AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Morris Wayne Barker for the_Master of Science (Name) (Degree) in Fisheries presented on (Major) I (late) Title: THE COMPARATIVE EFFICIENCY AND ECONOMY OF TROLL, JIG, GILLNET, AND LONGLINE GEAR FOR HARVESTING NERITIC REEF FISHES Abstract approved: Redacted for Privacy Howard F. Horton Four types of fishing gear were tested in five sampling areas near Newport, Oregon, to determine which was the most efficient and economical method of harvesting neritic reef fishes.Certain weather and hydrographic conditions were recorded to determine their possible influence on the quantity and species of fish landed by each gear. The diver gillnet yielded a projected net return of $1. 90 per hour, and was judged to be the most economically feasible method of harvesting neritic reef fishes. Hydrographic conditions had little influence on the variability of the catch for all fishing gears except the diver gillnet.Such con- ditions did not seem to affect the feeding behavior of the reef fishes but did seem to influence their movements and subsequent capture by the diver gilinet.When regressed on value of the catch for the diver gillnet, hydrographic conditions resulted in anR2of 0.85. The possibility of conflicts between sport and gilinet fishermen, and of overfishing stocks of neritic rockfishes (Sebastes sp. )and lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus) is discussedRockfish, which make up a minor portion of the food fish catch for the gillnet, are deemed as territorial species subject to overfishing pressures, but not readily available to the anchored diver gilinet.Lingcod, which make up the largest portion of the food fish catch, are not considered territorial but may be sedentary in reef areas. A constant influx of lingcod, from seasonal migrations and local movements, might be expected to fill habitats in neritic reefs as they became available due to fishing mor- tality. The Comparative Efficiency and Economy of Troll, Jig, Gilinet, and Longline Gear for Harvesting Neritic Reef Fishes by Morris Wayne Barker A THESIS submitted to Oregon State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science June 1974 APPROVED: Redacted for Privacy Profe"ssor of Fisheries in charge of major Redacted for Privacy Acting Head of Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Redacted for Privacy Dean of Graduate School Date thesis is presented J4V[(l)/ /c7,74 ,, Typed by Cheryl E. Curb for Morris Wayne Barker ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my gratitude to my major professor, Dr. Howard F. Horton (Professor of Fisheries, 0. S. U.), for his timely suggestions, manuscript corrections, procural of needed equipment, confidence in me when public opinion was against the research, and for his friendship. Thanks are due to Mr. R. Barry Fisher (Associate Professor of Fisheries, 0. S. U.) whose financial and material aid helped me through the first year of research. I would also like to express my appreciation to Mr. Mike Jacroux (Graduate student, Statistics Dept., 0. S. U.) for his aid in the statistical analysis of the data. I appreciate Donna Barker who typed my rough drafts and made them neat, however unorderly they appeared. For their unceasing effort and cooperation, I would like to thank Mr. Dana Horton and Mr. Todd Skorup who acted as crewmen during the summer months of test fishing. Last, but not least,I would like to thank those students and biologists (Fish Commission of Oregon, Newport, Ore. ) who furnished labor and comic relief at no expense to the project. A TABLE OF CONTEN1S Page INTRODUCTION 1 METHODS AND MATERIALS 4 Fishing Areas 4 Vessel and Gear Types 4 Experimental Design 13 Data Analysis 15 RESULTS 18 DISCUSSION 31 BIBLIOGRAPHY 41 APPENDIX 43 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Map of study area from Yaquina Head to Seal Rocks along the Oregon coast. 6 2 The 20-foot Pacific City dory used in this investigation. 7 3 The chromed, lead-filled, terminal body and rubber worms of the Norwegian jig. 9 4 Gunnel mounted, hand-crank spool that was used to fish the Norwegian jig. 9 5 The conventional jig illustrating the lead terminal body and rubber lures (hootchies) used to catch neritic reef fishes. 10 6 The change with time of the catch of reef fishes per unit of effort (lb/hr) with the diver gillnet for all areas fished near Newport, Oregon. 37 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Experimental sampling design for the five areas and five fishing gear combinations. 14 2 Hydrographic variables recorded and those that were significant (P> 0. 95) to the value of the catch (indicated by X) in the all-gear and the individual- gear regression equations. 19 3 The multiple regression equations for the all-gear and individual-gear models. 20 4 Analysis of variance table (ANOVA) for the all-gear and the individual-gear regression equations. 21 5 Catch per unit of effort and value of the catch for each type of fishing gear used to capture neritic reef fishes near Newport, Oregon, during 1972-1973. 23 6 Average gross value per day of the catch by gear and area. 24 7 Net return and net return per hour for each type of fishing gear used to capture neritic reef fishes near Newport, Oregon, during 1972-1973. 25 8 The projected net return for each fishing gear, based on 100 days fishing (two summer season) in the area of highest productivity for each gear (extrapolated from observed cost and catch statistics). 9 Species composition of the catch (%) and total numbers of fish caught by gear type. 28 THE COMPARATIVE EFFICIENCY AND ECONOMY OF TROLL, JIG, GILLNET, AND LONGLINE GEAR FOR HARVESTING NERITIC REEF FISHES INTRODUCTION This thesis reports on a study of the comparative efficiency and economy of four commercial fishing gears for harvesting near- shore reef fishes.The overall purpose of the study was to determine if any of the gears tested provide a means for economically harvest- ing neritic reef fishes to supplement the incomes of fishermen who troll for salmon (Oncorhynchus sp.) in small day-boats. The investigation was conducted from June 1972 through September 1973 in the coastal waters between Yaquina Head and Seal Rocks near Newport, Oregon. Day-boat fishermen are economically dependent on their ability to locate and catch salmon close to the vessel's home port.Periodic declines in the abundance of salmon, fluctuations in prices, incle- ment weather, and restrictions on legal fishing periods can greatly reduce income opportunities for these fishermen.Operators of larger salmon trollers(trip-boats)2can move along the coastline in 1Fishing boats which must return to port each night because they are either too small (generally < 25 ft) to weather moderate seas, or are not equipped with overnight accommodations. 2.Fishing boats large enough (generally > 25 ft) to weather moderate seas and equipped with overnight accommodations for one or more persons. search of concentrations of salmon to help avoid economic hardship. For the day-boat fisherman, there is no solution to salmon scarcity other than to transport the boat by trailer to a different port, or to wait for local fishing success to improve. Results of test fishing in the fall of 1971 indicated that stocks of reef fishes adjacent to Newport might furnish an alternate fishery for local day-boat operators.The jagged and rocky bottom sur round- ing these reefs presented the problem of identifying a harvest method that would be efficient and economical. Many descriptions of fishing gear appear in the literature (Andreev, 1962; Brandt, 1964), but information on their relative effectiveness is limited.Muncy (1960) investigated the catching efficiency of nylon versus linen gilinets on soft-rayed fishes such as American shad (Alosa sapidissima), glut herring (Alosa aestivalis), and alewife herring (Alosa pseudoharengus) and found that nylon gill- nets were more effective than linen gilinets, and that anchored gill- nets were more effective than drifted gilinets.Other workers examined the efficiencies of gillnets from the standpoint of hanging ratios and mesh sizes (Trent and Hassler, 1968).Scofield (1947) was concerned with apparatuses for harvesting reef fishes, but his work was neither qualitative nor quantitative in a respect that was pertinent to my research. 3 Personnel of the Exploratory Fishing and Gear Research Base of the National Marine Fisheries Service in Seattle, Washington, and of the Marine Resources Laboratory of the California Department of Fish and Game in Menlo Park, California, had no knowledge of pub- lished information relative to my study.The State of California permits a commercial fishery for reef fishes by longline, jig, gilinet and troll gear (letters dated 4 October 1972, and 2 February 1973 from Tom Jow, California Marine Resources Laboratory, California Department of Fish and Game, Menlo Park, California); however, details of fishing methods and efficiencies have not been published. The specific objectives of my investigation were: 1.To determine which of four types of fishing gear -- troll, jig (Norwegian and conventional), gillnet, and longline - - yields the largest catch per unit of effort. 2.To determine which of the four types of fishing gear yields the largest financial return per hour fished. 3.To determine if certain fishing periods and hydrographic features significantly influence the quantity of fishes caught. 4 METHODS AND MATERIALS Fishing Areas My study was conducted along the Oregon coast from Yaquina Head (44° 41' 30" north) to Seal Rocks (44° 29' 30' south), and from the 25 fathom contour shoreward (Figure 1).This coastal reach