Figure 22.— Yearly deviations C'n) from the average 

 annual catch of North Carolina and Florida-South 

 Carolina Areas, 1959-68. 



ces in catches between the two areas are not 

 due merely to differences in fisliing effort, as 

 can be readily seen from Figure 23. Not only is 

 the pattern of the catches different, but the 

 catch per unit of fishing effort (i.e., catch per 

 standard vessel landing day) also is different. 

 The method of computing this particular unit 

 of fishing effort is given in detail in my earlier 

 paper (Henry, 1965). These data as well as 

 other information on migrations from tagging 

 (Henry and Kutkuhn, 1970) lead me to believe 

 that for proper analyses, the South Atlantic 

 area should be separated into the two areas 

 mentioned above. 



Although the total catch of menhaden in 

 Chesapeake Bay has not decreased to the 

 same extent as in the Middle and North 

 Atlantic Areas, it has been maintained by 

 significantly increasing fishing effort, includ- 

 ing a major extension of the fishing sea- 

 son. The monthly catches for Chesapeake 

 Bay since 1940 are shown in Figure 24. 

 Historically, most of the fish were caught 

 during June through September; there were 

 few landings of importance in October, prior to 

 1952, and no landings of importance in 

 November, prior to 1964. Since 1964, how- 

 ever, November landings have contributed up 

 to 20% of the total annual catch in Chesapeake 

 Bay, not to mention the increased October 

 catches. In other words, if the season had not 

 been extended in recent years, the total annual 

 catches from Chesapeake Bay would have been 



Figure 23.— Catch, fishing effort, and catch per unit of 

 effort (C.P.U.E.) for the North Carolina and Florida- 

 South Carolina summer fisheries, 1955-68. 



50 - 

 25 - 



'5 - JUNE _n_r-Lrta~h 



^ 100 



§ '5 



2 50 



2 25 



O 



^ 100 



O 75 



i 50 



i « 

 5 7i 



< 50 

 u 25 



50 

 25 



50 

 25 



^T^v^^rr^ 



-^_n ^rrr^^ 



'^nrM 



fLTwffThtrri 



rmxTi 



■nr>rriTfln^ \T . 



[fc 



XI. 



x^lo., 



ami 



ml 



.jn 



20 

 10 



40 

 30 

 20 

 10 _ 

 v> 



50 i 



401- 

 30 o 

 20 J 



10 hi 



z 



50 o 



30 o 



20 I 



10 5 



o 



401 

 30 1 



2° I 

 10 o 



20" 



10 



20 

 10 



Figure 24.— Catch of Atlantic menhaden in Chesapeake 

 Bay by month, 1940-68. (Dark bars emphasize 10- 

 year periods.) 



down 20% or more from those actually re- 

 corded. 



Since 1955, there has been a considerable 

 shift in the percentage of the total catch of 

 Atlantic menhaden made in each of the fishing 



12 



