m: -Mr

h: h' ^■■. I

(%' ji-- i?

m- k

^'t:

p. P^ ^ ,w

■'W: '-iv 'i!k

If: M i. ^. iV

^-^ ^ if^ fe' i. 1^ ?^

^ ^ fe I, !;■ Jl i^

•t- «' .»:■

'%■ h '%' X

W:^ *; »\, .:■

^ ■' - % li; ^.M^ ^, i 1^ I, t: r I: h t ^^'i * #

* Oli^ :?» . k' U' KA fc- A> ''i: -A ■ Ji. i:-. ^ "v ■

:..^ #.. *^ P: #:

t i, t ^. i; i:. ^, iv* t' i. %. i. I- i: (^ \::% !■ 1,1; f: r i. I:* t^ # >■

■#■ ^k'-' P ■ II " ^ ^^ ^' ^ ^- ^' '® '^' ^ '^' '^

'^■. a^ ^ ■■ . - $: ^ ^ §: it f r i f .«. ^«

^- ^ - f. t: i; i;- «■■ |: 1 f i I: » » i; - I

\ ^. ifcv.^'.i'- i i- i i t t -'' ^^ '"' ""

:: -^^ ■^ ■ ^v:,-.i,,| ^. ,^; t: i; # I i, #:. i.t ;

I' *■. r. ,t- '>^ V

n r-...- s^

.. ^. J;l„ i. .i t:,*,. -I. ,» r t l^' » I ^

-.*•. f I »■. 1^ I »•■■ i^ $' ^ *■ 'i: ■* I #.

^%-^-.,l; lrM:i *.|.-f t M.. i't ■*;■#. t ^..

#. c i\ i

, .. t. #^^|. i.i- II. k ». t/t* 1 1, # i^. ^.iv t;t.#.::-^- Ji I..I3 .l\te.|-' »-,>'^ ^^ .

^- t^ -I.. *, i:* i I. * I- ^: i I /

. ^. ^..1, 1, ^, *. i^. I' * ^ ^ $ k ■■■ » r 'I .1' l^i:.! I,._l.' i^ I, I- I- i^v'^ %:,j^ ^ ■■"

Sit.!. **i- ' 1--,l. \r I:,- :',:. 'i<.

bs

fe

EALffDRFnS

FBH^GAME

f Volume 36	San Francisco, July, 1950	Number 3 1
	rte^	vl
		'^J&iS
^^^	^ ^Stmt^^^ i J	^^R^^fflB 'ft»3^
^^sy^^^^^		^P^IBi^^^r '^^
^^ J	,rf»iM, i^MmBmi«_ Jvfl	»3^.

TO OUR SUBSCRIBERS

The Division of Fish and Game is making an effort to furnish to libraries back issues of California Fish and Game which are missing from their files. If you have extra copies or copies of back issues which you do not use. It would be greatly appreciated if you would return them to the Public Information Office, Division of Fish and Game, Ferry Building, San Francisco, in order that we may complete these library sets, thereby making available to a great many readers copies which are no longer available for distribution.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

DIVISION OF FISH AND GAME San Francisco, California

EARL WARREN Governor

WARREN T. HANNUM Director of Natural Resources

FISH AND GAME COMMISSION

HARVEY E. HASTAIN, President Brav/ley

PAUL DENNY, Commissioner LEE F. PAYNE, Commissioner

Etna Los Angeles

WILLIAM J. SILVA, Commissioner Modesto

E. L. MACAULAY

Executive Officer

San Francisco

CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME

PHIL M. ROEDEL, Editor Terminal Island

Editorial Board

RICHARD S. CROKER San Francisco

WILLIAM A. DILL Fresno

JOHN E. CHATTIN San Francisco

CaKfornin Fish and Game is a journal devoted to the conservation of wildlife which is published quarterly by the California Division of Fish and Game Contributions Thould be sent to Mr. Phil M. Roedel, Editor, State Fisheries Laboratory. Terminal Island Station, San Pedro, California. Manuscripts must be typed, double spaced, and conform to the style of previous issues.

The articles appearing herein are not copyrighted and may be reproduced else- where, provided due credit is given the authors and the California Division of Fish and Game.

This periodical is sent free of charge to interested persons, who may have their names placed on the mailing list by writing to the editor. Subscriptions must be renewed annually by returning the postcard included with each October issue. Subscriber.s art- requested to notify the editor immediately of changes in address, giving the old address as well as the new.

California Fish and Gamf

rn],f • . ^^^^^ °^ CONTENTS

a" Evaluation of Postal Card v ^"^^'^>'S--

^ '--ird A on response

Food Habits of a California Deer Herd ^- ^- ^'^^houx J 77

Age and Length Compositio" ^T '"' ''°"^«^^ «• ^^^^^^^ 235 Coast of the United States and Can."/' •^'^'^'^•^' ^-^^" ^»^^ ^^^'^^" -f «-^^'CEsE. Felix AviTAFn^^ Basic Deer Management (A kt'Z^:^'-^'''''^^''^' ^"^1 L^o Pix

(A Story With Pictures) ^ ""'' """^ '''■"''''' -"^^ The Pismo Clam William P. Dasmaxv 051

faWo™,a Antelope Kep.„d„..iveP„ten,iah

-Vote. „„ Two Species of ^l^nZZ^^'^:'::' ,''»-''- LxssE.v 328

ornia

I^HdoJph Gerhardt ^^^

f red W. Hecker

J-^^'l r Hiscox 334

Jl'Miiy Ocker __ ^^^

Rr'vi.-w r__~ 334

-^" niustrated Kev to fh„ T- , ~~ ^^^

,, ^^'-t. bv Jay m'^^ ^--^^S Snakes and Turtles of the Keports -' Hehhkrt L. Haoex

'EX 336 337

(37G)

CALIFORNIA ANGLING CATCH RECORDS FROM

POSTAL CARD SURVEYS: 1936 1948; WITH AN

EVALUATION OF POSTAL CARD

NONRESPONSE *

By A. J. Calhoun t

Bureau of Fish Conservation

California Division of Fish and Game

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page Introduction 177

I'AKT I — California angling catch records from state-wide postal card surveys 179

Principal California angling trends 180

General discussion of catch and angler estimates 182

Trends in California trout angling 182

Trout catch and angler estimates for 104S including zero catches 188

Trout angling effort and success in 1948 189

County distribution of the 1948 trout catch 190

Migrations of California trout anglers in 1948 191

Trends in California striped bass angling 192

Other striped bass estimates 196

Records for warm-water fishes 196

Salmon catch records 207

PART II — An evaluation of postal card and nonresponse in California angling

catch surveys 210

Comparison of general characteristics of personal interview respondents who

did and did not return postal cards 213

Comparison of general estimates of numbers of anglers fishing and days fished 215

Statistical comparisons and fiducial limits of mean catch estimates 216

Statistical comparisons and fiducial limits of percentages of licensees angling

for various fish 224

Statistical comparisons and fiducial limits of total catch estimates 227

Comparison of numbers of anglers fishing for trout in different parts of Cali- fornia 228

Comparison of trout angler migration patterns 229

The validity of the individual postal card reports 230

Summary 232

References 233

Appendixes 233

INTRODUCTION /

Valuable estimates of numbers of anglers fishing in California each year as well as the number of fish they catch are provided by special Division of Fish and Game surveys. These angling inventories enable California's fisheries administrators to evaluate the results of their efforts to improve fishing. They have also made it possible to follow the explosive increase in angling pressure which has taken place since the war. These surveys have the additional important function of providing reliable information about the striped bass fishery as a whole. Striped bass are harvested over an extensive area throughout the year by several hundred thousand anglers, and it is impractical to obtain complete records by means of creel checks or other field methods.

In making these state-wide angling surveys, return postal cards like the one shown in Figure 53 are mailed to a random sample of the anglers

♦ Submitted for publication April, 1950.

t Figures were drawn by Miss Margaret Chadwick. Charles Paya assisted with calculations.

(177)

178

CALIFORXIA FISir

AXD GAME

i

f

»

D

►1 »

o

e-

o

o

c ei: a.

s-

op

•5

w ►t

i

n

a

n

2;

c t

£L n

B c ►t

o n

»>

1^ 3

u

0

< R'

O

B

O

H^

c-

B-

I

/

rt <«

u

2 "

S-5

5 -c .

t^ 3 li

U

.-5 o

60

c

" 1. c

c o

c *» **

»» 3 »

•> o S

4* (J '•

b

a "

" c

O - P

i 2 c w

<

>

o

S E ° & ':^

o

Q a:

<

14^ '^ —

6*-* -id ^ Q. ^ '^ c

o o

i^ "3 .

? c ^

5< r, o UJ 3 S,

4.. "^

c c

C "

o

w a

3

3

c -a

'2.*

2« 0>

Q

2:

!2 S3

Oof 2: '--5

J_ 0 -S vc f_

^ 1, « J! — T3 ;j

■ ^

i c

■= " >« cq^

<

a

a z

<

I

(A

li. o

y,

o

Q

S 2

a; O fc

<

00

>

I.

3 «

ba

c

to

s

ANGLING CATCH RECORDS, 1 936- 1 948 179

licensed in California during- a calendar year.* About one-tliird of the recipients respond, with yreat regularity. Such a return is large enough to show major trends in numbers of fish caught and numbers of fisher- men, because survey methods are standardized. The trends obtained undoubtedly jiarallel the actual changes Avhich are taking y)laco. On the other hand, there has always been nnicli uncertainty about the numerical catch estimates, one reason being that it seemed improbable that indi- viduals who returned questionnaires were representative of the general angling population. This matter was given special attention in 1048. A special personal interview survey was made that year to determine the influence of nonresponse upon estimates of various kinds, with rather surprising results. In general, the individuals who returned cards actu- ally were found to be highly representative of the angling public as a whole. No important warping of mean catches, total catches, numbers of anglers or trout angler migrations resulted from postal card non- response, which is clearly not an important source of error in these estimates. It is therefore now possible to place increased confidence in them.

This report has a double purpose. The whole series of California angling catch surveys from 1936 to 1948, inclusive, is summarized in Part I. The special 1948 study of nonresponse is discussed in Part IT. A later report by II. Iljersman will cover a parallel personal interview survey of 1948 hunting in California, which had essentially similar results.

The matter of nonresponse in these California surveys has been settled for the present, but the partner question of the validity of the individual angler reports remains to plague us. This problem is also discussed in Part II, in the light of the 1948 personal interview survey.

PART I— CALIFORNIA ANGLING CATCH RECORDS FROM STATE-WIDE POSTAL CARD SURVEYS

This program has had an interesting history. It originated from a desire on the part of California fish and game administrators for reason- ably accurate estimates of yearly angling catches. Brian Curtis con- ducted the surveys for the years up to and including 1944. The author analyzed the returns from the 1944 survej^ and has been responsible for the program since then.

Any data in this article for surveys prior to 1944 have been extracted from unpublished reports by Curtis. Similar hunting surveys have been conducted independently from time to time (Hunter and Frv, 1940, 1941).

In the early years of these surveys, from 1935 to and including 1939, all individuals who obtained a California angling license were asked at the time of purchase to fill in a detailed questionnaire about their fishing .success during the previous year. Roughly a third complied. At the end of the year the reports were collected from the license agents throughout California and the catches were then machine-tabulated to derive state-wide angling catch estimates.

This license stub method had certain serious disadvantages. The catch estimates were not usually obtained for about two years, because

* Anj^lers too young to reQuire a license do not enter the sample. The minimum age was 18 until 1947 and 16 subsequently.

"^'Sri AND GAME

Resume of r = / ■* • "'"ABLE 1

^^L^^rn,. State-W.de Ang.in

i'ear

Type of survey

1935* I t;

1936 J^.'ccnfie jtub

1937 .Hfeose stub

1938 .HW'westub

1939 |-.'"'"se stub

1939 m"?'?''"''

1942 "■ '^''^''''carj

1040 fostalcard

1W4 J'ostalcard,

1946 M°*'"' «^^dt

1947 postal card

1040 None

J9«:::::- ^'-'^

Number of licensed anglers

223,098 298,736 312.m 346,661 366,452

9 Catch Survey Questionnaire recipients

388,472

453,159

433,431

445,416

436,940

554,027

766,753

S84,772

Interview. .V" ' " " " | +960,027

•The 193;

Numlj(

All All All All All 32,224 None 39,738 39,306 41,610 9,318 None 29,862 None 18,070 1,250

Percent of aij licensees

100 100 100 100 100 8.8

Usable returns Number

87,103 76,520 90,481 104,982 109,701 9,609

Percent of all recipients

38.9 25.6 28.9 30.3 30.0 29.8

9.1 9.4 2.1

13,569 11,552

12,899 2,761

3.9

34.1 29.4 31.0 29.6

8,874

1.9 0.13

29.7

5,751 1,250

31.8 100.0

inal figure. ■ PRINCIPAL CAUFOR,

ubseciuent discussions because it was ■'duals purchasing- lie

icenses in nine

eeent year.s.

ANGLING CATCH RECORDS, 1 936- 1 948

TABLE 2 Total Angling Pressure in California, 1935-1948

181

Year	Total license sales	Average fishinf? days per angler	Total fishing (lays
1935	223,098 346,661 453,159 433,431 445,416 766,753 t960,027	No data No data 14.2 14.3 12.9 13.5 15.4	•3,120,000
Ii)3X -	•4.K50,0()0
1941	6,410,000
1942 . -	6,1HO,000
ii)4:i	5,750,000
1946 -	10,350,000
1948	14,700,000

* Fourteen fishingr days per anplor used in e.stimating this. t Not the final figure.

1935 1938 1941 1944

Figure 54. Total numher of California angling days.

1947

except for a brief levelling-off during the war. There has been about a five-fold increase in total angling pressure in California since 1935. Onl}' a small part of this upward trend can be attributed to recent regu- lations rof|uiring an angling license for the taking of catfish and certain marine fishes not previously covered and lowering the minimum age at which a license is required.

It is not surprising that the success of individual anglers has declined as their numbers have increased. This has been the general trend for all types of angling. It has probably been at least partly the direct result of fishing pressure. More people have had to share the available crop of fish each year, and their individual shares have decreased accordingly. Another factor has been the large number of inexperienced newcomers to California, who have had to learn how and where to fish before competing on equal terms witli long-time residents of the State.

Although the general trends of angling success are similar for all kinds of fresh-water and anadromous game fishes for which there are records, there is nevertheless considerable variation among them. They

182 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME

will therefore be discussed separately in the summary of the postal card records which follows. This summary consists in large part of statistical tables and graphs. Much of it is important primarily as reference material, licadcrs who are more interested in the general aspects of surveys of this sort than in the detailed results obtained in California are referred especially to Part II, which takes up the 1948 study of non- response at length.

GENERAL DISCUSSION OF CATCH AND ANGLER ESTIMATES

The three principal trends obtained from these surveys for each kind of fish are the inimber of successful anglers, the average annual catch per angler, and the total catch. It is necessary to deal throughout with successful anglers rather than with the more general category of all anglers fishing for a species. Fishing days and numbers of anglers fishing unsuccessfully for the various kinds of fish cannot be obtained without unduly complicating the questionnaire and making it unsuit- able for a postal card. As a result, postal card fishing effort figures are rather broad estimates, based on the nund)er of anglers actually catch- ing a given kind of fish in the course of the year. From all indications such estimates approximate the true figures rather closely.

The other two trends also have their limitations. The average annual catch per angler is based on a large number of approximations made by indivithial anglers. It can be assumed quite safely that few anglers will remember exactly how many fish of various kinds they caught during the preceding year. Comparison of a series of double postal card and interview reports made by the same anglers in 1948 reveals that some indi\idua]s give surprisingly different answers to the same questions on two occasions only a few weeks apart. However, in general the correlation between paired reports from the same individual was fairly high. The discrepancies occurred more or less at random, and tended to average out, with the end result that the average catch figures obtained for the same group on different occasions were generally in reasonably close agreement. These data are discussed in greater detail in Part II.

The limitations of the average catch estimates apply in equal measure to the total catch estimates, which are based upon them.

A great deal can be learned from these three trends, in spite of their limitations, which have been emphasized to prevent the reader from assuming that they are in the same class with comparable figures based on complete and objective catch records.

It is important to bear in mind, while reading the pages that follow, that the primary value of postal card catch per unit of effort estimates lies in the picture they provide of general angler success. For many reasons they are not very good indexes of abundance of the fish involved.

The whole matter of the statistical reliability and fiducial limits of the various types of estimates obtained from these surveys is of great interest. However, it is quite technical, and has therefore been included in Part II.

TRENDS IN CALIFORNIA TROUT ANGLING

Trout angling far outstrips all other types in iiojuilarity among California anglers. Any doubt about this was removed by the 1948 per- sonal interview survey. One of the questions asked a random sample of

ANGLTXG CATCH RECORDS, 1 936- 1 948

183

California aiiplf^rs was, " Wliicli of tlic kinds of fish on tliat card do you

like best to fish for?" The kinds of fisli on tlic card and percent a j^-cs

favorin'*' eacli arc shown in Tabic •'!. Ahimsl b;df of tiw wlioh' ;jfoup

favored either trout or sleelliead trout. It will ;dso be seen fi'Oin the

fourth coliinin of Table 4 that this preference is actually expressed in

anjilin^'. lion;^hly '>() percent of all California anj;ling licensees catch

trout each year, and tlie 11)48 interview survey revealed that in most

cases these were the same individuals who placed trout fir.st on their list

of favorites.

TABLE 3

Fishing Preferences of California Anglers

Percent of total

sample

profcrrinK

indicated fish

Percent of total

sample

preferring

indicated fish

Steelhead trout

Other trout

Salmon (ocean) Salmon (river). Striped bass...

Black bass

Crappie

Sunfish

7.2 39.9 2.1 3.6 13.0 9.7 1.7 0.5

Catfish

Barracuda

Abalone

Other ocean fish No preference..

Total

4.5 4.4 1.1 7.7 4.6

100.0

• Includes in order of mention : Albacore, yellowtail, halibut, corbina, tuna, rock- fish, and 20 others.

TABLE 4

	Trends in California	Trout Angling
	Total catch	Successful anglers	Annual catch per successful angler
Year	Number	Percent of angling licensees	Mean	Median
1936 . - -	12,000,000 11,900,000 12,900,000 12,800,000 15,700,000 16,400,000 15,700,000 17,660,000 18.400,000	149,000 151,000 160,000 179,000 238,000 234.000 213,000 357,000 415,000	50 48 46 49 53 54 48 47 43	80 78 79 71 66 70 75 49 44	50
1937	50
1938	SO
1939	37
1941	40
1942 - -	42
1943 :	37
1946	25
1948 --	20

It is of interest to note that about the same proportion of all licensees have fished for trout each year since 1936, in spite of the great increase in the total number of anglers. Apparently the newcomers have fallen closely into the established pattern of California angling.

The continuing increase in trout anglers each year is graphed in the middle panel of Figure 55. Their numbers have almost tripled since 1936. There has been an accompanying increase of about 50 percent in the total annual trout catch, shown in the bottom graph. However, this latter increase has by no means kept i)ace with rising angling jiressure. The top graph shows the sharp drop in the average annual trout catch per angler since 1943, when angling pressure began to increase most rapidly. These trout catch and angler estimates are summarized in Table 4.

Individual trout catches reported each year range all the way from one to a thousand or more. The mean (average) catch per successful angler has declined over the years from 80 in 1936 to 44 in 1948, as will

184

CALIFORXIA FISH AND GAME

100

OT b.

U. O

o:

UJ 00

1936

1939

1942

1945

1948

a:	400,000
UJ
-J
o
z
<
_J 3	300,000
U.
cn
CO
111
o
o ID	200,000
C/)
u.
o
cr
	100,000
Z
3
Z

1936

1939

1942

1945

1948

15,000,000

X CO

b.

O 10,000,000 —

OQ

spoo.ooo —

1936 1939 1942 1945

Figure 55. California trout angling: trends.

1948

ANGLlNa CATCH RECORDS, 1 936- I 948

185

</)

(T Ui

_l

a z <

I- o

I-

50

40

30

/936

50 100 150 300

ANNUAL TROUT CATCH

700

100 150 300

ANNUAL TROUT CATCH

700

1
50
CO £ 0 40 1	) 1946 I
1- 0 ^ 30	1 yWedian 25
PERCENT OF 0	; >;::\ yMeon 58
i	liii;:;^
	NEik^	a»i5^^^>^

50

Figure. 56.

100 150 300

ANNUAL TROUT CATCH

700

50	D
cc UJ O40 <	1948 \ -Medion 20
(- => 0 ^30	1
u. 0	^1
S2O 0 q: UI a.	:::::;\ M»an 44
10	■:■:•:•:+ ■ ■.■. .T '■■'■■T .■.■.vi	L
	■.■.• -.I-	■ku.	■^ fe7^m^

50 100 150 300

ANNUAL TROUT CATCH

700

Percentage frequencies of trout anglers by numbers of trout caught in various years.

186 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME

be seen from Table 4. However, the mean catch is not a very good index of the general fishing success of anglers, because the catch frequency dis- tributions are so strongly skowod that only about a fourth of all trout anglers take tiie average catch or more. The graphs in Figure 56 illustrate this point very well. They represent the smoothed frequency distribu- tions of all trout angl(M-s bv the number of trout thev caught annually during the years ]9;5{i, l<):{f), 1!)43, l!)4(i, and ]948. The curves for 1939 and lf)48 are almost identical, and the two are represented in this figure by the 1939 curve. Anglers who fished for trout but caught none are omitted fi-om these distributions because they do not report such fishing on the questioiniaires. Class intervals of 20 trout were used in preparing these graphs.

These frequency curves are all stronglj^ J-shaped. In all cases more anglers caught from 1 to 20 trout than caught from 21 to 40. Similarly, more reported 41 to 60 than 61 to 80, and so on down the line ; there are ])rogressively fewer individuals in each succeeding category. The same type of curve is obtained when the data are plotted ungrouped.

Such curves are also characteristic of other species, for which examples are given in Part II.

Because of the peculiar shape of these curves the median catch is a more meaningful measure of individual angler success than is the mean. The median catch in 1948 was only 20 trout. In other words, roughly half of all successful trout anglers caught less than 20 trout and the other half caught more. In the 1948 personal interview survey the number of unsuccessful anglers was determined, and the median for all trout anglers, including those who caught none, was only 12 fish. The median catches from postal card surveys in the earlier j^ears are also listed in Table 4.

The four curves in Figure 56 show the great changes w4iich have occurred in the over-all picture of the success of individual California trout anglers during the past 13 years. The median catch, indicated by a solid vertical line, has shifted progressively to the left until in 1948 it is less than half the lf)36 figure. The mean, shown by the broken line, has made a comparable shift. The solid black area to the left under these curves represtMits the least .successful one-fourth of trout anglers. Catches of this group ranged from 1 to 20 in 1939 but were only from 1 to 8 in 3948. It will be recalled that unsuccessful trout anglers do not report as such in these postal card surveys, so there are no zero catches repre- sented. Their inclusion would undoubtedly have further intensified the shift to the left shown in these curves. The black area to the right repre- sents the most successful one-fourth of trout anglers. This group con- sisted of anglers catching 100 or more trout in 1939, but in 1948 the lower limit had dropped to 50. The hatched area at the extreme right of each is plotted on a class interval of 200 trout. It shows the change in the relative numbers of anglers reporting very large catches consisting of 200 or more trout. This group does not seem to have decreased as greatly as might have been expected.

The recent rapid decline in the success of individual trout anglers tipjiears to have resulted ])rimarily from the addition of several hundred thou.sand i-elatively unsuccessful anglers to the original group present in 1936. This is certainly suggested by Figure 57, which shows the first and last graphs from the preceding figure plotted by actual numbers of

ANGLING CATCH RECORDS, 1 936- 1 948

187

240,000

200,000

a:

UJ

_j o

<

3

o q:

O q:

UJ CD

160,000

120,000 —

80,000

40,000

ANNUAL TROUT CATCH

Figure 57. Frequencv curves of numbers of trout anj^lers by trout cHUKht in

1936 and 194S.

188 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME

trout anglers rather than by percentage of all trout anglers. The increase in the numbers of relatively unsuccessful trout anglers has been tre- mendous, while the number of anglers catching 75 or more trout has not changed greatly.

The angling inexperience of many newcomers to the sport and the fact that most of them do not live near trout waters may be parti}' responsible for the large numbers of relatively unsuccessful trout anglers in recent years. The reduction of the daily bag limit from 25 to 15 trout, first effective in 1946, may also have had some influence. The fact that no survej's were made between 1943 and 1946 makes it difficult to evalu- ate this latter factor. No very apparent effect is evident in Figure 56. In the main, the general reduction in individual trout angler success probably represents an automatic rationing of the readily available annual trout crop among a greatly increased number of individuals.

This whole trout angling situation is reminiscent of the classical picture of a commercial fisherj- under very heavy exploitation. As the fishing effort for trout has increased, the total catch has followed it upward, but at a decreasing rate, and more and more anglers are each catching fewer and fewer fish. Of course it is an oversimplification to compare a sport fishery of this sort with generalized concepts relating to commercial fisheries. The relative inefficiency of angling compared with commercial fishing reduces the danger of seriously depleting a sport fishery. The fact that in the case of trout many small, isolated and highly variable populations are being fished further complicates the situation. Moreover, large-scale stocking of catchable trout each year clouds the issue, as does the recent dry cycle in California, which can scarcely have been beneficial to trout populations. Even so, the parallel is quite interesting. It suggests that we may be approaching a critical point in the exploitation of our valuable trout fisheries. There is at least an inference in Figure 55 that the readil.y available natural trout stocks approached maximum exploitation about 1943. Further significant increases in the total catch may have to depend upon increased exploita- tion of wilderness areas, improvement of natural waters to increase their trout production, and stocking of catchable trout. Unfortunately, stock- ing is very expensive and the amount which can be done with the funds available will probably always be small in relation to the natural production of wild fish. Moreover, present trends in water use in Cali- fornia are in most eases the opposite of those which would benefit trout. Diversion of water for domestic use, power, and irrigation is steadily drying up many of our streams, and the situation is not likely to improve in the future. The Division of Fish and Game does everything in its power to prevent and reduce diversions from trout streams, but the water requirements of California are such that the needs of fish must frequently take second place to power, irrigation, and domestic use.

TROUT CATCH AND ANGLER ESTIMATES FOR 1948 INCLUDING

ZERO CATCHES

In 1948 we were able for the first time to estimate the numbers of anglers fishing unsuccessfully for the different kinds of fishes, using results from the special personal interview survey made that year. It was found that about 2U percent of all trout anglers were unsuccessful.

ANGLING CATCH RECORDS, 1 936- 1 948

189

Table 5 Trout Catch and Angler Estimates From the 1948 Personal Interview Survey*

All trout anglers (including unsuccessful ones)

Number.. - ^^\^

Percent of licensed anglers - on a

Mean iimuial trout eateh - -- - it

Median annual trout catch - - - -,n/J,n

TotaMays tisheil for trout --- - - 5,510,000

Mean davs per angler -- - - ^J

Mean daily tateh --- - - - "'■o

Successful trout anglers ,„, ^„„

Number - -- - ^^ /^

Percent of licensed anglers - - - ^^

Percent of all trout anglers ^ ion

Mean annual trout catch - on

Median annual trout catch -- — -- ^^

Unsuccessful trout anglers

Numl)er.... - — ■• i'tS?

Percent of licensed anglers o(W

Percent of all trout anglers - - 2"'»

* These figures differ slightly from those in the original ORG report because trout and steelhead have been combined.

Table 5 summarizes trout catch and angler estimates from the 1948 personal interview survey, for convenient reference.

TROUT ANGLING EFFORT AND SUCCESS IN 1948

Estimates of numbers of days of trout fishing and average daily bags were obtained for the first time on a state-wide basis in 1948. A frequency distribution of numbers of trout anglers and their catches by days fished is outlined in Table 6. It is based on the 1948 interview survey. Most anglers who fished for trout reported doing so for less

TABLE 6 Trout * Catch Per Angler Day, 1948 Interview Survey

Days fished for trout	Number of anglers	Angler days	Trout caught	Mean daily catch
1	75 73 83 48 44 32 46 28 15 40 5 15 10 24 21 33 22 44	75 146 249 192 220 192 322 224 135 400 55 180 130 336 315 642 525 2,468	192 424 799 651 90S 600 868 935 507 1,379 172 831 562 1,079 1,196 3,426 2,810 8,044	2.6
2 .	2.9
3	3.2
4 .	3.4
5	4.1
6	3.1
7	2.7
8	4.2
9	3.8
10	3.4
11	3.1
12	4.6
13 ---	4.3
14	3,2
15 .	3.8
16-20	5.3
21-29	5.3
0ver29 .	3.3
Totals	658	6,806	25,383	3.7

* Including steelhead.

190

CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME

than 10 days. Ahitut half of all trout anglers said they fished less than six days. There was little difference in the mean daily eatehes reported by anglers who fished a few days or many days for trout. The mean daily catch for all trout anglers was '.].! trout per day.

COUNTY DISTRIBUTION OF THE 1948 TROUT CATCH

All postal card catch records are reported on a county of catch basis, and it is therefore readily possible to derive estimates of the numbers of fish caught in eai-h of California's 58 counties. However, it must be (Muphasized that samples are small when such a breakdown is attempted so that the county estimates are no more than rough approxi- mations. They are shown for the 1948 postal card survey for trout in Table 7 and in Figur(> HS. Each spot in this figure represents an annual county catch of 10U,UU0 trout. Counties for which less than 25 trout catch reports were received are omitted from the table, but are included in tlie figui-c if the estimated catch exceeded 50,000 trout.

TABLE 7 County Distribution of the 1948 California Trout Catch

County of catch

Alpine..

Amador

Butte...

Calaveras

Del Norte

El Dorado

Fresno

Humboldt

Inyo

Kern

Lake

Lassen

Los Angeles

Madera

Mariposa

Mendocino

Modoc

Mono

Monterey

Napa

Nevada

Placer..

Plumas

San Bernardino

San Diego

Santa Cruz

Shasta

Sierra

Siskiyou

Sonoma

Tehama

Trinity

Tulare

Tuolumne

Ventura

Trout catch

Number of trout

330,000 160,000 340,000 200,000

70,000 .580,000 730,000 710,000 1,980,000 390,000 200,000 190,000 620,000 410,000 220,000 550,000 270,000 1,790,000 100,000

64,000 400,000 320,000 720,000 960,000

84,000 330,000 620.000 390,000 730,000 240,000 270,000 720,000 890,000 400,0(M)' 150,000

Percent of state total

1.8 0.9 1.8 1.1 0.4 3.2 4.0 3.9 10.8 2.1 1.1 1.0 3.4 2.2 1.2 3 1 9 0 0 2 1

3.9 5.2 0.5 1.8 3.4 2.1 4.0 1.3 1.5 3.9 4.8 2.2 0.8

County rank

20

30

19

27

34

12

6

9

1

17

28

29

11

14

26

13

23

2

31

35

16

22

7

3

33

21

10

18

5

25

24

8

4

15

32

Anglers

catching

trout

14,000

5,000

10.000

7,000

6,000

18,000

23,000

21,000

44,000

18,000

4,000

10.000

29,00(1

6,000

8,0(H)

18,000

6,000

52,000

0,000

4,000

10,000

11.000

25,000

44,000

5,000

7,000

13,000

9,000

14,000

8,000

8,000

10,000

19,000

16,000

8,000

ANGLING CATCH RECORDS, 1 936- 1 948

191

COUNTIES OF CALIFORNIA

1 ALAMEDA

2 ALPINE

3 AMADOR

A BUTTE

5 CAL AVESAS

6 COLUSA

7 CONTRA COSTA e DEL NORTE

9 EL OOHAOO

10 FRESNO

11 CLE NN

12 HUMBOLDT

I] IMPERIAL

14 INYO

15 KERN KINGS LAKE LASSEN LOS ANGELES

10 MAOERa

21 MARIN

22 MARIPOSA 21 MENUOCINO

24 MERCED

25 MODOC ?e MONO

27 MONTERET ?8 NAPA

33 riverside

34 Sacramento

35 san benito

36 san bernardino

37 san diego

38 san francisco

39 san joaouin

40 san luis obispo 4 1 san mateo

42 santa barbara 4 1 santa clara

44 santa cruz

45 SHASTA

46 SIERRA

47 SISKI rou 4B SOLANO

Figure 5S.

County distribution of tlie 1948 trout catch. Each spot represents 100,000 fish.

MIGRATIONS OF CALIFORNIA TROUT ANGLERS IN 1948

Information about trout angler migrations from postal card sur- veys aids in the development of an equitable stocking program. In making the 1948 analysis the State was divided into the eight cateh districts and six residence areas outlined in the Appendix. Counties were combined in this way in order to obtain reasonably large samples. The general picture of 1948 trout angler migrations revealed by the 1948 postal card survey is outlined in Tables 8 and 9. Migrations from Southern California and the San Francisco Bay area, the two most important residence areas, are shown graphically in Figure 59. Each solid arrow represents a migration of 10.000 anglers. Arrows with

192

CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME

TABLE 8

Numbers of Successful Trout Anglers Moving From Residence Areas to

Fish Management Districts

	Residence areas
Fifh manaRcment distrirts	Southern California	Southern Central California	San Francisco	San Joaquin	Sacramento	Northern California	Totals
1. Shasta	2,828 6,157 6,4K9 1,164 6,323 29,121 69,391 82,703	665 665 2,329 332 3,827 30,951 11,315 332	13,978 18,970 29,620 4,326 43,931 5,824 3,660 499	998 1,497 12,813 1,497 832 2,662 166	3.993 12,147 21,133 2,496 3,328	14,643 10,649 832 166 10,649	37 105
2. Lassen	50,085
2. Tahoe	73,216
4. Central	9 981
5. Coast	68 890
6. San Joa()uiD	68,558
7. Mt. Whitney 8. Southern.	832 166	332	85,696 83,700
Totals	204,176	50,416	120,808	20,465	44,095	37,271	477,231

TABLE 9

Numbers of Trout Caught in Fish Management Districts by Anglers From

Six Residence Areas

	Residence areas
Fish management districts	Southern California	Southern Central California	San Francisco	San Joaquin	Sacramento	Northern California	Totals
1. .Shasta	58,492 126,353 144,607 19,969 99,178 708,557 2,812,095 1,925,817	47,592 36,776 48,091 12,647 128,465 1,566,217 845,176 3,162	401,787 437,897 808,733 129,131 1,672,213 204,180 70,889 4,160	69,391 31,950 518,854 48,424 9,656 275,735 9,984	220.072 512,280 1,165,174 69,558 106,333	1,219,673 677,356 16,474 1,997 540,320	2,017,007
2. Lassen _ 3. Tahoe. ._ 4. Central 5. Coast... 6. San Joaquin	1,822,612 2,701,933 281.726 2,556.165 2,754,689
7. Mt. Whitney 8. Southern	23,962 2,496	666	3,762,772 1,935,635
Totals	5,895,068	2,688,126	3,728,990	963,994	2,099,875	2,456,486	17,832,539

broken shafts represent from 1,000 to 5,000 anglers. Each large fish indicates 500,000 trout caught in the area where it is shown by anglers following the arrows. Each small fish represents 100,000 trout.

The extent to which anglers from Southern California spread out over the State to fish for trout is quite remarkable. Comparison with corresponding migrations shown by the 1948 personal interview survey is made in Part IT.

TRENDS IN CALIFORNIA STRIPED BASS ANGLING

It has already been mentioned tliat one of tlie important purposes of the wliole California postal card survey program is to obtain reliable striped bass trends. For this fishery above all it is desirable to have good fishing effort and catch per unit of effort estimates. Unfortunately, all that is obtained from the postal card surveys is the number of anglers catching stri])ed bass each year and their estimated annual catch. The limitations of such figures as indexes of fishing pressure and abundance, respectively, are too obvious to require elaboration. Nevertheless they

ANGLING CATCH RECORDS, 1 936- 1 948

193

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA

LEGEND

^^M 500,000 TROUT ^M 100,000 TROUT

10,000 ANGLERS

1,000 TO 5,000

ANGLERS

Figure 59. Migrations of trout anglers living in Southern California and in the

San Francisco Bay Area.

194

CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME

are very valuable for they make it possible to follow the general over-all picture of what is happening in the fishery. Witliout them this would be impossible.

The total ye-arly catch of .striped bass, sliuwu in Table lU and Figure 60, has remained surprisingly constant since 1936, although there has been a slight downward trend in recent years.

TABLE 10 Trends in California Striped Bass Angling

	Total catch	Successful anglers	Annual catch per successful angler
Year	Number	Percent of aiiEiiiig licensees	Mean	Median
1936	2,110,000 2,040,000 1,940,000 1,880,000 1,940,000 1,680,000 1,680,000 1,420,000 1,380,000 1,650,000	84,400 81,900 92,800 89,300 106,000 88,200 75,000	28 26 27 24 23 20 17	25 25 21 21 18 19 22
1937
1938
1939	1?
1941	10
1942
1943	9
1944
1946 ---	113,000 161,000	15 17	12 10	6
1948	5

The number of successful anglers has also remained relatively con- stant until quite recently. The first indication of a real increase in this latter figure occurred in 1948, long after the big increase had taken place for most other fish. Aj^parently the newcomers to the San Francisco Bay area during and immediately after the war took several years to become oriented with respect to striped bass fishing, which requires a somewhat higher degree of organization than most other California angling. It is probable that the sudden sharp rise in striped bass anglers in 1948 is the beginning of a new trend, and that this fishery will expe- rience increasing pressure in the future.

The mean and median annual catches per successful striped bass angler, shown in Table 10, indicate a generally lower level of angler success since 1946 than previously. As with the other kinds of fish, most of this drop is probably simply a reflection of the inexperience of anglers new to this type of fishing. The limitations of these mean annual catch figures as indexes of abundance have already been mentioned. In the case of striped bass their downward trend is tliought to indicate no more than a possible rather small decrease in abundance. To remove any doubt on tliis point, attention is called to the corresponding figures for salmon, given in a later section. Commercial fishing records reveal that the general abundance of salmon in California showed a phenomenal increase in 1945 and 1946 (Fry, 1949), but even so the mean catch of salmon per successful angler was less in 1946 than in previous years, when these fish were much less abundant.

Other striped bass records from the party boat fishery provide a better index of striped bass abundance. They have been discussed in a previous report (Calhoun, 1949).

AXGLING CATCH RECORDS, 1 936- I 948

195

X <0

a: u m

z

=3 Z

1936

1939

1942

1945

1948

1936

1939

1942

1945

1948

^ 2,000,000 —

1936 1939 1942 1945

FiGURK (it). California Ktriped bass angling trends.

1946

196

CALIFORXIA FISH AND GAME

OTHER STRIPED BASS ESTIMATES

Striped bass estimates for 1948 from the personal interview survey, including unsuccessful anglers, are outlined in Table 11.

County distribution of the 1948 striped bass catch, from the postal card survey, is outlined in Table 12 and diagramed in Figure 61. Almost the entire catch every year is taken from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River system.

TABLE 11

Striped Bass Catch and Angler Estimates for 1948 From the Personal Interview Survey *

All striped bass anglers (including unsuccessful ones)

Number- 250,000

Percent of licensed anglers 26%

Mean annual catch 8.7

Median annualcatch 3

Successful strii)ed bass anglers only

Numl)er.-.. 170,000

Percent of licensed anglers 1 8%

Percent of all striped bass anglers 68%

Mean annual catch 12.7

Median annual catch J 5

Unsuccessful striped bass anglers only

Number 80,000

Percent of licensed anglers __ 8%

Percent of all striped bass anglers 32%

• These fig-ure.s differ from those in the original ORG report because striped bass angling reported in impossible locations has been eliminated. These fish are sometimes confused with other kinds of bass in Southern California and elsewhere.

TABLE 12 County Distribution of the 1948 California Striped Bass Catch

	Striped bass catch	Anglers catching striped bass
County * of catch	Number of striped bass	Percent of state total	County rank
Alameda	40.000 520.000 70,000 120,000 190,000 56,000 200,000 210,000	2.4 31.5 4.2 7.3 11.5 3.4 12.1 12.7	8 1 6 5 4 7 3 2	6,000
Contra Costa	53,000
Marin . .	7,000
Napa	10,000
Sacramento .	20,000
San Francisco	10,000
San Joaquin	28,000
Solano	23,000

* Counties for which less than 25 striped bass catch reports were received are omitted from the table but are included in the accompanying spot diagram.

RECORDS FOR WARM-WATER FISHES

The warm-water game fishes present in California include the black basses, sunfishes, crappies, and catfishes (Curtis, 1949). All but the sun- fi.shes show the same general trends, as can be seen from the accompany- ing graphs and tables. Estimates for sunfish and crappie are not shown for the early license stub surveys because figures are not comparable with those from postal cards. Anglers tended to neglect these fish on the license stub questionnaires.

ANGLING CATCH RECORDS, 1 936- 1 948

in?

8 ,

> ^ 1

I? I

45

53

25

le

I 'T

I \

\- 1

(. 17

49

>._-

^.^>' ''

r

^ ^y

COUNTIES OF CALIFORNIA

28 1 _, {••\

N • r • ! ; ^ 4 I , y-

^

•/?

V-

39

38|

5 / • .' V

55

'.J..'

43 t,

50^.-'' \ 22

2 4 ,■

20,

1 ALAMCOA	ij	IMPERIAL	33	RIVERSIDE
2 ALPINE	14	INYO	34	SAI-HauCNTO
3 AMAOOR	15	KERN	35	San BENITO
4 BUTTE	16	KINGS	36	SAN BERNARDINO
5 CALAVEHAS	i7	LAKE	37	SAN DIEGO
6 COLUSA	le	LASSEN	38	SAN FRANCISCO
7 COt'TRA COSTA	19	LOS ANGELES	39	SAN JOAOUIN
8 DEL NORTE	20	MADERA	40	SAN LUIS OBISPO
9 EL OOSAOO	21	MARIN	41	SAN MATEO
10 FRESNO	22	MARIPOSA	42	SANTA BARBARA
II GLENN	23	MENDOCINO	41	SANTA CLARA
12 HUMBOLDT	24	MERCED	44	SANTA CRUZ
	25	MOOOC	45	SHASTA
	26 MONO	46	SIERRA
	27	MONTERET	47	SISKIYOU
	28	NAPA	48	SOLANO
	2 9	NE VAOA	49	SONOMA
	30	ORANGE	50	STANISLAUS
	31	PLACER	51	SUTTER
	32	PLUMAS	52 53	TEHAMA TRINITY
1 2 6 \^			54	TULARE
			55	TUOLUMNE
		56	Vt NTURA
\		57	YOLO
\	V	58	YUSA

) 35

'

10 ^'-■

i

14

27

54

,_.....: i.::i l . —

40

15

-^^-i...

36

42

J 56

19

'o ^==^'

y. —

00

33

• ^i

■^. — . — •

37

13

F.GURE 61. C^unlv distribution of the 1948 striped bass catch. Each spot represents

50,000 fish.

TABLE 13 Trends in California Black Bass Angling

	Total catch	Successful anglers	Average catch
Year	Number	Percent of angling licensees	of successful anglers
1936	930,000 819,000 1,190,000 1,340,000 1,. 530.000 1,310,000 1,570,000 1,700,000 1,890,000	34,000 33,000 46,000 67,000 75,000 66,000 79,000 104,000 128,000	11 11 13 18 17 15 18 14 13	27
1937	26
1938 - --	26
1939	20
1941	20
1942	20
1943.	20
1946	16
1948 -	15

198

CAIJFORXIA FISH AXD GAME

TABLE 14 Trends in California Crappie Angling

	Total catch	Successful anglers	Average catch
^ear	Number	Percent of angling licensees	of successful anglers
1939	1,720,000 2,180,000 2,620,000 2,670,000 3,040,000 2,760,000	52,000 70,000 66,000 76,000 106,000 116,000 -	14 15 15 17 14 12	33
1941	31
1942..	40
1943	35
1946	9Q
1948	24

TABLE 15 Trends in California Sunfish Angling

	Total catch	Successful anglers	Average catch
Year	Number	Percent of angling licensees	of successful anglers
1939	2.090,000 2,770,000 3,060,000 3,040,000 4,320,000 4.820.000	51.000 63,000 57,000 68,000 122,000 118,000	14 14 13 15 16 12	41
1941	44
1942	54
1943	45
1946	35
1948	41

TABLE 16 Trends in California Catfish Angling

	Total catch	Successful anglers	Average catch
Year	Number	Percent of angling licensees	of successful anglers
1936...	2,940,000 2,810,000 3,480,000 4,330,000 6,100,000 8,250,000 7,060,000 6,530,000 5,560,000	38,000 43,000 48,000 75,000 97,000 110,000 101,000 149,000 182,000	13 14 14 20 21 25 23 19 19	78
1937...	65
1938	72
1939	58
1941...	63
1942	75
1943	70
1946	44
1948...	31

The number of anglers fishing for warm-water varieties appears to have increased roughly in proportion to the increase in the total number of Jicensed anglers. The total catches in each case also have increased greatly, but not enough to maintain the initial high average catches except in the case of sunfish. Changes in bag limits and other regulations greatly complicate the picture. As in the case of the other kinds of fishes covered in tliese surveys, the drop in the average catch per angler probably has had little connection with changes in abundance.

ANGLIXG CATCH RKCORDS, 1 936- 1 948

191)

X CO

u. o

a: ui m

30	—	•		•
20					•	■^ • > •		■— ».^^»
10		1			1	CATCH PER ANGLER I 1		1

1936

1939

1942

1945

1948

1936

1939

1942

1945

1948

		• ^^ ■	_^	-^
^1,500,000	—	• ^
u.		• ^ •
u. 0		• ^y^
S 1,000,000 CD z 3 z
500,000	1	TOTAL CATCH I 1	1	I

1936 1939 1942 '945

Figure 62. California black bass angling trends.

1948

y

200

CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME

X

o

q: tij m

90	—
	—	•		•	• •
60		•
30	—	I			CATCH PER ANGLER 1 I

1936

1939

1942

1945

1948

V)

(£ Ul

_1

z <

V)

tn

iij o o

Z)

(/)

u. o

UJ

m

Z

100,000

1936

1939

942

1945

1948

8,000,000	—		•
^6,000,000	—		/•	^"^-^^
u.			/	•^
u. o			/
S 4,000,000 OQ •=> Z	%.	•
2,000,000	1		TOTAL CATCH 1 1 1

1936 1939 1942 1945

Figure 63. California catfish angling trends.

1948

ANGLING CATCH RECORDS, 1 936- 1 948

201

Estimates from the personal interview .survey pertaining? to 1048 angling for warm-water fishes are outlined in Table 17.

TABLE 17

Warm-water Fish Catch and Angler Estimates for 1948 From the Personal Interview Survey

Black bass

Grapple

Sunfish

Catfish

All anglers, including unsuccessful ones

Numl)er _

Percoiit of licensed anglers

Mean annual catch

Median annual catch

Total days fished..

Mean days per angler

Mean daily catch

Successful anglers only

Number

Percent of licensed anglers.

Percent of anglers for the fish.

Mean annual catch

Median annual catch

Unsuccessful anglers

Number...

Percent of licensed anglers

Percent of anglers for the fish

210,000

22.0%

10.7

3

1,400,000

6.7

1.6

144,000

15.1%

69%

15.6

6

66,000

6.9%

31%

181,000

18.9%

22.9

10

1,030,000

5.7

4.0

153,000

16.0%

85%

27.2

15

28,000

2.9%

15%

118,000

12.3%

39.0

17

859,000

7.2

5.4

103,000

10.7%

87.4%

44.4

20

15,000

1.6%

12.6%

258,000

27.0%

.33.8

12

1,960,000

7.6

4.4

219,000

22.9%

84.9%,

39.8

15

39,000

4.1% 15.1%

One of the most remarkable features of the California bass, crappie, and sunfish take is its concentration in the southern part of the State. This is very apparent from the spot diagrams showing the county dis- tribution of catches of these fish. In the black bass diagram each spot represents 25,000 fish, while in the other three each one represents 50,000 fish. Actual county totals from the postal card survey are given in the accompanying tables. Catfi.sh, unlike these others, are caught mainly in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

TABLE 18 County Distribution of the 1948 Black Bass Catch

	Black bass catch	Anglers catching black bass
County * of catch	Number of black bass	Percent of state total	County rank
	85,000 100,000 99,000 92,000 91,000 75,000 1.54,000 500,000 60,000 46,000	4.5 5.3 5.2 4.9 4.8 4.0 8.1 26.4 3.2 2.4	7 3 4 5 6 8 2 1 9 10	9,000
Imperial .	4,000
Lake	9,000
	8,000
Riverside . - .	5,000
Sacramento	7,000
San Bernardino	11,000
San Diego _ -_ _	33,000
San JoaQUin	7,000
	4,000

* Counties for which less than 25 black bass catch reports were received are omitted from the table but are included in the accompanying spot diagram.

202

CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME

TABLE 19 County Distribution of the 1948 Crappie Catch

	Crappie catch	Anglers catching crappie
County • of catch	Number of crappie	Percent of state total	County rank
Lake	80,000 110,000 130,000 •100,000 1,500,000	2.9 4.0 4.7 14.6 54.4	5 4 3 2 1	5,000 5,000 6,000 18,000 57,000
Ixw Angeles
tJraiige . _ . . .
San Bernardino
San Diego

* Counties for which less than 25 crappie catch reports were received are omitted from the table, but are included in the accompanying spot diagram.

TABLE 20 County Distribution of the 1948 Sunfish Catch

County * of catch

Sunfish catch

Numljer of sunfish

Percent of state total

County rank

Anglers catching sunfish

Fresno

Lake__

Los Angeles

Orange

Sacramento

San Bernardino

San Diego

San Joaquin

80,000 200,000 400,000 210,000 170,000 480,000 1,880,000 150,000

1.7 4.1 8.3 4.4 3.5 10.0 39.0 3.1

4,000 5,000

8,000 5,000 ■1,000 15,000 42,000 4,000

* Counties for which less than 25 sunfish catch reports were received are omitted from the table but are included in the accompanying spot diagram.

TABLE 21 County Distribution of the 1948 Catfish Catch

County * of catch

Contra Costa.. Imperial

Lake

Los Angeles

Riverside

Sacramento

San Bernardino

San Diego

San Joaquin

Solano

Stanislaus

Yolo....

Catfish catch

Number of catfish

690,000

220,000

530,000

60,000

70,000

530,000

180,000

220,000

1,220,000

190,000

150,000

100,000

Percent of

state total

12,

4

9.

1

1

9.

3.

4.0 22.0

3.4

2.7

1.8

County rank

2

6

4

12

11

3

8

5

1

7

9

10

Anglers catching catfish

21,000

5,000

21,000

4,000

4,000

17,000

13,000

1-1,000

26,000

8,000

7,000

4,000

* Counties for which less than 25 catfish catch reports were received are omitted from the table but are included in the accompanying spot diagram.

ANGLING CATCH RECORDS, 1 936- 1 948

203

COUNTIES OF CALIFORNIA

1 ALAMEDA

2 ALPINE i AMADOR

4 BUTTE

5 CALAVERAS

6 COLUSA

7 CONTRA COSTA e 3EL NORTE

9 EL DORADO

10 FRESNO

11 GLENN

12 HUMBOLDT

13 IMPE RIAL

14 INTO

15 KERN

16 KINGS

17 LA«E LASSEN

19 LOS ANGELES

20 MADERA

21 MARIN

22 M&RIPOSA

23 MENDOCINO

24 MERCED ?5 MODOC

26 MONO

27 MONTERET

28 NAPA 29. NEVADA

30 ORANGE

31 PLACER

32 PLUMAS

33 RIVERSIDE

34 SACRAMENTO a SAN BENITO

36 san bernardino

37 san diego

38 san francisco

39 san joaquin

40 san luis obispo

41 san mateo

42 santa barbara 41 santa clara

44 Santa cruZ

45 SHASTA

46 SIERRA

47 SISKItOU

48 SOLANO

49 SONOMA

50 STANISLAUS

51 SUTTER

52 TEHAMA

53 TRINITY

54 TULARE

55 TUOLUMNE

56 VENTURA

57 TOlO

58 TUBA

Figure 64. County distribution of the 194S black bass catch. Each spot represents

25,000 fish.

204

CALIF0RXL4. FISH AND GAME

		COUNTIES OF CALIFORNIA
^i " i .
	1 ALAMEDA	13 IMPERIAL	33	RIVERSIDE
""'■^. - 1		2 ALPINC	14 iNro	34	SACRAMENTO
N v'l J.		1 AMADOR « BUTTE	15 KERN 16 KINGS	3S 36	SAN BENITO SAN BERNARDINO
' -»4 ,' !
/ ^ ) .^ ^		9 CALAVERAS	IT LAKE	37	SAN DIE50
/'2 1 53 ' ' ! '«		6 COLUSA	18 LASSEN	3B	SAN FRANCISCO
	7 CONTRA COSTA	14 LOS ANGELES	39	SAN JOAQUIN
I i 1 -».— '' ^"^ — •		• DEL NORTE	20 MAOERA	40	SAN LUIS OBISPO
) ,)_. u \ ^ >-'4r'-		9 EL DORADO	21 MARIN	41	SAN MATEO
	0 FRESNO	22 MARIPOSA	42	SANTA BARBARA
	11 GLENN 12 HUMBOLDT	23 MENDOCINO 24 MERCED	4? 44	SANTA CLARA SANTA CRUZ
^		25 MODOC 26 MONO 27 MONTEREY ?8 NAPA	45 46 47 48	SHASTA SIERRA SISKIYOU SOLANO
V- '•^48 '•''_.> '/ .^^(	.	29.NE V4DA :10 0B4NGE 31 PLACER	49 50 51.	SONOMA STANISLAUS SUTTER
N.	32 PLUMAS	52	TEHAMA
CA-L.ii-'' SO^.-'- \ 2 2 /^	1 2 6\		53 54	TRINITY TULARE
	55	TUOLUMNE
/v \,		56	VCNTURA
lA 43 i-v 2 4 --^'' •	/ r--	\	57 5a	YOLO YUBA
\4 0. r .^ 20^"	^	N^^
rJ S 35 V 10 ,	■\	N.
X	14 \
	\	^y
54 \	\	\
\		\	\
N .1		. _j _._.--		N.
\,0 V,	15	1 1 •	•	\
^ ^		1		^^
	■■X..	i 36		• \
1		— f •
I '*^	\	1		^
\^ — --._,	"\*,,	i	• N
-o"c='			33	•
	• ^^	^"N^~*"s, —		^ .— — ■ — ■ — \
	\» • • • •	»i	\
^		• 1	13 • L
	^		:i

Figure 65. County distribution of tlie 1948 crappie catcli. Each spot represents

50,000 fish.

ANGLING CATCH RECORDS, 1 936- 1 948

205

COUNTIES OF CALIFORNIA

1 ALAMEOt	ij	IMPERIAL	33	RIVERSIDE
2 »LPINE	M	INYO	3«	SACRAMENTO
i AMADOR	15	KERN	35	SAN BENITO
4'euTTE	IS	KINGS	36	SAN BERNARDINO
5 CALAVERAS	|7	LAKE	37	SAN DIEGO
6 COLUSA	18	LASSEN	38	SAN FRANCISCO
7 CONTRA COSTA	19	LOS ANGELES	39	San joaOuin
8 DEL NORTE	to	MADERA	40	SAN LUIS OBISPO
9 EL DORADO	21	MARIN	4 1	SAN MATEO
10 fRESNO	22	MARIPOSA	42	SANTA BARBARA
II Glenn	23	MENDOCINO	A 1	SANTA CLARA
12 MUM8OLOT	24 MERCED	44	SANTA CRUZ
	25 MOOOC	45	SHASTA
	26	MONO	46	SIERRA
•	27 MONTERET	47	SISKITOU
	28	NAPA	48	SOLANO
	29.	NEVADA	49	SONOMA
	30	ORANGE	50	STANISLAUS
N,	31	Placer	51	SUTTER
\^	32	PLUMAS	52 53	TEHAMA TRINITY
1 -eX			54	TULARE
			55	TUOLUMNE
		56	VENTURA
; r--	\		57	YOLO
\	^	M	YU8A

Figure 66. County distribution of the 1948 sunfish catch. Each spot represents

50,000 fish.

206

CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME

	f r\i Ik	JTIES OF CALIFORNIA
t^ '' '	t/Uur
V -^ ^' 1 35.	1 »L»Mt 0«	li IMPERIAL	33	RIVERSIDE
r "'-' .	2 ALPINt	14 INYO	34	SACRAMENTO
N. ^ 1 ^1	} «MAOOR 4 8UTTE	15 KERN 16 KINGS	35 36	SAN BENITO SAN BERNARDINO
' -li .' '
/ ^ > ... S	5 CALAVERAS	i7 LAnE	37	SAN OIEGO
y,3 .,3 / ''' 1 -	6 COLUSA	18 LASSEN	38	SAN FRANCISCO
7 CONTRA COSTA	19 LOS ANGELES	39	SAN JOAOUIN
( ,:-.- — --V--	6 DEL NORTE	20 MAOERA	40	SAN LUIS OBISPO
\ 1 I ^ V,.~ V	9 EL OORADO	21 MARIN	4 t	SAN MATEO
( 23 ;.•. / j-^^ ■—-	10 FRESNO	22 MARIPOSA	42	SANTA BARBARA
11 GLENN	23 MENOOCINO	41	SANTA CLARA
12 HUMBOLDT	24 MEHCEO 25 MOOOC 26 MONO 27 MONTEHET	44 45 46 47	Santa cruZ SHASTA SIERRA SISKIYOU
V	26 NAPA	48	SOLANO
	29. NE VADA 30 ORANGE	49 50	SONOMA STANISLAUS
31 PLACER	51	SUTTER
32 PLUMAS	52	TEHAMA
	53	TRINITY
	54 55	TULARE TUOLUMNE
	56	VENTURA
L\ 4 3 tv 24 -^'^ '		57	YOlO
	5a	YUBA
V4-" r • ,-' 20^*' >
^--J>^ --v ^*« , ^
y^\ V.^-' ^^-^ , i	• \^^
rJ S 35 ^ • 10 *_^^' \	14 ^v
\27 ^-^ ; r 54 s
	\
\ "< '		\	\
\ L "	■~i
\ 4 0 ""^..^ 15	1 •		• \.
^^ \	\		^v
r^ ■^^,-	j 36		\
> ~^ J 56 V	"l		• \
!
\ \ 19	1		)
	/.-	-■-	/
V^	30 ^	33	•
* ^,	\*		/
	\* •		• • 1 13 C.
X	) 37 \ •

FiGfKE (J7.

County distribution of the 1948 catfish catch. Each spot represents 50,000 flsh.

anqijTng catch records, 1 936- 1 948

SALMON CATCH RECORDS

207

Salmon angling? trends are shown in Table 22 and Figure 68. They do not diflfVr in any important respect from the other fish already dis-

TABLE 22 Trends in California Salmon AngI	ng
	Total catch	Successful anglers	Average catch of
Year	Number	Percent of angling licensees	successful anglers
1936	196,000 160,000 178,000 21.^,000	25,000 20,000 22,000 31,000	8 6 6 8	8
1937	8
1938	8
1939	7
1941	253.000 180,000 274,000 291,000 321,000	38,000 32,000 31,000 50,000 65,000	8 7 7 7 7	7
1942	6
1943 ... .	9
1946	e
1948	6

TABLE 23 County Distribution of the 1948 Salmon Catch

County * of catch

Salmon cat«h

Number of salmon

Percent of state total

County rank

Anglers catching salmon

Butte

Del Norte....

Humboldt

Marin

Mendocino

Sacramento... San Francisco San Joa'i'.iiii..

Shasta

Stanislaus

Tehama

Trinity

9,000 22,000 49,000 17,000 27,000

4,000 59,000 14,000

9,000

9,000 15,000 10,0002

2.8 6.8

15.4 5.3 8.4 1.2

18.4 4.4 2.8 2.8 4.7 3.1

4 2 5 3 12 1 7

10

11

6

3,000 7,000 10,000 5,000 6,000 2,000 8,000 5,000 2.000 3,000 4,000 2,000

* Counties for which less than 12 salmon catch reports were received are omitted from the table, but are included in the accompanying spot diagram.

TABLE 24

Comparison of Ocean and River Angling for Salmon in 1948, From the

Personal Interview Survey

Ocean salmon angling

River salmon

angling

All salmon angling

Number of salmon anglers in the sample.

All salmon anglers (including unsuccessful ones)

Percent of all anglers

Mean annual catch

Total days fished

Mean days per angler

Total catch

Mean daily catch

62

47,500

5.0%

4.7

215,000

4.5

222,000

1.0

126

96,500

10.1%

1.8

680,000

7.0

173,000

0.26

•171

130,000

13.6%

2 8

895,000

6.9

395,000

0.44

• This is slightly less than the sum of the other two groups because a few individ- uals did both types of salmon angling ; 96 of the 171 did not catch any salmon.

2 — 25222

208

CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME

CO

a:

UJ

ffi

12	—	•
8	— » •■	a •
4		CATCH PER ANGLER

1936

1939

(942

1945

1948

UJ O 75,000
<
					^^^
V) 50,000 UJ o o				•_^ ■	• ^ — '
^ 25,000 a: UI ffi z 3	— • 1	•	•	1	ANGLERS 1 1 1

1936

1939

1942

1945

1948

I

cn

cc

UJ

m

300,000	—					• ^ '
200,000		•	•	•	• _,-'	• •
100,000		1			1	TOTAL CATCH 1 ! 1

1936 1939 1942 1945

Figure 08. California salmon angling trends.

1948

ANGLING CATCH RECORDS, 1 936- 1 948

209

		JTIES OF CALIFORNIA
!• ',' 1	cou^
V-i •" . .	1 ALAMEOA	1] IMPERIAL	33	RIVERSIDE
r."'-^.	2 ALPINE	14 INYO	34	Sacramento
/• -v .-7 i	i AMADOR * BUTTE	15 KERN 16 KINGS	35 36	San BENITO SAN BCR.NARDINO
• J 'li .' '
/• ^ • / ... ^	5 CALAVERAS	17 LAKE	37	SAN DIEGO
	G COLUSA	IS LASSEN	3e	SAN fRANCISCO
7 CONTRA COSTA	19 LOS ANGELES	39	SAN JOAQUIN
K>\r^W--.V\.-.	8 DEL NORTE	20 MADERA	40	SAN LUIS OBISPO
9 EL DORADO	21 MARIN	41	»AN MATEO
( 23 •,%)___./ V -*-' ~---	10 FRESNO	22 MARIPOSA	42	SANTa BARBARA
11 GLENN 12 HUWeOLDT	2} MENDOCINO 24 MERCED	45 44	SANTA CLABA SANTA CRUZ
	25 MODOC 26 MDNO	45 46	SHASTA SIERRA
	27 WONTEREf	47	SISKITOU
V	?8 NAPA	48	SOLANO
	29. NEVADA 30 ORANGE 31 PLACER 32 PLUMAS	49 50 51 52	SONOMA STANISLAUS SUITER TEHAMA
• • •/ (^;yu^ i ' 50^ - \ 22^/^ >N ^		53 54 55	TRINITY TULARE TUOLUMNE
	56	VENTURA
\t\ 43 tv^2 4 S'' / V	\	57 58	YOLO YUBA
\44-" r ,■' 20^" \	\^^
^--^■^^ A '^'i , \	\^
[J S 35 y '0 ^-^ \	14 \^
\ ^ ^ —^1 N
\27 ^-i ; ^ 54 N		\	X
V~ L
\ 40 V.^ 15			\y
I y- ^			N.
r ^ "^ v^.	J 2^		\
I ^^ i ■.	i		\
^--^_ 56 \ „			v.
^- 4 \ 19			J
	/		r. /
y , ,-r
		33
* ^	^v-	..^.	/
^	\		Ji3
\^	1 37

Figure 69.

County distribution of the 1948 salmon catch. Each spot represents 5,000 fish.

cussed. The number of anglers has increased and the total catch has also risen, but the average annual catch has declined.

The county distribution of the 1948 salmon catch from the postal card survey is outlined in Table 23 and charted in Figure 69 in which each spot represents 5,000 salmon. The individual county samples are quite small because relatively few California anglers actually catch salmon.

Salmon catch and angler estimates from the 1948 personal interview survey are summarized in Table 24, which includes a comparison of ocean and river salmon angling. This table is mainly for reference and is self- explanatory.

210 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME

PART II— AN EVALUATION OF POSTAL CARD NONRESPONSE IN CALIFORNIA ANGLING CATCH SURVEYS

In 1948 a large-scale personal interview survey was made in addi- tion to the usual one with postal cards. The objective was to obtain catch reports from a sizable number of the kind of individuals who do not return postal card questionnaires, and to see how they compared with those who do. The postal card survey that year was made in the same way as preceding ones. The random 2 percent sample of 18,678 anglers was obtained by drawing the first stub from every second book of 25 angling licenses.*

The original sample of 18,678 names approached the 2 percent objec- tive closely. Total license sales in 1948 were 960,027. t Two percent of this is 19.200, indicating that about 97 percent of all licensed anglers were actually sampled.

U.sable returns totaled 5,751. This amounted to 31.8 percent of those mailed. Successful anglers reporting one or more of the eight species listed accounted for 4,086 of these returns. Another 290 were from suc- cessful anglers who caught other, unlisted species, or who failed to note what species they caught, making a total of 4,376 (76.1%) successful anglers in all. There were an additional 943 (16.4%) returns from anglers who fished but did not catch anything, 312 (5.4%) from those who purchased angling licenses but did not fish, and 120 (2.1%) from those who caught nothing but failed to state whether or not they fished.

The actual catch estimates derived from this 1948 postal card survey have already been outlined in Part I of this report. However, considerable additional information about them is contained in the statistical com- parisons which follow.

In converting postal card returns to state-wide estimates the assump- tion is made that they represent a true cross-section of California anglers. On this basis the various characteristics of the postal card sample can be

,,.,.,, ,, ^. Total number of anglers

multiplied by the ratio : ^^^^ ; --; :; —

Number of postal card reports

to obtain state-wide estimates. This applies to numbers of fish caught as

well as to numbers of anglers fishing for a particular species or in a

particular area. In practice the number of licensed anglers is used as a

numerator, and the 1948 postal card survey projection factor is con-

^- 957,000 1 ,_. sequently : ^^^^ = 166.4

The 1948 personal interview survey was conducted as a parallel but largely independent project. It was carried on by the Opinion Research Center of the University of Denver, which will subsequently be referred to simply as ORC. This nonprofit, research organization ceased operation in September of 1949. Mr. Don Cahalan and Miss Helen Crossley directed the project, working in close cooperation with members of the California Division of Fish and Game.

• Questionnaires were withheld from 608 anglers, at random, for special reasons. The number of po.«;tal cards actually mailed were therefore only 18,070.

t This estimate was obtained in February of 1950. It is not the final one, but is close to it.

t This was the best estimate available when the report was prepared, and it has been used throughout unless otherwise indicated.

ANGLING CATCH RECORDS, 1 936- 1 948 211

The personal interview sample was predetermined ut 1,1230 anglers. The large expense connected with such a project made it impractical to interview more than this number, which was considered adequate for obtaining state-wide total catch and angler estimates. The sample was drawn at random from the postal card sample, on a county basis, to assure adequate distribution over the State as a whole. The number of resident anglers to be interviewed in each county was derived from the proportion of corresponding county residents in the total postal card sample. Then, for each county, the interviewees were selected at random from the total postal card sample for that county.

The original list of 1,250 interviewees also included an alternate for each two respondents, as a safety measure. These alternates were also drawn at random, in exactly the same way as the originals. Considerable difficulty was encountered in locating respondents in many instances, but 71.4 percent of all interviewees were nevertheless from the original list, the remainder being alternates. The latter were always selected at ran- dom from the same county as the individual they replaced. Several times, in the ease of very small counties, it was necessary to return to the original postal card sample for a name, but not frequently enough for this to be of any consequence.

In order to permit interviewing assignments of practicable size, 10 small counties were combined with similar neighboring counties. In such cases, the interviews required for the group were all taken from a single representative county.*

Respondents were sent letters of explanation before they were inter- viewed. This usually facilitated the interviews.

The interview questionnaire was drawn up jointly by ORG and the California Division of Fish and Game. Pretesting in Denver and the San Francisco Bay area was followed by an extensive pilot study involving 50 actual trial interviews in and around San Francisco. Results of this pilot study were used to set up the final ballot, a portion of which is illustrated in Figure 70.

Interviewing for the angling survey and a parallel hunting survey was carried on together, although the samples were entirely distinct. The field interviewing staff was built around a nucleus of experienced inter- viewers of the National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago. All interviewers received careful personal training in survey techniques.

Our original plan had been to send postal card questionnaires to all individuals before they were interviewed, in order to obtain the largest possible sample upon which to evaluate nonresponse. HoAvever, ORG feared that receipt of a postal card prior to the interview might have some peculiar influence upon it. Therefore, they insisted that we withhold cards from a third of their respondents, and this was done.

The whole procedure of selecting the personal interview sample was carried on by the Division of Fish and Game. ORG was presented with the names and addresses of 1,250 respondents and 625 alternates, selected in the manner already outlined. They then assumed full responsibility for the remainder of the project and presented us with a completed report

* Groupings were as follows (Interview.^ made in the county in Italics) : Modoc and Las.sen ; tiiskiyou and Trinity ; Yolo, Colusa and Glenn ; El Dorado, Nevada, l^lacer and Alpine ; Calaveras and Amador ; Tuoluvme and Mariposa ; Stajiislaiis and Merced.

212

CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME

DO NOT WRITE IN TH13 SPACE

9X

Survejr ORG »-F Int. No. ' Reap. Na

County of Residence

(»-iO)

ORC 9-F Mirct-ApriL 1«4»

Opinion Research Center

University of Denver

I. How long h*vc you lived in CAltfomia? Less than a year (1948) ...(JJM) 1 1 -3 yeora (194&-47) .. 2 4-6 years (1942-44) .... _ S 7-9 years (1939-41) .. _ ... 4 10 years or more (before 1939).. 6	(READ THIS STATEMENT TO THE RESPONDENT VERBATIM BEFORE ASKING QUESTIONS 4-14): Now (aa our letter said) we are not interested in check- ing up on individual persons. We are just making a sample census to estimate the number and kind of fish caught in California last year. We find it's pretty hard
2. Did you do any fishing in California durini; the peat year — 194S? Yes - 7 No 8 IF "NO." SKIP TO QUESTION 19, PAGE 3.	they went and what luck they had, so maybe that list you have and this map (HAND RESPONDENT MAP) will help you remember about your fishing trips. First, how about: (NAME FIRST KIND OF FISH MEN- TIONED BY RESPONDENT ON QUESTION 3.)
3. Would you look at the kinds of fish listed on this card, and teil me whether or not you caught or Tished for any of these in California during 1D48? (HAND RESPONDENT CARD. CIRCLE AS MANY KINDS OF FISH AS HE MENTIONS.) No, none of them „ _ (ItU) s Steclhead trout _ ..„ _ 1	FOR EACH KIND OF FISH MENTIONED BY RE- SPONDENT ON QUESTION 3, SUBSTITUTING KIND OF FISH FOR THE WORDS (STEELHEAD TROUT). RECORD THE ANSWERS FOR EACH TYPE IN THE PROPER SPACES ON THIS AND THE FOLLOWING TWO PACES. A. On how many different days, including parts of
Other trout 9	days, did you catch or fish for (steelhead trout) in
Salmon (ocean) .. _ 3 Snlmon (riv^r) 4 Stripprf hai« , .._ ^ Black hass H Crappie 7 Sunfish _ . . ..8 Catfish Q RArrnmdn , , H Ahftlnne X	California in 1948? (RECORD EXACT NUMBER OF DAYS.) B. In what counties did you catch or fish for (steel- head trout)? (LIST EACH COUNTY ON A SEPARATE LINE.) C. Did you catch any (steelhead trout) in ( > County? How many? (REPEAT THIS QUES- TION FOR EACH COUNTY FISHED IN.
V
IF RESPONDENT DID NOT CATCH OR FISH FOE ANY OF THE KINDS OF FISH LISTED, SKIP TO QUESTION 10, PAGE 3.	RESPONDENT FISHED CUT CAUGHT NOTH- ING.) This is very important, so take your time and think back.

D 4.

STEELHEAD TROUT

(Over 12 inches) A. Total days caught or fished for:

(13-U)

B. Counties C. No. Caught Fished In In Each Coonty

B. Counties C. No. Caught B. Counties C. No. Caught Fished In In Each County Fished In In Each County

leave bLAt^K:

Total

(15-16)

6. OTHER TROUT A. Total days caught or fished for: (n-l>) _

LEAVE BLiiNE ToUl

{10-2t)

6. SALMON (caught or fish for in the ocean) A. Total days caught or fished for:

(;j-«)

LEAVE BUNTT'

ToUI

(is-se)

Figure 70. Portion of the 1948 personal interview ballot.

containing the information we had specified, plus additional material they thought we might find valuable. We then took over again and carried on the work outlined in the present report. It was frequently necessary for us to return to the original ORC interview reports to make minor adjustments of one sort or another. As a result, some of our figures differ slightly from those listed in the official ORC report.

ANGLING CATCH RECORDS, 1 936- 1 948 213

The projection factor by which ORG figures have been multiplied to

., . . 957,000 ^. , , nnr^n

obtain state-wide estimates is ^ „^ , which equals 7b5.b.

The original plan for evaluating' noiiresponse iiad been to compare the catch-report characteristics of the interviewed aiiR-lers who did and did not return tlieir postal cards. However, as the program developed it became increasingly ajiinirent tli;it this was not the best approacli, because of the small sample sizes involved. Only about 800 interviewees were sent cards. As few as ten percent of them fished for certain important vari- eties, and in all cases except trout the proportion was quite low. Further division into those who did and did not ret urn cards gave samples of the order of 50 or less reports. Tlie imuUniuacy of such small numbers in the present connection will be apparent from the sections which follow.

In order to increase the size of the samples the whole project was reoriented and an alternative approach was taken. The two surveys were ti-eated as independent samples from the same universe,* and were com- pared on that basis. This made it possible to utilize all reports from both surveys, and sample sizes were therefore reasonably large.

Direct comparison of the various paired estimates from the two 1948 surveys can be used etfectively to evaluate the influence of nonresponse upon final postal card estimates. The latter are based on the third of the sample which returned questionnaires, while the corresponding interview estimates are based on a similar, but smaller complete sample of anglers. In all other important respects the two survey samples are comparable, and differences between estimates from them can be attributed mainly to nonresponse.

A large variety of paired estimates from the two surveys are com- pared in the sections which follow. Few statistically significant differ- ances were detected, and it is quite obvious that nonresponse had little influence on the final postal card estimates. Postal card respondents must actually be highly representative of angling licensees generally, at least insofar as ansAvering our questionnaire is concerned.

COMPARISONS OF GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PERSONAL

INTERVIEW RESPONDENTS WHO DID AND DID NOT

RETURN POSTAL CARDS

We were naturally very curious to learn all we could about any basic differences between anglers who return postal cards and those who do not. The best source of information on the subject is a series of comparisons made by ORG of the individuals in their interview sample who received cards, and who were subsequently interviewed.

Some of the more important comparisons of those who did and did not return their cards are outlined in Table 25. They indicate that postal card returns represent a suri)risingly good random sample of Galifornia anglers. There is very little difference between the two groups as regards the general characteristics included in Table 25.

* The small overlap of about 250 individuals who appeared in both surveys is of no serious consequence since it amounted to only about 5 percent of the total postal card returns. It was impractical to separate this component, for a variety of reasons.

214

CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME

TABLE 25

General Comparisons of Licensees in the ORC Interview Sample Who Did and Did Not Return Postal Cards

	Percent of respondents who returned cards	Percent of respondents who did not return cards
TOTAL DAYS FISHED	• (244) 48 25 9 18	* (471)
1- 9 days . ...	52
10-19 days . . -	21
20-29 davs	12
30 or more daj's. . .	15
Totals	100 (245) 15 62 6 10 31 22 19 - 14 29 15 9 41 t	100
KINDS FISHED FOR -...	(473)
Steelhead trout	12
Other trout	46
Salmon (ocean). . ....	3
Salmon (river) .	11
Striped bass	30
Blackbass	24
Crappie . .	19
Sunfish .	13
Catfish	29
Barracuda . .	16
Abalone .. . .	6
Other ocean fish • ...	39
None of them .	2
Totals	273 (253) 32 43 3 12 8 2	250
REGION	(498)
San Francisco Bay region . ..	28
Los Angeles region	39
San Diego region . .	6
Stockton-Bakersficld region . .	15
Sacramento-Redding region .	9
Eureka region. .	3
Totals . -	100 (253) 21 19 14 20 26	100
CITY SIZE .	(498)
Places under 2,500 population	27
Places of 2,500-9,999	17
Places of 10,000-24,999 *	15
Places of 25,000-99,999	16
Places of 100,000 and over	25
Totals	100 (253) 7 6 7 80	100
LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN CALIFORNIA	(497)
Less than 3 years	9
4-6 years .	7
7-9 years . . . .	7
10 years or more .	77
Totals	100 (253) 86 14	100
PREVIOUS LICENSE .Ll..j.Utl.'.	(498)
Had first license before 1948	82
Bought first license in 1948	18
Totals	100 (252) 32 68	100
HUNTING LICENSE	(497)
Had hunting license in 1948 .	36
	64
Totals	100 (252) 14 13 15 20 14 4 5 15	100
OCCUPATION ..	(497)
	7
	13
Clerical, sales workers	10
Craftsmen, foremen (skilled labor) ..	22
Operatives, laborers (unskilled labor) ..	18
Service workers	7
	9
	14
Totals	100	100

ANGLING CATCH RECORDS, 1 936- 1 948

215

TABLE 25 — Continued

General Comparisons of Licensees in the ORG Interview Sample Who Did and Did Not Return Postal Cards

Percent of

respondents

who

returned cards

Percent of resrHinderits who did not return carda

SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS

Upper group

Middle group. -..

Lower group

Totals .^.^_

EDUCATION

Eighth grade or less

High school

College

Totals

SEX

Men

Women

Totals - -..

AGE _

16-29 years

30-39 years

40-49 years

50-59 years

60 years or more

Totals -..

(251) 26 64 10

(492) 21 64 15

100	100
(252)	(499)
20	27
49	63
31	20
100	100
(253)	(498)
83	84
17	16
100	100
(252)	(496)
14	20
34	29
23	26
17	14
12	11

100

100

• Numbers in parentheses in this table represent the number of cases in each group. t Less than 0.5 percent.

COMPARISON OF GENERAL ESTIMATES OF NUMBERS OF ANGLERS

FISHING AND DAYS FISHED

Both surveys indicated that about 95 percent of all licensees went angling. The slight difference between the two was not statistically significant.

Koughly 80 percent of all licensees caught fish of some kind during 1948. The difference between the paired values from the two surveys, shown in Table 26, is quite small. However, it can be considered statisti- cally significant, since it was to be expected on the basis of chance only once in a hundred times. The discrepancy is believed to stem mainly from minor differences in the two questionnaires. The personal interview form had a catch-all question about fishing for marine species and a specific question about abalone. Neither was included on the postal cards. There is therefore a tendency for individuals who caught only marine fish or aba- lone to appear as successful anglers on an interview but as unsuccessful ones on a postal card return. As a matter of fact, the discrepancy would have been even greater had not some postal card respondents noted on their returns that they had caught only ocean fish, even though there was no space for such information. The personal interview estimate of 83.6 percent successful anglers is probably the more reliable of the two, every- thing considered. However, even it excludes licensees who took only clams. Such individuals may be fairly numerous, judging from comments on some of the postal card returns.

216

CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME

TABLE 26 Projected General Angler Totals From the Two Surveys

Numl«r of licensees who fished. Percent of ail licensees

Number of licensees not fishing. Percent of all licensees

Number of successful anglers

Percent of those fishing

Percent of all licensees

Number of unsuccessful anglers.

Percent of those fishing

Percent of all licensees

Total fishing days

Average days for all licensees- Average days for those fishing

Postal

card

survey

905,000 94.6

51.900 5.4

728,000 80.5 76.1

• 176,000 19.5 18.4

13,940,000 14.6 15.4

Personal

interview

survey

912,600 95.4

44,400 4.6

800,800 87.7 83.6

111,800 12.3 11.7

1.5,390,000 16.1 10.9

* Includes the small group (2.1% of the total sample) which caught nothing but failed to state if they fished.

Another type of estimate which is of great interest from a fisheries management standpoint is the total amount of fishing going on during a year. An estimate of 13,940,0U0 days during 1948 was obtained from the postal card survey, and the corresponding ORG figure was 15,390,000 daj's. In terms of the average number of days per angler these represent 15.4 and 16.9 days, respectively. For any practical consideration, the difference is negligible, and it can therefore be concluded that nonresponse had very little influence upon the postal card estimate. It is statistically significant, however, since it was not to be expected by chance oftener than three times out of a hundred. In general, individuals tended to report a little more fully in an interview than on a postal card, which is not surprising. This could readily explain the slight difference noted.

STATISTICAL COMPARISONS AND FIDUCIAL LIMITS OF MEAN

CATCH ESTIMATES

Catches of the eight kinds of fish covered in the 1948 survey have been compared in considerable detail. All the individual catch reports were combined into paired frequency distributions. Four of these are graphed in tlie accompanying figures. All 16 curves were strongly J -shaped.* Zero catches have been omitted throughout, because they are not obtainable from postal card returns.

The general uniformity of the catch reports from the two surveys is actually quite remarkable, everything considered. Postal card non- response apparently produced little or no distortion.

A statistical evaluation of the differences between the pairs of catch frequencies for the eight species has been made and the results are sum- marized in Table 27. None of the differences between the two mean

• statisticians have assured us that, with the sample sizes involved, fiducial limit procedures based on the normal curve are applicable to these data.

AN'OLINQ CATCH RECORDS, 1 936- 1 948

217

3

C Postal Card Survey

9 Personal Interview Survey

o

z <

o cc

30

3 ti. to tn ui o o

tn

20

UI

o

CL

10

^~^~^.-^-

165

185

65 85 105 125 145

INDIVIDUAL TROUT CATCHES Figure 71. Frequencies of trout anglers by number of fish caught.

205

218

CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME

</) ill o u

o

10

O Postal Card Survey

9 Personal Interview Survey

29

V/

II 14 17 20 23 26

INDIVIDUAL STRIPED BASS CATCHES

Figure 72. Frequencies of striped bass anglers by number of fish caught.

0*«r 30

ANGLING CATCH RECORDS, 1 936- 1 948

210

?5 30

< m

o

20

t/5 W Ul

o o

w

u. o

o a:

LlI Q.

10

© Postol Cord Survey

3 Personal Interview Survey

23

-^/-

2 5 & il 14 17 20 ^^ 26

INDIVIDUAL BLACK BASS CATCHES Figure 73. Frequencies of black bass anglers by number of fish caught.

Over 30

220

CALIFORNIA PISH AND GAME

•30

05 U

O

2 <

< CO

LlI

o o

20

li. 10

o

(£

liJ CL

e Postal Card Survey

a Personal Interview Survey

C

3 4

^ ,1 ?. ^4 I-^

i

5 6 7 8 9 10 n 12 r3 T4 15 ' ■ Over 15 INDIVIDUAL SALMON CATCHES Figure 74. Frequencies of salmon anglers by number of flsh caught.

J

AXGLING CATCH RECORDS, 1 936- 1 948

221

LI

-J OQ <

10 >»

o >

I. 3 (0

o

H «

■a

c o

3

i "

c O

0) 1.

c-N

!. a>

. -5

3

Oi o

(. o

(8

Q

(0

>»

1. a

E

E

3

(0

	-r •?•	ss	'ifCQ	00 1^	r^ en	(M --	00	0
09	?D e^			CO CO	CO r--		X
tC •-<	rr CO	»o<o				OC •— t
•T3						^ CI	^- CI
3					CO ro		<i_6
t							c» ^
«
OQ
	0*0	00	Olio	« CO	OCOl	^ 00	»00	0
	C^ t'-	M3CO			OiO	COC^		X
	co		-r 'o				»0 CI
C3					4C ^-	0 ^
C a;					"^		CO ds
						-r --r
	« OJ	88	t-GO	•raui	»o —	— »o	or-	0
	05 oc			co^	»' 0		>5
	0 c«	cn 00	C 05				-r OS
IS			CO CO		kOOO	^ »o	32
S3							r^ a>
0							C4C1
	OC CO	iS	o-^	00	OeO	»oo	^C^	0
	0 CO		CM(M	CO(M		>?;
		0 CO	— rf				cC-f
			T}1 Tf		r- GO CO to	C4»0	^%
a							kO -r
9							COCO
O)
	»c t^	0 0	00 CI	w »o	0	Oi —	CO —	0
	C5CO	u-j 0			OCO	<M UO		S5
	COCSI	coc«	eor^				COCI
4)			M c^		rr 00	^M	CI op coeo
a					coco
ta							^Cl
6							MCI
	« 00	»o 0	t-tO	coco	■^ -^	cD-r	cor^	0
%	t-- 00	CO 0			10 TT	OS «-•		z
r- I— <	WM	■^ira				cOO>
					CDOi	oca
^					C*<M		00 Urf
0							C^ —
9j
— M
m
	t-^ -^	CO 0	CO !-*■	10 U3	co-^	(MOO	co-^^	0
-0	eocsi	t- CO			ot-	10 CO		z
05M		oci				1-. urs
				coo	0 ^
				--< w		CO 0
S.							oio
ki
■kj
m
	CO »o	0^	too	00	— 0	«>:::;	CO 10	0
	c^ c^	M -^		M c^	•rt" -—	Tf GO		^;
	■^ lO	Ci CO	-f GO				I--10
	M		TT -^		t^oo	»-«CO	rrup h-»o
						■^ 0
H							T ■^
									0
									z
	-c	0	T30	■aa	■s«-	-a {J	-^CJ	"S*^
	53 cd	^0:^	Srt	Sei	Se:5	fetf	Srt
	OC	00	00	OC	00	OC	00
									»>
	T3
								a
							"§	2
							^	a
	.£						£S	0
	n						fcO	■*:>
	•s						a;	0
	0						J3	^
	a						■kj	^
	CO						«	e
	0						C3	a>
	«*-						eg	S
	2					c	a	1
	0 c.				c	2 a	a	c
			u		0			V
	J3 0		s		.2	0	0 «0
	0)	0	^ 1 «•	1	> 1 •0	0 1		c 93
	•2	i	e	rt	"C	tc
	i	J ^			1	!/3	CO	3	1 in

222

CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME

annual catch estimates for anj'^ species is statistically significant. The other material in Table 27 is primarily for reference purposes.

A matter of considerable basic interest in dealin^r with surveys of this sort is the statistical reliability of the various estimates obtained. In the cases of these mean catches it is a simple matter to derive a standard error (Waugh, 1943, p. 235). This figure indicates the range over which such a mean can be expected to vary as a result of chance differences in sampling. To illustrate with an example, the mean trout catch from the cards was 44.5 trout. Its standard error was 1.43 trout. Nineteen times out of twenty such a mean should fall within a range extending roughly two standard errors either way from the actual value obtained. Expressed differently, if 20 similar postal card surveys had been made, VJ of the 20 mean trout catch figures obtained could reasonably have been expected to fall between 41.7 and 47.3. These latter figures represent the so-called fiducial limits, in this instance at the 5 percent level. Figure 75 is intended to clarify this concept further. It also provides a simple, graphic picture of the whole array of 16 mean catch figures obtained from the two 1948 surveys. The bars with solid, black bases represent the postal card mean catches. Those wdth hatched bases represent the corresponding ORG figures. There is a pair of such bars for each species. The broken line across the center of the stippled part of each bar is the actual mean obtained. The stippled section is bounded by the fiducial limits of this mean. In effect, the stippled section indicates the range of values over which the actual mean might very well have occurred as a result of chance differences in sampling.

Figure 75 illustrates our statement that the differences between the various pairs of means are not significant. This is suggested at once from the fact that the stippled sections of corresponding bars overlap con- sistently. The relatively shorter length of the stippled sections of the postal card bars is an expression of the larger sample sizes involved.

Before leaving the subject of mean catches, let us examine briefly a similar comparison of the mean catches of actual ORG respondents who did and did not return postal cards. The pertinent data are outlined in Table 28. It is obvious at a glance that the differences between these

TABLE 28

Comparison of Catch Characteristics of ORC Respondents Who Did and

Did Not Return Postal Cards

		Trout	Black bass	Crappie	Sunfish	Catfish	Barracuda
Number of catch reports . .	Did Did not.. Did Did not..	124 105 38.7 30.4 87.1 7.7 6.8 No	43 74 14.5 9.5 29.4 4.4 3.5 No	3S 79 28.5 20.7 38.6 6.3 4.4 No	28 53 47.8 31.6 58.3 11.2 8.1 No	61 115 41.1 26.8 85.4 10.9 8.0 No	25
Mean catch	59 11.4
Standard deviation * . ,	12.0 31.4
Standard error of the mean Significant difference?	Did Did not..	6.4 4.1 No

* ORC standard deviations from the preceding table were used.

ANGLING CATCH RECORDS, I 936- 1 948

223

Figure 75.

30 40 50

Number of Fish

Comparison of tnuan catches from the two 1948 surveys.

224 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME

means arc not significant. They were nevertheless tested, to remove any possible doubt. Striped bass and salmon are not included in this compari- son, because certain peculiarities of the ORC sample made direct com- parison impossible -without an excessive amount of hand-tabulating.

It is apparent that nonresponse had little or no effect on the 1948 postal card mean catch estimates.

STATISTICAL COMPARISONS AND FIDUCIAL LIMITS OF PERCENTAGES OF LICENSEES ANGLING FOR VARIOUS FISH

Estimates of percentages of licensees angling for various fish require a different statistical treatment than the mean catches compared in the preceding section. The trout estimates will serve to illustrate the method used in com]>ariug such estimates from the two surveys. Of the 5,751 postal card rcspoiulcnts, 4.3. .'5 percent reported catches of trout.* Assum- ing accurate reports and a random sample, the numbers involved are large enough to give this figure high reliability. It is a relatively simple matter to calculate its standard error, t which can, then, in turn be used to determine fiducial limits. Thus, the standard error of the postal card figure of 43.3 percent successful trout anglers is found to be 0.65 per- cent. The corresponding fiducial limits within which this percentage should fall 19 times of of 20 are 42.0 percent and 44.6 percent. Cor- responding ORC figures are 42.0 percent for the estimate and 39.3 per- cent to 44.7 percent for its fiducial limits. The difference of 1.3 percent between the two trout estimates is not statistically significant.

The paired percentages from the two survej^s of successful anglers fishing for all eight kinds of fish are outlined in Table 29 and graphed in Figure 76. Much the same general situation exists as was noted in the preceding comparison of mean catches. The difference was not statis- tically significant in six of the eight cases. In two instances it was significant, although small. One of these was catfish, for which the differ- ence was 4 percent, which is actually negligible for all practical pur- poses. It could very well have arisen from a greater tendency to forget or ignore these relatively vinprized fish on postal card reports than in a personal interview. The other discrepancy occurred in the crappie figures, M'liich revealed about the same degree of difference.

Everything considered, these two discrepancies need give no cause for concern, particularity since one significant difference could reason- ably have been expected on the basis of chance in a group as large as the 16 pairs which have been considered in this and the preceding section. The close agreement between estimates for the more important species^ such as trout, striped bass, and black bass, was very gratifying. Taken as a group, these comparisons indicate tliat postal card nonresponse can be ignored in this connection also.

* It is necessary to use only successful anglers in these comparisons because unsec- cessful ones cannot be estimated from the postal cards.

t SE=-\/iQ, in which N is the total number of anglers in the sample, P is the number who caught a given kind of fish, and Q is N minus P.

AXGLING CATCH RECORDS, 1 936- 1 948

225

			CC CO	QC 1-	05 lO CO oc.	COCO	0
		A	*o •-•	ad		O-M
		■0			o'o
		3				0 J«
		eo				a>o>
		i
		pa
		o>o	cc 0	CO CO	-«rCM	0
			0 1-		CO to		'A
			CO	0 =0		t* t^
		a			CO	_
		0				01 CO
					«^
		CO
			^ «o	0 00	Cl C5	c 0	«
			OS 00		U5-.	CI •
			OC)	C1C<I			t^
		-C		^C^I	d"
						CD
	C	zi 0				^
	Ir
	■0
	iZ		CC CD	CO Oi	CO u^	cvj cc	c
		0 CO		TT C30		z;
			r^ ^H	c^d		CO CM
	M	J3			do
	_»					-r«N
	Q. E a					-* 05
	to 0
		»oo	-HO	CO "^	030	S
		CsO		-TO		0
	5	0^	«oc^	C« CO	d— '	CMCC	>-«
	H					CO 0
	•	r^				t— t rH
	ix	0
	(0
	.EiZ
			CJOO	■fl.O	•o--;	COO	0
	£ »)	s	t^ou		•-f 0		z
	r*«	CO «:>		^ t-
	^§	J			d —	J, 2
	oj-r	-^				C^CO
a>	<>	^
CJ	5
LU	'^S
_1		r^ -n*	00 en	000	000	0
CO	centages ssfiilly f	1	W.P,	or^	U50	t-^d	2^
<	"O			d-H	T '^t
00 00
•1				ITS 10
	M
	I. 4> <u 0
	0. 2		co»o	eoo	•c 0	CD(^	0
		Cl CM		tc -r		Z
	^		•^ui	CO 03		-r -}<
	'*- 07	-*^	CM	■^ ■<»'	d —	^T
	0	3 0				oco
	c	; E^				•a-co
	0
	M
	a.	t
		;
	£		;
	0		1
	U		• ' •*-
			"3 0	■da	■^0	-ad
	"(5		«crf	ati	-SPJ	!9«
		oc	OC	OC	00
	Ifl		1
	'^		1
	(S (0		;						i-id
		e^'	lOin
		,					5	t-M
			1	a				0	II II
			1 1	B			1	II II
				es				'^^'-N
			;	03	■S		55
				03
		1		0 0	0 P.	s	1 5
			c n	*j		^	S	££
			0 3	i"	0	« 2	1	■M ♦J
		0 0
			to	s 0	s	■|	T3	eri
			0	■a	'^	-^	a	» -1-
			M	a	1	13 ■3	2
			a		I	1	a	1

226

CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME

1

V

'Ai^

Postal Card Survey

Personal Interview Survey

Fiducial Limits

I Survey Estimate

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Percent of all Anglers Catching Indicated Kind of Fish

50

FiGURE 76. Comparison of percentages of anglers in the two samples fishing

successfully for various fish.

ANGLING CATCH RECORDS, 1 936- 1 948 227

STATISTICAL COMPARISONS AND FIDUCIAL LIMITS OF TOTAL CATCH ESTIMATES

In effect, total catch estimates from postal cards surveys are prod- ucts of a mean catch estimate and an estimate of the number of anj^lers who caught the fish in question. To illustrate with an example, the 1948 survey indicated that 43.3 percent of all anglin*]f licensees were success- ful trout anglers with an average catch of 44.5 trout. In other words, 41 ;'),()()() anglers averaged 44.5 trout for a total state-wide catch of 18,400,000.

Standard errors and fiducial limits of mean catches and numbers of anglers have been discussed in the preceding sections. The same concepts are, of course, applicable to their products, but the statistics are some- what more complicated. We are indebted to Mr. Terry Jeeves of the Statistical I^aboratory of the University of California at Berkely and to Mr. Austin A. Ilasel of the U. S. Forest Service for locating a suitable method for dealing with this problem (Aroian, 1947; Craig, 1936 ; Schu- macher and Chapman, 1948).

If X and Y are normally distributed random variables with means mz and m^, respectively, and variances o-x and o-y, respectively, and they are uncorrelated, then the product Z=XY has mean

and variance

mz=mxmy

The standard error of the mean is, of course, simply the square root of this variance. This formula has been app'lied to our data with the results outlined in Table 30, which shows the total catch figure for each species from both surveys, together with the corresponding standard

TABLE 30 Statistical Comparison of Total Catch Estimates From the 1948 Surveys

		Total catch	Standard error	Fiducial limits	Difference in total catch estimates	Statistically significant difference
Trout	Card ORC Card ORC Card ORC Card. ORC _ Card _ ORC Card _ ORC Card ORC Card ORC	18,400,000 19,400,000 1,650,000 2,160,000 1,890,000 2,250,000 2,760,000 4,160,000 4,820,000 4,625,000 5,560,000 8,719,000 321,000 395,000 1,440.000 1,900,000	635,000 1,660,000 97,000 270,000 138,000 342,000 178,000 470,000 344,000 631,000 347,000 1,190,000 25,400 82,800 137,000 307,000	17,200,000-19,600,000 16,100,000-22,600,000 1,460,000- 1,840,000 1,630,000- 2,690,000 1,620,000- 2,160,000 1,580,000- 2,920,000 2,410,000- 3,110,000 3,240,000- 5,080,000 4,145,000- ^,500,000 3,390,000- 5,865,000 4,880.000- 0,240,000 6,390,000-11,049,000 271,000- 371,000 233,000- 557,000 1,170,000- 1,710,000 1,300,000- 2,500,000	1,000,000 510,000 360,000 1,400,000 195,000 3,159,000 74,000 460,000
Striped baas	Xo
	No
	No
	Yes
Catfish...	No
Salmnn	Yes
Barracuda	No
	No

228

CALirORXIA FISH AXD GAME

errors and fiducial limits. The difference between the paired total catch estimates from the two surveys was not statistical)}' sifrnificant in six cases. It was significant in the case of crappie and catfish, which is not surprising:, in vicAv of the significant difference in the estimated numbers of anglers for these species, already discussed. Again, it is quite obvious that nonresponse had little effect upon these total catch figures.

The value of these standard error determinations is considerable. In the future they will enable us to compare survey results obtained in different years more critically and to determine whether or not the dif- ferences Avhich occur from year to year can be attributed to sampling errors.

COMPARISON OF NUMBERS OF ANGLERS FISHING FOR TROUT IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF CALIFORNIA

Knowledge (jf the geographical distribution of trout fishing effort in California is important in connection with stocking policies and other phases of trout management. It is therefore desirable to know what influence, if any, nonresponse has upon postal card estimates of the regional distributio)i of trout angling, and a comparison of the two surveys is of interest in this connection.

Very small totals result when the 525 ORG respondents who caught trout are subdivided according to the counties in which they caught trout. The 58 California counties were therefore combined into eight larger areas to increase samples to a reasonable size. Areas used were the eight fresh-water fisheries management districts of the State, detailed in Appendix 1. A Chi-square test (Edwards, 1946, p. 250) was made of the hypothesis that the relative numbers of trout anglers in the two surveys who fished in the various districts represented two random samples from the same universe. Chi-square was found to be 11.45 which was not statistically significant for seven degrees of freedom. Differences as great as those obtained, shown in Table 31, were to be expected by chance oftener than once in 20 times. Nonresponse therefore did not significantly alter the general picture of regional fishing pressures upon trout obtained from the postal cards.

TABLE 31 Numbers of Anglers Catching Trout In Eight Management Districts

Management district	Postal card'survey	Personal interview survey
Number	Percent	Number	Percent
1. Mt. Shasta	223 301 440 60 414 412 515 503	7.8 10.5 15.3 2.1 14.4 14.3 17.9 17.5	56 70 105 17 104 104 84 114	8.6
2. .Mt. Lassen	10.7
3. Tahoe	16.1
4. Central	2.6
5. Coast	15.9
6. San Joaquin	15.9
7. Mt. Whitney	12.9
8. Southern . . .......	17.4
Totals	• 2,868		•654

• Thi.'' exceeds the actual number of successful trout anglers because some fished in more than one district

ANGLING CATCH RECORDS, 1 936- 1 948

229

COMPARISON OF TROUT ANGLER MIGRATION PATTERNS

The Division of Fish jiiid ( Jaiiic <ittc'iii])ts to allot oxpensive hatcliory- n-Hrecl trout to (lill'erciit sections of the State in such a way so as to pro- vide an equitable distribution of tliese fislt anionj? the general anj^ling l)ublic. Information about trout angler migrations obtained from the ]jostal card surveys helps niak'e this possible. It is ther<'l'oro important to know how much distortion nonresponse introduces into the i)atterns of angler migration revealed by the postal card surveys. A detailed com- parison of the trout angler migrations revealed by the two 1948 surveys luis been made. The fishing and residence areas used were the ones already referred to and outlined in the appendix. The 48 paired esti- mates of the numbers of anglers who lived in a given residence area and caught trout in a given management district have been plotted in the form of a seattergram in Figure 77. A few items near the origin have been omitted. The agreement is close. The correlatioji coefficient is 0.98. The equation for the least squares regression line (Waugh, 1943, p. 385), shown in the figure, is :

Y = 1.05 + 0.2105X.

Interestingly enough, the figure of 0.2105, which is the slope of this line,

, , T . ,1 .• number of interviewees

corresponds closely to the ratio -, ; -~: , ;

number oi postal card respondents,

which is 0.217. It will also be noted that the origin is very close to zero.

The implication is that the paired numbers in the various categories

are simply proportional to the parent sample sizes involved. Nonre-

200 300 400 500

NUMBER OF POSTAL CARD RESPONDENTS Figure 77. Seattergram of paired trout-angler migrations revealed by the two surveys.

230 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME

sponse cannot have introduced anj' appreciable distortion into the postal card estimates, since they agree so closely with those from the ORG survey.

THE VALIDITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL POSTAL CARD REPORTS

The 1948 survey had the primary objective of evaluating non- response. It accomplished this very well, and we can now feel safe in assuming that this factor has little influence on postal card estimates. The second possible major source of error in these surveys is the ques- tionable accuracy of the individual reports. It is another problem entirely, and one which is less readily attacked. A limited amount of information about it was obtained as a by-product of the 1948 survey, but before taking it up it will be well to discuss certain rather general aspects of the problem.

One fairly obvious way to evaluate the accuracy of angler reports as a group is to equate a postal card estimate to a comparable figure of known accuracy from another source. In the case of angling, this is usually easier said than done. It can be more readily accomplished in the case of hunting, and some valuable comparisons of pheasant kills on heavily controlled areas with comparable estimates for the same areas derived from postal cards have recently been made in California. These will be discussed by H. Hjersman in a later report.

Another approach to the problem would be to obtain accurate records for a random sample of licensees, without their knowledge, and to com- pare them with the reports that these same individuals made in the usual way at the end of the year. Valuable as this would be, it seems improbable that a state agency such as the Division of Fish and Game would be able to undertake such a project, and we shall probaBly have to concentrate our attention on the other approach.

A serious attempt was made in connection with the 1948 angling survey to equate the postal card barracuda catch estimate with a com- parable figure obtained by the Bureau of Marine Fisheries from their party boat record program, with interesting results. We are indebted to Mr. Robert Gollyer for the final figure of 413,000 sport-caught barra- cuda taken in Southern California in 1948. He estimates that it repre- sents from 50 percent to 80 percent of the actual total California sport catch. Assuming it was 50 percent, the total catch would become 826,000. Our postal card estimate was 1,440,000 with a standard error of 137,000 and a lower fiducial limit of 1,170,000. This brings the two barracuda figures quite close together, everything considered. It would actually be unreasonable to expect complete accuracy from a postal card survey. Similar comparisons in California and elsewhere involving ducks and pheasants suggest that there may be a general tendency for postal card estimates for these birds to be about double the true figure, although it would be premature to draw final conclusions. In general, fish catches are scattered over longer seasons than game kills, and they usually involve animals which are less of a prize individually than, let us say, a pheasant. It is therefore not improbable that a general tendency on the part of an angler to forget a portion of the fish he caught during a year would tend to counterbalance a normal human tendency to exaggerate angling success. Nonreporting by children under license age would act in the same direction. Barracuda, being a rather large and impressive

ANGLING CATCH RECORDS, 1 936- 1 948

231

fish, could reasonably be expected to be intermediate between fish such as trout and game such as pheasants. The degree of exaggeration of the postal card figure for barracuda in 1948, compared with the partj^ boat figure, suggests that this may indeed be the case.

The 1948 survey also i)r()vided some interesting information about the ability of individual anglers to remember their catches. It was pos- sible to compare a sizable number of double reports from the same indi- viduals made on separate occasions a few weeks apart. It will be recalled that two-thirds of the anglers who were interviewed in 1948 received postal card figure for barracuda in lf)48, compared with the party boat general, there was reasonably good correlation between the two reports for the same individual, although it was less than had been anticipated and there were some surprising discrepancies. The correlation coefficients for the eight kinds of fish are outlined in Table 32, and the trout reports are shown in the scattergram in Figure 78, which has been included to

TABLE 32 Comparison of Double Reports by the Same Individual on Two Occasions

	Number of double reports	Mean catch from first reports on postal cards	Mean catch from .=econd reports on personal interview	CoefBcient of correlation
Trout	128 46 46 41 38 64 18 26	41.9 11.6 9.1 15.0 20.3 28.2 3.3 12.5	52.4 10.9 12.2 26.6 39.6 43.0 4.7 14.3	0.86
Striped bass .__.__	0.82
Black bass	0.83
Crappie Sunfish - - _ -	0.91 0.40
Catfish	0.93
Salmon	0.98
Barracuda	0.75

serve as an example. In spite of a tendency for the number of fish reported to differ somewhat on the two reports, there was nevertheless no con- sistent bias of any importance one way or the other, and the mean catches of the two series of reports tended to be fairly close. The different fish gave quite dissimilar results, with a near-perfect correlation for salmon and almost no correlation for sunfish. Others were intermediate. The intrinsic value of the individual fish is obviously an important factor in this connection, which is not too surprising. The further fact that many individuals confuse sunfish with other fish should be kept in mind. In certain cases it appeared that sunfish were reported as such on one report and as something entirely different on another. Another reason for part of the lack of correlation between these paired reports appears to have been a tendency for certain husbands who caught a lot of fish to fill in the postal cards mailed to their wives, who caught few. The interviewer would then obtain an entirely different set of figures from the wife. This factor cannot be evaluated accurately, but it undoubted!}- had its effect in reducing correlations. It would, of course, also tend toward exaggera- tion of postal card estimates.

The whole matter of the validity of the individual catch reports requires a great deal more attention. Now that the factor of nonresponse has been taken care of, it will be possible to concentrate efforts on this second problem.

232 CALIFORNIA FISH AND OAME

100 150

NUMBER OF TROUT ON CARD

Figure 78. Scattergram of trout catches reported by the same individuals at

different times.

SUMMARY

California angling catch records have been obtained from state- wide postal card surveys since 1936. They provide annual estimates of total catches, average catches, and numbers of anglers fishing for the important fresh-water and anadromous fishes. These estimates are outlined in detail in a series of tables and charts in Part I. The county distribution of 1948 catches is also described. Standard errors and fiducial limits of the three main types of estimates obtained from the surveys are discussed in Part II.

Over-all angling pressure in California has increased fivefold since 1935. Marked increases in angling have occurred for each of the fishes covered in the surveys. The average annual catch has declined appreci- ably for all but sunfish. In most cases the total annual catch has increased somewhat during this period of rapidly increasing angling pressure.

A special personal interview survey was conducted in 1948 to evalu- ate the influence of postal card nonresponse upon postal card survey esti- mates. No important warping of the estimates of mean catches, numbers

ANGLING CATCH RECORDS, 1 936- 1 948 233

of anpflers, and total catolies was dotectablo. Noiiresponse is not an impor- tant source of error in tliese California angling catch estimates. Tt was also found to produce little or no distortion in the general picture of trout angler migrations revealed by the postal card surveys.

REFERENCES Aroian, L. A.

1947. The probability function of the product of two noniially distributed variables. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, vol. IS, pp. 2Gr(-271.

Calhoun, A. J.

1949. California striped bass catch records from the party boat fishery : 1038-1948. California Fish and Game, vol. 'd'i, pp. 21 1-25:5.

Craig, Cecil C.

1986. On the frequency function of XY. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, vol. 7, pp. 1-15.

Curtis, Brian

1940. Anglers' catch records in California. Transactions of the American Fisheries

Society, 1939, pp. 125-131. 1949. The warm-water game fishes of California. California Fish and Game, vol. 35, pp. 2.55-273.

Edwards, Allen L.

1946. Statistical analysis for students in psychology and education. Rinehart and Co., 3G0 pp.

Fry, Donald H., Jr.

i949. Salmon. In The commercial fish catch of California for the year 1947 with an historical review 1916-1947. California Division of Fish and Game, Fish Bulletin 74, pp. 37-49.

Hunter, ,T. S. and Donald H. Fry, .Tr.

1940. ProKress report on game kill statistics. California Fish and (4ame, vol. 26, pp. 301-333.

1941. Trends in California's game kill 19.35-1938. California Fish and Game, vol. 27, pp. 13-28.

Schumacher, F. X. and R. A. Chapman

1948. Sampling methods in forestry and range management. Duke University, School of Forestry, Bulletin 7, 213 pp.

AVangh, Albert E.

1943. Elements of statistical method. McGraw Hill, 532 pp.

	APPENDIX I
COUNTIES	IN THE	MANAGEMENT DISTRICT*
District 1		9	El Dorado
25 Modoc		29	Nevada
45 Shasta (in part) t		31	Placer
47 Siskiyou		46	Sierra
53 Trinity		55	Tuolumne
District 2		District 4
4 Butte		6	Colusa
11 Glenn		7	Contra Costa
18 Lassen		24	Merced
32 Plumas		34	Sacramento
45 Shasta (in part) t		38	San Francisco
52 Tehama		39	San .Joaquin
		48	Solano
District 3		50	Stanislaus
2 Alpine		51	Sutter
3 Amador		57	Yolo
5 Calaveras		58	Y'uba

• Except Shasta County, catches from all counties falling in two districts have been thrown into the district in which the trout were most apt to have been caught. In most cases the resulting discrepancy will be negligible.

t Half of the Shasta County catch was included in District 1 and half in District 2, in all break-downs and total^

234

CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME

District 5

1 8 12 17 21 23 27 28 35 41 43 44 49

Alameda

Del Norte

Humboldt

Lake

Marin

Mendocino

Monterey

Napa

San Benito

San ISIateo

Santa Clara

Santa Cruz

Sonoma

District 6 10 Fresno

15 IG

Kern Kings

20	Madera
22	M.iriposa
54	Tulare
District 7
14	Inyo
20	Mono
District 8
13	Imperial
19	Los Angeles
30	Orange
33	Riverside
36	San Bernardino
37	San Diego
40	San Luis Obispo
42	Santa Barbara
56	Ventura

APPENDIX II

COUNTIES IN THE RESIDENCE AREAS

Southern California

13	Imperial
19	Los Angeles
30	Orange
33	Riverside
36	San Bernardino
37	San Diego
40	San Luis Obispo
42	Santa Barbara
56	Ventura
San Francisco
1	Alauu'da
7	Contra Costa
21	Marin
28	Napa
38	San Francisco
41	San Mateo
43	Santa Clara
44	Santa Cruz
48	Solano
49	Sonoma
Sacramento
4	lUitte
0	Colusa
9	El Dorado
11	Glenn
17	Lake
29	Nevada
31	Placer
34	Sacramento
46	Sierra
51	Sutter
57	Yolo
58	Yuba

South Central California
10	Fresno
14	Inyo
15	Kern
16	Kings
20	Madera
26	Mono
27	Monterey
35	San Benito
54	Tulare
San Joaquin
2	Alpine
3	Amador
5	Calaveras
22	Mariposa
24	Merced
39	San .loaguin
50	Stanislaus
55	Tuolumne
Northern California
18	Lassen
25	Modoc
32	Plumas
45	Shasta
47	Siskiyou
52	Tehama
53	Trinity
8	Del Norte
12	Humboldt
2:5	Mendocino

i

FOOD HABITS OF A CALIFORNIA DEER HERD -

By Carol M. Ferrel and Howard R. Leach

Bureau of Came Ccmservation California Division of Fish and Game

INTRODUCTION

The migratory herd of luule deer (Odocoileus hemionns calif ornicus) occupying the winter deer range along the west slope of the Sierra Nevada in Tuolumne County between elevations of 1,500 and 4,000 feet is com- monly known as the Jawbone deer herd. During the summer months, this herd of deer moves into a much larger summer range area extending from the 4,000-foot elevation upward to the Sierran crest at elevations of 10,000 feet.

The Jawbone deer herd is thus typical of the several deer herds which occupy the west slopes of the Sierra, having seasonal altitudinal migrations and highly restricted winter ranges with summer ranges sev- eral times the area of this critical winter range. With deer numbers exceeding the carrying capacity on many deer ranges in California, espe- cialh' during the critical winter months, the character and abundance of their food supply becomes of increasing importance in the successful management of both the deer and the range which must support them.

The data presented here represent the results of analyses of stomach samples taken from a total of 40 deer. Twenty-four deer were taken from the winter range (November-May) and 16 from the summer range (June- October) during the years 1947 to 1949 inclusive. Collections from every month of the year are represented in the material examined.

METHODS

Stomach samples were taken from deer which were collected by shoot- ing under permit granted by the California Fish and Game Commission. These were supplemented by stomach samples collected by hunters during the regular open deer season. Stomach samples were wrapped in cheese- cloth and preserved in 5 percent formaldehyde solution and taken to the laboratory for analysis. In the food habits laboratory the material was washed and analyzed Avhile wet. The aggregate percentage method (ilar- tin, A. C, R. H. Gensch and C. P. Brown, 1946) was used in summarizing results. Identifications were made macroscopically or with the aid of a dissecting microscope. Comparison with identified field collections of deer food plants from the area under study resulted in positive identification of virtuallv all of the food items encountered.

* Funds for this work were provided by federal aid In Wildlife Restoration Act Project California 25R. Cooperation and assistance was received from Projects Cali- fornia 28R and 35R. Submitted for publication March 1950.

(235)

236

CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME

Principal Foods in tlie Diet of the Jawbone Deer on theii Winter Kange

Food Items

0 I

20

I

Mountain Misery

(Chamaebatia foliolosa)

Oaks

*(Ouercus spp. )

ii.n

n

Ruck- brush '

((eanothus cuneatus) [|

12. 2S

Manzanita ^^■]1.2'%

(Arcloslaphylos spp.) [

Grass

(Gramineae)

0.1%

Christmas Rerry iB '.OX

(I'hotinia arbutifolia) |

D21%

Stone- crop B 3. 1%

(Sedum spathulifolium) l~l i%

Incense Cedar

(Libocedrus decurrens)

Willow

(Salix spp. )

3.0%

|1-

8%

Miscellaneous Food Ttems il'l^

Forbs unidentified 1 1-3%

I

Browse unidentified I 1.2%

* Oak unidentified 6.7% and 63% (Q. rhrysolepis) 4.6% and 13% (U. kelloggii) 3.0% and 38%

Per cent

40 I

37.3%

38%

38%

60

80 I

75%

63%

36 3%

67%

58%

100 I

Il92%

im - Volume Per cent

I I - Frequency of Occurrence

Figure 79

J

FOOD HABITS OF A CALIFORNIA DEER HERD

237

Principal Food Items in the Diet of the Jawbone Deer on their

Summer Ran^e

rood I terns

Snov- brush

(Ceanothus cordulatus)

Rlack Oak

((Juercus kelloggii)

Deer Brush

(Ceanothus integerrimus)

Maul Oak

(Ouercus chrysolepis)

Mountain Misery

(Chamaebatia foliolosa)

Forbs unidentified

Aspen

(Populus tremuloides)

Gooseberry (Ribes spp. )

Poplar

(Populus sp. )

Vtillow

(Salix sp.)

Miscellaneous Food Items

Lupine

(Lupinus sp. )

Trefoil

(Lotus spp. )

20

I

Per Cent

40 60 80

31.4%

16.1%

I 25%

13.2%

3 38%

12.5^;

2r,

3 25%

.6^r

I 3.39.

U 13%

E 2.5%

I 2.2%

13%

I 1.8% I I 6%

I 1.8%

I 1.2%

H n%

I 1.2%

j I 13%

38%

J on

'3%

100 I

91%

im - Volume Per cent

I I : Frequency of Occurence

Figure 80

238 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME

RESULTS

Followinp- completion of the analj^ses of individual stomachs the data were snmma]'i;^od 1 y sej^regating samples taken from the winter range and tlie summer range. In Figure 79 are shown the percentages both by volume and by frequency of occurrence of the principal food items (over 1 percent by volume) eaten on the winter range.

It will be noted that browse species made up over 89 percent of the total volume of food taken on the winter range. The most important single item in the diet was mountain misery (Chamaehatia foliolosa) which composed 37.3 percent of the food by volume and occurred in 75 percent of the stomachs. The oaks {Qucrcus spp.) were next in importance making up 14.3 percent by volume of the total winter diet and occurring in 63 percent of the stomachs. Acorns as well as leafage are included in this total. Both fresh and dry leaves of oaks occurred in the stomachs. Buck-brush (Ccanothns cuncatus) ranked third in importance forming 12.2 percent by volume and occurred in 63 percent of the samples anah'zed from the winter range. Manzanita {Arctostapliylos spp.) is abundant on the winter range and made up 11.2 percent of the total food eaten, being taken by 65 percent of the deer.

Grass (Gramineae) made up 9.1 percent of the winter diet in volume and occurred in 92 percent of the stomachs. The heaviest utilization of grass occurred on succulent young growi;h following fall and winter rains.

It seems of interest to note that almost half (48.5 percent) of the diet of the Jawbone deer herd during the winter was made up of two species of plants (mountain misery and manzanita) neither of w^hich has usually been considered to be important deer food plants by most range technicians. The basic reasons for this apparent extensive utili- zation of these two plants by deer are not evident simply from identi- fication of food occurring in stomach samples. It is suggested that field and laboratory studies of range condition, availability and palatability may be necessary to provide an explanation.

Those food items amounting to less than one percent of the total diet on the winter range are shown in Table 1.

The food taken by deer of the Jawbone herd on the summer range is shown in Figure 80 both by volume percent and frequency of occur- rence of the items amounting to over 1 percent volume.

During the summer period browse amounted to over 90 percent of the total diet. The two species of Ceanothns, snow-brush (C cordulatus) and deer brush (C. integerrimus) formed 44.6 percent of the food eaten on the summer range. Second in importance Avere the oaks {Quercus kelloggii and Quercus chrysolepis) comprising 28.6 percent of the diet. Mountain misery {Chamaehatia foliolosa) was not as heavily utilized on the summer range as on the winter range. It occurred in 25 percent of the stomachs and composed 7.2 percent of the diet by volume.

Grass and manzanita {Arctustapliylus spp.) which were important in the winter diet occurred frequently in the summer diet but the aggregate volume of each was less than 1 percent.

The miscellaneous food items (less than 1 percent "by volume) are shown in Table 2,

FOOD HABITS OF A CALIFORNIA DEER HERD

239

TABLE 1 Miscellaneous Food Items Eaten by 24 Deer on the Winter Range

Scientific name

Common name

Frequency

of occurrence

in percent

Funni -

Lichen —

Bryophyta .._ —

Dryopteris arguta

PitjTOKraninia triangularia

Polyslichum munitum

Polypodiaceae

Pinus spp

Abies concolor -

Liliaccae

Ruracx acctosella

Montia sp —

UmbcUularia californica..

Cercocarpus bctuloides

Adenostema fasciculatum.

Rosaceae

Cercis occidcntalis

Lupinus sp

Medicaso saliva

MedinaKO sp

Trifolium sp

Lotus sp

Erodium sp

Aesculus californica

Rhamnus californica

Ccanothus integerrimus... Eriodietvoii californicum.. Compositae

Funitus

Lichen

Moss

Wood-fern

Gold-fern

Sword-fern

Fern family

Pine

White fir

Lily family

Sheep sorrel

Indian lettuce,.

California laurel

Mountain mahogany

Chaniise

Rose family

Western red-bud

Lupine

Alfalfa (trap bait)

Bur Clover

Clovers

Trefoil

Filaree

Buckeye (fruit fragments)

Coffee berry

Deer-brush

Yerba santa

Compositae flowers

13 13 8 4 4 4

17 46 4 4 4 4 4 17 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 8 4

TABLE 2

Miscellaneous Food Items Eaten by 16 Deer on the Summer Range

Scientific name

Common name

Frequency

of occurrence

in percent

Fungi

Lichen

Bryophyta

Ptfridium aquilinum.

Polypodiaceae

Pinus spp

Abies spp

Librocednis decurrens

Graniineae

Liliaccae

Quercus sp

Polygonum sp

Rumex sp

Eriogoiium sp

Poteiitilla sp..- -

Amelanchier alnifolia.

Medicago hispida

Trifolium sp

Lotus americanus

Arctostaph ylos sp

Fungus

Lichen

Moss

Western bracken fern .

Fern family

Pines

Firs

Incense cedar

Grass -.

Lily family

Oak (unidentified)

Knotweed

Dock

Wild buckwheat

Five finger

Western service berry

Bur clover

Clover

Spanish clover

Manzanita

56

44

6

6

19

25

13

19

69

13

6

6

6

6

6

19

6

6

6

19

3—25222

240 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME

SUMMARY

Forty stomach samples, 24 from the winter range and 16 from the summer range, were collected from the Jawbone deer herd (Tnolumne Connty) during the period from 1947 to 1949 inclusive. Sam.ples were obtained during every month of the year.

Analysis of this material revealed over 89 percent of the winter food to be browse plants. Most important winter food plants were moun- tain misery (Chaniaehatia) , oaks (^i^ercits spp.), buck brush {Ceanothus cuneatus), manzanita (Arctostaphylos) and grass.

Most important food plants from summer range samples were snow- brush {Ceanothus cordulatus), deer brush (C integerrimus), oaks (Quercus kelloggii and Q. chrysolepis) , and mountain misery {Chamae- hatia foliolosa).

REFERENCE

Martin, A. C, R. H. Gensch and C. P. Brown

1946. Alternate methods in upland gamebird food analysis. Jour. Wildlife Managt., vol. 10, p. 8-12.

AGE AND LENGTH COMPOSITION OF THE

SARDINE CATCH OFF THE PACIFIC

COAST OF THE UNITED STATES

AND CANADA IN 1949-50 *

By Frances E. Felin t United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Anita E. Dauqhebtt and Leo Pinkas California Division of Fish and Game

This is a fourth report on age and length composition of the catch of sardine (Sardinops caerulea) off the Pacific Coast of the United States and Canada and covers the 1949-50 season. There was no fishery for sar- dines off the Canadian, Washington or Oregon coasts in this season, and the tables include California records only. Tables for the 1948-49 season included the interseason fishery in California. There was no interseason fishery of any consequence in 1949-50.

In past seasons some fish have been trucked from one port to another, and records for these trucked fish were given under the region where processed. In the tables presented for 1949-50, these trucked fish have been included in the region where landed, and thus the San Francisco and Monterey figures show no records of Southern California fish. Such southern landings which were trucked north are included in the San Pedro totals. San Pedro totals also include landings made at Port Hueneme.

Methods of sampling the catch and determining ages were described by Felin and Phillips (1948). The method of sampling gave a random distribution of scale samples in accordance with the size distribution of the sardines in the catch. During the season just past, as in former sea- sons, each sample consisted of 50 fish taken at random from the catch.

As in former years, the total number of fish caught was calculated from the number of tons landed at each port each week divided by the average weight of the sardines during that time interval. These calcu- lated numbers of fish caught during each lunar month at each port were apportioned to individual year classes according to the percentage rep- resentation of each year class in the scale samples. These numbers are shown in Table 9.

The average length and standard error of the mean for each year class by ports are given in Table 7. Calendar dates for the lunar months of the 1949-50 season are shown in Table 8.

REFERENCES Feliu, Frances E., and Julius B. Phillips

1948. Age composition of the sardine catch off the Pacific Coast of the United States and Canada, 1941-42, through 1946-47. Calif. Div. Fish and Game, Fish P,ull. no. 69, 122 pp.

Felin, Frances E., .Julius B. Phillips and Anita E. Daughorty

1949. Age and length composition of the sardine catch off the Pacific Coast of the United States and Canada in 1948-49. Calif. Fish and Game, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 165-183.

* Submitted for publication March, 1950.

t Published by permission of the Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

( 241 )

242

CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME

Moshor, Kenneth H., Frances E. Felin and Julius P.. Phillips

1949. Arc and length composition of the sardine catch off the Pacific Coast of the United States and Canada in 1947-48. Calif. Fish and Game, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 15-40.

50^

45^

4(5"

35

AN PEDRO SSAIUDIEGO

50'

45'

40°

35*"

130°

125'

120'

Figure 81. Sardine fishing areas. VII-XIII, areas in tlie Pacific Northwest fishery. A, San Francisco-Monterey fishing grounds. B, Southern California flsliing grounds.

SARDINE CATCH IN 1949-I950

TABLE 1 Length Composition of the 1948 Year Class, Age 1, in 1949-50

243

	San Francisco	Monterey	San Pedro	California
Length mm.	M F T	M F	T	M F	T	M F	T
^f\(^		1	1		1	1
168
170		1 1 1	1 2		1 3 1 1 2 3 2 2 3 1 3 5 2 7 3 1 4 5 4 4 6 4 6 4 5 1 4 2	1
172		2 1 1 3 2 1 2 1 3 4 2 7 3 1 4 4 2 3 6 3 5 2 5 1 4	2 1 4 3 2 4 6 10 5 6 9 8 7 5	4
174		1
176		1 - 1	1 1 1	5
178 ---		4
180		1	3
182			4
184	1 1		7
186		10
188			5
190 ■ . .		1 2 1 1 1 1	3 1 2 1	9
192		10
194		10
196	1 1	9
198	5
200	1 1	1	1	2
202		1 1	1 1 1	1 1 2	1
			1
206	1 1		1	2
Totals	2 2 4	8 7	15	33 42	75	43 51	94

TABLE 2 Length Composition of the 1947 Year Class, Age 2, in 1949-50

	San Francisco	Monterey	San Pedro	California
Length mm.	M F T	M F	T	M F	T	M F	T
174		1	1		1	1
176			1	1	1	1
178
180 - --		1 1	1 1 3 7 8 13 12 27 29 47 43 44 43 34 40 35 27 21 26 11 10 5 8 6 2	.:.	1 2 1 5 4 7 13 10 9 20 11 16 22 25 27 38 30 51 39 43 33 38 40 39 33 26 27 31 31 31 22 16 25 17 17 16 26 9 13 7 14 4 5 4 8 4 7 2 2 2 2 1	1
182		■ 2 2 1 5 7 7 6 12 6 12 14 10 13 18 14 10 18 7 10 9 10 7 8 2 5 7 3 2 2 1 3 1 3 2 3 2 1 1 4 1	2 3 12 13 18 26 23 32 28 17 19 15 7 10 4 4 4 5 3 5 1	3
184	2 1 3 1 1	1 2 2 5 6 2 8 5 4 8 15 12 18 11 34 13 25 18 22 22 22 21 18 16 19 21 21 14 10 17 10 11 10 16 6 5 3 7 2 3 3 5 3 3 1 1	9
186 -	20
188	3 1 4	25
190	31
192		38
194	2 2	52
196	2 5 7 7 8 15 11 5 16 7 8 15 10 4 14 6 6 12 5 7 12 8 6 14 5 5 10 6 3 9 4 7 11 1 7 8 3 3 6 1 2 3 1 3 4 1 3 4 1 1 2 2 2 4 1 1	68
198	90
200	76
202	78
204	72
206	53
208	62
210	53
212	41
214	34
216	42
218	22
220	21
222 - .	9
224	12
226	1	1	11
228	4
230 - .		4
244..			1
246	1 1			1	1
Totals	87 91 178	264 240	504	120 133	253	471 464	935

244

CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME

TABLE 3 Length Composition of the 1946 Year Class, Age 3, in 1949-50

Length mm.	San Francisco	Monterey	San Pedro	California
M F T	M F T	M F T	M F T
186			1 1 1 1 4 4 1 3 4 12 1 13 6 4 10 6 2 8 14 3 17 10 12 22 12 10 22 12 6 18 13 12 25 7 7 14 4 9 13 3 3 2 6 8 5 4 9 1 5 6 1 4 5 2 2 4 1 1 1 1	1 1
188 --			1 1
190			4 4
192		1 1 1 1	2 3 5
194 .-.		13 1 14
196	1 1	7 4 11
198	6 1 7 2 2 6 2 8 3 1 4 5 2 7 5 3 8 5 4 9 7 8 15 4 9 13 8 7 15 11 6 17 10 8 18 2 9 11 2 6 8 5 5 10 1 2 3 3 3 1 2 3 2 2 1 1	12 3 15
200	1 1	17 3 20
202. -.-	16 14 30
204	1 1	16 11 27
206	17 8 25
208	3 3 1 2 3 4 4 2 2 5 2 7 3 8 11 6 4 10 6 2 8 4 3 7 2 2	21 15 36
210 ....	13 13 26
212	15 17 32
214	6 12 18
216	15 15 30
218 .. . ...	19 18 37
220.	17 17 34
222	9 15 24
224 _. 226 . .	8 11 19 5 8 13
228. 230...	2 3 5 4 4	3 6 9 7 7
232	1 4 5 1 1		2 6 8
234		3 3
236			1 1
238	1 1 2 1 1			1 1 2
240	2 2 1 1	1 1	2 2 4
242		1 1
244
246		2 2		2 2
248
250 ._
252		1 1		1 1
Totals	41 37 78	88 84 172	114 96 210	243 217 460

SARDINE CATCH IN 1949-1950

245

TABLE 4 Length Composition of the 1945 Year Class, Age 4, in 1949-50

	San Francisco	Monterey	San Pedro	California
Length mm.	M F T	M F	T	M F	T	M F	T
192			2 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 5 3 2 4 4 1 1 2 4 3	2 2 1 5 3 i 4 8 6 5 3 7	2 2 1 2 3 3 2 4 2 3 1 6 5 4 6 7 4 8 5 6 5 5 3 8 8 1 7 7 6 6 5 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1	2
194			2
196			1
198			5
200 -.- -		2 1 1	2 2	5
202 —		fi
204		4
206	1 1	1 1 2 2 3 3 5 2 2 2 4 2 5 3 2 5 4 3 2 1 1 1	2 4 6 7 4 6 8 2 9 5 1 2	11
208		10
210 -.-		11
212 •	1 1	H
214 ---		II
216	1 1 2 3 2 5 1 3 4 2 1 3 2 2 4	8
218 -	3 2 1 1 1 1	3 2 1 2 1	16
220 •	8
222 .	13
224 -	11
226	2
228	1 1	3
230	1 1 1 1 2	1	1	2
232	1 1	1 1		3
234		1
236	1 1		1	1	2	2
238
240	1 1			1	1
242
244
246	1 1			1	1
248
250
252
254		1	1		1	1
Totals -	12 15 27	35 28	63	32 29	61	79 72	151

246

CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME

in

111

-I

<

I-

				1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 ' 1 1 t-l —. r-H .— 1 .-< I 1..^ I !«-l 1 I I ! — « '		CO
			H	i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 II III! '
		.*		1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 III' '
			I ! I ! I I I J I I I^ 1 I I I I 1 I J I I ! ; [ ! ^ !		(N
		•S	Cc	• ] ' ' • 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1
		a
		O	»— «	:;:;;;:;;;; ;„„„„ ; ;_h ;_<:;;;: ;		CO
	ed		*5	' < 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■ 1 ' 1 ' II 1 1 ! 1 1 1
		H	; i 1 I i I i I ; i 1 ;- ; ; i i 1 j ; 1 I 1 I ; 1 ; I		-
	S	o		I i ! 1 1 1 ! 1 ! 1 ! I < ! 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 ! ! ! 1 ! 1 i
		<u
	■?	p^	(^	' ' ' ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 t I 1 1 1 1 ( 1 1 1 1 1
	iL
	eg	a
	V	ca
	>H	cc		1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .-H 1 I I 1 1 I I I I I I I ! I I		y*
	S		IS	1 1 1 ! 1 !' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 !! 1 1 1
	a>
	r-i
			• 1 1 1 1 ! 1 i 1 ! 1^ I ,-1 w ^ i !^ ! 1^ 1 ! ! I^ !		t*
			H	! ! ! 1 ! ! 1 1 i ! ! 1 II II I I I I I
		>.		t I I I I I I I I I ' ' ' ' ' ' 1 1 1 1 1
		a>
		<u		,-H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r-( 1		M
o		'3	C<H	I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I
in		o		• 1 1 1 1 1 1 II lilt
o>				t II 1 ,— 1 ,— 1 ,— 1 1 f-t 1 1 ■r~t 1 1 1 1		lO
Tt			S	I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I 11 -* I I I I
o>
^■~
c				.-H ^ M (N lO IC lO «-« CO CO CO t^ Ol CO (M <M C^ -.J* <N OCI --H i i ,-. t i ^ i^	■* I— t	Oi
			E-i			CO
(0		OS
V		"3
(0		t-		ii-Hi-t ICO ICO ii-Hi-Ht-Hcoeoc-i ic^ 'cowc^ ■ • ■*-< ■ "^ «		O
m		£	fe	1 III ^11 1 1 1 1 1		CO
a		:a		I III II I I I I I 1
O		O		■ , ' ' ' ' , ' ';;,;::
		1-H 1 r-1 C^ C^ »0 CM 1-1 (M <M IM -<t"aD T-1 (M i C<I --< ^ ^ i i , , , , ,^ ,	OS
L.			:§	i i i ; i i i i i		CO
0! >-
			1 ri Ca CS ^ CO Tj< 1 (M C^ C-J .-H CO iw . I.-1 II		00
			E-i			cs
CO
		o
		i^t-. ICO I(M I^ I^^C^ I 1 I I^ 1 1 I • 1 I I ! I I		CO
un	Ph	fe
-a	V	fl
c	s			I 1 ' ' I ' 1 I ' I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I
OS			*rH	' 1 --< <M r-H CO (M 1 ,-H (M ^ 1^ 1^ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1		tfs
?	1		^	i ; i i : i i i i i i i i i ; i i i
o>			1,1 , II
1—			H	I-H 1 1 . r-< (M I-" r-^ .-( T-H --. T CD C^ . ^ T-H 1 l(M 1 1 1 ■ t 1 1 ■ 1-H	'"'
V)	>*			I ' ' ' 1 I I I I I I 1 I I
JC	Tjf	S?		III 1 11
•n	s			^ , 1^ l^r-lr-t 1 .-1 1 1 1 (M It	^	Oi
»»-	t-H		Ck	1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
O		a o		i i i i i i ; i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
c o		^		T-H 1 1 iwcq 1 --1 ^ ii-Hcoio--" 1 1.-I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1^		oo
		IS
'•5
'3				III 1 1 '1 1 1 1 1 1
			1 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 , II 1
o				<M 1 i-t r-l W ^ CO CSl 1 .-H 1 i-H 1 1 ,-1 1		■^
a		O	H
E		O		I ! ! i ! i i I i i i I I III
o		*S
O		a				oo
	s	fc,
^		fo		I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I II I
*>		fl		1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 It 1 1 11111(1
0) c			S	l,l,ll,_(iir-»H— <!—(»— Ili-H III till		CO
0)				I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I I I I I I I I I
_J		S		i I i I i I 1 I I I i I I i t I : I i i i I i i i i i i I
		S		I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
		.13		1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 t 1 1 1 1
		U
		a
		^		1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 ;;;:;;; i ;;; M i ;; i ;;;; ; 0:00000— ^*-"-''— ^CS'M<N(MC^C0COC0C0C0"^-frf-^-^»O»O»O ^<N(^^<^^csc^^<^^c^c^c^^c^^Mcsc^c^c^^c^cscNc^c^^c^(^l(^^<^^(^»<^l|^^'^l	CO CM	o

i

SARDINE (A'l'Cll IN I 949- 1 950

247

o in

I

10 0) V) V)

I. n

>

00 CO o>

■a

c

n

<o o

LU O)

cJ •a-

4>

c o

(0

o a

E o O

c

o

o

o

o

CL,

o

fc

S

a

00 — — —

80

e C c

03.5 :i

0	a	0
r	c	c
	•^
■a'^'a
n)	a;	0)
4->		+-»
c	c c
«	0)	0)
w	w	V)
fl)	■D	4)
L.		b
P.	iJ>	0.
-1>	11	<D
U	L^	b.
T,	71	V)
X	cn	»J
d c3 c«
0	0	0
S-.	i.	t.
r!	:i cU
0)	<u	IJ
>H	i»	K^

4 — 25222

248

CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME

TABLE 7

Number of Fish, Mean Length, and Standard Error of the Mean for Each Year Class in the 1949-50 Season by Region of Catch

	' — ■ ' ' California
Year class	San Francisco	Monterey	San Pedro
	No. M. S.E.	No. M. S.E.	No. M. S.E.
1948 Male	2 190 2 203 _ _ _ _ -1 lliti 4.7() 87 207 1.11 91 209 1.14 178 208 0.79 41 218 1.33 37 224 1.36 78 221 0.98 12 224 2.90 15 223 2.98 27 223 1.86 6 230 6.06 8 233 5.64 14 232 3.24	8 182 4.94 7 186 4.30 15 184 3.04 2fi4 204 0.17 240 205 0.20 504 204 0.13 88 214 1.08 84 219 1.07 172 216 0.25 35 215 1.29 28 218 2.07 63 217 1.14 18 219 2.98 9 228 6.26 27 222 2.78 5 230 7.40 2 235 _-_. 7 232 6.28 1 214 ....	33 187 1 34
Female .	42 190 1 17
Totals	75 184 0 88
1947 Male	120 197 0 70
Female .	133 199 0 7(i
Totals	253 198 0 54
1946 Male..	114 203 0 73
Female	96 209 0 90
Totals	210 206 0 60
1945 Male -	32 206 1 46
Female. .	29 211 1 83
Totals, .. ..	61 208 1 20
1944 Male	15 211 1 97
Female ..	13 213 2 80
Totals	28 212 1.58
1943 Male	1 222
Female
Totals _._		1 222
1942 Male		1 206
Female
Totals :		1 214 ....	1 206
1941 Male '.
Female		1 252
Totals.-		1 252
1940 Male..
Female	1 262
Totals	1 262
1938 Malf...
Female	1 274
Totals	1 274

TABLE 8

Calendar Dates of Lunar Months for the 1949-50 Season

"August".. _ August 9-September 7

"Seiiteniber" September 8-October 6

"October" October 7-November 5

"November" November 6-December 4

"December" December 5-January 2

"January" January 3-February 1

SARDINE CATCH I\ I 949- 1 950

249

UJ

_l

<

I-

c
0
M
n
«
(0
s	■D
I	0)
Oj	+<
^	■H
0)	E
^-
4)	0
^	0
•♦>	0
c	0
■^	•■
^	«
u	•—
+•	^
n	m
0	TS
	c
4)	ra
C	(A
■a	3 0
(TI	^
Cfl
	r
ID
r
	I.
	<i)
0	>
c	D)
0	4)
■i->	k. (8
(0
0	JZ
a	«)
F	H-
r>	H-
U	0
	M
/— s	t.
M	4>
M	n
n	F
0	3
t.	z
n	■s— '
u
>-
— ■
«
O)
<

			. ,0 ' ' '	0		•	i ; ! ;	1		0
			. 1 OS ■ < 1	OS		1				s
		00	. i(M . 1 .	c^						CM
		cc
		2
			1 I Ito I !	»ft		'				■0
			1 ) > 1:0 < 1	CD						CO
		0	. . .OS « i	OS						a>
	Oi	OS						1
					.00 1 ' ■ 1	00				00
					.0 • - . 1	0
					. CC 1 ' ■ 1	00
	00	-*•
					I I I IiO-*J«	o>	1 — H 1 1	^^	«