This publication is number 81 in the Technical Report Series TRAP FISHING of the Industrial Development Branch BLACK COD BRITISH COLUMBIA, 1971 - 1972
British Columbia April 1974 ...
prepared by L. A. Webb and B. J. Lockner
originally published by Southern Operations Branch Fisheries and ' Marine Service West Coast Vancouver Island Division Environment Canada
re - published for Industrial Development Branch Fisheries and Marine Service Environment Canada
Regional Division Chief R. H. Mc Ilwaine, P. Eng. ,.
,- i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES ...... iii LIST OF TABLES ...... iv LIST OF PLATES vi APPENDIX FIGURES ...... vii
APPENDIX TABLES ...... viii
INTRODUCTION ...... 1
HISTORY OF THE FISHERY ...... 3
MARKET CONDITIONS ...... 5
METHODS ...... •...... •.•...... •...... 12
FISHING VESSEL AND GEAR DESCRIPTION
A. The Vessel ...... 14
B. Deck Gear ...... 14
C. Sablefish Traps and Fishing Gear ...... 15
RESULTS
Length frequencies of trap and trawl catches ...... 21
Size and abundance of sablefish, inlets vs. offshore ...... 21
Optimum soaktimes ..•...... 24
C.P.U.E., inlets and offshore ...... 27
Optimum fishing depths ...... 31
Age-length analysis of sablefish ...... 34
Length-weight relationship ...... 34
Incidence of other species in trap catches ...... 35
Incidence of foreign hooks and hook scars ...... 35
Incidence of nematodes ...... 35 ii CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Page DISCUSSION ...... 41 SUMMARY ...... 43 REFEREN CES ...... 45 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 46 APPENDICES A. Set Locations and Catch Data for Strait of Georgia Inlet Trap Cat ches ...... 47 B. Set Locations, Catch Data and Specimen Data for Central B.C. Inlet and Northwest Coast Vancouver Island Trap Catches ...... 53 C. Trap and Tunnel Design ...... 67 .iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Fip;ure Pa~e
1. Average (1970-72) northern British Columbia sablefish catch distribution by statistical area and gear type ...... 8
2. Average (1970-72) southern British Columbia sable fish catch distribution by statistical area and gear type ...... 9
3. Schematic drawing of the traps in a fishing sit ua t ion ...... 19
4. Length frequency distributions of trap caught sablefish (Areas 6, 8 and 27 May-June 1972) ...... 22
5. Typical len~th frequency distributions from trawl cauv,ht sablefish from southwest Vancouver Island (August-September 1971 and July-August 1967) ...... 23
6. The average number (center dot) and the range (ends of bar) of landed sablefish per trap by set for the north coast of Vancouver Island and Homfray Channel ...... 25
7. Total sablefish trap catch by 20-fathom depth intervals (Northwest coast Vancouver Island May -J un e 1972) ...... 3 3
8. Relationship between length and weight of northwest Vancouver Island sablefish ...... 39
9. Relationship between length and weight of Fisher Channel sablefish ...... 40 iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page o 1. Northeastern Pacific (north of 40 N) sablefish catch (all nations) ...... 4
2. Monthly British Columbia sablefish landings in pounds by gear type (1970-72) ...... 7
3. Sablefish catches by statistical area and by gear type for 1970 to 1972 in CWT ...... 10
4. Mid-month sablefish price to fishermen at Vancouver, 1972 ...... 11
5. Set number, duration of soak and percentage of the total sablefish catch discarded during the trap fishery (North Coast Vancouver Island, Chimo No. I, May 1972) ...... 26
6. Set number, duration of soak, landed pounds (dressed weight) and catch per unit of effort (Northwest Vancouver Island Sablefish Trap Fishery, Chimo No. I, May 1972) ...... 28 7. Set number, duration of soak, landed pounds (dressed weight) and catch per unit of effort (Homfray Channel, Pryce Channel and Bute Inlet, Industrial Development Branch Charter, Chimo No. I, December 1971) ...... 29
8. Set number, duration of soak, landed pounds (dressed weight) and catch per unit of effort (Jervis Inlet, Industrial Development Branch Charter, Chimo No. I, December 1971) ...... 30 9. Total pieces of sablefish trapped by 20 fathom depth intervals, total trap soakhours at each interval, numbers of sablefish discarded and landed catch in pieces by trap soakhour (North- west Vancouver Island May-June 1972) ...... 32
10. Length-at-age frequency distribution of trap caught sablefish (Northwest Vancouver Island May-June 1972) ...... 36
11. Sablefish (trap-caught) mean fork lengths, mean round weights and standard deviations at age (Northwest Vancouver Island May-June 1972) ...... 36 v TABLES (Cont'd)
Tables Page 12. Total trap catch by species and their relative incidence (percent in catch) for the West Coast Vancouver Island (Area 27) cruise (Chimo No. I, May-June 1972) ...... 37 13. Total trap catch by species and their relative incidence (percent in catch) for the Strait of Georgia inlets (Areas 15 and 16), Industrial Development Branch Charter, Chimo No. I, December 1971 ...... 38 vi '
LIST OF PLATES
Plate Page
1. Hauling aboard an unbaited trap. In the back ground the groundline is being retrieved by the power block ...... 16
2. Assembling and baiting the traps prior to setting. Note the groundline passing through a sheave overhead and the folded traps in the foreground ...... 20 vii
APPENDIX FIGURES
Figure Page Appendix A
1. Set locations for the Chimo No. I Industrial Development Charter (Bute Inlet, December - 1971) ...... 48
2. Set locations for the Chimo No. I Industrial Development Charter (Homfray Channel and Pryce Channel, December 1971) ...... 49
3. Set locations for the Chimo No. I Industrial Development Charter (Jervis Inlet, December 1971) ...... 50
Appendix B
1. Set locations of the Chimo No. I during a commercial fishing operation (Whale Channel, May 19 72) ...... 5 4 2(a) Set locations of the Chimo No. I during a commercial fishing operation (Fisher Channel, May 19 7 2 ) ...... 5 5
2(b) Set locations of the Chimo No. I during a commercial fishing operation (Fitzhu~h Sound, May 1972) ...... 56 3. Set locations of the Chimo No. I during a commercial fishing operation (Northwest Vancouver Island, May-June 1972) ...... 57
Appendix C 1. Isometric view of a 34"x34"x8' trap ...... 68 2. Door and tunnel frame construction details ...... 69
3. Tunnel panel cutting instructions for a 34"x34"x8' trap ...... 70 viii
APPENDIX TABLES
Table Page
Appendix A
1. Catch data from observations during the Industrial Development Branch Charter of the Chimo No. I (Bute Inlet, December 1971) ...... 51
2. Catch data from observations during the Industrial Development Branch Charter of the Chimo No. I (Homfray and Pryce Channels, December 1971) ...... 51 3. Catch data from observations during the Industrial Development Branch Charter of the Chimo No. I (Jervis Inlet, December 1971) ...... 52
Appendix B 1. Catch data from the Chimo No. I during a commercial fishing operation (Whale Channel, May 1972) ...... 58
2. Catch data from the Chimo No. I during a commercial fishing operation (Fisher Channel and Fitzhugh Sound, May 1972) ...... 58 3. Catch data from the Chimo No. I during a commercial fishing operation (Northwest Vancouver Island, May and June 1972) ...... 59 4. Trap-caught sablefish specimen data (Whale Channel, May 14, 1972) ...... 60
5. Trap-caught sablefish specimen data (Fisher Channel, May 10, 1972) ...... 61 6. Trap-caught sablefish specimen data (Northwest Vancouver Island, June 4-9, 1972) ...... 63 INTRODUCTION
The sablefish or blackcod (Anoplopoma fimbria), a member of the skilfish family (not a true cod), inhabits the waters of the North Pacific Ocean. Active fisheries for this species occur from California to Alaska.
The adult sablefish inhabits deeper waters than other groundfish, most often between depths of 70 and 500 fathoms.
Spawning takes place in the late winter months, and is believed to occur in deep water off the west coast of Vancouver Island and the Queen Charlotte Islands. Large schools of small (sub legal size)l fish inhabit the shallower waters, close to land and on the fishing banks. These schools of small, 2-5 year old fish have at times been so abundant that the salmon troll fleet was hampered by their presence (W.A. Kennedy, Personal
Communication).
Research has recently been undertaken in efforts to improve both the quality of the sablefish caught and the efficiency of the fishing operations. The most up-to-date advancement has been the longline trap fishing system developed by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the United States
Department of Commerce in co-operation with Ore~on State Uni versity. Though cost of trap fishery gear can be hir,h (about
$55.00 per trap) and methodology is imperfect, traps have proven effective in harvesting sablefish.
lminimum size limit 2.5 pounds dressed - 2 -
The following study is an exploration of the trap system in the context of the B.C. sablefish fishery. The report will illustrate the basics of the trap fishing method by outlining the available information on gear and methodology. From the existent B.C. data, the report will present the most favourable areas of fishine and the most efficient methods of trap har vesting. The report is not aimed primarily at the research scien tist. Though scientific methodology has been utilized, the study's bias is toward fishermen and the commercial harvesting of sable fish. The report should provide a guide for those interested in this new trap fishery. - 3 - HISTORY OF THE FISHERY
Sablefish landings recorded in the 1890's represented one of British Columbia's earliest fisheries. During both world wars there was an urgent demand for all fishery products, and the sablefish fishery catches rose sharply. In later years the longline sable fish fishery was stimulated again by allowing the retention of incidental catches of halibut after the regular halibut season was closed.
On the ~.C. coast, sablefish traditionally have been har vested by lon~lines or trawls. While catches have been sizeable, both methods have inherent problems. In the longline fishery, the herring bait used on longline hooks is eaten by dogfish and other "scrap" fish before the gear reaches the desired sablefish depths, and undersize sablefish often cannot be returned to the water unharmed. In the trawl fishery, trawls are not operable in many areas due to uneveness of the bottom, and trawling sometimes produces a mixed-species catch, often in damaged condition, due to crushing and puncturing of the flesh by spines.
In modern times (1965 to 1970) total sablefish landings in the northeastern Pacific rose sharply from 4.1 to 37.0 thousand metric tons (Table 1). Japan, the maJor fishing nation, accounted for 56 percent of the average total catch for this period, the U.S.S.R. 38 percent, and Canada less than 2 percent. Though the Canadian catch is small by inter national standards, in terms of weight, B.C. sablefish landings - 4 -
Table 1. Northeastern Pacific (north of 40oN) sablefish catch (all nations).
Year U.S.S.R. * .Japan U.S.A . Canada Total (metric tons) 1965 0.7 2.0 1.0 0.4 4.1 1966 3.9 3.6 1.1 0.6 9.2 1967 17.0 6.9 0.7 0.4 25.0 1968 16.4 16.0 0.7 0.4 33.5 1969 9.8 22.5 1.1 0.3 33.7 1970 6.6 28.8 1.4 0.2 37.0 ------Mean Tons 9.1 13.3 1.0 0.4 23.8 Percent by Nation 38.2 55.9 4.2 1.7
*includes Bering Sea Source: International North Pacific Fisheries Commission - 5 -
in the last few years (1970-1972) by both trawl and other methods (including traps) have been substantial (Table 2).
The catch has been distributed widely over the coast (Figures 1 and 2) with the major productive areas bein~ in the vicinity of the Queen Charlotte Islands and Barkley Sound (Table 3).
MARKET CONDITIONS
Despite some fluctuations in the price per pound pa~d to fishermen for sablefish in B.C., the value has inc~eased steadily in the last twenty years. From ll¢/lb. landed value in 1953, prices climbed to 17¢/lb. in 1965 and to 22¢/lb. in
1970. Recent 1972 landed value figures rose to 'an average of
37¢/lb. with a range from 12 to 42¢/lb. (Table 4). Landed prices depend upon size of fish caught, seasonal market demand, method of capture, method of preservation (at sea) and whether
landed round or headed and eviscerated. Consistently, trap
caught, headed and eviscerated sablefish have commanded the top landed price per pound. Undoubtedly, the selectivity of traps for large, high-quality fish is a factor in determining this high landed price.
A strong market demand for "smoked Alaska blackcod" in recent years and an inadequate domestic supply prompted the
Federal Fisheries Service to waive the minimum size limit of
2.5 Ibs. dressed heads-off on sablefish for a trial period
of three months duration. This experiment was designed to - 6 -
encouraee trawl fishermen to harvest stocks of smaller fish that inhabit the shallower .waters. During the experimental period (July 15, 1972 to October 15, 1972) trawl landings were 4.5 times greater than those of the same period in 1970 and 1971 (Table 2). Nearly all of the increase in trawl catches over the two previous years can be attributed to the removal of the size restrictions. It is interesting to note that the catches from eear other than trawls were also 2.5 times greater in 1972 than in the previous two years. This verifies the facts that (1) the demand for large blackcod remained strong throughout 1972, (2) the larger cod have remained in short supply, even though total supplies this year are nearly three times as great as last year, and (3) users are slow to change to the smaller filleted product.
(D.B. McEachern and R.D. Humphreys, unpublished MS, 1972).
As a direct result of this consistent landed price to the fishermen and market demand for large sablefish the trap method of fishing is becoming popular. A number of new vessels designed for sablefish trap fishing have been built while several existing vessels have been modified to accommo date trap gear. - 7 -
Table 2. Monthly British Columbia sablefish landings in pounds by gear type (1970-72).
1970 1971 1972 L.L. H.L. L.L. H.L. Month L.L. Trawl Other Trawl Other Trawl
Jan. 1,600 200 600 100 8,100 100
Feb. 4,900 1,400 300 14,800 300 1,600
Mar. 4,200 10,400 300 '11,700 34,000 4,500
Apr. 65,300 48,600 17,800 16,000 74,700 -- - May 30,100 16,800 30,200 34,000 35,100 1,800
June 24,100 15,600 41,300 8,600 113,300 17,900
July 45,800 22,000 33,100 28,000 66,200 368,900
Aug. 19,800 26,900 21,800 43,500 68,000 454,900
Sept. 25,600 46,400 8,300 35,700 57,100 46,600
Oct. 1,800 59,400 5,300 85,100 44,700 102,000
Nov. 1,500 8,800 17,000 10,300 52,000 8,000
Dec. 200 200 26,500 100 59,100 3,500
Total 236,600 256,700 202,500 292,900 612,600 1,009,800
Year Total 492,400 495,400 1,622,400
Gear Code L.L. - Longline H.L. - Handline Other - tncludes traps
NOTE: In 1970 and preceding years catches were recorded only by two gear types, longline and trawl.
SOURCE: British Columbia Catch Statistics LEGEND - 8 - CATCHES (LBS.) TRAWL OTHER ROUND WT • DRESSED-- WT. • A 0 - 1,000 • 1,000 - 10,000 e• • 10,000 - 2!1,OOO A 2!1,OOO - !lO,OOO • 50,000 - 100,000
WHALE CHANNEL (1972)
2 WEST
'fl TZHUGH-FISH fR (1972)
o 10 20 30 40 50 I I I .- I I SCALE IN MILES
Figure 1. Averaee (1970-72) northern British Columbia sablefish catch distribution by statistical area and gear type. - 9 -
LEGEND CATCHES (LBS.) ~ OTHER ROUND WT. DRESSED WT.
o . 1,000
1,000· 10,000
• 10,000·25,000 WESTCOAST VANCOUVER ISLAND (1972) • OVER 100,000
BUTE INLET (1971)
PRYCE CHANNEL !l971)
HOMFRAY CHANNEL(1971)
o 10 20 30 40 50 L' . I ' j SCALE IN MILES
Fi~ure 2. Avera~e (1970-72) southern British Columbia sablefish catch distribution by statistical area and ~ear type. - 10 - Table 3. Sab1efish catches by statistical area by gear type for 1970 to 1972 in CWT. 1270 1271 1972 Other Trawl Other Trawl Other Trawl Dressed Round Dressed Round Dressed Round Area Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. Wt. 1 960 21 673 4 1,064 14 2E 232 436 645 15 2W 475 144 636 3 18 1 115 4 45 379 58 219 65 390 5 76 9 69 7 1,096 43 6 58 6 89 621 7 42 1 8 213 1 8 215 76 262 9 1 38 2 10 1 11 6 70 44 2 85 12 105 3 54 13 23 14 10 1 38 15 16 186 481 17 20 114 39 62 18 3 3 1 19 20 65 85 209 21 72 100 14 501 23 1 574 2 1,607 269 8,480 24 9 68 2 269 16 25 5 138 232 26 14 27 42 66 1 49 610 N. Coast 2,177 1,428 1,808 307 4,628 728 S. Coast 182 1,135 217 2,622 1,498 9,369 Total B.C. 2 2357 22567 2 2025 229 29 6 2126 10 2098
NOTE: To convert dressed wei~ht (heads off) to round weight, use a factor of 3.14. - 11 -
Table 4. Mid-month sablefish price to fishermen at Vancouver, 1972.
Month High Low
January 33------(¢/lb. )----20 February 30 14 March 38 15
April 41 NA
May 40 NA
June 41 12
July 42 12
August 40 12
September 40 12
Source: British Columbia Fish Marketing Report, Department of Environment, Fisheries Service, Pacific Re~ion. - 12 -
METHODS
Data was obtained from two separate cruises on the "Chimo
No. I". During the first cruise (December 1971) the vessel was under charter to the Industrial Development Branch. Location of individual sets and catch data for the first cruise are listed in appendix A. As the sets were retrieved, each trap was examined and numbers of fish by species determined by actual count. Specimen data recorded included lengths, weights, sex, maturity stages and stomach contents. In contrast, the second cruise (May-June 1972) was an ordinary fishing operation during which a Fisheries Service observer collected data. Clearly, the latter data more closely represents an operating fishing situation.
For the 1972 cruise, water depth measurements at the beginning and end of each set were obtained from a depth recorder and plotted by loran co-ordinates (offshore) or radar
(inshore). Depths of individual traps were calculated from the known depths at either end of each set, known distance between traps and known distance from the first to last trap on the sea bed. In areas where sea bed contours are gradual this method is accurate. However, in regions such as the northwest coast of Vancouver Island the extreme irregularity of the sea bed prohibits exact calculation of particular trap depths through such methodology. Still, the above described technique is sufficiently accurate when the analysis is based on data using 20 fathom depth intervals. - 13 -
Sablefish catch and specimen data from the 1972 cruise are shown in appendix B tables 1-6. Location of individual sets for the cruise appear in appendix B figures 1-3. As each trap was hauled aboard, the level of fish contained inside was noted. In order not to slow the hauling process, only smaller trap catches were fully counted. Thus catches for most indi vidual traps are estimated. After the hauling of an entire set or string of gear, while the crew headed and eviscerated the fish, actual counts by set were made and the estimates for individual traps could be adjusted accordingly. Undersized and unmarketable sablefish also were recorded before being discarded at sea.
Sablefish lengths measured as dressed lengths were con verted to fork lengths by a factor of 1.416 (Kennedy and
Pletcher, 1968). A Fisheries Research Board plastic measuring board, scored at one centimeter intervals, was used for length measurements. Dressed length was taken as the distance from the fork of the tail to that point on the long axis from which a perpendicular would pass through the most anterior part of the first dorsal fin. All weights, taken to the nearest tenth of a pound from dressed and headed fish then had to be converted
by the value of 1.43 to round weight (Kennedy and Pletcher,
1968).
Ages of sablefish were determined by reading scales from a preferred area similar to that used in taking scales from
Pacific salmon. Even so, over 20% of the specimens in the age - 14 - analysis samples could not be aged due to scale regeneracy
(20 to 25 scales were selected from each individual). In
Statistical Areas 6 and 8, so many scales were unreadable that the age sample sizes were reduced to levels that were statis- tically insufficient.
FISHING VESSEL AND GEAR DESCRIPTION
A. The Vessel
The Chimo No. I is an all-fiberglass, 57-foot vessel, with a l7-foot beam, equipped specifically for fishing with traps on longline gear. She has a 700-gallon brine tauk aft and a hold incorporating a blast freezer designed to maintain o a -20 C temperature. The carrying capacity of the vessel is estimated to be 40,000 Ibs of headed and eviscerated sable- fish.
B. Deck Gear
A Marco (model JOI07) power block with a 3/4 inch tapered sheave is mounted on a stout (6" steel pipe)i swinging davit which clears the bulwarks by about 3 feet. This line hauler facilitates the hauling of the sinkerlines and ground-
lines. An aluminum gillnet drum, driven by a B80 Staff hydraulic motor with mechanical spooler, retains the groundline and sinkerlines when hauling gear. The drum is set to take
up just the slack and does not assist in the actual hauling procedure. A hydraulic disc brake arrangement on the drum - 15 -
is used when setting the gear. By simply braking the drum, the traps can be attached to gangions without varying the vessel speed.
A "Teco" (Type K500WH) hydraulic boom with a lifting capability of 2,100 Ibs at a 17'4" radius and a 6,~00 Ib maximum at 5'7" radius is fitted on deck amidships, just aft of the hatch combings. This boom performs all the functions of a conventional mast and boom with some obvious advantages.
C. Sablefish Traps and FishinB Gear
The collapsible rectan~ular traps (Plate 1), which measure 34 inches square by 8 feet long, are constructed of
8 gauge 2 inch wire meGh on 3/8 inch rod frames. A double tunnel opening, constructed of 2~ inch extension measure (inside to outside), 21 thread or heavier y dyed, nylon web, is laced to the trap on the leading end of the tunnel opening and held in position by a trolling rubber or surgical cord from the narrow II-mesh opening to either side of the trap. This allows the trap to be collapsed without re-adjustment of the openines.
The cuttinv, description for the tunnel panels appears in appendix C.
The bridle arrangement for each trap, made from ~
inch polypropolene rope, is attached to the tunnel end of the trap (Plate 1). Three feet of 3/8 inch chain with a heavy duty spring-loaded snaphook is attached to the bridle in a position that allows the trap to hang at an angle of 45 to
60 degrees to facilitate easy unloading of fish. The chain [JI'obab ly :;( -~rv(::~ t.wo purposes: (1) it prevents foulinr; and twJ }_~tirll'; of the bridle, and (2) the floatint:, properties of the polypropolene groundlines and bridles create some underwater movement around the trap, which might frighten the sablefish.
The chain would anchor these lines.
A destruct panel measurin~ 9 inches by 9 inches fH'cvents lo~:; t traps from fJshl.nf~ after the bait has deteriorated.
()hi~(::rV8.t jon~.; rnad(~ durj nE': the ~:;urvey indicated that the traps rebalt themselves with dead carcasses and would fish on and on for years until the trap itself rusts away. The escape panel is usually stitched into the opening using 21-thread (or less) cotton twine. It has been estimated that this twine size in cotton will deteriorate after a soak time of approximately 5 I months (N.M.F.S. Hipkins). It was observed that the fishermen, when retrievin~ the traps, gave a little tug on each panel to ensure that unnecessary loss of fish would not occur.
Numbered buoys, flags, lights and radar reflectors are similar to those used in the halibut longline fishery.
~he line between the flar;pole and 2-foot diameter "Scots Buoy" is usually 3/8" hard-lay nylon. From the "Scots Buoy" 100
fathoms of 5/8 inch polymide nylon sinkerline is used to avoid
fouling in the screws of passing vessel~. A splice between the 5/8 inch polymide sinkerline and the 3/4 inch polypropolene
r:roundline seems to pass easily through the sheave when hauling
the cear.
The ~anr:ions on the v,roundline made of 3/8 inch - )7 - hard-lay nylon are approximately 8 inches lone; and incorporate a Lhimble and eye arran~ement to accommodate the heavy duty snaphook used to attach the traps to the groundline. The spacing of gangions on the groundline is at 75 fathom intervals
(thou~ht to be near the optimum distance apart). A 1,650 fathom long groundline would then accommodate about 20 gangions.
An ordinary 30 Ib halibut anchor with a fathom of
3/8 inch chain wa~:3 used on Lhe lnshore end of each string of
I~ r ?ar wrLi lr~ a ;)0 11> l( ~ rl(l :;t\oL wa:..; sometimes used on the offshore r ~ nd. J r', for example, the waLe!' depth on Lhe in~hore end was
;)00 faLhoms the anchor would be attached to the second gan[~ion on the e;roundline and would allow 150 fathoms of groundline plus 100 fathoms of sinkerline acting as buoy line. A 50 fathom depth margin in line would be used in this case. The accompanying schematic drawing (Figure 3) illustrates gear in a fishing situation.
The system of baitin~ the traps is very simple.
U:.JUally UtI'ee wh :ltc p las ti c Jars, each containinL~ 2-3 lbs of fro:l.en chopped herrlrlf~, are loosely placed in each trap prior
La settinf~ (Plate 2). Holes 1/8 inch in diameter are drilled in the jars to emit the herring "smell".
~- RADAR REFLECTOR
~-FLAG FLASHING LIGHT UOY WATER SURFACE
Q: W ~ Z - (/) (/)w W ~ Z ...J
GROUND LINE
ANCHOR
Figure 3. Schematic drawing of the traps in a fishing situation.
- 21 - RESULTS
On the northwest coast of Vancouver Island (W.C.V.I.) cruise, 15 sets were made using a total number of 207 traps.
A total of 8,017 sablefish were caught. But, because of de terioration from overly long soaktimes only 6,092 fish were actually landed. From 100 specimens sampled the avera~e dressed wei~ht (heads off and eviscerated) was calculated to be 5.48 pounds. The length frequency distribution of both the
Central B.C. (Areas 6 and 8) trap-caught sablefish and the northwest coast of Vancouver Island (Area 27) sablefish are shown in Figure 4. When over-laid on typical southwest Vancouver Island trawl catches (Figure 5), some observations can be made:
1) the length frequency of the Areas 6 and 8 trap
caught fish taken in 1972 is similar to that of
trawl-cau~ht fish taken in 1967 and 1971
2) the mean len8th (73.0 cms) of the northwest coast
Vancouver Island trap-caught fish is significantly
greater than both the Central B.C. (Areas 6 and 8)
and southwest Vancouver Island trawl-caught mean
lengths. As suggested by other reports (Hipkins
and Beardsly, 1970) trap fishing is selective
toward larger sablefish.
Trap fishing is also effective in catching smaller size sablefish. The data obtained during the Industrial Development
Branch (IDB) charter in coastal inlets is most revealin~.
While a large percenta~e (99.4) of the west coast Vancouver - 22 - CENTRAL B.C. AREA 6ond8 MAY 1972 14 TRAP CAUGHT N = 299 x MEAN LENGTH = 64.2 eM. 12
10 ~ z w u 8 a: w Q. 6
4
2
40 FORK LENGTH
NORTHWE·ST VANCOUVER ISLAND AREA 27 JUNE 1972' TRAP CAUGHT N = 384 MEAN LENGTH = 73.0 CM.
14
12
10 X ~ z w u 8 a:: w Q. 6
4
2
40 -45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 FO R K LEN G T H (C M S )
Figure 4. Length frequency distributions of trap caught sab1efish (Areas 6, 8 and 27 May-June 1972). - 23
14
12 SOUTHWEST VANCOUVER 10 IS L AN D AUG.:- SEPT. 1971 I Z W TRAWL CAUGHT o 8 N = 403 a: w MEAN LENGTH = 61.7 CM a.. 6
4
2
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 FORK LENGTH (CMS)
14 SOUTHWEST VANCOUVER ISLAND JULY-AUG.1967 TRAWL CAUGHT 12 N = 494 MEAN LENGTH = 62.8 CM. I- 10 z w 0 a: 8 w a.. 6
4
2
I I 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 80 85 90 95 FORK LENGTH (CMS)
Figure 5. Typical length -frequency distributions from trawl caught sablefish from southwest Vancouver Island (August September 1971 and July-August 1967). - 24 -
Island sablefish caught were above the 60 cm size limit, the
IDE fish cau~ht in the inlets were noticeably smaller. For, in the inlets, "A total of 6,441 sablefish were caught but. .
44.6%, or 2,871 fish were released because of their relatively ... small size" (Rudolf Chiang, unpublished data). Furthermore, the inlet sablefish do not appear to be as abundant as the off shore stocks. As Figure 6 indicates the averaee number of fish retained per set is much greater on the west coast of Vancouver
Island than in the inlets. Further examination reveals a steady falling off in catch in Homfray Channel. Such data points to
"a somewhat limited fishing potential" (Chiang, 1972) in the inlets.
The IDB charter catches, though not of the same magnitude as the west coast Vancouver Island catches, had a noticeably smaller discard rate. While mortality and decomposition of the west coast Vancouver Island fish ran as high as 81.65% by number, almost no dead sablefish were noted by Chiang. The rate of discard seems to have an obvious relationship to the set soaktime. Since others (IIipkins and Beardsley, 1970) have determined relatively low soaktimes to be most efficient, it is not surprising that west coast Vancouver Island "in-trap" mortality was high, considering the fact that there were several 200-300 hour soaktimes. Table 5 illustrates just how extensive the west coast Vancouver Island losses were. Lower
(70-100 hour) soaktimes have correspondingly low (under 20 percent) discard rates while high (240 hour plus) soaktimes - 25 - TRAP CATCHES WEST COAST VANCOUVER ISLAND AREA 27 JUNE, 1972 100
90
80
(/) w u 70 w a.. 60 I (/) u..- w 50 .....J !Xl T c:x: (/) 40 0 w 0 1 z c:x: 30 .....J . I• 20 I 10 1 T 1 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 SET NUMBER "
TRAP CATCHES 0o:!rce: H. Ch.Larl['" 19r(~) 3 HOMFRAY CHANNEL . T . T AREA 15 DEC . 1971 20 T T · TT T 10 11 lilT 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II SET NUMBER
1,li !':lH'(' (i. rl'h(' i.lVL'r'a!~c numhc'r' (c c~ ntr.'r clot) and the rnnl~(' (ends ()r' har) ()f' lan(j('d : -jablc'f'i~;h P('r' trap by Got for the north coast of' Vanc:ouv()!' Island and lloTTlf'ra.v Channel. - 26 -
Table 5. Set number, duration of soak and percentage of the total sable fish catch discarded* during the trap fishery (North Coast Vancouver Island, Chimo No. I, May 1972).
Set No. Soaktime Percent Discarded 1 236 7.22 2 283 61. 25 3 120 81.6-5 4 244 43.76 5 224 3.05 6 259 48.39 7 263 52.78 8 72 1.46 9 74 10 75 10.88 11 107 16.24 12 101 18.71
13 III 0.27 14 114 0.90 15 96 0.35
*only negligible quantities of sub-legal blackcod were found in the traps. Therefore the term "discarded" refers to fish disposed of because they were dead and in an unmarketable condition. - 27 -
have over 40 percent discards. Although several exceptional
plots arise out of the data (i.e. 81 percent discards at 120
hours and under 10% discards at 224 hours) the general trend
is still visible. Even when catches increased during long
soaktimes, the percentage of fish landed decreased substantially.
Consequently, longer soaktimes produce larger catches only at
the expense of extensive discarding.
In the present study catch per unit effort is expressed
as the number of pounds of fish landed in relation to the number
of hours the gear was soaked. Since one soakhour is defined
as one trap fished for one hour, total soakhours would be the
number of traps per set multiplied by the set soaktime. Landed
weight is determined by multiplying the number of sablefish
landed per set by the average (5.48 lb) dressed weight obtained
from the sampling data. Thus, C.P.U.E. for each set is landed
weight divided by total soakhours.
In spite of wide variation in soakhours and total landed
' weights, general patterns are evident in the data. Consistently,
it is the lowest 70-75 hour (900-1,100 total soakhours) soak times that produce the highest C.P.U.E. (Table 6). All the 70
hour soaktime C.P.U.E. figures (72 h'ours - 3.55, 74.5 hours -
2.70, 75 hours - 2.94) are far above the average 1.34 C.P.U.E.
A more noticeable difference exists between these low soaktime
figures and the C.P.U.E. of the plus 200 hour sets. The
longest soaks are not anywhere near the average C.P.U.E. (224
hours - 0.94, 236 hours - 1.04, 283 hours - 0.47). On the - 28 -
Table 6. Set number, duration of soaktime, landed pounds (dressed weight) and catch per 'unit of effort (Northwest Vancouver Island Sablefish Trap Fishery, Chimo No. ' I, May 1972).
Landed Ibs. Set No. of Total Caught Landed Catch/ No. Soakhours Tra2s Soakhours (dressed wt.) Unit Effort 1 236 14 3,304 3,518 1.06 2 283 13 3,679 1,754 0.47 3 120 15 1,800 170 0.09 4 244 15 3,660 2,274 0.62 5 224 14 3,136 2,953 0.94 6 259 14 3,626 2,548 0.70 7 263 12 3,156 1,392 0.44 8 72.5 13 936 3,326 3.55 9 74.5 13 968.5 2,630 2.71 10 75 14 1,050 3,096 2.94 11 107 14 1,498 2,543 1. 69 12 101 13 1,313 2,214 ' 1. 68 13 III 15 1,665 1,956 1.17 14 114 14 1,710 1,792 1. 04 15 96 1.4 1,344 1,545 1.14
Average 159 2,190 2,247 1. 34
Average Dressed Wt. 5.48 Ibs.
.", - 29 -
Table 7. Set number, duration of soak, landed pounds (dressed weight) and catch per unit of effort (Homfray Channel, Pryce Channel and Bute Inlet, Industrial Development Branch Charter, Chimo No. I, December 1971).
Set No. of Total Catch No. Soakhours Traps Soakhours (lbs. dressed) C.P.V.E. Homfra;y Channel 1 69 14 966 1,661 1.72 2 71 14 994 1,465 1.47 3 74 14 1,036 1,718 1.66 4 49 14 686 1,144 1.67 5 52 14 728 852 1.17 6 50 14 700 983 1.40 7 52 14 728 208 0.29 8 62 13 806 ) ) 1,241 0.85 9 47 14 658 ) 10 39 14 546 486 0.89 11 60 15 900 390 0.43 Pr;yce Channel 1 47 18 846 ) ) 530 0.38 2 36 15 540 ) Bute Inlet 1 44 13 572 1,340 2.34 2 47 14 658 1,225 1. 86
Data Source: R. Chiang 1972 - 30 -
Table 8. Set number, duration of soak, landed pounds (dressed weight) and catch per unit of effort (Jervis Inlet Industrial Development Branch Charter, Chimo No. I, December 1971).
Set No. of Total Catch No. Soakhours TraQs Soakhours (lbs. dressed) C.P.U.E. 1 33 14 462 438 0.94
2 25 14 350 712 2.03 3 28 14 392 792 2.02 4 25 14 350 209 0.59 5 22 13 286 492 1.72 6 25 13 325 636 1. 95 7 24 14 336 401 1.19 8 27 18 486 217 0.44 9 22 13 286 ) ) 979 1. 75 10 21 13 273 ) 11 176 16 2,816 1,432 0.50 12 200 14 2,800 1,691 0.60 13 164 14 2,296 1,762 0.76
Data Source: R. Chiang 1972 - 31 - basis of such data (as well as that in Tables 7 and 8) . it is certain that soaktimes lower than 70 hours are most efficient with the optimum time between 30 to 50 hours. (This optimum soaktime varies with each vessel size, gear hauling and pro cessing speeds.)
Along with soaktimes, depth of set is an important factor in determining the optimum fishing conditions. Earlier reports
(Kennedy and Pletcher 1968) have established that size and abundance of marketable sablefish increase as greater depths are reached. As Table 9 illustrates, the present west coast
Vancouver Island data appears to re-enforce such conclusions.
A wide depth range (from 150 to 450 fathoms) is found in the west coast Vancouver Island data. The only statistical short coming is that the data is somewhat biased in the shallowest depths from 150 to 190 fathoms. Because only one or two sets were made at these depths, a marginally higher catch might have been produced if more effort had been expended. For the most part though, the depth data is a reasonable reflection of the abundance of sablefish in the locations fished.
From Figure 7 it is evident that the deeper depths are most productive. The optimal depth is the 331-350 fathom
. interval while the intervals ranging from 331-350 to 391-410 fathoms all have high catches. A further indication of the productivity of the 300 fathom intervals are effort statistics derived from the relationship between landed catch (numbers) and total soakhours per depth interval. Effort figures of - 32 -
Table 9. Total pieces of sablefish trapped by 20 fathom depth intervals, total trap soakhours at each interval, numbers of sablefish discarded and landed catch in pieces by trap soakhour (Northwest Vancouver Island May-June 1972).
Depth Total Total Total Landed Catch (fathoms) Soakhours Catch Landed Discarded in pieces/SH
151 - 170 499 105 50 55 0.10 171 - 190 1,176* 85 77 8 0.07 191 - 210 1,412 100 73 27 0.05 211 - 230 2,088 363 336 27 0.16
231 - 250 1,842 387 232 155 0.13 251 - 270 2,023 421 288 133 0.14
271 - 290 3,053 640 431 209 0.14
291 - 310 2,148 646 488 158 0.23
311 - 330 2,125.5 514 374 140 0.18
331 - 350 2,223.5 828 792 36 0.36 351 - 370 2,726 1,146 960 186 0.35
371 - 390 2,033.5 681 517 164 0.25
391 - 410 1,626 486 375 111 0.23 411 - 430 774 222 145 77 0.19 Average 0.17
* one trap fouled
NOTE: Data does not include sets 4 and 5 nor sablefish under 2.5 lbs. (52 pieces) 1200
1100
100
900
800 (f) a:: w 700 II) ~ w z~ 600 w
G 500 ~ 200 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 It) 0 (1) 0 It) 0 (1) It) 10 I'- a> 10 I'- I'- (\j (\j (\j (\j (\j It) It) It) It) It) ~ V I I I I I I I I I I I I It) It) (1) It) (1) It) It) (1) I'- it; I'- I'- (\j (\j (\j (\j (\j It) It) It) It) rt) v v DEPTH INTERVAL ( FATHOMS) Figure 7. Total sablefish trap catch by 20-fathom depth intervals (Northwest coast Vancouver Island May-June 1972). - 34 - 0.36 (331-350 fathoms) and 0.35 (351-370 fathoms) are in contrast to the 0.17 avera~e unlt effort. An age analysis appears in Tables 10 and 11 for the 1972 northwest coast Vancouver Island trap fishery catches. It might be noted than when mean lengths-at-age are plotted against data from other studies (summarized by Kennedy and Pletcher 1968) essentially the same slope is evident. However, this recent west coast Vancouver Island data indicated slightly larger fish at each age. Although no specific data was collec ted with reference to distribution by sex, it was observed that traps appeared to have some selectivity towards the larger females. Differences in the length-weight relationships are evident when the northwest coast Vancouver Island samples (Figure 8) are compared with the Fisher Channel samples (Figure 9). After statistical analysis of data from these two locations (using two measurement systems, weight in pounds and fork length in centimeters) the following equations were derived: 5 3 137 Northwest coast Vancouver Island W = 1.0808 X 10- L • 5 3 022 Fisher Channel W = 2.1051 X 10- L • Caution should be used when referring to the Fisher Channel equation. Sampling bias (only 8 specimens over 70 centimeters) quite possibly has affected these results. The northwest coast Vancouver Island equation is identical in slope with a slight difference in origin when compared to - 35 - 5 3 14 Kennedy's equation: W = 1.28 X 10- L • (Kennedy and Pletcher 1968). For the use of fishermen, length in inches was added to Fieure 8 after the original plots were made by a digital plotter. All available data indicates that efficiency of sablefish trap fishing will not be interrupted by incidental catch of other species. Though numbers of red snappers (76) and flag rockfish (50) were caught off the west coast of Vancouver Island, sablefish still comprise over 98 percent of the total catch (Table 12). The only other signi~icant catches were numbers of invertebrates in some traps specially covered with small mesh herring net. Of these invertebrates, tanner crabs (180 in number) were most noteworthy. When the west coast Vancouver Island data is compared with the Strait of Georgia information (Table 13) some interesting differences emerge. While red snappers are evident in both cruises, in the inlets dogfish (74 caught) are the most prevalent incidental species. Invertebrates do not appear to be as· ~bundant in the inlets as they are in the west coast Vancouver Island catches. Finally on the west coast Vancouver Island what is thought to be Japanese lon~line hooks and hook $cars appeared on sable fish at the rate of 0.03%. Observations also show a nematode infestation rate of 22% in these stocks. - 36 - Table 10. Length-at-age frequency distribution of trap- caught sablefish (Northwest Vancouver Island May-June 1972). Length Age (in cm) 5 b 7 8 9 10 54 56 58 3 60 1 3 2 62 2 3 64 2 5 1 1 66 2 1 1 68 2 3 2 1 70 4 6 1 72 1 2 4 74 2 2 1 76 1 1 1 2 78 1 2 1 80 2 1 82 1 1 84 1 86 88 90 1 1 2 Table 11. Sablefish (trap-caught) mean fork lengths, mean round weights and standard deviations at age (Northwest Vancouver Island May-June 1972). X length Standard X round weight Standard Age N (cm) Deviation (lbs) Deviatton 5 6 65.20 4.3 5.35 1.09 6 20 65.86 5.1 5.65 1. 26 7 25 71.06 6.1 7.58 2.23 8 17 75.05 6.7 8.39 2.44 9 7 78.40 7.2 10.70 3.20 10 2 89.50 0.4 13.95 1.06 - 37 - Table 12. Total trap catch by species and their relative incidence (percent of catch) for the West Coast Vancouver Island (Area 27) cruise, (Chimo No. I cruise, May "-June 1972). Percent Species Pieces of Catch Black Cod (Anoplopoma fimbria) 8,017 98.34 Red Snappers (Sebastodes ruberrimus) 76 0.93 Ling Cod (Ophiodon elongatus) 1 0.01 Halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) 7 0.09 Flag Rockfish (Sebastodes rubrivinctus) 50 0.61 Roughscale Rattail (Coryphaenoides 1 0.01 acrolepis) TOTAL 8,152 100.00 Invertebrates Urchins (Allocentratus fragilis) 776 Gastropods or Sea Snails (unclassified) 200 Tanner Crabs (Chionoecetes tanneri) 180 Prawns (unclassified) 4 - 38 - Table 13. Total trap catch by species and their relative incidence (percent in catch) for the Strait of Georgia inlets (Areas 15 and 16). Industrial Development Branch Charter, Chimo No. I, December 1971. Percent Species Pieces of Catch Black Cod (Anoplopoma fimbria) 6,969 98.36 Dog Fish (Squalus suckleyi) 74 1. 04 Red Snappers (Sebastodes ruberrimus) 25 0.35 Sole (unclassified) 7 0.10 Sharks (unclassified) 5 0.07 Rat Fish (Hydrolagus colliei) 4 0.06 Skate (unclassified) 1 0.01 TOTAL 7,085 99.99 Invertebrates Sea Anemones eunclassified) 1 Crabs (unclassified) 14 Clams (unclassified) 1 Data Source: R. Chiang 1972 - 39 - 19~------~------,------,------,------,------,------,------, 17 15 NORTH. WEST VANCOUVER ISLAND AREA 27 13 N = 40 II (I) o z :::> o Q. 9 .... :x: .. C> ILl W=I.0808 x 10- 5 L 3.137 ~ 7 5 3 I I 55 65 75 85 95 FORK LEN-GTH (eMS) I I I , I I J I 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 FORI< LENGTH ( INS) Figure 8. Relationship between length and weight of northwest Vancouver Island sablefish. - 40 - 19-r------r------.------.------.------.~----_.------_.------, . 17 FISHER CHANNEL AREA 8 N = 43 15 13 II en o z ::> o Q. 9 I- :I: C> \aJ ~ 7 5 3~------.------.------r_------._----_.------_.------_r----~ 55 65 75 85 95 FORK LENGTH (eMS) Figure 9. Relationship between length and weight of Fisher Channel sablefish. - 41 - DISCUSSION Compared to longline fishing and trawling, trap fishing is an excellent method of harvesting sable fish. Traps are hiehly species selective and can be fished on virtually any seabed configuration. Also, the trap-caught product is in fine marketable condition and consistently brings higher landed prices to the fishermen. Despite a high initial outlay for outfitting and in spite of risks involved in possible gear loss, trap fishing is efficient and appears to be profitable. Observations do point out areas in which vessel, gear and methodology improvements could be made. On a vessel handling sizeable amounts of gear (i.e. over four strines ), ample deck space must be available. Space for trap stora~e, trap handling, and for processing large numbers of fish is necessary. Storage of traps would be facilitated if the hatch opening and the slaugQter area are of a size large enough to handle collapsed traps. Then, during travel, traps could be stored off the deck in a much more secure location. Another storage problem is that of the groundline. The "Chimo No. I" has a drum that could handle one and half strings of gear. But, with seven strines of gear, much of the line had to remain on deck. While one possible solution is replace ment by a larger drum, another way of solving the problem could be the use of less gear. When seven or more strings of gear are fished, hauls cannot be made at near optimum soaktimes. With high soaktimes, - 42 - loss from fish mortality and decomposition is high. If sizeable catches can be made in 20-40 hour soaks, soaking over 100 hours is not efficient use of gear. With the ability to haul quicker, a fisherman with 3 or 4 strings could catch a similar number of fish with much more efficiency. Another alternative, par ticularly appealing for smaller "outfit~", is fishing with individual traps as in crab fishing. For a minimum expenditure and effort fishermen could catch sizeable numbers of sablefish. Such fishermen could consistently fish in optimum depths. Hauling time could be shortened by shortening the distance between strings of gear. In an area of high abundance, over fishing would not be a problem but, since drifting of set gear is common, one-quarter to one-half mile intervals betweens sets would still be required to prevent tangling. The practice of leaving the gear unbaited on the grounds between trips also seems reasonable. However, since it has been demonstrated that unbaited traps effectively catch fish, trap doors should be left open if traps are to be left more than 100 hours. Equipment improvements are concentrated on three items: 1) The Teco crane, though functioning quite adequately, does need a device for clamping or holding traps. A trap loaded with sablefish, swinging freely, is both difficult to manage and extremely dangerous. 2) The large quantities of fish brought in strain the processing capacity of the vessel and the freezing - 43 - system cannot freeze fish as quickly as traps are hauled. As a result, hauling has to be halted while the freezer handles the already dressed fish. The most logical solution to the problem is a vastly im proved freezing system or a changeover from freezing to a combination ice and freezer system. 3) The bait jars could be better designed. Instead of three small jars, a single flat, easily filled container with a capacity of 8 or 9 pounds of chopped herring would speed up the baiting process. Furthermore, data on file (Area 6 and 8) shows that unbaited traps stored with bait jars inside caught few, if any, fish. In contrast stored traps without jars inside caught sizeable numbers of sablefish. Thus, it is possible that sable fish have some aversion to the white colour of the jars. A change in colour to green or grey might rectify the situation. - 44 - SUMMARY 1) Sustained markets for trap caughtsablefish have prevailed since 1971. 2) Trap fishing has proven to be a feasible, efficient and profitable method of harvesting sablefish. 3) Efficiency of a sablefish trap fishery will not be interrupted by incidental catch of other species. 4) Catches are larger in the offshore continental shelf areas than in the inlets. 5) Fish on the west coast of. Vancouver Island are bigger in size (average weight 5.48 Ibs dressed and mean fork length 73.0 cms). Few fish are released becaus~ they are undersized. 6) Optimum soaktime is 30 hours in the mainland inlets and less in offshore waters where larger concentrations of fish are found. Lower soaktimes consistently reduce discarding through mortality. 7) On the west coast of Vancouver Island sizeable catches were made from 150 to 430 fathoms while the optimum fishing depth interval was 331-350 fathoms. 8) The west coast of Vancouver Island appears to have an abundant stock of sablefish capable of supporting a substantial fishery. Though they do not have the same potential as the offshore areas, the inlets do appear as possible winter fishing areas. - 45 - REFERENCES ,CLEMENS, W.A. and G.V. WILBY. 1961. Fishes of the Pacific Coast of Canada. Bull. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada, No. 68 (2nd ed.), 443 p. KENNEDY, W.A. and F.T. PLETCHER. 1968. The 1964-65 Sablefish Study. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada, Tech. Rept& No. 74, 24 p. KETCHEN, K.S. and C.R. FORRESTER. 1954. The Sablefish Fishery of British Columbia. Pacific Marine Fish. Comm. ,Bull., 3, p. 58-85. ' DEPT. OF FISHERIES AND FORESTRY. 1970. British Columbia Catch Statistics, Fish. Ser., Pac. Reg. 195 p. DEPT. OF THE ENVIRONMENT. 1971. British Columbia Catch Statistics, Fish. Sere Pac. Reg. 201 p. DEPT. OF THE ENVIRONMENT. 1972. British Columbia Catch Statistics, Fish. Ser., Pac. Reg. 201 p. DEPT. OF THE ENVIRONMENT. 1972. British Columbia Fish , Marketing Report, Fish. Ser., Pac. Reg. Wkly. Bull. Nos. 1-49. McEACHERN, D.B. and R.D. HUMPHREYS. 1972. The initial effects of the temporary removal of the minimum blackcod size limit. Dept. of the Environment, Fish. Ser., Pac. Reg. unpublished MS, 15 p. HIPKINS, F.W. and A.J. BEARDSLEY. 1970. Development of a pot system for harvesting blackcod. Progress Report. Nat. Mar. Fish. Ser., U.S. Dept. of Comm., 31 p. CHIANG, Rudolph M.T. 1971. Exploratory trap fishing for sablefish on "Chimo No. I". Dept. of the Environment, Fish. Ser., Pac. Reg. unpublished MS, 21 p. - 46 - ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to thank the owners of the CHIMO NO. I for their co-operation durin~ charter cruises. Special thanks to the Skipper, Wayne Patterson and his crew for the assistance in collecting field information. For permission to use the data from the initial I.D.B. Chimo Cruise in 1971 we thank Rudolf Chiang, Fish Quality Specialist of the Fisheries Service, Inspection Branch. The scale room staff of the Technical Services Unit, under the direction of Allan Wood, for their perserver ance when aging scales. Bob McIlwaine of the Industrial Development Branch for assistance with trap dcsi~ns. Allan Chan and Lilly Pearson for their draftin~ skills. Joe Kambeitz for the cover drawing and Penny Samson for typing the report. To Bob Humphreys, we give special thanks for continued good direction and for critically reviewing the text. - 47 - APPENDIX A 48 DOWNIE RANGE MAURELLE ISLAND 2 ! ! SCALE IN MILES Source: R. Chiang 197? Figure 1. Set locations for the Chimo No. I Industrial Development Charter (Bute Inlet, December 1971) . - 119 - Appendix A WEST REDONDA ISLAND EAST REDONDA ISLAND 0°! ., •• :: •••••• :~: •• : ...... e o .\' •• ::'" ....ci!l:ll~~_•.••.• .::.~/::~ . .//,::y:' .!::".'" ./~~::.;:. .' : .::::",: ' .. :..... ~ .. :: .•. : •.. : :.~ .. ~ o 2 0 ! ! - 0 :::;- I "·0• • 0, 0.".":-•• o ...... :~.t::? ...... ~ .... ;:' SCALE IN MILES .. °0 ~ "ii7'~ '0 •••• R. Ch1anp; 1972 Fil~ure 2. Set locations for the Chimo No. I - Industrial Development Charter (Homfray Channel and Pryce Channel, December 1971). 50 A ISLAND o 2 , , I SCALE IN MILES Source R. Chia~c 1972 Fip;ure 3. Set locations for the Chimo No. I Industrial Deve lopment Charter (Jervis Inlet, December 1971) . Table 1. Catch data from observations during the Industrial Development Branch Charter of the Chimo No • . I (Bute Inlet, December 1971) Source : R. Chiang 1972 Set Set Haul No. Depth Est. Total Est. No. Est. No. Est. No. No. Date Hour Date Hour Soakhrs. Traps Start Finish Catch by No. <2.5 1bs. Discarded Landed 1 18/12/71 1440 20/12/71 1030 44 13 355 355 553 323 230 2 18/12/71 1515 20/12/71 1450 47 14 355 355 481 271 210 Totals 1,034 594 440 Table 2. Catch data from observations during the Industrial Development Branch Charter of the Chimo No. I (Homfray and Pryce Channels, December 1971) Set Set Haul No. Depth Est. Total Est. No. Est. No. Est. No. No. Date Hour Date Hour Soakhrs. Traps Start Finish Catch by No. <2.5 1bs. Discarded Landed Vl Homfray Channel I-' 1 12/12/71 1445 15/12/71 1130 69 14 405 405 439 168 271 2 12/12/71 1610 15/12/71 1540 71 14 400 400 406 159 247 3 12/12/71 1800 15/12/71 2415 74 14 400 400 423 139 284 4 14/12/71 1020 16/12/71 1110 49 14 400 400 335 127 208 5 14/12/71 1130 16/12/71 1545 52 14 400 375 254 97 157 6 15/12/71 1040 17/12/71 1315 50 14 400 200 270 96 174 ;J::> 7 15/12/ 71 1335 17/12/71 1735 52 14 350 400 63 23 40 ro ::s 8 15/12/71 1800 18/12/71 0815 62 13 400 400 i61 75 86 P, ~. 9 16/12/71 1030 18/12/71 0945 47 14 400 400 292 136 156 >< ;J::> 10 16/12/71 1420 18/12/71 0545 39 14 390 390 158 65 93 11 16/12/71 1850 19/12/71 0625 60 15 390 390 152 77 75 Cont'd Table 2. (Cont'd) Set Set Haul No. Depth Est. Total Est. No. Est. No. Est. No. No. Date Hour Date Hour Soakhrs. Traps Start Finish Catch by No. <2.5 1bs. Discarded Landed Pryce Channel 12 17/12/71 1640 19/12/71 1430 47 18 270 275 145 88 57 13 18/12/71 0715 19/12/71 1600 36 15 275 275 111 67 44 Totals 3,209 1,317 1,892 Table 3. Catch data from observations during the Industrial Development Branch Charter of the Chimo No. I (Jervis Inlet, December 1971) Source: R. Chiang 1972 Set Set Haul No. Depth Est. Total Est. No. Est. No. Est. No. No. Date Hour Date Hour Soakhrs. Traps Start Finish Catch by No. <2.5 1bs. Discarded Landed 1 1/12/71 1930 3/12/71 0415 33 14 260 280 120 0 120 Ul I\) 2 1/12/71 1020 3/12/71 1205 25 14 279 375 175 0 175 3 1/12/71 1215 3/12/71 1620 28 14 265 225 150 0 150 4 3/12/71 0815 4/12/71 0945 25 14 330 380 76 33 43 5 3/12/71 1530 4/12/71 1345 22 13 360 330 144 54 90 6 3/12/71 2015 5/12/71 0900 25 13 380 330 224 92 132 7 4/12/71 1315 5/12/71 1315 24 14 216 295 83 0 83 :t::- 8 4/12/71 1600 5/12/71 1900 27 18 340 357 107 65 42 CD ::s 9 5/12/71 1215 6/12/71 1010 22 13 360 303 144 61 83 p, ~ 10 5/12/71 1630 6/12/71 1330 21 13 320 320 205 106 99 >< 11 6/12/71 0810 13/12/71 1610 176 16 315 225 422 196 226 :t::- 12 6/12/71 1230 14/12/71 1700 200 14 320 350 398 153 245 13 6/12/71 1700 13/12/71 1300 164 ;1.4 280 280 478 200 278 Totals 2,726 960 1,766 - 53 - APPENDIX B ~endix B PRINCESS ..J I.&J Z Z I.&J ..J ~ ~ ....Al IIi.iJ ISLAND o 2 I I SCALE IN MILES Figure 1. Set locations of the Chimo No. I during a commercial fishing operation (Whale Channel, May ;l,972) 55 DENNY ISLAND o 2 I ! SCALE IN MILES Figure 2(a) Set locations of the Chimo No. I during a commercial fishing operation (Fisher Channel, May 1972). 56 ~ . endix B ,."" ~...... ;' ,. ~ , I' _----- (• '--- " • ; ,-, ~-- ..... tI, , "- "'-~ ...... :. " ,~ - , •• t I .;,I, ....• , .. ,.I .,I, ", :: ,:~ • t •• ~ ...--:, ,.: ,;>!rF~i' • 'Ut& ,I ,":..'401-. ,',,,, " /.W~·""\ ,/~/' . .:... ~ ",'.. . t;•• I'~ .:il ;.....I!.W. :·i:',-'. o (J) • • CALVERT - ISLAND o 2 I ! SCALE IN MILES Figure 2(b) Set locations of the Chima No. 1 durinr.; a commercial fishln~ operation (Fltzhueh Sound, May 1972). -"\ 57 - ~ ...... \. "'-"''":-....: '-.,"-;:: ,/ ''''",r,.,) :" cox "----'" ',ISLAND \ , '"': i "'" ,,' r. : ~_ ,: ) SCOTT <...... ~ i \. \'" \ "1 / I ; / ..... " , ( \ \,- "- I' ( \" ., ,I ( ... " o 10 VANCOU\JER g 1 ( ISLAND "'" / / / I \ , \ '-,'., \ , \ \. , i j I"", ~ ./ QUATS~NO / (, '). ( ,\ ~ ) r' o I 234 I '( I W'! \ ) i SCALE IN MILES \ ./ " Figure 3, Set locations of the Chimo No. I during a commercial fishing operation (Northwest Vancouver Island, May-June 1972). Table 1. Catch data from the Chimo No. I during a commercial fishing operation (Whale Channel, May 1972)2 Set Set Haul No. Depth Est. Total Est. No. Est. No. Est. No. 1 No. Date Hour Date Hour Soakhrs. Traps Start Finish Catch by No. <2.5 1bs. Discarded Landed 1 3/5/72 14/5/72 1840 271 14 200 250 ll6 55 5 56 2 3/5/72 14/5/72 2015 272 14 200 250 66 44 2 20 3 3/5/72 14/5/72 2145 274 14 200 250 204 112 .5 87 Totals 386 211 12 163 Table 2. Catch data from the Chimo No. I during a commercial fishing operation U1 (Fisher Channel and Fitzhugh Sound, May 1972)3 00 Set Set Haul No. Depth Est. Total Est. No. Est. No. Est. No. No. Date Hour Date Hour Soakhrs. Traps Start Finish Catch by No. <2.5 1bs. Discarded Landed 1 2/ 5/ 72 10/5/72 1500 243 15 203 128 1 74 2 2/5/72 10/5/72 1630 244 13 95 28 2 65 3 2/5/72 10/5/72 2225 250 15 100 150 0 0 0 0 4 2/5/72 10/5/72 2315 251 14 60 100 0 0 ' 0 0 ~ rn::I Totals 298 156 3 139 0- r-'. 1 Soakhours based on estimated set time of 1200 hrs. ~ G:' 2 All Area 6 traps with the exception of one trap in set No. 2 and two traps in set No. 3 were set for storage unbaited 3 All Area 8 traps set for storage unbaited Table 3. Catch data. from the Chimo No. I during a commercial fishing operation (Northwest Coast Vancouver Island, May and June 1972) Set Set Haul No. Depth Est. Total Est. No. Est. No. Est. No. 1 No. Date Hour Date Hour Soakhrs. Traps Start Finish Catch by No. <2.5 Ibs. Discarded Landed 1 25/5/72 4/6/72 0745 236 14 180 400 692 0 50 642 2 25/5/72 6/6/72 0700 283 13 310 180 671 6 405 260 3 1/6/72 6/6/72 1145 120 15 290 160 169 2 136 31 4 27/5/72 6/6/72 1600 244 15 360 738 1 322 415 5 27/5/72 5/6/72 2000 224 14 350 556 2 15 539 6 27/5/72 7/6/72 0730 259 14 450 170 901 0 436 465 7 27/5/72 7/6/72 1105 263 12 450 270 538 7 277 254 Vl 8 6/6/72 0615 9/6/72 0630 72 13 430 330 616 9 0 607 \D 9 6/6/72 0915 9/6/72 1145 74 13 39"0 340 480 0 0 480 10 6/6/72 1350 9/6/72 1610 75 14 420 265 634 14 55 565 11 6/6/72 1845 11/6/72 0530 107 14 430 290 554 2 88 464 12 7/6/72 0620 11/6/72 1120 101 13 400 220 497 5 88 404 13 7/6/72 1545 12/6/72 0630 111 15 380 190 358 0 1 357 14 7/6/72 1645 12/6/72 1025 114 14 340 210 330 3 0 327 :t:> 15 9/6/72 1500 12/6/72 1510 96 14 395 260 283 1 0 282 CD ~ 0, Totals 8,017 52* 1,873* 6,092 f-J. ~ . OJ *returned to sea ISoakhours for sets 1-7 based on set time of 1200 hrs. Appendix B - 60 - Table 4. Trap-caught sablefish specimen data (Whale Channel, May 14, 19 72 ) . Length (cm) Weight (lbs) No. Age Fork Dressed Round Dressed 1 4 58.6 41. 4 5.0 3.5 2 62.0 43.8 6.1 4.3 3 7 66.0 46.6 6.4 4.5 4 4 58.1 41.0 4.3 3.0 5 5 61. 0 43.1 5.9 4.1 6 70.2 49.6 8.9 6.2 7 7 58.3 41.2 5.9 4.1 8 6 58.1 41.0 4.9 3.4 9 4 60.6 42.8 5.9 4.1 10 65.6 46.3 7.3 5.1 11 5 64.6 45.6 6.4 4.5 12 6 60.9 43.0 5.6 3.9 13 5 62.2 43.9 6.7 4.7 14 7 60.0 42.4 5.3 3.7 15 7 68.0 48.0 6.1 4.3 16 72.8 51. 4 9.9 6.9 17 5 57.1 40.3 5.1 3.6 18 64.3 45.4 6.1 4.3 19 64.6 45.6 6.9 4.8 20 56.6 40.0 lL 7 3.3 ~ndix B - 61 - Table 5. Trap-caught sablefish specimen data (Fisher Channel, May 10, 1972). Length (cm) Weight (lbs) No. Age Fork Dressed Round Dressed 1 75.6 53.4 9.4 6.6 2 66.1 46.7 6.9 4.8 3 5 61. 0 43.1 5.4 3.8 4 6 59.2 41.8 5.0 3.5 5 60.0 42.4 4.7 3.3 6 6 68.1 48.1 7.4 5.2 7 5 63.4 44.8 5.3 3.7 8 5 62.5 44.1 4.9 3.4 9 8 65.1 46.0 7.7 5.4 10 61. 5 43.4 5.3 3.7 11 8 79.3 56.0 12.2 8.5 12 6 67.4 47.6 7.3 5.1 13 60.9 43.0 4.7 3.3 14 58.8 41. 5 4.9 3.4 15 7 73.2 51.7 9.3 6.5 16 5 55.9 39.5 4.0 2.8 17 5 61. 3 43.3 5.0 3.5 18 74.3 52.5 9.6 6.7 19 6 72.5 51. 2 7.6 5.3 20 5 56.4 39.8 3.9 2.7 21 61.0 43.1 5.0 3.5 22 65.0 45.9 6.0 4.2 23 66.3 46.8 6.7 4.7 24 62.2 43.9 6.0 4.2 25 66.8 47.2 6.9 4.8 26 61. 6 43.5 5.3 3.7 27 60.2 42.5 5.0 3.5 28 60.2 42.5 5.0 3.5 Cont'd - 62 - Table 5. (Cont'd) Length (em) Weight (lbs ) No. Age Fork Dressed Round Dressed 29 64.3 45.4 5.9 4.1 30 62.2 43.9 5.4 3.8 31 60.3 42.6 5.4 3.8 32 65.4 46.2 7.4 5.2 33 60.6 42.8 5.7 4.0 34 66.0 46.6 7.0 4.9 35 58.3 41.2 4.7 3.3 36 62.9 44.4 5.4 3.8 31 63.4 44.8 7.2 5.0 38 56.6 40.0 3.9 2.7 39 66.3 46.8 6.9 4.8 40 56.1 39.6 4.0 2.8 41 84.9 60.0 13.0 9.1 42 76.3 53.9 9.3 6.5 43 77.2 54.5 12.2 8.5 Appendix B - 63 - Table 6. Trap caught sab1efish specimen data (Northwest Vancouver Island, June 4-9, 1972). Length (em) Weight (lbs ) No. Age Fork Dressed Round Dressed 1 8 74.3 52.5 8.4 5.9 2 6 69.7 49.2 6.1 4.3 3 69.5 49.1 6.4 4.5 4 9 76.5 54.0 9.0 6.3 5 10 89.8 63.4 14.7 10.3 6 6 68.7 48.5 8.3 5.8 7 9 76.2 53.8 8.7 6.1 8 7 75.5 53.3 10.4 7.3 9 7 81. 0 57.2 11. 9 8.3 10 7 69.7 49.2 6.4 4.5 11 69.1 48.8 4.1 2.9 12 5 62.6 44.2 4.4 3.1 13 68.7 48.5 4.6 3.2 14 75.6 53.4 10.2 7.1 15 6 58.5 41. 3 5.0 3.5 16 6 65.6 46.3 5.0 3.5 17 81. 4 57.5 10.0 7.0 18 79.2 55.9 8.3 5.8 19 6 64.0 45.2 4.7 3.3 20 7 65.6 46.3 5.9 4.1 21 6 59.3 41.9 4.3 3.0 22 6 64.4 45.5 6.1 4.3 23 5 73.4 51.8 7.0 4.9 24 9 91. 8 64.8 16.0 11.2 25 78.6 55.5 10.4 7.3 26 69.4 49.0 9.2 6.4 27 5 63.4 44.8 5.1 3.6 28 7 69.1 48.8 6.3 4.4 29 9 81.1 57.3 12.3 8.6 Cont'd Appendix B - 64 - Table 6. (Cont'd) Length (em) Weight (lbs) No. Age Fork Dressed Round Dressed 30 6 71.9 50.8 6.9 4.8 31 7 81. 6 57.6 11. 7 8.2 32 7 75.1 53.0 7.9 5.5 33 66.8 47.2 5.7 4.0 34 8 67.3 47.5 6.0 4.2 35 8 73.5 51. 9 8.2 5.7 36 87.8 62.0 17.3 12.1 37 8 77.2 54.5 8.2 5.7 38 7 61. 0 43.1 4.9 3.4 39 7 70.1 49.5 6.6 4.6 40 8 65.1 46.0 4.7 3.3 41 80.4 56.8 11.9 8.3 42 8 79.7 56.3 10.6 7.4 43 63.7 45.0 4.6 3.2 44 6 65.4 46.2 5.6 3.9 45 7 71. 7 50.6 8.4 5.9 46 6 70.8 50.0 6.4 4.5 47 5 65.4 46.2 5.6 3.9 48 6 77.6 54.8 8.3 5.8 49 9 68.5 48.4 6.6 4.6 50 6 60.6 42.8 5.4 3.8 51 8 79.3 56.0 9.4 6.6 52 87.8 62.0 14.2 9.9 53 7 78.0 55.1 9.4 6.6 54 7 82.6 58.3 11. 9 8.3 55 66.6 47.0 4.7 3.3 56 8 72.9 51.5 8.7 6.1 57 8 68.0 48.0 7.7 5.4 58 83.3 58.8 10.0 7.0 59 8 72.9 51.5 6.7 4.7 Cont'd Appendix B - 65 - Table 6. (Cont'd) Length (em) Weir;ht (lbs) No. Age Fork Dressed Round Dressed 60 8 74.3 52.5 8.0 5.6 ~ 61 7 63.9 45.1 4.3 3.0 62 80.4 56.8 9.6 6.7 63 77.6 54.8 10.4 7.3 64 7 69.1 48.8 6.7 4.7 65 9 79.9 56.4 13.0 9.1 66 6 66.6 47.0 4.9 3.4 67 59.2 41. 8 4.4 3.1 68 10 89.2 63.0 13.2 9.2 69 7 63.2 44.6 6.1 4.3 70 6 70.8 50.0 5.9 4.1 71 8 71. 9 50.8 7.3 5.1 72 7 63.0 44.5 4.3 3.0 73 7 61. 2 43.2 4.4 3.1 74 90.2 63.7 14.7 10.3 75 5 61.2 43.2 4.0 2.8 76 83.5 59.0 11. 3 7.9 77 8 83.' 0 58.6 12.6 8.8 78 6 61.7 43.6 5.1 3.6 79 8 90.3 63.8 14.0 9.8 80 6 71.1 50.2 7.0 4.9 81 8 84.3 59.5 10.2 7.1 82 7 71. 9 50.8 9.0 6.3 83 6 60.2 42.5 3.9 2.7 , 84 7 76.5 54.0 7.7 5.4 85 7 7.3.4 51.8 7.9 5.5 86 82.1 58.0 11. 3 7.9 87 7 66.8 47.2 8.3 3.7 88 8 68.0 48.0 5.3 3.7 89 6 59.5 42.0 3.7 2.6 Cont'd Appendix B - 66 - Table 6. (Cont'd) Length (ern) Weie;ht (lbs) No. Ae;e Fork Dressed Round Dressed 90 8 73.9 52.2 6.7 4.7 ~ 91 7 71. 7 50.6 8.2 5.7 92 7 71. 9 50.8 7.0 4.9 93 7 72.8 51. 4 7.3 5.1 94 5 65.4 46.2 6.0 4.2 95 6 66.0 46.6 5.3 3.7 96 7 70.2 49.6 6.7 4.7 97 60.6 42.8 4.3 3.0 98 6 64.7 45.7 5.0 3.5 99 72.1 50.9 8.3 5.8 100 9 75.1 53.0 9.3 6.5 - 67 - • , APPENDIX C -• HINGED DOOR. SEE DETAI L DWG. RUBBER STRAPS AND HOOKS FOR 10 GA. STEEL WIRE COIL HINGES. FASTENING I" 1.0. 3 LOOPS, 5 COILS EA. EDGE. DOOR --- ...... 11 3/8 DIA. ROD FRAME 211 X 2" x 8 OR 10 GA. MESH. LOW CARBON g")( g" DESTRUCT PANEL STEEL a WELDED TO INSIDE OF FRAMES. SURGICAL RUBBE R ----'" DOUBLE TUNNEl::--""--- NOTE: ALL FRAMES TO BE UNCOATED 3'8" DIA. LOW CARBON TUNNEL FRAME. STEEL ROD. THE FOUR SIDES ARE TO BE THE (FOR RIGIDITY) SAME DIMENSION. SEE DETAI L DWG. Figure 1 .. Isometric view of a 34I1X34"x8' trap . • • COIL HINGES 3/r/' ROO FRAME COIL HINGES .J. ~ , I HINGES •.,. I SEE ;;;;; ...... 3/8" OIA. ROO FRAME If) r I I- ,DETAIL ~ I I I 12· 1x2"1--.!t OR 10 G~ . \ 'II E MI DOOR DETAil TUNNEL FRAME DETAil 0\ \0 3/16" OIA. ROO) THIS FREE ~ 1/4"THICK STEEL HWGE \.. WELD ,.../ '- 3/r/' OIA. L- WELO ROO FRAME DOOR ell P HINGE DETAil 'a' DETAil 'A' Figure 2. Door and tunnel frame construction details. - 70 - 27 BARS .. (J) 0:: «m ,... 26 MESHES (\J 2 BARS I MESH I MESH TUNNEL PANEL FOR 34" x 34" x 8' BLACK COD TRAP NOTES: I. LACE 2 mNELS TOGETHER MESH TO MESH ON 27 MESH SIDES. 2. TAKE UP MESHES ON ENDS OF 14 MESH SIDE TO LEAVE II MESH TUNNEL OPENING 3. 4 PANELS (2 TUNNELS) RE QuRED PER TRAP. 4. USE 2 1/2" ( INSIDE TO OUTSIDE) 21 THREAD OR HEAVIER DYED NYLON WEB. Figure 3. Tunnel panel cutting instructions for a 34"x34"x8' trap.