Atlantic, Chesapeake Bay, and Middle Atlantic 

 Areas. This age group, in the past, usually 

 constituted a large percentage of the catch 

 in these areas, but in 1960 its contribution to 

 the catch in each area was the smallest in 

 the past 6 years. To some extent, the over- 

 whelming abundance of age-2 fish compensated 

 for the scarcity of age-1 fish in the Chesa- 

 peake Bay and Middle Atlantic Areas. In the 

 South Atlantic Area, however, where the catch 

 normally consists of only two age groups, the 

 abundance of age-2 fish was not sufficient to 

 compensate for the scarcity of age-1 fish, 

 and the catch declined by nearly 50 percent 

 from that in the previous year. 



The numbers of age-2 fish in the South 

 Atlantic, Chesapeake Bay, and Middle Atlantic 

 Areas were greater than in any of the previous 

 years for which there are data, but the average 

 weight in each area was the smallest during 

 the period. In the South Atlantic Area, it was 

 17 g, less; in the Chesapeake Bay Area, 26 g. 

 less; and in the Middle Atlantic Area, 24 g. 

 less than the smallest mean weight in any 

 previous year. 



Because of poor market conditions and large 

 inventories of meal, restrictions were imposed 

 on fishing in I960. In the South Atlantic Area 

 (Fernandina, Fla,), daily and weekly quotas 

 were placed on individual vessels when fish 

 were abundant, and in the Chesapeake Bay Area 

 many vessels stopped fishing for extended 

 periods during the middle of the season. Had 

 these restrictions not been imposed, the catch 

 undoubtedly would have been much greater than 

 it was in the Chesapeake Bay Area, and slightly 

 greater in the South Atlantic Area, 



A more fundamental reason for the reduced 

 catch in 1960 probably was the decreased 

 abundance of older fish in the catches in the 

 Middle and North Atlantic Areas. The trend 

 toward proportionally greater numbers of 

 younger and smaller fish in the catches in these 

 areas was noted in previous reports in this 

 series. One of the principal reasons suggested 

 for this decline was the over-exploitation of 

 age-1 and age-2 fish (June and Nicholson, 

 1963). The number, size, and efficiency of 

 vessels exploiting these ages has increased 



continually since about 1950 (Nicholson), i 

 Although the 1958 year class was unques- 

 tionably large, the amount of effort expended 

 on age-1 fish of this year class was greater 

 than that expended on age-1 fish of any previous 

 year class, and the effort on age-2 fish also 

 was exceptionally great. 



The high rate of exploitation of the younger 

 age groups, and the small size of the 1959 

 year class make it unlikely that the catch of 

 Atlantic menhaden will increase in the next 

 few years. It will more likely decrease unless 

 strong year classes appear in 1960 or 1961, 

 Regardless of the size of any year class in the 

 next few years, however, the 1958 year class 

 probably will contribute a sizable portion of 

 the catch at least through the 1963 season. 



SUMMARY 



1. The 1960 purse seine catch of Atlantic 

 menhaden, Brevoortia tyrannus was next to the 

 smallest for the period 1955-60, Only 501,000 

 tons were landed in the summer fishery, and 

 68,000 tons in the North Carolina fall fishery. 

 The largest portion of the catch was made in 

 the Middle Atlantic Area, the smallest in the 

 South Atlantic Area, 



2. The number of vessels and the number 

 of purse seine sets increased over 1959 in the 

 Middle Atlantic Area and decreased in all other 

 areas. The mean catch per set did not change 

 greatly in any one area. 



3. The most productive fishing grounds 

 were in Chesapeake Bay and the coastal waters 

 northward to the southern shore of Long Island. 

 Fish were unusually scarce in coastal waters 

 from northern Florida to Cape Hatteras, N.C., 

 and in waters north of Massachusetts Bay. 



4. The 1960 catch was dominated by age-2 

 fish (1958 year class). This age group ac- 

 counted for the greatest percentage of the 

 catch in all areas except the North Carolina 



1 William R. Nicholson, Measurement of effort, and 

 changes in the catch, effort, and catch per unit of effort 

 in the Atlantic menhaden fishery, 1940-1962. Bureau of 

 Commercial Fisheries Biological Laboratory, Beaufort, 

 N.C. [Unpublished manuscript.] 



20 



