I Canada,Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1974 1994 NORTH VANCOUVER ISLAND SPORT FISHERY CREEL SURVEY STATISTICS FOR SALMON AND GROUNDFISH, 1993 by L. D

ir"..ir Scientific Excellence • Resource Protection & Conservation •• Benefits for Canadians Excellence scientifique • Protection et conservation des ressources • Benefices aux Canadiens

NORTH VANCOUVER ISLAND SPORT FISHERY CREEL SURVEY STATISTICS FOR SALMON AND GROUNDFISH, 1993

L. D. Collicutt, T. F. Shardlow and G.E. Gillespie

Department of Fisheries and Oceans 3225 Stephenson Point Road Nanaimo, British Columbia V9T 1K3

1994

Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No. 1974

I Fisheries Peches and Oceans et Oceans Canada,

Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences

Technical reports contain scientific and technical information that contributes to existing knowledge but which is not normally appropriate for primary literature. Technical reports are directed primarily toward a worldwide audience and have an international distribution. No restriction is placed on subject matter and the series reflects the broad interests and policies of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, namely, fisheries and aquatic sciences.

Technical reports may be cited as full publications. The correct citation appears above the abstract of each report. Each report is abstracted in Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts and indexed in the Department's annual index to scientific and technical publications.

Numbers 1-456 in this series were issued as Technical Reports of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Numbers 457-714 were issued as Department of the Environment, Fisheries and Marine Service, Research and Development Directorate Technical Reports. Numbers 715 -924 were issued as Department of Fisheries and the Environment, Fisheries and Marine Service Technical Reports. The current series name was changed with report number 925.

Technical reports are produced regionally but are numbered nationally. Requests for individual reports will be filled by the issuing establishment listed on the front cover and title page. Out-of-stock reports will be supplied for a fee by commercial agents.

Rapport technique canadien des sciences halieutiques et aquatiques

Les rapports techniques contiennent des renseignements scientifiques et techni-ques qui constituent une contribution aux connaissances actuelles, mais qui ne sont pas normalement appropries pour la publication dans un journal scientifique. Les rapports techniques sont destines essentiellement a un public international et ils sent distribues a cet echelon. II n'y a aucune restriction quant au sujet; de fait, la serie rellete la vaste gamme des interets et des politiques du ministere des Peches et des Oceans, c'est-A-dire les sciences halieutiques et aquatiques.

Les rapports techniques peuvent 'etre cites comme des publications completes. Le titre exact parait au-dessus du résumé de chaque rapport. Les rapports techniques sent résumés dans la revue Resumes des sciences aquatiques et halieutiques, et ils sent classes dans l'index annual des publications scientifiques et techniques du Ministere.

Les numeros 1 a 456 de cette serie ont ete publies a titre de rapports techniques de l'Office des recherches sur les pecheries du Canada. Les numeros 457 a 714 sent parus titre de rapports techniques de la Direction generale de la recherche et du developpe-ment. Service des peches et de la mer, ministere de l'Environnement. Les numeros 715 a 924 ont ete publies a titre de rapports techniques du Service des peches et de la mer, ministere des Peches et de l'Environnement. Le nom actuel de la serie a ete etabli lors de la parution du numero 925. •

Les rapports techniques sent produits a l'echelon regional, rnais numerotes l'echelon national. Les , demandes de rapports seront satisfaites par l'etablissement auteur dent le nom figure stir la couverture et la page du titre. I es rapports epuises seront fournis contre retribution par des agents commerciaux.

ti

Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1974

1994

NORTH VANCOUVER ISLAND SPORT FISHERY CREEL SURVEY

STATISTICS FOR SALMON AND GROUNDFISH, 1993

by

L. D. Collicutt, T. F. Shardlowand G.E. Gillespie

Department of Fisheries and Oceans 3225 Stephenson Point Road

Nanaimo, British Columbia V9T 1K3

ii

(c)Minister of Supply and Services Canada 1994 Cat. No. Fs 97-6/1974E ISSN 0706-6457

Correct citation for this publication:

Collicutt, L.D., T. F. Shardlow and G.E. Gillespie. 1994. North Vancouver Island sport fishery creel survey statistics for salmon and groundfish, 1993. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1974: 53 p.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES .............................................. iv

LIST OF TABLES ............................................... v

ABSTRACT ................................................... vi

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................... 1 1.1 BACKGROUND ....................................... 1 1.2 OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1

2.0 METHODS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 2.1 STUDY DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 2.2 DATA COLLECTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 2.3 DATA ANALYSIS ...................................... 7

3.0 RESULTS ................................................ 24 3.1 DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLING EFFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24 3.2 SPORT FISHING EFFORT AND CATCH ..................... 24 3.3 BIOLOGICAL DATA .................................... 26

4.0 SUMMARY ............................................... 27

5.0 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28

6.0 LITERATURE CITED ........................................ 28

FIGURES .................................................... 31

TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

1. North Island Creel Survey study area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33

2. Sample of access point survey form. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34

3. Sample of resort and cruiser on-water survey form. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35

4. Comparison of monthly total fishing effort and monthly total fishing interviews, North Island Creel Survey, 1993. ...................... 36

5. Effort and catch of chinook, coho and pink salmon by month, North Island Creel Survey, 1993 ....................................... " 37

6. Monthly percent age composition of chinook salmon sampled in Statistical Area 12, 1993. ........................................... 38

7. Length frequency distribution of chinook salmon sampled in Statistical Area 12, 1993. ............................................... 39

8. Length frequency distribution of coho salmon sampled in Statistical Area 12, 1993. .................................................. 40

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table

1. Number of fishing interviews by month, Statistical Area 12, 1993. . . . . . .. 43

2. Fishing effort and catch by species and month, Statistical Area 12, 1993. 44

3. Percent of total fishing effort and catch by species and month, Statistical Area 12, 1993. ........................................... 45

4. Fishing effort and catch by species and survey type, Statistical Area 12, 1993. .................................................. 46

5. Percent of total fishing effort and catch by species and survey type, Statistical Area 12, 1993. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47

6. Fishing effort and catch by species and catch region, Statistical Area 12, 1993. .................................................. 48

7. Percent of total fishing effort and catch by species and catch region, Statistical Area 12, 1993. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 49

8. Monthly catch success (catch per boat trip) by species, Statistical Area 12, 1993. .................................................. 50

9. Identification of rockfish by species, Statistical Area 12, 1993. ......... 51

10. Estimated catch of rockfish by species, Statistical Area 12, 1993. . . . . . .. 51

11. Monthly number of marks observed, fish inspected and estimated catch of marked fish for chinook and coho, Statistical Area 12, 1993. .......... 52

12. Monthly number and percent age composition of chinook sampled for age (n gives sample size). ...................................... 52

13. Monthly estimated catch-at-age of chinook, Statistical Area 12, 1993. .... 53

14. Monthly mean nose-fork length (L) at age of chinook sampled (n gives sample size), Statistical Area 12, 1993. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 53

vi

ABSTRACT

Collicutt, L. D., T. F. Shardlow and G. E. Gillespie. 1994. North Vancouver Island sport fishery creel survey statistics for salmon and groundfish, 1993. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1974 : 53 p.

Catch and effort statistics for Pacific Fishery Management Area 12 are presented for April to August, 1993. The statistics were derived by a combination of access point and roving creel surveys and a fishing lodge census. This was the third year creel surveys were conducted in this Area. From April to August, Area 12 anglers conducted an estimated 37,370 boat trips and kept 36,023 coho, 42,743 pink, 12,363 chinook, 7,744 sockeye and 120 chum salmon, as well as 13,097 rockfish, 1,544 lingcod and 1,135 halibut. Among salmon examined for marks, 3.9% of chinook and 1.6% of coho had adipose fin clips. The chinook catch consisted of 38% age 4 fish, 35% age 3, 27% age 5 and older and 0% age 2 fish.

Key words: salmon, groundfish, creel survey, sport fishing, catch, effort, age composition, length distribution, Johnstone Strait, Queen Charlotte Strait

RESUME

Collicutt, L. D., T. F. Shardlow et G. E. Gillespie. 1994. North Vancouver Island sport fishery creel survey statistics for salmon and groundfish, 1993. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1974 : 53 p.

Nous presenons les statistiques de prises et d'effort de peche dans Ie secteur 12 d'exploitation des pecheries du Pacifique pour la periode d'vril a aout 1993. Ces resultats ont ete calcules a partir d'enquetes sur la peche sportive faites par des enqueteurs itinerants ou qui s'installaient aux pOints d'acces, ainsi qu'a partir d'un recensement dans les chalets de peche. C'etait la deuxieme an nee que ces enquetes se faisaient dans ce secteur d'exploitation. D'avril a aoOt, iI est estime que les pecheurs sportifs du secteur 12 ont fait 37 370 expeditions de peche et garde 36 023 cohos, 42 743 saumons roses, 12 363 quinnats, 7 744 saumons rouges et 120 ketas, ainsi que 13 097 sebastes, 1 544 morues-lingues et 1 135 fletans. Lorsque les saumons ont ete examines pour voir sils etaient marques, 3,9 % des quinnats et 1,6% des cohos avaient une nageiore coupee. La prise des quinnats etait constituee a 38 % de poissons ages de quatre ans, a 35 % de poissons ages de trois ans, a 27 % de poissons ages de cinq ans et plus ainsi qu'a o % de poissons de deux ans.

Mots des: saumons, poissons de fond, enquete sur la peche sportive, peche sportive, prise, effort de peche, composition par age, distribution selon la longueur, detroit de Johnstone, detroit Queen Charlotte

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report documents the results of the North Island Creel Survey conducted in Statistical Area 12 from April to August, 1993. This was the third year of a pilot program designed to collect detailed catch, effort and biological data on the sport fisheries in this area.

1.1 BACKGROUND

The study area is located off the northeastern coast of Vancouver Island (Fig. 1). It covers all of Statistical Area 12 and is approximately 80 km (50 miles) wide and 110 km (70 miles) long. Included in this area are Queen Charlotte and Johnstone Straits.

Current salmon fishing regulations in this area restrict anglers from keeping a chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) under 62 cm (24.5"). Other species of salmon must be a minimum of 30 cm (12"). The combined daily limit for salmon is 4, only 2 of which may be chinook. Anglers may only retain 15 chinook per year.

Due to budgetary constraints the survey was limited to the main fishing locations from April to August. Anecdotal information suggests that this time period represents approximately 90% of the annual catch and effort.

1.2 OBJECTIVES

The specific objectives of the 1993 North Island creel pilot survey were:

1. Estimate the sport angler effort and catch of major sport caught finfish.

2. Estimate the mark rate for adipose clipped chinook and coho (0. kisutch) in the catch.

3. Estimate the age composition and mean length-at-age for chinook, and the length frequency distribution for coho in the catch.

4. Estimate the number of chinook and coho released by anglers.

5. Estimate the species composition of the rockfish catch.

2

2.0 METHODS

2.1 STUDY DESIGN

The 1992 and 1993 North Island Sport Fishing Survey designs were changed from the 1991 design to improve the scope of coverage and the cost efficiency. In 1991, the survey was conducted in July and August. The 1992 and 1993 surveys covered all of the main sport fishing months which are from April through August. Had the 1991 survey methods been implemented in 1992 and 1993, we estimated that 50% of the survey cost would be in support of a roving creel survey, which would account for approximately 18% of the effort, 12% of the chinook and 19% of the coho catch. Alternative and more cost effective techniques were examined, and the 1992 and 1993 survey techniques were chosen to be specifically associated with the sources of angling effort.

Angling effort originates from four sources: boat launching ramps, fishing lodges, resort marinas and cruisers.

1. Boat Launching Ramps. Small, trailered boats are launched and return the same day from fishing local areas. There are 8 launching ramps in the study area and traffic through each ramp averages about 30 boats per day with a maximum of 130 per day.

2. Fishing Lodges. Guided or semi-guided fishing trips are conducted from the 11 fishing lodges in the study area. These lodges are often located in remote parts of the survey area, and typically have between 6 and 25 guests at any time.

3. Resort Marina. Fishing from these locations does not involve a guide. Boaters return to the marina for moorage and amenities after fishing nearby waters. There are 6 resort marinas in the study area and they typically have 10 to 50 boats at each location on any day in the summer.

4. Cruisers. This category involves larger pleasure vessels that take extended fishing trips and land too infrequently to be surveyed at ports or marinas. They are mostly privately owned, and return either to distant home ports or to a local ramp after their extended trip.

In order to cover these four sources of effort access point survey techniques were conducted at the boat launching ramps, a complete census of catch was made at the fishing lodges while a combined mail and on-water survey was used for the resort marinas and cruiser based effort.

3

Access Point Survey

Interviews with anglers were conducted at local access pOints into the fishery to collect catch, effort and biological data. Data from the sampled periods were expanded to represent un-sampled times.

Resort and Cruiser Surveys

Resort and cruiser based fishing activity was surveyed with a combination of mail and on-water survey techniques. Total effort originating from resort marinas was estimated by contracting the marina operators to provide a daily count of the number of vessels from their operation that sport fished on that day. Total cruiser effort was estimated as the product of total resort effort and the proportion of cruisers to resortbased boats encountered during the on-water survey. During the on-water survey, sport fishing vessels were interviewed to determine if they were cruisers or resort-based and information on catch success for the trip so far was collected. Each boat was provided with a pre-paid postage card on which to record total catch for the trip and then return.

Fishing Lodge Census

Lodge owner/operators were asked to record all catch from each fishing trip originating from their operation. The records were collected on a regular basis throughout the April to August season and checks for completeness were conducted on an ongoing basis. Catch and effort data from these lodges are considered to be a complete record of all catch and no expansion for unsampled fishing activity is necessary.

2.1.1 Access Point Survey Methodology

A direct expansion creel survey was conducted on Vancouver Island. The design involved sampling 8 major access pOints into the fishery to interview boating parties that had completed their fishing trips. By sampling most of the limited number of entry pOints and time periods available for boats to land, the majority of the total catch and effort was thought to have been estimated.

Shore based anglers were not included in the survey because of manpower constraints. The magnitude of the shore-based fishery is not known, but we believe it to be very small.

During the ramp survey, interviews with anglers returning from their fishing trips were conducted to collect effort, catch, biological and demographic information (Fig 2). Effort and catch information was collected on a boat trip basis and not for individual anglers. All information collected was for completed boat trips.

4

The fishery was stratified according to the following criteria:

1. Month. The total survey time period was split into monthly time periods to conform to standard reporting periods.

2. Region. The survey area covered by the access point survey was broken down into geographic regions (Fig. 1). Each region had several landing sites providing angler access.

3. Time of Day. The hours available for fishing were defined as 0700 to 2130. These hours were broken evenly into 2 shifts: early day 0700-1415, and late day 1415-2130. Minor adjustments to shift times were made to compensate for varying times of twilight.

4. Day Type. Weekend days and holidays were considered separately from mid-week days.

Sampling took place at 8 sites: Port Hardy Government ramp, Quarterdeck Marina, Wildwoods Campsite, Bear Cove Ramp, Port McNeill Municipal ramp, Port McNeill Municipal wharf, Alder Bay campsite and Telegraph Cove campsite. Biological samples were collected during each shift as time allowed.

Sample effort was allocated equally to the 3 monthly periods. Although "region" was the finest geographic resolution used in catch estimation, samples were allocated on a site volume basis. Each site was categorized as high, medium or low traffic volume. The one high volume site (Telegraph Cove) was assigned 28 shifts per month. Medium volume sites were given between 13 and 19 shifts per month and low volume sites received 6 shifts per month. Within a site, shifts were split equally between early and late day and between weekend days and mid-week days. Selection of sample days was random with minor adjustments required by sampling logistics.

2.1.2 Resort and Cruiser Surveys

The resort and cruiser surveys relied on angler interviews for average catch per boat trip and on nightly resort boat counts for effort information during June, July and August. The angler interviews were conducted from a boat travelling on a predetermined route during 8 days each month. The direction of travel was alternated every second sample day. Weekend and mid-week days were sampled equally. During the interview, anglers were supplied with a mail-in card on which to record catch at the end of the fishing day. Only complete boat trip information (Le. interview for which the mail-in card was returned) was used in catch estimation. Along with catch and administrative information, survey staff recorded the angler's intended overnight location. This information was used to classify a boat as either resort-based or cruiser.

5

In order to eliminate overlap with the other surveys, interviews with either accesspoint-based or lodge-based boats were not conducted. The ratio of access-point, lodgebased, resort-based and cruiser boats in each subarea was recorded during every onwater sample day.

Prior to the start of the surveys, arrangements were made to have every resort in the study area keep nightly records of the number of boats fishing. The 6 resorts were Sullivan Bay Resort, Greenway Sound Marine Resort, Echo Bay Resort, Double Bay Resort, Lagoon Cove Resort and Minstrel Island Resort. These nightly records were used to estimate the total fishing effort for resort-based boats.

Since there was no way to get nightly counts of cruiser boats moored in local bays, the resort effort was used to indirectly estimate cruiser effort. By combining the estimated resort effort with the proportion of resort-based to cruiser boats in each area, an estimate of the total cruiser fishing effort could be calculated.

2.1.4 Fishing Lodge Census

The owners of sport fishing lodges in Statistical Areas 12 were asked to voluntarily participate in recording the fish kept by guests and staff. Records were kept from April to August. Effort and catch was calculated by summing the number of boat trips and the number of fish of each species recorded.

2.2 DATA COLLECTION

2.2.1 Access Point Survey

Staff were stationed at access sites for 7 hour shifts to interview anglers as they returned from fishing. The number of boats returning to a site during a shift as well as the number of interviews attempted and completed were recorded on a tally sheet. The following information was recorded on an interview form (Fig. 2) for each boating party landing:

1. Total number of anglers in the party. 2. If the trip was guided. 3. Residency of party members. 4. Length of boat trip. 5. Time blocks during which fishing occurred. 6. Average number of lines in the water for total boat party. 7. Catch by individual sub-Statistical Area and total catch for trip. 8. Total time spent fishing. 9. Fishing time directed at each species.

6

Every chinook and coho was inspected for a missing adipose fin. If the fish was adipose marked, the head was removed by the interviewer (with the angler's permission) and dropped off at the nearest Head Recovery Program depot at the end of the shift. As many chinook and coho as possible during each shift were measured (nose-fork length) to the nearest 0.5 cm. Scale samples were collected from the INPFC (International North Pacific Fisheries Commission) preferred area (Mosher 1968) for chinook salmon.

2.2.2 Resort and Cruiser Surveys

On 8 scheduled days per month, survey staff conducted on-water interviews with actively fishing anglers. A predetermined route was followed and the direction of travel on this route was alternated every second sample day. Staff attempted to interview every actively fishing angler encountered. When this was not possible, a systematic selection of boats were interviewed (Le. every nth boat).

During the interview the following information was collected:

1. origin of boat trip (Le. lodge, resort, private moorage, access point survey site). 2. number of anglers in boat. 3. number of rods. 4. number of hours spent fishing. 5. catch and released fish by sub-Statistical Area and species. 6. number of hours directed at each species. 7. number of marked and unmarked chinook and coho. 8. if the trip was guided.

The interview was terminated immediately if the origin of boat was found (from question 1) to be from an access point site or a fishing lodge. This prevented duplicate data from being collected by the 4 different surveys.

At the completion of an interview with a resort or cruiser boat, the anglers were given a mail-in card to fill out at the end of the day's fishing. On the card the angler recorded the number of hours fished and the number and species of fish kept for the completed boat trip. After completing the card, anglers were asked to mail it in.

2.2.4 Fishing Lodge Census

Lodge census forms were sent out in late March. Sportfish lodge operators were asked to record the number of each species kept and the number of boat trip conducted on a monthly basis.

7

2.3 DATA ANALYSIS

2.3.1 Access Point Survey

Catch and effort estimates were calculated by month for each catch region following the general methodology of Suchanek and Bingham (1990). The equations were modified slightly to allow the calculation of estimates on a catch region basis and to correct for non-fishing boating parties which landed during a sample shift.

The following subscripts were used in the effort and catch equations for the access point survey:

f - region (group of sub-Statistical Areas) g - day type (weekend or weekdays) h - time of day (early 0700-1400, late 1400-2100)

shift (7 or 7.25 consecutive hours during which sampling took place) j interviewed boat party

The subscript for month is implied in all formulas.

2.3.1.1 Calculation of Effort in Boat-hours

Estimates of effort in boat-hours for the access point survey were calculated for region g as follows:

1. Mean Effort for each Shift. The mean effort in boat hours expended by boatingparties fishing in region f on day type g during time-of-day h and interviewed during shift i was calculated:

where:

e fghi =

e fghij =

q fghi =

(1)

mean effort expended by actively fishing boating-parties interviewed during shift i.

effort in boat-hours for boating-party j.

the number of boating-parties interviewed during shift i.

8

2. Total Boats Landing During each Shift. An estimate of the number of boatingparties landing during shift i that had been fishing in region f was calculated. This estimate was not always the same as qfghi in equation (1) because a small number of boats landing during a busy shift could not be interviewed. Of the boats landing but not interviewed, an unknown proportion would not have been fishing. To correct for this, we calculated the proportion of boats fishing among interviewed boats and then multiplied by the number of boats not interviewed. The product was added to the number of interviewed boats found to have been fishing.

where:

S fghi =

q fghi =

r fghi =

Q fghi =

(2)

the estimated total number of boating-parties landing during shift i that had been fishing in region f.

the number of boating-parties interviewed during shift i that had been fishing in region f.

the number of boating-parties not interviewed (missed) during shift i.

the total number of boating-parties interviewed (fishing or not) during shift i.

3. Total Effort for each Shift. The estimated effort for shift i was calculated:

where:

e fghi =

Sf9hi =

e fghi =

8tgh; = Stgh; efghl (3)

estimated total boat-hours expended for shift i.

the estimated number of boating-parties landing during shift i that had been fishing in region f.

mean effort expended by actively fishing boating-parties interviewed during shift i.

9

4. Mean Effort for al/ Shifts. The mean of the estimated effort expended during each shift i in region f on day-type g and time-of-day h was calculated:

(4)

where:

e fgh = mean of the estimated shift effort.

e fghi = estimated effort for shift i.

= number of shifts sampled.

5. Total Monthly Effort for a Region. The estimated total boat-hours expended in region f on day-type g during time-of-day h was calculated:

(5)

where:

E fgh = estimated total effort in boat-hours.


= total number of days of day-type g in the month.

Tf = total number of landing sites within region f.

The total effort expended in a region was calculated by summing the estimates for each day-type g and time-of-day h stratum.

2.3.1.2 Calculation of Variance of Monthly Effort in Boat-hours

The equations used to calculate variance were adapted from Suchanek and Bingham (1990). Standard errors were obtained by taking the square root of the variance estimates. Suchanek and Bingham (1990) estimated the variance of E fgh by treating the

10

terms N 9 and 1f in equation (5) as constants and using the variance formula for a product of a constant and an estimate (from Kish 1965, eqn. 2.8.5) to obtain:

(6)

where:

(7)

is obtained by using the variance estimate associated with estimating the effort component of the ratio of mean effort to mean hours sampled, which Suchanek and Bingham (1990) obtained by using the usual two-stage sampling equation (modified from eqn. 10.8 in Cochran 1977), where:

the sampling fraction for sampling time is:

(8)

where:

= number of shifts sampled in region f on day-type g during time-of-day h.

N 9 = total number of days of day-type g in the month.

1f = total number of landing sites within region f,

the among shift variance for effort is:

where:

-

2 S1fgh =


(9)

11

e fghi = estimated effort for shift L

n fgh = number of shifts sampled.

the sampling fraction for boat parties interviewed during shift i is:

where:

= q fghi

8 fghi

(10)

= the estimated total number of boating-parties landing during shift i.

qfghi = the number of boating-parties interviewed during shift i that had been fishing in region f,

and, the within shift (among boat) variance for effort for shift i is:

2 S 2fghi

where:

-

q fgh/

E (e fghij - e fghi )2 = j=1

(11)

e hi = mean effort expended by actively fishing boating-parties interviewed during shift i.

e fghij = effort in boat-hours for boating-party j.

q fghi = the number of boating-parties interviewed during shift i.

The above equations are valid for a stratified simple random sampling design with two stages of sample selection (Le. shifts and boat-parties). Three stages of sampling occurred in our sampling design (Le. shifts, boat-parties, and access locations) but due to manpower and logistical constraints sampling times could not be chosen so that the among access location variance component could be estimated.

12

2.3.1.3 Calculation of Effort and Variance in Boat Trips

To make the estimates of effort calculated here comparable to those produced in the Strait of Georgia Creel Survey (Collicutt and Shardlow 1990), effort was estimated in boat-trips as well as boat-hours. The estimated number of boating-parties landing during a shift that had been fishing in region g (B fghi as calculated in equation (2» was substituted for er9hi (the estimated effort in boat-hours during a shift) in equation (4). Therefore, instead of calculating effort in boat-hours, equation (5) would produce an estimate of effort in boat trips. Similarly, to calculate variance in boat trips, B fghi was substituted for ~hi. Note that the limitations of the variance equations given above apply.

2.3.1.4 Calculation of Catch and Variance

Estimates of kept catch, released fish and their associated variances for each species were made by replacing the angler effort statistics in equations 1-11 above.

2.3.1.5 Estimation of Marked Chinook and Coho Salmon

Equations used in the estimation of marked chinook and coho, and in the estimation of age composition of the chinook catch were adapted from Shardlow et al. (1989). Information from the access point survey and the roving survey were pooled to develop estimates of marked chinook and coho for each month.

1. Proportion of Marks Observed. The incidence of marked (adipose-clipped) chinook and coho was recorded in each interview. The proportion of marks observed for each Area and species was calculated as: .

where:

v, p=-, n ,

Pr = proportion of marks observed for species r.

Vr = the number of marked fish observed.

n r = the number of fish inspected.

(12)

13

2. Variance of Proportion. The variance of each proportion was calculated as:

52- P, (1-PJ P,- n ,

(13)

where:

S2pr = variance of the proportion of marks observed.

Pr = proportion of marks observed.

nr = number of fish inspected.

3. Catch of Ma,ked Salmon. Monthly catch estimates of marked salmon were calculated as:

, C,=P,C, (14)

where:

Cr = estimated monthly catch of marked fish.


. Cr = estimated catch of species r.

14

4. Variance of Marked Catch Estimate. The variance of the marked catch estimates was calculated as:

(15)

where:

S2Cr = variance of the marked catch estimates.


S2cr = variance of the catch estimates of species r.

Cr = estimated catch of species r.

S2pr = variance of the proportion of marks observed.

2.3.1.6 Estimation of Age Composition of Chinook Catch

Scale samples and length measurements were taken in sub-sampling programs during the interview process in the access point survey and in the roving survey. Information from both surveys was pooled to develop an estimate of the age composition of the chinook catch. Ages used in this report represent total age of the fish (including both freshwater and oceanic life) according to the Gilbert-Rich recording convention (Gilbert and Rich 1927) .

1. Proportion at each Age. The proportion of chinook at each age was calculated as:

where:

Pa = a = n =

a p=-a n

proportion of chinook-at-age a.

number of fish observed at age a.

total number of fish sampled.

(16)

15

2. Variance of Proporlion. The variance of each proportion was calculated as:

(17)

where:

52 = • variance of each proportion.

p. = proportion of chinook-at-age a.

n = total number of fish sampled.

3. Catch-At-Age. The catch-at-age of chinook in each month was calculated as:

(18)

where:

C. = catch-at-age a of chinook.

p. = proportion of chinook-at-age a.

C = estimated catch of chinook.

4. Variance of Catch-At-Age. The variance of the catch-at-age estimate was calculated as:

(19)

where:

5 2C• = variance of the catch-at-age a estimate.

p. = proportion of chinook catch-at-age a.

16

S 2 C = variance of the catch estimate.

C = estimated catch.

S 2pa = variance of the proportion of chinook-at-age.

2.3.2. Resort Survey

Monthly Resort Effort

Estimated effort, and the variance of this estimate, for the subareas surveyed during June, July and August; and for the six resorts Double Bay, Echo Bay, Greenway Sound, Lagoon Cove, Minstrel Island and Sullivan Bay were calculated by expanding daily effort counts obtained from interviews of boat captains while their boats were tied up at one of the six resorts.

The following subscripts were used:

d - day m - month r - resort

1. The estimated total monthly effort in month m by boats based at resort r is:

E = ~ X (number of days in the month) (20) mr L..t dmr D

~1 ~

where Emr = Xdmr = Dmr =

the estimated effort in month m by boats from resort r. the number of boat trips for day d in month m at resort r. the number of days that interviews were conducted in month m at resort r.

2. The approximate estimated variance in the estimate (1) is:

D""

lit .. D,(~ _1)L (Xd/nr-X",l(number of days In the montJtf (21) m mr d=1

where

and

17

EXdmr X = d=1 (22)

mr D mr

= the variance in the estimated effort in month m by boats from resort r.

= the mean daily effort in month m by boats based at resort r.

Monthly Resort Catch

Estimated catch, and the variance of this estimate, were calculated for all subareas within Statistical Area 12 during June, July and August and for the six resorts Double Bay, Echo Bay, Greenway Sound, Lagoon Cove, Minstrel Island and Sullivan Bay.

The following subscripts were used:

i-species j - an individual boat m - month r - resort s - subarea

1. The mean catch of species i per boat trip for boats from resort r fishing in subarea s in month m is:

where CPUEimrs =

=

=

CPUEimrs

Qmrs

E Cijmrs j=1

(23)

the mean catch of species i per boat trip from resort r fishing subarea s in month m. the catch of species i by boat j from resort r in subarea s in month m. the number of resort boats from resort r interviewed in subarea s in month m.

18


(24)

where V CPUEimra = the variance in the mean catch of species i per boat trip from resort r fishing in subarea s in month m.

3. The estimated proportion of resort boats from resort r and subarea s in any month m is:

where

and p(m)ra

5 R.

=

= =

p. - Q(m)rs (m)rs- Q

(m)

S R.

Q(m) = E E Q(m)rs 8=1 r=1

(25)

(26)

the estimated proportion of resort boats from resort r and subarea s in any month m. the number of subareas surveyed. the number of resorts in subarea s.

19

4. The approximate estimated variance of the estimate (3) is:

where V P(m)ra

(27)

= the variance in the proportion of resort boats from resort rand subarea s in any month m.

= the number of boat trips by resort boats in month m.

5. The estimated proportion of resort boats from resort r in any subarea s in any month m is:

where

and P (m)r(s) =

p. - Q(m)t(s) (28) (m)t(s)- Q

(sm)

Rs

Q(ms) = E Q(m)t(s) (29)

(=1

the estimated proportion of resort boats from resort r in any sub~rea s in any month m.


where V P(m)r(s)

(30)

= the variance in the proportion of resort boats from resort rand subarea s in any month m.

20

7. The estimated total effort in subarea s in month m by resort boats is:

(31)

where Ems = the total effort in subarea s in month m by resort boats.


(32)

where V Ems = the approximate estimated variance of the total effort in subarea s in month m by resort boats.

9. The estimated catch of species i per boat trip in subarea s in month m is:

R,

CPUE'ms= E ""'='C~~""""'u.~'E'mfAm)rs f=1

(33)

where CPUEims = the estimated catch of species i per boat trip in subarea s in month m.


where V CPUEims = the approximate estimated variance in the estimated catch of species i per boat trip in subarea s in month m.

21

11. The estimated total catch of species i in subarea s in month m is:

(35)

where Cims = the estimated total catch of species i in subarea s in month m.


where V Cims = the approximate estimated variance in the estimated total catch of species i in subarea s in month m.

2.3.3. Cruiser Survey

Monthly Cruiser Effort

Calculation of monthly cruiser effort requires an estimate of the ratio of the number of cruiser boats interviewed to the number of resort boats interviewed. Although, for completeness, we show that it is possible to calculate the proportion of cruiser boats interviewed, p(m)s' by month (m) and subarea (s), we found that our small sample sizes justified only the use of the ratio of the total number of cruiser boats interviewed to the total number of resort boats interviewed over all months and subareas, Le. the ratio (TlQ).

1 .. The estimated proportion of cruiser boats in subarea s in any month m is:

where

and p(m)s = S =

A _ 1(m)s ~m)s (37)

1(m)

S

1(m) = E 1(m)S (38)

s=1

the estimated proportion of cruiser boats in subarea s in any month m. the number of subareas surveyed.

22


(39)

where V P(m)s = the variance in the proportion of resort boats from resort r in subarea s in any month m.

T m = the number 'of boat trips by cruiser boats in month m.

3. The estimated total effort in subarea s in month m by cruiser boats is:

(40)

where Elms Ems T

= = =

the estimated total effort in subarea s in month m by cruiser boats the estimated total effort in subarea s in month m by resort boats the total number of cruiser boats interviewed.

Q = the total number of resort boats interviewed.


(41)

where V E'ma = the approximate estimated variance of the estimated total effort in subarea s in month m by cruiser boats, and

.. 77T+rA "'( T)= '\ '-KJ Q Q3

(42)

where V (T/Q) = the approximate estimated variance of (T/Q).

23

Monthly Cruiser Catch

Estimated catch, and the variance ofthis estimate, were calculated for all subareas surveyed during June, July and August for all boats designated as cruisers using the subscripts:

- species j - an individual boat m - month s - subarea

1. The mean catch of species i per boat trip for cruiser boats fishing in subarea s in month m is:

T",.

L Cijms CPUE. =....c....i=_1 __

Ims T ms

(43)

where CPUEims = the mean catch of species i per boat trip by cruiser boats fishing in subarea s in month m.

= the catch of species i by boat j in subareas in month m. = the number of cruiser boats interviewed in subarea s in month m.


T",. A 1 ( )~ v. = C·· -CPUE . CPUEIms T (T -1)L IJms Ism

ms ms }=1

(44)

where V CPUEims = the variance in the mean catch of species i per boat trip by cruiser boats fishing in subarea s in month m.

3. The estimated total catch of species i in subarea s in month m is:

(45)

where Cims = the estimated total catch of species i in subarea s in month m.

24


where V Cims = the approximate estimated variance in the estimated total catch of species i in subarea s in month m.

3.0 RESULTS

3.1 DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLING EFFORT

In the access point survey a total of 3,897 interviews, of which 3,229 involved actively fishing anglers, were conducted (Table 1). A total of 247 interviews, all involving actively fishing anglers, were conducted in the resort and cruiser surveys. The monthly distribution of interviews generally reflected the monthly distribution of fishing effort (number of boat trips, Table 2, Fig. 4). Fishing effort increased steadily from June to August. The total interviews involving actively fishing boating parties represent 9% (3,476 interviews, Table 1; 37,370 boat trips, Table 3) of the estimated total fishing effort for Statistical Area 12 from April to August.

3.2 SPORT FISHING EFFORT AND CATCH

3.2.1 Effort

From April to August an estimated 37,370 boat trips (Table 2) were conducted by anglers in Statistical Area 12. Of this total, 31% took place in July and 41% took place in August (11,697 and 15,229 boat trips respectively). Overall, 47% of the total fishing effort took place in the areas covered by the access point survey (Figure 1, Table 2). The remaining 53% was split between areas covered by the fishing lodge survey (33%), cruiser survey (11 %) and the resort survey (9%).

In comparison to previous years where effort was much higher in the Blackfish Sound region than any other region, effort was highest in the roving region in 1993 (Tables 3, 4 and 7, see Fig. 1 for region definitions).

25

3.2.2 Catch

The total finfish sport catch in Statistical Area 12 from April to August was estimated at 114,769 pieces, and consisted of 86% salmon and 14% groundfish (98,993 and 15,776 respectively, Table 2).

The total salmon catch of 98,993 pieces consisted of 36% coho (36,023 pieces), 43% pink (0. gorbuscha) (42,743),12% chinook (12,363),8% sockeye (Q. nerka) (7,744) and less than 1 % chum (0. keta) (120). A further 11,796 salmon of mixed species were released (Table 2).

Chinook catch averaged 0.33 fish per boat trip and ranged from a low of 0.11 in the Port McNeill region during August to a high of 0.79 fish per boat trip in the roving region during April (Table 5). The' high catch rate in April represents lodge-based guided fishing trips only. Coho catch averaged 0.96 fish per boat trip and ranged from a low of 0.17 in the roving region during June to a high of 3.18 in the Port Hardy region during July.

On average, 1.14 pink salmon per boat trip were caught during the study. This ranged from a low of 0.01 in the Port Hardy region during June to a high of 3.50 fish per boat trip in the Blackfish Sound region during August. The average number of salmon caught per boat trip during the study was 2.65.

Rockfish catch averaged 0.35 fish per boat trip and ranged from a low of 0.17 in the roving region during August to a high of 0.89 in the roving region during July. Lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus) catch was low in a" regions and time periods and averaged 0.04 fish per boat trip. The average catch for a" finfish was 3.07 fish per boat trip (Table 5).

While salmon accounted for the majority of the total finfish catch in Statistical Area 12, the. groundfish catch of 15,776 made up 14% of the overall catch (Table 3). The spedes composition of the groundfish catch, based on Table 3 data, was as follows:

% of Total Groundfish Groundfish Species Catch CatCh

Rockfish (Sebastes spp.) 13,097 83%

Lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus) 1,544 10%

Halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) 1,135 7%

Total 15,776 100%

26

Rockfish species were identified for the entire study period. The majority of the identified catch was Quillback rockfish (Sebastes maliger) (37%), followed by relatively minor catches of Yelloweye (5. ruberrimus) (16%), Black (~. melanops) (14%), Copper (5. caurinus) (9%) and Yellowtail (5. f1avidus) (3%) (Table 9). The remaining 21 % of the rockfish catch consisted of Tiger (5. nigrocinctus), China (5. nebulosus), Canary (5. pinniger) and unidentified rockfish species. We applied the proportions from the identification results to the total rockfish catch to estimate catch by species (Table 10).

3.3 BIOLOGICAL DATA

3.3.1 Proportion and Catch of Marked Chinook and Coho

During the survey period, 616 chinook and 5,107 coho were inspected for adipose fin clip marks. Among chinook inspected, 3.9% had adipose fin dips (Table 11). The largest observed proportion was in July (4.7%). Among coho inspected, 1.6% were marked. The largest observed proportion was in July and August (1.5% each).

In contrast to adjacent area creel surveys (Strait of Georgia Creel Survey, Collicutt and Shardlow, 1990; Barkley Sound/Alberni Inlet Creel Survey, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 1989) the North Island Creel Survey staff attempted to remove and submit heads from all adipose marked chinook and coho inspected.

3.3.2 Catch-At-Age for Chinook

During the survey, 274 chinook biological samples were collected for age and length analysis (Table 12, Fig. 6). All ages shown in this report represent the total age (freshwater age plus saltwater age). Monthly age proportions were applied to the estimated monthly chinook catches to provide a breakdown by age group (Table 13).

Age 4 fish were predominant throughout the survey, comprising 37.7% of the catch. Age 3 chinook made up 35.3% of the catch followed by age 5 and older fish (27.0%) and age 2 (0%).

3.3.3 Mean Length-At-Age for Chinook

Length and age data were available for 215 chinook (Table 14). Age 3 fish averaged 69.2 cm (27.2"), age 4 fish 79.2 cm (31.2") and age 5+ fish 91.2 cm (35.9"). No age 2 fish were measured. The largest chinook sampled (106 cm or 42") was a 5 year-old fish landed at Telegraph Cove Campsite on July 7, 1993.

3.3.4 Length Frequency Distribution for Chinook

27

Length data were available for 274 chinook (Fig. 7). The largest proportion of measured chinook (78 fish or 28% of the sample) was in the 62-71 em length class. The length classes shown in Figure 7 were chosen to correspond with the 62 em size limit currently in place in Statistical Area 12. Four percent (12 of 274) of the measured chinook were sub-legal in size (less than 62 cm (24.5/1».

3.3.5 Length Freguency Distribution for Coho

Length data were collected from 2,029 coho sampled during the study (Fig. 8). The largest proportion of measured coho (967 fish or 48% of the sample) was in the 50-59 cm length class. There were no fish measured which were under the size limit of 30 cm (12/1). The largest coho sampled was an 87 cm (34.2/1) fish landed at Telegraph Cove Campsite on July 17, 1993.

4.0 SUMMARY

The North Island Creel Survey program was conducted in Statistical Area 12 from April to August, 1993. The catches of all important recreational finfish species as well as the total sport fishing effort were estimated by month and region. These estimates were derived from a combination of access point and roving creel surveys. The numbers of chinook and coho salmon with adipose fin clips were also estimated.

Catch Summary, Statistical Area 12, April to August, 1993

Species Catch Percent

Salmon (86%) Chinook 12,363 12%

Coho 36,023 36%

Pink 42,743 43%

Sockeye 7,744 8%

Chum 120 <1%

Total Salmon 98,993 100%

Groundfish (14%) Rockfish 13,097 83%

Lingcod 1,544 10%

Halibut 1,135 7%

Total Groundfish 15,776 100%

28

From April to August in Statistical Area 12, anglers conducted an estimated 37,370 boat trips. A total of 4,144 boating parties, of which 3,476 were actively fishing, were interviewed at 8 sites in the access point survey and numerous locations on the fishing grounds. Catch per boat trip averaged 2.6 salmon (all species) and 0.4 groundfish.

Rockfish catches were identified as 37% quillback, 16% yelloweye, 14% black, 9% copper, 3% yellowtail; the remaining 21 % of the rockfish catch consisted of tiger, china, canary and unidentified species.

Among salmon examined for marks, 3.9% of chinook and 1.6% of coho had adipose fin clips. Creel survey interviewers removed and submitted heads from most marked chinook and coho inspected.

The majority of the chinook catch consisted of age 3 and 4 fish (35.3% and 37.7% respectively), followed by age 5 and older fish (27.0%) and age 2 fish (0%). Of the total chinook measured, 4% were sub-legal in size (less than 62 cm (24.5") nose-fork length). The largest proportion of measured chinook (28%) was in the 62-71 cm (24"-28") size class. The largest proportion of measured coho (48%) was in the 50-59 em (20"-23") size class. There were no sub-legal coho measured (less than 30 cm (12"».

5.0 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to thank Paul Bourke for his help coordinating the program, and creel survey technicians Daryl Anderson, Ron Coy, Pat Lawley, Katrina Huddlestan, Erika Manders, and Joanne Welch for their hard work. We thank marina and boat ramp operators, and the local sport fishing lodge owner/operators for their valuable assistance and cooperation. We also wish to thank Bob Marshall and Paul Suchanek of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game for their time and help in designing the surveys.

6.0 LITERATURE CITED

Cochran, W. G. 1977. Sampling techniques. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York, USA.

Collicutt, L. D. and T. F. Shardlow. 1990. Strait of Georgia sport fishery creel survey statistics for salmon and groundfish, 1989. Can. MS Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2087:75 p.

29

Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 1989. 1989 Barkley Sound/Alberni Inlet sport fishing survey. Unpublished report prepared by J.O. Thomas & Assoc. Ltd. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, South Coast Division, Nanaimo, B.C. 120 p.

Gilbert, C. H. and W. H. Rich. 1927. Investigation concerning the red-salmon runs to the Karluk River, Alaska. U.S. Bur. Fish. Bull. 43(2): 1-69.

Kish, L. 1965. Survey sampling. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York, USA.

Mosher, K. H. 1968. Photographic atlas of sockeye salmon scales. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Sci. Fish. Bull. 67(2): 243-280.

Shardlow, T. F., K. K. English, T. Hoyt, G. E. Gillespie and T. A. Calvin. 1989. Strait of Georgia Creel Survey sport fishery statistics, 1983. Can. MS Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1872:53 p.

Suchanek, P. M. and A. E. Bingham. 1990. Harvest estimates for selected marine boat sport fisheries in southeast Alaska in 1989. Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Fishery Data Series No. 90-51, Anchorage, Alaska. 96 p.

31

FIGURES

- STATISTICAL AREA BOUNDARY

Figure 1. Catch regions used in the North Island Creel Survey.

34

No. 99999

NORTH ISLAND SPORT FISHING CREEL SURVEY

Landing Site: ___________ , ______ Statistical Area: __________ _

11me AM

Interviewer: ___________ , ______ Date: __ ,_,_ ofintervlew __ : __ PM

PRESENT BOAT TRIP COMPLETED

1. Total number of Inclvlduals In party: AM

2. 11me of landing: __ : __ PM 11me block:

3. Was your party sport fishing on this trip: YES LJ NO LJ

4. Guided: YES LJ NO LJ

YR. MO. DAY

Assessment Code

o .. Complete Form 1 = Marks Incomplete

5. Residences of party: B.C. I I Rest of CMada I I OIherl L..-_--I

3 = Not VIsually Inspected 4 = Refusal

6. Length of boat trip: I HRS.

7. lime linea were in tM water: (EXCLUDE time not fishing)

CJ 1) Before 7:00

CJ 2) 7:00 - 7:59

LJ 3) 8:00 - 8:59

CJ 4) 9:00 - 9:59

CJ 5) 10:00 - 10:59

LJ 6) 11:00 -11:59

LJ 7) 12:00 - 12:59

CJ 8) 1:00 - 1:59

CJ 9) 2:00 - 2:59

CJ 10) 3:00 - 3:59

LJ 11) 4:00 - 4:59

LJ 12) 5:00 - 5:59

8. Average number of lines in the water for TOTAL boat party:

9. CATCH SUMMARY 1ST SUB AREA

Total catch for trip: GO TO MAP:

KEPT:

RELEASED: Total time fishing:

L-__ -.J, HRS. TIME: HRS.

CJ 13) 6:00 - 6:59

CJ 14) 7:00 - 7:59

LJ 15) 8:00 - 8:59

LJ 16) 9:00 - Plus

2ND SUB AREA

HRS.

3RD SUB AREA

HRS.

,-------------- ADIPOSE -------------------,

MISSING UNMARKED

CHINOOK

I

10. How much fishing time was directed at each of the following?

CO CN SM I LC ~=-.,

RF

GF HA OTHER

11. Were your interviewed previously today (on-water)? YES LJ NO LJ No. 99999

Figure 2. Sample of access point survey form.

35

l INTERVIEW

~ 99999

-Date: ___ I ___ , __ Interviewer: ___________ Statistical Area:

Yr. Mo. Day

Total Catch: Total Released:

How much fishing time was directed at each of the following?

CO CN SM I GF HA OTHER I

LANDING SITE MARKS ALD FAR MIN

BLA GRE NOR

CHI GYP PM Chinook

COC HID SAl

DUB HOE SUL Coho ECH LAG TEL

BAY OTHER

# Anglers ~ _____ ~I # Rods

lime of

Interview 1-:- ~I

LC

I HRS.

Adipose

Missing

CJ CJ

Sub-area

Total lime Fishing:

'---______ ---1 HRS.

RF

Not

Marked

CJ CJ

Guided? L.I_YE_S __ N_0----l

I

................................................................................................................................................................ ··········~·····999~i9·····························

After you have completed fishing today, please fill in the total number of fish kept by anglers in your boat. Do not include fish that were thrown back. Postage is prepaid anywhere in Canada so just drop this in the nearest mailbox.

Total number of hours fished today.

D

Number of Fish Kept

Chinook Coho Pink Sockeye Halibut Lingcod Rockfish

'------II L-I -------11 L-I -------11 L-I -----,I ~I ----II 1 I ,---I ---'

Figure 3. Sample of resort and cruiser on-water survey form.

16,000

14,000

12,000 -fit Q. ·c ::. 10,000 1::

m 8,000 Q

C :c fit i! 6,000

~ t-

4,000

2,000

0 June July August

I ~ Fishing Effort 11 Fishing Interviews I Figure 4. Comparison of monthly total fishing effort and monthly total fishing interviews,

North Island Creel Survey, 1993.

5,000

4,500

4,000

3,500 I QJ

3,000 .~

S S

2,500 Q C :c fit

2,000 i!

! (..) 1,500 t- O)

1,000

500

0

16,000 Effort 5,000 Chinook 14,000 4,500

Ui 4,000 III 12,000 I 3,500 .~ 10,000 ._ 3,000 ~ 8,000 .S: 2,500

! 6,000 j 2,000 m 4,000 lIS 1,500

o 1,000 2,000 500

0 0 '2 >- eD ~ ~ '2 >- eD ~ ~ ~

co C :l ~ co C :l

::!! :l .., C) ::!! :l .., C) .., ~

.., :l c(

CAl .....,

18,000 Coho 35,000 Pink 16,000 _ 30,000 i 14,000 III

~ 12,000 I 25,000

'a, 10,000 'a, 20,000 - 8,000 :;;- 15,000 .c .a 6,000 ~ 10,000 lIS 4,000 0 0 5,000 2,000 0 0

'2 >- eD ~ 'tiS 'E >- eD ~ 'tiS ~

co C :l :l ~ co C :l :l

::!! :l .., C) ::!! :l .., C) .., ~

.., :l c(

Figure 5. Effort and catch of chinook, coho and pink by month, North Island Creel Survey, 1993.

100%

90%

80%

c 70% .2 :!::: (II

60% ~Age2 0 Q,

E III Age 3 0 (J 50% cu

§Age4 CII c:t w - 40% mIl Age 5+ en c cu ~ cu Q.

30%

20%

10%

0%

june july aug

Figure 6. Monthly percent age compostion of chinook salmon sampled in Statistical Area 12, 1993.

80 78

70 Chinook

60

50 >-u c ~ 40 tT e &L

30

20

10

0 0 0 0

0-31 32-41 42-51 52-61 62-71 72-81 82-91 92+

Length Class (em)

Figure 7. Length frequency distribution of chinook salmon sampled in Statistical Area 12, 1993. The minimum size limit in this Area is 62 cm.

VJ <0

1,000 967

900 Coho

800

700

>. 600

u c Q)

500 ;:, r::r e 406 u..

400

300

200

100 43

0 3 0

0-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80+

Length Class (em)

Figure 8. Length frequency distribution of coho salmon sampled in Statistical Area 12, 1993. The minimum size limit in this Area is 30 cm.

~ 0

41

TABLES

43

Table 1. Number of fishing interviews by month, Statistical Area 12, 1993.

Interviews With Actively Fishing Anglers

Month Access Point Survey Resort and Cruiser Total Survey

June 490 34 524

July 1,314 73 1,387

August 1,425 140 1,565

Total 3,229 247 3,476

Table 2. Fishing effort and catch by species and month, Statistical Area 12, 1993.

Effort Total Released Released Released

Month (Trips) Chinook Coho Pink Sockeye Chum Rockfish Lingcod Halibut Finfish Salmon * Chinook Coho

April Estimate 1,048 828 97 925

S.E.-

May Estimate 2,496 1,787 99 1,886

S.E.-

June Estimate 6,900 2,843 4,503 210 10 0 2,875 325 234 11,000 179 1,536 1,006

S.E. (370) (290) (791) (73) (9) (0) (452) (191) (84) (981) (151) (304) (268)

July Estimate 11,697 3,875 17,380 8,638 1,400 33 6,297 726 453 38,802 904 2.036 2,680

S.E. (689) (702) (1,756) (1,338) (252) (16) (1,286) (221) (121) (2,673) (302) (315) (406)

August Estimate 15,229 3,030 13,944 33,895 6,334 87 3,925 493 448 62,156 526 1,741 1,188

S.E. (732) (314) (1,477) (2,862) (817) (40) (455) (154) (114) (3,374) (124) (235) (198)

Total Estimate 37,370 12,363 36,023 42,743 7,744 120 13,097 1,544 1,135 114,769 1,609 5,313 4,874

S.E. (1,071) (822) (2,427) (3,160) (855) (43) (1,437) (330) (187) (4,415) (360) (497) (525)

* Released Salmon includes any salmonid not identified to species by the angler. It does not include released chinook or coho which are shown above under

separate categories.

- Since the Fishing Lodge Survey was a census there is no Standard Error estimate associated with the catch or effort.

Table 3. Percent of total fishing effort and catch by species and month, Statistical Area 12, 1993.

Effort Total Released Released

Month (Trips) Chinook Coho Pink Sockey Chum Rockfish Lingcod Halibut Finfish Salmon * Chinook

April 3% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0%

May 7% 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0%

June 18% 23% 13% 0% 0% 0% 22% 21% 21% 10% 11% 29%

July 31% 31% 48% 20% 18% 28% 48% 47% 40% 34% 56% 38%

August 41% 25% 39% 79% 82% 73% 30% 32% 39% 54% 33% 33%

Total 37,370 12,363 36,023 42,743 7,744 120 13,097 1,544 1,135 114,769 1,609 5,313

* Released Salmon includes any salmonid not identified to species by the angler. It does not include released chinook or coho which are shown above under separate categories.

Released

Coho

0%

0%

21% ~ 0'1

55%

24%

4,874

Table 4. Fishing effort and catch by species and survey type, Statistical Area 12, 1993.

Effort Total Released Released Released SUlVeyType (Trips) Chinook Coho Pink Sockeye Chum Rockfish Ungcod Halibut Finfish Salmon * Chinook Coho

Access Point Estimate 17,687 3,454 25,873 35,066 7,080 120 9,176 954 1,068 82,791 1,609 5,313 4,874 SUlVey S.E. (791) (289) (2,117) (2,415) (791) (43) (311) (127) (170) (3,341) (360) (497) (525)

Resort Estimate 3,420 872 2,738 2,471 134 0 1,675 341 67 8,298 SUlVey S.E. (470) (363) (741) (938) (172) (0) (798) (262) (78) (1,517)

Cruiser Estimate 4,048 1,688 3,215 5,206 530 0 2,246 249 0 13,134 SUlVey S.E. (549) (679) (928) (1,810) (278) (0) (1,154) (156) (0) (2,455) ~ - en

Fishing Lodge Estimate 12,215 6,349 4,197 10,546 SUlVey S.E. **

Total Estimate 37,370 12,363 36,023 42,743 7,744 120 13,097 1,544 1,135 114,769 1,609 5,313 4,874 S.E. (1,071) (822) (2,427) (3,160) (855) (43) (1,437) (330) (187) (4,415) (360) (497) (525)


** Since the Fishing Lodge SUlVey was a census there is no Standard Error estimate associated with the catch or effort.

Table 5. Percent of total fishing effort and catch by species and survey type, Statistical Area 12, 1993.

Effort Total Released Released Released Survey Type (Trips) Chinook Coho Pink Sockeye Chum Rockfish Ungcod Halibut Finfish Salmon * Chinook Coho

Access Point Percent 47% 28% 72% 82% 91% 100% 70% 62% 94% 72% 100% 100% 1000k Survey

Resort Percent 9% 7% 8% 6% 2% 0% 13% 22% 6% 7% Survey

Cruiser Percent 11% 14% 9% 12% 7% 0% 17% 16% 0% 11% Survey

Fishing Lodge Percent 33% 51% 12% 9% Survey

Total Estimate 37,370 12,363 36,023 42,743 7,744 120 13,097 1,544 1,135 114,769 1,609 5,313 4,874


~

"'

Table 6. Fishing effort and catch by species and catch region, Statistical Area 12, 1993.

Effort Total Released Released Released Catch Region (Trips) Chinook Coho Pink Sockeye Chum Rockfish Ungcod Halibut Finfish Salmon * Chinook Coho

Port Hardy Estimate 6,707 1,326 13,997 4,009 932 28 3,183 298 392 24,165 435 2,754 2,469 S.E. (356) (176) (1,596) (760) (227) (37) (239) (84) (136) (1,814) (187) (428) (442)

Port McNeill Estimate 5,792 1,006 8,679 10,491 1,960 42 2,302 309 300 25,089 798 1,518 1,566 S.E. (427) (141) (1,197) (1,147) (303) (15) (154) (69) (54) (1,700) (263) (215) (228)

Blackfish Estimate 12,045 4,367 8,994 25,220 4,718 50 4,089 688 443 48,569 376 1,041 839 ~

Sound S.E. (684) (568) (1,029) (2,549) (747) (17) (363) (213) (117) (2,938) (160) (134) (169) CD

ROving Estimate 12,826 5,664 4,353 3,023 134 0 3,523 249 0 16,946 0 0 0 S.E. (609) (550) (923) (1,263) (172) (0) (1,361) (228) (0) (2,164) (0) (0) (0)

Total Estimate 37,370 12,363 36,023 42,743 7,744 120 13,097 1,544 1,135 114,769 1,609 5,313 4,874 S.E. (1,071) (822) (2,427) (3,160) (855) (43) (1,437) (330) (187) (4,415) (360) (497) (525)


Table 7. Percent of total fishing effort and catch by species and catch region, Statistical Area 12, 1993.

Effort Total Released Released Released Catch Region (Trips) Chinook Coho Pink Sockeye Chum Rockfish Lingcod Halibut Finfish Salmon • Chinook Coho

Port Hardy Percent 18% 11% 39% 9% 12% 23% 24% 19% 35% 21% 27% 52% 51%

Port McNeill Percent 15% 8% 24% 25% 25% 35% 18% 20% 26% 22% 50% 29% 32%

Blackfish Percent 32% 35% 25% 59% 61% 42% 31% 45% 39% 42% 23% 20% 17% Sound

Roving Percent 34% 46% 12% 7% 2% 0% 27% 16% 0% 15% 0% 0% 0%

Total Estimate 37,370 12,363 36,023 42,743 7,744 120 13,097 1,544 1,135 114.,769 1,609 5,313 4,874

• Released Salmon includes any salmonid not identified to species by the angler. It does not include released chinook or coho which are shown above under separate categories.

.tIo co

50

Table 8. Monthly catch success (catch per boat trip) by species, Statistical Area 12, 1993.

Total All Month Region Chinook Coho Pink Salmon Rockfish Lingcod Finfish

April Port Hardy Port McNeill Blackfish Sound Roving 0.79 0.00 Total 0.79 0.00

May Port Hardy Port McNeill Blackfish Sound Roving 0.72 0.04 Total 0.72 0.04

June Port Hardy 0.23 1.04 0.01 1.29 0.45 0.05 1.86 Port McNeill 0.34 1.09 0.09 1.53 0.55 0.06 2.22 Blackfish Sound 0.34 0.93 0.06 1.33 0.63 0.08 2.08 Roving 0.56 0.17 0.00 0.73 0.23 0.02 0.98 Total 0.41 0.65 0.03 0.42 0.42 0.05 1.59

July Port Hardy 0.16 3.18 0.45 3.85 0.52 0.04 4.49 Port McNeill 0.18 2.28 1.28 3.98 0.38 0.06 4.46 Blackfish Sound 0.57 0.73 0.87 2.33 0.44 0.07 2.87 Roving 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.78 0.89 0.08 1.74 Total 0.33 1.49 0.74 2.68 0.54 0.06 3.32

August Port Hardy 0.22 1.63 1.01 3.14 0.44 0.04 3.66 Port McNeill 0.11 0.82 3.06 4.57 0.36 0.04 5.02 Blackfish Sound 0.23 0.69 3.50 5.09 0.19 0.04 5.36 Roving 0.20 0.80 0.61 1.64 0.17 0.00 1.81 Total 0.20 0.92 2.23 3.76 0.26 0.03 4.08

Total Port Hardy 0.20 2.09 0.60 3.03 0.47 0.04 3.60 Port McNeill 0.17 1.50 1.81 3.83 0.40 0.05 4.33 Blackfish Sound 0.36 0.75 2.09 3.60 0.34 0.06 4.03 Roving 0.44 0.34 0.24 1.03 0.27 0.02 1.32 Total 0.33 0.96 1.14 2.65 0.35 0.04 3.07

51

Table 9. Identification of rockfish by species, Statistical Area 12, 1993.

Rockfish Species Catch % of Rockfish Catch

QuiIJback (Sebastes maliger) 633 37% Yelloweye (~. ruberrimus) 282 16% Black (5. melanops) 240 14% Copper (5. caurinus) 149 9% Yellowtail (5. flavidus) 53 3% Canary (5. pinniger) 17 1% Tiger (5. nigrocinctus) 34 2% China (5. nebulosus) 23 1% Unidentified (Sebastes spp.) 297 17%

Total Sample 1,728 100%

Table '10. Estimated catch of rockfish by species, Statistical Area 12, 1993.

Rockfish Species Catch % of Rockfish Catch

C!uiJIback (Sebastes maJiger) 4,798 37% Yelloweye (5. ruberrimus) 2,137 16% Black (5. melanops) 1,819 14% Copper (5. caurinus) 1,129 9% Yellowtail (5. flavidus) 402 3% Other * (Sebastes spp.) 2,812 21%

Total Sample 13,097 100%

* Other includes tiger (2%), china (1%), canary (1%) as well as unidentified (17%) rockfish species.

52

Table 11. Monthly number of marks observed, fish inspected and estimated catch of marked fish for chinook and coho, Statistical Area 12, 1993.

# Marks Proportion of Estimated Catch Species Month Observed # Fish Inspected Marked Fish of Marked Fish

Chinook June 6 169 0.036 101 July 12 256 0.047 182 August 6 191 0.031 95 Total 24 616 0.039 378

Coho June 15 595 0.025 114 July 43 2,936 0.015 255 August 24 1,576 0.015 212 Total 82 5,107 0.016 580

Table 12. Monthly number and percent age composition of chinook sampled for age (n gives sample size).

Age 2 Age 3 Age 4 Age 5+

n % n % n % n %

June 0 0.0% 11 18.0% 33 54.1% 17 27.9%

July 0 0.0% 37 39.4% 26 27.7% 31 33.0%

August 0 0.0% 28 46.7% 22 36.7% 10 16.7%

Total 0 0.0% 76 35.3% 81 37.7% 58 27.0%

S.D

42 62 40 84

36 46 49 76 •

Total

61

94

60

215.

53

Table 13. Monthly estimated catch-at-age of chinook, Statistical Area 12, 1993.

Age 2 Age 3 Age 4 Age 5+ Total

June Catch 0 513 1,538 792 2,843 S.D. (0) (150) (240) (183) (290) *

July Catch 0 1,525 1,072 1,278 3,875 S.D. (0) (340) (266) (300) (702) *

August Catch 0 1,414 1,111 505 3,030 S.D. (0) (245) (222) (156) (314) *

Total Catch 0 3,452 3,721 2,575 9,748 S.D. (0) (735) (422) (384) (822) *

* S.D. of total monthly catch from Table 2.

Table 14. Monthly mean nose-fork length (L) at age of chinook sampled (n gives sample size), Statistical Area 12, 1993.

Age 2 Age 3 Age 4 Age 5+

L (cm) n L (cm) n L (cm) n L (em) n

June 0 70.5 11 77.8 33 88.4 17

July 0 68.9 37 76.8 26 91.6 31

August 0 69.0 28 83.9 22 94.8 10

Total 0 69.2 76 79.2 81 91.2 58

Total

61

94

60

215

Documents

I Canada,Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1974 1994 NORTH VANCOUVER ISLAND SPORT FISHERY CREEL SURVEY STATISTICS FOR SALMON AND GROUNDFISH, 1993 by L. D