DOCSLIB.ORG

Fisheries of the United States, 2019

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fisheries of the United States, 2019 Fisheries of the United States 2019 Current Fishery Statistics No. 2019 National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Science andT echnology Fisheries Statistics Division Richard Cody, Division Chief Michael Liddel & Melissa Yencho, Editors Silver Spring, MD May 2021 U.S. Department of National Oceanic National Marine Commerce and Atmospheric Fisheries Service Administration Gina M. Raimondo Benjamin Friedman Paul Doremus, Ph.D. Secretary of Commerce Acting Under Secretary of Acting Assistant Commerce for Oceans and Administrator for Fisheries Atmosphere NOAA Fisheries Publications Each year NOAA Fisheries produces three annual reports covering different aspects of the status of United States marine fisheries. Status of Stocks is an annual report to Congress on the status of U.S. fisheries and is required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. This report, which is published each spring, summarizes the number of stocks on the overfished, overfishing, and rebuilt lists for U.S. federally managed fish stocks and stock complexes. The report also shows trends over time, discusses the value and contribu- tions of our partners, and highlights how management actions taken by NOAA Fisheries have improved the status of U.S. federally managed stocks. For example, the 2019 report shows the number of stocks listed as subject to overfishing reached an all-time low. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/sustainable-fisheries/ status-stocks-2019 Fisheries of the United States, published each fall, has been produced in its various forms for more than 100 years. It is the NOAA Fisheries yearbook of fishery statistics for the United States. It provides a snapshot of data, primarily at the national level, on U.S. recreational catch and commercial fisheries landings and value. In addition, data are reported on U.S. aquaculture production, the U.S. seafood processing industry, imports and exports of fishery-related products, and domestic supply and per capita consumption of fishery products. The focus is not on economic analysis, although value of landings, processed products, and foreign trade are included. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/sustainable-fisheries/fisheries-united-states Fisheries Economics of the United States, published each fall, provides a detailed look at the economic performance of commercial and recreational fisheries and other marine-related sectors on a state, regional, and national basis. The economic impact of commercial and recreational fishing activities in the U.S. is also reported in terms of employment, sales, and value-added impacts. The report provides management highlights for each region that include a summary of stock status, updates on catch share programs, and other selected management issues. Economic performance indicators for catch share programs and non-catch share fisheries are reported. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/content/fisheries-economics-united-states-2016 Suggested Citation: National Marine Fisheries Service (2021) Fisheries of the United States, 2019. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Current Fishery Statistics No. 2019 Available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/sustainable-fisheries/ fisheries-united-states A copy of this report is available from: Fisheries Statistics Division, (F/ST1) National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA 1315 East-West Highway - Rm. 12441 Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282 PHONE: 301-427-8103 / FAX: 301-713-4137 Or online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/sustainable-fisheries/fisheries-united-states Members of the NOAA Fisheries staff in or affiliated with Silver Spring who contributed to this publication were: David Bard, Richard Cody, Lauren Dolinger Few, Jacqui Fenner, Catherine Krikstan, Michael Lewis, Michael Liddel, Alan Lowther, Kelly Mayo, Clete Otoshi, Katherine Papacostas, Jeff Pulver, John Thibodeau, and Melissa Yencho. ii FUS 2019 FUS2019 F1.0 Preface FISHERIES OF THE UNITED STATES, Leuthold, Rob Ames, and Robert Ryznar, Pacific 2019 Fisheries Information Network and Alaska Fisheries This publication is the annual National Marine Fisheries Information Network, for Oregon, Washington, and Service (NMFS) yearbook of fishery statistics for the Alaska. We also wish to thank Stefania Vannuccini United States for 2019. The report provides data on U.S. and Gabriella Laurenti of the Food and Agriculture recreational catch and commercial fisheries landings Organization of the United Nations, and Brad McHale, and value as well as other aspects of U.S. commercial Heather Baertlein, and Dianne Stephan of the NOAA fishing. In addition, data are reported on the U.S. Office of Sustainable Fisheries. fishery processing industry, imports and exports of fishery-related products, and domestic supply and per NOTES capita consumption of fishery products. As in past issues of this publication, the units of quan- tity and value are defined as follows unless otherwise SOURCES OF DATA noted: U.S. landings are shown in round weight (except Information in this report came from many sources. mollusks which are in meat weight); quantities shown Field offices of NMFS, with the generous cooperation for U.S. imports and exports are in product weight, as of the coastal states and Regional Fishery Information reported by the U.S. Bureau of the Census; the value of Networks, collected and compiled data on U.S. com- the U.S. domestic commercial landings is ex-vessel; in mercial landings and processed fishery products. the Review section, deflated ex-vessel prices are shown. The deflated value was computed using the Gross The NMFS Fisheries Statistics Division in Silver Spring, Domestic Product Implicit Price Deflator using a base MD, managed the collection and compilation of recre- year 2012. The value for U.S. imports is generally the ational statistics, in cooperation with various states and market value in the foreign (exporting) country and, Interstate Fisheries Commissions, and tabulated and therefore, excludes U.S. import duties, freight charges prepared all data for publication. Sources of other data and insurance from the foreign country to the United appearing in this publication are: U.S. Census Bureau, States. The value for exports is generally the value at U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of the U.S. port of export, based on the selling price, the Interior, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and including inland freight, insurance, and other charges. the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the Countries and territories shown in the U.S. foreign United Nations. trade section are established for statistical purposes in the Tariff Schedules of the United States Annotated Data in this publication are considered to be prelimi- (International Trade Commission) and reported by nary and are subject to revision as better information the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Aquaculture produc- becomes available and updates are made by our tion data lag the rest of the publication by 1 year due regional partners. For the most current data please to data availability. visit the data queries pages on our website: h t t p s :// www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/sustainable-fisheries/ The Fisheries Statistics Division wishes to provide commercial-fisheries-landings the kinds of data sought by fishery statistics users and welcomes comments or suggestions that will improve ACKNOWLEDGMENTS this publication. The Fisheries Statistics Division takes this opportunity to thank states, industry, and foreign nations who Address all comments or questions to: provided the data that made this publication possible. Program leaders of the field offices were: Greg Power, Fisheries Statistics Division, (F/ST1) Ted Hawes, Pam Thames, and Joan Palmer for the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA New England and Middle Atlantic states; Scott Nelson, 1315 East-West Highway - Rm. 12441 U.S. Geological Survey, for the Great Lakes states; Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282 David Gloeckner, Larry Beerkircher, and Jade Chau PHONE: 301-427-8103 / FAX: 301-713-4137 for the South Atlantic and Gulf states; Bill Jacobson HOMEPAGE: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ and Craig D’Angelo for California; Kimberly Lowe, about/office-science-and-technology Valerie Chan, and Matthew Dunlap for Hawaii and the Pacific Islands; Heather Konell and Jennifer Ni, Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistical Program, for Maine to Virginia; Brad Stenberg, Rick Pannell, Niels FUS 2019 iii iv FUS 2019 Contents Table of Contents PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii Continent and Country 93 REVIEW vii Shrimp 94 U.S. COMMERCIAL FISHERY LANDINGS: 1 Lobsters 95 Species 4 Salmon 96 Disposition 10 Surimi 97 Regions and States 12 Crab 98 Ports 13 Crabmeat 99 Catch By Species and Distance From Shore 14 Industrial 100 U.S. Landings for Territorial Possessions 21 U.S. SUPPLY OF FISHERY PRODUCTS: 103 Top Recreational and Commercial Finfish Species 23 Edible and Nonedible 104 U.S. AQUACULTURE: 25 Finfish and Shellfish 105 Estimated U.S. Production 27 Fillets and Steaks 106 Production by Region 30 Tuna, Fresh and Frozen 107 World Aquaculture 32 Salmon, Fresh and Frozen 108 U.S. MARINE RECREATIONAL FISHERIES: 33 Canned Salmon 108 Program Review 34 Canned Tuna 108 Harvest by Species 38 Canned Crabmeat 109 Harvest by Distance from Shore and Species Group 44 Crabs 109 Harvest and Total Live Releases by Species Group 51 Lobsters 110 Finfish Harvest and Releases by State 56 Clams 111 Number of Anglers and Trips by State 57 Scallops 111 WORLD FISHERIES: 59 Oysters 111 Aquaculture and Commercial Catch 60 Shrimp 112 Species
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Review of Selected California Fisheries for 2013
    FISHERIES REVIEW CalCOFI Rep., Vol. 55, 2014 REVIEW OF SELECTED CALIFORNIA FISHERIES FOR 2013: COASTAL PELAGIC FINFISH, MARKET SQUID, GROUNDFISH, HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES, DUNGENESS CRAB, BASSES, SURFPERCH, ABALONE, KELP AND EDIBLE ALGAE, AND MARINE AQUACULTURE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Marine Region 4665 Lampson Ave. Suite C Los Alamitos, CA 90720 [email protected] SUMMARY ings of northern anchovy were 6,005 t with an ex-vessel In 2013, commercial fisheries landed an estimated revenue of greater than $1.0 million. When compared 165,072 metric tons (t) of fish and invertebrates from to landings in 2012, this represents a 141% and 191% California ocean waters (fig. 1). This represents an increase in volume and value, respectively. Nearly all increase of almost 2% from the 162,290 t landed in 2012, (93.6%; 5,621.5 t) of California’s 2013 northern anchovy but still an 11% decrease from the 184,825 t landed catch was landed in the Monterey port area. Landings of in 2011, and a 35% decline from the peak landings of jack mackerel remained relatively low with 892 t landed; 252,568 t observed in 2000. The preliminary ex-vessel however, this represents a 515% increase over 2012 land- economic value of commercial landings in 2013 was ings of 145 t. $254.7 million, increasing once again from the $236 mil- Dungeness crab ranked as California’s second largest lion generated in 2012 (8%), and the $198 million in volume fishery with 14,066 t landed, an increase from 2011 (29%). 11,696 t landed in 2012, and it continued to dominate as Coastal pelagic species (CPS) made up four of the the highest valued fishery in the state with an ex-vessel top five volume fisheries in 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and Controls Guidance Fourth Edition – APRIL 2011
    SGR 129 Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and Controls Guidance Fourth Edition – APRIL 2011 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY AND APPLIED NUTRITION OFFICE OF FOOD SAFETY Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and Controls Guidance Fourth Edition – April 2011 Additional copies may be purchased from: Florida Sea Grant IFAS - Extension Bookstore University of Florida P.O. Box 110011 Gainesville, FL 32611-0011 (800) 226-1764 Or www.ifasbooks.com Or you may download a copy from: http://www.fda.gov/FoodGuidances You may submit electronic or written comments regarding this guidance at any time. Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations. gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket number listed in the notice of availability that publishes in the Federal Register. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (240) 402-2300 April 2011 Table of Contents: Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and Controls Guidance • Guidance for the Industry: Fish and Fishery Products Hazards and Controls Guidance ................................ 1 • CHAPTER 1: General Information .......................................................................................................19 • CHAPTER 2: Conducting a Hazard Analysis and Developing a HACCP Plan
    [Show full text]
  • Fishery Basics – Seafood Markets Types of Fishery Products
    Fishery Basics – Seafood Markets Types of Fishery Products Fish products are highly traded and valuable commodities around the world. Seafood products are high in unsaturated fats and contain many proteins and other compounds that enhance good health. Fisheries products can be sold as live, fresh, frozen, preserved, or processed. There are a variety of methods to preserve fishery products, such as fermenting (e.g., fish pastes), drying, smoking (e.g., smoked Salmon), salting, or pickling (e.g., pickled Herring) to name a few. Fish for human consumption can be sold in its entirety or in parts, like filets found in grocery stores. The vast majority of fishery products produced in the world are intended for human consumption. During 2008, 115 million t (253 billion lbs) of the world fish production was marketed and sold for human consumption. The remaining 27 million t (59 billion lbs) of fishery production from 2008 was utilized for non-food purposes. For example, 20.8 million t (45 billion lbs) was used for reduction purposes, creating fishmeal and fish oil to feed livestock or to be used as feed in aquaculture operations. The remainder was used for ornamental and cultural purposes as well as live bait and pharmaceutical uses. Similar to the advancement of fishing gear and navigation technology (See Fishing Gear), there have been many advances in the seafood-processing sector over the years. Prior to these developments, most seafood was only available in areas close to coastal towns. The modern canning process originated in France in the early 1800s. Cold storage and freezing plants, to store excess harvests of seafood, were created as early as 1892.
    [Show full text]
  • Redacted for Privacy Ivan Pratt
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by ScholarsArchive@OSU AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Alfred Warren Hanson for the Doctor of Philosophy (Name) (Degree) in Zoology presented on/8 1q72 (Major) /71date Title:LIFE CYCLE AND HOST SPECIFICITY OF DICLIDOPHORA sp. (MONOGENEA-DICLIDOPHORIDAE),A PARASITE OF EMBIOTOCID FISHES Abstract approved: Redacted for Privacy Ivan Pratt The life cycle of a monogenean, Diclidophora sp. , was studied with special attention to the time required for developmental stages to occur.Eggs are produced by adult worms at the rate of one every 13. 5 minutes and require 32 days tohatchwhen incubated at 12. 5°C and 30.90/00salinity.Rate of development and hatching success are strongly dependent on incubation temperature and salinity. Growth and development of the larval stages are similar to other known species of the family 1T)c1idophoridae.The presence in the oncomiracidium of a precocious set of attachment clampsand the premature loss of larval hooks distinguish it from related species. Oncorniracidia survive approximately 36 hours if no host fish is reached. Larvae attach to the inner lateral borders of primary lamellae of the host fish gill.A second set of clamps is added before the 36th day, the third set soon after the 44th day, and the last pair by the 58th day.Sexual maturity is reached by the 153rd day after hatching. Experimental infections were maintained on redtail surfperch for 203 days. Naturally infected redtail surfperch, silver surfperch and walleye surfperch were collected.Rates of infection with Di clidoph- ora were 38.
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of the Cuban Commercial Fishing Industry and Implications to the Florida Seafood Industry of Renewed Trade1 Chuck Adams2
    Archival copy: for current recommendations see http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu or your local extension office. An Overview of the Cuban Commercial Fishing Industry and Implications to the Florida Seafood Industry of Renewed Trade1 Chuck Adams2 Abstract Introduction The Cuban seafood industry has long been an The commercial fishing industry of Cuba is an important supplier of certain high-valued seafood important source of fisheries products originating products for the world market. In addition, the from the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean region. Cuba industry has historically played an important role in historically fielded a large distant-water fleet that was providing seafood products for domestic markets in engaged in the harvest of subtropical and temperate Cuba. Assistance from the Soviet Union led to the fisheries stocks. Cuba has more recently played an development of a large distant-water fleet, which increasingly important role in the world market for produced large volumes of low-valued seafood seafood products, particularly for high-valued finfish products. The nearshore fleets continue to produce and shellfish. However, given the evolution in the high-valued species for export markets. The loss of global political environment of the early 1990s, Soviet assistance, following the break up of the Cuba's commercial fishing industry has changed Soviet Union, has dramatically affected the manner dramatically. As a result, production emphasis has in which the Cuban fishing industry is conducted. shifted from high-volume, low-valued pelagic stocks More recently, management of nearshore fleets, to high-valued nearshore fisheries, aquaculture, and associated service industries, and processing facilities shrimp culture.
    [Show full text]
  • Microencapsulated Diets to Improve Bivalve Shellfish Aquaculture For
    Global Food Security 23 (2019) 64–73 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Global Food Security journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gfs Microencapsulated diets to improve bivalve shellfish aquaculture for global food security T ∗ David F. Willer , David C. Aldridge Department of Zoology, The David Attenborough Building, University of Cambridge, Pembroke Street, Cambridge, CB2 3QY, United Kingdom ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: There is a global need to sustainably increase aquaculture production to meet the needs of a growing population. Microencapsulated diet Bivalve shellfish aquaculture is highly attractive from a human nutrition, economic, environmental and eco- Bivalve shellfish system standpoint. However, bivalve industry growth is falling behind fish aquaculture due to critical problems Food security in the production process. Feed defects, disease, and quality issues are limiting production. New advances in Aquaculture microencapsulation technology have great potential to tackle these problems. Microencapsulated diets could Sustainable efficiently deliver high-quality nutrients, disease control agents, and quality enhancers to bivalves. Microencapsulation has the potential to drive improvements in bivalve production, reduce production costs, enhance human nutrition and minimise impacts on the environment. 1. The global importance of bivalve shellfish aquaculture fastest growing food sector (FAO, 2017; Jacquet et al., 2017; Tacon and Metian, 2013; Troell et al., 2014). However, like terrestrial meat pro- 1.1. Bivalves a strategic food source to sustainably feed a growing global duction aquaculture is currently expanding in an unsustainable way population (Godfray et al., 2010; Jacquet et al., 2017). Production quantity of carnivorous species such as salmon, catfish, and shrimp has ballooned, Over 800 million people worldwide are hungry, one billion have growing 84% over the last decade, and today salmon is the largest inadequate protein intake, and an even greater number suffer from single commodity in aquaculture (FAO, 2017, 2016).
    [Show full text]
  • Resources for Fish Feed in Future Mariculture
    Vol. 1: 187–200, 2011 AQUACULTURE ENVIRONMENT INTERACTIONS Published online March 10 doi: 10.3354/aei00019 Aquacult Environ Interact OPENPEN ACCESSCCESS AS I SEE IT Resources for fish feed in future mariculture Yngvar Olsen* Trondhjem Biological Station, Department of Biology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491 Trondheim, Norway ABSTRACT: There is a growing concern about the ability to produce enough nutritious food to feed the global human population in this century. Environmental conflicts and a limited freshwater supply constrain further developments in agriculture; global fisheries have levelled off, and aquaculture may have to play a more prominent role in supplying human food. Freshwater is important, but it is also a major challenge to cultivate the oceans in an environmentally, economically and energy- friendly way. To support this, a long-term vision must be to derive new sources of feed, primarily taken from outside the human food chain, and to move carnivore production to a lower trophic level. The main aim of this paper is to speculate on how feed supplies can be produced for an expanding aquaculture industry by and beyond 2050 and to establish a roadmap of the actions needed to achieve this. Resources from agriculture, fish meal and fish oil are the major components of pellet fish feeds. All cultured animals take advantage of a certain fraction of fish meal in the feed, and marine carnivores depend on a supply of marine lipids containing highly unsaturated fatty acids (HUFA, with ≥3 double bonds and ≥20 carbon chain length) in the feed. The availability of HUFA is likely the main constraint for developing carnivore aquaculture in the next decades.
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Mammals of the Columbia River Estuary
    Marine mammals of the Columbia River estuary Item Type monograph Authors Jeffries, Steven Publisher Washington Department of Game Download date 01/10/2021 09:29:55 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/1834/40552 NOAA LISD SEA LE MARINE MAMMALS OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY I QH 541.5 ==============:::!J • E8 M35 cop.2 [I D 0 [] Final Report on the Marine Mammals Work Unit of the Columbia River Estuary Data Development Program tl MARINE MAMMALS n OF THE u COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY ] [] D Contractor: Washington Department of Game 600 N. Capitol Way Olympia, Washington 98504 Principal Investigator: [l Steven Jeffries Washington Department of Game Marine Mammal Investigations ] 53 Portway Street Astoria, Oregon 97103 (503) 325-8241 [l n i . Lj January 1984 ] D ] 7 ~I ,----- • __ J ,----- ,----- D D 0 D WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF GAME □ MARINE MAMMAL INVESTIGATIONS D PROJECT LEADER ~ Steven J. Jeffries □ WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST RESEARCH ANALYST Stephen D. Treacy Anne C. Geiger TYPIST Lynda Stansberry WORD PROCESSING Elizabeth Rummell [] lJ u [] iii J J J J J J ] J ] ] J J J J .J .J □ D D PREFACE The Columbia River Estuary Data Development Program This document is one of a set of publications and other materials [1 produced by the Columbia River Estuary, Data Development Program (CREDDP). CREDDP has two purposes: to increase understanding of the ecology of the Columbia River Estuary and to provide information useful J in making land and water use decisions. The program was initiated by local governments and citizens who saw a need for a better information base for use in managing natural resources and in planning for development.
    [Show full text]
  • Humboldt Bay Fishes
    Humboldt Bay Fishes ><((((º>`·._ .·´¯`·. _ .·´¯`·. ><((((º> ·´¯`·._.·´¯`·.. ><((((º>`·._ .·´¯`·. _ .·´¯`·. ><((((º> Acknowledgements The Humboldt Bay Harbor District would like to offer our sincere thanks and appreciation to the authors and photographers who have allowed us to use their work in this report. Photography and Illustrations We would like to thank the photographers and illustrators who have so graciously donated the use of their images for this publication. Andrey Dolgor Dan Gotshall Polar Research Institute of Marine Sea Challengers, Inc. Fisheries And Oceanography [email protected] [email protected] Michael Lanboeuf Milton Love [email protected] Marine Science Institute [email protected] Stephen Metherell Jacques Moreau [email protected] [email protected] Bernd Ueberschaer Clinton Bauder [email protected] [email protected] Fish descriptions contained in this report are from: Froese, R. and Pauly, D. Editors. 2003 FishBase. Worldwide Web electronic publication. http://www.fishbase.org/ 13 August 2003 Photographer Fish Photographer Bauder, Clinton wolf-eel Gotshall, Daniel W scalyhead sculpin Bauder, Clinton blackeye goby Gotshall, Daniel W speckled sanddab Bauder, Clinton spotted cusk-eel Gotshall, Daniel W. bocaccio Bauder, Clinton tube-snout Gotshall, Daniel W. brown rockfish Gotshall, Daniel W. yellowtail rockfish Flescher, Don american shad Gotshall, Daniel W. dover sole Flescher, Don stripped bass Gotshall, Daniel W. pacific sanddab Gotshall, Daniel W. kelp greenling Garcia-Franco, Mauricio louvar
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Bulletin 161. California Marine Fish Landings for 1972 and Designated Common Names of Certain Marine Organisms of California
    UC San Diego Fish Bulletin Title Fish Bulletin 161. California Marine Fish Landings For 1972 and Designated Common Names of Certain Marine Organisms of California Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/93g734v0 Authors Pinkas, Leo Gates, Doyle E Frey, Herbert W Publication Date 1974 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME FISH BULLETIN 161 California Marine Fish Landings For 1972 and Designated Common Names of Certain Marine Organisms of California By Leo Pinkas Marine Resources Region and By Doyle E. Gates and Herbert W. Frey > Marine Resources Region 1974 1 Figure 1. Geographical areas used to summarize California Fisheries statistics. 2 3 1. CALIFORNIA MARINE FISH LANDINGS FOR 1972 LEO PINKAS Marine Resources Region 1.1. INTRODUCTION The protection, propagation, and wise utilization of California's living marine resources (established as common property by statute, Section 1600, Fish and Game Code) is dependent upon the welding of biological, environment- al, economic, and sociological factors. Fundamental to each of these factors, as well as the entire management pro- cess, are harvest records. The California Department of Fish and Game began gathering commercial fisheries land- ing data in 1916. Commercial fish catches were first published in 1929 for the years 1926 and 1927. This report, the 32nd in the landing series, is for the calendar year 1972. It summarizes commercial fishing activities in marine as well as fresh waters and includes the catches of the sportfishing partyboat fleet. Preliminary landing data are published annually in the circular series which also enumerates certain fishery products produced from the catch.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Fishes of California
    COMMON FISHES OF CALIFORNIA Updated July 2016 Blue Rockfish - SMYS Sebastes mystinus 2-4 bands around front of head; blue to black body, dark fins; anal fin slanted Size: 8-18in; Depth: 0-200’+ Common from Baja north to Canada North of Conception mixes with mostly with Olive and Black R.F.; South with Blacksmith, Kelp Bass, Halfmoons and Olives. Black Rockfish - SMEL Sebastes melanops Blue to blue-back with black dots on their dorsal fins; anal fin rounded Size: 8-18 in; Depth: 8-1200’ Common north of Point Conception Smaller eyes and a bit more oval than Blues Olive/Yellowtail Rockfish – OYT Sebastes serranoides/ flavidus Several pale spots below dorsal fins; fins greenish brown to yellow fins Size: 10-20in; Depth: 10-400’+ Midwater fish common south of Point Conception to Baja; rare north of Conception Yellowtail R.F. is a similar species are rare south of Conception, while being common north Black & Yellow Rockfish - SCHR Sebastes chrysomelas Yellow blotches of black/olive brown body;Yellow membrane between third and fourth dorsal fin spines Size: 6-12in; Depth: 0-150’ Common central to southern California Inhabits rocky areas/crevices Gopher Rockfish - SCAR Sebastes carnatus Several small white blotches on back; Pale blotch extends from dorsal spine onto back Size: 6-12 in; Depth: 8-180’ Common central California Inhabits rocky areas/crevice. Territorial Copper Rockfish - SCAU Sebastes caurinus Wide, light stripe runs along rear half on lateral line Size:: 10-16in; Depth: 10-600’ Inhabits rocky reefs, kelpbeds,
    [Show full text]
  • Mariculture and Food Production: Sustaining the Promise
    POSITION PAPER 2012 MARICULTURE AND FOOD PRODUCTION SUSTAINING THE PROMISE Naveen Namboothri1,2, C.M. Muralidharan3 and Aarthi Sridhar1,4 1Dakshin Foundation, Bengaluru 2Centre for Ecological Studies, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru 3Consultant, Food and Agriculture Organization, Bangkok 4Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi Feeding the world with dwindling ranks second in world aquaculture production (see figure on stocks Pages 2-3), with an estimated production of 3,791,921 tonnes per annum. The origins of aquaculture date back more than 4,000 Marine fish stocks in many parts of the world years1. There is evidence that Egyptians cultured fish as early have been exploited beyond recovery, but this as 2500 BC2. The Chinese have a rich tradition of aquaculture has done little to slacken an increasing global practices that can be traced back to 2000 BC. Contemporary demand for sea food. These markets compel practices in this field are a result of the refinement and the producers throughout the world to fish out adaptation of these ancient experiments with aquaculture. even smaller sizes, effectively endangering reproducing populations of several commercial The tradition of aquaculture in India can be traced back to 300 species. Sustainability and equity in fisheries has BC, and certain practices involving the integration of paddy frequently been sacrificed in favour of meeting and fish farming techniques are seen in their more traditional this growing desire for seafood. Declining wild manifestations even today in Kerala and West Bengal. Even fish catch, increasing input costs of fishing though these traditional production methods were considered operations, and the unrelenting demand for low-technology, produced lesser quantities, and were often marine products has prompted an interest in low cost and less intensive, these traditional forms of fish aquaculture.
    [Show full text]