690 



Fishery Bulletin 103(4) 



occurred at the surface, and sea lions were identified 

 in 98.4% of those takes. In 1999, 51 of the 779 takes 

 occurred at the surface, and sea lions were responsible 

 for 96.1% of the takes. We assumed sea lions took simi- 

 lar percentages of fish below the surface. As evidence 

 of takes below the surface, sea lions would come to the 



surface within minutes with a fish. Pacific harbor seal 

 (Phoca vitulina richardsi) was responsible for other 

 observed takes. 



Percentages of the catch taken by sea lions, based on 

 pooled dockside and onboard surveys, were significantly 

 different among years in the commercial (P<0.000), CP- 

 FV (P<0.000), and skiff fishery (P<0.000; Fig. 3). 

 During 1998, significantly greater percentages of 

 salmon were taken in the commercial (Tukey HSD 

 multiple comparison, P<0.000), CPFV (Tukey HSD 

 multiple comparison, P<0.000), and skiff fisher- 

 ies (Tukey HSD multiple comparison, P<0.000). 

 Whereas during 1999, the CPFV (Tukey HSD 

 multiple comparison, P<0.000) and skiff fisher- 

 ies (Tukey HSD multiple comparison, P<0.000) 

 experienced significantly smaller percentages of 

 sea lion takes. In the commercial fishery there 

 was no difference in the percentage of fish taken 

 between 1997 and 1999. 



Although the timing of the sea lion migration 

 varied by year (Weise, 2000), the percentages of 

 takes by sea lions were greater during the non- 

 breeding season than during the breeding sea- 

 son in all three years (Fig. 4). In the commer- 

 cial fishery, those differences were significant for 

 all three years (1997, P<0.000; 1998, P=0.001; 

 1999, P= 0.041). In the CPFV fishery, significant- 

 ly more takes occurred during the nonbreeding 

 season in 1997 (P=0.010), and 1998 (P<0.000); 

 however, there was no significant difference in 

 1999 (P=0.358). In the skiff fishery, significantly 

 more takes by sea lions occurred during the non- 



