I
ll:az
i7'7!N TO
,
pLEA
?Llnsxftlittlnii
COUNCTL
RES=ARCH
:i:.II
RAFCH
COUNCIL
ESTU.fl
QREGOM
ESTU
ORE=qON
I
HMSC
HMSC
SH
SH
1
56.8
156.8
..M8451
M8451
L 9 74
1974
$cli:l
lf
Dcer.:r:rir5;l-''l
: il,t,
? jt1
:Tii'",i','"'";t
i;l
$;,
COA,STAL
RIVEIiS INVESTIGATION
COASTAL
RIVERS
INVESTIGATIO}J
I}TFORPiATION
REPORT
INFORMATION REPORT
74-3
74-3
O
A
Surmary ofof Annerican
(Alosa eayi.di,esima)
A Sunwiary
American Shad
Shad (Aloaa
sapidiaeima) Tagging
Tagging
Studies on
the Coastal
Coastal Streams
Streans of
Studies
on the
of Oregon,
0regon, 1946-70
1946-20
flo
Robert E. ltiullen
Robert
Mullen
o
fi
{r
o
Fish Commission
Comrnissionof
of Oregon
0regon
Fish
Division of
of Management
lvlanagement.
Division
and
and Research
Resoarch
o
.
6)
C,)
L974
April
April 1974
o
o
0
()
uERhR\gB
-*\)l,'-$s'fi$$
suilJt$$l,il
?c
o
{-
S
('ç:.!
cc
$'s[$HJs-"
'*ltffih;:*'
o
CONTEhITS
CONTENTS
a
a
o
Page No.
No.
Page
il{TR0DUCTI0it..,.,.r.,,.L
INTRODtJCTION
............................
S T U D YAREAS
A R E A.
S .. ..............
STUDY
i .
. . .............
..
i.{ETHODS
4E1'HODS
o
....... ............. * .........
TAGGI}.IG
STUDYSIJ}${A!?IES
TAGGINGSTUDYSiJMMARIES
.......................
AlseaRiver(1951) .....................
gslaw River (1950
SiuslawRiver(1950)...
...................
ua F.iver (1916-49
1JmguaRiver(194j
....................
"
ua River (1969
UnipguaRiver(j969)
.......................
(i
Coos River
River (1950)
Coos
.......................
Coos River (1951)
........
Coos River (1968)
I
1
8
raaaaa
I
9
I
9
.aaa
aaaa
aaaa
aa
o
1
coosfliverGg@.
CoosRiver(1970)
9
l10
0
l1
11
13
13
13
13
13
13
l4
14
..
..
..
,.
........................
DrscussIohl.
DISCUSSION
15
15
.............................. 15
InterriverMovements .......... .
15
g_ceanRecoveries . .
OceanRecoveries
-*
t17
7
........................
Time at Larse.
Time
La.rge
1
188
..........................
Gear Sel.ectivit
GearSe1ectivit
20
20
........................
v
Estinates
RevisedPopulationEstimates
28
........... 28
TITERATI.IRE
CITEO.
LITERATUP.ECITED
29
.......................... .29
APPENDIX.
APPENDIX
32
32
.........................
!r
rataraaa
.
o
.
.%
aara
aa
aaaaaa
oa
t t a a a a j t
.
.
.
.
.
.
FIGI.IRES
FIGURES
Figure No.
No.
Figure
o
L
1
2
2
o
PageNo.
No.
Page
',.{hereShad
Map
ShowilS the
Map Showing
Major Landmarks
the l,iajor
Landmarks Where
Slrad have
have been
been
Tagged
and
Recaptured.
TaggedandRecaptured .......
, .
.. ..........
Ir,lapofof the
flap
the Lower
Lower Alsea
Alsea River
River Showing
Showing Tagging
Sites and
Tagging Sites
and
Land,narks
Landmarks
................ . ........
3
3
4
4
l'{ap of
of Siuslaw
siuslaw River
River Showing
Map
sho,ring Tagging
Tagging Sites
sites and
and Landmarks
Landnarks
.
lilap of
of Smith
smith and
Map
andUrnpqua
umpquaRivers
Rivers Showing
showing Tagging
Tagging Sites
sites and
and
Landnarks....6
Landmarks
.........................
o
4
s
5
6
5
t'lap
the Coos
Map of
of the
River showing
coos piver
Showing Tagging
Tagging sites
Sites and
and Landmarks.
Landrnarks.
6
Length-FrequencyHistograms
l{istograrns of
Length-Frequency
of Hale
l.{aleShad
ShadTagged,
Tagged,
Recaptr.lred,
- Recaptured,
*9
and !ryEted
Sampled from
frorn the Commercial
ConrnercialCatch
Catch from
from Coos
dios River,
River" 1968
1968
and 1970,
1970, and
and
and the
the Umpqua
UnpquaRiver,
River, 1969
1969
22
22
7
Length:Freelency Histograms
Histograms of
Length-Frequency
of Female
Fenale Shad
Shad Tagged,
Tagged, Recap
Recapt
tured,
tured, and
and sanpled
Sampled from the
the Commercial
conmercial Catch
catch from
f,r,on
coos
Coos
River, 1968
196Sand
River,
and 1970,
1970, and
ana the
Umpqua River,
tne-iimpqua
R.iverr 1969
1969 . .
.
Size
Curves
Selectivity
Curves
for
for
Tagged Male
Male and
Tagged
and Female
Female
fize.Sel.ectivity
Anerican Shad.Caught
Shad.Caughtby.
American
by.Gilt
Gill ruli
Net in
i" the.
rhe.Coos
Coos md
and
uryqua Rivers. .
iimpquaRivers
. . .
. .
. . ......
. . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
o
2
2
................
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
7
*
.
23
23
25
25
TABLES
TABTES
Page
Page No.
No.
Table No.
Table
No._
.
1
I
S
Tagged in
Total
Coastal
Total Recaptures
Shad Tagged
the Coastal
R.ecaptures of
Anerican Shad
in the
of American
Tagging and
Recovery,
Rivers of
Oregon, by River
P,ivers
River of
and Recovery,
of Clregon,
of Tagging
1946-70
..........................
1946-70.
2
15
15
Average Nurober
Number of
of Days
Days at
Commercially
for Tagged, Comrnercial.Ly
Average
at Large for
River
Caught
Shad
Recaptured
Within
1
Year
in
the
of
in the River of
Caught Shad Recaptured Within
Tagging
.
T a g g i n g . . . . . o........................
....
.
o
3
Comparisons
of Mean
Mean Lengths
Shad Using the
the t-Test
t-Test
tengths of
of $had
Comparisons of
(Mean Lengths Differing
are
(Mean
Differing at
Significance Level
Level are
at the
the 95%
95? Significance
lMarkedwithanAsterisk).
{arkedwith anAsterisk)
4
o
.
.
.
.
. ..
.........
. .
for
Results
Analysis Testing
Testing for
Results of
of Contingency Chi-Square Analysis
Differences
Probability of
of Capture of
of l{ajor
Major Size
Size
Differences in
in Probability
Classes
Tagged American Shad.
Shad. . . . .
. .
Classes of
ofTaggedAnerican
. .
.......... .
o
6
21t
2
for
Results of
of Contingency
Contingency Chi-Squares
Chi-Squares Analysis
Analysis Testing
Testing for
Differences
Probability of
of Capture of
of Different
Different Tagged
Tagged
Differences in
in Probability
Size
SizeClassesofAmericanShad.
Classes of American Shad.
5
. .............
. . .
. . . . . .
. .,
.
18
18
.
.
26
26
27
27
Results of
for
Results
Analysis Testing
Testing for
of Contingency Chi-Square Analysis
Differences
of Capture of
Male and
Differences in
and
in Probability
Probability of
of l,lal.e
Fenale Anierican Shad .
28
FemaleAmericanShad
........ ........... 28
oo
7
Population Estimates
Population
for
Estinates and
and 95%
Intervals for
95%Confidence Intervals
River
1968
Shad
$had Available
Available to
Fishery, Coos
to the Commercial
Comnercial Fishery,
Coos River 1968
andl97oandUnipquaRiverl969.
and
L970 and Unpqua River 1969 . . .
............
.
.
29
29
APPENDIX
TABLES
APPENDIX
TABTES
o
o
o
'S
Tabl.q No
Table
No.
Page No.
Page
No.
1
I
Summarized
Tagging Data
Alsea River,
River,
1951 .......
Surmarized Tagging
Data for
for Alsea
1951.
..33
2
2
Sunnarized Tagging Data
Suirnarized
Data for
for Siuslaw
Siuslaw River,
River, 1950
1950.
.....
34
34
3?
Sumnarized Tagging
Tagging Data
Surnarized
River,
1946 ......
Data for
for Umpqua
Uupqua River,
1946
35
35
t+
4
Surmarized Tagging
Tagging Data
Summarized
Data for
for Umpqua
River,
1947
UurpquaRiver,
L947
. ......
36
36
5
Summarized
Surmarized Tagging Data
for Umpqua
Data for
River, 1948
UmpquaRiver,
1948
......
37
37
6
6
SummarizedTagging Data
Summarized
for Umpqua
River, 1949
Data for
Unpqua River,
1949 .
.
.
38
3B
7
7
Summarized
Sururarized Tagging Data
for tjwpqua
River, 1969
Umpqua River,
Data for
1969
.
.
39
39
8
Sunmarized Tagging Data
Summarized
for Coos
Data for
Coos River,
River, 1950
1950
9
9
Sunmarized Tagging Data
Summarized
for Coos
River, 1951
Data for
Coos River,
195f
10
l0
Summarized
Sumarized Tagging Data
Data for
for Coos
River, 1968
Coos River,
L96B
11
11
Swurarized
Summarized Tagging Data
for Coos
Data for
River, 1970
Coos River,
l97A
.
.......
.......
.
. a a a.a
.
.
.
.
*
33
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
o
A Summary
Sunnary of
of American
Arnerican Shad
Shad Ulosa
A
Tagging
(Alosa sqi&issind
sapidissirna) Tagging
Studies
on
Coastal
the
$treans
Studies on the Coastal streams of
of Oregon,
Oregon, tg46-70
1946-70
o
I$IT&ODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
o
(Alosa
Fish Commission
Oregon personnel
Connission of
of Oregon
Fish
personnel tagged Araerican
American shad
shad (Alosa
sqidtesi,ma) on
on several
several occasions
occasions over
years.
3apidiesirna)
past 25
over the
the past
25 years.
c
Findings
fron
Findings from
tagging studies
studies were
reported in
in nimeographed
tagging
were published,
published, reported
mimeographed annual
project
annual. project
leports,
or filed
filed with
no formal
forxral report
prepared.
report prepared.
reports, or
with no
The usefulness
usefuLness of
the
The
of the
latter was
vety limited
liuuited except
except to
latter
was very
to those
those with
with access
to the raw
access to
raw field
fieLd
o
data.
data.
Many of
of the
the written
reports were incomplete
incorrplete since
Many
written reports
since additional
additional tagged
shad were
were captured
captured after
shad
after the
the reports
reports were
were prepared.
prepareci.
Alnrost all
atl of
of the
Almost
tagging records
records contained
contained references
references to
to locations
locations which had no
tagging
no meaning
neaning
o
except to
to those
those familiar
farnitiar with
jargon.
with local
l"ocal fishermen's
except
fishermenrs jargon.
In short,
In
short, many
many
of the
the records
records were
were stored
stored in
of
in aa haphazard
haphazard manner,
:nanner, difficult
difficult
to retrieve,
retrieve,
to
and incomplete.
incomplete.
and
.o
This
inforrnation report
provides an
This information
report provides
updated summary
an updated
sr:runaryof
all coastal
coastal
of all
shad
tagging studies
studies conducted
conducted by
shad tagging
by the
the Fish
Fish Commission.
Conunission. I
I believe
believe these
these.
studies represent
represent the
the only
shad tagged
only shad
studies
tagged in
in Oregon
Oregon coastal
coastal streams south
o
of
the Columbia
Colurnbia River.
of the
River.
No
new field
field work
No new
ruork is
is reported.
reported.
lfy intent
My
intent is
to
is to
tabulate, consolidate,
consolidate, update,
update, and
arid correct
comect existing
tabulate,
existing information
making
infornation naking
it readily
read:ily available
available and
it
and easier
easier to
evaluate.
to evaluate.
o
STUDY
STUDY AREAS
AREAS
shad were
tagged in
four of
in four
Shad
were tagged
of Oregon's
Oregonts coastal
coastal streams--the
streams--the Alsea,
Al.sea,
siuslaw, Umpqua,
umpqua, and
and Coos
(Figure l).i/
coos rivers
rivers (Figure
Siuslaw,
l).L/
o
fire
The headwaters
headwaters of
of the
the
Unpqua River
R'iver are
are in
in the
Umpqua
Mountain Range
Range while
while the
the remaining
the Cascade
Cascade Mourtain
renaining rivers
rivers
head in
in the
the Coast
Coast Range
RangeMountains.
head
Mounta:ins.
y/ For
Forthe
p?lxposesof
the purposes
of this
thi.s paper,
the Smith
Srrtth and
Mtlli,eonwrivers
otd Millicoma
riuere are
are
?Wer, the
eonsi,dered
tytbutari.ee
of the
the Umpqua
Ihrpqtn and
considered tributaries of
otd Coos
rioerso respectively,
Cooerivers,
respeettuelyo
ozd w)ie8s
tmlees othe2vise
othe&,)ise noted,
and
noted, m.g
cozy d.ieewseion
discussion ox
or reference
reference to
to the
the Latter
latter
riuerc
ineludes
these tributaries.
rivers includes these
tyibutarlee.
o
I
o
2.
2.
o
o
S
o
S
o
Flattery
Willapa
Washington
Point nllis
ia River
o
Alsea River
.o
¶
Siuslaw RlverUnpqua Rive+Coos River
CoquiJ-le River
o
I
t
j
I
i
a
California
I
I
I
ri
j
o
Figure 1.
Figure
1.
.
Nap
aj or Landmarks
Landmarks l?here
1here thad.
Shad have
have been
been
Map Showing
Showing the
the l4ajor
Tagged. and Recaptured
Tagged
ecaptured
io
o
o
3.
3,
River
the ALsea
Tidewater extends to
bridge on the
Alsea River
Paulsonts swinging
Tider+ater
swinging bridge
to Paulson's
(Figure 3),
(Figure 2),
5)'
Siuslaw
(Figure
law River
River (Figure
on the
the Sius
Farnham Boat Landing
tanding on
2), to
to the
the Farnhain
to the
the town of
of Scottsburg
Scottsburg on the
the Unpqua
tmpqua River,
River, to
to just
just above
above the
the confl.uconfluto
(Figure 4),
ence with
with Spencer
Spencer Creek
Creek on Smith River
River (Figure
4), to
to the
the confluence
confluence with
with
ence
Sal.rnonCreek
to Weyerhaeuserts
Salmon
South Fork of
of the
the Coos
Coos River,
River, and
and to
Weyerhaeuser's
Creek on
sn the
the $outh
o
(Figure 5).
ldillicoma River
River (Figure
Altegany on
on the
5).
bridge above
above Allegany
the Millicoma
except the
the Alsea,
Alsea,
Commercial
gill-net fisheries
each river,
river, except
Connercial gill-net
fisheries existed
existed on
on each
and accounted
and
most of
accornted for
for nost
recoveries of
of tagged shad.
the recoveries
of, the
gil.l-net
A gill-net
in
fishery also
fishery
but no shad
were tagged
tagged in
existed on
on the Coquille
River, but
also existed
Coquille River,
shad were
this
this river.
river.
Deadlines set
fishing on
on
tjqlstrean limit
conunercial fishing
liait of
of commercial
the upstream
set the
to the
the areas
each
limited
each river
and indirectly
recovery of
shad to
river and
the recovery
of shad
indirectly
limited the
downstrean
deadlines.
downstream from those deadlines.
as follows:
follows:
Siuslaw
deadLines are
The
The locations
of these deadlines
locations of
l{orth Fork;
Utryqua
River,
River, North
Fork; Umpqua
tslartin Creek; Smith
Snrith River,
River, Martin
River, Big
and
Big r,lill
Mill Creek;
Creek; South Fork
Fork Coos
Coos River,
River, l{.
H. H. I{ogers
Rogers Ranch; and
aRiver,
Milliconra River,
(Figures 3,
Ri.vor, John
4, and
Millicoma
John Henderickson
Henderickson Ranch
3, 4,
and5).
5).
Ranch(Figures
Tining of
of the
recovery of
Timing
the commercial
conmercial fishing
fishing season
season also
also limited
Lirnited the
of
the recovery
tagged
f,ish.
tagged fish.
Prior to
Prior
to 1966, the
fishing season
fron
the commercial
conmercial fishing
season extended from
April 1I through
through June
June 30
April
May 15
30 on
the Coos
rivers and
and from
on the
Coos and
and Coquille
Coquille rivers
frorn.May
15
through June
.Iure 30
30 on
through
law River.
on the
Siuslaw
the Sius
River.
The
rivers opened
The Smith
Snith and
Umpquarivers
ogrened
and tJmpqua
on May
10 and
and extended through
on
May 10
with a mandatory
thmugh September
Septenrber 15
L5 roith
mandatory increase
increase in
in
nesh size
net mesh
net
size after
July 1.
after July
1.
Since 1966
1966 the
Coos River
River season
the.Coos
season extends
extends from
fron
April 1I through
through June
April
June 30
while the
30 while
the remaining
renaining rivers
rivers open
lday 10
and close
open on
on May
10 and
close
Jtme 30.
on June
on
30.
all of
of
Sport fishing
fishing intensity
intenslty for
Sport
for shad
was probably
probabl.y small
shad was
snall on
on all
the
rivers
(1970) estimated
rivers except
except Coos
Coos River
River where lrfacleod
MacLeod (1970)
estimated 10,362
LAr362 angler
angler
hours in
hours
in 1970.
1970.
O
o
l.
4.
HsCtark1ey's
o
o
>:
0)
r{
r2
\
\
d
F
(u
d
.rl
E:l
)
1.,
o
.{J
Cti
cdF
F{
.p
d
CQve_____
Ti d. ewa t e r
c)
1,{I
go
ry\ o qr{oJ b'r{0
/l
F"\:
,t*
Q
Bridge
a
Paulsont s
H
d
o
-'l
u
q)
a
14
}r
d
H
()
.B
f
0
oz
o
H
al
F]
"r3
cl
- - --
u
{)
P
.r.{
I
b0
miles
'El
p
Scale
-.
Fl
6
()
l**
b'
1cm
i
El1.
o
H
..-- ..--o
hn
t,
O
F{
-
rl-
(c
.r{
@
@
d
'rl
F
o
u,
F|
o
.r{
M
d
o
a
r{
sea
s
|lJ
co
tn
h
(t)
'.J fl4..S
q
RIVER
Seine Kole
f&
.U
ts
o
F?
VSS',.
ol
,C
I
.
o
.P
IJ
.r-odpte4
o
a
-q-.7-
3IiI3Vcl
i' ' 1V33CI
C 4
a
I
o
I
(
d
E
N
o
Fr
5
M
0
A
.rl
Fq
o
w
o
}JHIM3IJI3Vd
8s
*_
qt
sl
o
F{
r{
&a1e°
qfi
i
1
-A
2
I
ffi
il
4
e
U'
g1
OO
o
o
o
Map oSiuslaN River Showing Tagging Sites and Landmarks
1
miles
IE
al
0
o
if;
I
\o
'.=
I
o
1cm
Landing
artin Creek
Mapleton
c)
0)
r{d
(d .rl
.rl -l
od
F, cd
c.)(lJ
gqc
s
C,)
(commercial
deadline)
.
tJ,
o
Figure 3.
-
I-
,4
Boat /
Farnham
o
I
.
o
Jo
ILL
S
I
-
C'
ll Creek
i4
4)
commercial deadline
o
g+3
>i +) ./
'4
0,?-
North Fork çencer
.
(u
t{
()
Sr.i
q).t
q .H(
u\\
tJi
qt
cri
\\
F]
\\
.$J--\\
randy Bar
o\
k)
qt
,t4
t{
fz{
"q
E.t
o
//
0.//
r{
deadline
oercial
${
0)
Big Bend
P{
L
/
Lover
Big
Drift
b,
()
Creek
Ft
fu
61
0)
m
d
F
b0
(')
ac
st
d
t{
Pr
(A
.d
I
st l
zd
a
Fr
0)
tr
2
.d
61
$r
I
rJ
d
d
oo
F{
o
eroEeo
Jrcrs;
I-,
a
(rl
€
q-l
.rl
r{
qt
(,
(\t (t
b0
.rl
o
ut
o
o
.P
rl
ln
h0
&
+
5
4d
EI
d
d
d
d
Scale
H
| *
t{
GI
(5
o
F
I
E
.ti
trt
d
I
(1,
S{
(i,
FI
d
Ft
1
d
Vardine#
Bend
Va
Gardiner
.
oa
I
al
€
012 0
9+
(,
c)
tr
F{
.e
{J
.rl
I
C-r.
o
ft
d
Figure 4.
(l)
rl
d
qd
U)
d
.r{
Fi
.r4
t{
.!4
0)
Spruft
Hinsdale' s
v
,ri
hl
RIV
\)
Map of Siith and. Umpca Rivers Shoving Tagging Sites and Landmarks.
dal
.r{ C!
U'r{
F{ rJ
od
gd
El (u
O 'tJ
Shag Roost
(J
F
.i.
0)
;t{
p
bo
..{
h
I
o
(,
lJ-
g
o-
ax
so E
o
(,
o
/s
ul c)
6
0,
g
r{
rl
Jl
o
€
gd
7
a
oh
&a)
E
rd
F{
jt9
d8
M.H, Rogers Ranch
dc)
&4
u)o
@rl
${d
Ort
.
ro
E J*
I*t
o
${
ts
it
F{
C)
z,
(J
ul
rl
ql
C)
Scale
-I
miles
H {-r
E.l
4
)
r'lN
crl
J5
012012
km
(connnercial deadline)
ga,
O ..Li
Map of the Coos River Showing Tagging Sites and Landmarks
Fl
(.
t.'
Hendrickon Ranch
qJ d
g .rl
0 c)
trl Fr
tcominerciai deadi
.Fl
'
Fl
rl
rf
c,
I
I
c
o
\.
°'f
H$
a d
}4 ()
(r rid
r{O
dt{
/
(_
(
5°°°"
Point
FI
d
Figure 5
-4
so
)
.o
7
Weyerhaeuser'
5
(.) c,
Ben\'<' )4
o
Slough
)
o
cJ
q
>i
lo
I
(_,
a
/'Nort'+'
/
_)
2
-J
'\. d ,$e
f
--\
(i)
II
/
/
/
o
j
/
//
/
.
S
a
PACIFIC OCEAN
.
S
S
lr
7.
o
o
Ic
g.
8.
}{ETIIODS
METHODS
o
o
I summarized,
alL shad
shad tagging
records on
file at
tagging records
on file
at the
Fish CommisCorunisI
summarized all
tfie Fish
sion's Charleston
Charl.eston Field
Fietd Station.
Station.
sion's
Each set
set of
of records was
Each
was tabulated
tabulated to
to
give
total nunber
tagged fish
fish released,
give the
the total
number of
of tagged
released, types
types of
of tags
tags usedr,serr;
used, sex
a
of
tagged fish,
fish, dates
dates of
of tagging,
tagging, and
and specific
of tagged
specific locations
Locations of
of tagging.
tagging.
Recapture information
infortnation hras
sulnnarized for
for the
the total
total nurnber
fish recovered
Recapture
was summarized
number of
of fish
each
river and
and by sex.
each year
year by
by river
Tables,
on file
file at
at the Charleston
Tables, on
C'harleston Fietd
Field
station, were
courpiled listing
listing each
each tagged
fish recovered
tagged fish
recovered by length
at
Station,
were compiled
length at
f
tagging, sex,
sex, dates
dates of
of tagging
tagging and
and recovery,
recovery, time
tagging,
tine at
at large,
large, and
and specific
specific
areas of
of tagging
tagging and
and recovery.
recovery.
areas
o
Since
tagging took
at night,
Since rrost
most tagging
took place
place at
night, with
with a single
trip often
often
single trip
sparuring
2 calendar
calendar days,
days, the
the date
date of
spanning 2
of tagging
was listed
the 2nd
tagging was
listed as the
2nd
ca!.endar day.
day.
calendar
.o
Thus,
fish tagged
a fish
tagged on the
of l,{ay
fish
Thus, a
the evening of
May 26 and
end a fish
tagged in
tagged
in the
the earLy
early morning
morning hours
hours of
of i,[ay
May 27 were
were both
both listed
listed as t.lay
27.
May 27.
Cornnercial fish
fish were
were landed
landed on
the morning
norning after
fishing using
Commercial
on the
after fishing
using the
the same
same
dating
dating system.
systen.
a
A
different dating
dating system
system was
used by workers in
A different
was used
in 1968,
1968, 1969,
1969, and
and
1970.
1970.
In
In their
their systen,
system, both
both fish
fish in
in the
the previous
previous example
ecample were
were listed
listed as
as
tagged
tagged on
an May
t'lay 26.
26.
I
A
fish recaptured
recaptured that
that same
A fish
same night,
night, however, was
was landed
Landed
May 27
on May
27 and
and appeared
appeared to
to be
be at
at large
Large for
on
for 11 full
prior to
fuLl day
day prior
recapture
to recapture
when in
in reality
reality it
it could
when
could have
have been
been recaptured
recaptured aa few
few minutes
nninutes after
after tagging.
tagging,
I adjusted
adjusted the
the 1969
1969 Umpqua
UnpquaRiver
I
River tagging
tagging dates
dates to
confortr with
preto conform
with the pre-
I
ferred
systeril of
ferred system
of dating.
dating.
adjusted.
adjusted.
The
1968 and
and 1970
1g70 Coos
The 1968
Coos River data were
were not
not
rn
years, taggers often
In those
those 2
2 years,
often began
began fishing
just prior
prior to
fishing just
to
daybreak and
and listed
listed the
the true
daybreak
true calendar
calendar date at
time of
at the
the time
of tagging.
tagging.
other occasions
occasions they
they fished
fished evening
evening tides
other
tides and
and listed
listed that
that date.
date.
0n
On
UnforUnfor-
tultately,
the field
field data
data did
tunately, the
not differentiate
between morning
did not
differentiate
between
rnorning and
and evening
tides
tides so
so the
the dates
dates could
not be accurately
accurately adjusted
coul.d not
adjr.rsted for
f,or those
years.
those 22 years.
I
9.
9.
TAGGINGSTUDY
STUDYSUMMARIES
St FII'IARIES
TAGGING
In addition
addition to
to the
following discussions,
discussions, each study
In
the following
study is
is sr:nunarized
summarized
in tabular
tabular form
fonr in
in
in the
Appendlx.
the Appendix.
Alsea River
(1951,)
River (l95fl
Alsea
o
A study
study on
on the Alsea River
River was
A
was initiated
to
initiated
to estimate
estimate the abundance
abr.mdance
of shad
shad relative
relative to
of
to opening
opening aa commercial
coxmerciaL shad
shad fishery.
fishery.
(1951)
P.ulifson
Rulifson (1951)
concluded the
the shad
shad popul.ation
too small
population liras
was too
snall to
harvest commercially
since
to harvest
co$merciall.y since
o
nost
of the
the fish
fish were
captured at
(Barkleyts) above
at a site
most of
were captured
site (Barkley's)
the co1Tnerabove the
coumer-
F-
L
cial salmon
salnon fishing
f,ishing deadline
deadline in
in effect
effect at
cial
at that
that time.
tirne.
The average
average catch
catch
The
of
LL.2 shad/fishing
less than the
of 11.2
shad/fishing night,
night, however,
however, was
was onl.y
only slightl.y
slightly less
the
o
average
catch of
of 14.0
1.4.0 shad/fishing
shad/fishing night
night on
on Coos
River in
coos River
in 1951.
lgsl.
average catch
Few shad
shad were
ltere recovered
recovered because
because of
Few
of the
the lack
lack of
commercial.fishery.
fishery.
of aa commercial
The
four tags
tags recovered
recovered on the
the Alsea in
The four
1951 were
in 1951
were recovered
recovered by the tagging
tagging
ro
ØS
crew.
crew.
This was
was the
onl.y instance
the only
instance where
where II listed
listed such
This
recoveries.
such recoveries.
In
In
other studies,
studies, tag
tag recoveries
recoveries were from either
other
either the
the commercial
comnercial or sport
sport
fisheries
fisheries and
and recapture,
recapture of
of tagged fish
fish by
by the
the tagging
tagging crews
crews was
was ignored.
ignored.
a
One tagged
tagged female
female shad
shad was
was recaptured
recaptured by a commercial
One
conmercial fisherman
fishernan
near Point
Point Ellis
El.lis on
on the
(Figure 1).
near
the Columbia
colurnbia River
River (Figure
l).
about 240
(149.1 miles)
240 kn
miles) in
about
km (149.1
Ln 42
42 days.
days.
I
This fish
fish migrated
This
This was
rhe only
This
was the
on!.y record of
of a
shad noving
between aa coastal
coastal stream
shad
moving between
stream and
and the
the Columbia
col.urnbiaRiver.
F,iver.
Siuslaw River (1950)
(1950)
Siuslaw
Only 31
SL shad
shad were
were tagged
Only
tagged during
during a
a study
of the shad
population in
shad population
study of
in
I
the
Siuslaw River
P"iver in
the Siuslaw
in 1950.
1950.
A11 were
vrere tagged
tagged after
after the
the commercial
All
comnerciaL shad
shad
season making
naking commercial
connercial recapture
recapt'.re in
Siuslaw River
season
in the
the Siuslaw
River in
in 1950
1950impossible.
inpossible.
One
fish was
vras recovered
recovered in
in Smith
Snith River
One fish
River in
lg5l.
in 1951.
In
In 1951.
1951 there
there were
were 39 set-net
set-net Licenses
licenses soLd
sold for
for the
the Siulsaw
Siulsaw R.iver
River
(Fish Conrnission
records) so fishing
(Fish
Commission records)
fishing effort
effort existed
existed that
that could have
have
10.
10.
recaptured
tagged fish.
fish.
recaptured tagged
There is
is no
no way
way of
There
of determining,
deter:nining, however,
however, whether
whether
biologists returned
returned to
to the
the river
biologists
river in
i n 1951
1 9 5 1 to
to encourage
encourage fishermen
fishermen to
to return
retum
tags
tags they
they might have
have recovered.
recovered.
Umpqqr
R.iver (1946-49)
(1946-49)
Umpgua River
e
Q
Gharrett (1950)
(rgsO) summarized
suwnarized the
Gharrett
the results
results of
of tagging
tagging studies
studies on
on the
the
urrpqua River,
P"iver, but
but he reported
Umpqua
reported mainly
mainly those
those fish
fish tagged bel.ow
below the
the mouth
rnolah
of
s$ith River.
R'iver.
of Smith
l'{any additional
additional fish
fish were
Many
were tagged
tagged upstream
qrstrean from
finomthe
the mouth
nouth
of
of Snith
Smith River.
R:iver.
a
l'lo information
information was
No
recolded on
on the
was recorded
the location
location or
or date
date of
of tag
tag recoveries
recoveries
in 1948
1948 and
and 1949.
in
1949'
c
whenever aa tag
tag was
whenever
was returned
retunred but
but no additional
additional infornation
recorded.
information was
was recorded.
Fish recovered
recovered in
Fish
in subsequent
subsequent years
years or
or from
from different
different rivers
rivers were
were noted
noted as
as
such'
such.
ro
a
0
a
e
0
t0
o
o
The
field records
The original
original field
records were
narked with
were marked
with a
a check
check (V
({)
All recaptures were
were from
f,ron commercial
cornnercial fishermen.
fi.shermen.
$l-"-?9,tpar'!res
i{o tags
tags were
were
No
by sportsmen
returned
by
sportsnen.
991_ri1ir,ed
sex of
of the
the tagged
Sex
tagged fish
fish was
was not
not recorded for
for any
any of
of these
these years.
years.
Gharrettts
estirnates of
Gharrett's estimates
of total
total catch
catch and
and total
total population
population were
were based
based on
on
nurnbers
of females,
numbers of
fenares, so
so it
it is
is apparent
apparent that
that only
onr.y females
f,enales were
were tagged.
tagged.
The smallest
The
srilallest fish
fish tagged
tagged between
between 1946
1.946 and
1949 were
in the
and 1949
were in
the range
range 44-45
44-45 cm
cn
which
further suggests
which further
that only
only females
suggests that
fenaLes were
were tagged
tagged since
since many
many male
male shad
shad
in the
the tJmpqua
in
uinpquaRiver
River commercial
corunerciar catch were
in the
the range of
were in
of 39-44
39-44 cm.
cm.
Gharrett
included a
Gharrett included
description of
a description
of the
the pig-ring
pig-ring tag
tag and
and its
its advanadvan_
tages over
over the button
tages
button (petersen
disc) tag
(Petersen disc)
in regard
regard to
to net entanglenent.
tag in
entanglement.
FIe estimated
estiraated that
He
that about
about 68% as
as many
many fish
fish tagged
tagged with
with pig
pig rings
rings were
were
recaptur€d as those tagged with
recaptured
tagged with button
button tags.
tags. The
T.rrepig_ring
pig-ring tag
tag was
was clamped
claqped
on the
on
the dorsal
dorsal side
side of
of the caudal
caud.al peduncle
pedmcLe near
near the
the base
base of
of the caudal
caudal fin.
fin.
rn
1946,
In 1946, 22
22 shad
shad were
were dip-netted
dip-netted and
and tagged
tagged at
at Brandy
Brandy Bar
Bar after
after the
the
conunercial season
season cosed.
commercial
c"losed. In
In 1947,
1g47, 89
99 shad
shad were likewise.capturdd .and
were likewise aptud
iid
o
11.
11.
tagged after
after the season
season closed.
closed,
All
prior to
All other
to
other shad
shad were tagged prior
or during
during the
or
regular season.
season.
the regular
naigrated to
Four
Four fish
fish tagged
1949 migrated
rivers.
between 1946
1946 and
and 1949
to other
other rivers.
tagged between
fish tagged in
One fish
One
fish tagged in
1949 were recaptured
l94B and
in 1949
recaptured in
i.n
in 1948
and two fish
Siusl.aw
the
the Sius
law River
River in
in the
the s:rme
same year
year they were
were tagged.
tagged.
i
A fish
in
A
fish tagged in
1947 was
was recovered in
1947
1949.
in Coos
Coos Bay
tsay in
in 1949.
Shad recaptured
Shad
year
recaptured on
Srnith rivers
rivers during
during the
the same
same year
on the
the Umpqua
Unpqua or
or Smith
o
they
they were tagged averaged
4.4 days
in 1946
and 7.5
at
averaged 4.4
days at
Large in
1946 and
at large
7,5 days at
large
large in
in 1947.
1947.
Similar
Similar information
was not
not available
the 1948
and
avail.able from the
1948 and
inforrnation was
1949
1949 data.
data.
c
Gharrett noted that
Gharrett
were
that tag recoveries
recoveries from
fron the commercial
fishery were
comnercial fishery
conplete in
not complete
in 1949.
1949.
He
tie applied
applied aa correction
correction factor
factor based
based on
on the tag
returrls from individual
returns
individual processing
processing pl.ants
plants and
and estimated
estimated that
that 163
163 tagged
ro
fish were
captured while
while the
fish
were captured
to the
Fish Commission
was134.
the actual
actual return
return to
the Fish
Conmissionwas
134.
In 1946, in
In
in addition
addition to
to the
the 57 tagged
tagged fish
three tagged
fish listed,
listed, three
fish were
reported by commercial
fish
were reported
but no tags
tags were returned
returned to
to
corrnercial fishermen
fishennen but
o
confirn these recaptures.
confirm
recaptures.
Four such
such reports
reports were
were received
Lg47.
received in
in 1947.
Gharrett estimated
estirnated pcpulations
4661000, 478,000,
Gharrett
populations of
of 492,000,
492,AAA,466,000,
478,AA0, and
and
512,000 female
fenale shad
gifl nets
512,000
nets in
shad available
avaitabl.e to
to the commercial
conmercLal gill
1946 to
to
in 1946
o
1949,
1949, respectively.
respectively.
ttcorrectedf'
These estimates
These
were computed
estinates were
conputed using a "corrected"
number of
of tag returns
retuxns based
number
based on
of gill
nets
gil.l nets
on the
the estimated
estirnated selectivity
selectivity
of
for catching
fish with
button tags;
that is,
nunber of
for
catching fish
with button
tags; that
the number
is, the
tag returns
of tag
retums
was
was reduced
reduced by
by 32%.
32%.
t
(1969)
Umpgua River
Utnpqua
Rivsrr_(1969)
rn 1969,
1969, 826
826 shad
shad were
In
were tagged
tagged on
the Umpqua
urqpquaand
on the
smith rivers.
and Smith
rivers.
a
o
All
Arl
tag
tag recoveries
recoveries were
were from these
these two rivers
rivers with
with the
the exception
exception of
of turo
two
recoveries
fron the
recoveries from
the Siuslaw
Siuslaw River
River in
in 1970
1970 and
and one recovery
recovery from the
the ocean
ocean
o
12.
L2,
in a commercial
shrimp trawl
trawl off
off WiLlapa
Willapa Bay, l{ashington,
Washington, in
in Septenber
September
in
cornmnercialshrinp
(Curnnings, 1971).
1969 (Cummings,
1969
1971).
fishery
cormercial fishery
All
made by the
the commercial
A11 recoveries
recoveries were made
R.iver
the thnpqua
Urrpqua River
fisherunan on
onthe
except for
by aa sport
sport fisherman
except
for one
caught by
one fish
fish caught
(nile 79.5).
79.5).
near Tyèe,
128(mile
river kilometer
kilorneter 128
Tyee, Oregon--approximately
Oregon--approxinately river
C
This
fitis
(73.5 miles)
days.
nniles)in
31.days.
fish
fish traveled
in 3].
traveled 118
kn (73.3
ll.8 km
River in
1971.
Lfrapqua
One
River
the Umpqua
in 1971.
fourd dead
dead in
in the
One tagged
fish was
was found
tagged fish
Another
gill. net.
his gill
net.
in his
tag
was returned
tag was
found it
it tangled
returned by aa fisherman
fishernan who
who found
tangled in
a
Table 7.
7.
These two tags were
These
returns in
Appendix Table
listed as
as returns
in Appendix
were not listed
conCummings (1970)
(1970) estimated
recruited toto coinshadwere
wererecruited
Cunrnings
341.,605shad
estinated that
that 341,605
River.
fiqpqua River.
fishery on
the Umpqua
mercial
urercial nets
during the
on the
nets during
the 1969
1969 commercial
cornnercial fishery
a
= 837,738
shad
837,738 shad
The
FT =
The 95%
95%confidence
confidence intervals
uere NN == 300,834
3001834and
and I[
inte:rrals were
(based on Chaprnan,
(based
Chapman, 1948).
1948).
fron 797
from
797 tagged
tagged fish.
fish.
.o
This estimate
was based
based on 238
tag recoveries
recoveries
llnis
238 tag
estinate was
The apparent discrepancy
discrepancy between
between the
the numbers
numbers of
of
The
fish used
tagged fish
used by Cummings
was nostly
mostly
Ctxunings and
and the
the total
actually tagged was
total actually
because
Cunnings ignored
l.{aceySands
because Cummings
ignored 28
28 shad
shad tagged
Sandson
on June
Jrane11.
11,
tagged at
at Macey
Nearly
Nearly 50%
50e; of
nets on
of these fish
fish were recaptured
recaptured by nearby commercial
connercial nets
o
the
night of
the night
of tagging,
too high
high and
and probably
probably biased
tagging, aa value considered too
by the handling of
of the
the fish
fish at
at tagging.
tagging.
Erroneous sex identification
was made
made on 11
of the
the tagged fish
fish that
that
identification
was
ll. of
a
were later
were
later recovered.
recovered.
I corrected
tagged to
I
corrected the numbers
numbers of
each sex
to
of, each
sex tagged
for these 11
account
accornt for
fish; but,
but, presunrably,
presumably, other
other errors
errors in
in sex dete:mination
determination
11 fish;
were made
madeon
on nonrecovered
were
nonrecovered fish
fish which
which could
not be
detected.
could not
be detected.
S
t
Of the 11
11
fish incorrectly
fish
incorrectly sexed, six
six nales
males were incorrectl.y
incorrectly called
females and
and five
five
called fenales
fernales
females l'rere
were incorrectly
incorrectly called
called males.
males.
There were
25L shad
shad recovered from
fron the
There
were 251
and
ttrre Umpqua
Umpqr.ra
and Smith rivers
in
rivers in
o
.
o
a
1969 for
1969
for which
which sufficient
sufficient data were
were availabLe
available to
to calculate
calculate the
the nrx&er
number of
of
days
large fron
(the single
days at
at large
from tagging
tagging to
to recovery
recovery (the
single sport
sport capture
capture was
was not
not
o
13.
13.
included).
included).
fish averaged
These fish
averaged 4.7
4.7 days
days at
These
at large.
Large.
these 251
Of
0f these
2sl fish,
fish,
88 were
88
were tagged prior
prior to
to the
the opening of
of the
the cormercial
commercial season
season and averaged
averaged
8.1 days
days at
at large.
8.1
large.
The
153 fish
fish tagged on or
(the first
or af,ter
Ll (the
first day
The 163
after },,!ay
May 11
day
on
landings could
coul.d be
be made)
nade) averaged
on which
which landings
averaged 2.9
2.g days
days at
at large.
large.
a
Frior to
to the
the couniercia1
connercial fishing
Prior
fishing season
season 524
324 fish
fish were
r,veretagged and
and 94
94
(29.0%)
!.969 by the
the commercial
(29.0%) v{ere
were recaptured
recaptured in
in 1969
connercial fishery
fishery in
in the
the tJmpqua
Umpqua
and Smith
sndth rivers.
and
rivers.
o
0f these
these 324
324 fish,
fish, 213
21.3were
were tagged
tagged on
May9g and
Of
or May
and 10,
10,
innediately prior
prior to
to the
the season
immediately
season opening.
opening.
After
the commercial
comnercial. fishing
fishing season
After the
season opened,
fish were tagged
opened, 501
501 fish
with aa total
total recovery
recovery in
in 1969
with
1969of
(33. L%) by the
of 166
166fish
fish (33.1%)
the commercial
comnerciat fishery
fishery
o
in the
the iimpqua
$ryqua and
in
and Snith
Smith rivers.
rivers.
Coos
(1"950)
Coos River (19501
Only 50
50 :ish
:9ish rorere
Only
were tagged in
in 1950
LgsO on
on Coos
coos River
River with
with a recovery
recovery of
of
.O
11 fish
fish in
in 1950
1950 and
and one
11
one fish
fish in
in 1951.
1951" No
ir{ofish
fish were
were recovered
recovered from
fron outside
outside
of Coos
CoosRiver.
of
River.
Coos
River (1951)
Coos River
flg5l]
o
Af 294
294 fish
fish tagged
tagged in
Of
in Coos
Coos River in
in 1951,
1951, 57
57 were
were recovered
recovered in
in 1951
l9Sl.
and
two in
and two
in 1952.
1952.
lolo
fish were
recovered from
fron outside
No fish
were recovered
outside of
Coos River.
River.
of Coos
Four
fish were
tagged on
fish
were tagged
on July
July 33 after
after the
the commercial
commercial season
season and
had no
and had
no chance
chance
o
of being
recovered in
of
being recovered
in 1951.
1951.
0f the
the 294
294 fish
fish tagged,
Of
tagged, 214
(rz.g%) were
zl4 (72.8%)
listed as
as nales
were listed
males and
and 80
B0
(27.2%)
(27.2%) as
as females.
femaLes. This
This was
alnost certainly
was almost
certainly an
an error
error in
in soneoners
someon&s
a
recording becarxe
the sex ratio
recording
because the
all other
other studies
ratio for
f,or all
for the
and for
studies and
the comniercommercial landings
Landings on
cial
on all
all coastal
coastal rivers
rivers was
was almost
almost exactly
exactly opposite
opposite this
this ratio.
ratio.
The
57 fish
fish recovered
recovered in
The 57
in 1951
lgst averaged
averaged 7.7
7,7 days
days at
at large.
large.
S
o
o
O
S
Coos River
R.ive_l(1968)
Coos
(1968)
0f 419
4tg shad
shad tagged
Of
tagged in
in Coos
Coos River
River in
in 1968,
1968, 86
B6 tags were
were recovered
recovered in
in
Coos River
River in
in 1968
1968 including
Coos
incl.uding two returned
returned by
by sportsmen.
sportsmen.
An additional
additiolal
An
13
13
o
L4.
14.
fish were
recovered from
from the
fish
were recovered
the Unpqua
Umpqua River
River and four
four were
were recovered
recovered from
from
the
River commercial
commercial fishery.
fishery.
the Coquille
Coquille River
fish was
One fish
Soviet
captured by aa Soviet
One
was captured
trawler in
in October
(37.3 mil.es)
1969, approximately
approxinately 60 km
trawler
October 1969,
km (37.3
miles) northwest
northwest of
of
Cape Flattery
(gg
off the
the Straits
160 rn
Cape
Flattery off
Straits of
of Juan de Fuca
Fuca at
at a depth of
of 160
m (88
fathoms).
fathoms).
a
The 84
84 fish
fish recovered
recovered in
in Coos
River in
1968 averaged
Coos River
9.2 days
in 1968
averaged 9.2
days at
at
The
large.
large.
o
(1969) estimated
Cunmings
Cummings (1969)
estimated a popuLation
population of
of 65,000 shad
shad recruited
recruited to
to
the commercial
conmercial nets
in Coos
River based
Coos River
on the
the recovery
B5 shad
recovely of
of 85
shad 1/
out
the
nets in
based on
1/ out
of
of 419
419 shad
shad rel.eased,
released, with
with 95%
95% confidence intenrals
intervals of
of N
N =
= 52,700 and
and
o
N == 801500
iT
80,500 ftased.
(based on Chaprnan,
Chapman, 1943).
1948).
Coos
River (1970)
Coos River
(1970)
Of
576 shad
shad tagged
tagged in
Coos River
in Coos
River in
in 1970,
1970, 245
Of 576
245shad
shad were
were recaptured.
recaptured.
oo
The total
total recaptured
recaptured included
included two sport-caught
sport-caught fish
fish in
1.970and
The
in 1970
and one
one
sport-caught fish
fish each
each in
1.971and
in 1971
sport-caught
1972. As
and 1972.
As in
in 1968,
Lg6g, aa large
large number
ntrmberof
of
fish
fish was
was recovered
recovered outside
outside of
of Coos
Coos ldiver
River including
including 28 fish
fish recovered
recovered
from the
the Umpqua
UnpquaRiver
fiiver in
from
in 1970.
1970.
IS
The sex
sex of
The
of six
six fish
fish was
rryasmisidentified
r,$sidentified when
whentagged.
tagged.
Four males
!{ere
Four
nales were
called females
fernales and
and two
fenales were
two females
called
were called
called males.
maLes. The
The number
nurnber of
each
of each
a
sex
as listed
Listed in
sex tagged
tagged as
in the
the Appendix has been corrected
to account for
for
corrected to
these
six fish.
fish.
these six
The 179
179 fish
fish recovered
recovered commercially
conmercialLy in
in Coos
River in
The
Coos River
1970 averaged
in 1970
averaged
S
a
12.4 days
days at
at large.
large.
(1971) estimated
Cununings(1971)
estiraated a population
Cummings
population of
shad was
was recruited
recruited
51,000 shad
of, 51,000
to the
corumercial gear
= 44,000
to
the commercial
gear with
with 95%
95% confidence intervals
intervals of
of l{
N =
441000 and
and
o
o
e
S
trl == 59n000
iT
59,000 (based
(based on
on Chapman,
Chapman, 1948).
f94g).
y/ This
lhtis number
differs
di.f-fers from
nV total
tolal of
of 84
s4 commercially
because
eormnersially caught
eaught fish
frm my
^nwrtben
fzsh beeanpe
cwftftrngsinehrded
taggbd fi.eh
Cummings
included one
one tagged
fish that
that was
uas reportedly
repor*{Ly landed
t&aea at
coos
at Coos
Ri,,oeybut
but the
tte tag
tag was
uas subsequently
River
sub-sequentlylost.
Lost.
o
15.
15.
DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
Interriver
Movennents
Interriver Movements
0f 3,480
3,480 shad
shad tagged,
tagged, 1,037
L,a37 were
were recovered
recovered including
Of
including 57
sz from
fron rivers
rivers
other
than those
those of
of release.
other than
release.
o
Two additional
additional. fish,
fish, one
one tagged
tagged in
in Coos
coos
Two
River
1968 and
and one tagged in
River in
in 1968
in the
the trlnpqua
Umpqua Fiver
River in
in 1969,were
recovered
L969,were recovered
in
ocean in
in 1969.
196g.
in the
the ocean
In
In the
the LJnpqua
Umpqua River,
River, 1,976
1,976 shad
shad were
were tagged and only
only six
six were
were
recovered from
fron other
(Table 1).
other rivers
rivers (Table
recovered
1).
O
from the
the Siuslaw
Siuslaw River.
from
River.
0nly one
one fish
fish was
was recovered
recovered from
fron the
Coos River
River
the Coos
Only
that was
was tagged
tagged on
on the
that
the tJmpqua
UnrpquaRiver.
River.
o
was due
due to
to nonreporting
nonreporting of
was
of tags.
tags.
Table 1.
1.. Total
Total Recaptures
Table
Recaptures of
of American
Anerican Shad
Shad Tagged
ragged in
in the Coastal
coastal
p.ecovery,
Rivers of
of Oregon,
Oregon, by
by River
River of
Tagging and
Rivers
Recovery,
of Tagging
and
1946-70 1//
1946-70
River
llhere
Where
T
Tagged
A1sea
Alsea
SiusLaw
Siuslaw
Umpqua
thnpqua
Coos
Coos
t
Cooperation from
fron Coos
River fishermen
fishernen
Coos River
Cooperation
and fish
fish dealers
dealers had
had been
been excellent,
and
excellent, so
so it
it was
was unlikely
unlikely the
the Low
low nur$er
number
oo
o
Five of
of these fish
fish were
were recovered
Five
recovered
Total
Nunber
Number
Tagged
1
34
134
31
31
r1,976
, 9 7 6 3/
E/
1
, 3 3 9 5/
1,339
Alsea
Alsea
Siuslaw
Siuslaw
Nunbet Recaptured
Recaptured
Number
.
Umpgua
Umpqua Coos
Coos CoQuille
Coquille
Cohmibia
Columbia
4 A2/
4
Y
I
1
ssl 9//
591
5
44
44
1I
38s
385
5
Reeqtutres include
include fish
ear,qhtinin sport
l// Recaptures
sport w'id
ord commercial
eorwrereial fisheries.
fish caught
fisheri,es.
Recqtured by
by tagging
tagging crew.
erea.
U7 Recaptured
g/
Onefish
3/ One
off Wil1.qa"
reeqtwed
off
fish recaptured
WilZapa3
o
Flashington.
Washington.
fneludes recovery
reeouetV of
of one
onedead
deadfish.
A/ Includes
fi,sh.
One
5/
One
fish
recaptured
off
z.ecqtuxed
off Cape
FlattenA.
!/
fisVt
Cqe Flattery.
0f
1.1339shad
shad tagged
tagged in
Of 1,339
in Coos
coos River,
River, 44
recovered from
fron the
44 were
were recovered
the
a
o
o
thtpqua River
River and
and five
five from
Umpqua
from the
the Coquille
Coquille River.
River.
&figrations
from Coos
Migrations from
Coos
River to
to the
the Umpqua
River
UmpquaRiver
River occurred
j"g7A
regularly in
occurred regularly
in both
both the
the 1968
1968 and
and 1970
taggi.ng nrograns
with 13
lJ and
tagging
programs with
and 29
2g recoveries,
respectively.
recoveries, respectively.
o
I..
16.
16.
Fish Commission
Conunissionbirologists
have compiled
age and
conpiled age
b.io1ogists have
and population
population data
.
O
t
fron
river on
on the
the assumption
assunption that
that each
river supports
each river
from each
each river
sr.pports its
its own
own
d;istinct
distinct popul.ation
of shad.
shad.
population of
The small
small number
nu-nber of
of interriver
The
interriver
recoveries
recoveries
of tagged
tagged shad
shad suggests
suggests the
the assumption
assunption is
is valid
for the
fish
of
valid except for
the 44 fish
which migrated
rnigrated from
from Coos
F.iver to
to the
the Ulnpqua
UnipquaRiver.
which
CposRiver
River.
a
were tagged
tagged at
at Porter
Porter Drift.
were
Drift.
ALI 44
44 of
fish
of these fish
All
fire surface
surface salinity
salinity at
Porter Drift
at Porter
Brift at
at
The
high tide
tide (nets
were normally
nornally fished
fished near high slack
high
water) during
sLack water)
{nets were
during late
late
o
April
and &iay
ranges from
fron 10 to
(interpoLated
April and
May ranges
to Z|ofo.o
fron
25°/oo
(interpolated
fromdata
dataofof Queen
Queen
and Burt,
Burt, 1955).
1955).
and
i,.{ostshad
shad tagged
tagged on
on the
the Umpqua
Most
were captured
urnpquaRiver
t?,iver were
captured in
in
areas
the salinity
salinity was
rvas much
nuch lower
Lower than
areas where
where the
Porter Drift.
than at
at Porter
Drift.
.
o
...O
Surface
Surface
salinity at
at Reedsport
Reedsport on
on May
tlay 7,
7, 1955,
salinity
lgss, reached
reached aa rnaxinun
(Burt,
of 0.2°/
0.2o/oo (Burt,
maximum of
f956).
1956).
No salinity
salinity data
data are
are available
available for
No
for the
the areas
areas near Gardiner
Gardiner and
and
the Big
Big Bend;
Berd; butthese
the
butthese areas,
areas, too,
too, probably
probably have
have a low saLinity
salinity cornpared
compared
to
at Porter
Porter Drift
Drift on
to that
that at
on Coos
Coos River.
River.
utilizing ultrasonic
ul.trasonic tracking
tracking techniques,
(Dodson, et
techniques, (Dodson,
Utilizing
et al,
lgTz)
a\v 1972)
suggested that
that upon
upon entering
suggested
entering a
a river
river from
f,ron the ocean
ocean shad
shad meander
meanderin
in
o
the lower
lower estuary,
the
estuary, presr.mably
presumably acclimating
acclinating to
temperature and
to temperature
and salinity
salinity
changesr prior
making a
changes,
prior to
to making
tpriver spawning
spawningmigration.
a direct
direct upriver
rnigration.
Shad
Shad tagged
tagged
on the
the unpqua
River were probably
on
Umpqua River
probably past
past the
meandering phase
the nreandering
phase since
since they
they
o
were in
in very
very low
were
Lorasalinity
sal.inity water.
water.
Shad tagged
tagged on
on Coos
Coos River
River were
Shad
were probably
probably
not past
this point
and could migrate
not
past this
point and
back into
nigrate back
into the ocean.
ocean.
If this
this theory
If
is true,
true, then fish
fish tagged farther
is
farther up
rry Coos
Coos River
R.iver should have
have less
less likelihood
likelihood
o
of being
being recovered
recovered outside
outside of
of
of Coos
Coos River.
River.
Ir{ost of
of the
the shad
shad tagged on
Most
on Coos
Coos
River
in 1950
1950 and
River in
and 1951
1951 were
were tagged
tagged farther
farther up
up river
river and
none were reported
and none
reported
recovered from
frour other
recovered
other rivers.
rivers.
a
o
o
Six
shad tagged
tagged..on
the thnpqua
Six shad
on the
River were
Unpqua River
recovered from
from other
were recovered
other rivers.
rivers.
Two of
of these
Two
these fish
fish were
were tagged
tagged at
at Gardiner
Gardiner and
and three
three at
at the
the Big
Big Bend.
Bend..
i
!
J
I
il
o
17.
17.
probably not
Thus, while
while these fish
fish were
in high
they
were probably
salinity water,
Thus,
not in
high salinity
water, they
.
were all
alL tagged
tagged at
downstrean and
ap,narentLy were
farthest downstream
anrJ apparently
were
at locations
locations farthest
yet 'rconrnittedli
not yet
up the
the Umpqua
Ur.pquaRiver.
F.iver.
not
committed to
to nigrating
migrating up
fish tagged
One
One fish
at Lower
Clarkrs in
was recovered
River in
L970.
in 1969
1969 was
recovered in
in the
the Siuslaw
Si.uslarsRiver
in 1970.
at
Lower Clark?s
[o
The evidence
evidence suggests
suggests that
that each
each river
river has
has its
ohrnstock
stock of
of shad.
shad.
The
its own
fish tagged well
well up
up any
any river
being recaptured,
river had
had little
Little chance
chance of
of, being
recaptured,
fish
even in
years, in
later years,
in later
another river.
in another
river.
even
o
A
The fish
fish tagged
tagged lower
lower in
river,
in aa river,
The
however,
however, were
were a
a nixed
mixed stock
stock with
with sane
some of
of these
these fish
fish returning
returning to
the"ocean
to the
ocean
and raigrating
apparent home
to their
their apparent
and
migrating to
hone stream.
strearn.
consistent with
This is
is consistent
This
with
the
of hon"ing
coast shad populations
the evidence
evidence of
homing tendenry
tendency of
of Atlantic
Atlantic coast
populations based
o
tagging studies
(trio!.l.is, 1948;
on
studies (Hollis,
1948; Talbot
Talbot and
aredSykes,
I{ichoLs, 1960),
1.960),
Sykes" 1958;
1958; Nichols,
on tagging
scale and
(Hamraer,1942),
and body
length studies
1942), and
correlating the
and studies
scale
body length
studies (Hammer,
studies correlating
the
magnitude of
populations with
of spawning
spawning populations
with the number
nir:rrberreturning
returning in
magnitude
in subsequent
subsequent
oo
years
(Fredin, 1954,;
1954,; Talbot,
Talbot, 1954).
1954),
years (Fredin,
If ny
assufiption is
is true
If
my assumption
true that
that each
each river
river has its
its own
own distinct
distinct
population but
but that
that there
there is
is some
population
intermingling
populations
sorneinitial
initial
internringLing of
of the populations
o
.
in
lower river
in lower
river areas prior
prior to
to the
the spawning
spawning rnigration,
migration, then
then population
population
estimates of
of shad
shad tagged
tagged at
Porter Drift
at Porter
estimates
Srift were
were not
not confined
confineet to
River
to Coos
Coos River
shad.
shad.
a
rnstead, the
estinates involved
present in
fistr physically
involved fish
physicail.y present
Instead,
the estimates
the
in the
lortrer bay
even though
though some
someof
of the
fish were
lower
bay even
the fish
were'odestinedtt
for other
destined' for
other rivers.
rivers.
These fish
fish were
were still
physitally available
still physically
These
avail.able to
to the Coos
gill-net
coos River gill-net
fishery, however,
however, since
si.nce lower
Lower Coos
fishery,
Bay was
Coos Bay
vras open
open to
to commercial
eoil.mercial fishing.
fishing.
o
OceanRecoveries
Recoveries
Ocean
The two
two ocean
ocean recoveries
recoveries of
give some
of tagged shad
The
shad give
sone indication
indication as to
to
the ocean
ocean distribution
distribution
oregon shad.
the
of
of Oregon
shad.
C
o
Leggett and
(L}TZ)
and 7hitney
l,lhitney (1972)
Leggett
the ocean
ocean distribution
distribution of
Facific coast
of Pacific
predicted the
based entirely
entirely
trlredicted
coa-st shad
shad based
on seasonal
seasonal, changes
changes of
of ocean
ocean temperature
on
water temperature
tenperature and
anr! the
fresh water
the fresh
tenperature
o
1
8.
18.
pxeference of
of shad.
preference
shad.
to
LE CC isotherins.
isothexrns.
to 18
predicted that
They predicted
that shad
shad would be found within
They
within the
the 13
L5
I estinated
surface temperatures
tenperatures at
the capture
I
estimated the
the surface
at the
capture
site
for each
each ocean
ocean recovery
tecovery 1/.
site for
!/.
The shad
shad captured
captured off
off WIllapa,
illillapd., Washington,
?{s5fuington,
The
was in
in 14
14 Cc water
water while
whil"e the
the fish
fish off
off Cape
cape Flattery
Flattery was
was in
was
i.n 12
12 Cc water.
water.
Tinre
at Large
Lar$e
Time at
o
0n six
six occasions
occasions sufficient
sufficient
were tagged
shad were
On
shad
tagged to
to compute
co$pute a
a neaningfui,
meaningful
value
for the
the average
average days
days at
at large
Large between
between tagging
(I'able 2).
value for
tagging and
recaptrire (Table
and recapture
Z).
rt
It was
was apparent
apparent that
that tagged
tagged fish
fish !{ere
were usual!.y
usually recaptured
recaptured very few
few days
days
o
after they
tirey were
were released.
after
released.
This was
was most
nost noticeable
on the
the Umpqua
LlxrpquaRiver
R.iver
This
noticeable on
in 1969
1969 when
average nunber
at large
in
when the
the average
number of
of days at
large for
for fish
fish tagged during
during
o
the commercial
con'mrercialseason
season was
was only
2.9 days.
only 2.9
the
days,
at ldacey
at
Macey sands
Sands on
on Jrme
June 11,
11, an
an average
average of
of only
only s.4
5.4 days elapsed
elapsed between
between
tagging and
and recovery.
tagging
recovery.
OO
a
e%
o
a
o
o
I
Only five
five recovered
recovered fish
fish rvere
large for
at large
for 10
Only
were at
L0 or
or
more days
days on
more
on the
the Umpqua
llrpqua in
in 1969.
1969.
Table 2.
2.
Table
o
Even ignoring
ignoring the
the fish
fish tagged
tagged
Even
I'arge for
Average
Average Nunrber
Number of
of Days
Days at
at Large
Tagged, Commercially
for Tagged,
Cormercially
Caught $had
Shad Recaptured
Recaptured Within
Iolithin 1L Year
Year in
River of
in the
the River
of
Tagging
Tagging
Taseed Shad
Tanged
Shad
River
River
Year
Ntmber
Number
tlnpqua
Uinpqua
Umnqua
tJmpqua
ilnpqua
Umpqua
Unpqua
Unipqua
Coos
Coos
Coos
Coos
Coos
Coos
L946
1946
1947
1947
1969
1969
1969
1969
L95t
1951
1958
1968
L970
1970
1
38
138
2Q7
207
324
324
501
501
294
294
419
419
576
576
I'lunber
Number
Recovered
Recovered
45
45
26
26
8
888
165
163
s577
84
84
L79
179
Averge Days at Large
Tagged During
During
Tagged
Fishin Season
Season
Fishing
re
Tagged Before
Fishi
Season
Fishing
Season
4.4
4.4
7.5
7.5
E.1
8.1
2.9
2.9
7.7
7.7
e
. 2L
9.2
1//
r12.4
2 . 4 1/
u
y1/ These
Iheee values
oaluea are
not direc_tLy
&
not
eonpwabLe with
zfith corresponding
directly conrparable
coyrespqnding values
ualues for
for
yiuere md
other rivers
other
and years.
years.
See
test undex
tmder Methods
See text
Metttods Section.
Secttjon,
The reason
reason for
for the
the low
The
number of
ronr nw&er
of days
daysi fish
fish wer€
were at
at large
rarge prior
prior to
recapture was
recapture
was probably
probably that
that they
they were
were passi.ng
through the
passing through
the area of
of recovery
recovery
y1/
Based on
on temperatltres
tenrçeratures compiled
conpnredlw
by ql.stz
Fish and
Feildli.fe Service,
m.d,Wildlife
serwe, Bureau
Brtreatr
of
of Comm.
Connn.Fish.
Fish.,LaLaJoLLa,
Jolla, California.
Califo|wrta.
"
1
o.
1
9.
19.
(conrmercial. fishing
fishing area)
at the
area) at
of tagging.
tagging,
the time
tine of
(commercial
Once upstream
Once
upstrean frorn
from
the
comnercial deadline,
deadline, they
longer susceptible
the commercial
they were no longer
susceptible to
to capture
capture
except
gear.
by sport
sport gear.
except by
If fish
fish were
If
were centi.nuously
continuously passing
passing through
through the
the conrnercial
commercial fishing
fishing
area,
those fish
fish tagged
prior to
tagged prior
to the
the opening
opening of
area, then
then those
of the
the comnercial
commercial
o
season should
should have
had less
have had
less chance
chance of
of being
recaptured than those tagged
season
being recaptured
during
during the
the season
season because
because soine
some would
would have
have presr.urably
presumably nrigrated
migrated beyond
beyond the
the
fishing
area before
could have
have been
been caught.
caught.
fishing area
before they could
o
of shad
shad released
released before
and after
of
before and
after the
the season
season opening on the
the Umpqua
Umpqua River
River
in 1969
1969 were
were 29.0
29.0 and
and 33.1%,
35.1.%,respectively.
in
respectively.
o
The percentage
recoveries
The
percentage recoveries
As noted
noted earlier,
however,
earlier, however,
As
2t3 of
of the
the 324
324 fish
fish tagged
tagged prior
the season
season opening were tagged onl.y
to the
213
prior to
only
I1 or
the commercial
to the
conuslercial season.
or 2
2 days
days prior
prior to
season.
0f 111
between
!.f 1 fish
fish tagged
tagged between
Of
April
26 and
*d, Iiay
7, only
only 20,
200 or
or 18.0%,
18.0?, were
were recaptured
recaptured in
in 1969.
1969. Thus,
Thus,
ril 26
May 7,
OO
fish tagged
corunercial fishing
fishing season
fish
tagged prior
prior to
to the
the commercial
less vulnerable
vu!.nerabl.e
season were
were less
to
fish tagged
to recapture
recapture than fish
tagged during
during the
f,ishing season.
the fishing
season.
Sel.ectivity
fishing gear
for tagged fish,
Selectivity of
of fishing
gear for
fish, based
based on tine
time of
of
o
S
tagging, should
should be
considered when
future studies
tagging,
be considered
when planning
planning future
eval.uating
studies or
or evaluating
prior
projects.
prior projects.
rf
If al.L
all fish
fish are tagged
tagged after
after the
season opens,
opens, then
the
the season
then the
population estimate
estinate is
is only
onl.y for
f,or those
fish physically
physically available
those fish
population
available to
to the
the
o
commercial gear
gear (due
(due to
commercial
to spacial
spacial distribution,
distribution,
not incomplete
not
incoqplete recruitment
recruitnent
due to
to size)
size) and
and ignores
ignores those
due
those fish
fish that
that may
nay have
have migrated
nrigrated through
through the
the
area prior
to the opening
opening of
of, the
area
prior to
connercial season.
the commercial
season.
rj
o
o
S
o
.
Fish tagged prior
Fish
prior to
to
the opening of
of the commercial
comrnercial season,
l^ess likely
likely to
season, though
though less
to be harvested
harvested
part of
of
by the
the commercial
commercial gear,
gear, are
by
are part
the
real population
and should
the real
population and
should be
be
incl'uded in
in a population
included
population estimate.
estinate.
Since
recovely of
preseason tags
of these preseason
Since recovery
tags
(relative to
is nonrandon
fish tagged
to fish
is
nonrandom (relative
tagged during
during the
the commercial
connercial season),
season)
"
then
a
valid
population
then a valid population estiurate
estimate will
will only
only be
be obtained
obtained through random
randon
o
o
o
20.
20.
(Ricker, 1958).
tagging (Ricker,
tagging
1958).
Random tagging
tagging requires
requires that
that tagging
tagging begin
begin
Randon
conrmercial
as soon
soon as shad
river and
continue. throughout
the commercial
arrive in
the river
and continue,
throughout the
shad arrive
in the
season
season until
fish migrate
urtil the last
nigrate upriver.
rprivef.
last fish
Gharrett's populati.on
population estiroates
estimates for
for 1.946-49
1946-49 were
were nainly
mainly based
based on
Gharrettts
o
shad
shad tagged during
during the
the commercial
comercial season.
season.
qrriver
upriver prior
prior to
to the
the beginning
beginning of
of fishing,
underestimated the
the real
real
fishing, he wrderestinated
population of
population
of shad.
shad.
o
Assuming
sone shad
migrated
Assuuring some
shad migrated
popuHis
Flis estimates
estinates should,
should, however,
however, identify
identify the
the popu-
lation of
physically available
lation
available to
to the
the fishery.
fishery.
of shad
shad physically
Cunurangs'
population
Cumndngstpopulation
estinate of
estimate
of shad
the Umpqua
Umpqua in
in 1969
was based
based both
both on tags
tags released
released
shad in
1969 was
in the
before and
and after
before
after the
the commercial
connrercial season
season opened
openedand
and should,
should, therefore,
therefore,
a
involve the entire
involve
entire population
popul.ation of
of shad.
shad.
The
dates shad
The dates
were tagged
the opening
opening of
shad were
tagged relative
relative 'to
of commercial
cowtercial
to the
fishing were probabLy
fishing
probably not
not a serious
serious concern
Coos River
River since
since the
the
concent on Coos
oo
couutercial season
commercial
season started
started earlier
earlier and
and random
random recovery
recovery of
of tags
tags was
was aore
more
closely approached.
closely
approached.
Commercial fishing
fishing on Coos
Coos River
River generally
generally began
began
Conrnercial
when shad
when
first entered
entered the
shad first
river.
the river.
o
Gear
Gear Sel.ectivity
Selectivity
Singl.e census
census Petersen population
population estimates
Single
been computed
estimates have
for
have been
cornputed for
groqps of
several.
several groups
of tagged
tagged shad.
shad.
a
groqps
vulnerabitity
Unequal
of
UnequaLvulnerability
different groups
of different
of
of tagged
tagged fish
fish to
to the
the fishing
fishing gear
gear is
is a source
source of
of systenatic
systematic error
error in
in
popuLation
estinates of
population estimates
negatively biased estimates
of this
this type causing
causing negatively
estinates of
of
the real
reaL population
popuLation (Ricker,
(Ricker, 1958).
the
1958).
o
HS
To correct
To
correet for
for this
this error,
estinates
error, estimates
of population
nwnber can
uradefor
group.
of
population number
can be
be made
for each
each separate
separate group.
In
rn the
the case
case
size selectivity,
of size
selectivity,
the time
tirae lapse
of
the
between narking
marking and
must
Lapse between
recEtture rnust
and recapture
be
short enough
for growth
enough for
growth to
(Robsonand
be short
to be
be negligible
negl.igible (Robson
Regier, 1968).
and Regier,
196g).
I computed
computed the
ttrre length-frequency
Length-freguency distributions
distributions
I
and
mean lengths
of
and nean
lengths of
tagged shad,
shad, those
tagged
those tagged shad
and
shad recovered
f,ron the
recovered from
the commercial
connercial catch,
catch, and
or
o
o
2t.
21.
the wrtagged
shad landed
Landed in
in the
the
untagged shad
the commercial
1969, and 1970
conunercial catch
catch for
for 1968, Lg6g,
L9Z0
(Figures
6 and
(Figures 6
and 7).
7).
Fish making
interriver rdgrations
Fish
making interriver
migrations were included
included"
in the
the length
length frequency
frequenry calculations
calcul.ations for
for recaptured
f,ish, but
in
recaptured fish,
but shad
shad
recaptured
after the
lst year
recaptured after
the 1st
year at
at large
large were
were ignored
since they
ignored since
they were
were not
not
a
included in
in the
the Petersen
Fetersen population
population estimate.
included
estinate.
cal.culations were
wer€computed
calculations
conputed
Separate length
Separate
length frequency
frequency
for
each sex.
sex.
for each
The significance
significance of
The
of conputed
computed differences
mean lengths
differences between
between mean
lengths were
were
o
tested by'tstudentsrtr
tested
by fStudents? t-test
for groups
t-test for
groups of
of different
different sample
(Table 3).
sauple size
size (Table
3),
rn
cases the
the variance of
In certain
certain cases
grou:s tested
of the
the grouts
tested was
was significantly
significantly
different at
at the
the 95°'
95% confidence
different
confidence level
level as
as tested
tested by
by the
the F-test.
F-test,
o
rn
In those
cases, the
the t-test
t-test was
computed by
cases,
was computed
by Cochran's
cochranrs approximation
(snedecor,
approxi:nation (Snedecor,
res6).
1956).
Table
Table 3.
3.
OO
coruparisons of
of Ilean
l,,leanLengths
ComparIsons
Lengths of
of shad
Shad using
Using the
the t-Test
t-Test
${ean
(Mean Lengths
Lengths Differing
Differing ar
at the
the gs?
95% significance
Significance Level
LeveL
are F,larked
with an
are
Marked with
an Asterisk)
Asterisk)
Tagged
vs
o
o
o
River
Sex
Year
Coos
Coos
Coos
Coos
L$ipqua
Umpqua
Mal.e
Male
i',ia1e
Male
llale
Male
1968
1968
1970
1970
1969
1959
Coos
Coos
Coos
Coos
Fenale
Female
Fenale
Female
Llmpqu.a
Umpqua
Female
Female
1968
196e
1970
1970
1969
1969
all
For all
For
Recaptured
Length Comparison
Tagged
Recaptured
vs
vs
vs
l'{arket
Market
Market
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ib
*
*
*
*
*
*
3 years
3
years tested,
tested, the
tlie mean
meanlength
tength of
of tagged male
uale shad
shad recaprecap-
tured in
in the commercial
tured
corsnercial catch
catch was
was significantly
significantly
greater than
greater
than the
the mean
mean
length of
of the
the sample
saqrle at
length
at the
the time
time of
of release
release suggesting
suggesting the larger
Larger fish
fish
were
likel'y to
were more
more likely
to be recaptured
recaptured than
thaa smaller
smaller fish.
f,ish.
}.,!al.esin
Males
in the market
narket
sarples from
fron Coos
coos River,
samples
River, however,
however, were
were also
also larger
larger than
than the
the tagged
tagged fish.
fish.
fl
o
o
o
o
145
145
*J
E
o
fq-{u O r
\O
o\
ho
x141#6
c)
Ar
g o f{
d >.A
ctt
.lt
rla
"'
,X sl
,l-n
#
35
rl
35
n31
Sd
[[
drl
\o
.()
.+ -$
1
{tri
140
r
35
g
ri
= 142.3
at,
n138
E
Lengtt- Frequency }tograms of Male 5had Tagged,
Recaptured, and Saip1ed from the
oerciai Catch from Coos River, 1968 and
1970, and the Umpqua River, 1969
(,
\"".;
ho
g
lrJ
= 1414.14
.
';'i','1
ffiri.i.i.,fE
F*l
o
Fii,.'l
',:l
-I
o
lc)
.*l-lf\
145
R
crl
50
50
.
22.
iltl
ro
gd
d5
lx sr
rt
50
145
140
ho
hg
(}1
iln
rx El
n
n
r {r}
04()
-:t tt\
35
{n
ixc
rxg
=b3.o
n145
35
205
=
fitl
5UJ
F
UJ
E
oF
5Z
trl
C'
o
.:f fr\
.:f.+
FORK LENGTH IN CENTIMETERS
145
11:5
14b
IJI
co
'u\
(no
-rt (v
LII
.
ffi
E
g
E
5
g,
-rr\ cr
35
P'Ii.
gf
F-l
oo
jo
.p ,.9
&
qt + r
Od
tD.
g d ci
,o
ln
a
o
E8
i{'
50
o
6Pi
,id
Oih0 (\
h0 -l
ol
tdd
g
€d
d
.c! o
Glt\o
ol
q, Fa
rl
2
Lrl
ql
,E r{
o
(+.,1>
.Fl
50
50
145
ho
n = 392
3
2143.9
l3f\ElfDSUJSgVfNnLBi
20
I
HH
go
-:
:nd^|!E
I
q
Gts3^033u
HSIJJ0
(eNrgryrJ0 sHIt lvl
n;{---_--:------
fi
to
fifr
f- ([t
.l-:lXWl^lhll HSIJ J0
AfAIil]UAUJ 3gv$rEt3rjllJ
"9.9
Figure 6.
.,i$Fno3uJ 391/liEt383d
sF
'T.E
In
s{g
-E-
F*_2.--.-
20
1
20
3
.:f
tl
F{ rl
ctgwl t{sIJ J0
.
LLL
.1
lt
lxtr
s-T'-*E--;
H3
gs
CF
-O -t
o\. ( \ '
fn (n
o\
10
o
\o
-:t (t1
5:Fl
n.13
Itl
oo
rr4rt !rH
o
Z141.6
C)
L)
Fl
o
{Jg
,:f
LUQO
if
n112
()
-$T
(\t
"(\t
OJ Fl
E,
(t,
o
fl
1r\
b.q
140
&,
u,
35
o
145
COOS RIVER 1q68
a
g
O
H
v,
Ho
do
t{O
U()
.)4
&.
145
I
50
o
______
J
G
o
tr
u
t0
d
Fe
o
I)
23.
55
Length-Frequency Histograms of Female Sha3. T.gged, Recaptured, and
Sampled from the
oinmercia1 Catch from Coos River, 1963 and 1970, and the
npcua River, 1969
50
L
Et
6
}{
${
g\
.t5 \O
hs
ln
oo\
s
rl
Pr
qt
vrJ
q,
j
t
J
,..
/
[L.
145
'Ti
I
., .::.
COCS RIVER 1970
tn
.:f
,e
+)
xg
50
50
o
o
iltl
tl
145
lx
tf\
oa
140
I
K
(o
\-)
CJ
c)
o
55
55
Itl
R
cf
o+
ho
*o
ho
o
nl77
nli.37
utl
lX Fl
€. \ o
\o co
-+q
n = 986
o
rF
\OF
.:frl
tn
tn
x=146
= 146.o
c)
.t*
\0(rl
il r$
-
.
o
o
rJ
t,
c
.r'{
tr0(
(d
fil
n = 6014.
O6
400
r0 b.,do\
55
F
- trJ
vi (J
F.{ Fl
r.J .(J
rj Fl
A?d
?
140
Fs
5
ql
.ct:'
z.
1..::j::iill
c!-
o
&d
3g
50
55
#ii;ji:j:i:l
FORK LENGTh IN CENTIMETERS
sa
Q
q
q {.ci
(, +)
a
&
4S
K
............
-rlrt;i,ii;iil
l-;i:ii:riiii'[
s
-J
oo
R
Fri;:f
{J
lJl
jTh1
g
,4
,.+l
50
6)
(6
ol
r{
r r\
FS
rA
tn
14o
o
ilfl
tx H
:6.1
1
L2
;f \o
kt
= 145.9
n = 6i8
o\r @
rr{,ttrr
x=145,8
EO
(l) FtJ
*g
OF-
w
eo
o\o
Fl O\
ql rl
lr'
EI
J
140
()
872
55
50
.-'
140
o
140
g
a
h
"d
()C)
g{r
(unl
5. Lr
(t
Orl
!d
&.rl
t()
,q f{
PO
0
(\l
10
20
°1
o
oo
(t-l
F{
Figure 7.
issno3ugJevrrulrpe
Ft Lt
F:
o
:ndhs6
h
LDIWId NI I{S[J JO
3$vLhsl3lHd
lsffn3uJ
LL.
wc
HSIJ J0
Glu:bW33U
(9NI99VIjO :$dlf fV)
E
GISVI HSIJ JO
39drN33u3d
A3r{3ftCI3Hl
I3o
10
I
20
30
9o
r
.
o
&
H
I 30
h0s
cg
oo
I
o
.rl fu
14 qt
:iLln
-
.:i
o
+Fl
mo
145
.:f
0a
Cr''
_
rn
&
:.
50
rn
5
LtJ
145
&.
50
(r)
cn
F--l
O .rJ
a
El o
qto
t{O
b0 c)
tr\
rn
iltl
txd
r
@
14rT3
55
tf tl
txg
rNg
o
r
tn
&S{
(u
9{F
I
14
flll
-:f €
33
55
rn
rn
na
.N
FF
JO
ri
\o
\o (n
6 .6
303
46.6
\o
.fn
\oo
.a (n
o
Oo
}c
g
t{
5
a0
rl
h
o,
24.
24.
This suggests
suggests that
This
been in
bias might have
have been
in the tagging
tagging effort
effort itself
itEelf
that the bias
I
o
with aa tendency
gear
with
tendency to
fish than the
to capture
capture and
smaller fish
the commercial
conmercial gear
and tag smaller
was fishing
was
fishing on.
on.
For the
the Lhpqua
Umpqua River,
River, the
the mean
mean lengths
lengths of
of the
the nal.es
males tagged
and
and those
those in
in the
the market sanqr!.es
samples did
did not
not differ
differ suggesting
suggesting that
that the
the tagging
tagging
effort
effort was
was randour
random with
with males having
having the
the same
same probabiLity
probability of
of being
being tagged
I
and recaptured
gear, regardless
recaptured by commercial
and
conmerciaL gear,
regardless of
of size.
size.
Since the
nean
the mean
length of
length
of the
recaptured fish
fish was
was greater
greater than
than the
the nean
mean length
length computed
computed
the recaptured
fl
o
fron the
from
the overall.
overall narket
market sauple,
sample, however, the
the commercial
must have
have
comy.ercial gear lNust
selected
selected the larger
larger fish
fish from
population.
fron the
the tagged
tagged population.
Differential
Differential
nortaLity of
of different
mortality
different size
size classes
classes could
could also account
for these
accorsrt for
o
differences,
differences, but
but the
the short
short tinre
time between
between tagging
tagging and recapture
recapture should
should
have minimized
mininized this
have
this effect.
effect.
For all
years tested,
all 33 years
tested, the mean
For
nean lengths
lengths of
of the tagged
tagged female
fernale shad
shad
oo
and
and the
the recE)tured
recaptured fenal"es
females vrere
were sirrilar,
similar, suggesting
suggesting atl
all females had
had an
equal likelihood
likelihood of
of recapture.
recapture.
Fennalestagged
tagged in
River were
Females
Coos River
in Coos
were smaller,
snnaller,
however, than the
fenales in
however,
the females
in the
the market
narket sample.
sample.
O
As
As with
with the
the males,
nal.es, this
this
suggested that
that the
the tagging
tagging effort
suggested
was somehow
biased towards
effort was
somehowslightly
slightly biased
snalLer
smaller fish.
fish.
This bias
bias was
was again
again not evident
evident on
the Unpqua
on the
unpqua River.
River,
The proportion
proportion r/m,
The
r/n, where
r is
where r
nurber of
of narked
marked fish
recaptured
is the
the nranber
fish recaptured
o
in the
the sample
saraple and
and mn is
is the
in
the total
total number
nr.raberof
of marked
fish in
narked fish
population,
in the
the population,
is an
an estimate of
is
probability of
of probability
of recapture.
recapture.
plotted against
Wren plotted
When
against size
size
(Figure 8),
class (Figure
class
gives the
8), rIm
selectivity
the selectivity
curve for
the fishing
r/n gives
for the
fishing gear
o
(Robsonand
and Regier,
(Robson
Regiet' 1968).
1968). fut
2/
The validity
validity of
The
population
Petersen population
of the Petersen
estinate requires
requires that
that all
estimate
alL sizes
sizes of
of fish
in the
the poprulation
population have
have equal
equal
fish in
probability of
of capture,
probability
capture, or,
or, in
in terms of
of the selectivity
selectivity
curve,
curve, that
that the
the
Low nmtberv
1/ Low
nwnbersofofsmall
smallot"d
andLarge
large fi.sh
fish tagged
tagged can
eot cause
ealtse unpredictable
mpzvdLetable
Lt
bath ends
fluctuations
ends of
of the
f,lzecurves
fluetuattons at both
c.urues of
Ei"gtwe
of Figure 8
and should
ahould be
I qtd
be
ti,euted.with
viewed
with caution.
eot*ton.
o
:
-.
o
25.
25.
.
h0
140
Coos Rtver
River 1968
L95B
Coos River
River 1970
1970
Coos River
River 1968
1968 - TO
?0
UmpquaRiver
River 1969
Urupqua
J-|69
---1,
s5
35
o
S
fiE
30
30
3
u
2'
:)
trl
S
o
ul
L'
15
o-
io
10
S
o
'r(:7',
::
20
F
z.
lr!
L)
e
tr.!
- -
Males
,//
//
5
'I,
00
-.
35
145
t+f
iO
/
l+0
140
S
o
35
3'
E
P
E,
3
lrj
E
Lii
lrl
s
/
30
\''.
\-_
\
\--
25
2'
\
2A
z,
L5
15
ltJ
10
10
tr,
L)
a
o-_
\r
----*J
Fenales
(D
I.
55
(cn)
Class(em)
Size Class
oo
..
o
50
\:
\\
\r
5
n
o
o
35
40
40
\5
45
50
(cm)
Size Class
Class (cm)
Size Selectivity
SeLeetivity Curves
Figure
Figure 8.
B. Size
Ctrves for
for Tagged
TaggedMale
ancl Female
$&.1e and
Anerican
Fema1e Ithierican
Shad
Shad Caught
CaughtbybyGil1
Gill Net
Net in
in the
the Coos
Coos and
and Umpqua
Unqua Rivers
Rivers
o
26.
26.
cun/es be
be represented
represented by
by horizontal
curves
horizontal lines.
lines.
.
I tested
tested the
the validity
validity of
I
of
this assumption
asswption by performing
this
performing a contingency
contingency chi-square
chi-square analysis
analysis on the
the
nuubers ofofeach
nuiiibers
eachsize
size class
class recaptured
recaptured (Robson
(Robson and
1968).
and Regier, 1968).
The differences
differences in
in probability
capture by fish
fish size
of capture
size were signifiThe
probability of
signifi-
o
cant,
at the
the 95%
level for
nale shad
cant, or
or close
close to
to significant
significant at
95%level
for male
shad in
in all
alL cases
cases
(Tabfe 4).
tested
tested (Table
a),
female shad
shad none
none of
of the differences
differences were
For female
were significant
significant
except
for the
the combined
conbined sample
sampl.eof
River shad
for 1968
of Coos
Coos River
except for
shad for
1968 and
and 1970.
$7A.
A
combined sarnple
combined
sample including
including the
the Llnpqua
Umpqua P"i.ver
River fish
fish would
would not
not be
be valid
valid since
since
flo
fishing gear
fishing
gear on the
the Umpqua
Umpqua River,
River, particularly
particularly nesh
mesh size,
size, differ
differ from
Coos River.
River.
Coos
Several of
of the
the expected
expecterl frequencies
frequencies for
for individual
Several
individual. cells
cells in
in
the chi-square
chi-square computations
coarputations were less
give rise
less than one
the
one and
and could
could give
rise to
to
o
unreliable
unreliable
(snedecor and
chi-square
values (Snedecor
chi-square values
an'c Cochran,
cochran, 1967).
1967).
of
Grouping of
the
the data would
would correct
for this
correct for
pur1loseof
defeats the
this but
but defeats
whole purpose
the'*hole
of the
the
.o
..
chi-square test;
test; i.e.,
i.e., to
to test
test for
for differences
cM-square
differences in
in the
probabil,ity of
the probability
of'
capture of
capture
of these
these size
size classes.
classes.
Table 4.
4.
o
[1
River
o
o
I
Resu}ts of
of contingency
Results
Contingency chi-squares
Chi-Squares Anal.ysis
Analysis Testing
Testing for
for
Dif,ferences in
in Probabil.ity
Differences
Probability of
of Captr.rre
Capture of
of Different
Different TaggeC
Tagged
Size Classes
Olasses of
Size
American Shad
Shad
of Arnerican
Sex
Year
Year
Coos
Coos
Coos
Coos
Coos
Coos
L!*pqua
Iimpqua
Male
Male
Male
l,tale
Male
Male
F,{ale
Male
1968
1968
1970
1970
1968-70
1968-70
1969
1969
cses
Female
Fenal.e
1968
1968
Female
Female
1970
L970
Female 1968-70
Fernale
1968-70
Female
Female
1969
1969
Coos
Coos
Coos
Coos
Umpqua
Umpqua
n
d.f.
d. f.
112
Ll2
138
t_38
250
254
205
205
3
3
J
3
303
305
437
4
37
740
744
618
6t8
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
x2
P
7.59
7.59
8.61
8.61
L7.6A
17.60
9.71
9. 71
0.06
0.06
0
"04
0.04
<0.005
<0.005
0.05
0.05
4.92
4.92
0.19
0.19
0.33
033
0
.04
0.04
0.72
0.72
3.54
354
9.84
9. 84
2.07
2.07
As noted
noted earlier,
earlier, there
As
there were usually
usuatr.ly only
only aa small
snall nunber
number of
of shad
shad tagged
tagged
o
of the
the small
snall and
of
and large
large size
size classes.
classes.
Even if
if differences
dif,ferences in
Even
probability
in the probability
a
o
o
27.
27.
probably did
did not
of
between these size
of capture existed
size classes,
classes, they probably
existed between
Petersen estiil:ates.
seriousl.y affect
estimates.
seriously
the Petersen
affect the
the accuracy
accuracy of
of the
(72.5
males (72.5
Most
Most males
92.0eofor
and 45 cm
cm size
to
the 3 years in
question) fell
in the
the 40 and
size classes
to 92.0%
fell in
fot the
in question)
(9CI.6'to
while most
nost females
cl"asses.
fennales(90.6
45 and
59 cm
cn size classes.
to 94.3%)
fel.l in
in the 45
and 50
94.3%) fell
a
[]
I tested
tested for
probability of
these size
size
I
for differences
in the
of these
differences in
tire probability
of capture
capture of
(Table 5).
anal.ysis (Table
classes alone
alone with
with aa 22 xx 22 contingency
contingency chi-square
chi-square analysis
5),
groups
differenees between
At the
none of
of t?re
the differences
the 95%
95% confidence
between size
size groups
confidence level,
level, none
o
of females
fernal.esproved
proved to
of
be significant.
significant.
to be
R"iver in
Male
l{ale shad
shad tagged
Coos River
ln
tagged on
on Coos
1968 showed
did the
the
1968
showed a significant
difference
difference in
in rate
rate of
of capture
as did
significant
catrlture as
conbined
combined sauple
sample of
for 1968
of Coos
Coos River males
rnales for
1968and
and 1970.
1.970.
o
Table 5.
5.
River
o
o
for
Results of
of Contingency
Contingency Chi-Square
Chi-Square Analysis
Testing for
Analysis Testing
Differences
Differences in
Probabil.ity of
of Capture of
i4ajor Size
in Probability
o:fMajor
of Tagged
Tagged .American
American Shad
Classes
1/ of
Classes !/
Shad
Sex
Sex
Year
Year
n
Coos
Coos
Coos
Coos
Coos
Coos
Umpqua
Unrpqua
l.{ale
Male
Male
Iviale
Male
Male
Male
Male
1968
1958
1970
1
970
1968-70
1968-70
1969
1969
103
105
100
100
2A3
203
169
169
Coos
Coos
Coos
Coos
Coos
Coos
Umpqua
Urpqua
Female
Female
Female
Fenale
Female
Female
Female
Fenale
1968
1968
1970
L970
1968-70
1968-70
1969
1E69
282
?8?
412
412
694
694
560
560
d.f.
d. f.
X2
x2
P
1
4.07
4.A7
0.04
0.04
1
1.11
1,11
12.90
1
?.90
2.94
2
.94,
0.31
0.31
< 0 .0 0 5
<0.005
0.09
0.09
0.88
0.88
0.11
0
.11.
0.38
0.38
0.74
0.74
0.11
0. li
0
0.43
.4s
1
1
1
1
1
1
2.65
?
.65
0.70
0. 70
size clas8es
elreeee 40
40 and
45 cm
1/ Size
and s0
50 cm
a,zd45
em for
md 45 otd
Y
mt for
fon malea and
for females.
fematas.
Another
source of
Another potential
potential source
of gear selectivity
selectivity was
was between
between sexes.
sexes,
S
o
used the
the chi-square
chi-square contingency
contingency analysis
used
anal.ysis to
to test
test for
for differences
differences between
between
probability of
probability
of capture
capture of
of
selectivity
(Table 6).
selectivity (Table
6).
S
o
o
a
I
I
each
se:r for
for the
the same
each sex
same 3 years tested
tested for
size
for size
ALt
All chi-square
chi-square values were
were highly
highly signif,icant
significant with
with
less than
0.5% chance
less
than 0.5%
chance of
of a higher
higher value
value occurring
occurring in
in xry
any case.
case.
o
o
o
)
a
28.
28.
Table 6.
6.
Table
for
Testing for
Analysis Testing
Contingency Chi-Square
hi-Square Analysi.s
Results of
of Contingency
in ProbabiLity
Probability of
of Capture of
of t"{aLe
Male anrl
and
Differences
Differences in
Shad
Female American
.AmericanShad
Female
___________________________
River
River
Year
Coos
Coos
Coos
Coos
Coos
Coos
Unpqua
Umpqua
1968
1968
1
970
1970
l96B70
168-70
1969
1969
419
419
576
576
9s5
995
826
826
d. f.
d.f.
N2
P
11
23.92
23.92
15.55
15.53
37,57
37.57
13.99
13.99
<9.005
<.005
I
1
1l.
i
t
1
<9.005
<0.005
<
0. 0 0 5
<0.005
<
0.005
<0.005
gear selectivity
In summary,
sunmary, there
h:.gh degree
there was
was aa high
clegree of
selectivity
of gear
between sexes
In
between
sexes
with
greater probability
fenales having
prebability of
having aa greater
capture than
ma.Les. Size
Size
of capture
than rales.
with females
fish did
of fish
did not appear
appear to
of
to have
have a.a significant
significant effect
ef,fect on
on the
the pmbabiiity
probability
n
o
of capture
capture of
of
of
gill nets.
fenales in
nrost females
nets.
in gill
most
Flowever, size
selectivity of
size selectivity
of
However,
nales caught
males
caughtinin nets
nets was
was significant
significant or nearly
nearly
significant in
nnostcases
in most
cases
significant
tested.
To lessen
lessen the
the effects
To
effects of
of gear
gear selectivity,
selectivity, se*arate
searate population
Fopulation
estimates
estimates
shouLd
be made
madefor
for each
each sex.
should be
sex,
Further breakdown
fen'lale
Further
breakdown of
of female
shad
into size
shad into
size classes
classes does not seem
warranted.
seen warranted.
e
*
l,4a1eshad
shad should
shoulct ideally
Male
idealty
be separated
separated into
into size
size classes;
classes; however,
however, the small nunrbers
be
numbers of
male shad
of *rale
shad
tagged
nost years precludes
g:recl.udessuch
tagged in
in most
such segregation.
segregation.
l.fost size
size classes of
Most
of
nales would
contain so few individuals
males
would contain
i.nciividuals that
that very
very little
little
confi.dence could
could
confidence
a
placed in
be
in such
be placed
such estimates.
estinates.
r
Estiriated
nales with
r^rithno
Estimated populations
populations of males
no
grouping by
by size
si.ze would
would be
grouping
be negatively
negatively biased.
biased.
Fopr]lation Estimates
Revised
Estimates
f.evised Population
Based on
Based
on the
the preced:ing
preceding discussion,
discussion, I
recalculated population
population estimates
I recalculated
estinates
I
for the
1968 and
and 1970
for
the 1968
Coos TU,ver
River shad.
shad runs
1970 Coos
rrxrs and
and the
the 1969
196g Umpq.ua
Umpqua River
River shad
shad
rrn for
for each
(Table 7).
each sex
run
sex (Table
SI
o
rnsufficient numbers
nunirers of
Insufficient
were tagged
of shad
shad were
tagged
in other
ol;her years
to make
in
years to
make neaningful
meaningful population
population estimates
estimates with
with the exception
exception
of the
the tlrnpqua
of
Umpqua River
River studios
studies from
fron 1946 to
to 1949.
lg4g.
for those
years solely
those years
for
soLe1y based
based on
on fesrale
shad.
female shad.
Gharrett
Gharrett
made estimates
estinates
made
o
0,
29.
29.
Table 7.
7.
Table
Population Estinates
and 958
Population
Estimates and
95% confidence
Confidence Intervals
for
rntervars for
Shad AvaiLable
Shad
Available to
the
Commercial
Fishery,
to
Commercial Fishery, Coos
River
Coos River
196$
1970 and
1968 and
and 1970
and Umpqua
Unrpqua
River 1969
River
1969
I
t
S
Sex
Coos
Coos
1968
1968
l,laLe
Hale
Female
Female
Conbined
Combined
506
306
I9
'7tr
75
419
4
19
AA
84
tlale
hale
FernaLe
Female
Combined
Combined
158
138
438
438
576
576
${ale
Hale
Fenale
Female
206
206
s92
592
7
98
798
Coos
Coos
$7A
1970
Urpqua 196$
Umpqua
1969
Combined
Cpmbined
o
Numberr
P.ecovered
Recovered
Year
t
3
5
Number
Tagged
River
113
113
r
Number
Landed
Landed
Pop.
Est.
Lower
Lower
timit
Limit
Upper
r
Limit
Limit
3 , 2 8 8 37,166
37,L66
3,288
g , 9 2 5 39,965
39,965
9,925
13,2I3 65,137
65,L37
13,213
18 , 5 9 1
18,391
3 1, 5 8 5
31,585
s2,262
52,262
80,625
80,625
50,719
50,719
82,379
82,379
.,4
26
1q?
153
179
179
3 , 5 8 3 18,318
lg,3Lg
3,583
1
2
,
2
7
9
12,279 34,926
34,925
L5,962 50,762
15,862
50,762
L2,?52
12,252
3A,044
30,040
44,127
44,127
27,839
27,838
41,146
4l1146
59,052
59,052
45
45
194
194
239
239
3
6 , 9 6 6 165,100
165,1S0
36,866
65,1.44197,774
L 9 7, 7 74
65,144
1 0 2 , 0 1 0339,187
102,010
339,1&7
PcpuS"ationestimates
estir*ates were
were computed
corputed using
Population
using Bailey's
Baileyrs
forrnula
of, the basic
formula of
basic Petersen
Petersen single
singLe census
estinate.
census estimate.
t21,966 225,250
121,966
225,250
1 7 2 , 7 9 3 228,721
172,793
228,721
3 0 0 , 0 7 1 386,604
300,071
386,604
(f951) nodified
(1951)
modified
Confidence intervals
interval.s
Confidence
for
for each
each estinate
estimate were
were set
set using either
either the
the Poisson
Poisson or
or normal
norna!. approximation
approxination
(chapuran,1948).
(Chapman,
1948).
Fstinrates of
of the
the total
total population,
Estimates
population, i.e.,
both sexes
i.e., both
sexes
conbined, are incl.uded
combined,
in Table
Table 77 for
included in
f,or comparison.
comparison.
Low nunbers
of tagged
Low
numbers of
tagged nale
male shad
shad resulted
resulted in
in population
population estimates
estinates
I
with
very broad confidence
with very
conf,idence intervals.
intervals.
This fact,
facto coupled
coupled with
with the
This
fact
the fact
that
that nale
male shad
shad shotred
showed significant
significant size
size selectivity
selectivity at
at capture,
capture, leads
leaCs me
ne
to pl'ace
little
place little
confidence in
in the estimates
estinates of
nale shad.
of male
shad. Estimates
Estimates for
for
I
fenale shad
shad had
female
had much
nuch smaller
small.er confidence
confid-ence intervals
inter.rals and
should be
and should
be far
fer more
alore
reliable.
rel
jab le.
LITEFATUFX
LITERATUPE CITED
CITED
a
Baily,
Baily, N. J.
J. J.
J. 19s1.
1951.
0n
estinating the
the size
size of
On estimating
mobiLepopulations
of, mobile
populations
fron
recapture
from recapture data.
data. Biometrika,
Biornetriki, 38:293-306.
Sg:2g3-506.
*urt, !lii3urt,
W. V.
v.
o
o
1956.- Hydrology
1956.
tiydroJ.ogyof
of Oregon
Oregon estuaries
prior to
estuaries prior
to Juno
iune 1956.
tg56.
Data
tri.eport
lro. 2,
z, Oregon
OregonState
Data Report No.
state College,
college, Corvallis.
corvittis ,
22 p.
p.
22
chapman,D.
Chapman,
D. C.
G.
t948.
1948.
A riathematical
mathenatical study
A
study of
of confidence
confidence linits
limits of,
of salmon
salnon
pac.
by
sarple tag
by sample
tag ratios.
ratios.
Int. Pac. Salmon
mt.
Salnon Fish.
Fish.
Comn., Bull.
Bull. No. 2,
Comm.,
67-85 p.
p.
Z, 67-&5
qopulations ca.cu1ated
calculated
populations
I
ir
o
a
S
5
0.
30,
Fi.sh
bass management
nanagementstudy.
studv. F.sh
Shad and
striped bass
Cr.rnn:,ings,
E. 1969.
1969. Shad
and striped
T. B.
Cummings,
T.
1968
2,
to
JuLy
Invest. Annr.lal
Comm. 0reg.,
Oreg., Coastal Rivers
Rivers Invest.
Annual Rept.
Rept.,
July
2,
1968
to
Ccrnm.
o
p.
.June
36 p.
1969. Himeo.
I'dimeo. 36
30, 1969.
June 30,
Fish
bass management
management
. 1970.
1970. Shad
and striped
striped bass
study. Fish
Shad and
study.
Corut.
1969
Oreg.,
liivers
Invest.
Annual
Rept.,
Jul.y
Coastal" Rivers Invest. Annual Rept., July 1,
1, 1969 to
Comm. Oreg., Coastal
to
Jrxre
p.
1"97A"
l.{imeo.
50,
33 p.
June 30, 1970. Mimeo.
33
.
3
0reg.
Oreg.
rnovenentof
. lg7la.
coastal movement
of shad.
shad.
on coastal
A note
note on
197la. A
p.
P"es.
Reports. Vol.
3, 60
60 p.
Res. Reports.
Vol. 3,
Fish Comm.
Conun.
Fish
bass in
coastal.
. 197Th..
I971b,. Ecology
Hcology of
of shad
shad and
and striped
striped bass
i.n coastal
rivers
estuaries.
Fish Comm.
Rivers Invest.
Invest.
and estuaries.
0reg,, Coastal
CoastaL Rivers
rivers and
Conn. Oreg.,
Fish
Annual Rept.,
p.
R.ept., July
July 1,
1, 1970
l{imeo. 34
1970 to
to June
June 30,
30, 1971.
1971. Vimeo.
54 p.
Annual
3
Dodson,.3.
J. .3.,
Dodson,
J., i?.
R.. A.
A. Jones.
Jcnes.
U. C.
C. Leggett,
Leggett, and
and IL
1972. The
The behavior
behavicr of
1972.
(Alosa aapidissima)
adult Araerican
shad (Alosa
during migration
nigration from
from salt
sapidLssimd during
salt
adult
American shad
to fresh
fresh water as
as observed
observed by ultrasonic
techaiques, J.
J.
to
ultrasorric tracking
tracking techniques.
F i s h . Res.
R e s .Board
B o a r dCan.
C a n .29(lO):l445-l449.
29(10):1445*1449.
Fish.
I
Fredin, R.
R.. A.
Causes of
Fredin,
A. 1954.
fluctuations in
of fluctuations
1954.
in abundance
abr-rrdariceof
Connecticut
of Connecticut
Causes
R i v e r shad.
s h a d . U.
L j . S.
S . Fish
F i s h and
River
t { i l d . Ser.,
a n d Wild.
$ e r . , Fish
F i s h Bull.
8 u 1 1 . 54(88):247-259.
54(84}:247-259.
Gharrett,
?. 1950.
J. T.
Gharrett, .3.
1950. The
UnpquaRiver
F"iver shad
fishery.
shad fishery.
The Umpqua
0 r e g . , Res.
R e s . Briefs.
B r i e f s . 3(l):3-13.
Oreg.,
3(1):3*15.
Conm.
Fish Comm.
Fish
l{a,wrcr, R.
R. C.
Haier,
c. l?42.
The
3.942.
instinct of
of the
the Chesapeake
chesapeake Bay
Bay shad
The homing
homing instinct
sh.ad
Alosa
sryLdtsaima (trVilson),
Alosa sapidissiina
revealed by a study
Wilson), as revealed
study of
ttreir scales.
scales.
of their
I'i.S. Thesis,
Thesis, University
Uni_versity of
t{aryland. 45
(Typewritten.)
M.S.
of Maryland.
p. (Typewritten.)
45 p.
Ilollis,
Hollis, E.
E. H.
II.
1948.
The
1948.
houringtendency
(2E04):
tendency of
The homing
of shad.
shad. Science
science 108
LOB(2804):
3
32-s33,
332-333.
I
Leggett,
lll. C.
C. and
and R.
R. IL
Il. Whitney.
Leggett, U.
I.fiitney.
nigrations
of American
Anerican shad.
migrations of
shad.
8 u 1 1 . 70(3):659-670.
7C(3):659-670.
Bull.
l4acleod, .3.
MacLeod,
J.
1972, Water
ii/ater temperature
1972.
terperature and
and the
the
Idat. Marine
ir4arineFish.
Fish. Service,
Serviceo Fisheries
Nat.
Fisheries
1970. Shad
1970.
$had census
stucy report--Coos-Millicoma
census study
report--coos-[4it.licona rivers.
rivers.
0regon Gane
Ga,ne
Oregon
Coimnission.
Conu:rission. Himeo.
l{irneo.
I
I
L4
p.
Z p.
7
i'lichols, P.
P. R.
R. 1960.
Nichols,
1960. Homing
iiorning tendency
tendencyofof A.merican
Americanshad,
shad,Alosa
AlosasqidLasi.ma"
sidissima,
in
NewYork
York River,
in the
the New
River, Virginia.
virginia.
ciresapeakeSci.
sci. l(3-4):200-201.
r(g-4):zlo-zat.
Chesapeake
.I. and
and W.
tr{. V.
Queen,
v. Burt.
tsurt. 1955.
1955. Hydrography
Queen, J.
of Coos
coos Bay.
Bay,
Hydrography of
No.
i.,
0regon State
State College,
No. 1, Oregon
CcLlege, Corvallis.
16 p.
Corval.lis. 16
Data Report
Data
r
P'icker,W.
flicker,
ig. E.
13. 1958.
1958. Handbook
F{andbookofofcor,rputations
computationsfor
for biologicaL
biological statistics
statistics
f,ish populations.
of fish
pcpulations. Fish. Res.
of
Res.I3oard
Board Can.,
Can., Bull.
8u11. 119.
1lg. 300
I00 p.
Rcbson,
D. S.
s. and
and H.
Robson, D.
ll, A. Regier.
Regier. 1968.
1969. Estimation
Estinetion of
cf popuiation
population nr,:nber
number
rmd
rqortality ratös.
and mortality
rates.
124-158 p.
p. In.
124-158
rn. U.
E. Rickei.,-Methods
IrI. 13.
Ricker, Methods of
cf
assessnent of
prrog.,
of, fish
fish production
production in
assessment
fresh waters.
in fresh
nrgters. mt.
rnt. Biol.
Biol., Prog.,
pub. 313
!{andbook
No. 3.
p.
Blackwell Sci,
Handbook No.
3. Blackwell
Sd. Pub.
3lS p.
o
o
a
31.
31.
Rt-rlifson, R.
R. L.
t.
Rulifson,
lg!l:
Experinental shad
1951.
Alsea River,
River, May,
i.{ay,June
Experimental
shad fistrery,
fishery, Alsea
June
Juiy, 1951.
1951. Fish
Juiy,
Fis!: Coimn.
Consn.0reg.n
Oreg., rrrpub.
unpub. t1ryed
typed report.
report. 5
S p.
snedecor, G.
G. Iir.
Snedecor,
!. 19s6.
$tatistical riethods.
1956. Statistical
t&thods.
Press,Ames,
p.
Anes, Iowa.
Iowa. 534
Press,
534 p.
rowa state
university
Iowa
State University
n,. G. Cochran.
and W.
cochran, 1967.
Lg,z. Statistical
statistical Methods.
r"{etrrods, Iowa
rowa
press,Ames,
state University
university Press,
State
Arnes,Iowa.
Iowa. 593
5gS p.
Tal'bot, G.
G. B.
B. 1954.
Talbot,
1954. Factors
Factors associated
assaciated rtrith
with fluctuations
fluctuations in
in abundance
abrmdance
of Hudson
HudsonRiver
River shad.
shad. U.
iJ. S.
s. Fish
Fish and
and 1Ti1d.
ltiild. ser.,
Ser., Fish.
Fish. Bull.
Burl.
%
e
5 6 ( 1 0 1 )t 3 7 3 - 4 1 5 .
56(101):373-413.
--
a
l.
I
0
t
I
S
.
S
*ld J'
E' Sykes.
and
J. IL
sykes. 1958.
1958. Atlantic
Atlantic coast
coast migrations
nrigrations of
Anerican
American shad.
shad. u.
U. s.
S. Fish
Fish and
andr.fild.
!lild. $er.,
Ser., Fish
Bill. sggafi:
Fi.sh Bur.i.
58(142):
473-490.
473-490.
32.
.
o
a
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
.
t
55.
33.
o
Appendix
Table 1.
1.
Appendix Table
Sr:urmarizedTagging
Data for
for Alsea
Al.sea River,
River, 1951
lg5L
Summarized
Tagging Data
a
T$re
of Tag:
Tag:
Type of
o
Petersen
Petersen Disc
nates
Dates of
of Tagging:
{g.ggiqg:
I.iay 22
22 through
through July
July 21
at approximately
approximately 1I week
2L at
May
week
interyals.
intervals. A
total of
of 12
12 nights
fishing.
A total
nights of
of fishing.
of Capture:
Capture:
Means
ldgaqsof
gill net, 150
5-7/8
inch uresh
5-7/8 inch
mesh gill
150 ftft long
longand
and40
nreshes
40meshes
deep. Fished
deep.
Fished as
as aa set
net and
set net
and aa drift
drift net.
net.
I{unbers of
Numbers
of FishJagged:
Fish Tagged:
I
a
T?gging Locations:
Locations:
Tagging
LocaF,ioL
Location
Year
L 9 s1
1951
1.951
1951
Previous
Reportl:
Previous Reports:
o
Fenales 96
96
Females
Unknor'm1I
Unknown
liunnber Tage.
j9
Number
Tagod
n
2
18
18
3L
31
83
83
Nrrnbqr_s
of Tagged
Tagged Fish
Fish Recovered:
Numbers of
Recovered:
Alsea
Alsea
Columbia
Columbia
a
t{aLes 37
i7
Males
Seine Hole
Hole
Seine
Fluni;erfs
Float
Huner's Float
Cozy Cove
Cozy
Cove
Barkleyr s
Barkley's
River
River
o
Total 134
1I4
Total
Total
Total
ldaLes
Males
Fenales
Females
4.
4
1
1
1
0
0
2
3
n
0
1
0
0
1
I
1
Unknown
Unknown
A typed _report
report summarizing
sununarizing the study
study was
was prepared
prepared
f,
by
Rulifson and
and entitled,
entitled, 'rExoerinental"
by Rulifson
"Experimental shad
r'
fishery
fishery Al.sea
Alsea River.
River."
e
34,
34.
Appendix Table
TAbLe2.
2.
Appendix
Suunarized Tagging
Tagging Data
Data for
for Siuslaw
Siuslaw River,
River, 1950
Summarized
1950
o
o
o
Tvpe
?ag:
of Tag:
Type of
Petersen Disc
Disc
Petersen
Dates of
of,Ta$ging:
Dates
Tagging:
July
5 through
through July
JuLy 17.
17,
July 5
Means
of Capture:
Means of
Capture:
Gill net.
net.
Gill
Nunft:ers
of Fish
Fish Tagged:
Tagggl:
Numbers of
Tqgging
[ocatio4s-:
Tagging Locations:
I
Total
3l
Total 31
A total
tota!" of
fishing.
of, 44 nights
nights fishing.
A
l{ales 11
11
Males
Femal.es18
1.8 Unknown
Unknourn22
Females
tocation
Location
l{u€er Tagged
Number
Tagged
Tiernan
Tiernan
l..{apleton
Mapleton
?
3
28
28
Nyrbers of
Tagged Fish
of Tagged
Fish Recovered:
Recovered:
Numbers
a
o({
*4
o
a
o
I.
River
River
Year
Year
Total
Total
Smith
Smith
1951
1951
1
lda!.es
Males
1
Fennales
Females
0
lJnknown
Unknown
0
5
5.
35.
Appendix
Appendix Table 3.
3.
for lJnpqua
1946
Summarized
Umpqua Rivern
River, 1946
SumnrarizedTagging Data for
o
o
Type of
Type
Tag:
of, Tag:
o
Petersen Disc
Petersen
Dates.of
Dates of J.agging:
Tagging:
April
April 29
29 through July
JuLy 2.
2.
l{gans of
Means
of Capture:
Capjurg:
Trammel
Tranmel net
wi.th the
fi-sh captured
net with
the exception
exception of
of 22
22 fish
captured
at Brandy
at
Brandy Bar by dip net.
net.
-Nulbers of
Numbers
Fish Tagged:
of Fish
Tagged: Total
Total 138
138 Males
l{aLes -Tagging Locations:
Locations:
Tagging
a
A
nights of
A total
total of
of 18
18 nights
of
fishing.
fishing.
-Females
Fenales --
Logation
Location
Number Tagged
Tagged
i{trlnbel
Lower
Lower Bend
Bend
Upper
tlpper Bend
Bend
Gardiner
Lower
Lower Clark's
Clarkrs
East Gardiner
IvlaceySands
Macey
$ands
Brandy Bar
a
Unknown
138
Unknown138
31
31
1
1
68
68
4
4
4
4
7
7
23
23
Nunfigrs of
Numbers
of Tagged
Tagged Fish
Fish Recovered:
P.e_covered:
oo
R.iver
River
Year
Umpqua
Unmclua
1946
1946
1947
t947
Previous Reports:
Reports:
a
C
a
.
Total
Total
5
t
57
3
3
i',!al"es
Males
---
Females
Females
Unknown
{Jnknown
--
57
57
---
3
3
Gnarrett, John
John T.
Gharrett,
1950.
T. 1950.
The (Jnipqua
U*pqua River
The
River shad
shad
fishery.
fishery.
Fish Comm.
Cona. Oreg., Res.
Res. Briefs,
Fish
Briefs, Vol.
Vol. 3,
3,
F I o . 1,
No.
1 , 3-13
p.
S -1 3 p.
o
36.
36.
Appendix
Table 4.
4.
Appendix Table
Sumrnarized
Summarized Tagging Data for
1947
for Llnpqua
Umpqua River,
River, 1947
.
T)'pe of
Tag:
of, Ta&:
Type
o
Petersen
Petersen Disc
Dates
Tagging:
Dates of
of Taggiflg:
blay 14
L4 through
May
thmugh July
July 2.
2.
fishing.
fishing.
ir{eansof
of Capture:
carrturg:
Means
gg fish
GilL net
Gill
net with
with the
the exception
exception of
of 89
fish captured
captured at
at
Brandy
Bar by dip
dip net.
Brandy Bar
net.
Nunbers
Numbers of
of Fish
Fislr Tagged:
Tagged:
Tagging Locations:
Locatigns:
Tagging
OO
o
flo
a
o
.
-Fenales -Females
unknov,'n207
207
Unknown
Nunber Tagged
TaggeS
Number
Gardiner
Gardiner
Lower
Cl.arkI s
Lower Clark's
Dean
Dean Creek
Creek
Brandy Bar
Brandy
80
80
II
26
26
100
100
Nurnbersof
Numbers
of Tagged
Fish Recovered:
Recovered:
Tagged Fish
R:yer
River
Yeag
Year
Unipqua
Umpqua
1947
1947
1.948
1948
35
35
3
---
---
1949
1949
I
1
- -
--
Coos
Coos
Previous Reports:
Reports:
o
Tatal 207
ZaT Males
!.{ales -Total
--
tocation
Location
a
a
A
total of
A total
l0 nights
nights of
of
of 10
Total
Ig$J
r{ates
Males
Femal.es
Females
Unknown
Unknown
35
35
3
3
11
JohnT.
Gharrett, John
T. 1950.
1950. The
The Umpqua
Unrpqua
River
River shad
shad
Qlraryett,
fishery.
fishery. Fish
Fish Comm.
Conur.Oreg.,
Oreg., Res.
R.es.-Briefs,
Briefs, Vol.
Vol. 3,
S,
N
o . 1,
No.
1 , 3-13
S - 1 3p.
p.
o
37.
37.
Appendix Table
Table 5.
5.
Appendix
SunnnarizedTagging
Tagging Data
Data for
for Uiupqua
LlnrpquaR.iver,
Summarized
River, 1948
1948
.
Tlrye
of Tag:
Tag:
Type of
Petersen Disc
182
Disc
182 Petersen
Dates of
of Tagging:
Tagging:
Dates
10?
Ring
102 Pig Ring
I{ay 8B through
through Jtme
Jure 10.
10.
May
A total
total of
of 88 nights
nights of
A
of
fishing.
fishing.
o
l4eans
gf _Capture,:
Means of
Capture: Gill
6i1tr net.
net.
Numbgrsof
Fish Tagged:
Tagg,eS: Total
of Fish
Numbers
Total 284
l.{ates 9g
24 Males
Fenales 75
75
Females
Tagging Locations:
Locations:
Tagging
Nr.mberTagged
Tagged
Number
Petersen
Pig Ring
Ring
Pig
Petersen
o
a
O
oo
River
River
Year
Year
finpqua
Umpqua
194S
1948
1949
1949
1948
1948
Reports:
Previous
lrevious Reports:
1O
o
o
S
o
S
Big Bend
Bend
Big
Gardiner
Gardiner
Spruce Drift
Drift
Spruce
64
64
50
50
32
32
22
22
32
32
Hinsdales
fins dales
Dean Creek
Creek
Dean
64
64
2A
20
llunbers
p*ing
pig Ring
Numbers of
of Tagged
Tagged Fish
Fish Recovered:
Recovered: (sz
(52 petersen
Petersen tags
21 Pig
and 21
tags and
tags)
tags)
Sir.rslaw
Siuslaw
o
0
tocation
Location
Unknown200
200
Unknown
Total
Total
7t
71
1
1
I1
l,iales
Males
----
Fenales
Females
----
Unknown
Unknown
7L
71
I
1
1
1
Gharrett, John
JohnT.
Gharrett,
T. 1950.
1950. The
The Umpqua
LlnpquaRiver
River shad
shad
fishery. Fish
fishery.
Conrn.Oreg.,
0reg., Res.
Res. Briefs,
tsriefs, No.
Fish Comm.
No. 1,
l,
3 - L 3p.
p.
3-43
o
38.
38.
A.ppendixTable
Table 6.
Appendix
6.
Type
Tnre of
Tag:
of Tag:
364 Pig Ring
364
157
L57 Petersen Disc
Dp.les of
Dates
of Tagging:
fagging:
o
Summarized
River,
Tagging Data
for Urnpqua
Umrpqua
River, 1949
1949
Swmarized Tagging
Data for
May
l,lay 30.
50,
t4ay 77 through May
fishing.
fishing.
A total
nights of
of
A
total of
of, 77 nights
l'{eans
Means of
of Capture:
C?pt"ure: Gill
net.
GiLl net.
Numbers
TotaL 521
of Fish
Fish Tagged:
Taggqd: Total
52l
Sunber_sof
Tagging Locations:
Tagging
Locatioqg:
o
Males -lilales
-Females
FemaLes--
Location
Location
Number Tagged
Petersen
Pig Ring
Drift
Big Drift
tsend
Big Bend
Gardiner
Gardiner
Lower Clark's
Lower
Clarkfs
Spruce
Spruce Drift
Drift
Shag
Shag Roost
Roost
a
Unknown 521
Unknown
521.
Nunb-ersof
Tagged Fish
Numbers
of Tagged
Fish Recovered:
Recovered:
155
1
78
78
4
4
54
54
6
6
28
28
13T
t37
3
3
184
184
6
6
6
6
(S5 Petersen
(55
Petersen tags
tags and
and 82
82 Pig Ring
F"i.ng
tags)
oo
River
River
Year
Total
Total
Umpqua
ilnpqua
1949
1949
134
t34
Siuslaw
Siuslaw
1950
1949
1949
1
2
2
Previous Reports:
Previous
RepoJts:
o
o
o
o
.
o
o
MaLes
Males
FenaLes
Females
Unknown
Unknown
134
L34
::
::
1
--
--
2
2
Gharrett, John
Gharrett,
John T.
T. 1950.
1950. The
The Unipqua
River shad
shad
l.InrpquaRiver
fishery.
fishery.
Fish Comm.
Fish
Cowr, 0reg.,
Oreg., Res.
P"es.Briefs,
Briefs, Vol.
Vol. 3,
S,
lNo.
' i o . 1,
1. 3,1S p.
39.
59.
for Umpqua
Strmsarized Tagging Data for
UurpquaRiver,
1.969
Summarized
River, 1969
Appendix
Table 7.
7.
Appendix Table
T)fpeof
Tag:
Type
ol Tag:
o
rrSpaghettifr
"Spaghetti"
Dates
Dates of
of Tagging:
lagging:
April
June 23.
26 through
through June
23.
April 26
fishing.
fishing.
tieans
of- Capture:
eans of
Capture:
Gill
net.
Gill net.
l.lumbersof
Tagged:
of Fish
Fish Tagged:
Numbers
Tagging
Locationg:
Tagging Locations:
River
River
Year
Total
Total
U4pqua
Umpqua
1969
1969
1
970
1970
19
7r
1971
1972
t972
1969
1969
1970
1970
1970
1970
1969
1969
221
22L
19
19
Si.uslaw
Siuslaw
Ocean
Ocean
Previous Reports:
@:
flo
.
o
.
o
o
I1
191
191
517
tL2
112
E
&
J
Nu&ers of
of Tagged
Taggetl Fish
Fish Recovered:
R.gcovered:
Numbers
Snith
Smith
fl
o
tlnknown 0
Unknown
Iihnub.er Tagged
Number
Tagged
Drift
Big Drift
Eend
Big Bend
Lower
Lower Clark's
Clarkrs
Macey Sands
Sands
Macey
Snith
Smith River
River
..
oo
I
Total. 826
Males 207
Fenal.es 619
Total
826 Males
2A7 Females
619
Location
Location
o
a
A total
total of
A
nights of
of 31
3l nights
of
2
2
$fales
Males
5B
38
9
9
n
0
1
10
40
40
27
2
0
10
10
2
2
I1
0
0
1
i
I1
FemaLes
Females
Unknown
Unknown
138
138
10
10
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
I
30
30
t1
2
2
rl
L,
0
Cu&sd"ngs,T.
T. Edwin.
Cummings,
Edwin. 1970.
1.970. Shad
$had and
and striped
striped bass
bass
manageaentstudy.
management
study. Annual
Annual progress report.
report.
Fish
Fish
Conm.
Oreg. , 33
p., Mimeo.
Comm. Oreg.,
l{irneo.
33 p.,
o
'S
40.
4
0.
SuIn!arized
Tagging Data
Data for
for Coos
Coos River,
River, 1950
SurnrrarizedTagging
1950
Appendix Table 8.
Appendix
8.
.
Type
ype of
Tag:
of Tag:
o
Petersen
Petersen Disc
Dates of
Dates
Taggingl
of Tagging:
April 25
April
25 through June
June 28.
28.
fishing.
fishing.
lvle,ans
Means
of
of Capture:
C,apturg:
Gill
Gi1l net.
net.
Unknown99
Total 50
Males 18
TotaL
50 l.{ales
1B Females
FenaLes 23
23 Unknown
Numbersof
Numbers
of Fish
Tagged:
lish Tagged:
Tagqing
ging Locations:
toc-ations I
o
o
oo
o
flo
o
o
.
o
o
A total
total of
nights of
of
L3 nights
A
of 13
Location
Locatioq
Number
Tagged
{umber Tagged
8
8
Cooston
Cooston Point
Point
Rock
Rock Quarry
Quarry
South Fork Deadline
South
Allegany
6
6
12.
AU
16
20
20
NLunbgrsof
Numbers
Fish Recovered::
of Tagged
Tag,ged-F'ilb_&qqovered
River
Year
Year
Coos
Coos
1950
1950
1951
1951
Previous Reports:
Previous
Reports:
Total
Total
11
11
1
1
None.
None.
l4ales
Males
3
0
0
Females
Fenales
7
7
0
0
Unknown
l.lnkncwn
t
I1
1
1
O'.>
41.
41.
Appendix
Appendix Table 9.
9.
Surunarized Tagging
for Coos
CoosRiver,
P,iver, 195].
Sun'marized
Tagging Data
Data for
lgSI
.
TYpe of
Tag-: Petersen
o{ Tag:
Petersen Disc
Type
Disc
o
Dates_of
Tagging:
Dates of Tagging:
April
through July
16 through
Jui.y 3.
3.
April 16
fishing.
fishing.
!{eans of
of Capture:
Capture:
Means
GilL
net.
Gill net.
l{urnbersof
of Fish
Fish Tagged:
Tagged:
Numbers
T+gging Locations:
Locations:
Tagging
o
o
OO
I
O
o
o
.
f
S
o
total of
A total
of 21
2l nights
nights of
A
of
Tatal 294
294 tlales
Total
214 Females
Fenales 80
80 Unknown
a1es 214
Lyrknor+n
00
Locatiqn
Location
Nur:rberTaggsd
Nthiber
Tagged
f.entuck
Kentuck SLough
Slough
Cutlip I s
Cutup's
Rock Quarry
Pock
Quarry
Is
Iiendrickson
flendrickson's
2
2
89
89
9.4
84
119
119
l.lunbegsof
of Tagged Fish Recovered:
Numbers
Recovered:
River
River
Ye€
Year
Coos
Coos
1951
1951
1
952
1952
Previous Reports:
Reports:
Previous
Totql
Total
t,iales.
a1es
Fe.naLes
Females
57
57
39
39
tE
18
2
2
7
2
0
0
i{one.
None.
tlnkan*m
Unkn3wn
00
00
ot,
42.
4?.
for Coos
River, 1968
Coos River,
1968
Summarized Tagging Data for
Suur:narized
Appendix
10.
Appendix Table 10.
.
type
TYpe of
Tag:
of Tag:
tfSpaghettiil
"Spaghetti"
Datgs of Tagging:
Tagging:
Dates
25.
April
A,pril 18
18 through
through June
Jtme 25.
A
nights of
total of
35 nights
of
A total
of 35
fishing.
fishing.
o
l'{eansof
Means
of Capture:
Captuqe:
Gill
Gill. net.
net.
l{aLes 113
FenaLes306
306 Unknown
Unknoun00
Total 419
113 Females
Numbers of
Nunbers
Fish Tagged:
Tagggd: Total
419 Hales
of Fish
Tagging Locations:
Tagging
Locations:
Number
llumbgr Tagged
Tagged
Location
419
419
Porter
Porter Drift
Drift
O
Nunbers
T,aggedFish
Numbers of
of Tagged
Fi* Recovered:
Recovere9:
River
River
o
oo
Year
Coos
Coos
1968
1968
1969
1969
1970
1970
Umpqua
Lhnpqua 1968
1968
1969
1969
1970
1970
Coquille
Coquii.Le 1968
1968
1969
1969
Ocean
Ocean
1969
1969
Previous Reports:
Previous
Reports:
o
.
o
o
o
.
o
Total.
Total
Males
Males
86
BG
12
L2
3
3
11
11
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
I1
9
1
0
4
0
0
0
0
A
0
0
Females
FenaLes
77
77
11
11
3
3
7
7
1
1
I1
)2
.2
2
1
1
Unknown
Unknown
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1969.
Cummings,T.t,Edwin.
Shad
Cummings,
T.Edwin. 1969.
Shad and
and striped
striped bass
bass
management
nanagement study.
study.
Annual
Fish
AnnuaL progress report.
Fish
report.
p . , i"*ineo.
Comm.
C o m n .Oreg.,
0 r e g . , 36
Mimeo.
5 6 p.,
O<,..r>
43.
43.
Appendix Table
Table 11.
L1.
Appendix
of Jag:
Typç
Tag:
Tfpe of
o
Surunarized Tagging
Tagging Data
Data for
for Coos
River, 1970
Summarized
Coos River,
1970
'rspaghettit'
'Spaghetti"
Dates of
Tagging:
of Taggipg:
Dates
Aprit
1.9through
through June
Jrme 3.
3.
April 19
fishing.
fishing.
Mgans
Capture:
of Capture:
Means of
Gill net.
net.
Gill
A total
total of
of 26
26 nights
nights of
A
of,
Nunbers of
of Fish
Fish Tagged:
Numbers
Taggell: Total
Total 576
MaLes138
576 Males
138 Females
Fenales 438
438 Unknown
Unknown0
Tagging Locations:
Locatioqs:
Tagging
a
Loqation
Location
NgmberTagged
Number
Tagged
Porter
Drift
Porter Drift
576
576
Nunbers of
of Tagged
Numbers
Recovered:
Tegged Fish
{ish Recovered:
o
fl
River
River
Year
Year
Coos
Coos
1970
1970
1971
t97L
1972
1972
1970
1970
L97L
1971
1970
1970
L97l
1971
Unpqua
Umpqua
oo
o
r
o
o
r
S:nith
Smith
Coquille
Coquille
Total
Total
181
181
2
244
Males
Males
26
26
3
3
2
2
Fenal.es
Females
lkrknorsn
Unknown
155
155
23
23
1
0
0
L
2
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
I1
I
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
I8
2
288
1
1
a
q
2l
21
6
6
1
Previous Reports:
ReJrorts: curunings,
Previous
T. Edwin.
Edwin. 1971.
Cummings, T.
Lgrl. Ecology
Ecology of
shad and
of shad
and
striped
bass
in coastal
coastal rivers
rivers and
and estuaries.
striped bass in
estuaries.
Annual progress
progress report,
Fish Comm.
report, Fish
Comn.Oreg.,
Annual
Oreg. , 34
p.,
34 p.,
$,lineo.
Mimeo.