Dukhuizen, 1983; Hallacher and northern half. This may be a reflection respectively and continued at that level Roberts, 1985) which was more abun­ of decreased abundance farther north, from 1987 to 1991 (Reilly et aI. 2). There dant near Monterey than near Santa higher turbidity near Capitola, or of appeared to be a decline in overall abun­ Cruz. It became increasingly abundant more extensive kelp beds in the Mon­ dance after 1981, in addition to the ef­ in the Monterey skiff catch as kelp beds fect of the size limit. Lingcod is caught expanded from 0.8 km2 to 4.7 km2 be­ in both the recreational fisheries and the 7 Ecoscan. 1989. California coastal kelp re­ tween Monterey and Cypress Point in sources-summer 1989. Rep. for Calif. Dep. Fish commercial trawl fishery, and because summer surveys of 1967 and 1989. It Game (unpubl.). lingcod seasonally migrate to shallower

14 Marine Fisheries Review water for spawning, the same fish may when catches declined. They first at­ I thank James Hardwick, Daniel Got­ occur within the range of both fisher­ tempted to maintain catches of shallow shall, David VenTresca and Konstantin ies. Lingcod is caught in both the CPFV water blue rockfish by fishing in areas Karpov and Tina Wyllie Echeverria who and skiff fisheries primarily in the fall up to 30 km from port in the 1960's. made the data available, and Linda and winter when they come into shal­ Then they fished increasingly deeper Garrett who created the database and low water to spawn and the males re­ locations, first at Santa Cruz at depths began analysis of the data. I appreciate main to guard the . Size limits ap­ of 70 m for yellowtail rockfish in the the careful review and helpful com­ ply only to the recreational fisheries. 1960's, and later at both Monterey and ments of many colleagues including, The size of lingcod retained has in­ Santa Cruz at depths of 100 m or more Paul Reilly and David VenTresca, Mary creased, but their relative abundance in for chilipepper, bocaccio, greenspotted, Yoklavich, Jerrold Norton, Richard the recreational catch has not increased. and greenstriped rockfish. Deep-water Parrish, and George Boehlert, and the Strategies to prevent the overfishing fishing became more important than technical graphics assistance of Tone of lingcod and rockfish have not always distant-water fishing by 1977. Most Nichols. been effective. In the case of lingcod skiffs did not have the option of chang­ Literature Cited and chilipepper, it may be due to com­ ing to deep water locations (several Ahlstrom, E. H., H. G. Moser, and E. M. bined commercial and recreational fish­ miles from port) as catches of blue rock­ Sandknop. 1978. Distribution atlas offish lar­ ing pressures. Chilipepper declined in fish declined. They continued to fish vae in the California Current region: Rock­ the CPFV catch and in catch per angler near shore on shallow water species. fishes, Sebastes spp. 1950 through 1975. 2 CalCOFI Atlas 26,178 p. hour in 1990 and 1991 (Reilly et al. ). They provide a sensitive indicator of Bodkin, J. L. 1988. Effects of removal Declines in blue rockfish may be due fishing conditions near port. on associated fish assemblages in central Cali­ fornia. J. Exper. Mar. BioI. Ecol. l17:227­ to the combined effort of CPFV and The supply of blue rockfish has un­ 238. skiff fishing. Fishing reserves designed dergone several periods of scarcity, Bureau of Marine Fisheries. 1949. The commer­ to protect spawning stocks and enhance separated by periods of relative abun­ cial fish catch of California for the year 1947 with an historical review 1916-1947. Calif. the recruitment of rockfish are a new dance. High variability in recruitment Dep. Fish Game, Fish Bull. 74, 267 p. strategy currently being investigated by success for rockfish species contributes Carlson, H. R., and R. E. Haight. 1972. Evidence the CDFG. Since rockfish are dispersed to these fluctuations. Blue rockfish dur­ for a home site and homing of adult yellow­ tail rockfish (Sebastes flavidus). J. Fish Res. by ocean currents during the larval ing these periods of abundance has been Board Can. 29:1011-1014. stage, it is assumed that locally pro­ subjected to high fishing pressure, and Carr, M. H., and D. C. Reed. 1993. Conceptual issues relevant to marine harvest refuges: ex­ tected resident populations of spawn­ its proportion in the catch has declined amples from temperate reef fishes. Can. J. ing adults could provide larvae for re­ again after just a few years. Sampling Fish. Aquat. Sci. 50:2019-2028. cruitment to a wide area. It is not yet the species composition of these fish­ Clark, G. H., and R. S. Croaker. 1933. A method of collecting statistics of marine sport catches known how large an area could be en­ eries only once every few years would in California. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 63:332-337. hanced by a localized spawning reserve. not give a clear picture of these fluc­ Culver, B. N. 1987. Results from tagging black Carr and Reed (1993) discussed some tuations. Catch per angler hour at spe­ rockfish (Sebastes melanops) off the Wash­ ington and northern Oregon coast. In Proc. of the considerations to be made. Local cific locations is needed to track Int. Rockfish Symp., Anchorage, Alaska, p. habitat variations must be examined to changes in abundance of other species. 23l-239. Univ. Alaska Sea Grant Rep. 87-2. determine appropriate locations for pro­ There are differences in relative abun­ Deimling, E. A., and W. J. Liss. 1994. Fishery development in the eastern North Pacific: a tection of adults of the desired species. dance of particular rockfish species be­ natural-cultural system perspective, 1888­ Suitable habitat for recruitment of ju­ tween Monterey and Santa Cruz; some 1976. Fish. Oceanogr. 3(1): 60-77. Eschmeyer, W. N., E. S. Herald, and H. Ham­ veniles must be located in the area of of these differences can be related to mann. 1983. A field guide to Pacific coast dispersion, with some of that habitat availability of specific habitats, and fishes of North America. Houghton Mifflin inside the reserve for recruitment of some may be due to latitudinal tempera­ Co., Boston, 336 p. Hallacher, L. E., and D. A. Roberts. 1985. Dif­ future spawners of highly residential ture differences. There are spatial dif­ ferential utilization of space and food by the shallow water species and to protect ferences in recruitment from these two inshore rockfishes (Scorpanidae: Sebastes) of juveniles of deeper dwelling species Carmel Bay, California. Environ. BioI. Fishes areas during some periods. More can be 12:91-110. such as yellowtail and canary rockfish learned by analyzing these areas inde­ Hartmann, A. R. 1987. Movement of scorp­ that live for several years as juveniles pendently than by treating them as one ionfishes (Scorpaenidae: Sebastes and Scorpaena) in the Southern California Bight. in shallow water. Inter-year variations area. Calif. Fish Game 73(2):68-79. in recruitment strength of rockfish, Heimann, R. F. G. 1963. Trawling in the Acknowledgments similar to those of blue rockfish, may Monterey Bay area, with special reference to catch composition. Calif. Fish Game 49(3): delay the benefits of the reserves for I wish to thank the many people at 152-173. several years and make it difficult to California Department of Fish and Holliday, M. C. 1984. Marine recreational fish­ evaluate their success. Game who collected the field samples ery statistics survey, Pacific Coast, 1981­ 1982. U. S. Dep. Commer. , NOAA, Natl. Mar. that made this study possible. 1 espe­ Conclusions Fish. Serv., Curro Fish. Stat. 8323,224 p. cially appreciate the foresight of Daniel Hollowed, A. B., and W. S. Wooster. 1992. Vari­ ability of winter ocean conditions and strong CPFV's from both Santa Cruz and Miller who realized these samples year classes of northeast Pacific groundfish. Monterey have changed fishing areas would be the basis for future research. ICES Mar. Sci. Symp. 195:433-444.

57(/),1995 15 Karpov, K. A., D. P. Albin, and W. H. Van reefs in Monterey Bay, California. Bull. Mar. Reiger, H. A., and K. H. Loftus. 1972. Effects of Buskirk. 1995. The marine recreational fish­ Sci. 37:252-270. fisheries exploitation on salmonid communi­ ery in northern and central California. Calif. 1990. An experimental study of the ties in oligotrophic lakes. J. Fish. Res. Board Dep. Fish Game, Fish Bull. 176, 192 p. habitat preferences and movement pattern of Can. 29:959-968. Larson, R. J. 1980. Territorial behavior of the copper, quillback and brown rockfishes (Se­ Silberberg, K. R., and P. B. Adams. 1993. A com­ black-and-yellow rockfish and gopher rock­ bastes spp.) Environ. BioI. Fishes 29:161-178. parison of the recreational and commercial fish (Scorpaenidae, Sebastes). Mar. BioI. Mearns, A. J., M. J. Allen, M. D. Moore, and M. fisheries for lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus) off 58:111-122. J. Sherwood. 1980. Distribution, abundance, the Pacific coast of the United States, and a Lea, R. N. 1992. Rockfishes: overview. In W. S. and recruitment of soft-bottom rockfishes description of the recreational lingcod fish­ Leet, C. M. Dewees, and C. W. Haugen (Edi­ (Scorpaenidae: Sebastes) on the southern Cali­ ery. U.S. Dep. Commer. , NOAA Tech. Memo. tors), California's living marine resources and fornia mainland shelf. CalCOFI Rep. 21: 180­ NMFS-SWFSC-193, 29 p. their utilization, p. 114-117. Univ. Calif. Sea 190. Skull, J. K., K. A. Dryden, and P. A. Gregory. Grant Rep. UCSGEP-92-l2. Miller, D. J., and D. Gotshall. 1965. Ocean 1987. A historical review of fisheries statis­ Leaman, B. M., and R. J. Beamish. 1984. Eco­ sportfish catch and effort from Oregon to Point tics and environmental and societal influences logical and management implications of lon­ Arguello, California. Calif. Dep. Fish Game, off the Palos Verdes Peninsula, California. gevity in some northeast Pacific groundfishes. Fish Bull. 130, 135 p. CalCOFI Rep. 28: 135-154. Int. N. Pac. Fish. Comm. Bull. 42:85-97. _.,...,...__ and J. J. Geibel. 1973. Summary of Smith S. E. 1979. Changes in saltwater Love, M. S. 1980. Isolation of olive rockfish, blue rockfish and lingcod life histories; a reef methods and gear in California. Mar. Fish Rev. Sebastes serranoides, populations off south­ ecology study; and giant kelp, Macrocystis 41 (9): 32-44. ern California. Fish. Bull. 77:975-983. pyrifera, experiments in Monterey Bay, Cali­ Solonsky, A. C. 1983. Fish colonization and the __;--_. 1991. Probably more than you want fornia. Calif. Dep. Fish Game, Fish Bull. 158, effect of fishing activities on two artificial to know about the fishes of the Pacific coast. 137 p. reefs in Monterey Bay, California. San Fran­ Really Big Press, Santa Barbara, Calif., 213 p. ---7 and R. N. Lea. 1972. Guide to the cisco State Univ., Master's thesis, 55 p. _=-_' M. H. Carr, and L. J. Halderson. 1991. coastal marine fishes of California. Calif. Dep. Stanley, R. D., B. M. Leaman, L. Halderson, and The ecology of substrate-associated juveniles Fish Game, Fish Bull. 157,249 p. V. M. O'Connell. 1994. Movements oftagged of the genus Sebastes. Environ. BioI. Fishes Murphy, G. 1. 1968. Pattern in life history and adult yellowtail rockfish, Sebastes jlavidus, 30:225-243. the environment. Am. Nat. 102:391-403. off the west coast of North America. Fish. _-..".~...,,' P. Morris, M. McCrae, and R. Collins. Norton, J. 1987. Ocean climate influences on Bull. 92(3):655-663. 1990. Life history aspects of 19 rockfish spe­ groundfish recruitment in the California Cur­ Van Dukhuizen, G. D. 1983. Activity patterns and cies (Scorpanidae: Sebastes) from the South­ rent. In Proceedings of the Int. Rockfish feeding chronology of the kelp rockfish, ern California Bight. U.S. Dep. Commer., Symp., Anchorage Alaska, p. 73-98. Univ. Sebastes atrovirens, in a central California NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 87, 38 p. Alaska Sea Grant Rep. 87-2. kelp forest. San Jose State Univ., Master's MacCall, A. D., R. A. Klingbeil, and R. D. Phillips, J. B. 1964. Life history studies on ten thesis, 61 p. Methot. 1985. Recent increased abundance species of rockfish (genus Sebastodes). Ca­ Wyllie Echeverria, T. 1987. Thirty-four species and potential productivity of Pacific Mack­ lif. Dep. Fish Game, Fish Bull. 126,70 p. of California rockfishes: maturity and season­ erel (Scomber japonicus). CalCOFI Rep. Ralston, S., and D. F. Howard. 1995. On the de­ ality of reproduction. Fish. Bull. 85:229-250. 26:119-129. velopment of year-class strength and cohort Young, P. H. 1969. The California partyboat fish­ Matthews, K. R. 1985. Species similarity and variability in juvenile rockfishes. Fish Bull. ery 1947-1967. Calif. Dep. Fish Game, Fish movement of fishes on natural and artificial 93:710-720. Bull. 145,91 p.

16 Marine Fisheries Review