bc-^uiea-j'- F2-V ;r.. Georges ;, with lesser quan. titles discarded along the 

 50-fathora contour on the western side and bottom of South Channel, extend- 

 ing northeastward to Cultivator Shoals. 



Large discards in certain areas on Georges are not due entirely to 

 the presence of large numbers of small fish, but in great part to the 

 fishing effoii;- expended in the area. The distribution of fishing effort 

 in the average year is shown in figure 7 (Schuck, 1953). The similarity 

 of the discard and effort concentration charts is immediately evident. 

 The areas most heavily fished reflect, in most cases, the greatest discard. 



ANALYSIS OF DISCARDS, 195l 

 Pounds 



On the SS-, sn trips observed in 19^1, a total of U6,6o8 pounds of 

 baby haddock was discarded. This was an average of 6,658 pounds per trip, 

 with individual trips ranging from to 19,685 pounds (table 3). For all 

 trips., about ? percent cf the total catch by weight was discarded, while 

 on individual trips, percent discarded ranged from to 17. 



Numb ers 



These [i6,6o8 pounds represented 6l,802 individual fish, an average 

 of 8,828 per trip. Numbers discarded ranged from to 28,135 on the 

 individual trips (table U) . Of the total nvimbers caught on these trips, 

 about 1? percp.nt was discarded, while on individual trips, the percentage 

 discarded ranged from to 39. 



Estimated total destruction 



Using the average discard per trip from the sea sampling data, it 

 was possible to estimate the total destruction by the Boston fishing fleet 

 for the period sampled (June to September) . The estimate employing this 

 method was l^lQSjOOO pounds. 



Referring to table 2, we find that the destruction of haddock oy the 

 Boston fleet, estimated on the basis of skippers' reports, during the ij-month 

 period which parallels the sea sampling trips, was l,0[i8,000 pounds. The 

 estimate by this method was 12.6 percent under that from sea sampling data. 



Average weight 



It is recognized that when haddock are scarce, fishermen tend to save 

 fish of srraller sizes, whereas when plentiful, they discard larger fish. 

 This explains the extreme variability in average weights in table 5. To 

 show this more clearly, the average weight of discards was plotted against 

 the total ocunds landed for each of the trips on which fish were discarded 

 (fig. 8). 



12 



