for Class 1 vessels was used to standardize the 

 effort units tor that year. For Class 2 vessels, 

 the efficiency factor was fixed at 1.00 for all 

 years (table 1). For a given statistical area, 

 the sum of the products of the mean efficiency 

 factor plus total number of effective trips of 

 the size classes is the total number of standard 

 effective trips. The catch per standard effec- 

 tive trip (Y/f) is found by dividing the total 

 catch for any given area by the number of stan- 

 dard effective trips. 



Table 1. — Values of efficiency factors for Class 

 1 Hawaiian skipjack tuna vessels in terms of a 

 fixed value of 1.00 for Class 2 vessels. These 

 factors were used to standardize the unit of 

 effort in 1948-65 



DISTRIBUTION OF FISHING EFFORT 

 AND SKIPJACK TUNA CATCHES 



The amount of effective fishing effort ex- 

 pended, the resulting skipjack tuna catches, and 

 the catch per standard effective trip (Y/f), by 

 statistical areas in each quarter in 1948-65, 

 are given in appendix tables 1-18. In the Ha- 

 waiian fishery, zero-catch trips were not re- 

 corded until July 1964; therefore, for consist- 

 ency only areas that had catches of skipjack 

 tuna are given. 



The distribution of catches in each quarter, 

 as shown by the catch reports, does not neces- 

 sarily represent the actual distribution of the 

 fish in that quarter, because fishermen usually 

 operate where they have experienced good fish- 

 ing in the past. Adverse weather in certain 

 areas during part of the year also affects the 

 spatial distribution of effort and, therefore, 

 temporal and spatial distribution of catches. 



Although catches of skipjack tuna were made 

 in a fair proportion of the statistical areas 

 shown in figure 1, fishing effort and the result- 



ing catches tended to concentrate in certain re- 

 gions of each county each year. In the sections 

 that follow, I have limited the discussions to 

 these regions, which are either individual areas 

 or combinations of two or more adjacent areas 

 within each county; these regions do not indi- 

 cate natural population boundaries. For con- 

 venience, the regions are named after certain 

 localities within the Hawaiian Islands. Table 2 

 lists the four counties, the regions arbitrarily 

 established within them, and the statistical 

 areas that compose each region; the regions 

 are illustrated in figure 2. Total catch, number 

 of trips, and catch per standard effective trip 

 were obtained for each region, by quarters of 

 the year; their 18-year averages are used in 

 the discussions (table 3). The average total 

 catches were represented by four intervals of 

 magnitude: 20.00 metric tons or less, 20.01 to 

 50.00 metric tons, 50.01 to 100.00 metric tons, 

 and 100.01 metric tons or more. 



Table 2. — The fishing regions within each county 

 and the statistical areas that compose them 



County and region 



Statistical areas 



Hawaii 

 Hilo 

 Kawaihae 



Maui 



Kahului 

 Kaanapali 

 Cape Kaea 

 Penguin Bank 

 Ilio Point 



City and County of Honolulu 

 Makapuu Point 

 Barbers Point 

 Kaena Point 

 Kahuku Point 

 Offshore south Oahu 

 Offshore west Oahu 



Kauai 



Nawiliwili 

 Makahuena Point 

 Barking Sands 

 Offshore Kauai 

 Niihau 



124-126 

 122 



322, 323 

 321 



327, 328 

 331 

 332 



427-429 

 420-422 

 423, 424 

 425, 426 

 451, 452 

 453-455 



524 

 520 



521, 522 

 561, 562, 571 

 525, 526 



Distribution of Quarterly Skipjack Tima 



Catches, by Regions 



First quarter . — In 1948-65, fishing was usu- 

 ally poorest in the first quarter. The quarter 

 was characterized by few trips (as a result of 

 vessel maintenance layups), low abundance, and 



