DOCSLIB.ORG

Pre-Assessment Report of the Marine Finfish Fishery Caught with Handlines in Guaymas, Sonora, Mexico

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pre-Assessment Report of the Marine Finfish Fishery Caught with Handlines in Guaymas, Sonora, Mexico Pre-assessment report of the marine finfish fishery caught with handlines in Guaymas, Sonora, Mexico Prepared for: S.C.P.P. 29 de agosto. S.C.P.P. El Resbalón. S.C.P.P. El Mirador de la Manga. S.C.P.P. Pesquera La Manga Restaurante Doña Rosita. C.P.P. Pesquera Los Sazanes. S.C.P.P. Francisco Flores. S.C.P.P. Alianza de Pescadores de Guaymas. S.C.P.P. Las Dallanas. S.C.P.P. Pescadores de la Cantera. Prepared by: Comunidad y Biodiversidad, A. C. Francisco Javier Fernández Rivera Melo, Alesa Flores Guzmán & José Francisco Chávez Reviewed by Mónica Valle-Esquivel, Jodi Bostrom, Erin Wilson Validated by MRAG Americas April 2020 Report by Comunidad y Biodiversidad, AC Validated by (CAB) MRAG Americas Inc. Sociedad Cooperativa de Producción Pesquera 29 de agosto. Sociedad Cooperativa de Producción Pesquera El Resbalón. Sociedad Cooperativa de Producción Pesquera El Mirador de la Manga. Sociedad Cooperativa de Producción Pesquera La Manga Restaurante Doña Rosita. Fishery client Cooperativa de Producción Pesquera Los Sazanes. Sociedad Cooperativa de Producción Pesquera Francisco Flores. Sociedad Cooperativa de Producción Pesquera Alianza de Pescadores de Guaymas. Sociedad Cooperativa de Producción Pesquera Las Dallanas. Sociedad Cooperativa de Producción Pesquera Pescadores de la Cantera. Assessment Type Comprehensive pre-assessment Project code US2647_COBI_MX_PA_Validation Version 3.0 Francisco Javier Fernández Rivera Melo, Alesa Flores Guzmán & Prepared by Jose Francisco Chavez Mónica Valle-Esquivel, Jodi Bostrom, Erin Wilson (MRAG Reviewed by Americas) Approved by Amanda Stern-Pirlot Comunidad y Biodiversidad, A. C. Calle Isla del Peruano #215 Colonia Lomas de Miramar Guaymas, Sonora, México, CP 85448 Correo electrónico [email protected] (información) 2 1 Contents 1 Contents ..................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Tables index .............................................................................................................. 4 1.2 Figures index ............................................................................................................. 5 2 Glossary ..................................................................................................................... 7 3 Executive summary ...................................................................................................... 9 4 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 11 5 Report details ............................................................................................................ 11 5.1 Aims and constraints of the pre-assessment .......................................................... 11 5.2 Version details ......................................................................................................... 12 6 Unit(s) of Assessment ................................................................................................ 13 6.1 Unit(s) of Assessment ............................................................................................. 13 7 Traceability ............................................................................................................... 15 7.1 Traceability within the fishery .................................................................................. 15 8 Pre-assessment results .............................................................................................. 17 8.1 Pre-assessment results overview............................................................................ 17 8.1.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................... 17 8.1.2 Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 19 8.2 Summary of potential conditions by Principle ......................................................... 19 8.3 Summary of Performance Indicator level scores .................................................... 19 8.4 Principle 1 ................................................................................................................ 25 8.4.1 Principle 1 background ................................................................................................. 25 8.4.2 Catch profiles ................................................................................................................ 40 8.4.3 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data ................................................................ 42 8.4.4 Principle 1 Performance Indicator scores and rationales ............................................. 44 8.5 Principle 2 ................................................................................................................ 55 8.5.1 Principle 2 background ................................................................................................. 55 8.5.2 Principle 2 Performance Indicator scores and rationales – delete if not applicable ..... 66 8.6 Principle 3 ................................................................................................................ 95 8.6.1 Principle 3 background ................................................................................................. 95 8.6.2 Principle 3 Performance Indicator scores and rationales – delete if not applicable ..... 98 8.7 List of references ................................................................................................... 110 Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 116 8.8 Assessment information ........................................................................................ 116 8.8.1 Small-scale fisheries ................................................................................................... 116 8.9 Evaluation processes and techniques ................................................................... 117 8.9.1 Site visits ..................................................................................................................... 117 8.9.2 Recommendations for stakeholder participation in full assessment........................... 118 8.10 Risk-Based Framework outputs ............................................................................ 120 8.10.1 Consequence Analysis (CA) ....................................................................................... 120 8.10.2 Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) .................................................................. 124 3 1.1 Tables index Table 1 – Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) ................................................................................................ 14 Table 2 – Traceability within the fishery ............................................................................................... 16 Table 3 – Key to likely scoring level in Table 4 and P1, P2, and P3 performance indicators. ............. 17 Table 4 – Summary of Performance Indicator level scores.................................................................. 19 Table 5 – Summary of Performance Indicator level scores.................................................................. 19 Table 6. Northwest Mexico fishing offices ............................................................................................ 35 Table 7 – Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data – yellowtail amberjack, Seriola lalandi (Valenciennes, 1833) ............................................................................................................... 42 Table 8 – Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data – Pacific red snapper, Lutjanus peru (Nichols & Murphy, 1922) ........................................................................................................ 42 Table 9 – Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data – goldspotted sand bass, Paralabrax auroguttatus (Walford, 1936) ................................................................................................... 43 Table 10 – Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data – ocean whitefish, Caulolatilus princeps (Jenyns, 1840) ......................................................................................................................... 43 Table 11 – Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data – rooster hind, Hyporthodus acanthistius (Gilbert, 1892) .......................................................................................................................... 43 Table 13 – Reference points (RF) for the Pacific sardine in the Gulf of California. Table reproduced from the document sent by M. A. Martinez-Zavala, complemented with data from CRIP (2015) by Andraka et al. 2018. ................................................................................................ 56 Table 14 – Estimations of threat herring using hydroacoustic surveys (Alvarez et al. 2018)............... 57 Table 15 – Reference points for thread herring in the Gulf of California. Table produced from documents sent by M.A. Martinez-Zavala in 2014-2015 and data from Nevárez-Martinez et al. 2016 (Alvarez et al. 2018). .................................................................................................. 57 Table 16 – Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) and associated mean biomass of Gulf of California chub mackerel. Reproduced from Nevárez-Martínez et al. 2016 (Alvarez et al., 2018) ......... 59 Table
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Skeletal Development and Mineralization Pattern of The
    e Rese tur arc ul h c & a u D q e A v e f l o o Mesa-Rodríguez et al., J Aquac Res Development 2014, 5:6 l p a m n Journal of Aquaculture r e u n o t DOI: 10.4172/2155-9546.1000266 J ISSN: 2155-9546 Research & Development Research Article OpenOpen Access Access Skeletal Development and Mineralization Pattern of the Vertebral Column, Dorsal, Anal and Caudal Fin Complex in Seriola Rivoliana (Valenciennes, 1833) Larvae Mesa-Rodríguez A*, Hernández-Cruz CM, Socorro JA, Fernández-Palacios H, Izquierdo MS and Roo J Aquaculture Research Group, Science and Technology Park, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, P. O. Box 56, 35200 Telde, Canary Islands, Spain Abstract Bone and fins development in Seriola rivoliana were studied from cleared and stained specimens from 3 to 33 days after hatching. The vertebral column began to mineralize in the neural arches at 4.40 ± 0.14 mm Standard Length (SL), continued with the haemal arches and centrums following a cranial-caudal direction. Mineralization of the caudal fin structures started with the caudal rays by 5.12 ± 0.11 mm SL, at the same time that the notochord flexion occurs. The first dorsal and anal fin structures were the hard spines (S), and lepidotrichium (R) by 8.01 ± 0.26 mm SL. The metamorphosis was completed by 11.82 ± 0.4 mm SL. Finally, the fin supports (pterygiophores) and the caudal fins were completely mineralized by 16.1 ± 0.89 mm SL. In addition, the meristic data of 23 structures were provided.
    [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]
  • Forage Fish Management Plan
    Oregon Forage Fish Management Plan November 19, 2016 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Marine Resources Program 2040 SE Marine Science Drive Newport, OR 97365 (541) 867-4741 http://www.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/ Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife 1 Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 6 Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................................................... 6 Federal action to protect Forage Fish (2016)............................................................................................ 7 The Oregon Marine Fisheries Management Plan Framework .................................................................. 7 Relationship to Other State Policies ......................................................................................................... 7 Public Process Developing this Plan .......................................................................................................... 8 How this Document is Organized .............................................................................................................. 8 A. Resource Analysis ....................................................................................................................................
    [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]
  • Notice Calling for Suggestions, Views, Comments Etc from WTO- SPS Committee Members Within a Period of 60 Days on the Draft Noti
    Notice Calling for suggestions, views, comments etc from WTO- SPS Committee members within a period of 60 days on the draft notification related to Standards for list of Histamine Forming Fish Species and limits of Histamine level for Fish and Fishery Products. 1. In the Food Safety and Standards (Contaminants, toxins and Residues) Regulations, 2011, in regulation 2.5, relating to “Other Contaminants”, after sub-regulation 2.5.1 the following sub-regulation shall be inserted, namely:- “2.5.2 Histamine in Fish and Fishery Products contaminants, Toxins and Residues 1. Fish species having potential to cause histamine poisoning Sl.No. Family Scientific Name Common Name 1. Carangidae Alectis indica Indian Threadfish Alepes spp. Scad Atropus atropos Cleftbelly trevally Carangoides Yellow Jack bartholomaei Carangoides spp. Trevally Caranx crysos Blue runner Caranx spp. Jack/Trevally Decapterus koheru Koheru Decapterus russelli Indian scad Decapterus spp. Scad Elagatis bipinnulata Rainbow Runner Megalaspis cordyla Horse Mackerel/Torpedo Scad Nematistius pectoralis Roosterfish Oligoplites saurus Leather Jacket Pseudocaranx dentex White trevally Sl.No. Family Scientific Name Common Name Scomberoides Talang queenfish commersonnianus Scomberoides spp. Leather Jacket/Queen Fish Selene spp. Moonfish Seriola dumerili Greater/Japanese Amberjack or Rudder Fish Seriola lalandi Yellowtail Amberjack Seriola quinqueradiata Japanese Amberjack Seriola rivoliana Longfin Yellowtail Seriola spp. Amberjack or Yellowtail Trachurus capensis Cape Horse Mackerel Trachurus japonicas Japanese Jack Mackerel Trachurus murphyi Chilean Jack Mackerel Trachurus Yellowtail Horse Mackerel novaezelandiae Trachurus spp. Jack Mackerel/Horse Mackerel Trachurus trachurus Atlantic Horse Mackerel Uraspis secunda Cottonmouth jack 2. Chanidae Chanos chanos Milkfish 3. Clupeidae Alosa pseudoharengus Alewife Alosa spp. Herring Amblygaster sirm Spotted Sardinella Anodontostoma chacunda Chacunda gizzard shad Brevoortia patronus Gulf Menhaden Brevoortia spp.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogeny of the Epinephelinae (Teleostei: Serranidae)
    BULLETIN OF MARINE SCIENCE, 52(1): 240-283, 1993 PHYLOGENY OF THE EPINEPHELINAE (TELEOSTEI: SERRANIDAE) Carole C. Baldwin and G. David Johnson ABSTRACT Relationships among epinepheline genera are investigated based on cladistic analysis of larval and adult morphology. Five monophyletic tribes are delineated, and relationships among tribes and among genera of the tribe Grammistini are hypothesized. Generic com- position of tribes differs from Johnson's (1983) classification only in the allocation of Je- boehlkia to the tribe Grammistini rather than the Liopropomini. Despite the presence of the skin toxin grammistin in the Diploprionini and Grammistini, we consider the latter to be the sister group of the Liopropomini. This hypothesis is based, in part, on previously un- recognized larval features. Larval morphology also provides evidence of monophyly of the subfamily Epinephelinae, the clade comprising all epinepheline tribes except Niphonini, and the tribe Grammistini. Larval features provide the only evidence of a monophyletic Epine- phelini and a monophyletic clade comprising the Diploprionini, Liopropomini and Gram- mistini; identification of larvae of more epinephelines is needed to test those hypotheses. Within the tribe Grammistini, we propose that Jeboehlkia gladifer is the sister group of a natural assemblage comprising the former pseudogrammid genera (Aporops, Pseudogramma and Suttonia). The "soapfishes" (Grammistes, Grammistops, Pogonoperca and Rypticus) are not monophyletic, but form a series of sequential sister groups to Jeboehlkia, Aporops, Pseu- dogramma and Suttonia (the closest of these being Grammistops, followed by Rypticus, then Grammistes plus Pogonoperca). The absence in adult Jeboehlkia of several derived features shared by Grammistops, Aporops, Pseudogramma and Suttonia is incongruous with our hypothesis but may be attributable to paedomorphosis.
    [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]
  • The Biology and Ecology of Samson Fish Seriola Hippos
    The biology of Samson Fish Seriola hippos with emphasis on the sportfishery in Western Australia. By Andrew Jay Rowland This thesis is presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Murdoch University 2009 DECLARATION I declare that the information contained in this thesis is the result of my own research unless otherwise cited. ……………………………………………………. Andrew Jay Rowland 2 Abstract This thesis had two overriding aims. The first was to describe the biology of Samson Fish Seriola hippos and therefore extend the knowledge and understanding of the genus Seriola. The second was to uses these data to develop strategies to better manage the fishery and, if appropriate, develop catch-and-release protocols for the S. hippos sportfishery. Trends exhibited by marginal increment analysis in the opaque zones of sectioned S. hippos otoliths, together with an otolith of a recaptured calcein injected fish, demonstrated that these opaque zones represent annual features. Thus, as with some other members of the genus, the number of opaque zones in sectioned otoliths of S. hippos are appropriate for determining age and growth parameters of this species. Seriola hippos displayed similar growth trajectories to other members of the genus. Early growth in S. hippos is rapid with this species reaching minimum legal length for retention (MML) of 600mm TL within the second year of life. After the first 5 years of life growth rates of each sex differ, with females growing faster and reaching a larger size at age than males. Thus, by 10, 15 and 20 years of age, the predicted fork lengths (and weights) for females were 1088 (17 kg), 1221 (24 kg) and 1311 mm (30 kg), respectively, compared with 1035 (15 kg), 1124 (19 kg) and 1167 mm (21 kg), respectively for males.
    [Show full text]
  • Snapper and Grouper: SFP Fisheries Sustainability Overview 2015
    Snapper and Grouper: SFP Fisheries Sustainability Overview 2015 Snapper and Grouper: SFP Fisheries Sustainability Overview 2015 Snapper and Grouper: SFP Fisheries Sustainability Overview 2015 Patrícia Amorim | Fishery Analyst, Systems Division | [email protected] Megan Westmeyer | Fishery Analyst, Strategy Communications and Analyze Division | [email protected] CITATION Amorim, P. and M. Westmeyer. 2016. Snapper and Grouper: SFP Fisheries Sustainability Overview 2015. Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Foundation. 18 pp. Available from www.fishsource.com. PHOTO CREDITS left: Image courtesy of Pedro Veiga (Pedro Veiga Photography) right: Image courtesy of Pedro Veiga (Pedro Veiga Photography) © Sustainable Fisheries Partnership February 2016 KEYWORDS Developing countries, FAO, fisheries, grouper, improvements, seafood sector, small-scale fisheries, snapper, sustainability www.sustainablefish.org i Snapper and Grouper: SFP Fisheries Sustainability Overview 2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The goal of this report is to provide a brief overview of the current status and trends of the snapper and grouper seafood sector, as well as to identify the main gaps of knowledge and highlight areas where improvements are critical to ensure long-term sustainability. Snapper and grouper are important fishery resources with great commercial value for exporters to major international markets. The fisheries also support the livelihoods and food security of many local, small-scale fishing communities worldwide. It is therefore all the more critical that management of these fisheries improves, thus ensuring this important resource will remain available to provide both food and income. Landings of snapper and grouper have been steadily increasing: in the 1950s, total landings were about 50,000 tonnes, but they had grown to more than 612,000 tonnes by 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • Venom Evolution Widespread in Fishes: a Phylogenetic Road Map for the Bioprospecting of Piscine Venoms
    Journal of Heredity 2006:97(3):206–217 ª The American Genetic Association. 2006. All rights reserved. doi:10.1093/jhered/esj034 For permissions, please email: [email protected]. Advance Access publication June 1, 2006 Venom Evolution Widespread in Fishes: A Phylogenetic Road Map for the Bioprospecting of Piscine Venoms WILLIAM LEO SMITH AND WARD C. WHEELER From the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Biology, Columbia University, 1200 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10027 (Leo Smith); Division of Vertebrate Zoology (Ichthyology), American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY 10024-5192 (Leo Smith); and Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY 10024-5192 (Wheeler). Address correspondence to W. L. Smith at the address above, or e-mail: [email protected]. Abstract Knowledge of evolutionary relationships or phylogeny allows for effective predictions about the unstudied characteristics of species. These include the presence and biological activity of an organism’s venoms. To date, most venom bioprospecting has focused on snakes, resulting in six stroke and cancer treatment drugs that are nearing U.S. Food and Drug Administration review. Fishes, however, with thousands of venoms, represent an untapped resource of natural products. The first step in- volved in the efficient bioprospecting of these compounds is a phylogeny of venomous fishes. Here, we show the results of such an analysis and provide the first explicit suborder-level phylogeny for spiny-rayed fishes. The results, based on ;1.1 million aligned base pairs, suggest that, in contrast to previous estimates of 200 venomous fishes, .1,200 fishes in 12 clades should be presumed venomous.
    [Show full text]
  • Small Pelagics Fishery in Sonora, Gulf of California
    SCS Global Services Report SMALL PELAGICS FISHERY IN SONORA, GULF OF CALIFORNIA MSC Fishery Assessment Report Public Certification Draft Report Prepared by: Dr. Carlos Alvarez (Lead, P1 & P3 Team Member) Ms. Sandra Andraka (P2 Team Member) Ms. Gabriela Anhalzer (Coordination, P2 Support) Dr. Sian Morgan (Quality Review) Natural Resources Division +1.510.452.xxxx [email protected] For Cámara Nacional de la Industria Pesquera (CANAINPES) Sonora, Mexico April 21st, 2017 2000 Powell Street, Ste. 600, Emeryville, CA 94608 USA +1.510.452.8000 main | +1.510.452.8001 fax www.SCSglobalServices.com SCS Global Services Report List of Tables .................................................................................................................... 1 List of Figures ................................................................................................................... 3 Glossary ........................................................................................................................... 6 1. Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... 9 Fishery Operations Overview ......................................................................................................................... 9 Assessment Overview .................................................................................................................................. 10 Summary of Findings ..................................................................................................................................
    [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]