Canary rockfish (Sebastes pinniger) COSEWIC assessment and status report: chapter 9

• Previous page
• Table of contents
• Next page

Description of fisheries

• Commercial fisheries
• First Nations’ fisheries
• Recreational fisheries

Commercial fisheries

The U.S. trawl fishery moved northward to Area 3C+3D in the 1950s and reached central coast areas (5A+5B+5C) in the early 1960s about the same time as Canadian trawlers moved south from Area 5D in northern B.C. The remaining region, to the west of the QCI (5E), began to be fished by the late 1970s, although this region is largely untrawlable at canary rockfish depths.

The U.S. landings were not recorded to species until 1967, but Westrheim (1977) indicates significant landings from Area 3C+3D back to at least 1960. Following Extended Jurisdiction in 1977, Canadian trawlers gradually replaced the U.S. fishery, with the U.S. fishery ceasing in Canadian waters by 1982. Since 1982, there have been no foreign fisheries for canary rockfish other than a negligible bycatch while midwater trawling for hake (Merluccius productus).

Large-scale foreign trawl fisheries were conducted by Soviet vessels in the 1960s and Japanese vessels in the 1970s, but limited observer data were obtained from these fisheries. These fisheries targeted deeper aggregations of Pacific ocean perch (S. alutus) (Ketchen 1980), but there may have been catches of canary rockfish.

Canadian fishers reported that dumping at sea was prevalent from the mid-1980’s to mid-1990s in order to avoid trip-limit overages, but the magnitude of this error is unknown. Many fishers argue that the discards were large relative to the total amount landed. However, during this period there were many cases of landed overages that were misreported as other species. The catch figures are not trustworthy in the 1985-1995 period. They could be significant under- or over-estimates for any given year, with the bias changing almost yearly as management of the fishery experimented with different kinds of catch constraints. In fact, the lack of confidence in the landings figures and the resulting difficulty in applying quota management for rockfish was the driving force which led DFO to mandate 100% dockside monitoring in 1994 and 100% observer coverage for the trawl fleet in 1996.

Estimated landings should only be used to characterize the approximate magnitude of the harvest over the 1967-1996 period (Table 1). Actual values are only reliable since the introduction of 100% observer coverage in the trawl fishery in 1996. Even for the more recent period, 1996-2006, there are no discard estimates for the hook-and-line fleets, although these fleets have now moved to 100% monitoring (2006/2007). Therefore, population trends should not be inferred from trends in total landings and catch per unit effort (CPUE) over the entire duration of the canary rockfish fishery. Not only have the management regulations in the form of trip limits and annual quotas varied widely, but so has the manner in which catch has been reported (or deliberately misreported).

Since 1996, about 840 t/y of canary rockfish are reported captured by various license sectors and gear types. About 95% of the reported catches are produced by the commercial trawl fleet, principally by bottom trawl (Fig. 10, Table 1). The commercial groundfish hook-and-line fleets produce about 5% of the reported landings, although canary rockfish is typically a non-directed species in these fisheries (Table 1, Appendix 1: Table 2). Unlike trawl landings, reported hook-and-line landings do not include discards prior to 2006. Haigh et al. (2002) summarized catch ratios in various hook-and-line fisheries based on partial observer coverage from 1999-2001 observations and showed that the resulting expanded estimates of total catches (landings plus discards) from observers were less than the reported landings (see Table 17 in Haigh et al. 2002), indicating non-representative sampling in the observer program for hook and line fisheries.

Catches of canary rockfish in the south coast salmon troll fisheries were projected from observer data for 1998-2001 (Wrohan et al. 2002). Observed salmon troll catches of canary rockfish ranged from 0-11 250 pieces for an average of 2 866 pieces/y (5.8 t/y, assuming an average weight of 2.03 kg) for the WCVI and SoG in those years. Catches were probably higher when effort was much larger prior to the late 1990s, but no data are available for that period. Logbooks and a phone-survey covering the troll fishery off the west coast of the QCI indicate about 1000 pieces/y, or about 1 t/y. Catches from this fishery are probably not significant relative to other fisheries; especially given the reduction in salmon troll effort in this region. Canary rockfish catches appear negligible in the salmon commercial seine and gillnet fisheries (Wrohan et al. 2002). Catches are negligible in the invertebrate fisheries, especially since the introduction of bycatch reduction devices for shrimp trawls in 2000 (Olsen et al. 2000, Dennis Rutherford, pers. comm.).

Figure 10: Total landings by year of canary rockfish in British Columbia waters

First Nations’ fisheries

Consistent with the COSEWIC guidelines for the collection of Aboriginal knowledge, the only required Wildlife Management Board contact, the Nisga'a Joint Fisheries Management Committee, was consulted during preparation of this report. They reported “no additions or comments to their status” (Harry Nyce, pers. comm. 2005).

There is no information readily available to estimate the magnitude of either historical or current catch of canary rockfish by the First Nation bands in B.C. It is likely canary rockfish have always been taken occasionally by coastal First Nations while pursuing other fish resources, including other rockfish species, halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) and lingcod. Early ethnographers all recognized the importance of the “various specimens of cod” to a variety of coastal First Nations (Boas 1895), but according to Stewart (1975), explicit reference to rockfish as a subgroup is absent in the early ethnographies. Archaeological records of Sebastes spp. based on the presence of otoliths, skulls, and pelvic girdle elements are typically only classified to the genus (i.e., Sebastes) and therefore species information is absent (Stewart 1975).

The majority of the canary rockfish population lives in offshore areas in depths typically greater than 80 m. It seems reasonable to assume that shallower rockfish species, such as yelloweye rockfish, copper rockfish (S. caurinus) and quillback rockfish (S. maliger) might have been the preferred species in Aboriginal fisheries. Aboriginal traditional knowledge referring to the population status of this species likely does not exist.

No quantitative estimates of the catches of canary rockfish by First Nations are available, as available data only indicate the “rockfish” category. On a coast-wide basis, First Nations’ canary rockfish catches are probably very small in comparison with the catches of canary rockfish in other fisheries, although catches may be significant in some specific locales.

Recreational fisheries

There is no directed recreational fishery for this species; adult canary rockfish usually inhabit water too deep to be commonly caught in the recreational fishery. When taken, canary rockfish are almost always bycatch from effort targeting halibut and lingcod on the west coast of Vancouver Island and to a lesser degree the north coast of B.C. (Jeremy Maynard, pers. comm.).

The annual creel survey of the recreational fishery catch in the Strait of Georgia (SoG) indicates wide variations in the annual canary rockfish catches from 1986-2004 (Table 1, data source: South Coast Creel Database). The variation of two orders of magnitude in the catch estimates in consecutive years indicates that these catch estimates are unreliable. The species identification was probably poor and inconsistent so no CPUE analysis was considered. Not only are the catch estimates unreliable, but the recent changes to bag limits make it inadvisable to draw inference about abundance trends from either the creel survey catch or CPUE.

The national mail-in survey of Recreational Fishing, conducted every five years by DFO, in cooperation with all regional, provincial and territorial fisheries licensing agencies, has no record of canary rockfish catches (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/communic/statistics/recreational/index_e.htm).