QMJFDRNIA
FISH-GAME
"CONSERVATION OF WILD LIFE THROUGH EDUCATION"
California Fish and Game is published quarterly by the California Department of
Fish and Game. It is a journal devoted to the conservation and understanding of fish
and wildlife. If its contents are reproduced elsewhere, the authors and the California
Department of Fish and Game would appreciate being acknowledged.
Subscriptions may be obtained at the rate of $1 0 per year by placing an order with
the Editor, California Department of Fish and Game, 1 41 6 Ninth Street, Sacramento.
CA 9581 4. Checks or money orders in U.S. dollars should be made out to California
Fish and Game. Inquiries regarding paid subscriptions should be directed to the
Editor. Complimentary subscriptions are granted on an exchange basis.
Please direct correspondence to:
Dr. Eric R. Loft, Editor in Chief
California Fish and Game
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, California 95814
VOLUME 78
WINTER 1992
NUMBER 1
Published Quarterly fr
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE RESOURCES AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
-LDA-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PETE WILSON, Governor
THE RESOURCES AGENCY
DOUGLAS P. WHEELER, Secretary for Resources
FISH AND GAME COMMISSION
Everett M. McCracken Jr., President Carmichael
Benjamin F. Biaggini, Vice President San Francisco
Albert C. Taucher, Member Long Beach
Frank D. Boren, Member Carpinteria
Gus Owen, Member Dana Point
Robert R. Treanor, Executive Director
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
BOYD GIBBONS, Director
Pete Bontadelli, Chief Deputy Director
Howard Sarasohn, Deputy Director
Vacant, Deputy Director
Ted Thomas, Asst. Director for Public Affairs
Al Petrovich Jr., Chiief Marine Resources Division
Tim Farley, Acting Cfiief Inland Fisheries Division
Terry Mansfield, Acting Chief Wildlife Management Division
John Turner, Acting Chief Environmental Services Division
Susan A. Cochrane, Chief Natural Heritage Division
DeWayne Johnston, Chief Wildlife Protection Division
Banky E. Curtis, Regional Manager Redding
James D. Messersmith, Regional Manager Rancho Cordova
Brian F. Hunter, Regional Manager Yountville
George D. Nokes, Regional Manager Fresno
Fred Worthley, Regional Manager Long Beach
CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME
1991 EDITORIAL STAFF
Eric. R. Loft, Editor-in-Chief Wildlife Management
L. B. Boydstun, Arthur C. Knutson, Jr., Betsy C. Bolster Inland Fisheries
Dan Yparraguirre, Douglas R Updike Wildlife Management
Steve Crooke, Doyle Hanan, Jerry Spratt Marine Resources
Donald E. Stevens Bay-Delta Project
Peter T. Phillips, Richard L. Callas Environmental Services
CONTENTS
Revisiting Overpopulated Deer Ranges in the United States
Paul R. Krausman, Lyie K. Sowls, and Bruce D. Leopold 1
The pH and Acid Neutralizing Capacity of Ponds Containing
Pseudacris Regilla Larvae in an Alpine Basin of the Sierra
Nevada Chad R. Soiseth
11
The Evolution of California's Herring Roe Fishery: Catch Allocation,
Limited Entry, and Conflict Resolution Jerome D. Spratt 20
ERRATUM
Bleich, V.C. and D, Racine. 1991. Mountain beaver (Aplondontia rufa) from
Inyo County, California. Calif. Fish and Game 77(3): 153- 155.
The last sentence of paragraph one (page 153) should he corrected to read:
The subspecies phaea and nigra are considered to be mammals of "special
concern" in California (Williams 1986), and both are candidates for addition to the
Federal list of endangered and threatened species (Steele 1989).
CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME
Calif. Fish and Game (78) 1 : 1 - 1 0 1 992
REVISITING OVERPOPULATED DEER RANGES IN
THE UNITED STATES
PAUL R. KRAUSMAN, LYLE K. SOWLS\ and BRUCE D. LEOPOLD^
School of Renewable Natural Resources
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Leopold et al. (1947) conducted a survey of over-populated deer
ranges in the United States and described approximately 100 herds that
were over-populated. We identified deer experts in each state and asked
a series of questions related to changes in their herds since 1947. Deer
populations and their distribution have increased since 1947 and deer
are In every state. Deer have effectively been controlled with hunting and
habitat manipulation in many areas. Herds that are still overpopulated
are not hunted, have an inadequate doe harvest, or inadequate harvest.
INTRODUCTION
In 1947 Leopold et al. (1947) conducted a survey of overpopulated deer
{Odocoileus spp.) ranges in the United States. They compiled a country-wide map
of deer problem areas for use in wildlife classes. They produced a map of over-
populated ranges (Leopold et al. 1947:164) and described 99 problem areas
throughout the United States. Overpopulated ranges were the result of individual and
synergetic effects of buck laws, predator control, and over-large refuges. As of 1945
only 10% of the known problem areas were stabilized and Leopold et al. (1947)
claimed "Most of the remedial reductions have been too late, too light, or too
intermittent to accomplish their purpose."
Since the Leopold et al. (1947) study nearly a half century of research on deer has
produced a wealth of information (summarized in Wallmo [1981] and Halls [1984]).
However, we could not find an update on the herds Leopold et al. (1947) discussed.
Leopold et al. (1947:162) hoped that the "imperfect history of the recent behavior
of deer populations may convey the lesson that in managing overlarge herds, 'too
little and too late' is the worst possible policy." To complete the picture for wildlife
classes we were interested in the general changes that have occurred in deer
management to minimize overpopulated ranges.
We corresponded with deer biologists in all states except Alaska and appreciate
their responses to our questionnaires. Their responses are the basis of this work. This
paper was presented at the Western States and Provinces Deer Workshop, 27-30
August 1991, Pacific Grove, California. R. C. Etchberger, M. C. Wallace, and W.
B. Ballard reviewed the manuscript.
^Retired.
^Present address: Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Mississippi State University, MS 39762-
5917.
1
CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME
METHODS
We obtained data from a questionnaire sent in summer 1986 to deer biologists
in each state. We located someone in each state familiar with the state's deer
population and asked 4 questions:
1. What is the recent state wide status of your deer populations (mule deer
[Odocoileus hemionus sp.], white-tailed deer [O. virginianus sp.], and/or
Columbian black-tailed deer {O. h. columhianus]) compared to that reported
by Leopold etal. (1947)?
2. Where in your state do you have irruptive areas, trouble areas, or chronic areas
(if any)? Each type of area is defined by Leopold et al. (1947:163). On the
enclosed map please outline the distributions of deer and irruptive areas,
trouble areas, and chronic areas.
3. How has the status of deer changed in your state for the problem areas identified
by Leopold et al. (1947)?
4. Briefly describe why your state wide deer population is in its present condition
compared to the status reported by Leopold et al. (1947) (e.g., specific
management, overgrazing, harvesting, predation, predator control).
RESULTS
We received complete responses from biologists in 47 states. Biologists in Utah
and Washington did not respond, and we did not send a questionnaire to biologists
in Alaska. We received specific comments about 76 of the 99 overpopulated ranges
described by Leopold et al. (1947) and general comments about the increases that
have occurred with most deer populations.
Nearly 100 deer ranges were over-populated in 1947 (Leopold et al. 1947). Nine
of the 76 ranges reported to us were described as having densities higher than desired
(Table 1). Only 1 area (Mt. Desert Island, Me., Table 1) was reported as similar to
conditions reported by Leopold et al. (1947). Respondents stated that each of these
10 herds was above the desired levels due to limited, antlerless, or inadequate
hunting. The other 66 herds compared were believed to be less than or equal to the
desired management levels. California provides a good example.
Most deer herds in California (Table 1) are at or exceeding carrying capacity
because females are not harvested and there has been a long-term decline in habitat
quality. Most herds have densities less than desired but are around carrying capacity
on a continuing basis.
Numerous reasons were provided for the change in the status of the other herds.
The most common reason was related to management strategies that employed either
adequate, antlerless, or buck only harvests; habitat improvement from reduction or
removal of livestock and wildfire; and transplants. Other reasons provided included
favorable climate, improved hunter access to areas, reduction of predation, disease
eradication, supplemental feeding, immigration, reduced poaching, and improved
public acceptance of deer as a consumable resource (Table 1).
Overpopulated Deer Ranges
Table 1. Status in 1980's of 76 over-populated ranges described by Leopold et al.
(1947).
1947
State and herd
status
1980's status
Reason for change
Arizona
Kaibab (north)
V
=K'' with occasional
Reduction of livestock,
overbrowsing
Favorable climate
Kaibab (south)
o
=K with limited
Possible development
overbrowsing
of water
Woods Mt. mule deer
V
=K
Bloody Basin
T
=K
Graham Mts.
I
=K
Tucson Mts.
T
=K
Arkansas
Sycamore District
T
Moderate to low density
Habitat loss via
Ozark Natl. For.
advanced plant
succession
California
Interstate
I
Stable
Lack of disturbance and
Humboldt Co.
Glenn and Tehama co.
Tehama Co. (east)
Plumas and Lassen co.
Eldorado Co.
Yosemite
Inyo Co. (north)
Inyo Co. (south)
Sequoia and King's
canyon
Riverside Co.
Colorado
Dinosaur Natl.
Monument
Rocky Mtn. Natl. Park
Kanna Creek
Gunnison Co.
T =K
C Stable to <K
T Declining but sK
I Stable to declining
but=K
C Declining but =K
C Increasing
T Decline
C Decline
T Decline
C Decline
I Densities < long term
objectives
C Densities > long term
T average
I Densities < long term
average
I Densities low
overgrazmg
Lack of disturbance
Long-term decline in K
Overuse of summer
range, lack of
disturbance
Overgrazing and fire on
winter ranges
>K and development on
winter range
Recent large wildfires
Drought, K is variable
Drought, K is variable
Predators and/or
habitat changes
Fluctuating
precipitation
Careful management,
anterless harvest,
limited supplemental
feeding. Loss of
habitat from towns,
reservoirs, farms
and mines.
CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME
Table 1 . cont.
1947
State and herd
status
1980"s status
Reason for change
Illinois
Rock ford
I
=K
Transplants, controlled
hunting
Horseshoe Lake Refuge
T
=K
Iowa
Skunk River
T
=K
Controlled harvest
Nishnabotna River
T
=K
Controlled harvest
Des Moines River
T
=K
Controlled harvest
Black Hawk County
T
=K
Controlled harvest
Maine
Mt. Desert Island
I
< K but similar to 1947
Lack of hunting
Massachusetts
Nantucket Island
T
>K
Limited hunting
Michigan
Upper Peninsula
I
Low densities
Winter habitat deter-
iorating, severe winter
Lower Peninsula
I
=K
Antlerless hunting and
heavy winter mortality
Lake County Area
I
High densities
Heavy winter loss
George Reserve
T
Controlled population
Hunting
Minnesota
Red Lake Refuge
T
Stable to declining
Overharvest
Itasca State Park
C
Low density
Severe winter and
either-sex hunting
State Croix State Park
I
Density fluctuates
Winter severity
Missouri
St. Louis Game Park T
Montana
Glacier Natl. Park T
Six other winter ranges T
K
No problem
No problem
Hunting
Improved deer/habitat
relations
Improved deer/habitat
relations
Nebraska
Bessey Division,
Neb. Natl. For.
No problem
Controlled harvest
Overpopulated Deer Ranges
Table 1 . cont.
1947
State and herd
status
1980's status
Reason for change
Nevada
Santa Rosa
Increasing but < K
Range improvement
Kingston Canyon
Increasing but < K
Range improvement
Shell Creek
Increasing but < K
Range improvement
Reese River
Increasing but < K
Range improvement
Snake Division,
Increasing but < K
Range improvement
Nev. Natl. For.
New Hampshire
Coos County No
problem
Population declined
Winter habitat loss and
overharvest of female;
New Mexico
Cuba
T
Deer populations are
Deer are in different
Pecos River
T
< K in N. M. although
stages of population
range is improving
cycle
Gallinas District,
I
Santa Fe Natl. For.
Sandia Refuge,
I
Cibola Natl. For.
Magdalena Division,
C
Cibola Natl. For.
Black Canyon, Gila
C
Natl. For.
Jomado Range
I
Sacramento Division,
I
Lincoln Natl. For.
New York
Adirondacks
C
>K
Inadequate antlerless
Ontario and Stueben co
. T
=K
harvest and poor
access to deer
Allegany State Park
I
>K
Inadequate harvest
Bear Mt. State Park
C
>K
Inadequate harvest
Suffolk County,
c
=K
Either sex hunting
Long Island
Genesee County
T
<K
Hunting
North Carolina
Pisgah Game Preserve
Low to moderate densities Related to mast crop
North Dakota
Upper and Lower
Souris refuges
No change
Artificial feeding and
inadequate harvest
CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME
Table 1 . cont.
1947
State and herd
status
1980's status
Reason for change
Oklahoma
Wichita Mountains
T
Overpopulated
Inadequate harvest
Wildlife Refuge
Lake Murray State
T
Overpopulated
Inadequate harvest
State Park
Oregon
North Fork of John
C
Static
Antlerless hunts
Day River
Murderer's Creek
T
<K
Antlerless hunts
Klamath-Deschutes
I
Stable
Antlerless hunts
Lake County
Texas
Edwards Plateau
T
>K
Large die off due to
Big Bend National
T
<K
overgrazing aggra-
Park
vated by drought
Vermont
Essex County
C
=K
Regulated antlerless
hunts
Vermont Highlands
T
=K
Regulated antlerless
hunts
Windham County
I
=K
Regulated antlerless
hunts
Wisconsin
North Wise.
T
Stable
Antlerless hunts
Chambers Island
C
Stable
Natural succession
Camp McCoy, Necedah
I
Stable
Adequate harvest
Refuge and Saddle
Mound
"I = irruptive area or an area the deer population has damaged (Leopold et al. 1947:163).
"K = carrying capacity
""C = chronic area or a problem area of long standing usually in the post-irruptive stage (Leopold et
al. 1947:163).
■■T = trouble area or an area deer have recently exceeded K but to a lesser degree than I (Leopold et al.
1947:163).
When respondents described areas where deer herds were experiencing problems,
the main sources were depleted habitat from natural succession, human use of deer
habitat (e.g., town development and expansion, livestock operations, mining, and
road construction), and an under-harvest of does. Other reasons included poaching,
human harassment, increased elk {Cervus elaphus) numbers, overharvest, and severe
winters (Table 1).
Overpopulated Deer Ranges 7
We were not able to obtain an updated map to compare with the map of
overpopulated ranges presented by Leopold et al. (1947) because the terms they used
(i.e., irruptive, chronic, and trouble) or the deer distribution provided were not
accepted by most respondents. Present distribution maps, however, are available
(Fig. I and 2). Also, many of the biologists from the Midwest pointed out that herds
were often managed for an economic carrying capacity and not simply a biological
carrying capacity. Many agencies take crop depredation into account when managing
their herds.
DISCUSSION
Survey studies of this nature should be interpreted conservatively. We did not
visit all areas mentioned in the article and assume that the biologists we contacted
had adequate and unbiased knowledge of the deer herds in their state. However,
several general trends can be made from this survey. Overall, deer populations have
increased throughout the United States since the Leopold et al. (1947) report and deer
are in all 50 states. Most herds that were above carrying capacity in the 1940's have
been effectively controlled by hunting and habitat manipulation. Those herds that
continue to be above carrying capacity are at higher densities because of prohibition
on firearms hunting, inadequate doe harvest, or inadequate harvest. Hunting is
clearly an important tool in the management of deer populations in the United States.
The terms used by Leopold et al. ( 1 947) (i.e., irruption, trouble area, chronic area)
are not acceptable to many deer biologists today. Many respondents to the survey
indicated that the terms used in the 1 940's do not apply to contemporary management.
Caughley ( 1981 ) argued that "overpopulation" can only be rigorously defined as too
many animals.
Caughley (1981) further described 4 classes of "overpopulation": as when: (1)
animals threaten human life or livelihood, (2) animals depress densities of favored
species, (3) animals are too numerous for their own good, (4) and the system of plants
and animals is not at equilibrium. The third class is an argument used as an ecological
justification for sport hunting (Dasmann 1 97 1 , Caughley 1 98 1 ) and implies populations
must be managed constantly. However, Caughley (1981) argues that the classes I,
2, and 3 involve value decisions and only class 4 is an ecological concept.
"The growth pattern typical of an ungulate population is an eruption, a crash, and
then convergence to a steady density"(Caughley 1980). Many respondents expressed
this attitude by stating the herds described by Leopold et al. (1947) in their state (e.g.,
N.M.) were not necessarily overpopulated, simply in different stages of a normal
population cycle. The interpretation of carrying capacity and overpopulation
certainly has changed in 40 years (Caughley 1980) and ultimately will influence deer
management. We argue for scientific management that examines the equilibrium
between deer and the energy components of their habitat.
8
CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME
CM
00
>.
T3
3
«-•
(0
<D
M
C0
O
0)
>
■^
(D
Q.
O
O
O
CO
<D
O
o
00
O)
(0
(D
a>
c
®
■o
®
"oB
IE
c
o
♦^
•c
w
b
C3)
m W 0)
(0
3
S
re
3
IT
0
CT
w
(D
W
1
3
(0
Ql
o
s
0}
O
(D
in
ro
a>
"T—
r
o
C
re
o
re
jr
CO
^
Overpopulated Deer Ranges
CO
• a
00
«8
O
00
at
o
0)
o
c
o
o
o
■o
o
o
s
.o
Q
cvi
S
a
10 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME
LITERATURE CITED
Caughley. G. 1981. Overpopulation. Pages 7-19 in P. A. Jewell, S. Holt, and D. Hart, eds.
Problems in management of locally abundant wild mammals.
. 1980. What is this thing called carrying capacity. Pages 2-8 in M. S. Boyce and L.
D. Hayden-Wing, eds. North American elk: ecology, behavior and management. Univ.
Wyoming, Laramie.
Dasmann. W. 1971. If deer are to survive. Stackpole books, Harrisburg, Pa. 128pp.
Halls, L. K., ed. 1984. White-tailed deer ecology and management. Stackpole Books,
Harrisburg, Pa. 870pp.
Leopold, A., L. K. Sowls, and D. L. Spencer. 1947. A survey of over-populated deer ranges
in the United States. J. Wildl. Manage. 1 1:162-177.
Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study. 1982. White-tailed deer populations
1982. A map prepared in cooperation with the Emergency Programs, Veterinary
Services, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
through cooperative agreement 12-16-5-2230. Univ. Georgia, Athens. I p.
Wallmo, O. C. 1981. Mule and black-tailed deer of North America. Univ. Nebraska Press,
Lincoln. 605pp.
Received: 30 August 1991
Accepted: 15 October 1991
CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME
Calif. Fish and Game (78) 1 : 1 1 - 1 9 1 992
THE PH AND ACID NEUTRALIZING CAPACITY OF PONDS
CONTAINING PSEUDACRIS REGILLA LARVAE IN AN
ALPINE BASIN OF THE SIERRA NEVADA
CHAD R. SOISETH
Department of Biology
University of California
Santa Barbara, CA 93106
Waters necessary for amphibian reproduction in the Sierra Nevada
are sensitive to increases in atmospheric acid deposition but neither
habitat pH nor acid tolerance have been determined for native amphibian
species. The purposes of this study were (1) to determine the range of
pH and acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) of 14 ponds in a high altitude
(2,800 m elevation) watershed of the southern Sierra Nevada, (2) to
evaluate whether pH and ANC influence the distribution of Pacific
Treefrog (Pseudacris [= Hyla\ regilla) larvae among ponds, and (3) to
evaluate the susceptibility of P. regilla Xo current levels of pH and ANC.
Ponds ranged in pH from 5.3 to 7.2 and in ANC from 0 to 132 ueq V\ No
significant difference in pH or ANC was found for 9 ponds containing
versus 5 ponds lacking P. regilla larvae. The presence or absence of
larvae was independent of the duration of pond existence although
ephemeral ponds exhibited significantly lower pH than permanent
ponds. There was no evidence that acidification was affecting P. regilla
in the Emerald Lake watershed of the southern Sierra Nevada.
INTRODUCTION
Sierra Nevada surface waters are sensitive to acid deposition because of their
dilute chemistry (Melack et al. 1985), and acidic deposition has been reported in
these waters (Dozier et al. 1987, Melack et al. 1982, Stohlgren and Parsons 1987).
Episodic acidification in the Sierra occurs in alpine watersheds when solutes become
concentrated during the initial phase of snowmelt and during intense summer
rainstorms (Dozier et al. 1987, Melack et al. 1988).
Amphibian breeding waters are often weakly buffered and their chemistry is
strongly influenced by snowmelt or rain inputs because watersheds are small and
soils are poorly developed (Pough and Wilson 1977). Amphibians are vulnerable to
acidification because reproduction and early development of many north temperate
zone amphibians coincide with spring snowmelt (Pough and Wilson 1 977). Mortality
generally occurs below pH 5.0 and early developmental stages are most sensitive to
low pH (Pierce 1985, Freda 1986). Embryos are less tolerant than larvae and
tolerance increases as larvae grow (Pierce et al. 1984, Freda and Dunson 1985).
Interspecific (Gosner and Black 1957, Dale etal. 1985) and intraspecific (Pierce
and Harvey 1987) variation in tolerance to acidification has been reported for many
amphibians in the eastern United States. Tolerance limits are related to habitat pH
(Pierce 1985, Freda 1986) yet basic information is lacking for amphibian species
11
12 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME
native to the Sierra Nevada. The purposes of this study were (1) to document the
range of pH and acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) of amphibian habitat in a high
elevation watershed in the southern Sierra Nevada, (2) to determine whether pH and
ANC of pond habitats influence the distribution of amphibian larvae among ponds,
and (3) to evaluate the susceptibility of amphibians contained in these ponds to
current levels of pH and ANC.
STUDY AREA
Ponds were located in the Emerald Lake watershed, a north facing glacial cirque,
in the upper Marble Fork basin of the Kaweah River drainage in Sequoia National
Park (36°35' N, 118°40' W; elevation 2,760-3,160 m), California. The watershed is
composed mainly of granitic bedrock with poorly developed, weakly buffered,
acidic soils (Huntington and Akeson 1987, Lund et al. 1987). More than 90% of
seasonal precipitation falls as snow with pH 5.2 to 5.5 (Dozier et al. 1989). Lakes
in the area generally are ice-covered from November to mid May or late June and
snowmelt usually occurs from April through mid July. Mean daily air temperatures
range from 6 to 1 3°C during the summer and -4 to 4°C in winter. Lakes and streams
in the area are weakly buffered and typical of most waters in the high Sierra (Melack
et al. 1989). The ponds surveyed in this study ranged from approximately 25-300
m- in surface area and up to 2 m in depth. For additional detailed information on the
study area see Tonnessen ( 1 99 1 ).
METHODS
The Emerald Lake watershed was searched for ponds containing amphibians. All
accessible ponds over a range of elevations (2,760-3,160 m) throughout the
watershed were selected. Ten ponds were surveyed in 1985, plus 5 additional ponds
in 1986 and 1987. The Pacific Treefrog {Pseudachs [= Hyla] regilla) was the only
anuran occurring in the study area. The mountain yellow-legged frog {Rana
muscosa), previously reported in the upper reaches of the Marble Fork drainage by
Bradford (1984), was not observed during the current study. Ponds were visited at
2 to 4 week intervals with 1 to 5 visits to each pond, depending on the duration of
pond existence, during the period of larval development (June-September). The
presence or absence of larvae was noted on each sampling date. Ponds were
categorized as either permanent or ephemeral, depending on the duration of
existence, and as either containing or lacking larvae. Permanent ponds retained
water over the summer (June-September) whereas ephemeral ponds dried by early
to mid summer. Ponds containing larvae were defined as those which consistently
held larvae on at least half of all visits over all years of the study. Ponds designated
as lacking larvae were completely devoid of larvae throughout the study or contained
8 or fewer larvae on less than 25% of all visits. Two of the 5 ponds designated as
lacking larvae occasionally contained low numbers of larvae. One of these 2 ponds
contained 2 larvae on a single visit during 1987 while larvae were absent on 7
additional visits made to this pond over the 3 year study period. The other pond
PH AND ANC OF PSEUDACRIS REGILLA PONDS 1 3
contained 8 larvae on one visit during 1985 and 2 larvae on one visit in 1987.
Otherwise, larvae were absent during 7 additional visits made to this pond and from
the 3 remaining ponds over the duration of the study. Ponds which consistently held
larvae in successive years (>50% of all visits) were presumably important in
contributing to local breeding populations, while the contribution of ponds occasionally
containing a few larvae was probably negligible. The intention was to provide a
range of pH and ANC for populations rather than individuals. Consequently, ponds
that infrequently contained few larvae were designated as lacking larvae because
they were more representative of ponds in this category than of ponds containing
larvae.
Water samples were taken from 9 to 14 ponds between June and September of
1 985 to 1 987. Ponds were sampled once during July and August of 1 985 and August
and September of 1 986. Sampling occurred at monthly intervals on 4 dates beginning
in June of 1987. The same ponds were sampled in successive years and additional
ponds were discovered and sampled in 1986 and 1987. Samples were collected 5-
10 cm below the surface of each pond and stored in acid- washed, high-density
polyethylene bottles. All samples were kept cool during transport to the laboratory.
The pH of unfiltered samples was determined within 48 hours of collection using a
Beckman model 40 pH meter and low ionic strength combination electrode.
Unfiltered water samples were analyzed for acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) by
Gran titration with 0.1 N HCl using the same apparatus (Wetzel and Likens 1991).
ANC, currently used interchangeably with alkalinity, indicates the ability to
neutralize strong acids and is a parameter commonly used to predict the response of
surface waters to acidic inputs. ANC is the result of dissolved species (usually weak
acid anions) that can accept and neutralize protons.
Seasonal mean pH and ANC values were determined for each pond during each
year. Mean pH values were calculated by transforming pH values to hydrogen ion
concentrations, averaging, and transforming back to pH. Because the data violated
assumptions of normality, a Mann- Whitney U test (Sokal and Rohlf 1981) was used
to test null hypotheses that ponds grouped according to presence of larvae or duration
of existence did not differ in pH or ANC. Similarly, seasonal changes in pH and ANC
of 5 permanent ponds sampled during both June and September of 1987 were tested.
A G-test of independence (Sokal and Rohlf 1981) was used to determine whether a
relationship existed between the duration of pond existence and presence or absence
of P. regilla larvae.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Presence and Relative Abundance of Larvae
P. regilla adults emerge during snowmelt (April through mid July) and mating
occurs soon afterwards. Larvae were abundant by early July in 1985 and 1987 but
late snowmelt and cooler temperatures during 1986 delayed reproduction and larvae
were not observed until mid August. Larvae were observed on at least one occasion
in 8 of 10 ponds in 1985 and lOof 15in 1986 and 1987. Most larvae metamorphosed
14
CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME
between July and August during 1985 and 1987 while metamorphosis occurred
between August and September in 1986. Although the abundance of ^. regilla was
not quantified, larval densities in ponds appeared similar during all years of the study.
Pond Chemistry, Duration and Distribution of Larvae
The pH and ANC of ponds containing P. regilla larvae ranged from 5.3 to 7.2 and
from 0 to 132 ueq 1', respectively (Table 1). No significant difference in pH or ANC
was observed between ponds lacking versus ponds containing P. regilla in each year
of the study (Mann-Whitney U test, P>0.\ 0). These results suggest that biotic and/
or abiotic factors other than pH and ANC alone currently influence the distribution
off. regilla among high elevation ponds in the Emerald Lake watershed. Similarly,
159 field sites in Nova Scotia were surveyed for 1 1 amphibian species and neither
pH, alkalinity, or other ionic constituents influenced species distributions among 5
habitat types (Dale et al. 1985).
Ephemeral ponds were significantly lower in pH than permanent ponds (Mann-
Whitney U test, P < 0.05) although pond types did not differ in ANC {P > 0.05)(Table
2). This was probably the result of the shorter existence of ephemeral ponds
following initial snowmelt inputs and biotic and/or abiotic processes within the two
pond types.
Ponds ranged slightly lower in pH and ANC during June compared with
September of 1987 (Fig. 1) but apparent seasonal trends toward increasing pH and
ANC in 5 permanent ponds were not significant (Mann-Whitney U test, P > 0.10).
Table 1 . Comparison of pH and ANC of ponds containing versus lacking P. regilla
larvae. Mean pH was based on seasonal averages using hydrogen ion concentration.
Sample size (n) represents number of ponds.
Larval
pH
ANC (ueq 1')
presence
Median
x
Range
Median
X
Range
n
1985
Larvae
6.0
5.8
5.3-6.9
—
—
—
6
No Larvae
6.6
6.6
6.4-7.0
~
--
—
3
1986
Larvae
6.0
5.9
5.5-6.7
41
50
19-132
8
No Larvae
6.3
6.2
5.9-6.5
56
51
20-85
5
1987
Larvae
6.1
5.9
5.4-7.2
35
50
0-130
9
No Larvae
6.3
6.2
5.7-6.8
69
63
20-92
5
All Years
Larvae
6.1
5.9
5.3-7.2
40
50
0-132
9
No Larvae
6.3
6.2
5.7-7.0
64
59
20-92
5
PH AND ANC OF PSEUDACRIS REGILLA PONDS 1 5
Table 2. Comparison of pH and ANC of ponds categorized by duration of existence.
Mean and standard deviation (s) were calculated using three-year means for each
pond. Standard deviation of mean pH is expressed as hydrogen ion concentration
([H*] X 10^). Sample size (n) represents number of ponds. Asterisks denote a
significant difference between groups (Mann-Whitney (7 test P < 0.05).
pH
ANC
(ueq 1')
Pond Type
Median
X
s
n
Median x
s
n
Ephemeral
Permanent
* 6.4
* 5.8
5.8
6.3
1.05
0.22
10
5
47 46
61 58
24.6
35.2
9
5
Although sample size was limited and few ponds existed for more than four weeks,
little temporal change in pH and ANC was noted despite apparent evaporative losses
and decreasing pond volume.
Eight of 10 ponds containing larvae were ephemeral while 2 of 5 ponds lacking
larvae were ephemeral. Small sample size was problematic, but larval presence was
independent of the duration of pond existence (G test, P > 0. 10). Bradford (1989),
in documenting the occurrence offish and amphibian larvae in 67 high Sierra lakes
and ponds, determined that P. regilla inhabited shallower waters than either R.
muscosa or fish and these habitats frequently dried by late summer. Ephemeral ponds
containing larvae in the Emerald Lake watershed generally existed until mid July or
August (Fig. 1) and mass mortality due to desiccation was observed in two ponds
during this period. Although larval presence was independent of pond duration in
the current study, personal observations and Bradford (1989) suggest that this
hypothesis requires further testing.
Susceptibility of P. regilla to Acidification
The acid tolerance of P. regilla is currently unknown but related species are
relatively tolerant to acidification. The acid tolerance of most anurans in the eastern
United States lies between pH 4.0 and 4.5 with tolerance limits dependent on habitat
pH and developmental stage (Pierce 1985, Freda 1986). The lethal pH for Pseudacris
nighta and Hyla crucifer embryos, species related to P. regilla (Hedges 1986),
occurs below 4. 1 and 4.2, respectively (Gosner and Black 1957). In addition, Gosner
and Black (1957) held P. nigrita larvae for 4 days at a pH of 3.8 to 3.9 with no adverse
effects. Thus, these species appear relatively acid tolerant.
Pond pH below 5.0 was not detected in the current study and larval abundance
in ponds containing P. regilla appeared similar during successive years. In addition,
annual volume- weighted mean pH values of precipitation in the Sierra reportedly lie
between 5.2 and 5.5 (Melack and Stoddard 1991). These data provide evidence that
populations of P. regilla in the Emerald Lake watershed of the Sierra Nevada are
tolerant of current pH levels. Moreover, if the tolerance of P. regilla parallels that
of related eastern species, this species is likely to be relatively acid tolerant.
Despite the fact that P. regilla appears unaffected by current pH levels in the
16
CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
140
120
0)
3
100
80
O
z
<
60
40
20
0
-
/
-
Z;0
.....o-.P-.v-v...-
-■-■--' oo • •' ' J/^
o-:::::;^
"7:;:='''=^^^'^^^^^
0-'
-P*?.-;— ;2
^-— ^^
• o
•
o
Larvae
• ♦ —
—
No Larvae
Cy
JUN
JUL
AUG
Figure 1 . Temporal change in pH and ANC for ponds containing (closed circles) and
lacking (open circles) P. reglWa larvae during the summer of 1 987. Ponds designated
as permanent are those existing in September.
PH AND ANC OF PSEUDACRIS REGILLA PONDS 1 7
Sierra, their breeding habitat is sensitive to increased acidity. The range of ANC in
waters containing P. regilla larvae is 0-130 ueq 1 '. Nine of 1 1 (82%) ponds sampled
more than once in each year exhibited ANC below 90 ueq 1 '. Surface waters with
ANC < 200 ueq 1' are defined as sensitive to acid precipitation by the EPA (Landers
et al. 1987) and all of the ponds sampled in this study fell within this range. In
addition, Dozier et al. (1989) determined that the acidity of Sierran snow can be
magnified several fold in the initial fraction of snowmelt runoff. Episodic acidification
of breeding habitat during snowmelt would most likely affect reproduction and early
developmental stages of Sierran amphibians.
Because future emissions of compounds associated with acid deposition are
likely to increase, toxic levels of acidification must be determined for sensitive
developmental stages of Sierran amphibians. In addition, because amphibian species
appear to be declining worldwide (Wyman 1990) and little information is currently
available for local species, the abundance and distribution of amphibian populations
throughout California should be documented and monitored.
CONCLUSIONS
The pH of ponds containing P. regilla larvae in the Emerald Lake watershed is
not reduced to critical levels known to affect related eastern species. Ponds ranged
in pH from 5.3 to 7.2 and in ANC from 0 to 132 ueq 1 '. Neither pH nor ANC were
found to influence the distribution of P. regilla among ponds. Ephemeral ponds were
significantly lower in pH than permanent ponds although the presence or absence of
larvae was independent of the duration of pond existence. Despite the fact that P.
regilla appears tolerant of current pH levels in breeding ponds of the Emerald Lake
watershed, these habitats are sensitive to increased atmospheric acid deposition and
the acid tolerance of Sierran amphibians must be determined.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to extend a special thanks to National Park Service personnel for their
cooperation and support. I am grateful to S. Hamilton, S. Sippel, and J. Sickman at
the University of California at Santa Barbara for analysis of water samples. Thanks
to D. F. Bradford, A. Samelle, S. Hamilton and D. Showers for critical review of this
manuscript. This work was partly supported by the National Park Service and by
California Air Resources Board contracts A4- 122-32 to S. D. Cooper and A6-184-
32 to J. M. Melack, S. D. Cooper and T. M. Jenkins, Jr.
LITERATURE CITED
Bradford, D. F. 1984. Temperature modulation in a high-elevation amphibian, Rana
muscosa. Copeia 1984:966-976.
. 1989. Allotopic distribution of native frogs and introduced fishes in high Sierra
Nevada lakes of California: implication of the negative effect of fish introductions.
Copeia 1989:775-778.
18 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME
Dale, J. M., B. Freedman, and J. Kerekes. 1985. Acidity and associated water chemistry of
amphibian habitats in Nova Scotia. Can. J. Zool. 63:97-105.
Dozier. J., J. M. Melack, D. Marks, K. Elder, R. Kattelmann, and M. Williams. 1987. Snow
deposition, melt, runoff and chemistry in a small alpine watershed, Emerald Lake Basin,
Sequoia National Park. Final Report. California Air Resources Board. Contract A3- 106-
32. 156pp.
, , , , , . 1989. Snow deposition, melt, runoff and
chemistry in a small alpine watershed. Emerald Lake Basin, Sequoia National Park. Final
Report. California Air Resources Board. Contract A6- 147-32. 268pp.
Freda, J. and W. A. Dunson. 1985. Field and laboratory studies of ion balance and growth
rates of Ranid tadpoles chronically exposed to low pH. Copeia 1985:415-423.
. 1986. The influence of acidic pond water on amphibians: a review. Water, Air and
Soil Pollution 30:439-450.
Gosner, K. L. and \. H. Black. 1957. The effects of acidity on the development and hatching
of New Jersey frogs. Ecology 38:256-262.
Hedges, S. B. 1986. An electrophoretic analysis of holarctic hylid frog evolution. Syst. Zool.
35:1-21.
Huntington, G. L., and M. A. Akeson. 1987. Pedologic investigations in support of acid rain
studies. Sequoia National Park, California. Dep. Land, Air and Water Res. Univ. of
California, Davis.
Landers, D. H., J. M. Filers, D. F. Brakke, W. S. Overton, P. E. Kellar, M. E. Silverstein, R.
D. Schonbrod, R. E. Crowe, R. A. Linthurst, J. M. Omemik, S. A. Teague, and E. P. Meier.
1987. Western lake survey phase L Characteristics of lakes in the Western United States.
Volume I: population descriptions and physico-chemical relationships. EPA/600/3-86/
054a. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Washington, D.C. 149pp.
Lund, L. J., A. D. Brown, M. A. Leuking, S. C. Nodvin, A. L. Page, and G. Sposito. 1987.
Soil processes at Emerald Lake. Final Report. Calif. Air Res. Board. Contract A3- 105-
32. 114pp.
Melack, J. M., S. D. Cooper, T. M. Jenkins, L. Barmuta, S. Hamilton, K. Kratz, J. Sickman,
and C. Soiseth. 1989. Chemical and biological characteristics of Emerald Lake and the
streams in its watershed, and the responses of the lake and streams to acidic deposition.
Final Report. Calif. Air Res. Board. Contract A6- 184-32. 465pp.
, and J. L. Stoddard. 1991. Sierra Nevada, California. Pages 503-537 in D. F. Charles,
(ed.) Acidic deposition and aquatic ecosystems: regional case studies. Springer- Verlag,
New York.
, , and D. R. Dawson. 1982. Acid precipitation and buffer capacity of lakes in the
Sierra Nevada, California. Pages 465-471 in J. A. Johnson and R. A. Clarke, (eds.),
International Symposium on Hydrometeorology. American Water Resources Association,
Bethesda, Maryland.
, , and C. A. Ochs. 1985. Major ion chemistry and sensitivity to acid precipitation
of Sierra Nevada lakes. Water Resources Research 21: 27-32.
, M. W. Williams, and J. O. Sickman. 1988. Episodic acidification during snowmelt
in waters of the Sierra Nevada, California. Pages 426-436 in I. G. Poppoff, C. R.
Goldman, S. L. Loeb and L. B. Leopold (eds.). International Mountain Watershed
Symposium. Tahoe Resource Conservation District, South Lake Tahoe, California.
Pierce, B. A., J. B. Hoskins, and E. Epstein. 1984. Acid tolerance in Connecticut Wood Frogs
{Rana sylvatica). J. Herpetol. 18:159-167.
. 1985. Acid tolerance in amphibians. Bioscience 35:239-243.
, and J. M. Harvey. 1987. Geographic variation in acid tolerance of Connecticut Wood
PH AND ANC OF PSEUDACRIS REGILLA PONDS 1 9
frogs. Copeia 1987:94-103.
Rough, F. H. and R. E. Wilson. 1977. Acid precipitation and reproductive success of
Amhystoma salamanders. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 7:307-316.
Sokal, R. R. and F. J. Rohlf. 1981. Biometry. 2nd ed. W. H. Freeman & Co., San Francisco,
California. 859pp.
Stohlgren, T. J. and D. J. Parsons. 1987. Variation of wet deposition chemistry in Sequoia
National Park, California. Atmospheric Environment, 21:1369-1374.
Tonnessen, K. A. 1991. The Emerald Lake watershed study: introduction and site description.
Water Resources Research 27:1537-1539.
Wetzel, R. G. and G. E. Likens. 1991. Limnological analyses. 2nd ed. Springer- Verlag, New
York. 391pp.
Wyman, R. L. 1990. What's happening to the amphibians? Conserv. Biology 4:350-352.
Received: 24 July 1991
Accepted: 13 February 1992
CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME
Calif. Fish and Game (78)1 :20-44 1 992
THE EVOLUTION OF CALIFORNIA'S HERRING ROE
FISHERY: CATCH ALLOCATION, LIMITED ENTRY, AND
CONFLICT RESOLUTION
JEROME D. SPRATT
California Department of Fish and Game
Marine Resources Division
2201 Garden Road
Monterey, California 93940
California's Pacific herring {Clupea pallasi) roe fisliery began in
1973. A formal limited entry program was adopted in 1977 and the
number of herring permits issued for the major fishing areas of San
Francisco and Tomales Bays peaked at 471 permits in the 1982-83
season. In 1989, the Legislature adopted a policy to allow the sale of
permits. The majority of herring permits are issued for San Francisco
Bay. San Francisco Bay herring quotas are allocated approximately 33%
to round haul (purse seine and iampara nets) vessels and 67% to gill net
vessels. Ail round haul vessels are on individual vessel quotas that have
lessened competition among round haul vessels. In addition, round haul
vessels may not fish in waters of San Francisco Bay less than 11m deep
until gill net quotas have been taken. Congestion in the San Francisco
Bay gill net fishery was alleviated when the gill net fleet was divided into
platoons that fish at alternate times. San Francisco Bay is surrounded
by a metropolitan area, and many fishing areas have been closed due to
conflicts with recreational users and noise pollution near private
residences. A test boat system that controls the opening and closing of
the round haul fishery and limits catch-and-release practices was
implemented in 1991. In conjunction with the test boat system, an
important pre-spawn staging area of San Francisco Bay was closed to
gill net fishing in 1991. Congestion and socioeconomic issues were less
of a problem in Tomales Bay due to the fewer number of permits and the
rural nature of the surrounding communities.
INTRODUCTION
California's Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi) fishery developed in 1973 when
Japan began importing herring roe from the west coast of North America. Catches
peaked in the 1981-82 season at 1 1,321 tons (Table 1). When the Japanese herring
market developed, the status of California's herring stocks was largely unknown.
This report deals primarily with the San Francisco Bay fishery, but the development
of the Tomales Bay herring fishery was also included (Fig. 1). The early stages of
the fisheries in Humboldt Bay and Crescent City Harbor are mentioned, but the
development of these minor fisheries was not followed because congestion and gear
conflicts have not been a problem in these areas.
20
CALIFORNIA'S HERRING ROE FISHERY
21
Table 1 . California Herring Roe Fishery Quotas and Catch in Tons by Area from 1 972-
73 to 1990-91.
San Francisco
Tomales
Humboldt
Crescent
Bay
Bay
Bay
City
Season
Quota
Catch
Quota
Catch
Quota
Catch
Quota
Catch
1972-73
1,500
436
750
598
0
12
1973-74
500
1,938
450
521
20
2
59
1974-75
600
514
500
518
20
0
13
1975-76
3,050
1,719
625
144
20
11
0
1976-77
4,000
4.201
1,175
606
50
21
0
1977-78
5,000
4,987
1,175
716
50
12
30
13
1978-79
5,000
4,121
1,200
448
50
49
30
12
1979-80
6,000
6,430
1,200
603
50
49
30
26
1980-81
7,250
5,826
1,200
448
50
43
30
6
1981-82
10,000
10,415
1,200
851
50
51
30
4
1982-83
10,399
9,695
1,000
822
60
25
30
9
1983-84
10,399
2,838^
1,000
110^
60
55
30
16
1984-85
6,500
7,740
1,000
430
60
59
30
35
1985-86
7,530
7,278
1,000
771
60
59
30
30
1986-87
7,530
8,098"
1,000
867
60
71
30
0
1987-88
8,500
8,741"
750
750
60
31
30
50
1988-89
9,500
9,736"
750
213
60
44
30
30
1989-90
9,057
8,962"
-
-
60
61
30
33
1990-91
8,858
7,741"
-
-
60
63
30
36
'El Nino affected the fishery. Spawning biomass declined, and due to poor quality roe, the fishery was
closed prematurely.
"Herring only, roe on kelp is not included.
CONTROLLED EXPANSION OF THE FISHERY
In 1973, the best available information on the status of California's herring stocks
was 20 years old, and the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) began
annual heiring population assessments in Tomales and San Francisco bays (Table 2).
While the heiring population was being evaluated, the California State Legislature
(CSL) chose a cautious management approach, setting conservative catch quotas for
the first two herring seasons. The CSL controlled herring quotas for the first three
seasons, but ultimately gave management authority to the Fish and Game Commission
(FGC).
1972-73 Season. As the first herring season approached, the specter of a large
unrestricted fishery motivated a concerned state senator from the San Francisco Bay
area to introduce emergency legislation, which expired 60 days after enactment,
giving the CSL temporary control over the herring fishery. The fishery was already
underway when the Governor signed the bill on January 17, 1973. Temporary catch
quotas were set at 750 tons in Tomales Bay and 1 ,500 tons in San Francisco Bay.
22
CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME
■ J^i^JX Richmond
o^ ^ ( \.Bridge [\
Richardson \^ \^ ,]
^'
\ 'w, ( y
• Richmond
— .
V Marin \ 1 p^^ 1 \^
\ Peninsula .) v^ Belvedere Cove
J 1 j^^y^
)L ,
X— >,. . / V j Angel
\ ^ ^ Is.
^ ■
/ Golden San Francisco
A^ate Bay
f
/
/ ■ . N. I .jTreasure
/.'. San Francisco .\ C^-^t.^
^-
T
N
i
■ . /"tDakland y>— — ■
•. r Bay Bridge ^j ■
r^ Oakland
11
Hunters PoiW" -C S
__^ South San
. f\. Francisco Bay '
"\v-^ Alam
3da
1 1
1 1 1
J
Km
1
1
1
1
Tomales \
Bay ^\^
San Francisco \
Bay
1
1
\
s
■ . • . > Coyote Pt.
r
^
Figure 1 . San Francisco Bay, California and proximity to Tomales Bay.
There were no limitations on the number of fishermen who could participate in the
fishery and 17 vessels were active during the season (Tables 3 and 4).
1973-74 Season. The CSL passed new legislation prior to the 1973-74 herring
season that gave the FGC management authority over the herring fishery. Quotas
were fixed for two years at 500 tons (Table 3) and 450 tons (Table 4) in San Francisco
and Tomales Bays, respectively. Because of the limited fishing area in San Francisco
CALIFORNIA'S HERRING ROE FISHERY
23
Table 2. Pacific herring biomass estimates in tons from spawning-ground surveys in
San Francisco and Tomales bays, California.
San Francisco
Tomales
San Francisco
Tomales
Season
Bay
Bay
Season
Bay
Bay
1973-74
6,200
6,600
1982-83
59,200
11,000
1974-75
27,200
4,700
1983-84
40,800
1,200
1975-76
27,100
7,900
1984-85
46,900
6,600
1976-77
26,900
5,100
1985-86
49,100
1,200
1977-78
8,700
22,200
1986-87
56,800
5,800
1978-79
36,700
—
1987-88
68,900
2,100
1979-80
53,000
6,000
1988-89
66,000
167
1980-81
65,400
5,600
1989-90
64,500
345
1981-82
99,600
7,100
1990-91
51,000
779
and Tomales Bays and a concern for the safety of other users of bay waters, the CSL
also gave the FGC authority to limit the number of herring permits.
The FGC issued 1 7 permits for the 1 973-74 season, equal to the number of vessels
that participated during the first season. Permit applicants were required to have a
vessel and gear capable of taking herring. The number of qualified applicants
exceeded the number of available permits, and a drawing (lottery) was held.
Applicants could apply separately for both bays but could only be drawn for one. The
Tomales Bay drawing was held first, and if drawn for Tomales Bay, the applicant was
not eligible for the San Francisco Bay drawing. A bait herring fishery existed in San
Francisco Bay before the roe fishery began. Six of the San Francisco Bay herring
permits were for bait only and not subject to the quota. Issuing unrestricted bait
permits proved to be a mistake. Herring quotas were exceeded in both bays because
of uncontrolled landings by bait permit holders who were not subject to the 450 and
500 ton quotas established for the roe fishery. The "bait" herring probably entered
the roe market.
The CSL expanded the herring fishery regulations to include Humboldt Bay in
the 1973-74 season, establishing a modest quota of 20 tons (Table 1). In addition, a
two year study was initiated to determine the status of the Humboldt Bay herring
population (Rabin and Bamhart 1986).
1974-75 Season. The FGC included bait herring in new quotas, effectively
closing the bait loophole. The lottery was continued and for the first time, permits
were issued to drift gillnetters in both bays. Prior to this, the herring fishery was
composed entirely of round haul (purse seine and lampara) vessels.
Fish and Game Commission Control
The CSL granted permanent management authority of the herring fishery in San
Francisco and Tomales Bays to the FGC in 1975. Herring research during the 1973-
74 and 1974-75 seasons in San Francisco and Tomales Bays provided new data on
24 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME
which to base management decisions (Spratt 1976), and an orderly expansion of the
herring fishery began.
1975-76 Season. Based on herring biomass estimates from the 1974-75 season
(Table 2), the FGC increased the roe herring quotas to 3,000 tons in San Francisco
Bay and 600 tons in Tomales Bay. The lottery was retained and a total of 57 permits
were drawn for San Francisco and Tomales Bays (Table 3 and 4).
In addition, the FGC approved 10 special permits for San Francisco Bay and five
for Tomales Bay. Special permits were for bait or fresh fish market uses and were
issued on a first-come first-serve basis. Applicants drawn in the roe herring lottery
could not apply for special permits. In an effort to bring as many new vessels as
possible into the fishery, each applicant that applied for both bays was required to
do so with a different vessel. No more than one application could be submitted per
vessel.
In 1976, Humboldt Bay and Crescent City Harbor were included under FGC
authority when the CSL gave the FGC control of herring in all ocean waters. A 50
ton herring quota with six permits was established for Humboldt Bay. In 1977, the
number of Humboldt Bay permits was reduced to four, and in 1983 the Humboldt
Bay quota was increased to 60 tons. There have been no further changes in regulations
for Humboldt Bay.
1976-77 Season. The San Francisco Bay herring quota increased to 4,000 tons as
a result of greater spawning escapement in the 1975-76 season. The Tomales Bay
quota was increased to 825 tons. A separate quota of 350 tons was established for the
new Bodega Bay area fishery, where 477 tons of herring were caught in the 1975-
76 season.
The first major increase in the number of herring roe permits occurred this season.
Due to a higher quota and increased interest in the fishery, the FGC decided to
discontinue the lottery and issue herring permits to all qualified applicants. To be
eligible for a San Francisco Bay herring roe permit the applicant must have met the
following conditions: 1) possessed a valid California commercial fishing license, 2)
owned or operated a vessel currently registered with the DFG, and 3) the vessel had
to be capable of handling the gear specified in the application. A total of 165 gill net,
39 purse seine, and 27 lampara permits were issued. The legalization of set gill nets
in 1977, as opposed to drift gill nets, made gill net gear more desirable and resulted
in the increase in gill net permits issued (Table 3).
In Tomales Bay, the lottery was retained and seven gill net, five round haul, and
five beach net permits (formerly special permits) were issued. This is the last season
that round haul permits were issued for Tomales Bay. An additional 24 gill net
permits were issued for Bodega Bay (Table 4). The Tomales and Bodega Bay roe
permits were issued for either Tomales or Bodega Bay, permittees could not fish in
both areas.
1977-78 Season. The 1976-77 San Francisco Bay herring biomass increased to
an estimated 26,9(X) tons, justifying another quota increase to 5,000 tons for the 1 977-
78 season. The Tomales-Bodega Bay quota remained at 1,175 tons. Rather than
create a windfall for existing permittees, the FGC decided to issue additional herring
CALIFORNIA'S HERRING ROE FISHERY
25
Table 3. Number of herring roe permits and quota allocation in tons by season for
San Francisco Bay, California.
Number
Quota
Season
Gear
peimits
allocation
1972-73
Round haul
12
not allocated
Total
12
1,500
1973-74
Round haul
12
not allocated
Total
12
600
1974-75
Round haul
10
150
ton maximum limit
Gill net
2
all vessels
Total
12
500
1975-76
Round haul
24
100
per vessel
Gillnet
24
25
per vessel
Special
10
5
per vessel
Total
48
3,050
1976-77
Lampara
27
1,500
Purse seine
39
1,500
Gill net
165
1,000
Fresh fish
3
15
5 tons per vessel
Total
234
4,000
1977-78
Lampara
29
1 ,500
Purse seine
30
1,500
Gill net
226
2,000
Fresh fish
5
25
5 tons per vessel
Total
290
5,025
1978-79
Lampara
31
1,500
Purse Seine
27
1,500
Even gill net
110
1,000
Odd gill net
110
1,000
Fresh fish
10
20
2 tons per vessel
Total
288
5,020
1979-80
Lampara
27
1,500
Purse seine
27
1,500
Even gill net
109
1,500
Odd gill net
109
1,500
Fresh fish
10
20
500 lb trip limit
Total
282
6,020
1980-81
Lampara
24
1,500
Purse seine
29
1,500
Even gill net
112
1,500
Odd gill net
111
1,500
X gill net
100
1,250
Total
376
7.250
1981-82
Lampara
27
2,185
Purse seine
24
1,875
Even gill net
116
2,070
Odd gillnet
116
2,145
X gill net
100
1,725
Total
383
10,000
1982-83
Lampara
21
1,792
Purse seine
22
1,719
Even gill net
126
2,166
Odd gill net
134
2,400
X gill net
127
2,322
Total
430
10,399
26
CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME
1983-84 Lampara 21
Purse seine 22
Even gill net 127
Odd gill net 135
X gill net 125
Total 430
1984-85 Lampara 21
Purse seine 22
Even gill net 126
Odd gill net 128
X gill net 120
Total 418
1985-86 Lampara 21
Purse seine 22
Even gill net 128
Odd gill net 129
X gill net 116
Total 416
1986-87 Lampara 21
Purse seine 21
Even gill net 128
Odd gill net 127
X gill net 116
Roe-on-kelp 1
Total 414
1987-88 Lampara 21
Purse seine 2 1
Even gill net 128
Odd gill net 127
X gill net 116
Roe-on-kelp 1
Total 414
1988-89 Lampara 9
Purse seine 3 1
Even gill net 127
Odd gill net 128
X gill net 117
Roe-on-kelp 5
Allotment A & B T
Total 419
1989-90 Lampara 3
Purse seine 33
Even gill net 126
Odd gill net 128
X gill net 115
Roe-on-kelp 8
Total 413
1990-91 Roundhaul 34
Even gill net 127
Odd gill net 130
X gill net 115
Roe-on-kelp 10
Total 416
2,260
1,875
2,088
2,088
2,088
10,399
1,131
1,079
1,408
1.485
1,397
6,500
1,260
1,320
1,683
1,683
1,584
7,530
1,260
1,260
1,683
1,683
1,584
60
7.530
1.422
1.422
1.900
1.900
1.788
68
8,500
681
2.346
2.089
2.123
1,999
262
9,500
228
2,508
2,144
2,178
1,940
492
9,500
2,584
2,142
2,192
1,940
642
9,500
7.5 tons of product
1 5 tons of product
59 tons of product
5 tons of product
1 10 tons of product
144 tons of product
"Two of the roe-on-kelp permittees were the successful bidders for allotments (A and B).
CALIFORNIA'S HERRING ROE FISHERY
27
Table 4. The number of herring roe permits and quota allocation in tons by season for
Tomales Bay, California.
Season
Gear
Number
permits
Quota
allocation
1972-73
Round haul
5
Total
5
1973-74
Round haul
5
Total
5
1974-75
Round haul
Gill net
4
1
Total
5
1975-76
Round haul
5
Gill net
4
Special
5
Total
14
1976-77
Round haul
5
Tomales gill net
7
Bodega gill net
24
Beach net
5
Total
41
1977-78
Tomales gill net
33
Beach net
5
Bodega gill net
30
Fresh Fish
5
Total
73
1978-79
Tomales platoon
34
Bodega platoon
33
Beach net
2
Fresh fish
5
Total
74
1979-80
Tomales platoon
35
Bodega platoon
34
Fresh fish
5
Total
74
1980-81
Tomales platoon
35
Bodega platoon
35
Total
70
1981-82
Tomales platoon
24
Bodega platoon
32
Total
56
1982-83
Gill net
41
1983-84
Gill net
40
1984-85
Gill net
40
1985-86
Gill net
40
1986-87
Gill net
40
1987-88
Gill net
40
1988-89
Gill net
40
1989-90
Gill net
40
1990-91
Gill net
40
750
150
500
100
25
5
625
550
250
350
5
1,175
600
575
10
1,185
600
600
10
1,210
600
600
10
1,210
600
600
1,200
600
600
1,200
1,000^
1,000
1,000
1,000
1.000
750
750
0
0
ton maximum
per vessel
tons per vessel
tons per vessel
tons per vessel
tons per vessel
includes beach nets
2 tons per vessel
includes beach nets
2 tons per vessel
2 tons per vessel
"Quotas have not been allocated since the 1982-83 season when all gillnetters were combined into one
group. _^
28 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME
roe permits based on qualifying points earned over the previous 10 years. Points were
earned as follows: 1) one point for each year the applicant held a California
commercial fishing license. 2) ten points for those applicants that participated in each
of the previous three California herring seasons as a crew member, boat owner, or
operator, 3) seven points for those applicants that participated in two of the previous
three seasons, and 4) five points for those applicants that participated in at least one
of the previous three seasons.
The maximum number of points possible was 20, and all applicants with 19 or
20 points were issued permits. All of the new permits issued were for gill nets (Table
3 and 4). In addition, round haul permittees were allowed to exchange their permits
for gill net permits.
In 1977, the FGC established a 30 ton herring quota for Crescent City Harbor,
with four permits. Since the 1983-84 season only three permits have been issued
annually. There have been no further changes in regulations for Crescent City
Harbor.
1978-79 Season. No new San Francisco Bay permits were issued for the 1978-
79 season. In Tomales Bay, two permittees did not reapply and the FGC issued three
new permits. Permits for Tomales and Bodega Bays were also combined into one
permit area.
1979-80 Season. The 1979-80 herring quota was increased to 6,000 tons, but no
new permits were issued. The FGC began the phase-out of round haul permits, by
deciding that no new round haul permits would be issued in the future for San
Francisco Bay.
Due to the success of the fishery, more fishermen wanted permits and the legality
of limited entry was being questioned. In response to the pressure to increase the
number of permits,the State Attorney General required the FGC to develop a plan
that would allow for new entrants into the fishery. The FGC's plan established
qualification criteria for new entrants but called for no new gill net permits to be
issued for the Tomales-Bodega Bay area until the total number of permits fell below
69, and no new gill net permits to be issued for San Francisco Bay until the 1980-
81 season. If there were more applicants than the number of permits available, a
lottery would be held. Preferential status would be given in the lottery using the same
system of qualifying points as used in the 1977-78 season. Entry into the fishery
remained closed, but the means of issuing new permits was established.
1980-81 Season. The 1979-80 San Francisco Bay herring biomass estimate
increased to 53,000 tons, justifying higher herring quotas for the 1 980-8 1 season. The
FGC took this opportunity to again increase the number of roe permits, rather than
create a windfall for existing permittees.
Due to congestion on the fishing grounds, the FGC opened an experimental
December fishery in San Francisco Bay. The regular San Francisco Bay herring
season opened the first week of January, and the new experimental December fishery
was set for a three week period beginning November 30, 1980. Herring fishing in
December was considered an experiment because it was unknown if herring captured
so early in the spawning season would be acceptable for the roe market. One hundred
CALIFORNIA'S HERRING ROE FISHERY 29
new roe permits were issued, with the entire 1 ,250 ton quota increase allotted to the
December fishery. A further restriction on the new fishery called for its suspension
and a corresponding quota reduction if the San Francisco Bay herring biomass
dropped below 36,000 tons.
In Tomales Bay, one permittee did not reapply. The number of roe permits
dropped below 69, and the FGC issued two new roe permits for the 1980-81 season
(Table 4).
1981-82 Season. No new permits were issued for the 1981-82 season, but
Tomales Bay permittees were allowed to transfer to San Francisco Bay to alleviate
overcrowding in Tomales Bay. Quota changes in San Francisco Bay, beginning with
the 1 98 1 -82 season, were made by gear type and were percentage adjustments based
on the change in the overall quota (see section on allocation). The Pacific Fishery
Management Council (PFMC) recommended that the maximum harvest rate of
herring not exceed 20% of the available biomass (PFMC 1982). California has
generally been more conservative in setting herring quotas.
1982-83 Season. As in 1981-82, permittees from Tomales Bay were again given
the opportunity to transfer their permits to San Francisco Bay; consequently the
number of Tomales Bay permits declined to 41. The transfer of permits to San
Francisco Bay, coupled with the FGC decision to issue more December gill net
permits created 430 San Francisco Bay herring permits for the 1982-83 season. The
total number of herring permits peaked at 47 1 for the San Francisco and Tomales Bay
herring fisheries in the 1982-83 season.
1983-84 Through 1988-89 Season. The FGC maintained a policy of not issuing
new herring permits, with the exception of the 1986-87 season, when nine December
permittees did not reapply and five new permits were issued. The actual number of
active permits varied each year because permit holders could be inactive for a herring
season due to medical or other valid reasons. When they returned to the fishery after
a year of absence it gave the impression that a new permit was issued, when in fact,
that was not the case. This happened in the 1988-89 season when there was a net
increase of three roe permits.
1989-90 through 1990-91. The fishery has remained lucrative and there is an ever
growing number of fishermen with 20 qualifying points that are eligible to obtain a
herring permit. In addition, there are more permit holders nearing retirement age.
Because of these two factors, the CSL approved the sale of herring permits.
Previously, under specified circumstances (death, incapacity, or retirement of the
permittee), permits could only be transferred to partners, heirs, or siblings. Although
the total number of permits was still limited, they assumed a monetary value and
could be sold.
The CSL set the following guidelines for the sale of permits. Permits must be sold
to individuals with 20 qualifying points as stated previously, and a list of qualified
buyers would be supplied to a permittee wishing to sell a permit. The seller must
notify all qualified buyers by certified mail of his or her intent to transfer the permit.
After 60 days the DFG can certify the transfer to a qualified applicant upon payment
30 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME
of a $5,000 transfer fee paid to the State. San Francisco Bay gillnet permits for the
1990-91 season were valued at approximately $60,000.
The transferability of permits represented a significant change in the permit
distribution system. Permits now have a value, and the mechanism for issuing new
permits by lottery to qualified point holders no longer appears valid. Legislation will
probably be required to change the system.
QUOTA ALLOCATION
California's two major herring spawning areas of Tomales and San Francisco
Bays are within 50 miles of each other (Fig. 1), and are managed on the assumption
that they contain separate spawning stocks. The Departments herring biomass
estimates are determined annually for both bays by conducting spawning-ground
and/or hydroacoustic surveys (Spratt 1991, Wendell and Oda 1990). Herring catch
quotas are generally set at about 15% of the annual biomass estimates from each bay.
Area quotas are not allocated, rather, they are set independently and fluctuate based
on annual herring biomass estimates in each bay.
Tomales Bay
Allocation of the quota has not been a major issue in Tomales Bay because the
fishery is small compared to San Francisco Bay with fewer boats and smaller fishing
grounds. Under CSL control, Tomales Bay herring were caught by round haul
vessels. In the 1974-75 season only five permits were issued for the relatively small
quota of 500 tons. However, there was concern that one large vessel could dominate
the fishery. Therefore, no permittee was allowed to take more than 150 tons. This
represented the first step toward catch allocation.
In the 1975-76 season, the Tomales Bay fishery expanded and the 600 ton quota
was allocated to each vessel on an individual basis. Round haul vessels received 100
tons each and gill net vessels 25 tons each. Round haul vessels were allocated a higher
quota because of the larger crews and higher operating costs.
Individual vessel quotas were eliminated for the 1 976-77 season in favor of group
or gear quotas. Most of the quota increase in the 1976-77 season went to new gill net
permittees. A separate quota of 350 tons was established for 24 new Bodega Bay
permittees. The seven Tomales Bay gillnetters received 250 tons while the five vessel
round haul quota was increased to 550 tons. The FGC changed the 25 ton special bait
and fresh fish allocation to a gear allocation for beach nets.
In the 1977-78 season, largely due to public sentiment, round haul vessels were
permanently prohibited from participating in the Tomales Bay fishery. The total
quota of 1 , 1 75 tons was allocated evenly between Bodega Bay and Tomales Bay. The
25 ton beach net allocation was included in the Tomales Bay quota, but a 10 ton fresh
fish allocation was retained with five 2 ton permits.
The Tomales and Bodega Bay quotas were combined for 1978-79 season and
increased to 1 ,200 tons. Because 69 permits would cause congestion on the fishing
CALIFORNIA'S HERRING ROE FISHERY 31
grounds, former Bodega and Tomales Bay permittees were split into two platoons
and allowed to fish alternate weeks during the season. Each platoon was allocated
600 tons. The platoon system and fishing alternate weeks was not successful in
Tomales Bay. because one platoon tended to catch most of the herring, causing ill
will between the two platoons.
In the 1980-81 season, separation of the Tomales Bay gill net platoons was
modified to provide for an equitable catch. The first platoon was required to stop
fishing when 100 tons were taken. The second platoon then fished until an additional
100 tons were taken, at which time the first platoon started fishing again, and so on
until the quotas were met. Also, the fresh fish allocation was modified so that they
could not be taken during the herring roe fishery season.
The platoon system used to allocate the Tomales Bay catch was unsuccessful
because Tomales Bay is small, overcrowding was a serious problem, and there were
simply too many vessels. In order to minimize this problem, the number of Tomales
Bay permits had to be reduced. The FGC created a two-year window of opportunity
for Tomales Bay permittees to transfer to the San Francisco Bay herring fishery. The
intent was to reduce the number of Tomales Bay permits and combine the remaining
permittees into one group for the 1982-83 season. The 41 pennittees that chose to
stay in Tomales Bay fished under a reduced quota of 1 ,(X)0 tons in the 1 983-84 season.
The number of herring permits issued for Tomales Bay has been 40 since the
1982-83 season. Tomales Bay catch quotas have fluctuated based on biomass
estimates. Vessel quota allocation has not been reconsidered because most permittees
are against allocation and prefer the competitive nature of the present fishery which
rewards luck and hard work with the best catches.
The Tomales Bay permittees are organized and have regular meetings to discuss
issues and to resolve their socioeconomic problems. With only 40 herring permits
in Tomales Bay. allocation was eliminated seven years ago and probably will not be
reinstated.
San Francisco Bay
The San Francisco Bay herring fishery is larger and far more congested than the
Tomales Bay fishery. Allocation of quotas, catch, gear, and fishing time will
continue to be a part of the San Francisco Bay herring fishery.
The San Francisco Bay herring fleet was composed almost entirely of round haul
vessels during the first three seasons (1972-73 through 1974-75). Only 12 permits
were issued for each of the first three seasons, but there was intense competition
between vessels. The FGC perceived that larger vessels had an unfair advantage and
imposed a maximum boat allocation of 150 tons for the 1974-75 season.
The fishery expanded in the 1975-76 season and the FGC retained the concept
of vessel allocation. The 3,000 ton roe herring quota was divided as follows: round
haul vessels - 2,400 tons with equal vessel allocations of 100 tons; gill net vessels
- 600 tons with equal vessel allocations of 25 tons. In addition, the 10 special bait or
32 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME
fresh fish permits were issued with a separate quota of 50 tons and equal vessel
allocations of 5 tons.
In 1976-77, the San Francisco Bay herring fishery was opened to all qualified
applicants. The round haul vessel allocation was increased to 3,000 tons but divided
equally between purse seine (1,500 tons) and lampara vessels (1,500 tons). The 165
gill net vessels received a 1,000 ton allocation. A 15 ton allocation of herring for the
fresh fish market was retained. Individual vessel allocations that guarantee a
permittee a specific share of the quota were eliminated this season.
In the 1977-78 season, the San Francisco Bay herring quota was increased to
5,000 tons with the entire increase of 1,000 tons allocated to gill net vessels. The
number of gill net permits issued increased to 226 and congestion on the fishing
grounds and at off-loading points around the bay became a serious problem.
In the 1978-79 season, the FGC adopted further regulations that set the stage for
seasons to come. Congestion in the fishery was alleviated by dividing the 220 gill
net permittees into two platoons; each platoon was allocated a 1,000 ton quota. In
addition, a 20 ton trip limit was established for all vessels.
The 1979-80 season quota was increased to 6,000 tons and the 1 ,000 ton increase
was again allocated to gill net permittees. Congestion on the fishing grounds was
reduced, but dockside congestion during unloading operations continued. The fresh
fish allocation was modified so that a permittee had to possess a valid market order
for herring, not to exceed 500 pounds per day. The fresh fish season was also closed
during the roe fishery. Before this action, herring caught under fresh fish market
permits may have entered the roe market. The herring population biomass estimates
continued to increase and peaked at nearly 100,000 tons in 1981-82. As the quotas
increased, pressure to expand the fishery by adding new permits also increased, and
the legality of the limited entry policy was being questioned.
In response to the pressure to issue more permits, the FGC provided for 100 new
gill net permits for the 1980-81 season and established a third platoon and a 3- week
December or "X" season (see section on the "X"platoon). The quota increase of 1 ,250
tons in the 1980-81 season was allocated entirely to the "X" fishery. There was also
a provision that, if the San Francisco Bay biomass ever fell below the 1979 level of
36,000 tons, the "X" season and its permits would be suspended for that season.
Herring quotas continued to increase and reached 10,000 tons in the 1981-82 season.
The three gill net platoons were allocated 60% and round haul vessels 40% of the
quota. "ODD","EVEN", "X", purse seine, and lampara quotas were allocated based
on the number of expected permits in each platoon or gear type. Quotas are set in
advance of the season, and the number of expected permits often differed from the
number actually issued. For example, the total gill net quota was divided by the total
number of expected gill net permits to obtain the average quota per vessel. The quota
allocation to the "ODD" gill net platoon was the number of expected permits in that
platoon multiplied by the average gill net quota per vessel. The same system was used
with round haul vessels.
The average per vessel quota was multiplied by the number of lampara permits
expected to be issued to determine the lampara allocation. In the case of round haul
CALIFORNIA'S HERRING ROE FISHERY 33
vessels, this was carried one step further and the average quota per vessel became
a catch limit or vessel allocation. In the 1981-82 season the round haul vessel quota
was 78 tons. All herring landed in excess of a vessel's individual quota was forfeited
to the DFG.
From 1982-83 through 1990-91 , the FGC policy of allocating the quota 67%/33%
between gill net and round haul vessels has worked well, as has the method of
dividing up gear quotas between groups of permittees based on average vessel
quotas.
Roe-On-Kelp Fishery
Roe-on-kelp harvesting by the open pound method (pounds are 18.3x12.2 m
floating rafts) was first allowed in the San Francisco Bay fishery in the 1986-87
season. This method, commonly used in Canada, involves hanging giant kelp
{Macrosystis pyrifera) from rafts, waiting until herring spawn on the kelp, then
harvesting the product. Prior to this time, herring eggs on naturally growing
vegetation were harvested.
In the 1988-89 season the roe-on-kelp fishery expanded from one to five permits.
The FGC, still trying to reduce the overall number of vessels in the fishery, made the
new permits available to existing round haul and gill net herring permittees willing
to transfer to the new fishery. Three round haul and two gill net permittees
transferred. These were gear transfers, not new permits.
The roe-on-kelp allocation to each permittee was the equivalent of each
permittee's share of the herring quota in whole fish. A total of 262 tons of whole
herring was transferred to the roe-on-kelp fishery (Table 3). The equivalent roe-on-
kelp quota was 59 tons of product (conversion factor = 0.2237); 4 tons for each gill
net transfer and 17 tons for each round haul transfer.
In addition, since 1965, two allotments (A and B) have been issued annually in
San Francisco Bay for the harvest of 5 tons of herring roe on seaweed that grows
naturally in the bay. Allotments were awarded by sealed bid, with the two highest
bidders receiving the allotments. The bid price was a royalty per ton, paid to the DFG.
In 1989, the development of the open pound or raft method has resulted in the
conversion of these two allotments of 2.5 tons each to the open pound method. Two
of the five gear transferees were also the successful bidders for the allotments. The
total open pound quota was 64 tons in the 1988-89 season.
The royalty per ton that roe-on-kelp permittees must pay the DFG has been a
source of controversy since the fishery has changed from a harvest that used divers
to an open raft method. Royalties were high, over $2,500 per ton when a competitive
bid process was used to award permits. Roe-on-kelp fishermen successfully argued
that the bidding process had driven the royalty too high, and the FGC set a new royalty
fee of $500 per ton for the 1989-90 and subsequent seasons.
In the 1990-91 season the FGC expanded the roe-on-kelp fishery from five to ten
permits. The total quota was 144 tons of product, or the equivalent of 642 tons of
whole herring.
34 CALIFORNIA FiSH AND GAME
SOCIOECONOMIC ISSUES
All herring roe fisheries, from California to Alaska, have over-crowded fishing
grounds and intense fishing activity during spawning runs. The San Francisco Bay
herring fisher> adds another element because it takes place in the center of a large
metropolitan area. Problems associated with the fishing industr> are highly visible
to any interested or concerned citizen. While only San Francisco Bay w as discussed
here, most of the issues also apply to Tomales Bay.
Recreational Conflicts
Weekend Closures. Sailing, fishing, and other recreational activities may conflict
with commercial herring fishing operations. While these recreational activities can
take place during the week, most occurs during weekends. The potential conflict with
recreational users of the bay was minimized by closing the herring roe flsher> from
noon Friday to sunset Sunday.
Public piers. No herring net may be set or operated w ithin 300 feet of public piers.
This decision was also the result of conflicts between recreational fishing and
commercial fishing activities.
'e
Area Closures
There are a variety of reasons why herring fishing is restricted to certain areas;
most closures are a direct result of the highly populated San Francisco Bay area.
Military Bases. U. S. Naval installations at Treasure Island. Hunter's Point, and
Alameda (Fig. 1) have restricted areas around the bases. Civilian activities and
herring fishing operations are prohibited near these installations.
Noise Pollution. Herring fishing is a noisy business. The sound of net floats
banging on gunwales, vessel engines, deck speakers, the whine of hydraulic motors,
and barking sea lions can build to a ver> annoying level at night. Because of these
factors. Belvedere Cove (Fig. 1 ). an affluent area of waterfront homes and a prime
fishing area, was closed to herring fishing in the 1980-81 season. Noise is also a
problem in the Sausalito area and along the San Francisco waterfront (Fig. 1). but
these areas remain open to herring fishing.
Since the 1986-87 season, the unloading of herring has been prohibited between
10 P.M. and 6 A.M., because of noise associated with the pumping of herring during
the unloading procedure at dockside.
Marinas. Herring nets have been set across marina entrances blockins vessel
traffic and creating potential safety hazards. This activity has resulted in many small
area closures near marinas throughout the bay.
Ecological Resenes. During the 1970s. Richardson Bay near Sausalito was the
primary heiring spawning area in San Francisco Bay (Spratt 1981). Richardson Bay
(Fig. 1) is an ecological reserve and has never been open to herring fishing. In
December 1981. a large winter storm occurred just after a major herring spawTi in
CALIFORNIA'S HERRING ROE FISHERY 35
Richardson Ba>. Spawn-laden vegetation i^Gracilaria sp.) was torn loose from the
soft mud bottom of the bay b> \vind-dri\en waves. Vegetation densities did not
reco\er and ha\e remained low into the early 1990s. Consequenth . herring have
abandoned Richardson Ba> in fa\ or of the w atert'ron: pier pilmgs \n the Cit\ of San
Francisco.
Gear Conflicts
Round Haul vs. Gill Sei. Most of San Francisco Ba> has been closed to encirclmg
nets (purse seine, lampara. and beach nets) for man\ years to prevent the take of
salmon, striped bass, sturgeon, and shad. From 1972-73 through 1978-79. round haul
vessels were restricted to an area near the entrance to San Francisco Ba\- (Fig. 2a).
Bait nets, a small lampara t\pe net without purse rings and made of standard No. ^
seine twine or lighter. ha\e always been allowed for use throughout San Francisco
Ba\ for bait purposes.
In W^. the FGC ruled that lampara nets used in the herring flshen.- qualified as
bait nets. The size of the lampara or bait net w as not an issue. Lamparas w ere used
to lake herring in central San Francisco Ba> in the 1979-80 season, beginning a 10
vear period that gradually opened more of San Francisco Bay to round haul gear. .A.
funher precaution intended to pre\ ent the take of sport species by round haul vessels
requires that a rigid metal grate of parallel bars, no more than ? inches apan be placed
over the hatch while loading fish into the hold. An> large fish (sturgeon or striped
bass) would be deflected onto the deck, rather than fall into the hold, and returned
to the water unharmed.
In the 1979-80 season the lampara fishing area was expanded to include the east
side of the bav between the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge and the Oakland Bay
Bridge (Fig. 2b). but they were allowed to fish only after gill net quotas were taken.
This action was necessar\ because set gill nets and round haul gear ma\ contlict.
particularly w hen spaw ning is underway or w hen herring are concentrated in small
areas of the bay. Subsequenth . m the 1 ^84-85 season, lamparas were allowed to fish
while the gill net fishen. was in progress. However, lamparas were restricted by the
following new regulations: 1) daytime fishing onh . 2) prohibited from fishing in
waters less than 1 1 m deep, and 3 i the east bay beiw een Richmond and Oakland was
closed (Fig. 2b).
In the 1985-86 season, areas open to lampara nets was expanded to include the
area south of the Oakland Bay Bridge in w aters greater than 1 1 m deep during
daylight hours (Fig. 2c). Night- time fishing w as allow ed only after the gill net quotas
were taken. During this time, purse seiners continued to be restricted to the original
area near the entrance of the Ba\ . The incidental take of sport species by lamparas
did not pro\ e to be a serious problem. On the rare occasion when a protected species
was taken, the metal grate over the hatch allow ed the fish to be returned to the bay
quickly. Finalh . prior to the 1988-89 season purse seine restrictions were removed
and they were included with lamparas (i.e.. round haul gearl. The only restriction
remaining w as the 1 1 m depth prohibition until the gill net quotas were taken (Fig.
2d).
36
CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME
Oakland
Area open to
purse seine and
lamparas
/
N
/
Figure 2a. Area of San Francisco Bay open to purse seine and lampara gear from the
1972-73 to 1978-79 seasons.
This change resuUed in many lampara vessels changing to modified purse seine
nets (Table 3), and by the 1990-91 season only a few lampara nets remained in the
fishery.
Transfer of Herring Between Vessels. The transfer of herring between vessels or
permittees is prohibited. This prevents groups of vessels from fishing together, where
one large vessel could make a large catch and transfer herring to smaller vessels. It
also prevents the transfer of herring between round haul and gill net vessels. The
transfer of herring would circumvent the purpose of separate gear quotas and vessel
allocations.
Open Pound vs. Gill Net. In the roe-on-kelp fishery, pounds or rafts with kelp
hanging from them are deployed in an area where herring are expected to spawn. The
rafts are difficult to maneuver and for best results must be moved as the spawning
herring school moves. Gill nets set near roe-on-kelp rafts often prevent movement
of the rafts. This conflict has not been resolved and may prevent further expansion
of the roe-on-kelp fishery. This method of fishing has become popular and there were
10 permits available in the 1990-91 season, with each permittee allowed two rafts.
Gill Net Closure. There is a large area in the central part of south San Francisco
Bay between the Bay Bridge and Hunter's Point, where herring hold (i.e., congregate)
prior to spawning (Fig. 3). Beginning with the 1 99 1 -92 season, this area will be closed
to gill nets. This is the first major area or depth restriction placed on gill net gear.
CALIFORNIA'S HERRING ROE FISHERY
37
Area open to pMjrse
seine
Lampara area expanded
inl 979-80, only after gill net
quotas are taken
Lampara area closed until gill
net quotas are taken 1984-85
Lampara area closed at night
and prohibited less than 1 1 m
until after gill net quota taken
(1984-85)
11m contour
/
Figure 2b. Areas of San Francisco Bay open to purse seine and lampara gear from
the 1979-80 to 1984-85 seasons.
Gill net fishing activity can trigger herring to spawn prematurely in deep water
or on herring nets. Such spawning may affect the survival of herring eggs and
subsequent year class strength. These spawns are not included in spawn escapement
estimates, thus affecting biomass estimates and catch quotas. The FGC felt that this
action was in the best interest of the fishery. A test boat program, described later, also
placed restrictions on round haul vessels fishing in the same holding area.
Congestion
Congestion on the fishing grounds and at dockside during unloading op)erations
is a serious problem. It has been compounded by the two different gear types used
in the fishery and the need to unload quickly and return to the fishing grounds before
a spawning run ends. Limited entry controlled the number of herring permits, but
many new problems surfaced that have precipitated the following regulations.
Gear Limits. Purse seines and lampara nets are limited to a maximum length of
240 fm (439 m) with no depth restriction. In San Francisco Bay gill net permittees
are limited to 2 shackles of 65 fm (1 19 m) each. In Tomales Bay the gill net limit is
195 fm (357 m).
Assigned Fishing Days. Purse seine vessels were allowed to fish only Monday,
Tuesday, and Thursday in the 1977-78 season. In the 1978-79 season, lamparas were
38
CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME
Lampara area expanded,
daytime only, prohibited
shallower than 11m until
-■ gill net quotas are taken
Figure 2c. Areas of San Francisco Bay open to purse seine and lampara gear from
the 1985-86 to 1987-88 seasons.
included and all round haul vessels were allowed to fish only Monday through
Thursday. These measures were largely ineffective, resulting in large catches on days
when fishing was allowed. Consequently, in the 1979-80 season round haul vessels
were allowed to resume fishing from sunset Sunday to noon Friday.
Daily Landing Limits And Trip Limits. Daily landing limits of 40 tons and trip
limits of 20 tons were in force from 1976-77 until the 1981-82 season when the
number of permits expanded. The intent was to control congestion at dockside during
peak unloading times. It was not effective. A round haul vessel could still take
CALIFORNIA'S HERRING ROE FISHERY
39
Figure 2d. Areas of San Francisco Bay open to purse seine and lampara gear in the
1988-89 season.
considerable time to unload their catch while smaller gill net vessels waited.
Consequently, such restrictions were subsequently repealed.
Platoon System. Congestion on the fishing grounds and at dockside was not
solved, but greatly reduced when the gill net vessels were divided into equal sized
platoons of 110 permittees prior to the 1978-79 season. Gillnetters were divided
based on their permit numbers, and assigned to the "EVEN" or "ODD" platoon. The
quota was also divided equally and the platoons fished alternate weeks during the
40
CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME
Oakland
Figure 3. Herring holding area closed to gillnetters in the 1991-92 season.
season. If one platoon caught its share of the quota the alternate platoon was allowed
to fish until the remaining gill net quota was taken. In addition, the platoons rotated
each year; i.e. the platoon that started first one season would start second the
following season.
The "X" Platoon. The San Francisco Bay platoon system worked so well that the
FGC established a third "X" platoon when the fleet was expanded prior to the 1980-
81 season (Table 3). The third platoon, composed of 100 additional gill net permits,
did not add to the congestion because they were given a separate three week fishing
season in December. Because of the short December season, if they did not catch their
quota the "X" platoon was also allowed to fish after the "ODD" and "EVEN" platoons
finished. In 1991, after 1 1 seasons, the FGC ruled that the December herring fishery
was no longer considered an experimental fishery. The platoon's name was changed
CALIFORNIA'S HERRING ROE FISHERY 41
from "XH" to "DH"; all other regulations pertaining to the "DH" platoon remain
unchanged.
Round Haul Vessel Quotas. Individual vessel quotas have been part of the round
haul fishery since the 1974-75 season. In the 1981-82 season the total round haul
quota of 4060 tons was divided equally among 5 1 permittees and became a vessel
allocation or limit. This action eased the competition between round haul vessels and
greatly reduced congestion at dockside because the need to bring in large loads of
herring was eliminated.
Test Boat System. The allocation of individual quotas to round haul vessels in San
Francisco Bay increased the quality of the catch. Round haul fishermen may be more
selective in the herring that they keep because herring may by caught, held in the net,
and tested for roe content. If roe content is low, herring may be released alive.
However, there were concerns about vessel quotas and their effect on the fishery.
Some fishermen are too selective early in the season, and release herring that are not
quite good enough with the hope of catching better fish later in the season. This results
in the failure of many round haul vessels to catch their individual quotas and
needlessly extends the season into February and March.
Another concern is that the testing and releasing of herring by round haul vessels
may be harmful to the resource. This practice has been part of the fishery from the
beginning, but the extent that testing and releasing increases fishing mortality has not
been determined. However, round haul vessel quotas have resulted in an increase in
testing and releasing by the fleet. Because of the potential harmful effects of catch
and release practices, this problem was addressed during 1988.
The idea of a test boat program that would control the opening of the round haul
fishery had been considered for several years. During the late I980's, the DFG
proposed that the industry develop their own voluntary test boat program. This
seemed reasonable because they were the ones that stood to gain from increasing the
quality of the catch, while reducing the unfavorable practice of catching and
releasing herring. After three years, the industry had not developed a successful test
boat plan.
In 1991, the time for a test boat system had arrived. The DFG, drawing from
information gained during three years of discussions and meetings with fishermen
and buyers, proposed an official DFG herring test boat system for the 1 99 1 -92 season.
The major provisions of the 1991-92 test boat system are as follows:
1. The test boat system shall be in effect during January and until February 15,
1992.
2. All round haul permittees must participate.
3. Four (4) vessels will be drawn for each Test Boat Fishing Period (TBFP). A
random drawing will determine the order of participation.
4. A test boat may operate in any area of San Francisco Bay legally open to round
haul vessels.
5. After each spawn the Department shall determine the date, day, and time at
which the TBFP will start.
42 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME
6. A test boat may retain on board the catch from only one set during the TBFP
until the fishery is declared open by an official Coast Guard announcement.
7. The TBFP will end and fishing will be open to all roundhaul permittees when
all of the following conditions have been met: a) At least two (2) test boats have
taken and retained a load of herring with a roe content of 9% or more, and b)
each roe content of 9% or more has been verified by one of the herring buyers
or his representative, and c) each buyer has notified the Coast Guard that a test
boat has retained a load of herring with a roe content of 9% or more, and d) the
buyer has identified himself by name of speaker, company, and vessel, and e)
the Coast Guard has announced the opening of the fishery on VHF Channel 16.
8. During any open fishing period, no roundhaul vessel shall release any fish once
a set has been made.
9. If the daily roe content of landings drops below 9%, as determined from fish
receipts, the Department will announce the end of the open fishing period and
the beginning of the next TBFP.
PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH ALLOCATION
Allocations are made on paper, may be difficult to implement, there are no
guarantees, and the smallest allocation unit must be large enough to provide adequate
economic return to the fishermen. In short, allocation of catch, fishing time, and areas
results in a highly structured fishery that becomes dependent on predictable and
dependable behavior of the target species.
An unexpected change in the behavior of the target species may prevent catch
allocations from being taken and may cause economic hardship. An example is the
Tomales Bay fishery which is now closed. The decline in biomass of herring has been
attributed to the five year California drought, which is believed to have caused a
change in the distribution of Tomales Bay herring. The movement of herring places
an extreme economic hardship on the 40 Tomales Bay permittees, who may not
legally fish for herring in other areas. Individual vessel allocations may also increase
wastage of fish, due to illegal discarding of poor quality catches. Allocations also
increase the incentive to under-report catches.
Insuring compliance with vessel allocation, area closures, and time closures adds
to the workload of management and enforcement personnel, particularly when there
is a several hundred vessel fleet.
There will probably be quota shortfalls because individual vessel allocations will
not make good fishermen out of poor fishermen. Many vessels may not catch their
allocations due to mechanical breakdowns. These factors will extend the fishing
season and add to industry and management costs.
CALIFORNIA'S HERRING ROE FISHERY 43
DISCUSSION
There were few changes in the herring regulations from 1982-83 through 1990-
91. Changes that were made primarily dealt with socioeconomic issues. The basic
concepts of limited entry, quota allocation, and the platoon system remained
unchanged.
The 1991-92 season will see the implementation of the test boat program and
closure of deep water herring holding areas to the use of gill nets south in San
Francisco Bay, the latest significant changes in herring regulations. These new
regulation changes will be evaluated during the 1991-92 season.
The gill net fishery regulations in San Francisco Bay are working; however the
issue of individual vessel quotas is continually brought up. The gill net fleet of San
Francisco Bay is a composite of new state-of-the-art fast aluminum bow-pickers and
50 year old conventional, slow wooden vessels. Platoon quotas are taken rapidly and
older vessels have difficulty competing with the newer modem vessels. Because of
competition, the concept of individual gill net vessel quotas guaranteeing a specified
catch is appealing to many fishermen. However, the gillnetters of San Francisco Bay
are split over this issue, and the FGC will probably not consider adopting this
regulation until a majority of the fishermen favor individual boat quotas.
The San Francisco Bay round haul vs. gill net gear conflict has been minimized.
Until the gill net quotas are taken, round haul vessels may not fish shallower than 1 1
m. This in effect gives gillnetters exclusive access to shallow herring spawning areas
until their quotas are taken. After the gill net quotas are filled round haul vessels may
fish in all areas of the bay open to herring fishing.
The limited entry plan for the herring fishery that was adopted by the FGC
essentially closed the fishery to new entrants. Only five new permits have been issued
since 1983 because the number of herring permits have not declined below the level
that would allow new permits to be issued. Transferring permits to heirs or partners
was allowed, and tended to stabilize the number of permits.
The herring fishery is lucrative, and many of the permittees have been in the
fishery since the beginning and are nearing retirement age. There are a large number
of fishermen interested in obtaining a herring permit. Because of these factors, the
limited entry regulations were modified in 1988. The number of permits remain
limited, but they may now be sold. Consequently, the system is permanently changed
and its unlikely that herring permits will ever again be issued by lottery, they will
simply be sold.
44 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME
CONCLUSION
When the DFG determined the status of the herring resource in San Francisco Bay
and recommended quota increases, expansion of the fishery was inevitable. Most of
the regulation changes were the result of the increased quotas for this lucrative
fishery. Management of the herring roe fishery has gone through a long trial and error
process. Regulations evolved and annual changes in regulations were necessary as
the new fishery developed.
Management concepts new to commercial fishing in California were introduced.
Limited entry, the lottery, vessel quotas, quota allocation by gear, assigned fishing
areas by gear, the platoon system, and test boat program were all controversial
management methods. Some are still controversial, but these regulations have
proven effective in solving socioeconomic conflicts in a congested fishery.
LITERATURE CITED
PFMC. 1982. Pacific Herring Fishery Management Plan (DRAFT). Pacific Fishery
Management Council, Portland, Oregon. 131pp.
Rabin, D.J., and R.A. Bamhart. 1986. Population characteristics of Pacific herring (Clupea
harengus pallasi) in Humboldt Bay, California. Calif. Fish Game ll-A-\6.
Spratt, J. D. 1976. The Pacific herring resource of Tomales and San Francisco Bays: its size
and structure. Calif Fish and Game, Mar. Res. Tech. Rep. 33:1-44.
. 1981. The status of the Pacific herring, Clupea harengus pallasi, resource in
California 1972 to 1980. Calif Fish and Game, Fish Bull. 171:1-107.
. 1991. Biomass estimates of Pacific herring, Clupea pallasi, in California from the
1990-91 spawning-ground surveys. Calif. Fish and Game, Mar. Res. Admin. Rep. 91-
14:1-41.
Wendell, F., and K. T. Oda. 1990. Pacific herring, Clupea pallasi, studies in San Francisco
and Tomales Bays, April 1989 to March 1990. Calif Fish and Game, Mar. Res. Admin.
Rep. 90-14:1-55.
Received: 20 September 1991
Accepted :\9 December 1991
92 82806
INSTRUCTIONS FOR CONTRIBUTORS
EDITORIAL POLICY
California Fish and Game is a technical, professional, and educational journal
devoted to the conservation and understanding of fish, wildlife, and native
communities. Original manuscripts submitted for consideration should deal with
California flora or fauna, or provide information of direct interest and benefit to
California researchers and managers.
MANUSCRIPTS: Referto the CBE Style Manual (5th Edition) and a recent issue of
California Fish and Game for general guidance in preparing manuscripts. Specific
guidelines are available from the Editor in Chief.
COPY: Use good quality 215 x 280 mm (8.5 x 11 in.) paper. Double-space
throughout with 3-cm margins. Do not hyphenate at the right margin, or right-justify
text. Authors should submit three good copies of their manuscript, including tables
and figures to the Editor in Chief. If written on a micro-computer, a 5.25 or 3.5 in.
diskette of the manuscript in word processor and ASCI I file format will be desired with
the final accepted version of the manuscript.
CITATIONS: All citations should follow the name-and-year system. See a recent
issue of California Fish and Game for format of citations and Literature Cited. Use
initials forgiven names in Literature Cited.
ABSTRACTS: Every article, except notes, must be introduced by an abstract.
Abstracts should be about 1 typed line per typed page of text. In one paragraph
describe the problem studied, most important findings, and their implications.
TABLES: Start each table on a separate page and double-space throughout.
Identify footnotes with roman letters.
FIGURES: Consider proportions of figures in relation to the page size of California
Fish and Game. Figures and line-drawings should be of high-quality with clear, well-
defined lines and lettering. Lettering style should be the same throughout. The
original or copy of each figure submitted must be no larger than 21 5 x 280 mm (8.5
X 1 1 in.). Figures must be readable when reduced to finished size. The usable printed
page is 1 1 7 x 1 91 mm (4.6 x 7.5 in.). Figures, including captions cannot exceed these
limits. Photographs of high-quality with strong contrasts are accepted and should be
submitted on glossy paper. Type figure captions on a separate page, not on the
figure page. On the back and top of each figure or photograph, lightly write the figure
number and senior author's last name.
PAGE CHARGES AND REPRINTS: All authors will be charged $35 per printed page
and will be billed before publication of the manuscript. Reprints may be ordered
through the editor at the time the galley proof is submitted. Authors will receive a
reprint charge form along with the galley proof.
o o o
zj w O
fn CD -^
- w o
CO §• 5
O CD 55
B) :i **
3 o 31
(D "* (A
O w S
> ^ C3
Q.
c
(D 0
en ro
13
• c
"0 !^
>
0 -^
c/) 33
•° 0
D
d >
CD ■
> H
■^ 0
0 m
<o >
m
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11