PROGRESS IN BIOLOGICAL INQUIRIES, 1935 397 



In Pamlico Sound, N. C, Mr. Neville found conditions in early 

 July very similar to those reported by Hijzgins and Pearson" for 

 1925. Eight random samples totaling 1,164 squeteague were taken 

 at the nets. Of these, 308. or 26.5 percent, were below legal size. 

 Since squeteague of barely legal size are not desirable, some sque- 

 teague slightly longer than 9 inches were discarded so that approxi- 

 mately 80 percent of the catch was not utilized at the time and in 

 the locality covered by observations. In Chesapeake Bay 16 random 

 samples totaling 1,610 squeteague were taken in later June. Of these, 

 118, or T.3 percent, were below the legal minimum. From traps set 

 in the ocean near Hog Island and off Virginia Beach. Va., 14 random 

 samples totaling 1,806 squeteague w^ere secured. Of these, only 45, 

 or 2.5 percent, were undersized. 



In 1929, when extensive series of samples were secured from the 

 traps in Chesapeake Bay and from those near Hog Island, the waste 

 of undersized fish was negligible. In that year it was also noted 

 that yearling squeteague did not appear in the Virginia catches until 

 August, when most of them were above the legal minimum. It is 

 probable, therefore, that waste of undersized squeteague seldom, if 

 ever, reaches very large proportions in Virginia. 



In the Pamlico Sound region of North Carolina, however, waste 

 of small fish, especially in the early summer months, appears to be 

 of considerable magnitude. Of especial interest, therefore, is the 

 observation (based on examination of the circulus spacing on the 

 scales) that more than half of the 1935 yearlings consisted of sque- 

 teague which had spent the latter part of the preceding summer 

 north of Delaware Bay. If these fish had survived, most of them 

 would have returned to the North in 1936. It is apparent, therefore, 

 that the conditions described by Higgins and Pearson in 1925 and 

 the recommendations made by them are of more than local 

 significance. 



Further examination of northern scale collections indicates that 

 there are two groups of squeteague in the Middle Atlantic region. 

 The first of these appears as 2-year-old fish in southern New Jersey 

 after having spent their yearling summer in the South. Although 

 some of these fish continue to return to southern New Jersey in suc- 

 ceeding years, most of the survivors of the southern New Jersey 

 fishery spend their summers in northern New Jersey and western 

 Long Island, N. Y., when 3 years old or older. Since the fishery in 

 southern New Jersey has increased during the last 15 years, the 

 increased mortality among 2-year-old squeteague of this group has 

 undoubtedly contributed to the diminution in numbers of large sque- 

 teague in northern New Jersey and western Long Island. Restric- 

 tion of the fishing in southern New Jersey would probably be of 

 little benefit, however, for the 2-year-old fish produced there com- 

 pete in the markets with the Virginia and North Carolina yearlings. 

 Elimination of these fish from the market would stimulate the south- 

 ern fishery toward a still heavier toll of yearlings, perhaps resulting 

 in a still further decrease in abundance in northern New Jersey. 



* Higsins. Elmer, and J. C. Pearson. Examination of the summer fisheries of Pamlico 

 and Core Sounds, N. C, with special reference to the destruction of undersized fish and 

 the protection of the sray trout, Cynoscion regalis (Bloch & Schneider). Bureau of 

 Fisheries, Document 1019, 1Q27. 



