sible, a cooperative tagging program was established 

 involving the National Marine Fisheries Service, 

 California Department of Fish and Game, Oregon 

 Department of Fish and Wildlife, and research ves- 

 sels from the U.S.S.R. and the ROK. A total of 34,640 

 sablefish were tagged from 1971 through 1976 from 

 off southern California to the Kodiak Island area in 

 the Gulf of Alaska. The number of sablefish tagged 

 varied along the coast with the greatest number re- 

 leased in International North Pacific Fisheries Com- 

 mission (INPFC) area, Columbia (Fig. 1). No fish 

 were tagged in the western Gulf of Alaska or British 

 Columbia (INPFC areas, Charlotte and Vancouver, 

 north of lat. 48°30'); only a small number were tagged 

 in the central Gulf of Alaska. 



Figure 1 . — Number of sablefish tagged in each International North 

 Pacific Fisheries Commission area, 1971-76. 



Five types of gear were used to capture sablefish in 

 the cooperative research program: Trawl, trap, long- 

 line, rod and reel, and troll. Trawl, trap, and longline 

 were the predominant gear types accounting for al- 

 most 99% of the captures. After capture, the sable- 

 fish were placed in tanks continuously supplied with 

 seawater. The fish to be tagged were dipped from the 

 tank, placed in a padded tagging cradle, and mea- 

 sured for fork length to the nearest centimeter. Those 

 fish not seriously injured at capture were tagged and 

 released. Most of the trawl-caught fish tagged during 

 the study were taken in 400-mesh Eastern trawls 

 equipped with 3.8 cm mesh liner. The traps used had 



either one or two tunnels and were 0.86 m wide by 

 0.86 m high by 2.44 m long (Hipkins 1974). 



Three types of tags were used in the cooperative 

 research program: Anchor, spaghetti, and an ex- 

 perimental tag. Spaghetti tags (yellow-colored, size 

 #20 vinyl tubing) were applied to 636 fish in 1971 

 and another 100 by 1972 to provide a standard for 

 evaluating the recovery rate of the anchor tags. Some 

 experimental tags similar to standard spaghetti tags, 

 but applied with a hollow needle and secured by in- 

 terlocking plastic terminals, were tested in 1973. On- 

 ly 7 6 fish were tagged with this method, which proved 

 to be too time consuming for general use. The pri- 

 mary tag, a Floy FD68 2 anchor tag, was used on the 

 remainder of the fish. Tagging information recorded 

 included the tagging agency, vessel name, cruise 

 number, fishing set, gear used, fishing depth, posi- 

 tion in degrees and minutes, date, fish length, and the 

 relative condition of the fish. 



Tag recovery data were recorded in the same way as 

 the release data, although the information reported 

 was more variable. The most consistent recovery 

 data reported were tag number, recovery date, fish 

 length, and recovery location. Other data occasional- 

 ly reported for recoveries include the capture gear, 

 depth of capture, sex, weight, and state of matu- 

 rity. 



In some instances, the tag recovery information was 

 treated as more detailed than actually reported. For 

 example, the recovery location, recorded in degrees 

 and minutes, may have been derived from other in- 

 formation, such as a recovery location lying between 

 two reported loran base lines in a given depth strata 

 or a location reported as lying at a given bearing and 

 distance from a prominent landmark. The dates may 

 represent the midpoint of periods ranging from 3 to 

 30 d, or may also be the day of delivery of a sablefish 

 catch which contained the tagged sablefish. How- 

 ever, the errors introduced by such interpolation 

 were very small in terms of the distances traveled or 

 time the tagged fish were at large. 



Distance traveled between release and recovery 

 locations was the shortest distance between the two 

 points calculated by great circle distance. 



Sablefish tagging and recovery data were trans- 

 formed into SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social 

 Sciences) files. SPSS programs (Nie et al. 1975) were 

 used to produce both the descriptive and analytical 

 statistics presented in this report. 



2 Reference to trade names or commercial firms does not imply en- 

 dorsement by the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. 



416 



