fish ages 0-3 caught in these two areas were 

 taken in Chesapeake Bay. Thus, for the per- 

 centages shown for the 1966 year class, even if 

 the 1966 year class were the same size as the 

 1954 year class, the Middle Atlantic catch 

 would have been only about one-seventh as 

 large for the 1966 year class as it had been for 

 the 1954 year class. 



One of the major reasons for the increased 

 importance of the Chesapeake Bay Area is the 

 increased effort in that fishery, coupled with 

 the decreased effort in the Middle and North 

 Atlantic Areas (Fig. 26). For example, in 1955, 

 the fishing effort in Chesapeake Bay (689 

 standard vessel days) was only 24% of the total 

 effort for the Atlantic menhaden fishery. In 

 1968, in spite of a 22% reduction in effort 

 from the previous year in Chesapeake Bay, the 

 fishing effort in Chesapeake Bay (2,291 stand- 

 ard vessel days) had climbed to 58% of the 

 total Atlantic effort. This increased proportion 

 of the fishing effort in Chesapeake Bay was the 

 obvious result of the decreased abundance of 

 fish in the other area. 



1,200 - 

 600 - 





 2,400 

 1,200 







Ul 



> 



3.600 

 (E 



1 2,400 



< 



<o 1,200 



u. 

 o 







(E 



? 1,200 



^ 600 







600 



SOUTH ATLANTIC 



CHESAPEAKE BAY 



MIDDLE ATLANTIC 



NORTH ATLANTIC 



NORTH CAROLINA FALL FISHERY 



1940 1949 I9S0 I9BS I960 1969 



Figure 26.— Atlantic Menhaden fishing effort in stand- 

 ard vessel days by area, 1941-68. 



Fishing effort dropped in Chesapeake Bay in 

 1968 when a number of the boats did not fish. 

 Unfortunately, the reduction of boats was not 

 sufficient to reduce the catch; in fact, the catch 

 in 1968 actually increased. We are not yet 

 certain why the catch increased, although I do 

 not believe it indicates a significant improve- 

 ment in the Atlantic menhaden stocks for the 

 following reasons. For most year classes, more 

 menhaden are caught in Chesapeake Bay as 

 1-year-old fish than any other age group. 

 However, for the 1966 year class, more were 

 caught as 2-year-olds in 1968 than as 1 -year- 

 olds in 1957. This, I believe, was a major factor 

 in the increased catch in 1968. Better catches 

 were made mainly during July and there is 

 some evidence, particularly from our tagging 

 studies, that this may have been due to 

 increased availability of the fish rather than to 

 increased abundance. The 1969 Atlantic men- 

 haden catch for the entire coast was about 30% 

 below 1968, a circumstance which tended to 

 indicate that the stocks had not significantly 

 improved. 



In my 1965 publication I pointed out that 

 after 1962, although the fishing effort in 

 Chesapeake Bay increased, the catch did not 

 increase proportionally. This phenomenon of 

 course resulted in a decreased catch per unit of 

 fishing effort. The catch per unit of effort 

 declined not only in Chesapeake Bay but also 

 in the Middle and North Atlantic Fishing Areas 

 (Fig. 27). This declining catch per unit of 

 effort continued through 1967. 



Although a substantial increase in the catch 

 per unit of effort in 1968 also is shown for the 

 Middle and North Atlantic Areas as well as for 

 the North Carolina fall fishery, these should 

 not be given too much importance. In view of 

 the low level of fishing effort in the Middle and 

 North Atlantic Areas and the more selective 

 nature of the current fishery, I do not believe 

 the catch per unit of effort in 1968 was a true 

 measure of the relative abundance of the stock 

 in comparison with previous years. In the 

 North Carolina fall fishery fishing is so limited 

 in time and adversely affected by weather that 

 I do not believe the catch per unit of effort has 

 much significance. You will note that there has 

 not been a decreasing trend in the catch per 

 unit of effort in the North Carolina fall fishery 

 as there has been in the other areas. 



14 



