DOCSLIB.ORG

West Coast Pinniped Program Investigations on California Sea Lion and Pacific Harbor Seal Impacts on Salmonids and Other Fishery Resources

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
West Coast Pinniped Program Investigations on California Sea Lion and Pacific Harbor Seal Impacts on Salmonids and Other Fishery Resources West Coast Pinniped Program Investigations on California Sea Lion and Pacific Harbor Seal Impacts on Salmonids and Other Fishery Resources Joe Scordino (Retired - NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service - Northwest Region) January 2010 PACIFIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides the results of the West Coast Pinniped Program established in 1997 by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) to investigate the impacts of expanding pinniped populations on salmonids (especially ESA-listed salmon) and other fishery resources. The Program was primarily funded with Congressionally designated line-item funding of about $750,000 per year for “a study of the impacts of California sea lions and harbor seals on salmonids and the West Coast ecosystem.” Over 150 projects were completed through 2008 and are described in this report. The accomplishments of the West Coast Pinniped Program relative to the recommendations in the 1999 “Report to Congress: Impacts of California Sea Lions and Pacific Harbor Seals on Salmonids and West Coast Ecosystems” is presented in the conclusion. Investigations on pinniped predation on salmonids were conducted in west coast rivers and estuaries including rivers draining into Hood Canal, Ozette River, Columbia River, Alsea River, Rogue River, Klamath River, Mad River, and San Lorenzo River; and at Bonneville Dam, Willamette Falls, San Juan Islands, Año Nuevo Island, and Monterey Bay. The field studies used observations of pinniped surface-feeding events to estimate salmonid predation and/or analyses of pinniped fecal material (scat) to determine overall diet, as well as tracking of pinniped movements to infer foraging behavior. Captive feeding studies were conducted to assess prey digestion variables that affect pinniped consumption estimates derived from scats. Genetic identification techniques were developed and applied to identify salmonid species from the bones in scats. The pinniped predation studies documented that salmonids are a common prey species for Pacific harbor seals and California sea lions in many west coast rivers/estuaries and even in open marine waters (e.g., Monterey Bay), and pinnipeds can adversely affect the recovery of ESA-listed salmonid populations. The population growth and status of California sea lion and Pacific harbor seal populations were investigated, and assessments indicated the Washington and Oregon harbor seal populations were at their optimum sustainable population (OSP) levels. Population assessments initially demonstrated that California sea lions had reached OSP, but continued exponential growth indicated from the 2006 to 2008 pup counts suggest the population is not yet at OSP. Additional surveys are needed to affirm California harbor seal status. Pinniped interactions with commercial and recreational fisheries in California were investigated. California sea lions were documented interacting with hook-and line fisheries for salmon, Pacific barracuda, yellowtail, and other important fishery species. The removal of catch or bait from fishing gear was the principal interaction problem; the severity of loss varied by area, target species, and year. Pinniped deterrence efforts to deter or remove pinnipeds from resource conflicts including hazing, pyrotechnics, acoustic deterrence, underwater shock waves (pulsed power), taste aversion, rubber projectiles, electric barriers, and physical barriers are described and evaluated. The evaluation indicated that the non-lethal deterrence measures have limited effectiveness; while some measures appeared to be initially effective, they became ineffective over time as pinnipeds “learned” to either tolerate or avoid the deterrence measure. The West Coast Pinniped Program made significant progress in developing and applying methodologies to determine pinniped impacts on salmonids; however, further research is needed to better estimate pinniped impacts on ESA-listed salmonids. i TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... i INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1 WEST COAST PINNIPED PROGRAM...................................................................................................... 2 PINNIPED PREY AND PREDATION ON SALMONIDS......................................................................... 3 Hood Canal............................................................................................................................................. 3 Duwamish River..................................................................................................................................... 8 Snohomish River .................................................................................................................................... 9 San Juan Islands ................................................................................................................................... 10 Southern Puget Sound .......................................................................................................................... 11 Ozette River / Lake Ozette ................................................................................................................... 12 Lower Columbia River......................................................................................................................... 15 Bonneville Dam.................................................................................................................................... 18 Willamette Falls ................................................................................................................................... 23 Nehalem Bay ........................................................................................................................................ 26 Alsea River/Bay ................................................................................................................................... 27 Siltcoos River ....................................................................................................................................... 31 Umpqua River ...................................................................................................................................... 31 Rogue River.......................................................................................................................................... 32 Smith River........................................................................................................................................... 35 Klamath River ...................................................................................................................................... 36 Mad River............................................................................................................................................. 39 Eel River............................................................................................................................................... 40 Año Nuevo Island................................................................................................................................. 41 Scott Creek ........................................................................................................................................... 42 San Lorenzo River................................................................................................................................ 43 Monterey Bay....................................................................................................................................... 45 Carmel River ........................................................................................................................................ 47 CAPTIVE FEEDING STUDIES ................................................................................................................ 47 GENETIC IDENTIFICATION OF SALMONIDS IN PINNIPED SCATS .............................................. 49 FISHERY INTERACTIONS...................................................................................................................... 51 San Diego Commercial Fishing Passenger Vessel (CPFV) Fishery .................................................... 52 California Commercial Fishing Passenger Vessel (CPFV) Fishery Logbook Program....................... 53 California Salmon Troll Fishery........................................................................................................... 53 Assessing How Sea Lions Detect Hooked Fish.................................................................................... 54 Monterey Bay Salmon Fisheries .......................................................................................................... 55 California Recreational Salmon Fisheries ............................................................................................ 57 California Bait Receivers (Baitfish Storage Pens) ............................................................................... 58 West Coast Recreational Fishery Survey ............................................................................................. 59 ii PINNIPED DETERRENCE ......................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MINNESOTA MUSTELIDS Young
    By Blane Klemek MINNESOTA MUSTELIDS Young Naturalists the Slinky,Stinky Weasel family ave you ever heard anyone call somebody a weasel? If you have, then you might think Hthat being called a weasel is bad. But weasels are good hunters, and they are cunning, curious, strong, and fierce. Weasels and their relatives are mammals. They belong to the order Carnivora (meat eaters) and the family Mustelidae, also known as the weasel family or mustelids. Mustela means weasel in Latin. With 65 species, mustelids are the largest family of carnivores in the world. Eight mustelid species currently make their homes in Minnesota: short-tailed weasel, long-tailed weasel, least weasel, mink, American marten, OTTERS BY DANIEL J. COX fisher, river otter, and American badger. Minnesota Conservation Volunteer May–June 2003 n e MARY CLAY, DEMBINSKY t PHOTO ASSOCIATES r mammals a WEASELS flexible m Here are two TOM AND PAT LEESON specialized mustelid feet. b One is for climb- ou can recognize a ing and the other for hort-tailed weasels (Mustela erminea), long- The long-tailed weasel d most mustelids g digging. Can you tell tailed weasels (M. frenata), and least weasels eats the most varied e food of all weasels. It by their tubelike r which is which? (M. nivalis) live throughout Minnesota. In also lives in the widest Ybodies and their short Stheir northern range, including Minnesota, weasels variety of habitats and legs. Some, such as badgers, hunting. Otters and minks turn white in winter. In autumn, white hairs begin climates across North are heavy and chunky. Some, are excellent swimmers that hunt to replace their brown summer coat.
    [Show full text]
  • Food Habits of Black Bears in Suburban Versus Rural Alabama
    Food Habits of Black Bears in Suburban versus Rural Alabama Laura Garland, Auburn University, School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn, AL 36849 Connor Ellis, 18832 #1 Gulf Boulevard Indian Shores, FL 33785 Todd Steury, Auburn University, School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn, AL 36849 Abstract: Little is known about the food habits of black bears (Ursus americanus) in Alabama. A major concern is the amount of human influence in the diet of these bears as human and bear populations continue to expand in a finite landscape and bear-human interactions are increasing. To better understand dietary habits of bears, 135 scats were collected during late August to late November 2011–2014. Food items were classified into the cat- egories of fruit, nuts/seeds, insects, anthropogenic, animal hairs, fawn bones, and other. Plant items were classified down to the lowest possible taxon via visual and DNA analysis as this category composed the majority of scat volumes. Frequency of occurrence was calculated for each food item. The most commonly occurring foods included: Nyssa spp. (black gum, 25.2%), Poaceae family (grass, 24.5%), Quercus spp. (acorn, 22.4%), and Vitis spp. (muscadine grape, 8.4%). Despite the proximity of these bear populations to suburban locations, during our sampling period we found that their diet primarily comprised vegetation, not anthropogenic food; while 100% of scat samples contained vegetation, only 19.6% of scat samples contained corn and no other anthropogenic food sources were detected. Based on a Fisher’s exact test, dietary composition did not differ between bears living in subur- ban areas compared to bears occupying more rural areas (P = 0.3891).
    [Show full text]
  • CHECKLIST and BIOGEOGRAPHY of FISHES from GUADALUPE ISLAND, WESTERN MEXICO Héctor Reyes-Bonilla, Arturo Ayala-Bocos, Luis E
    ReyeS-BONIllA eT Al: CheCklIST AND BIOgeOgRAphy Of fISheS fROm gUADAlUpe ISlAND CalCOfI Rep., Vol. 51, 2010 CHECKLIST AND BIOGEOGRAPHY OF FISHES FROM GUADALUPE ISLAND, WESTERN MEXICO Héctor REyES-BONILLA, Arturo AyALA-BOCOS, LUIS E. Calderon-AGUILERA SAúL GONzáLEz-Romero, ISRAEL SáNCHEz-ALCántara Centro de Investigación Científica y de Educación Superior de Ensenada AND MARIANA Walther MENDOzA Carretera Tijuana - Ensenada # 3918, zona Playitas, C.P. 22860 Universidad Autónoma de Baja California Sur Ensenada, B.C., México Departamento de Biología Marina Tel: +52 646 1750500, ext. 25257; Fax: +52 646 Apartado postal 19-B, CP 23080 [email protected] La Paz, B.C.S., México. Tel: (612) 123-8800, ext. 4160; Fax: (612) 123-8819 NADIA C. Olivares-BAñUELOS [email protected] Reserva de la Biosfera Isla Guadalupe Comisión Nacional de áreas Naturales Protegidas yULIANA R. BEDOLLA-GUzMáN AND Avenida del Puerto 375, local 30 Arturo RAMíREz-VALDEz Fraccionamiento Playas de Ensenada, C.P. 22880 Universidad Autónoma de Baja California Ensenada, B.C., México Facultad de Ciencias Marinas, Instituto de Investigaciones Oceanológicas Universidad Autónoma de Baja California, Carr. Tijuana-Ensenada km. 107, Apartado postal 453, C.P. 22890 Ensenada, B.C., México ABSTRACT recognized the biological and ecological significance of Guadalupe Island, off Baja California, México, is Guadalupe Island, and declared it a Biosphere Reserve an important fishing area which also harbors high (SEMARNAT 2005). marine biodiversity. Based on field data, literature Guadalupe Island is isolated, far away from the main- reviews, and scientific collection records, we pres- land and has limited logistic facilities to conduct scien- ent a comprehensive checklist of the local fish fauna, tific studies.
    [Show full text]
  • FISHER Pekania Pennanti
    WILDLIFE IN CONNECTICUT WILDLIFE FACT SHEET FISHER Pekania pennanti Background J. FUSCO © PAUL In the nineteenth century, fishers became scarce due to forest logging, clearing for agriculture, and overexploitation. By the 1900s, fishers were considered extirpated from the state. Reforestation and changes in land-use practices have restored the suitability of the fisher’s habitat in part of its historic range, allowing a population to recolonize the northeastern section of the state. Fishers did not recolonize suitable habitat in northwestern Connecticut, since the region was isolated from a source population. Fishers were rare in western Massachusetts, and the developed and agricultural habitats of the Connecticut River Valley were a barrier to westward expansion by fishers in northeastern Connecticut. A project to reintroduce this native mammal into northwestern Connecticut was initiated by the Wildlife Division in 1988. Funds from reimbursement of trapping wild turkeys in Connecticut for release in Maine were used to purchase fishers caught by cooperating trappers in New Hampshire and Vermont. In what is termed a "soft release," fishers were penned and fed at the release site for a couple of weeks prior to being released. Through radio and snow tracking, biologists later found that the fishers that were released in northwestern Connecticut had high survival rates and successfully reproduced. As a result of this project, a viable, self-sustaining population of this native mammal is now established in western Connecticut. Fishers found throughout eastern Connecticut are a result of natural range expansion. In 2005, Connecticut instituted its first modern day regulated trapping season for fishers. Most northern states have regulated fisher trapping seasons.
    [Show full text]
  • Phoca Vitulina)
    MOVEMENTS AND HOME RANGES OF HARBOR SEALS (PHOCA VITULINA) IN THE INLAND WATERS OF THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST By Sarah E. Hardee Accepted in Partial Completion of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science ____________________________________ Moheb A. Ghali, Dean of the Graduate School ADVISORY COMMITTEE ____________________________ Chair, Dr. Alejandro Acevedo-Gutiérrez ____________________________ Dr. Benjamin Miner ___________________________ Dr. Merrill Peterson MASTER’S THESIS In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master’s degree at Western Washington University, I grant to Western Washington University the non- exclusive royalty-free right to archive, reproduce, distribute, and display the thesis in any and all forms, including electronic format, via any digital library mechanisms maintained by WWU. I represent and warrant this is my original work, and does not infringe or violate any rights of others. I warrant that I have obtained written permissions from the owner of any third party copyrighted material included in these files. I acknowledge that I retain ownership rights to the copyright of this work, including but not limited to the right to use all or part of this work in future works, such as articles or books. Library users are granted permission for individual, research and non-commercial reproduction of this work for educational purposes only. Any further digital posting of this document requires specific permission from the author. Any copying or publication of this thesis for commercial purposes, or for financial gain, is not allowed without my written permission. Signature ______________________________ Date __________________________________ ii MOVEMENTS AND HOME RANGES OF HARBOR SEALS (PHOCA VITULINA) IN THE INLAND WATERS OF THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of Western Washington University In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science by Sarah E.
    [Show full text]
  • Mammal Species Native to the USA and Canada for Which the MIL Has an Image (296) 31 July 2021
    Mammal species native to the USA and Canada for which the MIL has an image (296) 31 July 2021 ARTIODACTYLA (includes CETACEA) (38) ANTILOCAPRIDAE - pronghorns Antilocapra americana - Pronghorn BALAENIDAE - bowheads and right whales 1. Balaena mysticetus – Bowhead Whale BALAENOPTERIDAE -rorqual whales 1. Balaenoptera acutorostrata – Common Minke Whale 2. Balaenoptera borealis - Sei Whale 3. Balaenoptera brydei - Bryde’s Whale 4. Balaenoptera musculus - Blue Whale 5. Balaenoptera physalus - Fin Whale 6. Eschrichtius robustus - Gray Whale 7. Megaptera novaeangliae - Humpback Whale BOVIDAE - cattle, sheep, goats, and antelopes 1. Bos bison - American Bison 2. Oreamnos americanus - Mountain Goat 3. Ovibos moschatus - Muskox 4. Ovis canadensis - Bighorn Sheep 5. Ovis dalli - Thinhorn Sheep CERVIDAE - deer 1. Alces alces - Moose 2. Cervus canadensis - Wapiti (Elk) 3. Odocoileus hemionus - Mule Deer 4. Odocoileus virginianus - White-tailed Deer 5. Rangifer tarandus -Caribou DELPHINIDAE - ocean dolphins 1. Delphinus delphis - Common Dolphin 2. Globicephala macrorhynchus - Short-finned Pilot Whale 3. Grampus griseus - Risso's Dolphin 4. Lagenorhynchus albirostris - White-beaked Dolphin 5. Lissodelphis borealis - Northern Right-whale Dolphin 6. Orcinus orca - Killer Whale 7. Peponocephala electra - Melon-headed Whale 8. Pseudorca crassidens - False Killer Whale 9. Sagmatias obliquidens - Pacific White-sided Dolphin 10. Stenella coeruleoalba - Striped Dolphin 11. Stenella frontalis – Atlantic Spotted Dolphin 12. Steno bredanensis - Rough-toothed Dolphin 13. Tursiops truncatus - Common Bottlenose Dolphin MONODONTIDAE - narwhals, belugas 1. Delphinapterus leucas - Beluga 2. Monodon monoceros - Narwhal PHOCOENIDAE - porpoises 1. Phocoena phocoena - Harbor Porpoise 2. Phocoenoides dalli - Dall’s Porpoise PHYSETERIDAE - sperm whales Physeter macrocephalus – Sperm Whale TAYASSUIDAE - peccaries Dicotyles tajacu - Collared Peccary CARNIVORA (48) CANIDAE - dogs 1. Canis latrans - Coyote 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Stomach Content Analysis of Short-Finned Pilot Whales
    f MARCH 1986 STOMACH CONTENT ANALYSIS OF SHORT-FINNED PILOT WHALES h (Globicephala macrorhynchus) AND NORTHERN ELEPHANT SEALS (Mirounga angustirostris) FROM THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHT by Elizabeth S. Hacker ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT LJ-86-08C f This Administrative Report is issued as an informal document to ensure prompt dissemination of preliminary results, interim reports and special studies. We recommend that it not be abstracted or cited. STOMACH CONTENT ANALYSIS OF SHORT-FINNED PILOT WHALES (GLOBICEPHALA MACRORHYNCHUS) AND NORTHERN ELEPHANT SEALS (MIROUNGA ANGUSTIROSTRIS) FROM THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHT Elizabeth S. Hacker College of Oceanography Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon 97331 March 1986 S H i I , LIBRARY >66 MAR 0 2 2007 ‘ National uooarac & Atmospheric Administration U.S. Dept, of Commerce This report was prepared by Elizabeth S. Hacker under contract No. 84-ABA-02592 for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Center, La Jolla, California. The statements, findings, conclusions and recommendations herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Marine Fisheries Service. Charles W. Oliver of the Southwest Fisheries Center served as Contract Officer's Technical Representative for this contract. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT LJ-86-08C CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION.................. 1 METHODS....................... 2 Sample Collection........ 2 Sample Identification.... 2 Sample Analysis.......... 3 RESULTS....................... 3 Globicephala macrorhynchus 3 Mirounga angustirostris... 4 DISCUSSION.................... 6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............. 11 REFERENCES.............. 12 i LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1 Collection data for Globicephala macrorhynchus examined from the Southern California Bight........ 19 2 Collection data for Mirounga angustirostris examined from the Southern California Bight........ 20 3 Stomach contents of Globicephala macrorhynchus examined from the Southern California Bight.......
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution, Abundance, and Biomass of Giant Sea Bass (Stereolepis Gigas) Off Santa Catalina Island, California, 2014-2015
    Bull. Southern California Acad. Sci. 115(1), 2016, pp. 1–14 E Southern California Academy of Sciences, 2016 The Return of the King of the Kelp Forest: Distribution, Abundance, and Biomass of Giant Sea Bass (Stereolepis gigas) off Santa Catalina Island, California, 2014-2015 Parker H. House*, Brian L.F. Clark, and Larry G. Allen California State University, Northridge, Department of Biology, 18111 Nordhoff St., Northridge, CA, 91330 Abstract.—It is rare to find evidence of top predators recovering after being negatively affected by overfishing. However, recent findings suggest a nascent return of the critically endangered giant sea bass (Stereolepis gigas) to southern California. To provide the first population assessment of giant sea bass, surveys were conducted during the 2014/2015 summers off Santa Catalina Island, CA. Eight sites were surveyed on both the windward and leeward side of Santa Catalina Island every two weeks from June through August. Of the eight sites, three aggregations were identified at Goat Harbor, The V’s, and Little Harbor, CA. These three aggregation sites, the largest containing 24 individuals, contained a mean stock biomass of 19.6 kg/1000 m2 over both summers. Over the course of both summers the giant sea bass population was primarily made up of 1.2 - 1.3 m TL individuals with several small and newly mature fish observed in aggregations. Comparison to historical data for the island suggests giant sea bass are recovering, but have not reached pre-exploitation levels. The giant sea bass (Stereolepis gigas) is the largest teleost to inhabit nearshore rocky reefs and kelp forests in the northeastern Pacific (Hawk and Allen 2014).
    [Show full text]
  • Lamprey, Hagfish
    Agnatha - Lamprey, Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Super Class: Agnatha Hagfish Agnatha are jawless fish. Lampreys and hagfish are in this class. Members of the agnatha class are probably the earliest vertebrates. Scientists have found fossils of agnathan species from the late Cambrian Period that occurred 500 million years ago. Members of this class of fish don't have paired fins or a stomach. Adults and larvae have a notochord. A notochord is a flexible rod-like cord of cells that provides the main support for the body of an organism during its embryonic stage. A notochord is found in all chordates. Most agnathans have a skeleton made of cartilage and seven or more paired gill pockets. They have a light sensitive pineal eye. A pineal eye is a third eye in front of the pineal gland. Fertilization of eggs takes place outside the body. The lamprey looks like an eel, but it has a jawless sucking mouth that it attaches to a fish. It is a parasite and sucks tissue and fluids out of the fish it is attached to. The lamprey's mouth has a ring of cartilage that supports it and rows of horny teeth that it uses to latch on to a fish. Lampreys are found in temperate rivers and coastal seas and can range in size from 5 to 40 inches. Lampreys begin their lives as freshwater larvae. In the larval stage, lamprey usually are found on muddy river and lake bottoms where they filter feed on microorganisms. The larval stage can last as long as seven years! At the end of the larval state, the lamprey changes into an eel- like creature that swims and usually attaches itself to a fish.
    [Show full text]
  • Petition to List the Iliamna Lake Seal, a Distinct Population Segment of Eastern North Pacific Harbor Seal (Phoca Vitulina Richardii), Under the U.S
    Before the Secretary of Commerce Petition to List the Iliamna Lake Seal, a Distinct Population Segment of Eastern North Pacific Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina richardii), under the U.S. Endangered Species Act Photo Credit: NOAA Fisheries/Dave Withrow Center for Biological Diversity 6 February 2020 i Notice of Petition Wilbur Ross, Secretary of Commerce U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Ave. NW Washington, D.C. 20230 Email: [email protected], [email protected] Dr. Neil Jacobs, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Ave. NW Washington, D.C. 20230 Email: [email protected] Petitioner: Kristin Carden, Oceans Program Scientist, on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity 1212 Broadway #800 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: 510.844.7100 x327 Email: [email protected] On November 19, 2012, the Center for Biological Diversity (Center, Petitioner) submitted to the Secretary of Commerce and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) through the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) a petition to list the Iliamna Lake population of eastern North Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardii) as threatened or endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). (See generally Center 2012.) On May 17, 2013, NMFS issued a positive 90- day finding “that the petition present[ed] substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petition action may be warranted” and initiated a status review. (78 Fed. Reg. 29,098 (May 17, 2013).). On November 17, 2016, NMFS issued a determination that listing was not warranted because “the seals in Iliamna Lake do not constitute a species, subspecies, or distinct population segment (DPS) under the ESA.” (81 Fed.
    [Show full text]
  • California Yellowtail, White Seabass California
    California yellowtail, White seabass Seriola lalandi, Atractoscion nobilis ©Monterey Bay Aquarium California Bottom gillnet, Drift gillnet, Hook and Line February 13, 2014 Kelsey James, Consulting researcher Disclaimer Seafood Watch® strives to ensure all our Seafood Reports and the recommendations contained therein are accurate and reflect the most up-to-date evidence available at time of publication. All our reports are peer- reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science or aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch program or its recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report. We always welcome additional or updated data that can be used for the next revision. Seafood Watch and Seafood Reports are made possible through a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. 2 Final Seafood Recommendation Stock / Fishery Impacts on Impacts on Management Habitat and Overall the Stock other Spp. Ecosystem Recommendation White seabass Green (3.32) Red (1.82) Yellow (3.00) Green (3.87) Good Alternative California: Southern (2.894) Northeast Pacific - Gillnet, Drift White seabass Green (3.32) Red (1.82) Yellow (3.00) Yellow (3.12) Good Alternative California: Southern (2.743) Northeast Pacific - Gillnet, Bottom White seabass Green (3.32) Green (4.07) Yellow (3.00) Green (3.46) Best Choice (3.442) California: Central Northeast Pacific - Hook/line
    [Show full text]
  • Reporting for the Period from May 2015-April 2016
    Washington Contribution to the 2016 Meeting of the Technical Sub-Committee (TSC) of the Canada-U.S. Groundfish Committee: Reporting for the period from May 2015-April 2016 April 26th-27th, 2016 Edited by: Dayv Lowry Contributions by: Dayv Lowry Robert Pacunski Lorna Wargo Mike Burger Taylor Frierson Todd Sandell Jen Blaine Brad Speidel Larry LeClair Phil Weyland Donna Downs Theresa Tsou Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife April 2016 Contents I. Agency Overview.....................................................................................................................3 II. Surveys.....................................................................................................................................4 III. Reserves..............................................................................................................................16 IV. Review of Agency Groundfish Research, Assessment, and Management.........................16 A. Hagfish............................................................................................................................16 B. North Pacific Spiny Dogfish and other sharks................................................................20 C. Skates..............................................................................................................................20 D. Pacific Cod......................................................................................................................20 E. Walleye Pollock..............................................................................................................21
    [Show full text]