California. Dept. of Fish and Game.

California fish and game (Volume 64, no. 3) online

. (page 9 of 10)
Online LibraryCalifornia. Dept. of Fish and GameCalifornia fish and game (Volume 64, no. 3) → online text (page 9 of 10)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


records could be found to indicate any shipments from the Baird Station to New
Zealand, but such records exist for consignments to England, Germany, Ireland,
and Japan.

The paucity of evidence of any officially sponsored scheme by California
authorities to ship ova to New Zealand tends to confirm the New Zealand view
that arrangements were made to obtain ova from a private trout hatchery.

New Zealand authorities considered that California's Russian River provided
the ova for the 1883 shipments. This view was based on the previously cited
statements of L. F. Ayson in his memorandum of October 22, 1924. Although
there was confirmation that a private hatchery had operated on the Russian
River and that A. V. La Motte (whose name was associated with the 1883
shipments) was its operator, there seemed to be no confirmation of its operation
in 1883. In fact, available records indicate the hatchery at Ukiah functioned
between 1897 and 1927 (Leitritz 1970).

A search of old records revealed no evidence of a hatchery on or near the
Russian River at Ukiah until 1897. The evidence showed clearly that La Motte
commenced construction of the hatchery in March of that year (Ukiah Republi-
can Press newspaper, 1897). Ukiah had no rail service until 1887; it seems
unlikely that the 1883 shipment would have been sent from Ukiah by stage-
coach.

A. V. La Motte operated a private hatchery in Sonoma County (Smiley 1883)
and our further search produced a description of the formation of the Lenni Fish
Propagating Company by A. V. La Motte in 1878 on Sonoma Creek, near the
mouth of Graham Creek, in Sonoma County (Munro-Fraser 1880).

From this information we can piece together some of the possible reasons for
the confusion which led to the belief that the Russian River was the source of
the 1883 eggs. A. V. La Motte operated the Lenni Fish Propagating Company on
Sonoma Creek from 1878 to sometime after 1883. He became associated with
the North Pacific Game and Fish Club and was active with that organization in
1890 when his name was mentioned in a table of trout distribution by private
hatcheries appearing in the Biennial Report of the California State Board of Fish
Commissioners for the years 1888-1890. This table also indicates the North
Pacific Game and Fish Club was active in taking eggs from trout trapped in
Sonoma Creek and in planting trout in Sonoma County. It seems reasonable to
assume that La Motte was active at Sonoma Creek from 1878 to at least 1890.

In 1897, La Motte had left the Sonoma Creek area to construct and operate
a hatchery on Gibson Creek, a tributary of the Russian River. At the time he was
contacted by L. F. Ayson he was operating that hatchery near Ukiah, and this
led to the mistaken assumption that the 1883 eggs came from the Russian River.

But did the 1883 eggs come from the Sonoma Creek operation? Direct evi-



216 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME

dence of this was found in the following newspaper excerpt from the Sonoma

Weekly Index for July 21, 1883:

"Mr. A. V. La Motte, Superintendent of the Lenni Fish Propagating Company,
informs us that the Company sometime since shipped 30,000 trout eggs to the
Auckland, New Zealand, Acclimatisation Society, and have received the re-
port from them that they arrived in better order than any prior lot they had
received from other parties. This we consider another feather in Sonoma's
cap, and a big, bright one, too."

In view of the foregoing and because Sonoma Creek had a run of steelhead
which could be easily trapped, we consider it highly unlikely that the 1883 eggs
came from anywhere but Sonoma Creek.

Our thoughts in this regard are reinforced by entries in the Biennial Report of
the State Board of Fish Commissioners of the State of California for the years
1888-1890 (p. 51) which indicate that trout were being trapped in Sonoma
Creek by permission of the California State Fish Commission and were listed as
"native trout".

Sonoma Creek flows directly into the northern part of San Francisco Bay and
has always had a good run of steelhead, although extensive development in the
drainage and heavy fishing pressure have taken their toll in recent years. Other
strains of rainbow trout and perhaps other species of trout have been planted
in Sonoma Creek since 1883, but it is unlikely that it was subjected to such
activities before that date. As far as is known, the only trout in Sonoma Creek
today are steelhead.

The small difference between the New Zealand records (32,000 eggs in three
shipments) and the American information (30,000 apparently in one shipment)
is not viewed as significant. The numbers are reasonably close, considering fish
cultural practices of those days, and La Motte could have simply omitted specific
references to more than one shipment when he informed the newspaper of his
success.

We conclude from this new evidence that the 1 883 shipment of rainbow trout
eggs were from steelhead originating in Sonoma Creek, California and not from
the McCloud or Russian rivers as previously supposed.

No evidence can be found in American records for the 1878 shipment of eggs
from Lake Tahoe. I.C. Frazier, a recognized fish culturist who was associated
with some of the acclimatization societies in the early 1870's (Leitritz 1970),
established a hatchery with rearing ponds on the Truckee River below Lake
Tahoe. During this same period the Comer brothers operated a hatchery on the
Truckee River and obtained their eggs from fish caught in the tributaries to Lake
Tahoe (California Commissioners of Fisheries Report, 1870 and 1871 ). Either of
these operations might have been the source of the 1878 shipment but, if so, the
species was very likely Lahontan cutthroat trout, Salmo clarki, rather than rain-
bow trout.

Other than the previously cited letter of July 27, 1936 from J.O. Snyder, no
records could be found regarding the source of the 1930 shipment of rainbow
trout eggs. Snyder stated that he was quite certain that the eggs came from Lake
Almanor, an artificial reservoir without access to anadromous fish. The State's
Lake Almanor hatchery, operated at the town of Chester from 1931 to 1933,
handled brown, Salmo trutta, brook, Salvelinus fontinalis, and rainbow trout. The



ORIGINS OF NEW ZEALAND RAINBOW TROUT



217



Mud Creek Egg Collecting Station which was operated at Lake Almanor from
1 928 to 1 931 to collect rainbow trout eggs may have been the source of the 1 930
shipment, but this could not be confirmed.

Unfortunately, no records can be found of the shipments to A.M. Johnson of
Opawa, Christchurch, which, according to Ayson, were from eggs collected on
the McCloud and Shasta rivers in California. It is puzzling that the McCloud River
is cited as the source of these eggs because shipments to foreign countries from
the Baird Station seemed to be well recorded, but there is no mention of a
shipment of trout to New Zealand in the available reports.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The foregoing evidence lends strong support for the significance of the 1883
shipments of eggs from California as the principal source for the acclimatization
of rainbow trout in New Zealand. It also refutes previous beliefs that the 1883
eggs came from either the McCloud or Russian rivers but rather conclusively
points to a steelhead ancestry originating from Sonoma Creek, a tributary to San
Francisco Bay in California.

Progeny from this 1883 shipment were widely distributed throughout New
Zealand by the Auckland Acclimatisation Society and many of these liberations
resulted in self-sustaining populations. The present day distribution of rainbow
trout is detailed by Allen and Cunningham (1957).

Other shipments which must also be recognized, but whose influence on the
total acclimatisation of rainbow trout in New Zealand remains in doubt, oc-
curred in 1878, late in the 19th century, and in 1930 (Table 1 ). The 1878 eggs
were reportedly from Lake Tahoe and although possibly from rainbow trout,
they were more likely cutthroat trout, the abundant native salmonid in the Tahoe
area at that time. The shipment will, for purposes of this paper, be listed as either
rainbow or cutthroat trout. Thus, although it might be argued that the 1883
shipment represented a relatively unmixed stock, since transfer of stocks in
California then was not yet widespread, it cannot be maintained that present day
populations of New Zealand rainbow trout are descended from this shipment
only.



TABLE 1. Origin of New Zealand Rainbow Stocks



No.

of

Date lots

1878 1 2

1883 3

Late 19th Cen-
tury ?

1930 1



Source
Lake Tahoe, Califor-
nia

Sonoma Creek Cali-
fornia

McCloud and

Shasta rivers (?)
Lake Almanor Cali-
fornia



Exporter

or

supplier

?

A.V. La Motte

?

California Di-
vision of Fish
and Came (?)



Importer

Auckland Acclimati-
sation Society
Auckland Acclimati-
sation Society

A.M. Johnson

(Opawa)

Auckland Acclimati-
sation Society



Live fish
distributed

2,000 +
4,400 +



Yes (Number

unknown)

75,000



1 The 1878 eggs were more likely to have been from cutthroat trout, but in the absence of conclusive proof they
are included in the table.



218 CALIFORNIA FISH AND CAME

REFERENCES

Allen, K.R., and B.T. Cunningham. 1957. New Zealand angling 1947-52, Fish. Bull. Wellington, N.Z. 12: 1-153.

Ashby, C.R. 1967. The centenary history of the Auckland Acclimatisation Society. Auckland.

Auckland Acclimatisation Society. 1881-1 938. Annual reports and financial statement of the Auckland Acclimatisa-
tion Society for 1881-1888, 1930-1938. Auckland, N.Z.

Auckland Acclimatisation Society. 1878-1887. Minute books of the Auckland Acclimatisation Society for the years
1878 through 1887.

Ayson, L.F. 1908. Introduction of American fishes into New Zealand. Bull. Bur. Fish., 28: 967-975.

Behnke, R. 1972. Systematics of salmonid fishes of recently glaciated lakes. Can., Fish. Res. Bd., )., 29(6): 639-671.

California Commissioners of Fisheries. 1 870-1 871 . Report of the commissioners of fisheries of the State of California
for the years 1870 and 1871.

California State Board of Fish Commissioners. 1890. Biennial report of the State Board of Fish Commissioners of

the State of California for the years 1888-1890.
Dollar, A., and M. Katz. 1964. Rainbow trout brood stocks and strains in American hatcheries as factors in the

occurrence of hepatoma. Prog. Fish. Cult., 26(4): 167-174.

Hefford, A.E. 1926. Rainbow trout of New Zealand. N.Z. ). Sci. and Technol., 8: 102-106.

Hobbs, D.F. 1948. Trout fisheries in New Zealand. Fish. Bull. Wellington, N.Z., 9: 1-175.

Leitritz, Earl. 1970. A history of California's fish hatcheries, 1870-1960. Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game, Fish Bull.
(150): 1-125.

MacCrimmon, H.R. 1971. World distribution of rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) . Can., Fish. Res. Bd., )., 28 (5):
663-704.

Mottley, C. McC. 1954. The origin and relations of the rainbow trout. Amer. Fish. Soc, Trans., 64: 323-327.

Munro-Fraser, ).P. 1880. History of Sonoma County. Alley, Bowen, and Co. p. 463-464.

Neave, F. 1949. Game fish populations of the Cowichan River. Fish Res. Bd. Can., Bull., (84): 1-32.

Needham, P.R., and R. Gard. 1959. Rainbow trout in Mexico and California. Univ. of Calif. Publ. in Zoo. (67):
1-124.

Needham, Paul, and Richard Behnke. 1962. The origin of hatchery rainbow trout. Prog. Fish Cult., 24(4): 156-158.

Pautzke, C.F., and R. C. Meigs. 1940. Studies on the life history of the Puget Sound steelhead. Wash. State Dept.
Game, Biol. Bull., (3): 1-37.

Ricker, W.E. 1954. Pacific salmon for Atlantic waters. Can. Fish Cult, 16: 6-13.

1972. Hereditary and environmental factors affecting certain salmonid populations. H. R. MacMillan.

Lectures in Fisheries, Univ. of Brit. Col. p. 31-145.

Scott, D. 1964. The migratory trout (Salmo trutta L.) in New Zealand 1 . The introduction of stocks. Roy. Soc. N.Z.
Zool., Trans., 4(17): 209-227.

Shapovalov, L., and A. C. Taft. 1954. The life histories of the steelhead rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri gaird-
neri) and silver salmon (Oncorynchus kisutch). Calif. Dept. Fish. Game. Fish. Bull. (98): 1-375.

Smiley, Chas. W. 1883. A geographical catalogue of persons who have stated that they are interested in fush culture.
Bull. U.S. Fish Comm. Vol. II for 1882, p. 393-396.

Snyder, J.O. 1933. California trout. Calif. Fish Game., 19(2): 81-112.

Sonoma Weekly Index. 1883. Newspaper for July 21, 1883. Microfilm, Bancroft Library, Univ. of Calif. Berkeley,
Calif.

Stokell, G. 1955. Fresh water fishes of New Zealand. Christchurch.

Stone, Livingston. 1883. Account of operations at the McCloud River fishbreeding stations of the United States Fish

Commission, from 1872 to 1882, inclusive. Bull, of the U.S. Fish Comm., Vol. II for 1882.
Thomson, G. M. 1922. The naturalisation of animals and plants in New Zealand. Cambridge. 607 p.

1926. Wildlife in New Zealand. 2. Introduced birds and fishes. Wellington. 88 p.

Ukiah Republican Press. 1897. Newspaper excerpts from the Ukiah Republican Press. March 19, 1897, March 26,

1897, and April 9, 1897. Sonoma County Library, Ukiah, Calif.

United States Fish Commission. 1887. 97 p. American fish in New Zealand. Bull, of the U.S. Fish Comm. Vol. VI
for 1886.

Wales, J. H. 1939. General report of the investigation on the McCloud River drainage in 1938. Calif. Fish Game,
25(4): 272-309.



NOTES 219

THE FIRST EASTERN PACIFIC RECORDS OF BULLEYE,

COOKEOLUS BOOPS (BLOCH AND SCHNEIDER, 1801),

(PISCES, PRIACANTHIDAE)

At least 10 specimens of Cookeolus boops have been taken in the eastern
North Pacific. Eight of these that were saved measured 148-226 mm (5.83-8.90
inches) sl. These are the first valid records of bulleye in the eastern Pacific
Ocean. Its previously known range was both sides of the Atlantic and the
Indo-west Pacific (Caldwell 1962) but even there, the bulleye is a relatively
uncommon fish. Anderson et a/. ( 1 972 ) described six specimens from the west-
ern North Atlantic, bringing the total number of specimens recorded from that
region to 13.

My material consists of two specimens in the collections of Scripps Institution
of Oceanography (SIO 74-72, 169 mm or 6.65 inches sl, from 320 km or 200
miles west of Gulfo de Tehuantepec, Mexico, and SIO 74-80, 148 mm or 5.83
inches sl, from lat 17°04' N, long 104°23' W) and four specimens from the
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM 30505-1, 189 mm or
7.44 inches sl, from 560 km or 350 miles SW of Acapulco, Mexico; LACM
30506-1, 171 mm or 6.73 inches sl, from off Gulfo de Tehuantepec; LACM
31796-2, 180 mm or 7.09 inches sl, from 64 km or 40 miles off Islas Tres Marias,
Mexico; and LACM 31999-1, 226 mm or 8.90 inches sl, from 80 km or 50 miles
outside Islas Tres Marias).

The specimens collected from the eastern Pacific are smaller than the largest
recorded from the western Atlantic (507 mm or 20.0 inches sl) (Anderson et
a/. 1972), or from Hawaii (355 mm or 13.2 inches sl) (Gosline and Brock 1960).
For comparison I have included descriptive data on the two specimens housed
at SIO (Table 1):

Dorsal-fin rays IX-X,13; anal-fin rays III, 13; pectoral-fin rays 18; pelvic-fin
rays I, 5; principal caudal rays 8 + 8; lateral line scales 55; gill rakers on lower
limb of first arch 1 7-1 8. These counts fall within the ranges given by Ander-
son et a/. (1972) for western North Atlantic specimens.

TABLE 1. Measurements of Eastern Pacific Cookeolus boops in Hundredths

of Standard Length.

SIO SIO

74-72 74-80

Standard length (mm) 169 148

Head length 36 37

Length of upper jaw 18

Length of orbit 12 u

Length of longest pectoral ray 20

Length of longet pelvic ray 55 57

Length of first dorsal spine 6

Length of longest dorsal ray 31

Length of longest anal ray 28

Body depth 48 48

Depth of caudal peduncle 11 12

Length of preopercular spine 5

Length of dorsal base 61

Length of anal base 31

Length of pectoral base 8



220



CALIFORNIA FISH AND CAME



The following data on coloration of the 169-mm or 6.65-inch SL specimen
(SIO 74-72) (Figure 1) were recorded while the specimen was still frozen:
uniform light pinkish red; dusky spotting on tips of jaws and dorsally on head
and dorsum posterior to ninth dorsal spine; two or three scattered dusky blot-
ches on caudal peduncle; dorsal fin with light white to yellowish spines and rays,
membrane uniformly black overlain with yellowish orange posterior to eighth
ray; anal fin with white to yellow rays, membrane with dusky spots becoming
uniformly dusky over distal half of fin, after ninth ray becoming light pinkish
yellow; caudal fin yellowish with orange membranes; pectoral fins light yellow-
ish; pelvic fins with light rays, membrane with dusky spots becoming uniformly
dusky over distal half of fin.




FIGURE 1. Bulleye, Cookeolus boops, collected 300 km off Colfo de Tehuantepec, Mexico (SIO
74-72). Photograph by the author.



Although the bulleye has been collected previously at or near the bottom, one
individual was obtained from the stomach of a yellowfin tuna, Thunnus al-
bacares (Caldwell 1962). Since all the eastern Pacific specimens have been
collected by purse seiners fishing for tuna, this species is probably more pelagic
than benthic. This conclusion is in agreement with that of Fitch and Lavenberg
(1975).



NOTES 221

Fitch and Lavenberg (1975) state that they believe Pristigenys lo be the senior
synonym of Cookeolus rather than Pseudopriacanthus. Current studies on the
intrarelationships of the family Priacanthidae (Fritzsche and Johnson MS) indi-
cate that there is no evidence to supprt synonymy of the fossil genus Pristigenys
with any of the extant priacanthid genera.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful to Richard H. Rosenblatt (SIO) and Robert J. Lavenberg (LACM)
for allowing me to examine and publish on specimens in their care, and especial-
ly to John E. Fitch (California Department of Fish and Game) for allowing me
access to his notes and records.

REFERENCES

Anderson, W. D., jr., D. K. Caldwell, J. F. McKinney, and C H. Farmer. 1972. Morphological and ecological data
on the priacanthid fish Cookeolus boops in the western North Atlantic. Copeia, 1972: 884-885.

Caldwell, D. K. 1962. Western Atlantic fishes of the family Priacanthidae. Copeia, 1962: 417-424.

Fitch, J. E., and R. J. Lavenberg. 1975. Tidepool and nearshore fishes of California. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley. 156
P

Gosline, W. A. and V. E. Brock. 1960. Handbook of Hawaiian fishes. Univ. Hawaii Press, Honolulu. 372 p.

— Ronald A. Fritzsche, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Center for Environ-
mental and Estuarine Studies, Box 38, Solomons, Maryland 20688. Present
address: Department of Biology, The University of Mississippi, University, MS
38677. Contribution No. 739, Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies
of the Univ. of Maryland. Accepted for publication December 1977.



A HERMAPHRODITIC CALIFORNIA HALIBUT,
PARALICHTHYS CALIFORNICUS

A hermaphroditic California halibut was captured February 26, 1970, off
Morro Bay, California. The fish was received by Morro Bay Fisheries, bought by
Independent Fish Company (San Pedro), and finally sold to Billy's Fish Market
(Santa Monica) on February 27. The retail marketman, Mr. Eldon Hardy, noti-
fied the Department of Fish and Game of this unusual specimen and the intact
gonads were picked up by Department personnel. Though the fish was not
observed, biologists familiar with flatfish anatomy identified the gonads as be-
longing to a halibut.

Mr. Hardy described the halibut's total length to be as long as his cleaning
board (61 cm or 24 inches) and weighing 4% to 5 y 2 kg (10 to 12 lb). The fish
was unusually deep bodied and 10 to 11 cm (4 to 4 1 / 2 inches) thick. Its weight
was more than 2 1 / 2 times that of the average halibut at this length. The gonads
were normal in appearance and coloration (Figure 1 ). The testes had running
milt and the ovaries contained maturing granular eggs. The gonads are preserved
in Bouins fluid and are available at the California State Fisheries Laboratory, Long
Beach.



222



CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME



L*3*




FIGURE 1. Male and female gonads of a hermaphroditic California halibut (the lower conical
portions are the ovaries ) . Photograph by author.



-Jack W. Schott, California Department of Fish and Game, Marine Resources
Region, 350 Golden Shore, Long Beach, California 90802. Accepted for publi-
cation March 1978.



NOTES



223



SPINAL COLUMN DEFORMITY IN A PILE SURFPERCH,

DAMAUCHTHYS VACCA

Damalichthys vacca, a member of the viviparous fish family Embiotocidae, is
common to the shallow coastal waters of California (Miller and Lea 1972). On
19 April 1973, California Department of Fish and Game personnel collected a
small number of D. vacca by beach seine in a small coastal embayment formerly
known as Queen's Way Lagoon (Long 118°11'40"VV, Lat 33°45'40"N) and pres-
ently part of the City of Long Beach's Shoreline Aquatic Park.

One of the D. vacca was noticeably stubby when compared to the other pile
surfperch collected. The stubby specimen was a female heavily laden with
young and measured 175 mm (6.9 inches) standard length (sl). Ten embryos
were removed and preserved in a 10% formalin solution with the stubby female
and other portions of the catch. A radiograph of the stubby D. vacca and another
pile surfperch (Figure 1) collected in the same beach seine set was taken to
determine if the fish's unusual shape was due to skeletal abnormalities. The 10
embryos also were radiographed (Figure 2), although they did not appear to
have any structural deformities.




FIGURE 1. (Above) Abnormally developed Damalichthye vacca exhibiting vertebral fusion and
malformations of neural and hemal spines. (Below) Normally developed D. vacca.



224



CALIFORNIA FISH AND CAME




FIGURE 2. Embryos removed from abnormally developed Damalichthys vacca.

The radiograph of the stubby D. vacca revealed numerous vertebral fusions
along the spinal column, particularly in the caudal one-half, and malformed
neural and hemal spines along the entire column (Figure 1). Miller and Lea
(1972) list the range of vertebrae in D. vacca as 34 to 39. The normally devel-
oped specimen in the radiograph had 38 vertebrae while the abnormally devel-
oped specimen appeared to have 33 to 35 ( Figure 1 ) . No lateral or dorso-ventral
curvature was evident. The embryos exhibited no skeletal deformities; although
one had been damaged in its removal from the parent (Figure 2).

Skeletal anomalies have been reported for many species of fish (Dawson
1964, 1966, 1971, 1975) but to my knowledge none have been reported for D.
vacca. The possible environmental or genetic causes of the spinal column de-
formity observed in D. vacca are too numerous to discuss here and I refer the
reader to Hickey (1972) for appropriate treatment of that topic. However, I
believe that the lack of spinal column deformity in the embryos strongly suggests
that the cause of the abnormal condition in the parent is environmental in nature.



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to thank Robert J. Lavenberg of The Natural History Museum of Los
Angeles County for assistance in production of the radiographs. Department of
Fish and Game biologists Peter L. Haaker and Eric Knaggs are thanked for
providing helpful information.



NOTES 225

REFERENCES

Dawson, C. E. 1964. A bibliography of anomalies of fishes. Gulf Res. Reps., 1 (6): 30&-399.

1966. A bibliography of anomalies of fishes. Supplement 1. Gulf Res. Reps., 2(2): 169-176.

1971. A bibliography of anomalies of fishes. Supplement 2. Gulf Res. Reps., 3(2): 215-239.

1975. A bibliography of anomalies of fishes. Supplement 3. Gulf Res. Reps., 5(2): 35-41.

Hickey, C. R. 1972. Common abnormalities in fishes, their causes and effects. New York Ocean Sci. Lab., Tech
Rep. No. 0013: 1-20.

Miller, D. J., and R. N. Lea. 1972. Guide to the coastal marine fishes of California. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game, Fisl
Bull., (157): 1-235.

— Robert N. Tasto, California Department of Fish and Game, Operations Re
search Branch, 411 Burgess Drive, Menlo Park, California 94025. Accepted fo
publication March 1978.



A NOTE ON PRODUCTION MODELING OF POPULATIONS
WITH DISCONTINUOUS REPRODUCTION

Production models commonly employ the assumption that reproduction and
recruitment are continuous events. However, for many species, reproduction
occurs at known intervals; in fish species whose behavior and physiology are
closely linked to environmental conditions, reproduction is often annual or
semi-annual.

Using the usual assumption of exponential rates of mortality, with no fishing,
we have the equation


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9

Online LibraryCalifornia. Dept. of Fish and GameCalifornia fish and game (Volume 64, no. 3) → online text (page 9 of 10)