DOCSLIB.ORG

LI BWRY Moss Landing Marine Laboratories P

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
LI BWRY Moss Landing Marine Laboratories P Preliminary report on the ability of marine recreational fishermen to identify the more commonly caught sportfish Item Type monograph Authors Wine, Vickie L. Publisher California Department of Fish and Game, Marine Resources Region Download date 05/10/2021 09:44:48 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/1834/18043 State of California The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME . LI BWRY Moss Landing Marine Laboratories P. 0. Box 223 Moss Landing, Calif. 95039 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THE ABILITY OF MARINE RECREATIONAL FISERMEN TO IDENTIFY THE MORE COMMONLY CAUGHT SPORTFISH by Vickie L. Wine MARINE RESOURCES Administrative Report NO: 79-14 December 1979 . PRELIMINARY REPORT ON TIIE ABILITY OF INRINE RECREATIONAL, FISHERMEN TO IDENTIFY THE ElOKE COMMONLY CAIJGIIT SPOKTFISIL-11 Vickie L. Wine-2 / ABSTRACT Fishermen on pLers and privately-owned boats in southern California were surveyed to determine their ability to identify (by common name) 18 of the more commonly caught sportfish. Anglers were shown color photographs of the fish and asked to identify them. Most people were not able to identify more than 5 dr 6 species correctly. The number of incorrect responses (calling one species by another's name, or using a non-recommended coinrnon name) was not high. Instead, it was the level of non-response (the fisherman had no idea what the species was) that was surprisingly high. The results of the survey indicate that. anglers are not familiar with th-e names of the fish they are most likely to catch. This has serious implicatioi~sconcerning our fishery management programs which depend on anglers' compliance with fishing regulations. The effectiveness of the programs depends in part on anglers being able to recognize regulated species when encountered. -11 Marine Resources Region, Administrative Report No. 79-14, December 1979. -21 Marine Resources Region, California -State ~isheriesLaboratory, . 350 Golden Shore, Long Beach, California 90802. INTRODUCTION During Septenlber-October, 1979, the California Ilcpartment of Fish and Game initiated a preliminary survey on the ability of marine anglers to identify comnlon fish species. The purpose of the initial study was to develop a methodology and to refine the focus for a subsequent study. This future study will be done in two parts, one in the winter and one in the summer of 1980, and it will focus on the ability of pier and private-boat anglers to identify the fish species which are mentioned in the 1979 California Sport Fishing Regulations. However, there is a need to make-the results of the preliminary angl-er- survey l<nown now. The Department is currently participating in a federally- funded angler-survey ?/ directed by the National ~arineFisheries Service. In this survey, anglers are asked for "the names of the species you caught ....I1 Although the question itself is valid, we feel that the answers could be greatly misleading. Therefore, the preliminary results of this fish identification study are being presente.d. The results will show which fish are easily recognized, which fish are relatively unknown, whether the common names recornended by the Department are being used by the public, how many different names are used for the same fish, and how many different fish are given the same name. OPERATIONS Color photographs of freshly-caught, marine fish species that are commonly taken in the' coastal waters off Los Angeles and Orange Counties were shown to anglers on public fishing piers and at private-boat launching facilities in the same area. Each pier or ramp was sampled once for -3/ Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey a period of 4-8 hs-. Every fourth fisl>e~.manon a pier and onu randomly chosen fisherman on each boat was askc:d iT he/slle wauld participate in a fish-identiiicati.on survey. Anglers wcrc then s!!oxrn a series of 18 - 8x10 in. color photographs and asked to name each fish or the group of fanlily it belongs in. Correct answers were given to the flsh:l~man only after tlic test was completed. All Inter-~iewswere given ere the answers trould not be heard by the next angler to be interviewed. The 18 species 1zc.7-e Atr;actsscicn -zobitis,x-hif~ seabass; Cculo- Zutilus p~inceps,o( can wh-itefish; EmbLoi,o.?c?:jac:ksoni, black surfperch; Genyoncmus Zineatt;~, white croaker ; MecliaZvna cnli~m~;.lict?sia,113.1 Emoon: Para2abra.z: cZathrai-us, kelp bass ; P. ni~cz/liz;+f~'iczi~rtzia,spotted sand bass; P. xebulifer, barred s;11d bass; Fom~lich-l-hgscaZifolulicus, California halibut ; Sarda chiliensis, F~cific boni to ; Scornbs~japonicus, Pacific mackerel; Scu~?pao?zagzr.-f;tuZatc, sculpin or- eccrpionfish; Sebastas ynoodei, S. serranoides, 01ivc rockfish; S~Y?~~~Z:LCp3 4.~?,~zcs, queen£ ish; and Sphyz.ae-r,u argepztea, Cal iforrtis bprracuda . RI3SULTS A total of 402 fisl1ermi3~1of all ages and deg~e2sof fishing e2:perjence were shown the sane scrkes of photogrzplts. These anglers gave us 190- different names 50:- the 13 fish sp?cles. The names can be sorted into several categories: 1) correct (i.e. rccommendt?d by the Departrient) comon nnme or variation thereof. Exrimple : call ing a California barracuda a bazracuda. 2) incorrect cr non-rccomended cornrnon name. Example : Calling a white croaker by its wi.dely-csed, nan-rcconnended name, tomcod.. 3) mis-identification of 2 fish. Exmplc: calling a California barracuda a shark. 4) newly-invented common sxarnes, whereby an angler calls a fish by a name which cannot be correlated to any known species found in California. Example: calling a white croaker a smokefish. In this survey a correct answer is designated as the identification of a fish by its recommended comrion name, or by its family or group name. Anglers averaged 5 and 6 correct answers at piers and launch ramps re- spectively. If we accepted widely-used, but con-recommended common names as correct answers, that average would be raised by only one. There were six species which were easily recogni.zed and properly named over half the time: Pacific bonito, correctly named by 76% of the anglers; California barracuda and Caliiosnia halibut, 75%; Pacific mackerel, 65%; sculpi~l,59%; aatl 'uasied sa~dbass (reiognlzed as a bass .of some sort), 52%. Four species were recognized about one-third of the time, if the widely-used, non-recommended corrimon names arc counted as correct answers: spotted sand bass (recognized as a bass of some sort), 36%; white croaker (accepting tomcod as a correct answer), 36%; kelp bass (recognized as a bass of some sort), 33%; and chilipepper (accepting red snapper as a correct answer), 31%. The remaining eight species were poorly recognized. The queenfish and blu'e rockfish were frequently mis-identified, and the other species were simply unfamiliar to the anglers. There are a number of responses which were counted as neither correct not incorrect since thei~use was very ambiguous. These names,.such as seabass, rockbass, and seatrout, were not used consistently ' for i; specific' fislr species or group. The tern rockl~acswas used alll~ostequal ly in rcfcrerlce to bass (,nC,r.aZn71raxspp.) at; 1.0 rockfish (Sebaates spp. ) . OL?c rnlgl~texpect that tha tern, scnbass xsould be used to refer to the tihi te ser,bnss, but it was ~aecifor hlss, rockfish, croakers (faxily Scla~nid?e),znd occan whitcflnh. Probably the r.lo~t.;-ticused ns;re in the x-hole curvey was bass. It seems to be a catch-all tcrm ustd in rej at3ion to almost any type ok fish. Although tl-c-i,: were only ihrec p!-cturc F ol: bass .in the suxvcy, every species except b31-racurta, boniio, acci halibut was referred to as a bass by a subctantrizl proport.ion of the c;ngJel-e. Tile. p~-obebilityof an angler using the tcrn bass cor;rictly In tIJis survey \?as 0.60. A list of all the naws a110 the frequencirs :~lthwhich they were used for e~7chof the 18 spe~+icsjs pr~se~ltedin t1:c Appendix. DLSCUSSICiN It is reaiizei ~1r;:i 1.;1~: ~t;:~c~i';soi ihis ELL VC> arc n~~tclc1inli;vt. or irrefutable. An angle:-'s: a.bi1i.t-y to recognizr: fi.oh from pi.ctures. is not necessarily the snme as if he ve.re yresqnLcd with live or freshly-caught fish. Wc mzotc no adjustrcent fcr the fact that we int-e-rvicwed avid fj.shexsen more pf ten than occclsional fishermen, and that expcrierzced finl:ener:n presum:rbly kr:ow irtol-e about fish, identification than inexperienced f%~hel:i;~endo, Also, the p1iotograp:ls of 01-ive rockfish, kelp bass, and black surfperclz were not: as good as they c.ould have been. These factors will be taken into Zccount rin the future survey. IIowever, I feel that the pre1,irninary resu1.t~do give an indication of a pressing need to educate angiers. A valid fishery management program cannot be effective u:lj.esr anglers arc I) aware that the take of certain fish species is rcgul-ated, 2) able to recognize the regulated species when encountered, an5 3) willing to comply with the fishing regu7 ations. ess these conditions are met, fishery conservation pold.cies are worthless. It is the fishermen who hold the power to enhance or deplete sport fish stocks. This survey also gives evidence that any program which attempts to estimate the sport catch of figh.by asking .anglers how nany and what kinds of fish they caught, will suffer from kck of credibility. In conclusioil, the re~illtsof this survey seem to verjfy the truth of an old adage which says, "don't believe all those fish stories you hezr." 277 people (69%) had no idea what the fish was --Narnes givan --No.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • California Saltwater Sport Fishing Regulations
    2017–2018 CALIFORNIA SALTWATER SPORT FISHING REGULATIONS For Ocean Sport Fishing in California Effective March 1, 2017 through February 28, 2018 13 2017–2018 CALIFORNIA SALTWATER SPORT FISHING REGULATIONS Groundfish Regulation Tables Contents What’s New for 2017? ............................................................. 4 24 License Information ................................................................ 5 Sport Fishing License Fees ..................................................... 8 Keeping Up With In-Season Groundfish Regulation Changes .... 11 Map of Groundfish Management Areas ...................................12 Summaries of Recreational Groundfish Regulations ..................13 General Provisions and Definitions ......................................... 20 General Ocean Fishing Regulations ��������������������������������������� 24 Fin Fish — General ................................................................ 24 General Ocean Fishing Fin Fish — Minimum Size Limits, Bag and Possession Limits, and Seasons ......................................................... 24 Fin Fish—Gear Restrictions ................................................... 33 Invertebrates ........................................................................ 34 34 Mollusks ............................................................................34 Crustaceans .......................................................................36 Non-commercial Use of Marine Plants .................................... 38 Marine Protected Areas and Other
    [Show full text]
  • Paralabrax, Pisces, Serranidae)
    BUTLER ET AL.: DEVELOPMENTAL STAGES OF THREE SEA BASSES CalCOFI Rep., Vol. XXm, 1982 DEVELOPMENTAL STAGES OF THREE CALIFORNIA SEA BASSES (PARALABRAX, PISCES, SERRANIDAE) JOHN L BUTLER, H. GEOFFREY MOSER, GREGORY S. HAGEMAN. AND LAYNE E. NORDGREN National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administraticm Depaltrnent of Biological Suencas National Marine Fisheries Service Universiiy of Southern CaMornia thnhwest Fishecies Center universily Park La Jdla, California 92038 Lw Angeles, California 90007 ABSTRACT was known from Cedros Island south to Cab San Eggs, larvae, and juveniles of kelp bass, Parala- Lucas and the Gulf of California (Fitch and Shultz bra clathratus, barred sand bass, P. nebulifer, and 1978). Larvae of Paralabrax sp. have been illustrated spotted sand bass, P. rnaculatofasciatus, are described by Kendall (1979) from CalCOFI specimens, which from specimens reared in the laboratory and from we have identified as P. clathratus. All three species specimens collected in the field. Eggs of spotted sand are found in nearshore areas from the surface to about bass'are 0.80-0.89 mm in diameter; eggs of kelp bass 600 feet (Miller and Lea 1972). and barred sand bass are 0.94-0.97 mm in diameter. The kelp and sand basses combined rank second in Larvae and juveniles of the three species may be dis- the California sport fish catch (Oliphant 1979). Iden- tinguished by differences in pigmentation during most tifying these three species in ichthyoplankton collec- stages of development. Larvae of the two species of tions may be important in monitoring population sand bass are indistinguishable during notochord changes and assessing the impact of human activities flexion.
    [Show full text]
  • The Spotted Sand Bass (Paralabrax Maculatofasciatus) Within the Southern California Bight
    Spotted Sand Bass History of the Fishery kayaks, the accessibility to spotted sand bass habitat has opened up dramatically. This accessibility has generated he spotted sand bass (Paralabrax maculatofasciatus) interest in the spotted sand bass as a challenging recre- Thas quickly gained popularity with nearshore anglers ational shery. for its aggressive behavior and ghting ability. Recre- Although the annual catch of spotted sand bass for the ational angling for the spotted sand bass has seen a record keeping period has been considerably lower than dramatic increase in the last 10 years, resulting in angling the catches of the kelp bass and the barred sand bass, the tournaments that target spotted sand bass exclusively. increase in shing pressure and landing numbers is cause Not considered quality-angling fare in the 1930s and the for concern due to their restricted habitat in southern early 1940s, the spotted sand bass began to gain in popu- California waters. Early DFG shore surveys revealed that larity with shore and bay anglers in the mid-1950s. During due to its restricted bay habitat and geographically local- that period, almost all landings were made from shore or ized populations (San Diego Bay, Mission Bay, Newport by small skiff anglers shing within the bays of southern Bay, Anaheim Bay), the spotted sand bass shery may have California. Concern regarding the growing pressure on this been viewed as a less important sport shery by the public. little-known resource by sport anglers resulted in the However, recent increases in landing numbers, indicate that formulation of conservation measures for the spotted sand this view may be changing.
    [Show full text]
  • UC San Diego UC San Diego Electronic Theses and Dissertations
    UC San Diego UC San Diego Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title A historical perspective of California recreational fisheries using a new database of "trophy" fish records (1966-2013), combined with fisheries analyses of three species in the genus Paralabrax Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1g40s1h0 Author Bellquist, Lyall F. Publication Date 2015 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO A historical perspective of California recreational fisheries using a new database of “trophy” fish records (1966-2013), combined with fisheries analyses of three species in the genus Paralabrax A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Marine Biology by Lyall F. Bellquist Committee in charge: Brice Semmens, Chair Richard Carson David Checkley Philip Hastings Ed Parnell 2015 Copyright Lyall F. Bellquist, 2015 All rights reserved. The Dissertation of Lyall F. Bellquist is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication on microfilm and electronically: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Chair University of California, San
    [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]
  • En Guaymas, Sonora, Durante L
    BYCATCH OF THE ARTISANAL SHRIMP FISHERY IN THE GULF OF CALIFORNIA (SONORA AND SINALOA) MEXICO Report prepared by Alejandro Balmori Ramírez (INAPESCA, CRIP-Guaymas) and Rufino Morales Azpeitia (CIBNOR-Unidad Guaymas), in collaboration with Everardo Miranda Mier and Jesús Guadalupe Padilla Serrato. Guaymas, Sonora, México. June 2012 Summary One of the most important fishing resources in Mexico is shrimp, this is due to its high economic and social value. Nonetheless, many non-target species are captured incidentally during shrimp-fishing activities, and grouped as faunal companions or shrimp bycatch (SBC). Most of the SBC species have not been studied and the impact of this fishery upon them is yet unknown. This document presents the results of a study on the artisanal shrimp fisheries’ bycatch within the bays of Guaymas, Bahía de Lobos, and El Tóbari, in the State of Sonora; and in Santa Maria La Reforma in the State of Sinaloa, during the 2011–2012 shrimp fishing season. The study collected shrimp and SBC samples, identified the organisms to the species level, and recorded biological sampling (biometrics). Logbook data and sampling information was captured in a database. We documented 854 fishing hauls for all of the bays. SBC analysis shows a total composition of 46 identified species belonging to different taxonomic groups such as fishes, crustaceans, gastropods, and elasmobranchs, and an additional 10 species identified to the genus level only. The most diverse group was that of bony fishes and the most dominant species was the swimming crab (Callinectes spp.). The amount of SBC species varied spatially (lagoon system). During the shrimping activity, a high percentage (20-30%) of negative fishing hauls (i.e., without any SBC captures) was recorded, indicating that the artisanal shrimp fishery does not generate any bycatch in a third of all fishing hauls.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to the Coastal Marine Fishes of California
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME FISH BULLETIN 157 GUIDE TO THE COASTAL MARINE FISHES OF CALIFORNIA by DANIEL J. MILLER and ROBERT N. LEA Marine Resources Region 1972 ABSTRACT This is a comprehensive identification guide encompassing all shallow marine fishes within California waters. Geographic range limits, maximum size, depth range, a brief color description, and some meristic counts including, if available: fin ray counts, lateral line pores, lateral line scales, gill rakers, and vertebrae are given. Body proportions and shapes are used in the keys and a state- ment concerning the rarity or commonness in California is given for each species. In all, 554 species are described. Three of these have not been re- corded or confirmed as occurring in California waters but are included since they are apt to appear. The remainder have been recorded as occurring in an area between the Mexican and Oregon borders and offshore to at least 50 miles. Five of California species as yet have not been named or described, and ichthyologists studying these new forms have given information on identification to enable inclusion here. A dichotomous key to 144 families includes an outline figure of a repre- sentative for all but two families. Keys are presented for all larger families, and diagnostic features are pointed out on most of the figures. Illustrations are presented for all but eight species. Of the 554 species, 439 are found primarily in depths less than 400 ft., 48 are meso- or bathypelagic species, and 67 are deepwater bottom dwelling forms rarely taken in less than 400 ft.
    [Show full text]
  • California Fish and Game “Conservation of Wild Life Through Education”
    Spring 2014 175 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME “Conservation of Wild Life Through Education” Volume 100 Spring 2014 Number 2 Special Marine Issue CDFW Photo by Matt Elyash CDFW Photo by Derek Stein CDFW Photo by Derek Stein CDFW Photo by Derek Stein CDFW Photo by Derek Stein Published Quarterly by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife 176 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME Vol. 100, No. 2 FRONTISPIECE.—The first issue ofCalifornia Fish and Game was published in October, 1914. Volume 1 consisted of a total of 5 issues, four of which were published in 1915. Publication has occurred on a quarterly basis beginning with volume 2 in 1916. Spring 2014 177 VOLUME 100 SPRING 2014 NUMBER 2 Published Quarterly by STATE OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE ISSN: 0008-1078 (print) ISSN: 2331-0405 (online) --LDA-- 178 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME Vol. 100, No. 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Jerry Brown, Governor CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY John Laird, Secretary for Natural Resources FISH AND GAME COMMISSION Michael Sutton, President Jack Baylis, Vice President Jim Kellogg, Member Richard B. Rogers, Member Jacque Hostler-Carmesin, Member Sonke Mastrup, Executive Director DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Charlton “Chuck” Bonham, Director CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME EDITORIAL STAFF Vern Bleich ........................................................................................Editor-in-Chief Debra Hamilton ............ Office of Communication, Education and Outreach -AVU Jeff Villepique, Steve Parmenter ........................................... Inland Deserts Region Scott Osborn, Laura Patterson, Levi Souza, Joel Trumbo ............... Wildlife Branch Dave Lentz, Kevin Shaffer ............................................................. Fisheries Branch Peter Kalvass, Nina Kogut .................................................................Marine Region James Harrington .......................................Office of Spill Prevention and Response Cherilyn Burton .....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • (Platyhelminthes) Parasitic in Mexican Aquatic Vertebrates
    Checklist of the Monogenea (Platyhelminthes) parasitic in Mexican aquatic vertebrates Berenit MENDOZA-GARFIAS Luis GARCÍA-PRIETO* Gerardo PÉREZ-PONCE DE LEÓN Laboratorio de Helmintología, Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Apartado Postal 70-153 CP 04510, México D.F. (México) [email protected] [email protected] (*corresponding author) [email protected] Published on 29 December 2017 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:34C1547A-9A79-489B-9F12-446B604AA57F Mendoza-Garfias B., García-Prieto L. & Pérez-Ponce De León G. 2017. — Checklist of the Monogenea (Platyhel- minthes) parasitic in Mexican aquatic vertebrates. Zoosystema 39 (4): 501-598. https://doi.org/10.5252/z2017n4a5 ABSTRACT 313 nominal species of monogenean parasites of aquatic vertebrates occurring in Mexico are included in this checklist; in addition, records of 54 undetermined taxa are also listed. All the monogeneans registered are associated with 363 vertebrate host taxa, and distributed in 498 localities pertaining to 29 of the 32 states of the Mexican Republic. The checklist contains updated information on their hosts, habitat, and distributional records. We revise the species list according to current schemes of KEY WORDS classification for the group. The checklist also included the published records in the last 11 years, Platyhelminthes, Mexico, since the latest list was made in 2006. We also included taxon mentioned in thesis and informal distribution, literature. As a result of our review, numerous records presented in the list published in 2006 were Actinopterygii, modified since inaccuracies and incomplete data were identified. Even though the inventory of the Elasmobranchii, Anura, monogenean fauna occurring in Mexican vertebrates is far from complete, the data contained in our Testudines.
    [Show full text]
  • Trabajo De Titulación Examen Complexivo”
    “Trabajo de Titulación Examen Complexivo” Para la obtención del grado de Magister en Manejo Sustentable de Recurso Bioacuáticos y Medio Ambiente ASPECTOS BIOLÓGICOS Y REPRODUCTIVOS DE LA PERELA (Paralabrax spp.) EN LA PENÍNSULA DE SANTA ELENA (JULIO-DICIEMBRE 2014). Blgo. Esteban Elías Méndez Tutor MSc. Telmo Escobar Troya Agradecimiento Agradezco a Dios y a La Virgen Santísima por permitirme tener una gran familia, por apoyarme en cada decisión y proyecto, ya que sin el apoyo de ellos en especial el de mi esposa no hubiera podido terminar con éxito esta meta cumplida. Un agradecimiento a mis amigos y compañeros del Instituto Nacional de Pesca, en especial a la persona que supo darme el apoyo necesario y la confianza en momentos difíciles con sus comentarios y sugerencias acertadas, las cuales enriquecieron el contenido de este trabajo, así también al Msc. Manuel Peralta por su incondicional apoyo, sugerencias para poder culminar con éxito este trabajo. Agradezco al oceanógrafo Mario Hurtado por la elaboración del mapa donde se indica las zonas de pesca. ii Dedicatoria Dedicado a mí esposa Raquel Sánchez L. a mis hijos Gabriela y Uriel Elías Sánchez, por todo el apoyo y comprensión y por ser mi fortaleza en culminar con éxito una etapa más de mi vida. A mis padres Flor María Méndez y Raúl Elías Astudillo (+), por sus enseñanzas, consejos y valores inculcados por apoyarme en todas las etapas de mi vida gracias padres a ti padre que te nos adelantaste en el viaje sé que estas muy feliz te extraño papa. A mis hermanos, sobrinos, cuñados por su apoyo y confianza.
    [Show full text]
  • Kelp Bass, Paralabrax Clathratus Enhanced Status Report
    Kelp Bass, Paralabrax clathratus Enhanced Status Report Kelp Bass, Paralabrax clathratus. (Photo Credit: Miranda Haggerty, CDFW). California Department of Fish and Wildlife Marine Region Insert Junephoto of, 2019 species here Citation: California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2019. Kelp Bass, Paralabrax clathratus. Enhanced Status Report. Contributors: Heather Gliniak, Miranda Haggerty (2019). Enhanced Status Reports The Marine Life Management Act (MLMA) is California’s primary fisheries law. It requires the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) to regularly report to the California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) on the status of fisheries managed by the state. The 2018 Master Plan for Fisheries expanded on this general requirement by providing an outline for Enhanced Status Reports (ESRs) that is based on the MLMA’s required contents for Fishery Management Plans (FMPs). The goal of ESRs is to provide an overview of the species, fishery, current management and monitoring efforts, and future management needs, and provide transparency around data and information that is unavailable or unknown. ESRs can help to guide Department efforts and focus future partnerships and research efforts to address information gaps and needs to more directly inform management. It is also anticipated that some ESRs will be foundations for future FMPs by providing background information and focusing analyses and stakeholder discussions on the most relevant issues. Note that in order to describe management measures in clear terms, ESRs contain summaries of regulatory and statutory language. To ensure full compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, please refer directly to the relevant sections of the Fish and Game Code and/or Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
    [Show full text]
  • Impacts of Recently Implemented Recreational Fisheries Regulations On
    Marine Policy 86 (2017) 134–143 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Marine Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol Impacts of recently implemented recreational fisheries regulations on the MARK Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel fishery for Paralabrax sp. in California ⁎ Lyall Bellquista,d, , Brice Semmensa, Stephen Stohsb, Alayna Siddallc a Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 8750 Biological Grade, La Jolla, CA 92037, United States b NOAA Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 8901 La Jolla Shores Dr., La Jolla, CA 92037, United States c Sportfishing Association of California, 5000 N. Harbor Dr., Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92106, United States d The Nature Conservancy, 402 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101, United States ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: The California Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel (CPFV) fleet is unique in scale of operation, extensive Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel fishing history, and economic impacts. The basses (Paralabrax sp.), which represent a principal target for the Logbook CPFV fleet, recently gained more stringent size limits and bag limits. The goal of this study was to conduct a Paralabrax survey of CPFV captains to assess perceptions regarding the status of two Paralabrax species, as well as the California recreational fisheries impacts of the new regulations. Catch and effort estimates were also obtained using CPFV logbook data to Survey compare captains’ perceptions with actual changes in the fishery. The captains agreed that both species are vital Regulatory impacts fi ff Catch-per-unit-effort to recreational shing, and that the Barred Sand Bass stock is less healthy than Kelp Bass. Catch and e ort Traditional ecological knowledge analyses were consistent with this perception, with more dramatic declines in CPUE exhibited by Barred Sand Bass.
    [Show full text]