1: 



13 



oO 



J 



Figure 16.— Annual commercial landings of weakfish in New Jersey 



1880-1975. 



and that declining catches in the 1950s and 1960s 

 represented a real decline in abundance. Two things 

 suggest, this and lack of effective management measures 

 suggest that the present period of abundance probably 

 will be temporary. 



Weakfish, a coastal species, migrates north and south 

 but does not move far offshore. There is no record of 

 foreign catches. 



Eels 



that State nor in landings for the entire middle Atlantic 

 region (Table 19). According to Boone (1976) the recent 

 increase in abundance of weakfish along the coast was 

 caused by a strong year class born in 1969. He reported 

 another dominant year class in 1975. As might be ex- 

 pected of a species of southern origin, weakfish landings 

 in New York almost always have been substantially less 

 than in New Jersey. Young weakfish recently have been 

 taken in the Hudson River (W. L. Dovel pers. commun.). 

 Recreational catches of weakfish in the two statistical 

 regions that meet at New York Bight have been es- 

 timated to exceed the commercial catch and the in- 

 crease in sport catches has been relatively greater (Table 

 19). It is reasonable to conclude that recreational fisher- 

 men probably are taking an increasing share of the total 

 catch and that the resource has increased in abundance 

 recently from natural causes. Thus, the apparent down- 

 ward trend in total abundance may not be real, and the 

 decline in commercial catches probably has been offset 

 by increased recreational catches. Nevertheless, it is 

 clear that this resource fluctuates widely in abundance. 



Table 19. --Estimated conmercial and recreational catches of 

 weakfish in the north and middle Atlantic regions of the United 

 States coast 1960-1975, Heights in metric tons. 



The national saltwater angling surveys for 1960. 1965. and 1970 

 did not give data by individual states. New Yor)t was included 

 with the New England states and New Jersey with the other middle 

 Atlantic states. 



Figures for 1975 in parentheses assume that unavailable landings 

 in N.H., Conn., and Del, egual the average of recent years. 



Two species of eel have been taken in the commercial 

 fisheries of New York and New Jersey, American eel, 

 AnguiUa rnstrata (Lesueur), caught mostly in pots or 

 traps in estuaries, and conger eel. Conger oceanicus 

 (Mitchill). Conger eel is taken incidentally in otter trawls 

 fishing for other species, and a few are caught in pots. 



American eel was not mentioned by Earll (1887) as im- 

 portant along the northern New Jersey coast, but in the 

 southern region of New Jersey the species was caught in 

 pots, and also in winter with spears. In Nev-f York 

 (Mather 1887) American eel was one of the most impor- 

 tant commercial species in bays along the south shore 

 and western end of Long Island, and in New York Har- 

 bor. American eel also was taken along the north shore of 

 Long Island. It is obvious that American eel was much 

 more important in the fisheries of the 1880s than it is to- 

 day. 



American eel is the more important species in weight 

 landed. Catches of this species in New York have fluc- 

 tuated considerably and the trend has been slightly 

 downward since landings by species were first recorded in 

 1935 (Fig. 17). However, recorded catches of eels, 

 probably mostly American eel, were considerably higher 

 in the period 1887 to 1891 inclusive, with an average an- 

 nual reported catch of about 677 metric tons. Trends and 

 levels of catch have been about the same in New Jersey, 

 but landings in that State increased in the 1960s (Fig. 

 18). Landings of conger eel in both states have dropped to 

 insignificant levels since the 1940s. 



CONGER EEL 



A- 



i 



AMERICAN EEL 



'•/'A/A/V-VA^V 



S5 

 O 

 S 4 



^vJVv-va_a 



Kigure 17.— Annual commercial landings of American and conger eel 

 in New York 1887-1975. 



22 



