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 ;::\ 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 » 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 »o5 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 CDOi oca ^ C*:::; 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-« 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> 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> 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 - 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 --< 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 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— 00 CO o> ■a c n 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 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. 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 ^^ « CD 1 1 I lOS IC •rr ■ 1- r ( t^ 00 0 N ■ 1 ; ;co "V no ' ' 10 *** t-* 2 Zl looco I '< I -rr b- . 1 1 t^ CO l^ 9 1 0 00 • 1 I OS OS 1 1 1 OS CO to ^ M 1 00 t^ ' ' ' »o 00 u «o -r OS I^'co" ; ; ; 00 '^ I I I -T c) ■^ C4!D^_^01 1 < 0 . 10 CO »OiC(N »o r^oo -r -— _ CM^ XJ »o OS .oo CD CDiC-H 00 0 C<9 0 Ot>- CDIOOSCO CO 00 (^ 'Tf t^ 00 -^ CO t^ 1— ' »o o5 to t^ t^O -^ 10 --"^IC lO »c '—•■—' OS r^ 0 t- TT GO OO^CO 10 CO M OS 00 t^r-Toc cD(m' 0' oTo co*"^— "t^ 00 »0 -J^o'co ■^ CM CD t^ 0 ira »o 10 »o CM CD ^ (M -r CM 0 '^ 1 CO 0 1 CO »o -r cor- ■ osb-os 00 - OS TT 0 0 CM eer"_. November' December" January'*.. Pedro October".. November* December" January".. -J5 1 • 5 0 a 2 0 0- - - - - ' a- - ' - s « rt ' ' ' s ■ 33- - - - V2 r^ o •t-J o u « c 72 ■a a; c8 u o u Q. o" be c a m u o CO 01 3 < BASIC DEER MANAGEMENT (A Story With Pictures)- By Wii.i.iAM I'. Dasmanx Game Ii:iiit;(' 'r<'<'liiiifi;ni ( ';i lil'i)i'iii;i l>i\isiuii (if I'^isli and (lame Figure 82 • Subniitteil for publication March 1950. (251) 252 CALIFOKXIA FISH AND GAME ■ tiimtMJsb Figure 83 Mhn. Vert. Zoo}. No. ,i'i.y, Deer that spend tlie summer months on tlie higher mountain ranges in California are forced out of the mountains by snow in the fall. These deer move down to lower elevations to spend the winter months. Since the coming of the white man to California, much of the land that once made up the best winter deer ranges has been put to agricul- tural uses. The more fertile soils have been placed under cultivation. Less fertile lands are often used for pasturing livestock. BASIC DEER MANAGEMENT 253 Figure 84 Photo by U. S. Forest Service In many cases, migratory deer herds are pushed by snow on the one liand and agriculture on the other into rather limited wintering areas. Often for every 5 to 15 acres of sunnner range there exists only one acre of winter range. Even where area is less limited, the food supply may be limited where livestock have taken a large share of the forage before the deer arrive. This is the reason why Avinter deer ranges generally control the ]iumber of migratory deer in this State. No matter how large the sunnner range, no matter how abundant the summer forage, migratory deer are usually limited to the numbers which their winter ranges can support during the winter months. 254 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME Figure 85 MuN. Vert. Zool. No. 56J,2 If there is enoush rorap'e on tlie winter raii<>-es to supply the animals' needs, deer will ordinarily remain healtliy. They will keep sufficient fat to protect tliem from ri FiGTTRE 94 ^ I'lioto bii U. .S. Forest Sei'vicc AYlien a migratory deer herd increases in juiuil)ers beyond the carry- ing capacity of its winter ranfje, the animals are forced to overcrop the desirable forage plants and to turn for forag:e to less palatable, less nour- ishing species of vegetation. They are forced to bite deep into the range maintenance reserve, to eat the coarser twigs and stems. As a result, the damaged plants produce less forage each succeeding year, making the problem more and more critical. 2«4 CALIIX)RNIA FISH AND GAME n'?s: ' ''^;:si^^ ^^^-%. Kir, u RE y.j When deer are forced to subsist on poorer quality forage, they become uudernourished. Uudernourished deer use up their fat, sufPer from cold weather, become weak and subject to disease and parasites. Weak does produce weak fawns, many of which succumb in the early part of their lives. BASIC DEER MANAGEMENT 265 \ t. f ' J. t 1 Figure 96 Nature's way of balancing deer numbers with deer food supply is harsh. Once the balance is tipped, once deer become too plentiful for the food supply, not only is there depletion of the range itself, but the deer will die. The deer may die from starvation; disease, or parasitism, all directly or indirectly a result of malnutrition. The most publicized die-otf of deer as a result of forage depletion occurred on the Kaibab National Forest in Arizona. TTere GO percent of a deer herd estimated to have numbered at least 27,UUU animals is reported to have died during the winters of 1923-25. The same thing has happened in many states. Nature 's way of taking care of deer range problems is not only liarsli, but wasteful. 266 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME FiGl'KE 91 Ho far, we luivc spoken al)()ut uiijii'atory deer, that is deer that migrate with the seasons between summer and winter ranges. In the coastal region of California where snow is not common, deer often remain on relatively small areas year-long. Snch deer are called nonmigratory or resident deer. The range problems on nonmigratory deer ranges are somewhat dif- ferent from those we have discussed. The critical period for deer on these ranges is often the late summer when herbage is dry and the forage offered by many shrub species is low in food value. This lasts until the first rains bring out green food. Cold winters, when heavy frosts kill back all new growth, are also critical. BASIC DEER MANTAOEMKNT 2157 '^f FiGUUE 98 All the plants that yrow on a I'aiij^e are not deer food. Most deer found dead from malnutrition have fnll stomachs. But their stomachs are full of vegetation and other matei-ials of low food value. Because a range is covered with brush does not necessarily mean that deer food is plentiful. Often, plants that provide good deer food at one season of the year are of little value during other seasons. Many plant species are seldom eaten by deer except as a last resort because they are poisonous, or because they have little food value. 268 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME W' ■*^' ■^^^t^ty <*' t'* Figure 99 On noiimigratoiy deer ranges, tlie number of deer is often limited to that wliich certain plant species can maintain during critical food periods. The forage from most herbs and many chaparral brush species looses food value as the dry season progresses. AVhen the amount of protein in this forage drops below 5 percent, the deer are in trouble.* The deer are in trouble unless other plant species are present on the range which main- tain high food value during critical periods. The holly-leaf cherry shown above is such a shrub. See how it is hedged from heavy use ! As in the case with migratory deer herds, proper management of deer on nonmigratory deer ranges must aim to balance deer numbers with critical food supplies. * Einarsen, Arthur .S. 1946. Crude protein determination of deer food a.s an applied manag-ement teclinique. Trans Eleventh North American Wildlife Conf., pp. 309-312. BASIC DEER MANAOEMEXT 200 --w:^- i|^«i^^^ir«^- «»^ '■ f T' -. f-* J. v>yr;*'^. •,,,„■<« .-",-, ••■or*' -;■ ^■'.'••^ .-:'-. ' J. V v^ Figure 100 Many noiiniigratoiy deer ranges are closely adjacent to cultivated lands. When native food is short on a deer range, a succulent field of alfalfa or clover, a patch of corn or cabbage, an orchard of young almond or peacli trees, looks good to hungry deer. .Shoi'tage of critical native foods on deer ranges is often the direct cause of agricultural damage by deer. At first deer come to croplands because they are hungry. And, once they develop a taste for grain, lettuce, oranges, apples, they are apt to come back for more. Look -\vhnt deer have done to the young almond trees shown in the picture. The only practical \\i\y to solve the increasing deer damage problem in this State is, in most instances, to dispatch the offending deer, and then bi'ing the other deer on adjacent ranges in balance with their food supply I)}- increasing the native foi'age (where possible) or by reducing the number of deer on the ranges. 270 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME Figure 101 Many j^ame agencies in the United States have ti'ied to remedy natural food sliortages by feeding deer hay or other artificial foods. But transportation of artificial foods into the rough, inaccessible areas where many deer spend their time is often difficult and extremely costly. BASIC DEER MANAGEMENT 271 m'Vji Figure 102 .U((.v. Vert. Zool. No. 550S Also, in areas where artificial foods are supplied to deer, the animals Avill soon kill out all the native forage plants in the vicinity in efforts to obtain a more natural diet. Then, the deer will fail to do well on the strictly artificial diet upon which they have then become dependent for their existence. In 1942, Colorado spent $;38,()00 for winter feeding; on the Gunnison wdnter deer range alone. Five thousand deer died that winter on the Gunnison range. Tn one canyon 2o8 dead animals Avere found on 40 acres. Practically all the animals died with stomachs full of alfalfa and concentrates.* * Hunter, Gilbert N. and Veager, Lee E. 1949. Big game management in Colorado: Jour. WMkllife Manaproment, vol. 13, p. 392-411. 272 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME Figure 103 Photo by U. S. Natiunal Park Hervice Filially, when deer concentrate at artificial feeding stations, disease and parasites can spread more easily amongst them. Deer experts have found that artificial feeding only makes the prob- lem worse and prolongs action for a proper solution. Most game depart- ments have abandoned this practice. BASIC DEER MANAGEMENT 273 Figure 104 Game agencies have spent thousands of dollars in attempts to plant palatable deer forage on depleted game ranges. "Where this plnnting was tlone without first reducing the number of deer to a low level, the practice has failed. In Wisconsin, for example, 40 to 60 million tree seedlings are produced each year in nurseries for planting in that State 's reforestation program. But surveys indicate that their deer herd is crippling over tj6U,00U,UUU seedlings annually throughout the forests of that state.* * Swift, Ernest. 1948. Deer damage to forest reproduction survey. 38th Convention Int. Assn. of Fish and Game Commissioners. 274 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME 'yi^iA . . Figure 105 I'ltoto by i . !<. J''ortNl Scrricf I'lanUu'^ browse seeds or transplants is still in the experimental stage in California. Planting- may show ])romise for improving deer ranges where deer and livestock nnmbers can be held at low stocking levels until the plants are well established. However, when animal numbers are reduced to low levels, planting often wall become unnecessar3^ If there exists sufficient native seed stock on the range, nature will often reseed and improve the area more effi- ciently, and much less expensively, than can artificial plantings. BASIC DEEK MANAGEMENT 275 '^-••r ' >fMk ^*a*' Figure 106 Fire offers no short-term benefits to deer on winter ranges east of the Sierras. In fact, fire, by destroying the browse plants and favoring herba- eeons vegetation, is detrimental and can lead to wholesale losses of deer on winter ranges in the intermountain area. In timber types, extensive use of fire is not advisable. While fire may be nsed in forest types to open np dense tree canopies, let in more sunlight, lessen tree-root competition, and thus allow nourishing forage plants room to grow, usually timber values are much too high to sacrifice for the benefit of deer except in special cases. Logging of timber opens up the forest and serves the same purpose as fire, witho.ut economic loss. It should be remembered also that, as far as migratory deer are concerned, forest types are sinnmer range. Summer ranges are generally not the areas where deer food is short. 276 rAI.lFORXIA FISH AM) OAATE ^^■^> >v -. ■ r -f» ^ Figure 10' In the chaparral brush areas west of the Sierras and in certain wood- land vegetation types, prescribed and controlled bnrning may be used to improve deer ranges in some instances. Many chaparral forage species sprout from the stumps after they are burned. These sprouts offer excel- lent food for deer. Tall, dense, decadent stands of brush offer little available forage to deer. Where fire is used wisely to open up these brush fields, and the burued areas are reseeded to grasses to stabilize the soil and to hold vege- tation patterns, deer ranges can be improved by well-planned and careful burning. But frequent burning depletes both the soil and tlie vegetation. Studies in Oregon indicate that the food value of deer forage drops where burning is too frequent. And there is no place at all for unplanned, uncontrolled, wild fires on the range. BASIC DEEIl MAXAOKMKXT 277 Figure 108 i'lioto by U. 8. Forest Service Fire may prove a useful tool in places but it is no panacea. Cali- fornia's deer ranpe problems cannot be solved with a box of matches. Fires can destroy timber, reduce protective cover on watersheds, cause damaging floods, induce accelerated soil erosion as shown in the picture. Deer management must be correlated with other natural resource management in California to be acceptable and successful in tlie long run. The California Division of Fish and Game is making intensive studies to determine where, how, and when fire can be used for deer range improvement M-itliout (Midangering the other resources of this State. 278 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME V ' i*,)-.-. t r 1*^ ^ * 'e FlGURE 109 Mus. Vert. Zool. No. ',510 The game departments in most states wliere deer are abundant are turning to deer management as a solution for principal deer problems. Deer management consists of production on each management unit of the maximum number of harvestable animals that may be raised year after year without depleting the forage resource and Avithout serious conflict with other important land uses. The deer manager works to keep the herd of breeding deer in balance with its food supply. He does this by allowing and encouraging sportsmen to bag the .surplus animals, both male and female, for recrea- tion and food, rather than leave them for nature to harvest through malnutrition jiiid disease. BASIC DEER MANAGEArEN'T 279 FiGUFjB no Photo by U. a. Forest Service Tlie Division of Fisli and Game has initiated deer nianag'emeiit pro- grams on deer ranyes in ^lodoc, Lassen, Plnmas, Tehama and Tuolumne counties. Here we see the Devil's Garden interstate winter deer range in IModoc County. Deer from Orep;on and California come to this critical area to spend the winter months. Livestock are permitted to graze ou these national forest lands during the summer season. Now the L^. S. Forest Service, the Oregon Game Commission and the California Division of Fish and Game liave agreed to divide the annual crops of shrub forage on this area between livestock and deer on a 50/50 l)asis. They have agreed to set ceilings on the numbers of animals that will be allowed on the range. AVhen either deer or livestock take more than their quota of forage, tlie sur])lus animals will be removed. Thus, llie palatable range vegetation will be left with sufficient gi'owth to sus- tain the plants, and the range will produce forage to feed livestock and deer year after year on a sustained yield basis. 5 — 25222 "■^" CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME !^»vX-f • %■• ■*• "^ FiGUKE 111 Where large migratory deer herds concentrate diirino. the winter on private y-owned livestock ranges, an nnjust burden mav be th -ol' i on .e la.Hlowners. Sneh areas nsnally become badly depleted as a resu :ni';5irn:^::;::L^^L'^'^"^^'^ '-' '--■ ^^ ^ --^^' ^-^^ ^^^ ■ -^i- ^-^f^ p!^^^^ ^^^^^ important deer herds are involved the Divi- Tel"^ii f : • fter T""' '' ^""^'^f "^^ ''r'' ^''' ^^^^^^^ shows part 0? the Fe eil AV Hf/p''/''';?'' ''^'''IJV''^' ^^^-e being purchased with i^ecleidl Wildife Restoration and Fish and Game Preservation Fund moneys. Such lands are then managed primarily for deer. Lva tock o-^z ing IS permitted only where a surplus of forag^ exists. BASIC DEER MANAOEMEXT 281 4SSS "XM V 0/ Figure 112 Here is a vieAv of the Lassen-Washoe interstate winter deer ran<>e, an area on wliich a critical deer food problem has existed for several years. Deer, Avhich summer mostly in the Plumas National Forest, in California, come to winter on intermixed ]n-ivate and public lauds on both sides of the Nevada-California state line. Here, also, the Division of Pish and Game is puchasing land in order to insure an adequate sup- ply of winter forage for an important deer herd. While the purchase of lands for deer range may be justified in certain instances, obviously it is neither possible nor desirable for the Division of Fish and Game to buy all areas where deer problems exist. Deer must fit into existing economic patterns to hold their place in the modern world. Ordinarily, private land problems are best solved by holding deer uumbers at levels in balance with other laiul uses. Even wliere deer rauges are purchased, ceilings on breeding herds should be established in order to insure sustained vield. 282 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME ^^.fet- fi~' •^m- Figure 113 On the Fishlake National Forest, in Utah, a herd of approximately 44,500 rocky mountain mule deer showed an average net production for harvest of 24 percent year after year, after all classes of losses, including crippling loss, were deducted. This occurred in a deer herd which was open to shooting of both buck and doe deer.* ►Studies made in several areas in California indicate that our deer herds generally have a productivity equal to, or better than, that of the Fishlake herd. Sportsmen harvest part of the number of buck deer pro- duced each year. It is estimated that hunters take a maximum of 7 to 10 percent of the State's deer each season. What happens to the rest of the annual crop, both male and female? • Robinette, W. L., and Olsen, O. A. 1944. Studies ol i>i. central Utah. Tran.s. Ninth North American Wildiife <'(inl., p. Inctivitv (if niiilc deer in BASIC DEER MANAGEMENT 283 Figure 114 Every deer range has its carrying capacity. The carrying capacity of a deer range may be coni])ared to a five-gallon bucket. As deer increase they gradually fill' the backet. Once the range bucket is full, it will hold no more. Unless a gallon or more is removed each hunting season, the seasonal increase will become a surplus which will run over and be wasted. Not only will the surplus be wasted, but as it runs over the sides of the range bucket it will wear down the rim. By overcropping, weaken- ing, and killing the forage plants, each succeeding crop of surplus deer lowers the capacity of the range bucket ; each year the range bucket will hold less and less, and waste more and more. 284 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME ',-^ .♦*.'* Figure 115 Surveys tell tis that many of the deer range buckets in California are now full and overflowiiio-. The annual surplus of deer is here, to use or to let waste. Under deer management, every effort is made to harvest the full surplus of bucks and does each season. By holding breeding herds to the numbers their ranges can properly carry, both the deer herds and the deer ranges are maintained to produce on a sustained yield basis. Sustained yield in deer management means improving and main- taining deer ranges, both soil and vegetation, so that these ranges will continue to produce volumes of good forage year after year. Sustained yield means harvesting the full crop of surplus deer, both male and female, produced each year by the breeding herd. Sustained yield means conservation through wise use. Properly stocked deer ranges will produce abundant deer forage. Plentiful forage will maintain healthy, productive breeding deer herds. Healthy, productive deer will produce more harvestable animals. Thus can California's sportsmen exptN't more deer for the bag through deer management. THE PISMO CLAM - I'.,\ .h)\is K. Fn( II liiiroau of Mariup Fishcrit^s Ciiliforiii.'i nivisioii of Pish and (Jamc TABLE OF CONTENTS Page IiitrodiK'tioti 285 GtMun-al information 286 Anatomy 28H Nutrition 288 General l 288 Food 280 (Jrowth 1 280 (leneral 280 Hintjs 202 Reproduction . 203 Sex 203 Maturity and spawning 203 Kgixs 293 Larvae _. 294 Mortality 204 Larvae 204 Post-larvae and adults 205 Environmental factors 205 Natural enemies of the Pismo clam : 20G The effect of man (California) 208 Fishing methods 300 liOcatiuK and digging 300 Hei)]anting undersized clams 304 Preparation 304 Opening 304 Removal from shell 304 Trimming . 305 L^se as food 305 ^liscellancous uses 306 ilanagement 307 I'ismo clam program of investigation 307 Annual Pismo clam census 307 Planting 300 Legislation 310 References 311 INTRODUCTION The Pismo clam is one of tlie most thoroiigly investigated bivalves on the Pacific Coast. More is known of its life and habits tlian any of the many different species of pelecypods fonnd in California waters with the possible exceptions of the oyster and the mussel. However, most of the knowledge concerning the Pismo clam can he fonnd (inl>- after diligent pernsal of many published works. The present paper has been written * Submitted fur publication February 1950. ( 285 ) 286 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME to ('om]iile in a popular act'oiint as much as possible of tlio knoAvii infor- mation on this clam. Some of this infoi-mation has been published pve- viously Avhile much of it is here printed foi- the first time. For those who wish more detailed or scientific accounts a complete list of references has been included. GENERAL INFORMATION Fossil remains uf Pisuu) clams, Tirdd stiiliurHin ,Ma\ve, have been found in Pleistocene deposits at least 25,000 years old at Santa Barbara and San Diego. This indicates that these clams have been present on our coast since about the time of the ice a.ii'c. Tt was not until 1828, however, lliat the Pismo clam was described and named by the scientist Mawe. This name Avas taken from the Latin and is generally credited as being "one of Mawe's little jokes." Literally the woi'd "stultorum" means "foolish" or "simple." In 1807 Ileinrieh Link, a German scientist, described and named the genus Tivela in honor of Tivel Adams. An unverified story states that Tivel Adams was Link's assistant. If this is true Mawe's little joke in naming the si^ecies »tidtorum becomes quite pointed. Pismo clams are found on nearly all of the exposed sandy beaches between Half moon Bav near San Francisco (latitude 37° 30' N., longi- tude 122° 30' W.) and Socorro Island off the coast of Mexico (latitude 18° 46' N., longitude 111° 00' W.). They have been taken from sand exposed by an average low tide into water exceeding 80 feet in depth. The heaviest concentration of clams is usually found around the mean low mark (the waters edge at 0.0 tide). At Pismo Beach (about half-way between Los Angeles and San Francisco), as the name suggests, the greatest abundance of clams on the coast of California can be found. The name Pismo was taken from the Indian word "pismu" meaning "tar." (Large deposits of asphalt or bitumen are found in this area. ) First printed usage of the word was in the year 1840 when the Pismo Land Grant was issued by the Mexican government. The town of Pismo was founded in 1891 when the Southern Pacific Railroad completed the last link of the coast i-oute from San Luis Obispo to Elwood. In 1904 "Pismo" became "I'ismo Beach" which it remains today. The clam probably inherited its name soon after the first white settlers moved into the area through misinterpretation of the Indian word "pismu." It is not difficult to realize a shortening of the wording "the place which the Indians call pismu where large clams can be found" to * ' clams at pismu ' ' to the present ' ' Pismo clams. ' ' ANATOMY The Pismo clam has two synunetrical shells which are hinged together at one end. When living in its natural habitat the hinged side is always pointed toward the surf, the open side toward the beach, and the dark raised ligament at the center of the hinge is up. On many beaches, a colony of hydroids, Clytia halicri, is frequently found growing on the shell on the end nearest the surface. This hydroid colony resembles a tuft of hair or fine seaweed. THE PISMO CLAM 287 The shells of iiidixidiuil chiiiis vjiry (Muisidcrably in hotli color and l>atteni. The c'haracteristic coloi- is a |)al(' huckskin, thoujrh thoy raii<>o from this to a dark cliocolatc ( )('casioiial iiidi\'idiials ai'c niai-kcd witli chocolate brown lines radiatinji- ont to the inai'j^in. A third color jiattej-ii consists of three li<>ht streaks radiating- from the hin<;-ed end; these are not so conspicuons as the "striped" individuals and p:enerally the ]i('! permit the pafisafje ol' watn- and tlie microscopic food that it contains. The Pismo dam is a typical scavon^'or or detritus feeder altlioufih livinfi' one-eeUed orjianisms form a considei'able portion of tlie diet. Wlien feeding begins, mncus is secreted either at the upper edges of the gills and carried in a sheet by the frontal cilia (hairlike processes cai)able of a lashing movement) to the fi'ce edges of the gills or it is secreted moiT or less uniformly over the eiitii-e surface. It is carried in strings along the edges of the gills to the labial jialps (fleshlike apix'iulages in each side of the mouth). The palps remove all uiulesirable particles and allow the rest of the nuiterial to pass intact with the sti-ings of juucus directly into the stomach. This mucus which covei-s the entii'c gills inteix-epts all par- ticles from the cui'i-cut of \vat(M' which passes through these gills and out the dorsal or excurrent siphon. Food More than lialf of tlie contents of tlie stomach and intestine is sand. Particles of sand 0.2 to 0.8 nun. in longest diameter (1 mm. = approxi- mately 1-2.-, inch), thin fragments of periostraciun and chitin nearly one millimeter in length and filamentous algae 1.5 mm. long are the largest (/bjects observed in the stomach by Dr. AVesley R. Coe. Tn contrast with these relatively large objects the mucus sheet secreted on the gills is so efficient that it can filter pai'ticles of extreme minuteness including the smallest bacteria. In addition to the si])honal pa]iillae and the labial ])alps the ingested l)articles encounter a third sorting mechanism upon reaching the stomach. This con.sists of a food sorting caecum or blind pocket in which the i)ar- ticles are kept rotating by ciliary action, the smaller particles being car- ried toward the opening into the digestive diverticula or liver, while the larger particles ai-e diverted toward the intestine. The kinds of food utilized by Pismo clams includes dinoflagellates, diatoms, bacteria and other algae, minute zooplankton, gametes of invertebrates, zoospores of algae and detritus from the disintegration of plant and aninuil cells. It has been estimated that a three-inch clam filters an average of 60 liters (3.785 liters per gallon) of water dui-ing its feeding times each day or 2,000 litei-s a month. This amounts to aiiproximately 5,800 gallons of water ])er year which is strained by the one three-inch clam. At La Jolla this amount of water would contain about 110 grams (8.88 ounces, at 28.35 grams per ounce) of potential food ; of this the animal stores one to two grams in the body (weight increase) and discharges as gametes (eggs or sperm) one to three gi-ams annually. Of the r(Mnainder. some is used as energy while the greatest anuunit is probably passed otf as wa.ste. GROWTH General The Pismo clam grows continuously throughout its life. As the clam grows, the shell not only becomes thicker but increases in diameter. This rate of growth can be accurately measured and studies indicate that it varies considerably from month to month, the greatest increase taking place in the spring, summer, and early fall months with a definite slow- ing down during the late fall and winter months. The growth rate varies •liH) CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAl\rE on different beaelies and in fact even on tlic same beaeli at localities jnst a mile or two distant Ironi each other. On most beaches, however, the average yearly increase in diameter durinfj the first four years of life is slightly more than three-fourths of an inch (20 mm.). After four years the growth rate usually slows down nntil eventually at around ajre 10 the increase is usually not more than uiic-eiglitli of an inch per year. On some beaches the f^rowtli rate has been found to be more than one and one-half inches a year the first three or four years. On most beaches some clams attain a legral size of five inches in five years but many clams do not reach this size until eight or nine years. On some beaches it has been found that many clams attain a legal five inches in three years and nearly all before age six. It takes about 45 legal sized clams to make 10 pounds of meats (drained weight). 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ^ 5 LEGAL SIZE ^ ^^ 4 - / / * -^ 3 / U c / c / e2 « E o O 1 7 / 0 / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 c ) 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 2 0 Age in Years 1 Figure lis. Average rale n[ g:ii.\\th m Cismo Llani.>< :it I'isiiio Beach. These average.^ have been fleterminerl from tlie lesults of Ihe annual censns for the years 1923 through 1949 (excluding 19)2 through 194.")J. The largest clam of \\ liidi there is a record was Tf inches (187 mm.) across and was about 26 years old. Another huge clam from Pismo Beach was 7^ inches (188 mm.) in diameter. 3 pounds and \'^ ounces in weight and 23 years old ; and a third w^as 6f inches in diameter and 27 years old (weight not available on this individual). A number of clams from Lower California have been aged as over 35 years though not many are more than (U inches in diameter at this age. The smallest clam that I have col- lected was taken at La Jolla, California, and measured slightly less than g^j inch in diameter (2.3 mm.) . THE PISMO CLAM 291 Dr. Coe marked a number of clams at La Jolla and implanted them. Tn collee-tinp: these marked individuals at later dates he was able to make a number of observations ('()ncerniti suuillest mature s]iawning individual observed by the author was about threc-foui'ths inch in diameter. In May the males usually have a few thousand motile spermatozoa and the females some nearly mature ova. During June and July the gonads increase rapidly in size and the projiortion of mature gametes or sex cells becomes larger as the first spawning period in late July or early August approaches. The mature gametes are probably discharged by the individual clam when there is a fair rise in the temperature of the w^ater. (This can be effected artificially by taking clams from the ocean and placing them in an aciuarium where the water is just a few degrees warmer than that from which they have been removed.) Emission of gametes particularly by a male, stimulates the concur- rent spawning of the other individuals of both sexes in the immediate vicinity. This is obviously a necessity in order to insure fertilization of the millions of eggs released by each female. Each clam experiences sev- eral spawnings during a season as only a portion of the gametes ripen at one time. Residual gauK^tes which remain at the end of the spawning season are reabsorbed later. While the clam is ripe and in a spawning condition the flesh is usually whitish in appearance; after spawning has been completed the flesh takes on a dull hulT color. Eggs The eggs of the Pismo clam are very small, measuring about V^go of an inch in diameter when mature. Tu sevei-al clams examined thei-e were fouiul to be around 10, ()()(), ()()() to 2(l,()()(),00() or more eggs per individual with an average of 15, 000, ()()() or more eggs in clams five inches in diame- ter. The 1949 annual Pismo clam census conducted at Pismo Beach by the Bureau of ]\Iarine PMsheries indicated that there is an average of 1.10 mature clams for each six-inch wide strip of beach taken from the high tide line to the water's edge on a minus 1.2 foot tide. Assuming half of these clams were females, and since about 90 percent of these females were over three inches in diameter they ]n-obably spawned around 1.1,000- 000 eggs apiece. (A three-iiu-li clam would jjrobably spawn about half 294 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME as many ep-frs as would a five-incli clam. The 17), {)(){), {)(}{) eg(y estimate used here was figured as an average for the clams above three inches in diameter at Pismo Beach in 1949.) In the 9.4 miles of clam producing beach there would have been somewhat over 112 trillion eggs spawned. [75 (female clams) X 2 (6-inch wide strips) X 5,280 (feet per mile) X 9.4 (miles to the beach) X 15,UUU,()U0 (eggs per female clam).] It has not been determined how man}^ five-inch clams laid end to end it would take to encircle the world but if all the eggs spawaied in one year on Pismo Beach matured into legal clams there would probably be a sufficient number to perform this feat. Larvae Practicall}' nothing is known about the early life of the Pismo clam from the time the eggs have hatched into free-swimming larvae until the young clams appear on the beach. The earliest that young clams have been found on the beach at La Jolla is five months after the first spawn- ing takes place. At Pismo Beach this period of time between first spawn- ing and first finding of the new set is 12 months. What happens in between is a mystery. As in related forms (oysters, mussels, and some other clams) the fertilized egg hatches into a free-swimming larva in a few hours. These larvae which in no waj^ resemble the adult are free- swimming for a period estimated as at least several w^eks. At the end of the free-swimming period they settle into the sand and develop into young clams. Theoretically, with ocean currents along our coast moving at the rate they do, free-swimming clam larvae could be swept coast- wise for a distance of 40 to 100 miles in 20 days. Tlie young clam upon setting digs into the sand a fraction of an inch and anchors itself by means of a fine thread called a byssus. The byssus usually has a number of sand grains attached to its distal end which improves the anchorage of the young clam in the constantly shift- ing bottom. This byssus is degenerated within a few months as the clam becomes more able to care for itself. As stated in a previous paragraph the smallest clam ever found was 2.3 mm. in diameter. It is not known at what size the clam transforms from a larva, but it is ])resumed to be much smaller than the 2.8 mm. individual. MORTALITY Larvae As already poinlcd out a three- to six-inch female clam is capable of producing between 10 and 20 million other clams per year; however, the number of clams available on any beach indicate that not more than a small fraction of 1 percent of these eggs ever become mature clams. The ]949 annual census showed only one clam of the 1949 j^ear class in three strips each six inches wide. Using the same formula which was used to obtain the number of eggs spawned, one would estimate somewhat more than 33,000 clams of the 1949 set on the entire 9.4 miles of beach. The 1948 annual census indicated that there were more adult clams then than in 1949. It would probably be safe to estimate that 120,000,000,000- 000 eggs were spawned in 1948. That only 33,000 clams resulted from this 1948 egg count is startling to say the least. The 1949 set was undoubt- edly an extremely poor one but it is easy to see from these figures the THE PISMO CLAM 295 mortality \vlii('li must take ]>laco duriuji' the j)oi"io(l between spawning: of the egg and transfoi-mation into a younji- clam. Since practically nothinfj is known of the Pismo clam during its larval period it would be difficult to assip-n any particular cause to this mortality rate. Tt is known that with compai-ahle species sudden changes in temperature of just a few degrees ai'e usually fatal. Likewise changes in salinity would affect these free-swimming larvae, they could be wa.shed ashore by the turbulent surf in which they live or, on the other hand, they could be swe])t ofl'shoi-e or to some beach wher(» conditions were unfavor- able for their development. ]\Iost of them probably fall prey to the plank- ton feeding fish and invertebrates which inhabit the same environment. More or less continuous spawning by the adults over a period of several months is reasonable assurance that not all of any particular year class will be wiped out by any one factor before thej' have a chance to set. Post- Larvae and Adults EnvironmcntdJ Facfors — Once the clam lias set, changes in tempera- ture and salinity probabl.v do not have as much effect on its life as similar changes would have on the free-swimming larvae, but pronounced changes will undoubtedly increase mortality. Frequently clams will be found in large numbers around the mouth of a river during dry years when there is no water flowing in the river. As soon as enough rain falls to obtain a runoff and this fi-esh water breaks through into the sea the clams for as much as a mile in each direction away from the mouth are affected and most of them die. For this reason mature Pismo clams are seldom found near the mouth of a flowing river. Oil and other pollutants when they are present play an important role in the mortality rate of the clam. Due to strict laws regarding pollu- tion and rigid enforcement of these laws, this is not a great problem at present. Perhaps dinoflagellates, which when present in sufficient num- bers discolor the ocean and are known as "red tide," could be considered a pollutant. There have been instances where the occurrence of this red tide was presumed to be responsi])le for the resultant loss of hundreds of thousands of young clams. In these cases the larger clams were unaf- fected. These dinoflagellates have been found to cause mussels and some clams to be toxic or poisonous during the summer months when the "red tide" is prevalent. There have been no reported fatalities to humans from eating Pismo clams at these times, but, there are a number of authentic records of animal poisoning (cats and dogs) from eating the trimmings from clams when these dinoflagellates were present. It is recommended that when cleaning Pismo clams during summer months tlie dark colored liver as well as the intestine be removed and discarded and not fed to the family pet. There is at least one case where extreme cold resulted in a terrific loss to the clam population. On this occasion at Pismo Reach an extremely low tide left the sandy beach exposed for several hours during subfreez- ing weather. The wet sand froze to a depth of over an inch and most of the small clams in this zone became inactive. "When the tide came in these inactivated clams wei-e washed out of the sand and onto the beach where they had no chance to recover and the gulls had a feast. During some months of the year, particularly in the winter, the heavy incoming tides often cause so much shifting of sand that many 296 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME of the older clams in deep Avater are washed free. They are bounced shore- ward as eacli succeediiip- wave breaks and tons of water i-oll to tlie beach. .\t risHKj Jieacli just one of these massive breakers rolled a six-inch clam 70 feet toward shore. Whenever this type of tide is runnino- many thou- sands of very large clams are left stranded hi<>h and dry. On presumably barren beaches, offshore beds of Icji'al sized clams can be located by find- ing these large chiuis lying exposed at tlie high tide line. Natural Ennniis of fitc PIsiiio CIhih — (lulls, sharks, raj's and some surf fishes such as the corbina ])robably all account for a fair number of young clams each year. Some rays are known to practically denude a clam bed by using theii' "wings" to set up a suction which ])ulls the clam from the sand somewhat in the same manner as a plumber's helper clears the drain of a kitchen sink. Once the small clams have been sucked out of the sand by this ]n-ocess it is a relatively simple nuitter for the ray to pick up, crush and swallow them. The gulls have a s.ystem all their own for opening live clams up to three inches or so in diameter. It is not an unusual sight on Pismo Beach during any good low tide to see half a dozen gulls carrying clams into the air in their beaks and dropping them from a height of 50 feet or more onto the hard packed sand. It does not take many of these drops before the clam shell either shatters or the adductor muscles break, opening the two shells and exposing a juicy tidbit to the ambitious gull. On the same beach a goodly proj^ortion of the clams left exposed by previous diggers are run over by cars. The weight of the car causes the clam to burst and again the gull enjoys a tasty meal. Gulls also devour vast numbers of clams up to three-fourth inch in diameter. These are swallowed whole •-N, N ^///K/l^^ gjgttKtttj^l^ ^_ll^^ ^y ^P ^^ Figure 121. Top row, moon snails (Polinices sp. ). Center and bottom row, young Pismo clams .showing typical cone-.shaped drill holes near the umbo (favorite .spot for boring activities of moon snails. Photograph by Al Johns for Vernon M. Haden, San Pedro. Till-; IMS.MO CLAM 297 and the shells refi'iirnd toniiajzc of I'ismo clams shipped from Mexico to I'ismo ]3eaeh where they are used by the restani-ants. Snch shipments became necessary when a law forl)idding the sale of Califonuu Pismo elams was ])assed in li)47. The demands of t he tra\-elin^- |»nblic foi- the dish which made Pismo lieach a nationally famous eatinji' stop were instrumental in forcing the restaurant ownei-s to seek a new sonrce of supply. Not all of the Pismo clams now sold in the restaurants at Pismo Beach are shipjied from Mexico. There exists today aiul probably always will exist some blaekmarket trade in locally dug Pismo clams. The inces- sant activities of the fish and game wardens do nnich toward keeping this to a minimum. MANAGEMENT Pismo Clam Program of Investigation In 1917 the California Fish and Game Commission inaugurated a progi'am for the scientific investigation of the commercially iin])oi-tant fishes of the JState. This jirogram was worked out and devcloi)ed by Dr. William F. Thompson. It provided for the study of the commercially important fisheries of the State for the purpose of developing regulations which Avould permit the greatest use of these natui-al resoui-ces without destroying the future supply. In accord with this general program the commission in 1919 obtained the services of Dr. Frank W. Weymouth for the study of the Pismo clam fishery of California. This niollusk was selected for investigation as it was representative of a California bivalve of considerable connuercial importance and was apparently experiencing a decided depletion, as evi- denced by the demands for increased protection. Di-. Weymouth began the study of the Pismo clam fishery in 1919 and in 192.3 imblished his results. In this work Dr. Weymouth laid particular emphasis on growth physiology and proved that the age of the elams could be determined from the annual rings. He also made a study of the life history and of the Huetuations in abniulance of different year classes. At the conclusion of Ids re|iort li(> mad(> a nmnber of i-econnnendations including one that, in order to follow the actual cimditions of the species, in addition to the col- lection of the data on the commercial shipments, a census of the young by the method of cross-sectioning the bt^ach be cai'ried out at least once each year. Through this reconnneiulation the amnud Pismo clam census at Pismo Beach came into being in 1928 and, except for the war years from 1942 through 194(i wlu^i the staff of the Bureau of ilarine Fisheries was inadequate to accom]")lish th(^ task, it has been carried on ever since. Annual Pismo Clam Census The accessibility of these clams to sampling and the relative immo- bility of the individuals have made the population particularly suscepti- ble to a quantitative study. This ;iinuuil census consists of digging a trench six inches wide commencing just below the high tide line and extending 308 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME seaward as far as is fcasibk' on a ^ootl luw tide. Tlu'se sections are taken at tlii-ee different localities on Pismo Beaeh, each separated from the other by several miles. Commencing' at the veg'etation line where the sand dunes are fonnd, a rojie is stretched seawai'd. This rope is conspicuously marked evci-y three meters into segments. Commencing' at the vegetation line and l)i-()c"eedin<2: seaward these seo'ments are numbered serially. The segment M limber reached by the highest wave of the previous lii^h tide is recorded Figure 12S. Members of the staff ol' the Bureau of Marine Fisheries, Calitornia Divi- sion of Fish and Game, conducting the annual census. Wooden trays are to screen sand for small clams. Clams removed from each three-meter segment are tied in cheesecloth for later aging. Notebook is for keeping track of segment number, number of clams and other pertinent data. Photograph by Kramer A. Adams, November 19^8. THE PISMO CLAM 309 for eac'li ot! tile sc't't ions. When in the di^-^niiji- of ;iii\- pari iciilar scirmoiit a clam is encountered, tlie se inches diameter) 50 1017 4^4 inches diameter . 50 Districts 15, 10 and 17 roughly Monterey Bay lietween Pigeon Point and Yankee Point open only between .ScptemU-r I and April 30 each year. All other districts'open the year around. 1921 i% inches diameter . 36 1927. 5 inches diameter 15 Shipping of clams by common carrier prohibited and no clam out of the shell may be possessed unless being prepared for consumption. l!)2!l 5 irirlics (liiiinctcr.. 15 District 18A, area between Le Grande Pier and Santa Maria River mouth, set up as clam sanctuary, no digging at any time. 1931 5 inches diameter 15 Sportfishing license required to take Pismo clams. 1933 5 inches diameter 15 No digging for clams between ' i hour after sundown and ' 2 hour before sunrise. N'o clam digging implements in possession on beach during these hogrs. 1947 5 inches diameter 15 No Pismo clams taken in California can l;e sold. 1948 5 inches diameter 10 1949 5 inches diameter 10 District 18A opened to Pismo clam digging and 8 miles of clam Ijearing beaches closed in San Luis Obispo County (1.5 miles from .\torro Rock north; 2.2 miles between the wooden ramps at Oceano and Pismo Beach and 4.3 miles from mouth of Santa Maria River to mouth of Oso Flaco Creek). All undersized clams must be returned to hole from which dug or to deep water. REFERENCES Ai.liii. J. Alfred l!!47;i. ri.sino . pp. HI -38, 2 figs. llMTIi. I'isnio clani increase. Ihid.. pji. 12i)-]."»l. I!l4;i. Pismo flam. Calif. Div. Fish and (Jame, Fish Knll. 74. iip. Ki.'.-IGT, 1 graph. I'linnol. I'.iul ]U:>,7. Clams. Calif. Div. Fi.sli and Came, Fish liuU. 4it, pp. ll>t»llil, :'. graphs. V.M(t. The odihle bivalves of California. Calif. Fish and Game, vol. 2(i, pp. 212-230. Ki figs. I'.ureau of .Marine Fisheries 1048. 1947 Pismo clam census. C.-ilif. Fisii and Came, vol. .",4, p. 82. California Fish and Came r.t22. Cold weather kills Pismo clams. Calif. Fish and C.ime, vol. S, pp. 124-12."». Carriker, Melbourne Romaine 104.3. On the structure and fund ion of the proboscis in the common oyster drill, T'rosdipiiij- cinercd Sa\ . .Tmirn. of Morphology, vol. 73, ])]). 441-.">(H). Chapman, Williert .Mclieod. :uid P.;inner, Albert Henry 1040. Contributions to the life history of the .Japanese oyster drill, Tritonalin jiiponica. with notes on other enemies of the Olympia oyster, O.ilrcn Itiridu. Washington Depi. of Fisheries, Biological Kept. 40 A, pp. HJ7-200. .'"» figs., 6 pis. Clark, Frances N. 102s. Pismo clam census. Calif. Fish and C.ime, vol. 14, p. S(i. 1020. Pismo clam census. Calif. I'"'ish and (lame, vol. 1."). pp. 72-73. 10.30a. Pismo clam census. Calif. Fish and fJame, vol. 1(5, pp. 7-"»-7(>. 10301). Large Pi.smo clams. Ibid.. \n>. ISO-lOO. G — 25222 312 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME 1981. Increasing scarcity of el.inis ..ii Pismo Beach. Calif. Fish and Game, vol. 17, II. S4. l'.i;',J. 'I'lii' present status of the Pismo clam Tirela stiilhninn. Calif. Fish and Game, vol. IS, pp. 170-lsn. ^-,.rr I'.t."..".. The 1!>34 Pisnui clam census. Calif. Fish and Game, vol. 21, i>p. l;)4-loo. Clark, Frances N., and Croker, Richard S. 193t;. The Pismo clam in 19:?.".. Calif. Fish and Game, vol. 22, pp. 249-250. 1937 Has the closed area increased the Pismo clam population? Calif. Fish and Game, vol. 23, pp. 161-162. Coe, Wesley R. ^ „ „• , , -.u 1943. Se.xual differentiation in mollusks. 1. Pelecypods. Quar. Rev. Biol., vol. IN, l.p. 1. '.4-164. I'.ilT. Xulrition, growth and sexuality of the Pismo clam (Tirehi xtultoniiii) . .Journ. Exp. Zool., vol. 104, pp 1-24. I!l4,s. Xntrilion, environmental conditions, uiid ;;ro\vth of marine bivalve mollusks. .lomii. Marine Res., vol. 7, pp. HSO-OOl, 2 figs. Croker, Richard S. 1933. The I'ismo clam in 1932. Calif. Fish and (Jame, vol. 19, pp. 156-157. 1934. The Pismo clam in 1933. Calif. Fish and ( lame, vol. 20, pp. 156-157. Herrington, William C. 1925. The Pismo clam crop. Calif. Fish and Game, vol. 11, pp. 103-109, 1 tig. 1920 Depletion of the Pismo clam in California. Calif. Fi.sh and Game, vol. 12, pp. 117-124, 1 fig. 1930. The Pismo clam, further studies of its life history and depletion. Calif. Div. Fish and Game, Fish Bull. 18, 69 pp., 16 figs. Link. Ileinrich Fredrich 1807. Beschreiliung der Naturalien-Sammlung der Universitiit zu Rostock, 1806- 1808 ; Facsimile reproduction of the pages relating to Mollusca. Ix)ndon, J. R. Le B. Tomlin, 106 pp., 1931. MacGinitie, G. E. 1941. On the method of feeding of four Pelecypods. Biol. Bull., vol. 80, pp. 18-25. Nightingale, H. W. 1937. Red water organisms, their occurrence and influence upon marine aquatic animals with special reference to shellfish in the waters of the Pacific coast. Seattle, Argus Press, 24 pp., 4 figs. (Jldroyd, Ida Shepard 1924. The marine shells of the west coast of North America. Stanford Univ. Press, vol. 1, 247 p., .57 pis. Roedel, Phil M. 193S. The 1937 I'ismo clam census. Calif. Fish and Game, vol. 24, pp. 196-197. 19.39. The I'ismo clam in 1938. Calif. Fish and (ianie. vol. 25, |.p. 177-181. ]94, pj). 178-179. I'.t41. Results of the 1940 Pismo clam census. Calif. Fish and Game, vol. 27, p. 48. 1942. The 1941 Pismo clam census. Calif. Fish and (!ame, vol. 28, p. 66. Soniniei-. Ilei'man, antl Meyer, Karl I'\ I'.l.";7. Paralytic shellfish i)oi.soning. Rei)rinle(l willi additions from the Archives of Pathology, vol. 24, iip. .560-.598. W'ey nioni li. Frank W. 19111. ,\ ease of destruction of Pismo cl.atns liy oil. Calif. Fish and (Jame, vol. 5, pp. 174-175, 1 lig. 1920. The edible clams, mussels and scalloi)s of California. Calif. Fish and Game Comm., Fi.sh Bull. 4, 74 pp., 26 figs., 19 pis. 1921. The abundance of young Pismo clams. Calif. Fish and Game, vol. 7, pp. 103- 100, 2 figs. 1923. The life-history and growth of the Pismo clam (Tivela stultorum Mawe). Calif. Fish and Game Conim., Fish Bull. 7, 120 pp., 14 figs. A SECOND RECORD OF THE WHALE SHARK, RHINEODON TYPUS, IN PANAMA BAY * By E. W, GUDGER Amorio;ni Miisciiin of Natur.'il History Nt'w York City Rhineodon typus, the whale shark, <^rows to 45 feet (measured) and possibly to 60 feet (estimated), and hence is the largest marine animal next to the large whales. Its broad head covered with small spots, its wicU' terminal mouth, its three longitudinal ridges on each side, its vertical rows of large whitish or yelhnvish spots — all are characters, which, taken together, are not found in any other shark. It is found in tropical and warm-temjierate waters the world around. In 1935 I published an article on its geographical distribution. In this 1 listed all the reported records of specimens which I had found in 20 years ' search. Among these records was that to which attention will now be called. Figure 129. Tho mounted .skin of a whale shark taken at Acapulco, western coast of Mexico, in 193-^. It is one of the trea.sures of the American Museum of Natural History. Ut'fore tanning the sliin was about 17 feet long. American Museum of Natural History Photo THE FIRST PANAMA RECORD— 1883 In 1883, the Italian li, N. corvette "Yettor Pisani." G. Chierchia in command, in a voyage around the woi-ld. visitiMl Panama Bay. One * SnljuiiH<(l lor publication March, 1950. (313) 314 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GA^ME (lay in February the sliip was anchored off Taboga Island and the crew were fishing for a sliark in a dead calm. Presently, some large sharks were noticed at a considci-abic distance away. In a short time several native boats, accompanied by two from the ship, set out to investigate the large sharks. One of tliese was secured after a long, hard fight and was with great difiieulty brought alongside the vessel by the nine boats. Because of its "colossal dimensions." the sliai'k coidd not be hoisted onto the deck, so it was stramled on a nearby sand beach. Chierchia's description, published in Nature in 1884, speaks of the three longitudinal chamf erings on each side, the encircling spots, the wide terminal mouth with minute teeth, and the groat size. All the characters definitely establish this catch as a whale shark. It was 8.90 meters long between perpendiculars (c. 29 ft.) and 6.5 meters in circumference (c. 21 ft.). The natives called the great fish "Tintoreva, " and the oldest of the villagers said that but once before had tliey fislicd foi- sudi a spotted shark — and then for a smaller one. THE SECOND RECORD— 1947 This comes as a result of the publication by the present writer in 1949 of a brief note on the third record of a Avhale shark in the Caribbean Sea — at Puerto La Cruz, Venezuela. This note was seen by Mr. "William H. Gaines, Jr., long (since 1932) a resident and airplane pilot in the Panama Canal Zone. Here follows what Mr. Gaines has wa-itten about his observations of a whale shark in Panama Bay. "On June 28, 1947, I was flying a Piper Cub (a light air|)lane) over the ruins of old Panama, and slightly seaward of the beach. From an altitude of about 2,UU0 feet, I observed a large marine animal swim- ming a short distance out from the breaker line. From that altitude I could not identify it, but I thought it was a whale. T closed the throttle and spiraled down to investigate. 1 made my first pass over the animal at about 50 feet and at about 60 miles per hour. I noticed large wliite- appearing spots girdling the animal's body from a ])()iiit just off the head and progi-essing toward the tail. 1 still thought it a whale. The second time over, I drop])e(l to about 15 feet and slowed dow ii to about 50 miles per hour. I then iiotii-cij the large hliint head and small fins on either side — all similar to those of a wh.ale. liut then 1 also noticed that the tail had vertical flukes like those of a fish instead of the longitudinal ones of a whale, iiut even tlicn I was hardly suit of what I had seen.'' Mr. Gaines then returned to the air field and told Jiis fellow pilots about the strange huge animal he had seen in Paiunna Bay. Having never observed anything like this in their trips over the bay, the pilots laughed at him and suggested that he was seeing double. Then he persuaded two of them to take their small light planes and follow him. They did so, and he states their observations as follows : "AVe buzzed the shark for about 15 minutes, just barely clearing the water, in an attempt to cause some reaction on the part of the great fish, which was as long as one of our small jilanes, but it comjiletely ignoi-ed us. Finally we gave u]i and rc^tunicd to the field. wond(M-ing what the great fish was." SECOND WirAM': SHARK IN VANA.MA I'.AY -U ■ ) J Itsliould he noted that ill! tlnoui^h ihc first and sccdiid "l)iizzings of tlie shark by these great objects totally iinkiuiw n id it. Ww whah^ shark was entirely niKlisturbed and unafraid. This is exactly in k('('i)iii<|- with tlie liabits of h'liincodon. Ft is afraid of nothin-^', since it has no enemies. Those interested in the nnafraidness of the whale shark will find every- thing known of its behavior set out and discussed in the w ritci-'s article, "The Whale Shark I^nafraid" (1941). Anxious to identify this huge fish, ]\Ir. (iaiiu's went to the i'anania Canal fiihrary and hunted through one luitural history book after another, until he finally fouiul a descri])ti()n of a simiJai- shai'k — a whale shark — seen in the (iulf of California. At first, no one could be foinul who had excr seen such a huge fish in Panama Bay. But, in the conversation about this specimen, it presently came out that several young men had seen specimens of this great spotted shark while deep-sea fishing far out in Panama Bay. They, however, had not had the incentive possessed by Mr. Gaines of tr^-ing to find out what their great fish was. One other whale shark has been reported from Panama waters. In 1082, a steamer rammed a whale shark near Burica Point, a promontory in the Pacific on the line between Panama and Costa Ivica. This ramming Avas put on record by the present writer in 1938. Up to this time, Rhineodon has been recorded in the Central Eastern Pacific from the Gulf of California and (especially) from around Cape San Lucas; from Acapulco, Mexico; from Burica Point, N. W. Panama; and in Panama Bay, 1883 and 1947. Off the western coast of South America, it has been recorded at the Galapagos Islands, and as far south ''1878) as Callao, Peru. This later record in Panama Bay strengthens our knoAvledge of the range of distribution of the whale shark in the warm waters of the x\merican Eastern Pacific. REFERENCES Chierchia, G., and Guntlier, Albeit 1884. Voyage of the "Vettor risniii." Xaiur.', vnl. :?0, p. 865-366. Gudger, Eugene Willis 1935. The geographical distribution of tlu> whale-shai-k {Rhineodon li/piis). I'roc. Zool. Soc. London. 1934, p. 863-893. 1938. A whale shark r.-iinined by a vessel off tlie racitic ('nasi of Western Panama. Nature, vol. 141, p. 516. * 1941. The whale shark unafraid. American Xat., \i>i. T."), ji. 55()-.">66. 1949. A third record of the whale shark, (Rhineodon typus) in the Caribbean Sea. Science, vol. 109, p. 597-598. THE ARTIFICIAL ROOST— A NEW MANAGEMENT TOOL FOR CALIFORNIA QUAIL * By Wallack (J. M.\('(iui;(iOu Bureau of Game Conservation California Division of Fish and Game The three steps in California quail management as set forth by Emlen and Cladiny (1945) are: "(1) establisliing a breeding stock, (2) aiding and pi-oteeting this stock during its development, and (3) harvesting the surplus." The second step consists of providing quail habitat and protection against enemies and overshooting. Quail habitat, or the living space for quail, is compounded of food, cover, and water in the proper proportion and distribution. Valley quail have a special cover requirement in that they roost in densely foliaged trees or in tall shrubs. In some areas lack of adequate roosts is believed to be the reason for low density populations. A new tool in the management of quail cover has been devised by Ian McMillan, a rancher in eastern San Luis Obispo County. McMillan (1947) has described how 12 pairs of quail were released on his ranch in 1946 in an area which was previously occupied by quail but where they no longer occurred. Food, cover, and water were made available and the birds increased to 49 in January, 1947, 153 in February, 1948, 192 in January 1949, and 435 in November, 1949. These birds roosted in two olive trees in the ranch yard which pro- vided the only suitable roosting cover in their territory. The trees which were adequate for the smaller number did not provide sufficient cover for the 435 birds. "When there were 435 quail trying to roost in these two trees every limb was covered and any owl that landed in the trees was almost sure of landing on a bird and flushing the remainder from their roost. Thus the owl would not only take one of the birds, he would seriously disrupt the rest of the covey. In order to provide additional roosting cover to protect the quail from nocturnal predators, Mr. McMillan constructed two artificial roosts. These roosts were immediately taken to by the birds and provided very adccpiate ])rotection. As soon as the roosts were constructed a majority of the birds roosted in their heavy cover in i)referenee to the olive trees. The Division of Fish and Game, through Federal Aid Projects Cali- fornia 2G-I) and California 33-R, has constructed roosts of the McMillan type in areas where roosting cover is the limiting factor. Although figures are not yet available as to the effect of these roosts on quail populations, it seems safe to conclude, from the heavy use they receive where roosting cover is a limiting factor, that they will fill in a gap in the habitat and increase the quail population. * Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, California 33-R. Submitted for publica- tion March, 1950. (316) ARTIFiriAI- nOdST FOR (^C.MI; ^M 111 Califonii;!, as in iiiiicli of the southwest, there are many s(|uare miles of potential (|uail range tliat liave more tliaii ample feed and escape cover. Water and I'oostiiig cover are scarce or lacking ovei- much of this area. The water reijuircmcnt is heing met by installation of the "gallina- ceous guzzler" by Federal Aid Trojcct ('alifoniia 'J(id). The .Mr.MjjIan roost promises to make much of the balance of this ai'id, brushy country available to (piail by supplying th(> otlu^i- cnviroiuiicntal need — roosting cover. The roosts curi'cntly being construdcd by I he Division of Fish and Game arc (i.l feet high by 8 feet by Ki feet ( Figure !:!()). They are con- ■W *M<. Figure 130. AlcAlillan KcjosI eoMslructed by the Divi.sion of Fi.sh and dame. Photo by E. S. James. striicted from old two-inch pipe which is obtainable at little or no cost. The supports consist of four cS-foot lengths of pipe. The ends of these pipes are heated, flattened, and bent at right angles. Then a ^-iiudi hole is drilled in this flattened portion. The other end of tlie pipe is set IJ feet dee]) ill concrete in a post hole. The Tramework consists of two 8-foot lengths and two l()-fo()t lengths. J^oth ends of these pijies are flattened and one-half inch lioles drilled in 1 he tlattened port ion. The framework is fastened together ami attached to the supports by three-eighths inch bolts which pass through these holes (Figure 131). 318 CALIFORNIA FISH AXD GAME Figure 131. Corner of framework showing how pipes are fastened together. After the framework is erected, hog wire feueing, or other similar material is fastened to the frameworlv and then brush is piled on top of tlie wire-covered framework (Figure 132). The brush should consist of Figure 132. Framework is covered witli hog wu-e and brush piled on top. Photo by E. 8. Jatiies. ARTII'K lAh ROOST FOR qVAUj 319 (■rooked linil)s of juiiiiior, oak, or some siniilai- material, not straijiht- liuibetl brush wliieli will pack down. It is iinpoi'tant that sidlicieiit brush is used to proxide i^odij. dense coNcr and |)i-i)tert ion \'i)V the birds. It is believed advisable to const rnct these i-oosts in groups of two about 50 yards a])art so tliat if the birds are lluslied froiii one tliey can i\y to the other. In aritl rau^e country, it is felt that ideal |)lacenient of tlie.se devices involves putting theni at least 200 yards and not more than one- half mile from availal)le water. Pi-esent indications are that canyon bottoms ])rovide tlie best sites. The artiticial roosts are actually more i)redator-|)rool' than natural roosts as the heavy brush pi'otects the quail from aerial |)redators and the iron supports ])roteet them from . pp. 170. RECENT RECORDS OF THE WOLVERINE (GULO LUSCUS LUTEUS) IN CALIFORNIA ' r.y Fked L. Jones ]\Iuseum of Vertebrate Zoology, Berkeley, Calit'orniu Little is known of the status of the wolverine in California beyond tlie fact that it is rare. The only estimate of numbers dates back to 1987 when Grinnell, Uixon and Liiisdale (1987) judged the population of the State to be 15 pairs, all occurring in the southern Sierra Nevada between the Tahoe area and Walker Pass. Since that time few additional accounts have been published. AVhile engaged in a field study of the Sierra Nevada mountain sheep in 1948, several heretofore unrecorded observations of wolverines became evident. Sixteen unpublished records which seem reliable are summarized in chronological order in Table 1. Additional details regarding some of these observations are oifered in the following paragraphs. In the winter of 1929 Orland Bartholomew followed one wolverine for five days in the high country of Kings Canyon National Park. He first came across the tracks near the summit of Glenn Pass. As he followed the trail down toward Rae Lakes, 1,500 feet below, he noticed that the animal had closely followed each twist and turn of the trail, though in many places shortcuts would have saved time and distance. Since the trail was completely obliterated by snow, the route must have been familiar to the wolverine under summer conditions. On steep and slippery descents the animal had slid down backward, scratching long marks with its claws. The trail continued past Rae Lakes down the South Fork to Woods Creek, making a total trip of approximately 12 miles. On two occasions the wolverine had passed within a few yards of porcupines without molest- ing them. Three days later, on February 15th, Bartholomew sighted a wolverine near Woods Creek (presumably the same individual) and watched it pick its way around a slope and climb a pine tree. He stated that the size of the track was misleading, as the animal proved to be considerably smaller than he had anticipated. A photograph of the track is reproduced in Figure 133. * Submitted for publication Jaiiuary, 1950. (320 ) WOLVERINE IN CALIFORNIA TABLE 1 Reports of Wolverines or Their Sign Observed in the Southern Sierra Nevada From 1927 to 1948 321 Authority Locality Date Observation Sam Origgs, Inde- pendence Between Colby Mdws. and Evolution Lake, Kings Can- yon Nat'l Park. Winter, 1927 Wolverine followed Griggs for eight days. Was seen several times. Orlaiid liartliolo- raew, Auberry Between Glenn Pass and Woods Cr., Kings Canyon Nat'l Feb. 11-15, 1929.. Tracks of one wolverine followed by Bartholomew for five successive days. Park. W olverinc seen. Orland Bartholo- Silver Pass, Fresno Co. Mar. 21. 1929 Tracks of two wolverines seen mew, Aubcrry Tom Dahl, trapper.. Bourland Mdws., Tuolumne Co.. Early I930's Wolverine tracks seen. E. L. Shellenbarger, U. S. Forest Serv- ice Tyndall Cr., Sequoia Nat'l Park. Early 1930's Six wolverines seen together by .Mr. H. A. Simpson (reported to Shellenl:)arger). E. L. Shellenbarger, Above Tunnel Mdws., Tulare Co. 1931 One wolverine seen. U. S. Forest Serv- ice E. L. Shellenbarger, U. S. Forest Serv- Near Tunnel Mdws., Tulare Co.. 1933 or 1934 Cattlemen reported having seen two wolverines together on different occa- ice sions. Norman Clyde, guide Near Paradise Valley, Kings Canyon Nat'l Park. About 1933 One wolverine seen. Oliver Kehrlein, Sierra Club White Mt. Pk., Inyo Co Summer 1937 One wolverine seen. E. L. Shellenbarger, U. S. Forest Serv- ice Rocky Basin, Tulare Co __ About 1938 One wolverine seen. Clarence Fry, U. S. Park Service (ret.) Mosquito Lake, Sequoia Nat'l Park Summer 1940 One wolverine seen by a fisherman (re- ported to Fry). Norman Clyde, guide N. Iti»gra]ihed "diggings" which were attributed to grcjund squirrels (Figures 135 and 136). The diggings first attracted my attention by their being along uniform con- toui's rather than scattered at random over the beach. They were sur- rounded by s(|uirrel tracks and presented the appearance of having been squirrel-made. Two contained fecal pellets later determined to be from squirrels. The depth of the diggings varied from 3f inches to mere scratches of the surface and dried grunion eggs were visible on the surface of the sand in many of them. P>y digging at the same contour level I was able to uncover numerous pods of eggs but digging above and below the level yielded none. Thus, their distribution corresponded with the distribution of egg pods as shown by Thompson (1919, Chart 2). There were two consjucuous levels at which these diggii^gs were observed. The most abundant ones were below the highest tide mark while others were at the base of a two- to five-iiicli w;ive-cut ledge appar- ently cut at the highest reach of a high tide (Figure 135, A). On July 3d and 4tli. obsei-vations of the s(piirrels themselves was l)recluded by activities of other persons who kept the s(|uin-elx undei- ♦ Submitted for publi<;ilii>ii .TanuMiy lO'iO. (323) 324 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME SAN Dl EGO NITEO^TAT.ES- ' MEXICO 1000 YARDS SQUIRREL DIGGINGS PRESENT BEACH Figure 134. Orientation map of the beach area on which squirrel diggings were found. PREDATORS UPON ORUNION EGGS 325 Figure 185. Nortli-.shore beach of dredged-in area showing bank with .s(iiiirrel burrows indicated by arrows and the squirrel diggings located at two levels, indicated by A and B, on the beach. cover ; however, a visit to the area on the morning of July 16th was highly successful in that the squirrels were active and relatively undisturbed. Three were observed in a seven-foot section of the beach. One of these Avas collected and the viscera preserved. Later laboratory examination indicated the following in the stomach : 400-|- grunion eggs, numerous seeds, Oenothera 'historta petals and sand. Dried squirrel droppings, taken from diggings and soaked in water before being teased apart, contained some entire grunion eggs, some egg membranes, sand and miscellaneous material. Also on July 16th, horned larks (Otocoris alpestris) were observed to favor for their foraging the areas of loose sand around tlie sqnirrel diggings and they were seen to flick sand from side to side with their bills. An immature male was collected, and the gizzard was found to contain 17 entire grunion eggs, 22+ crushed eggs, eight small seeds, one entire beetle (Saprhins scrrulatus Lee), numerous parts of the same species of beetle and sand. The above observations are interesting in that two terrestrial verte- brate species are shown to be taking advantage of a seasonal phenomenon on a man-made beaeli Avhieh has been extant only since 1941. The grunion spawn from Febrnary until September as extreme limits, and from March to July as usual limits, on the high spring tides which accompany the full moon and the new moon, and only at night (Walker. 1947'). Thus, the egg deposits would be expected to be on a given level for one night's spawning. The eggs themselves are deposited in pods two or three inches below the surface and are often further covered to a greater depth by subsequent tides. Each pod measures about five-eighths iiirli in diameter 326 CALIFORNIA FISfl AND GAME •n^ ffo»< «.»'ii- '-• .,■ ■#. lHWllMlHI I I ^ -•«r>^*- ••-■'-^ Figure 136. Squirrel diggings in beach sand. Size iiiclkauU by the 6 inch ruler. and contains an avei-a<>-e of over 2,000 salmon-pink og-o's abont one-six- teenth inch in diameter. Thider ideal conditions the eggs are read}' to hatch in nine (hiys and will be nncovered by the next series of high tides. During the period between series of high tides the s(|iiirrels and larks are able to uncover and feed upon the eggs. The fact that the squirrels initiate the diggings on the beach and feed upon the eggs thus uncovered places them in the roll of primary predators. As the eggs recovered in the gizzard of the hoiiicd lark were not dried out, it must be that the larks in tnrn uncover cgus where the s(piirrels have already loosened the sand. No observations were made which would indicate that the horned larks initiated any of the diggings and no evidence of diggings'of any kind wms found wlierc sijuirrels were absent even though horned larks and grunion eggs Avei'e to be found. The evidence tends to place the larks as secondary predators as they seem to take advantage of the initial diggings of the squirrels who are not so well adapted to pick out the individual small eggs from the sand as are the larks. It is of interest also to note that the horned larks in preying upon histerid beetles are in tiii'ii ])i-eying upon one of the probable i)redators of the grunion eggs. In collecting pods of grunion eggs to be returned for observation in the laboratory, the histerid beetle (Saprinvs scrrulatus), an oxyuroid nematode and a small annelid worm (Family Enchytraeidae) were con- spicuous b}' their presence in the sand immediately surrounding the eggs. Similar collections of sand taken from areas of the bead) away from the egg pods yielded very few of the histei-ids and annelids, and none of the nematodes. In the laboi-atory no damage to the eggs by the worms was noted and the worms indicated no positive tropisins toward the eggs. No tests were conducted to check for damage to the eggs by the beetles. It im;i;i)A'I()|{s ppon okt'mox ixjor 327 iiuiy l)e sii|)|)(is(m1 that llicy would liaxc tlic same habits as the species listed by Thuin])sou, pact icularly with the local species beiii^ roiiiul in sncli intimate association with the e^ of (li^'^iiitis as described liere <2ives a fjood clue as to where and when ay than any where <>:i"union s[)a\vninji' has been previously i-eported and it was located as the result of the scpiirrel activity. In addition to the di*.'- <>in^'s aloufi' the noi-th-shore beach of the dred<:(>(l-in area, siniilai" activity was obsei'veil foi' thi'ee-fonrths mile south alonji; its eastern border and one-fourth mile to the north where a i-id)l)le area afforded suitable habitat for sqnirrels (Figure 134) . REFERENCES Clark. Frii noes N. 1925. The life history of Leuresthes tenuis, :ni .-illn'riiii' tisli willi ( idt- ccmlrolled spawning habits. Calif. Fish and Game Conini., Fish Bull. 10, ."il pp., 6 pis. 10.38. Grunion in Southern California. Calif. Fish and Game, vol. 24. pp. 49-.">4, 2 tigs.. 1 graph. 'rhoini)son. Will F.. and .Tuli;i I'dl 'Plionipsun litlU. The spawning of the grunion (LeiircsIlK .■< Inniix). (';ilit'. I>i\-. I'"isli :ind G;ini<'. Fish Bull. .3, 29 pp., 9 figs. ^^'alI^er, Boyd W. I'.t4T. The heaoh-sp.-iwning grunion. A(juarium .Jour., vol. 18, pp. 8-12, 31. 1949. Periodicity of spawning by the grunion, Leurexthe.s tenuis, an atherine fish. Univ. of Calif., Los Angeles, 16fi pp., 26 figs. Doctorate dissertation. NOTES CALIFORNIA ANTELOPE REPRODUCTIVE POTENTIALS Procl.R-tivity of tlie pronghorii antelope herds is normally measured IH4») states that Observations and avadahle records indicate this kids. 1^ m ther observations cited by this author (on. cit Table 9 d 12fi^ indu-ate that sinj,le births predominate over twin births ' ^' ^ rnformation gathered as a result of recent antelope trapping and tansp anting operations during December 1949 and JaniUry 195 shows that the reproductive potential of antelope in Lassen County Cali- h.rnia, may be ccmsiderably higher than field surveys would indicate Dunng the course of tliis trapping operation a combination of handling •^f^ lonr'o? tl •";'^ f'"'"^"^-^ "^^^^^^^ ^^^*^^^' ^'^^"It^^^ "^ the loss of ~i antelope. Ot this total, one was an adult male, two were male fawns two were female fawns, two were female yearlings (19-20 months old) and -() were adult females. Stomach contents of all these antelope were saved for examnmtion and all of the females were autopsied and examined for en biyos. Data gathered as a result of these examinations bring out some interesting facts relative to the reproductive ])oteiitial of this hercHf pronghorn antelope. PRODUCTIVITY Findings relative to the breeding potential of California antelope are summarized m Table 1. Although the number of animals examined is small, mdieations are that fawns and yearling females may not be a TABLE 1 Pregnancy Data— Lassen County, California, Antelope Age Number females examined Number females pregnant Percentage pregnant Kawns (7 mo.} Yearlings (19-20 mo.J ..['. 2 2 20 0 0 o.n Adults (all ages) """ 0.0 18 90,0 significant factor in herd productivity. Adult females on the other hand snow a high incidence of pregnancy. Considering further only those adult females which were found to be pregnant It was observed that their reproductive potential was very high. These data are summarized in Table 2. It will be noted from exam- inatK.n of TaWe 2 that only one single embryo was found as compared with 17 sets of twin embryos. No occurrence of triplets was recorded (328) NOTES 329 TABLE 2 Occurrence of Embryos in Pregnant Female Antelope Number females pregnant 18 Number single embryos.. 1 Number twin embryos 17 Total embryos. - 35 Embryos per pregnant antelope... I .!il EMBRYO SEX RATIO The a^e of all embryo.s at the time oi' exainiiiHtion was sufficient to permit accurate sexiiij:'. Data i-elative to tlie occurrence of embryos by sex is summarized in Table 3. TABLE 3 Occurrence of Embryos by Sex Krabryos Number of occurrences Percentage Total embryos Female Male 1 female 1 14 2 1 5.5 77.9 11.1 5.5 1 14 4 1 male, 1 female. 2 females. . , 2 males 14 Totals 18 100.0 19 16 These data indicate the sex ratio of males to females at birth would he 84 :!()(). The number of sets of twins of identical sex (3) compared to the number of sets of twins of opposite sex (14) seems disproportionately low when considered in the light of productivity data gathered on deer (Chattin, 1948; Robinette and Olsen, 1944). This is probably due to the small size of the sample and the ratio might be expected to approach equality when additional information is secured. REFERENCES Chattin, John E. 1948. Breeding season and productivity in the interstate deer herd. Calif. Fish and Game, vol. 34, pp. 25-31. Einarsen, Arthur S. 1948. The pronghorn antelope and its nianagenient. Wildlife Management Inst., Washington, 235 pp. Robinette, W. L., and O. A. Olsen 1944. Studies of the productivity of mule deer in ciMilral I'tah. Trans. Ninth North American Wildlife Conf., pp. 156-161. John E. Chattin and Rohert Lassen, Bureau of Hame Conservation, (California Division of Fish and Game, March, 1950. 330 CALTFORXIA PTSTT AXD CAME NOTES ON TWO SPECIES OF SHARKS FROM BAJA CALIFORNIA In the fall of 194!), the J)i-vi.sioii of Fish and Game's new research vessel " Yellowfin'' made its initial cruise alonank fish which was l,:>(iO mm inches) long. (53^ Figure 137. Carchnrhinus velox, total length 1V,H(I imn, from Gorda Bank, Baja California. Photograph by Vernon M. Haden, San Pedro. NOTKS 331 KiGt'RE i;{8. f'urch'irhinns velox. Lower surface of head of specimen shown in Figure 137. Photograph hit Veri}on M. Hnden, .SVn; Pedro. Measurciiu'iits in inilJiiueters made with (li\i(lfrs ri'diii point to point, (not as projections ) are as follows : Total length, l,.S(i(); predorsal leiijitli. 4(;0 ; prepectoral length, 345; prepelvic length, 091; preanal leii^^th, 8()?> ; snout to second dorsal, 871. Distance between dorsal origins, 42'. t ; l)ct\veen insertions of paired tins, :>()S ; from pelvic insertion to anal origin, 18o ; from second dorsal origin to ui)per caudal pit, KiS; from tip of second dorsal to upper caudal pit, 40; from anal origin to lower caudal pit, 137. Greatest depth, 204 (this measurement is of little meaning as the shark's belly was noticeably distended) ; least depth, 48; greatest width. 102; width opposite upper caudal pit, 38. Head length (to nearest point of first gill slit), 280; head width (between first gill slits). 140. Interorliital width (fleshy), 11;"); suborbital width, lOS. Orbit diameter: Horizontal, 21 ; vertical. IS. Orbit to nostril. (J2 ; to junction of lip furrows, 53. Snout, preocular length, 137; preoral length, 134; tip of snout to outer edge of nostril, 76. Nostril length, 24; iuterrarial width: Least, 2\) ; greatest, 70; inner edge of nostril to front of mouth, 00. Width of mouth between ends of gape. '.».■>; front of mouth to line joining ends of gape, 47; upper labial furrow. 7; lower bibial furrow, 5. Distance iictweeu first and liftli gill openings, 70. Lengtii of gill (penings: 1st. .33; 2d. 40; .".-I. 4."i ; 4lli, 47; rdh. .".S. First dorsal tin: liase, 127: origin to upper tip, 108; lower i)oslcrior edge, .j2 ; vertical height, 120. Second dorsal tin : Base, 45 ; origin to upper tip, 52 ; lower posterior edge, 54 ; vertical height. 38. Anal fin: P>ase, 50; origin to upper tip, 71; lower posterior edge, 54. I'ectoral fin: Base, 70; origin to lower tiji, 220; upper posterior edge, 85; outer margin, 175. Pelvic fin: Base, (iO ; origin to lower tip, 70; upper posterior edge, 48. Caudal fin : Upper pit to tip of upper lobe, 302 ; lower pit to tip of lower lobe, 153 ; upper pit to apex of notch in upper lobe, 278 ; upper pit to nearest point of posterior margin, 114. These measurements were made by John E. Fitch and the writer after tiie si)ecimen had been frozen and tliawed. It has been deposited at the University of California at Los Angeles. About a dozen specimens 15 to '_*() inches in lenj^tli of the sharp- nose shark, Scoluxlo)} lonr/io-io (.Jordan and (iilbert) Avere canizht on liook and line in the eveninji' of Uctoljcr 2. 1II4!», at Abreojos Anclioragc (Lat. 26° 42' N., Long. 113° 33' W.). The (h'pth of tlie water was six fathoms and its temperatnic 71 h\ ( )n October 8, 194!), three more speci- mens of about the same size were taken at Santa '>rar^arita Island, 332 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME Ma-daleiia Bay (Lat. 24° 31.5' N. ; Long. 111° 54' W.). These were obtained on hook and line in 10 fatlioms of water. Tliis sliark was unknown on the Pacific Coast north of Cape San Lucas until Iluhbs and ^rcllu\' tliesc reservoirs lie within Los Angeles Comity. Little is known concerning the relationship of the bigmouth buffalo to the general ecological i)icture in these resei'voirs. Initial food studies by water sanitation engineers of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power indicate a high percentage of crustaceans in its diet. If its value in controlling crustaceans which may be detrimental to domestic water supi)lies can be demonstrated ])y additional study, it is their desire to increase its numbers in all of these reservoirs. The Avriter believes that it is important to confine the buffalo to this water system until further observations can be made regarding its relationships to other fishes. — Willis A. Evans, Bureau of Fish Conservation, California Division of Fish and Game, January, 1950. RETIREMENT OF BENJAMIN R. SAUNDERS Mr. Benjamin R. Saunders, Senior Accountant, retired on April 80, 1 !);■)(), having reached the age of seventy. He had been in the state service foi- ovei- 80 years. Although Mr. Saunders was on the i)ay roll of the Department of Finance, he woi'ked under a loan agreement for the Uivi-, sion of Fish and Game. His gracious persoiudity made him a treasured friend of everyone who had the privilege of associating with him. Xo finer testimonial could be paid to the esteem at which he was held by bis associates in the state service and by members of the fishing industry than was exhibited by the astounding response to invitations to a banquet given in his honor in San Francisco on April 33, 1950, at which friends fi-om the length and breadth of the State came to wish him a full and happy retirement. Diii-inii his long assignment with Ihc Division of Fish and Game, IVIr. Saunders audited the books of wholesale fish dealers and jirocessors to ensure compliance with fish and game laws and regulations. While carry- ing out his duties, he worked very closely Avith members of the Bureaus of Patrol and Law Enforcement and Marine Fisheries. His diplomacy, outstanding character, and friendliness won him the enviable reputation of being the outstanding public relations agent of the Division's staff. — Richard S. Croker, Chief, Bureau of Marine Fisheries, California Divi- sion of Fish and Game, May, 1950. IN MEMORIAM RUDOLPH GERHARDT Warden Rudolj)!! CJerliai-dl jiasscd away at tlir (Iridley Hospital on March 17, 1950. He enteral tlic hospital abont a week prior to his death. Hudy (icrliardt joined the division in 191^7 as an assistant wai'den* and woi-kedin several ot tlie bureaus until 194;], when he bet-anie a perma- nent warden with the Bureau of Patrol. Warden Gerhardt's assignment was the Avaterfowd and pheasant areas in the vicinity of Gridley. He was higlily regarded for his in-oficiency in handling a difficult patrol area. He leaves a w'ife, Shirley Gei'hardt, to whom the department extends sincere sympathy. — L. F. ChappeU, Chief of Puirol, California Division of Fish and Game, March, 1950. FRED W. HECKER We regret to report the death of Captain l^'red \V. liecker of San Luis Obispo, which occurred January 20, 1950. Captain Hecker, in com- pany with Warden Fullerton, and a member of the Highway Patrol, was l)atroling the beaches between A\ila and JMoi-ro. He disappeared from sight of his compaiuons, and a short time later Ins body was observed in the water of the ocean some short distance from the rocks. Every effort was made to recover the body, to no avail. Captain Hecker was apjiointed deputy fish and game warden in April, 1931. He was detailed for work in the Big Pine area in Inyo County, and later to the Coachella Valley in Riverside County. On March 10, 1932, he was stationed at San Luis Obispo County and continued in that county nntil the time of his death. Fred Hecker was appointed captain of the Bui-eau of Patrol in the fall of 19-12, and served in this capacity until his death. Captain Hecker had many fiiends, and was a great favorite with other mend)ers of the bureau, lie leaves a wife and daughter, to whom we wish to express oui- sincei-e sympathy. — L. F. (liappell, Chief of Patrol, California Division of Fish and (lauK , Mttrch 1950. EARL I. HISCOX Earl I. Hiscox was ajjpointcd a deputy with the Bureau of Patrol in duly 1928, and passed away at his home in Nevatla City on November 3, 1949, after a short illness. Most of his career with the division was spent in Nevada County, where he had a host of friends. He was regarded very highly by the department as an officer aud em])loyee. Our sincere sympathy is extended to his wife and family. — L. F. Chaijpell, Chief of Patrol, C(dif(n-ni(i Division of Fish and Game, March, 1950. ( 334 ) NOTKS .'{:5.) HENRY OCKER TTciwy Ockcr joined the J^ivisioii of Fisli tuid (Jiiiiic as an assistant fish and uanic warden on .Vu^iist ."), 1IK!7. He worked for l)otli the liuroans of Fish and (ianie ( 'ojiserval ion nntil 1!I4(), when lie Ix-eanio a warden in the Bnreau of Patrol. His assiji-nnients wei-e at Kinf; City, Monterey CoMiity, Jnlian, S;iii I)i(>^-o (*oiin1y, and since Deeeiidjei- ir». 1049, Markleeville, Alpine C'onnty. lie recently entered the Veteran's Hospital at Reno, Nevada, to undergo an operation, and passed away on February 2fi, lOoO. Jle was buried at San Dieji'o. Henry Ocker will be missed by his friends and associates, and our sincere sympatliy goes to Mrs. Oeker and family. — L. F. Chappell, Chief of Patrol, (^aliforiiia Division of Fish and Game, March, 1950. REVIEW An Illustrated Key to the Lizards, ISnakes and Turtles of the West. Vol. 2. Naturegraph Pocket Keys. By Jay M. Savage, Naturegraph Company, Los Altos, California, 1949, 33 pp., $0.50. This is a convenient poeket size booklet for identifying reptiles in the field. Its scope is confined to the United States and Canada west of the Rocky Mountains. The key is well illustrated and should be easy to use after a little study. The ranges of the various species are delineated on small maps by shading. This should be a very handy aid to all natural- ists, field men and others interested in the outdoors who wish to identify the various reptiles they encounter in the field. There are no descriptions of any of the species, that being left to other books ; this is nothing but a key for identification. A list of references is included in tlie back for those who wish to secure further information on any species. — Herbert L. Hagen, University of California. ERRATUM The Life History of the Greaser Blackfish ( Ortlnjdoii niicrulcpidotits) of Clear Lake, Lake County, California, vol. 36, no. 2. On page 124, line 14, read Dorosoma cepedianmn for Borosoma smatJii. (336) lUCl'OKTS REPORTS :{:{■ FISH CASES January, February, March 1950 Offense Ahalone: Closed season; no license, overlimit; undersize; out of shell; failure to show license on demand Angling: Fishing within 150 feet of the lower side of a dam; no license; failure to display angling license; possession of spear within 300 feet of a stream; possession of a gaff within 300 feet of a stream; using an angling license not issued to her; making a false statement when procuring an angling license; angling with more than one rod; angling in closed area; closed season; night fishing; seining; back dating an angling license; operating a set line; trans- ferring his angling license __ Black bass: No angling license; closed season; using more than 1 pole; using set lines Striped bass: Using 2 lines; overlimit; undersize; night fishing; possession for sale of striped bass; possession transportation for sale; no license Carp: No wholesale license Catfish: No license; undersize; failure to give buyer's receipt; using 3 poles; using 2 poles Big Neck clams: Overlimit; no license Cockle clams: Overlimit; no license; failure to show license on demand Gaper clams: Overlimit Pismo clams: Undersize; making a false statement to secure a license; late digging; no license; failure to display license; overlimit; possession clam digging forks and digging in a refuge Commercial: No license; no party boat records; use of round haul net in closed area District 19A; failure to deliver records; operating a round haul net in District 20; failure to register a commercial fishing boat; assisting in operation of a gill net Crabs: Closed season; undersize Crappie: Closed season Lobsters: Undersize; failure to show angling license on demand; failure to show loteters on demand of warden; use of lobster traps in closed District 21; wilfully disturbing lobster traps being legally fished by another fisherman Octopus: No license Pike: No license Pollution: Permitting petroleum oil to enter State's waters; by use of bluestone and black leaf 40; by use of copper sulphate; by use of clorox; placing fish refuse in the waters of Fish Harbor; by use of chloroform _ Salmon: No license; using firearms; spearing; closed stream; possession of a gaff within 300 feet of a stream; closed season; angling within 150 feet of lower dam ; illegal possession Sardines: Canning sardines taken for bait Sturgeon : Possession of a sturgeon ; possession of sturgeon roe Sunfish: No license; closed season __ Trout: Closed season; taking trout in District 103.6; possession of a gaff hook within 300 feet of a stream; chumming for trout; no license; use of artificial light; overlimit _._ Totals Court forfeitures: (Confiscated fish) Number arrests 10!) 271 45 1 9 12 26 3 101 192 1 2 21 13 1 3 3 19 909 Fines im|iosf'd Jail sentences (days) $3,725 50 3,970 50 200 00 1,395 00 100 00 165 00 345 00 565 00 80 00 2, 140 00 4,500 00 75 00 50 00 328 00 25 00 10 00 1,715 00 210 00 100 00 225 00 60 00 690 00 15 20 130 39 $21,094 00 $777 58 50 254 :J38 CALIKOKMA FISH AM) (iAMK GAME CASES January, February, March 1950 Offense Xumlier arrests Fines imposed Jail sentences (days) Hear: Taking bear with trap Beaver: Taking beaver for profit without a license; trapping beaver in closed area .-.- Deer: Doe; closed season; using a .22 caliber rifle; possession illegally taken deer; a California resident possessing deer on a Montana resident license; no transport i)ermit ; no evidence of sex ; allowing dogs to run deer in closed season ; possession of forked-horn deer in District IJi; spotlighting; taking a spike buck; transporting illegal deer into California; no valid hunting license; night hunting Deer meat: Possessing deer meat in closed season; a California resident pos- sessing deer meat on a Colorado resident license; no transport permit; no evidence of sex; possessing parts cf illegally taken deer; possessing parts of a spike buck; possession of deer meat and gun in refuge 4f; failure to show deer meat upon demand; possession of parts of a doe; illegal possession of deer meat; possession of unstamped deer meat; purchase of deer meat. Doves: Illegal import of doves; closed season; overlimit Ducks: Late shooting; shooting from a motorboat; no license; out of season; overlimit; unplugged shot gun; driving ducks with an airplane; having in l)ossession ducks taken after lawful shooting time; hunting on a refuge; illegal hunting license; failure to declare game; early shooting; purchase of ducks ._. Elk: A California resident possessing elk on a Wyoming resident license; no transport permit; no evidence of sex Geese: Overlimit; shooting from a motorboat; unplugged gun; late shooting; closed season; using a .22 caliter rifle; no stamp; possession of firearm and geese on refuge; no license; stealing game; night hunting.. Hunting: Shooting from a motorboat; late shooting; possession of firearms in a game refuge; no license; hunting on posted land; hunting in closed zone in a cooperative hunting area; using unplugged shot gun; shooting game from an automobile; hunting trespass on G.M.A.J illegal import of game; trespassing on shooting grounds; early shooting; failure to show license on demand; possession of arm band off cooperative hunting area; hunting on rMtricted cooperative area; trespassing on restricted cooperative area; spotlighting Migratory waterfowl: Taking a fully protected migratory waterfowl bird; using a .22 caliber rifle; late shooting; no license; early shooting; shooting from a power boat; closed season; unplugged gun Nongame birds: Taking nongame birds; no license; making a false statement to gel a license Pheasants: Hen pheasant; spotlighting; out of season; failure to tag pheasant; illegal import of pheasants; no evidence of sex; no license; overlimit; unplugged gun; taking pheasant in cooperative area, no permit; using a .22 caliber rifle; early hunting; trespassing on cooperative pheasant hunting area; hunting on phea-sant cooperative restricted area; shooting from motor vehicle; taking and possessing a cock pheasant on refuge . — - QuaU: Closed season; using a .22 cahber rifle; holding valley quail without a permit; trespassing on a restricted cooperative area _. Rabbits: Closed season; no license; unplugged shotgun; possession game and firearms within a refuge Shorebirds: Killing shorebirds. - Squirrels: Closed season Totals -- --- 58 38 13 144 1 45 155 52 4 53 12 47 628 400 00 5,948 00 2,900 00 395 00 6,210 00 100 00 1,715 00 3,994 70 1,575 00 100 00 3,100 00 550 00 950 00 25 00 50 00 975 36 100 $28,012 70 1,435 UE1'(JKTS 339 SEIZURES OF FISH AND GAME January, February, March 1950 Fish: Abalone 2,823 Black bass . 2 Striped bass Ill Striped bass, pounds 20 Catfish 30 Big neck clams 260 Cockle clams 7,730 Gaper clams , 81 Pismo clams 2,355 Grapple. - 18 Crabs 40 Lobsters 501 Mackerel _.. 8 Oetopi _.. 20 Uctopi, pounds. _. . _ 10 Salmon 8 Sardines i ., 20 Sardines, pounds 4 Sturgeon , 1 Sturgeon, pounds _. 0 Sunfish... 30 Trout.--- 51 Game: Bear.-- 1 Beaver 1 Deer __ WA Deer meat, pounds .., 479^ Doves 43 Ducks.-- 368 Elk, pounds 24 Geese 83 Migratory waterfowl 11 Nongame birds _. 3 Pheasants 57 Quail 28 Rabbits . 21 Shorebirds. I Squirrels-- 1 25222 3-50 7500 '.t:m^