. . . Northeast Pelagic Fisheries 



28 



. . . SPECIES AND STATUS 



Butterfish are likewise considered under- 

 utilized, though landings have dropped 

 considerably in recent years, owing mostly 

 to poor foreign markets. The butterfish 

 fishery is currently well below its LTPY 

 (Table 2-1). 



72,600 1 but declined to a 30,800 1 average 

 in recent years (Table 2-1). Most bluefish 

 (over 80%) are caught by sport fishermen. 

 Recent catch declines and a drop in the 

 species' abundance index suggest that 

 bluefish decreased during the 1980's and 



Bluefish landings peaked in 1980 at that the stock is fully exploited. 



Table 2-1.— Recent average, 

 current potential, and long-term 

 potential yields in metric tons (t), 

 and status of utilization of 

 northeast U.S. pelagic fisheries. 

 The LTPY, CPY, and RAY for the 

 unit equals the sum of the 

 species' LTPY's, CPY's, and RAY's. 



Long-term potential yield (LTPY) = 470,000 t 



Current potential yield (CPY) = 57 1 .000 t 



Recent average yield (RAY)' = 1 76,700 t 



1 198890 average (including foreign and recreational catches) 

 'includes more than 100 t of foreign landings (primarily Canadian) 

 includes more than 100 t of recreational landings. 

 4 For mackerel. U.S. landings are only 1 6. 1 00 t (22%) of the RAY 

 provisional LTPY's, based on historical landings patterns 



ISSUES 



For mackerel, butterfish, and the squids, 

 the recent average yields represent only 

 about 30% of the LTPY's and, given the 

 current high abundance of mackerel, only 

 about 20% of the CPY. 



Biological interactions of all these stocks 

 have a significant effect on their productiv- 

 ity. Herring, mackerel, and the squids are 

 primary diet items for many predatory 

 fishes, seabirds, and marine mammals. 

 Thus, development of more extensive fish- 

 eries will entail some bycatch of marine 

 mammals, primarily pilot whales and com- 

 mon dolphins. Similarly, development of 

 significant fisheries for the herring, mack- 

 erel, and squids may affect species like 

 cod, hakes, pollock, goosefish, and spiny 

 dogfish which use them for food. On the 

 other hand, these pelagic species are also 



predators of young fish of many species. 



Uncertainty in the identification of mack- 

 erel, herring, and squid stocks is another 

 problem for fishery managers. For exam- 

 ple, two mackerel spawning stocks have 

 been identified, but whether or how much 

 either has increased is not known. Like- 

 wise, lack of information on the stock struc- 

 ture of both squid species adds uncertainty 

 to production data and stock relationships. 



The bottom trawl surveys reflect stock 

 biomass trends generally, but they are not 

 very precise owing to strong effects of the 

 environment on the distribution of the spe- 

 cies. Increasing assessment precision of 

 small pelagic stocks will require the devel- 

 opment of new survey series, perhaps in- 

 cluding midwater trawling combined with 

 advanced hydroacoustic sampling. 



