

DECLINE OF THE YELLOWTAIL FLOUNDER (LIMANDA FERRUGINEA) 



OFF NEW ENGLAND 



By William F. Royce, Raymond J. Buller, and Ernest D. Premetz, Fishery Research Biologists 



As recently as 19.35, fishermen of New England 

 found little value in the yellowtail flounder (Li- 

 manda ferruginea), which they caught inciden- 

 tally in their trawls. This fish was considered too 

 thin to compete with the winter, or blackback. 

 flounder (Psevdoplevron-ectes americanus) for 

 sale in the round, and it was not as well known as 

 the dab, or American plaice {Hippoglossoides 

 platessoides), or the gray sole or witch flounder 

 (Glyptocephdlus cyvoglossus) — species commonly 

 sold as fillet of sole. But two things occurred to 

 change this. The winter flounder, mainstay of the 

 fleet of small otter trawlers in southern New Eng- 

 land, declined so severely in abundance in the 

 middle thirties that fishermen and filleting con- 

 cerns sought a substitute. The yellowtail, abun- 

 dant, readily available, and fine-flavored, satisfied 

 this need. Then from 1940 to 1942, the increasing 

 demand for food that accompanied World War 

 II was reflected in an expansion of the fisheries for 

 almost any edible species wherever war restrictions 

 would permit. Consequently, the catch of yellow- 

 tail rose from slightly less than 23 million pounds 

 in 1938 to approximately 70 million pounds in 

 1942, at which time the fishery supported a fleet 

 of 150 small otter trawlers. 



These vessels fished from ports on Long Island, 

 N. Y., and from Connecticut, Rhode Island, and 

 southeastern Massachusetts ports as far north as 

 Provincetown, Mass., and the yellowtail became 

 the principal species of fish landed. Concurrent 

 with the diversion of vessels to the yellowtail 

 fishery was the development of the necessary han- 

 dling and filleting facilities, chiefly at New Bed- 

 ford, Mass., where about 20 filleting plants began 

 operations. 



Note. — Dr. William F. Royce is now director of the Fisheries 

 Research Institute, University of Washington : Raymond J. Buller 

 is central flyway representative. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and 

 Wildlife, and Ernest D. Premetz commodity industry analyst. 

 Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 



Approved for publication, September 20, 1055. Fishery 

 Bulletin 146. 



The remarkable growth of the yellowtail fishery 

 was followed by an almost equally remarkable de- 

 cline. In 1944, the annual catch had been reduced 

 by more than half and the following 9 years pro- 

 duced no sign of recovery. The decline and con- 

 tinuing scarcity of the yellowtail caused great 

 concern, not only because this species closely par- 

 alleled the winter flounder in its decrease in the 

 early and middle thirties (a decline from which 

 the winter flounder had not recovered as late as 

 1951), but also because the fishermen who now 

 depended on yellowtail fishing for their principal 

 livelihood could expect to find no other abundant 

 species of fish of similar value within the range 

 of their small otter trawlers. 



This pronounced reduction in the catch of a 

 species of major importance to the New England 

 fisheries was the impetus for a more concentrated 

 study of the yellowtail. Prior to the peak of the 

 yellowtail fishery, the question arose of how much 

 expansion could be expected. Now, after its de- 

 cline, fishermen and the general public alike want 

 to know if they can expect a recurrence of the 

 yellowtail's former abundance, if regulation of the 

 fishery is needed, or if the sad history of other 

 depleted species is to be repeated. To answer these 

 questions we needed to know two things: First, 

 what sizes and numbers of fish can be expected 

 from a given fishing effort : and second, what 

 measures would result in the greatest return from 

 the fishery. 



We have approached the answers to these basic 

 questions through a study of the effect of fishing 

 on the yellowtail. Determining the effects of fish- 

 ing required a delineation of the stocks and a 

 breakdown of the catch data according to the geo- 

 graphical units in which the stocks were homo- 

 geneous or in which the fishing pressure was uni- 

 form. (In either case, we may assume that the 

 effect of fishing on the stock or stocks will be 

 uniform.) After determining what fishing 

 grounds should be considered to constitute a more 



160 



