THE -LANDSCAPE OF COMMERCIAL FISMING IN COOS BAY, OREGON by RODGER P. ADAMS A THESIS Presented to the Department of Geography and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Easter of Arts June 1982 APPROVED : A l v i n W. Urquhart b iii An Abstract of the Thesis of Rodger P. Adams for the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of Geography to be taken June 1982 Title: The Landscape of Comercial Fishing in Coos Bay, Oregon The Coos Bay estuary supports the second largest fishery in Oregon. This thesis looks at the fish resource, the historical developznent of the local fishery from the 1880s to the present, the pattern and extent of conteqorary fishing activity, and the resulting landscape elements that are associated with the fishing industry. Annual catch data of the commercially important species have been recorded and analyzed to explain the historical relationships between the fishery and its landscape. Coos Bay originally developed as a fishing ground, later evolving into a harbor for offshore fishing vessels. The fishery has been characterized by several booms and busts associated with individual species. Fishing activity in the estuary has become centered in the community of Charleston, and dominates the local scene. The recent expansion of fishing activity at Charleston has depended on altering the local environment, advancing fishing technology, and enlarging markets. VITA NAME OF AUTHOR: Rodger P. Adams PLACE OF BIRTH: Eureka, California DATE OF BIZTH: Hay 23, 1953 DMIERGRARUATE AhYB GRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED: Humboldt State University University of Oregon DEGREES A W m E D : Bachelor of Arts, 1975, Rumboldt State University Master of Arts, 1982, University of Oregon AREAS OF SPECIAL IESTEREST: Cultural Geography Land-use Planning Energy Planning Coastal Studies PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE : Instructor, University of Oregon Institute of Marine Biology, 1978 Graduate Teaching Fellow, Department of Gecgraphy, Unfversity of Oregon, 1978-1979 Planner, Coos-Curry Council of Governments, 1980-1981 AklR.DS AND HONORS: Research Grant, University of Oregon Foundation, 1979 VITA continued PUBLICATIONS: City of Bandon Wind Energy Planning Study, Coos-Curry Council of Governments, North Bend, OR, 1982 North Bay Marine Industrial Park Environmental ~mpacf Statement, U.S . A m y Corps of Engineers, Portland, OR, 1982 Urbanization in Brookings, Oregon, 1980-2000, Western Interstate @ommission for Higher Education, Boulder, CO, 1980 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This thesis could not have been completed without the generous efforts of many people. I am indebted to the faculty and fellow gradu- ate students of the Geography Departnrent for their knowledge, encourage- ment, and interest. In particular, my advisor and friend, A1 Urquhart, was instrumental in shaping my thoughts and directing my study. Also, special thanks to fellow student Jeff Wilson for his perspective and insight on the preparation of the document. Finally, I am grateful for the patience of my family and friends, especially Felice Fawcett; their continued faith in me has helped inmeosurably. Special thanks to my rleter, Kathy Gtaff, for her uneelfish support. This thesis was rupported in part by a grant from the University of Oregon Foundation. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I INTRODUCTION 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Mature of the Resource 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Context of the Study 3 . . . . . . . . . . . I1 PHYSICAL ASPECTS OF THE STUDY AREX 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geologic History 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Contfnental Shelf 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Climate and Weather 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TidesandWaves 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DailyWeather 15 I11 TEE RESOURCE BASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Categories of Y'mrine Biomass 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distributional Factors 17 . . . . . . . Overview of the Fish Resource of Coos Bay 34 . . . . . . . . IV HISTORY OF FISHING ACTIVITY IN COOS BAY 39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Setting the Stage 39 . . . . . . . . . . . The Salmon Canning Era. 1880-1918 42 . . . . . . . . . The Rise of Salmon Trolling. 1919.1934 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Diversification. 1936.1959 67 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recent Trends. 1960.1980 81 . . . . . . . . . . . V THE CONTEMPORARY FISHING LANDSCAPE 95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction 95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contemporary Fishing Patterns 95 Landscape Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 The Landscape of Charleston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 viii LIST OF TABLES Page 1 Comaercially Important Groundfish. . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Corps of Engineers Activities in Lower Coos Bay. . . . . 3 Number of Vessels Delivering Shrimp to Coos Bay. . . . . 4 Numbers of Vessels Raving Significant Activities in Only One Fishery, 1979. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Two-Way Multiple Fishery Activity Chart for 1979 . . . . 6 Numbers of Vessels with Selected Three-Way and Four-Way Patterns of Fishery Activities, 1979. . . . . . 7 1980 Oregon Troll Salmon Vessel Catch Distribution . . . 8 Charleston Boat Basin--Commercial Fishing Boat OsY+ers7 Place of Residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Estimated Value at Fishermen's Level of Commercial Food Fish Landings, 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Configuration of Charleston Boat Basin Fleet, 1979 . . . 1 i Moorage Slips in Coos Bay. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES pr GURE Page 1 coos Bay Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2 Offshore Depths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4 patterns of Precipitation, Temperature and Wind in the COOS Bay Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5 Surface Water Isothems in the North Pacific, OC. . . . . 23 6 Occurrence of Coho and Chinook from All Sources in the North Pacific. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 7 General Migration Route--Chinook Salmon . .. . . . . . . . 26 8 North-South Range of Coastal Migration Routes-- Chinook Salmon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7 9 North-South Range of Coastal Migration Routes-- Coho Salmon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8 I Q Albacore Wigration and Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . 3 0 11 Crab Fishing Grounds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 i2 Shrimp Fishing Grounds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 13 Groundfish, Fishing Ground. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3 5 l4 A Typical Columbia River Type Gillnet Boat, Shob~withsail. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3 Removing the Salmon from the Gillnet. . . . . . . . 4 4 j6 Seining for Salmon on the Coos River. . . . . . . . . . 4 5 Canned Salmon Pack, Coos Bay and Tributaries, 1887-1918 . 47 Coos Bay Packing ~ o m ~ a n ~ ' s Salmon Cannery, circa 1900 . . 48 19 Coos Bay Harbor Entrance, 1890. . . . . . . . 52 " Coos Bay Harbor Entrance, 1892. . . . . . . 5 2 LIST OF FIGURES continued Page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coos Bay Harbor Entrance. 1894 53 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coos Bay Harbor Entrance. 1933 53 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rigging of a Salinon Troller 57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A '%'inn-Type" Salmon Troller 59 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A '%omegianW Salmon Troller 59 Coho Landings in Coos Bay. 1923.1935 . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Chinook Landings in Coos Bay. 1923-1935 . . . . . . . . . 60 Comercia1 Landings. Shad and Striped Bass. Coos Bay. 1923-1960 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Catch Range for Coos Bay Salmon Trollers . . . . . . . . . 65 Charles Feller Plant. Marshfield. circa 1925 . . . . . . . 66 Pilchard Landings. 1934-1948 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Albacore Landings. 1937-1959 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1 Oregon Otter-Trawl Landings. 1941-1959 . . . . . . . . . . 74 Coho Landings. 1936.1959 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Chinook Landings. 1936-1959 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 . . . . . . . . . . . . Charleston Boat Basin. 'circa 1964 8 0 Shrimp Landings. 1957.1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Bringing in a Shrimp Net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Albacore Landings. 1960.1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Crab Landings. 1960.1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7 Troll Caught Coho Landings. 1960-1980 . . . . . . . . . . 89 . . . . . . . . . Troll Caught Chinook Lan.dings. 1960-1980 89 . . . . . . . . . Coos Bay Groundfish Landings. 1966-1980 90 LIST OF FIGURES continued st GL%E Page marleston Boat Basin, 1969 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1 a 5 Some of the Larger Shrimpers and Trawlers in the Basin . . 9 3 ~ishing Activity Locations on Coos Bay . . . . . . . . . . 96 4 7 Fishing Seasons for Coos Bay Fishermen . . . . . . . . . . 97 . . . . . . . . k g me Fishing Industry in Charleston. Oregon 105 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . gg The Outer Basin 106 50 White is a Traditional 3oat Color . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 A Fish Receiving Dock 112 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 % Ballmark Fisheries 113 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Charter Ocean Products 113 5 5 A Processing Plant with Retail Outlet . . . . . . . . . . 115 34 Boat Ways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Boat Building Facilities at Barview 116 . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 A Local Business Serving Fishermen 117 . . . 59 The Coast Guard Houses Vessels Ready for Rescue Work 118 Pilings. Shok- at High Tide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 41 A Relic Structure. Originally a Boat Works . . . . . . . . 122 ( 2 Relic Vessels. Seen Through the Community . . . * . . . . 122 6 3 Derelict Fishing Equipment . . . . . . . . . . * * . . . . 123 " Boat Basin Scene 126 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C W T E R ONE INTRODUCTION Whatever its nature, whether spearing a salmon with a stick, or netting tons of shrimp with electronic-laden vessels, fishing represents a primeval response to the enviroament--seeking out elusive quarry for sustenance. By virtue of their access to what is, in concept at Least, a common good available to all who pursue it, today's comercia1 fisher- men are members of one of the last major groups of hunter-gatherers that still exist. Local adaptations to this activity abound throughout the world, the fishery of Charleston, Oregon, located on Coos Bay, being a thriving example. Charleston's fishing industry dominates the community's landscape. Bow did the practice of commercial fishing de- velop here? What is its effect on the local scene? This study offers some answers to both questions by: (1) describing the nature and extent (both temporal and spatial) of Coos Bay's commercial fisheries; and (2) describing the eleaents of the fishing landscape that resulted from this activity. Coos Bay supports the second largest fishery in Oregon; only 1 Astoria is larger. Its fishery is actually made up of five main types: groundfish, shrimp, crab, albacore, and salmon, each of which, singly or in combination with others, support a considerable number of fishermen. They range from part-timers who take day trips in boats under 30 feet long, to full-time fishermen who fish in 90-foot vessels, enabling them to stay out for three weeks or more. In general, the fishery has grown rapidly in the last fifteen years, a trend which is expected to con- tinue. This has primarily been a result of Coos Bay's proximity to productive shrimp and groundfish fishing grounds; these species having greatly increased in economic importance since 1965. In addition, rising fuel costs and other market factors, have increasingly induced fishermen to deliver to the closest port. The Nature of the Resource "The habitat of the quarry apparently is the decisive factor which sets 'fishing' apart from other forns of hunting and gathering" (Hewes, 1948:238). Certain aspects of this habitat, such as buoyancy, turbu- lance, solubility, refraction of light, and its three-dimensional characteristics, make it markedly different from its terrestrial counterparts. NotFng this, Poggie (1974:7) states, Ecological relationships between humans and the ocean are, thus, in many ways unique. Because man is a terrestrial mam- mal, his adaptation to marine habitats has to be mediated by a fairly complex technology even to begin with, because part of the terrestrial environment has to be taken out to sea. Despite the great ingenuity brought to bear on using it, the marine habitat is one of the most challenging and in many ways the most inhospitable to man. While fishing is pursued in environments that distinct from all land environments, differences among these aquatic environslents must be tr considered as well. For example, fishing . . . is limited by the depth of the water. Currents may jeopardize fishing gear, as may rock outcrops on the ocean floor" (Poggie, 1974:8). In addition, fish are found in concentrations either seasonally or in restricted habitats. Some commercially important fish, notably, albacore and salmon, are pelagic (free-swimmers) that roam vast areas in somewhat regular patterns. Salmon, being anadromous, regularly enter coastal streams. That these species seasonally converge enables their efficient capture, in harvests akin to the crop collection of farmers. Other commercially important species, such as groundfish, shrimp, and crab concentrate over the sea floor as a function of bottom conditions and nutrient avail- ability. They are, for the most part, found in the narrow continental shelf just offshore, where they too m y be harvested efficiently. The amount of variability in fish abundance and the degree of predictability of fish movements in a given location are key factors in the development of a center of fishing activity. Context of the Study By nature, fishermen have broad discretion as to when or where to fish, limited only by govemental.regulations in some instances. A fishery is "a cultural response to the presence of a resource, and a decision to exploit it is based on economic values" (Damron, 1975:6). Just as a farmer in Kansas decides to plant soybeans instead of sweet corn, a Pacific fisherman decides to fish for albacore instead of salmon; and in the way that the aggregation of farmers' decisions affect the activity and look of the local farmtown, the aggregation of fisher- men~' decisions affect the landscape of the port. The study of man's activities in maritime environments has received little attention by geographers. The geography of fisheries on the West * Coast has been especially neglected. Some work has been done on the histo- of the development of West Coast fisheries, but little of it has addressed its cultural aspects. One exception is the work of Damron (19751, which looks at the emergence of salmon trolling on the Northwest Coast. However, his study focuses on the process of cultural adaptation to trolling technology, and does not concentrate on trolling's impact on harbor landscapes. Several factors have shaped the contemporary commercial fishing landscape of Coos Bay, including: ~atural environments, especially the abundance and variation in the fish resource; socio-economic conditions which developed through the larger context of settlement and cultural change in the Coos Bay area; and harbor improvements and advances in technology which aade possible more effective exploitation of the resource. In order to achieve an historical perspective, I have arranged this study by tFme periods, beginning with an overview of early commercial fishing on the West Coast and early settlement in the Coos Bay area. Since 1865, the date of the earliest commercial fishing in Coos Bay, many fisheries have come and gone. To gain a sense of the events which caused these booms and busts, I look at the factors which have shaped the Coos Bay fisheries and their landscape. Footnotes 'The term "fishery" can be distinguished by place or species type, or both. In the context of this thesis, the Coos Bay salmon fishery is distinct from the Newport salmon fishery, as well as distinct Prom the coos Bay shrimp fishery. C W T E R TWO PHYSICAL ASPECTS OF THE STUDY AREA To a fisherman returning to harbor from the open ocean, the coast- line around Coos Bay must appear essentially the same as it did to explorers plying the coast over 150 years ago. From offshore, rocky cliffs and bluffs to the south and a long expanse of dune sand to the north, are divided by the entrance to Coos Bay. Coos Bay, the estuary of the Coos River and other small streams, drains approximately 820 square miles of Oregon's Coast Range (Fig. 1). It is 13 miles long and covers 12,000 acres, making it the largest natural harbor in Oregon south of the Columbia River. Geologic History The coastal area of Oregon has been characterized throughout much of geologic time by complex interaction between the adjacent oceanic and continental crustal plates. Much of this coastline remained part of the ocean floor until relatively recent times. During this long period, deposition of sea floor basalts alternated with thick accumulations of offshore and shallow-sea sediments. The source for these sediments was apparently the ancestral Klamath Mountains and thick submerged piles of volcanics. Since the beginning of the Eocene epoch, roughly 60 million years ago, the pattern of deposition in the area became controlled by a long ,,,pence of regressions and progressions of the coastline. The rocks deposited during this period contain evidence of beach, lagoonal, and deltaic environments, with minor periods of folding, faulting, and erosion occurring between most of the units. This pattern continued into the Pliocene epoch, about 10 million years ago, when regional uplift caused the southern part of the Oregon coastal area to emerge fro= the sea. Since then, glacially-induced fluctuations in sea level have combined with continued regional uplift to create a well-preserved complement of marine terraces, which can be seen in the area at elevations from 50 to 1,500 feet, with the higher terraces representing progressively older inundations. The latest sudden rise in sea level, associated with the close of the most recent (Wisconsin) glacial period, flooded the mouths of the major coastal rivers, creating the present- day estuaries which continue to shift position and shape (U.S. Amy Engineers District, 1979:Z-1; CCCOG, 1980:VI-1). The path of the Coos River near the mouth was formed by the down- warping sedimentary bedrock in the immediate area. South Slough and Charleston Channel are separated from the ocean by a 400 foot ridge consisting of shale and sandstone. The local strata, folded along a north-south axis directed the flow northward at the point which is now the upper portion of the bay. Accreting sand along the North Spit re- sulted in a wide fluctuation of the position of the mouth. Its present southern position, now stabilized by jetties, has given the presently inundated estuary its distinctive horseshoe shape. The Continental Shelf Offshore, the continental shelf is comparatively narrow (25 km), directly west of Coos Bay. North of the bay, the shelf widens to 70 km, but even this is narrow compared to the continental shelf in the Gulf of Mexico or the Atlantic Ocean where it extends several hundred kilometers (Loy, 1976:22). The break in slope occurs at a depth of about 100 fathoms, with the continental slope extending out another 50 km (Fig. 2). Bottom sediments on the shelf are supplied to a large extent by the Columbia River and from the mjor southern coastal rivers such as the Rogue, Siuslaw, and Empqua. Not all sediments are of continental origin, however. A portion of the bottom sands have been produced from the break-up of subsurface rock. Of these sediments, glauconite is the most common, and is often found on the Continental slope. In addition, biogenic sediments (from the waste and skeletons of sea creatures) have formed some of the mud deposits found on the bottom (Kulm, 1977:15-16) (Fig. 3). Longshore currents are the major mechanism by which sand is trans- Ported along the coast. The surface currents move southward in summer and northward in winter, concurring with the prevailing winds of those seasons. The net littoral drift is to the north. During summer, when currents flow southward, strong upwelling water close to shore brings nutrients important to marine life from the bottom to the surface. 10 offshore Depths "WINCHESTER BAY I FIGURE 2 Offshore Sediments NEHALEM BAY JllUMOOK BAY YA,QUIWA BAY WfNCHESTER BAY -- FIGURE 3 Climate and Weather Because coastal Oregon is in the path of the Westerlies, the cli- m t e of the south coast is characterized by the mediating effects of marine weather. The U.S. Climatological station at North Bend records temperature and precipitation data throughout the year (Fig. 4). The winter season consists of relatively mild, wet weather because low pressure systems dominate the offshore source region. Most precipi- tation occurs during winter cyclonic storms which swing in from off- shore. These moisture-laden air inasses rise and cool as they hit the rugged topography of the coast, resulting in light rain and drizzle as they pass over. Eighty percent of the average annual precipitation at North Bend occurs in the months Getober through March, with 50% occurring in the months November, December, and January. The average daily temperature in January (the coldest month) ranges during the day from a low of 8" C to a high of 12' C. The mean daily range of temperatures is fairly low during the winter months because of Coos Bay's proximity to the ocean and also because generally cloudy condi- tions keep the maximum temperature down by reflecting incoming radia- tion, and keep the minimum temperature up by blocking outgoing radia- tion. Winter winds are steady, with occasional strong gales. Average wind velocity is 15 mph. During this season, winds blow almost exclu- sively from the south and southwest (Fig. 4). By contrast, the summer season is characterized by very stable off- shore high pressure systems vh,ich bring warmer, drier weather to the south coast. Tweaty percent of the annual precipitation occurs in the ;nonths April through September, with only 4% occurring in the months June, July, and August. The average daily temperature in August (the warmest month) ranges during the day from a low of 12" C to a high of 20" C. Note that the mean daily range in temperature is higher in summer than winter, because of the lack of cloud cover. But even this variation is substantially lower than inland temperature ranges because of the inediating effects of the coastal location. Sumer breezes are steady and moderate, with an average velocity of 17 mph. Winds blow from the north and northwest and are usually associated with clear, sunny days (Loy, 1976:130-132, 136-138). Tides and Tnfaves To fishemen, tides and tidal currents are an important component of the harbor's physical environment. Coos Bay's tides range from an extreme high of 10.5 feet above MLLW to 3 feet below MLLW (U.S. A m y Engineer District, 1979:2-1). The mean tidal range is 5.2 feet with a diurnal range (from MKHW to MLLW) of 7.0 feet (Percy, 1974:50). Tides and winds (both local and distant) form the seas and swells that occur offshore and in the bay. In the winter, seas greater chan 8 feet and swells greater than 12 feet occur from the westerly directions about 20 and 30% of the time, respectively. During the summer, northerly winds produce waves in the bay that are often as high as 1 to 2 feet (U.S. Amy Engineers District, 1979:2-3). Dailv Weather The above data give a good indication of the climate of the area, but not a very good feeling for the day-to-day weather which local fishermen must cope with. Most days have some cloudiness, and high fog is often continually present for weeks at a time, especially during the winter. Summer and fall days often begin with a low fog that burns off in the early afterdon. Most of the time it seems as if rain is imminent. North Bend averzges 163 days with some precipitation (Loy, 1976:137) . Average daily wind velocity patterns show that mornings are relatively calm, with the wind picking up in the afternoon. The local topography causes micro-clfiilatic variations in weather and tidal patterns. Precipitation changes dramatically as a function of distance from the coastline. From an average of about 50 inches along the coast, the precipitation increases to 120 inches on the western slopes of the interior uplands. At the same time, local surface winds are substantially lower inland compared to areas adjacent to the ocean. Wind patterns vary widely even within the confines of the estuary itself. Consequently, wave patterns in the bay are highly variable in both a temporal and spatial sense. THE RZSOiTRCE BASE There is no component of the physical environment that is any more important to fishermen than the fish resource itself. Consequently, assessment of comercia1 stocks is an important part of this study. However, no attempt is made to study exhaustively the population dynamics for the various species. Rather, the attempt here is to catalog the geographic extent and movements of commercial food species important to Coos Bay fishermen. Categories of Marine Biolnass 1 The marine biomass can be divided into two realms: the pelagic and the benthic. Pelagic organisms float or swim in the water; benthic organisms rest on, are attzched to, or burrow into the sea bottom. Pelagic life is made up of three categories: phytoplankton, zoo- plankton, and nekton. Phytoplankton include free floating and drifting plants, diatoms, dinoflaggelates, and certain algae. They are the pri- mary producers of organic matter in the sea. Production occurs through photosynthesis, using energy from solar radiation and inorganic nutri- ents from the seawater. The zooplankton includes all animals unable to &-in effectively against the horizontal currents of the oceans. Mzich of the zooplankton population, meroplankton, is comprised of larval benthic and nektonic organisms. A large portion of the zooplankton are herbivores which Serve as a link between primary producers and many of the larger carnivorous nektonic organisms. The nekton include all ani- mals able to swim against the horizontal ocean currents for prolonged of time. Although there is no sharp distinction, the larger size and the stronger locomotory ability differentiate the nekton from the plankton. Because of their ability to migrate, many nektonic species occupy only a small part of their possible range at any one time. The great majority of the commercially important marine fish belong to the nekton and most available spatial information relates to these. Some nektonic species, although free swiming, utilize the bottom to such an extent (e.g. halibut) as to be classified within the benthic realm. These are known as denersal species. Most benthic aniaals have planktonic larvae. The primary sources of food for the benthos are the planktonic organic detritus, and in shallow water, the larger algae and flowering plants. Distributional Factors The geographic extent of any resource has direct impact on its pat- tern of exploitation. But unlike many resources used by man, one characteristic of fish is undeniable--they move around. This movement within geographic limits gives rise to variability in the location of Particular species at different times of the year. A fishing resource can be divided into two categories, riverine and Wrine. Anadromous fish utilize both environnents and as such, must be adapted to both. Species that are exclusively riverine are not of c,mercial importance to Coos Bay fishermen and are not considered here. Clearly, differences exist in the variables that affect the distribution of fish in each of these realms, and these will be described in turn. Anadromous Distribution Migratory behavior is an evolutionary response to seasonal varia- tion in environmental conditions. For anadromous species, it has been shown that variables in riverine environments have the most impact on their seasonal distribution (Shalk, 1977:211-222), so the emphasis in this discussion is the relationship between the stability of rfverine ecosystems, species, diversity, and productivity in a temporal and spatial context. Shalk points out that in the Northeastern Pacific, the geographic extent of various species is dependent on latitude and drainage basin size. Starting at the southern extremes of anadromous fish distribu- tions (e.g. central and southern California), precipitation is generally low, evapotranspiration high, and temperatures rela- tively high and equable. The obvious kind of instability most common in riparian environments of such areas is low dis- charge--periods when spawning is difficult or impossible due to insufficient stream flow. Excessive temperatures may also preclude spak-ning during the warmer portions of the year even if stream flow were sufficient. Moving northward to more central areas of anadroinous fish distributions (e.g. Oregon to southeast Alaska), increased precipitation and decreased tem- perature and evapotranspiration probably produce the most equitable riparian conditions throughout the yearly cycle. To the north of this central zone, evapotranspiration, tempera- ture, and precipitation all decrease but possibly the most important point is that runoff is minimal due to freezing for increasingly longer periods of the year. In terms of the con- ditions that anadromous fish respond to, it appears that stability in discharge of rivers diminishes both to the north and to the south of a broad intermediate zone where stability is highest. . . . This pattern is approximately coincident with patterns of species diversity in anadromous fishes (Shalk, 1977:217). Shalk also notes that larger rivers tend to be more stable than smaller rivers and therefore capable of supporting more species; in stability decreases in an upstream direction and is accom- panied by decreased species diversity. As a result, variations in species productivity are shown to be directly correlated with river size and inversely correlated with distance upstream. Variations in productivity along a latitudinal gradient have not been well established. However, fluctuations in productivity are also directly related to the stability of the riverine environments, therefore fluctuations are less extreme in the broad intermediate zone referred to earlier, as well as the larger watersheds. The period of time that fish are engaged in anadromous behavior directly affects the timing and duration of their availability. This temporal context is important--it has been the basis for seasonal variability in fishing landscapes in any locale. Shalk (1977:222) describes the patterns: To sumarize temporal patterns, it is evident that there are two major dimensions of variability. Ignoring species diversity and river size, fish migrations are more temporally compressed moving from south to north. In addition, the sea- son during which fish move into rivers changes from all year round or throughout the winter at the southern extreme to mid- summer at the northern extreme. Thus, congruency of fish migrations with the terrestrial growing season increases to the north. Ignoring latitude, the period of availability is obviously a direct function of species diversity. Thus, larger rivers, Eore stable rivers, and particularly the lower trunks of large and stable drainages offer longer periods of resource availability. Smaller rivers with few species or the upper tributaries of any drainage offer much shorter periods during which fish mag be taken. The extreme temporal compres- sion of resource availability would occur in small rivers of the far north. Marine Distribution The comparatively low primary productivity of streams which anadromous fish utilize is precisely the characteristic they are looking for--enabling their eggs and smolts to flourish without much competition or danger from larger fish. This adaptation to riverine environments has necessarily limited their distribution in marine environments, based on tolerances to temperature, salinity, and food avaiiability. This points out a very basic fact--a species' geographic limit in marine environments is predicated on adaptations to specific biotic and physical-chemical factors. . . . recent work in the Pacific has einphasized the close rela- tionship between species limits and the limits of water masses with their characteristic temperature-salinity-circulation patterns. In the Pacific there appear to be unique faunas and probably floras in each weter mass as well as in the transition regions, between water masses (Biere, 19662686). Each individual species has specific physical-chemical limitations that determine its geographic extent. These are discussed in more detail later. But distribution or density of a species within a particular geographic area is based on the availability of food. Ignoring patchiness, the average abundance of a pelagic species in a given area within its range is largely deter- mined by available food, which is ultimately dependent on the supply of mineral nutrients to the phytoplankton. Thus the highest reported concentrations of nekton and zooplankton are in regions of upwelling of mineral nutrients along the eastern temperate sides of the oceans, in regions of marked seasonal overturn of water as in the subarctic and subantarctic, or in areas of nutrient replenishment from the land, especially in bays and estuaries (Bieri, 1966:685). TO expand on this notion, it is apparent that concentrations of fish depend on a high degree of primary production, which is dependent on photosynthesis activity, and therefore ultimately dependent on .utrfent availability and the amount of solar radiation. Consequently, it is not a surprise that there are noticeable seasonal as well as geo- graphic variations in priinary production in the North Pacific. Because the period of light availability is compressed into a shorter summer, with longer days towards the higher latitudes, the period of photosynthetic activity must also decrease in duration, even though the magnitude of production may increase, with greater nutrient availability. The ultimate consequence of these interactions is the short biological explosion of an arctic plankton bloom (Shalk, 1978:35). Many pelagic species respond to these changes in primary produc- tivity by moving in huge gyres from north to south with the seasons. As expected, their movement north in the sumer and south in the winter corresponds with their tolerances to water temperatures and salinity. Many demersal species also exhibit migratory behavior by moving toward shore in sumer where it is more productive, returning to outer waters in the winter to spawn. Salmon Of the five species of Pacific Salmon native to North America, chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawtscha), coho (0. - kisutch), sockeye (0. - nerka), chum (0. keta), and pink (0. Gorbuscha), two are important to 2__ - - - Coos Bay fishermen: the chinook and coho. Salmon generally spakn in late summer or early autumn. Approxi- mately 10% of the eggs hatched survive as fry to emerge the following (McNeil, 1 9 7 5 : 1 4 ) . This energence coincides with the increased and secondary production of food which occurs in streams during the spring months. Both species feed in freshwater for up to a year before going to sea. The coho feed in ocean waters for one to two years, while chinooks may feed in marine habitats for up to five years. Salmon return to their original spawning grounds using olfactory clues to recognize their home stream. Upon reaching their birth place, the adult fishes spawn in order to start the cycle anew. The fact that salmon are anadromous, necessitates a look into both their fresh water and salt water habitats. While at sea, salmon use a pasture area which is approximately twice the size of the continental U.S. One primary indicator of the geographic limits of salmon offshore is water tenperature (Fig. 5). Each of the salmon species has a range of preferred temperatures. These ranges have been loosely established L by numerous research efforts. Based on these studies, the geographic extent of each of the species has been extrapolated. Figure 6 shows the range of coho and chinook from all sources. The change in ocean temperatures generally causes salmon to migrate north during the summer and south dux-ng the winter. Some salmon travel in excess of 3,000 miles from their home stream. Little is known about the offshore migration routes of salmon returning to spawn. R. L. Major ( 1 9 7 8 : 6 ) said of the Chinook: For those populations of chinook salmon that spend a significant portion of their lives distributed on the high seas, it can be asked: "When do they begin homeward migra- tion? m a t is the rate of travel? The route? When do they arrive in the waters adjacent to their spawning stream?" Despite our expanded knowledge about distribution and abundance of chinook salmon on the high seas, however, these 23 Surface Water Isotherms in the North ~ a c i f i c , ~ C Source: Manzer, 1965 FLGURE 5 - Oceurrance o f coho and chinook salmon from all s o u r c e s i n t h e North P a c i f i c Ocean. Coho show d e f i n i t e s e a s o n a l p a t t e r n s . Data from sample c a t c h e s o f chinook do n o t r e v e a l abrupt ly d e f i n e d l i m i t s which might s u g g e s t a preferred temperature range. questions reinain largely unanswered . . . although tagging has fairly well established the fact that the migration route of returning to southeastern Alaska, British Columbia, washington, Oregon, and California streams is largely southeasterly. ~ h ~ ~ , this generql pattern for chinook migration is northvestward for feeding and southeastward for maturing adults (Fig. 7), although some feeding chincok move to the south, as indicated by recoveries off Oregon even occasionally off California, of marked fish from the Colu&ia River (Loef f el, 1968 : 2). Migration routes of the coho are less well understood than chinook, with both northgard and southward movements from home streams oceurring in varying instances. Van Hyning (1951:52), using tagging results, indicated that coho off the Oregon coast generally migrated southward to feed, returning northward to spawn. These coastal migration routes are important in that the participating fish are those which become available to commercial trollers. Consequently, salmon originating in one country or state aigrate through and are fished on in the territorial waters of another (Figs. 8 and 9 ) , as well as in international waters. The salmons' spawning range in North America extends from 35"N northward, Coho salmon range from streams in Northern California to the Yukon River and spam at locations up to several miles inland. Chinook salmon extend farther south than the other species, ranging from the Sacramento River in California to the Yukon River in Alaska. Spawning dates along the coast range from late summer in the north to early winter in the south. Naturally, watersheds which encompass spawning area (even though spawning streams may not comprise the entire General Migration Route Chinook Salmon SCALE 0 200 400 ~ U = - 100 300 500 Miles FIGURE 7 North-Swth Range of Coastal Migration Routes Chinask Salmon 0 200 400 100 300 500 Miles FIGURE 8 North-South Range of Coastal Migration Routes Coho Salmon SCALE 0 200 400 ='=%--- 100 300 500 Miles - - - - - - - - - - FIGURE 9 have an impact on salmon survival. Figure 5 shows the extent m=e areas. uf th-- Albacore Another comercial fish important to Oregon fishermen, which also extensive migrating behavior is the albacore tuna (Thunnus ~lalunga). The region off the Oregon and Washington coast represents the northern end of the range within which conimercially harvestable con- centrations of albacore are usually found. There is basically a single population of albacore in the North Pacific. This population migrates between two major fisheries--that of the U.S. West Coast and a large area east of southern Japan (FAO, 1972). The time and place of appearance of Albacore in the American fishery Is determined by water temperature. Albacore prefer water between 5 8 " ~ and 7 0 " ~ . They usually appear somewhere off the coast of Baja California where the surface waters reach 57". The earlier the warming influence moves north, the earlier the albacore move with it. The farther north this warning moves the farther north albacore travel (Browiiing, 1974:ll). Therefore, fishing activity tends to move northward as the season (June-November) Progresses, reaching the area of Oregon around mid-July in most years. m e fishery generally peaks in August and lasts until the end of October. Because the Oregon-Washington fishery is at the northern extension of the albacore range, it tends to be more variable than =%ions to the south, so their appearance is more variable. Most of the fish are caught at distances from 50 to 150 miles from land (Browning, (l974 : 11). The map showing Albacore distribution (Figure 10) illustrates the relationship between the Japanese fishing area and the fishing area of North Ainerica. FIGURE 19 Crab Dungeness crab (Cancer magister) is the only crab of commercial importance in Oregon. It is found from mid-California to the Aleutian Islands of Alaska. The Dungeness usually breed in May and June in shallow coastal water or estuaries. The female carries the fertilized eggs until the following winter. The crab larvae spend about 12 weeks in free-swiming form until June when they settle to the bottom. They reach sexual maturity at the end of the third year and reach hsrvestable Sfze after four years. Dungeness prefer a sand bottom although they can be found in rock and gravel. The crabs are rarely found at depths greater than 50 fathoms, so fishing grounds are necessarily close to shore (Fig. 11). Approximately 90% or more of all the legal size Dungeness are taken in offshore waters in Oregon each year. However, because of their high reproductive capacity the harvestable population is replaced year by year. Fluctuations in populaticn are determined by other natural factors such as disease, temperature changes, salinity changes, and predation (Browning, 1974:20). Crabs have been found to undertake coastwise migrations of 80 miles or more. Tagged crabs have been known to move from one bay to another (Cleaver, 1951:71). Shrimp Of the many species of shrimp found along the Pacific Coast, only one species, a small pink shrimp (Pandalus jordani) is caught conmer- cially off Oregon. Although they are found throughout the Pacific coast at depths of 20 to 250 fathoms, the most important concentrations are along the Oregon coast (Fig. 12). Comercial catches are made at depths from 40 to 140 fathoms, along mud or mud and sand bottoms. The shrimp become available to trawl gear when they are approximately one year old (Zirges, 1980: 1). Groundf ish Groundfish include the many species of rockfish, flatfish, and roundfish that are primarily deaersal (Table 1). Depending on the Crab Fishing Grounds ' MEHALEW BAY r T !UMQOK BAY ....... ............. g:i<<<:r3 YAQUINA BAY .......... ALBEA BAY WbJNCHESTER BAY COOS BAY C ~ l l f o r n ! ~ FIGURE 11 3 3 Shrimp Fishing Grounds NEHALEM BAY TILbAMBQK BAY YACdUlNA BAY WINCHESTER BAY APE B t A M C O FIGURE 12 TABLE 1, Commercially Important Groundfish Sablefish (Black cod) (Anoplopoma fimbria) Ling cod (Ophiodon elongatus) Pacific hake (Merluccius ~roductus) True cod (Gadus callarias) Rockfishes (Sebates z. ) Pacific Ocean ~erch IS. alutus) - Orange rockfish (S. pinneger) Red rockfish (~ed-snapper) (S. ruberrimus) Black rockfish (Black seabass) ( S -. melanops) Flatfishes Halibut (Kippoglossus stenolepis) Petrale sole (eopsetta jordani) English sole (Parophys vetuius) Dover Sole QMicrostomus aacificus) Starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus) Rock sole (Lepidopsetta bilineata) SOURCE: Browning (1974) and Thompson (1974). variety, groundfish are found on mud, sand, or gravel bottoms, at depths of up to 100 fathoms. Location of the fishing grounds is a function of bottom conditions, depths, and proximity to ~arket (Fig. 13). Overview of the Fish Resources of Coos Bay Because each commercially iaportant species has its own locational and movement patterns, access to these fish varies in time and space. As a result, each port along the coast has access to a different configuration. What are the factors which typify Coos ~ay's situation relative to the resource? The most significant are its 35 Groesndf ish Fishing Grounds NEWALEM BAY '61LUWOQBC BAY YAQLlrtNA BAY APE BLANCQ FIGURE 13 latitudinal location, the relative size of its drainage basin, and the local offshore bottom characteristics. Coos Bay's latitudinal location is of significance primarily to the species. For the salmon, Coos Bay lies at the southern end of the broad intermediate zone referred to on page 18 and the attendant &aracteristics of the zone apply to Coos Bay. For the albacore, the south coast of Oregon is toward the northern end of its range, and they do not appear as regularly as farther south. The crab, shrlnp, and groundfish are bottoin dwellers; their habitat is much more latitudinally uniform than those species which use the surface. Hence, the latitude of Coos Bay is not a particularly relevant factor with respect to these species. The Coos River drainage basin is relatively small, compared to many other fishing areas with substantial activity. This means that the salmon runs which have occurred in the Coos River system have been less extensive rhan runs in many other streams such as the Columbia, the Rogue, and the Umpqua. On the other hand, the comparatively large size of the estuary itself provides large amounts of nutrients for the production of primary 2nd secondary biomass. Thus the estuary acts as an incubator for larval benthic, denersal, and pelagic species. Many of the species b o n in the estuary Dove offshore to contribute to the marine biomass. When the nutrients and planktons which are swept offshore become available (by for secondary production, the result is a very productive Offshore environment. In addition, the variety of offshore bottom provide for a varied habitat for many benthic species. Coos Bay is close to prime fishing grounds for shrimp and groundfish. Crab are more evenly distributed throughout the coast. All of these factors: relatively high variability in the local riverine environment, relatively low variability in the offshore environment, relatively high productivity offshore, shorter period of time of resource availability in the riverine environment relative to offshore, and Coos Bag's latitudinal position relative to the ocean water masses, have created a unique resource configuration. Naturally, this led to a unique pattern of exploitation. Footnotes 1 General information contained here is derived from articles from several authors in the Encyclopedia of Oceanography, R. W. Fairbridge, Ed. New York, 1966. 2 ~ o r a fairly comprehensive look at salmon ragging experiments and other offshore salmon research, see the series of bulletins by the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission entitled "Salmon of the ~ o r t h Pacific Ocean," 1976-1981, Vols. I-IX. CHAPTER FOUR HISTORY OF FISHING ACTIVITY IN COOS BAY Setting the Stage Most of what has been written about the early history of fishing and the development of fishing coimnunities in the Pacific Northwest has centered on the Columbia River Basin. Although the Columbia is recog- nized as an early node of commercial fishing activity, fishing developed concurrently adjacent to the coastal streams of Oregon. The modest be- ginnings of a commercial f1shez-y which emerged in Coos Bay is best viewed ~ithin the context of the development of adequate technology and the history of settlement in the Coos Bay area. Early Development of the Pacific Fishery Early explorers in the Pacific Northwest noted that Native herican fisheries existed all along the coast and throughout the Columbia Basin. Danron (1975~17) states that ". . . the salmon sustained the northwest coastal Indians and served as a basis of their surprisingly complex and affluent culture." Early references to Native American fishing activity in the Coos Bay area come from Jedediah Smith's trip up the coast in 1827 (Peterson, 1952:17). Although it is not specifically knob= what type of gear the local aboriginals used to harvest fish, it was undoubtedly representative of one or more of the technologies found at that time elsewhere in the Pacific Northwest. This gear included traps, weirs, baskets, spears, hook and line, seine nets, set nets, and dip nets. (Many good descriptions of Native American fishing technology and methods have been written. See Hewes 119471 and Wilkes [?845].) According to an early resident, local Indians used spears and traps to harvest salmon as well as other fish and eels (Peterson, 1952:23). Damron (1975:18) mentions that a few Indians in Oregon trolled offshore by rowing their canoes to offshore reefs, and using handlines to tow baited hooks. Early attempts at commercial fishing were mostly centered along the Lower Columbia River. In the 1830s, the Hudson Bay Company, among others, began purchasing salmon caught by natives, cured them, then shipped them to markets throughout the world. The first known effort in establishing a fishery on the Oregon coast was along the Rogue River. As early as 1859, salmon were pickled and shipped to San Francisco (Cobb, 1930:437). Bowever, because of poor preserving methods salmon trade in the Northwest remained small. A significant coastal salmon industry awaited improved canning techniques, which arrived in the In 1864, George and William Hume, with the assistance of Andrew Hapgood, a tinsmith, established a salmon cannery in Sacramento, Cali- fornia, using salmon caught in the River. Because of relatively ineffective canning procedures, skeptical consumers, and dwindling salmon runs, this venture was unsuccessful. Using what they had learned in California, the Humes moved to the Columbia River in 1866, where salmon canning rapidly took hold (Smith, 1977:5). In 1876, R. D. Hume built a cannery on the Rogue River which was the earliest cannery on the Oregon Coast (Bayden, 1930:13). By 1880, there were 30 canneries on the columbia River, and an additional 25 elsewhere in the state (Damron, 1975: 19). Early Settlement of the Coos Bay Area Several coastal communities in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska grew around the establishment of salmon canneries and other fisheries. In Coos Bay, however, the Bay's first salmon cannery opened in the i880~, after the establishment of several local comunities. The inhabitants of Empire (founded 1853), Marshfield (now Coos Bay, founded 1854) and North Bend (founded 1855) were engaged in sawmilling and coal mining for San Francisco and Portland markets. Both of these economic activities were initiated in the 1850s and by the early 1880s had become flourishing industries. Some of the ships used in exporting coal and lumber were built locally. Prior to 1870, 14 sailing vessels and 17 steam vessels were constructed (Dodge, 1898:149). Harbor improvements began in 1880 with the construction of a stabilizing jetty in the bay, and while not of significance to early comercial fishermen in the bay, subsequent harbor improvements became important to commercial fishing activity later. Early reports of the bay's economy indicated a boom-town atmosphere for the first 30 years. The population of Marshfield in 1884 was reported at 800 (Peterson, 1952:lOl). In the 1 8 8 0 ~ ~ however, poor market conditions for coal and lumber products led to a downturn in the local economy (Peterson, 1952:99; Dodge, 1898:157). This downturn set the stage for economic diversification which included conmercial salmon canning. The Salmon Canning Era, 1880-1918 The beginnings of the commercial fishing in Coos Bay are obscure. Peterson (1952:107) refers to a Mr. Eckhoff, who purchased property in 1865, built a house, and "fished for salmon each autumn, salting, packing, and shipping them to San Francisco, assisted by some of his daughters." Doubtlessly a number of other early settlers in Coos Bay engaged in this activity; numerous references in the 1870s and 1880s were made to local fishermen. Hcwever, the salmon fishing industry remained a small scale venture until salmon canneries were introduced to the area. Salmon was canned in Coos Bay fron the 1880s (records begin in 1887), until 1918, when the last cannery in the area closed down. Fishing Methods Salmon fishermen in Coos County during this period principally used gill nets. Some seining was done as well. The two kinds of gillnets, drift and set, were generally con- structed from flax or linen and hung between a rope with cork floats and a line with lead sinkers, which kept the net vertical in the water. On the coastal streans of Oregon, the nets averaged about 750 feet long and about 30 feet deep (Cobb, 1930:477). The boat used in Coos Bay for gillnetting was undoubtedly very similar to a boat known as the Columbia River type, as this distinctive boat was used all along the Northwest Coast (Spurlock, 1939~81) (Fig. 14) . Boats wi th s a f l s o r o a r s were probably used i n t he e a r l y days . FIGURE 14. A Typfcal Columbia River Type G i l l n e t Boat, Shown wi th S a i l . (Source: Spurlock, 1939) Drf f t n e t t i n g was done p r imar i ly i n t h e bay, a l though some w a s done i n t he Coos River. Most f i s h i n g was done a t n igh t . When f i s h i n g i n t h e r i v e r s , i t w a s necessary t o work i n a s t r a i g h t s t r e t c h of water (a I t reach") of f a i r l y uniform depth f r e e from snags (Cobb, 1930:438). To s e t t h e n e t , t h e boa t w a s rowed ac ros s t h e stream o r e s tua ry , rJhile t h e ne t was l a i d out a t r i g h t ang le s t o t h e cu r r en t . The n e t was usua l ly put ou t about an hour before high water s l a c k , s o t h a t i t would i n t e r c e p t salmon running i n , and taken i n about an hour a f t e r t he t u r n of t he t i d e . The n e t was hauled i n t o t h e boat over a r o l l e r . The f i s h which had become gilled in the nesh were removed, killed by a blow on the head, and thrown into the bottcm of the boat (see Fig. 15). FIGURE 15. Removing the Salmon from the Gillnet (Source: Cobb, 1930) Set nets were constructed in the same manner as drift nets, although they usually were smaller. These nets were staked, or sone- times anchored, with at least one end attached to the shore or to a stake set in the water. Set nets were generally used in Coos River, while drift nets were used in the Bay (Cobb, 1930:436). The majority of the gillnet fishermen operating in the coastal rivers had homes along the streams and supplemented their incozies by f a m i n g or logging In other seasons (Spurlock, 1939:76). Some local fishermen used seines instead of gillnets to capture their salmon. In 1888, for example, approximately 10,000 fish, repre- senting 20% of the total Coos Bay catch were caught using this method (Oregon State Board of Fish Comissioners, 1888:?8). Seining in Coos Bay and Coos River was apparently done on a nuch smaller scale than that which was practiced on the Columbia, where horses and nets up to 2,000 feet long vere used. In Coos Bay the relatfvely small nets were used to simply surround schools of salnon and quickly haul them in (see Fig. 16). FIGURE 16. Selning for Salmon on the Coos River (Source: Feller, a-d.) Host fishemen were under contract by the local canneries and generally fished on company-owned boats. Deliveries were made on a d a i l y b a s i s . At the turn of the century, Puget Sound, the Columbia River, and the San Francisco/Monterey area were the primary centers of fishing activity on the Pacific Coast. Coos Bay ranked with Juneau, Sitka, ~etchikan, Rogue River, Crescent City, Eureka, and Fort Bragg as secondary centers of activity. Isolated references indicate the level of fishing activity at Coos Bay. In 1892, for example, 38 men were engaged in fishing, including six men engaged in sea fishing (Oregon State Board of Fish Commissioners, 1891-92:33). In 1895, the fish apparatus used on Coos Bay consisted of 35 boats and 66 gillnets (Oregon Fish & Game Protector, 1895-96:70). The Canneries Some confusion exists as to the founding date of the first cannery in the Bay. Peterson (1952:439) reports that "[salmon canning] began on Coos Bay sometime in the 1880s--the first was on lower Coos River, the second at Empire, the third in the late 1890s in Harshfield." Elsewhere in his account, Peterson (1952:98) mentions that the Empire cannery was built sometime around 1883. Cobb (1930:436), however, writes that the first two canneries in Coos Bay opened for business in 1887, but he does not report their location. Dodge, on the other hand, connects the ioca- tion of the first cannery with Marshfield, but does not give an exact date: "The cannery, where salnon equal to any on the coast are packed extensively, has been established during the depressing times [c. 1880~1 by the cooperative action of the energetic men of the town" (Dodge, 1898:158). While ~odge's observation does not clear up the confusion as to the date of the firs: cannery, it does give some indication that building a cannery was an attempt toward diversifying the local economic base. This was apparently done to help ease the dependence on the local resources xbich were exhibiting ailing markets. Figure 17 sh~ws the pack of canned salmon in Coos Bay for the period of record. During mcst of the years only one cannery operated, although in some years two canneries were in business. Many years show no pack. Over the course of this period salnon was also salted for export, 2nd of course, some fresh fish was consumed locally. For example, in 1892, a year in which no cannery operated, about 1,000 Canned Salmon Pack, I Csas Bay and Tributaries, 800 1887-1918 700 600 5, C 0 400 rn 8 so0 B E ZOO 100 0 1890 1900 1905 1% 10 1915 1920 ZlEAR Pio record for p a r s 1891,190Or1!?17 No pack in years :8?0,1192,1903,1905,1907.1908 So canning since Ilfll) Source: Cobb, 1930 F I G U R E 1 7 barrels of salaan were salted and about 50,000 Ibs. used fresh. Unfor- tunately, only sporadic records exist on these other methods of eonsumption and production. The figures show that the canning business fluctuated consider- ably during this period, apparently more because of the markets than of the abundance of the resource. A report in 1891 attributes no pack in Coos Bay for the previous year because of "oversupply at high prices'' (Oregon State Board of Fish Commissioners, 1891). Many other coastal streams also reported no canning for that year. Se~eral owners snd operators came and went, including: the Tallant-Grant Packirrg Company of Empire; the Southern Oregon Company in both Empire arid Marshfield; and the Coos Bay Packing Company in Marsh- field. Mcne of the strucrures exist today. FIGURE 18. Coos Bay Packing Company's Salinon Cannery, circa 1900 (Source: Marshfield Sun, 1901) The Decline of the Canneries The canneries provided a means to preserve fish for the long period between processing and the time it reached the retailer's shelves. How- ever, the introduction of cold storage and improved transportation eventually changed the desirability of preservation by canning. Cold storage was introduced to fish processing plants on the Columbia River in the late 1880s (Cobb, 1930:540). By 1890, mechanical refrigeration was becoming common in railroad cars and ships (Spurlock, 1939:115). One processor in Coos Bay was using cold storage by at least 1907 (Polk, 1907-08: ). With cold storage, processors were able to accomplish several things: (I) they could ship whole frozen salmon to eastern markets and Europe; (2) they were able to purchase fish when they were plentiful and inexpensive and then freeze and store them until the runs were over and the fish were in high demand; (3) they could use the nild-cure process which was fast becoming popular; and (4) they could cheaply manufacture ice to use for shipping fresh fish. The development of markets for fresh and frozen salmon undoubtedly had a negative effect on cannery production in Coos Bay. The development of the mild-cure market also led to their decline. Mildcuring was first practiced in Oregon in 1902 (Cobb, 1930:533). To preserve salmon using this method, fish were dressed and packed in barrels (called "tierces") k-hich contafned a light salt brine that required refrigeration (Cobb, 1930~535). The product was marketed in Europe as well as throughout the United States, where it was particularly popular in the Jewish ccxnunity (Damron, 1975:35). The first record of mild-curing salmon in Coos Bay is for 1913 when 101 tierces (approximately 80,800 lbs.) of coho salmon were preserved (pacific Fisherman Yearbook, 1914). Over the years, at least seven different business concerns were engaged in mild-curing until at least 1928, when nearly 500,000 lbs. of chinook and coho salmon were pro- cessed. Nineteen twenty eight was the last year the Pacific Fisherman Yearbook recorded the mild-cure pack for Coos Bay. It probably did not continue too much longer, because of the continuing development of the markets for fresh and frozen fish. Improvement of the transportation system uas an integral part of the success of the new processing methods. Before 1916, when the railroad came to Coos Bay, the region depended upon sailing vessels and steamers as the means of shipment. Initially, shipping was slow and undependable because of harbor conditions; a fact which did not affect the shipment of cans so much, but which would have had a large effect on the shipment of fresh or frozen goods. Early inhabitants complained of shoaling activity at the bar. In 1898, Dodge mentioned that, "The bar at the entrance of Coos Bay formerly was so shallow as to ordinarily prevent the passage of any but the smallest vessels" (Dodge, 1898:149). Figure 19 shows an early survey of the entrance before any improvements were made. Beginning in 1880, improvements to the entrance were made to help navigation of the bar. Table 2 lists early improvements, which by 1900 made crossing the bar a considerably more reliable occurrence. Figures 20-22 show three stages of improvements to the harbor entrance through 1933. By the time cold storage and mild-curing came TABLE 2. Corps of Engineers Activities in Lower Coos Bay Fossil Point Jetty built. North Spit sand dunes planted with beach grass. North Jetty constructed. Dredge entrance channel to -20 feet. South Jetty constructed to length of 2,700 feet. Outer 3,000 fe t of North Jetty repaired. f North Spit HWL 2moved west 2,700 feet; south tip moved south 1,500 feet; LWL moved south 2,000 feet (250 feet/year). North Spit sand dunes planted with 720 acres grass. Entrance channel dredged to -27 feet, the bar channel dredged to -30 feet, and the navigation channel dredged to -22 feet to Smith's Mill. South Jetty extended. North Jetty extended. Between Coos Head and Tunnel Point, LWL advanced 200 feet. North Spit moved west 1,300 feet in 1905-1935; LbX moved sea- ward 200 feet (43 feet/year). Entrance channel dredged to 24 feet. North Jetty restored. South Jetty restored. Entrance channel at I1M 4.5 dredged to 30 feet. Entrance dredged to 40 feet Connecting channel to Charleston dredged to -10 feet. Charleston Boat Basin constructed. Outer 2,940 feet of North Jetty repaired. Part of submerged jetty removed. Outer 3,423 feet of South Jetty repaired. Addition to Charleston Boat Basin. Channel in South Slough to Highway Bridge dredged to -10 feet. Outer 1,940 feet of North Jetty repaired. Coos Bay entrance dredged to -45 feet, channel to -35 feet (Increase of 5 feet). 1 High water line. 2 Low water line. SOURCE: A m y Engineer District, 1979. Harbor Entrance, Beale fs Fbat FIGURE 19 Hador Entrance, Scsle in Feet FIGURE 20 35 . Scale in Fee4 FIGURE 22 i n t o use by t h e l o c a l p rocessors , shipping was a f a i r l y r e l i a b l e source of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , a l b e i t r e l a t i v e l y slow. It was not u n t i l 1916, when the Southern P a c i f i c completed a l i n e from Coos Bay t o Eugene, t h a t t h e m r k e t i n g of mild-cure, f rozen , and e s p e c i a l l y f r e s h salmon was a b l e t o l o c a l l y f l o u r i s h . The development of markets f o r t he se l o c a l products l e d t o t h e emergence of salmon t r o l l i n g . The Rise of Salmon T r o l l i n g , 1919-1934 T r o l l i n g i s a means of ca tch ing f i s h by p u l l i n g a l u r e through t h e water. It is an ocean f i s h e r y which r e q u i r e s fishermen t o c ros s t h e b a r between t h e e s tua ry m d t h e ocean. It even tua l ly developed i n t o t h e primary method of catching salmon i n c o a s t a l Oregon and became t h e sus- t a i n i n g f i s h e r y I n Coos Bay f o r a t l e a s t 15 gea r s . Ear ly Development of T r o l l i n g Ocean t r o l l i n g f o r salmon began o f f Monterey, C a l i f o r n i a i n t h e 1890s (Smith, 1977:9). A s e a r l y a s 1895, t r o l l i n g was c a r r i e d on i n t h e Siuslaw River , Oregon, f o r chinook and coho salmon (Cobb, 1930:87). These e a r l y e f f o r t s were no t c o m e r c i a l l y pursued. I n Coos Bay, o t h e r 1 hardweather f i s h f n g a c t i v i t y had Seen repor ted a s e a r l y a s 1895; "[Coos Bay] f ishemtea a l s o t ake l a r g e q u a n t i t i e s of c u l t u s cod, rock f i sh , and h a l i b u t which is so ld f r e s h o r shipped t o San ~ r a n c i s c o " (Oregon Fish and Gane P r o t e c t o r Reports, 1895-96:70). Three f a c t o r s l e d t o t he development of salmon t r o l l i n g i n Coos Bay: (1) t h e development of t he mild-cure, and f r e s h and f rozen markets, (2) the development of motorized boats, and (3) harbor inprove- ments which enabled the fishermen to cross the bar with regularity. Trollers were better suited for the mild-cure market and the fresh and frozen market which had developed. Gillnetters could provide salmon only when the fish entered the river to spawn, with runs occurring in the spring and fall. Damron explains the advantages of troll-caught salmon : Gillnetted fish were often damaged by the nets, which made them unsuitable for marketing as whole fresh fish. Troll- caught fish, which swallowed a hook, were undamaged. Purther- more, as the salmon entered the river, they stopped feeding and underwent progressive biological deterioration. Ocean salmon were caught before this process began, and their flesh was firmer and brighter in color, hence more appealing to the fresh and mildcure buyer. In short, the ocean-caught salmon were of higher quality than the gillnetted ones; and the can- neries, because they did not need this higher quality product, were not willing to pay a price which made the less efficient trolling techniques worthwhile to the fishermen. It was not until the mild-cure market developed that the trolling method becaine economically practical (Damron, 1975:51). Another necessary element for salmon trolling was a suitable boat. Gasoline engines were introduced to gillnet boats around the turn of the century. Diesel engines had had other marine applications before, but were too large for gillnet boats. The gasoline engfne gave the fishemen enough power to cross the bar with some degree of safety. By 1912, fishermen of the Lower Columbia had discovered that by using these boats, salmon could be caught by trolling off the bar (spurlock, 1939: 33). They soon found that at certain times of the year they could catch more salmon by trolling than by gillnetting (Damon, 1975:51). Thus, the fishery developed as a supplementary activity for West Coast fisher- men who were primarily gillnet fishermen (Damron, 1975:9). At about the same time, comercial trolling came into use in Puget Sound, Monterey, and San Francisco. Damron indicates thzt trolling diffused north and south from the Columbia River and reached Coos Bay probably by 1916 (Damron, 1975:51). The third important element necessary for the development of a successful troll fishery at Coos Bay was a safe and reliable bar. Shifting sands and breaking b-aves made crossing the bar extremely dif- ficult and dangerous for small vessels on anything but the calmest days. Thus, the inability of a fisherman to cross the bar when he wanted to, certainly had a large effect on curbing any substantial offshore fishing activity. The harbor Impravements previously discussed not only improved conditions for large boats because of Increased depths, but also made the bar safer for fishing boats, enabling them to cross the bar under less than perfect conditfons. By the time the trolling boat had diffused to Cocs Bay, the entrance was safer than many others along the coast. Coos Bay offered natural protection from stoms from the south- west (the most comon in winter), when other posts in Oregon, such as Garibaldi and Newsport, might have had to close down (Damron, 1975:107). Fishing Methods Once offshore trolling was introduced, certain fishing methods quickly become established. The methodology adapted to new gear and boats as they were introduced, but trolling practices are still fundameatally the same today. T r o l l i n g can conceivably occur anywhere t h a t t he water i s deep enough s o t h a t t h e gear does not ge t tangled on t h e bottom. Upon reaching t h e des i r ed o f f sho re a r ea , t h e t r o l l e r i s slowed t o a speed of about 2% t o 4 m i l e s per hour. T ro l l i ng po les designed t o hold l i n e s away from t h e boa t a r e lowered from t h e i r up r igh t pos i t i on . The po le s enable t he fisherman t o spread out t h e l u r e s i n s e v e r a l a r r ays . Weights a r e a t t ached t o each l i n e t o hold i t v e r t i c a l i n t h e water. A s many a s s i x s epa ra t e l i n e s were used on a boat. Each l i n e had a nunber of II spreads" ( t he l e a d e r , l u r e , and hook arrangement). Early on, when l i n e s were hauled i n by hand, only two spreads were used on each l i n e . La t e r , when winches ( c a l l e d "gurdies") came i n t o use , many more spreads per l i n e could be handled. Figure 23 shows a t y p i c a l salmon t r o l l e r set-up. FIG'dRE 23 . Rigging of a Typical Salmon T r o l l e r Bai ted l i n e s a r e watched f o r t h e j i g g l e which i n d i c a t e s a f i s h h a s been hooked. Once hooked, f i s h a r e hauled i n , e i t h e r g a f f e d o r skxng &oard, clubbed on t h e head, removed from t h e hook, and p laced i n a compartment on deck. Boat Types A s o b j e c t s of m a t e r i a l c u l t u r e , t h e f i s h i n g b o a t s which evolved dur ing t h e r i s e of salmon t r o l l i n g , a r e impor tan t e lements of t h e p r e s e n t day f i s h i n g landscape. Many of t h e b o a t s b u i l t and used d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d a r e s t i l l used today. O r i g i n a l l y , t r o l l e r m e n used b o a t s which were adapted from o t h e r f i s h e r i e s . Two t y p e s of f i s h i n g b o a t s were des igned and used s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r salmon t r o l l i n g : t h e "Finn-type" and t h e "Norwegian-type." Finn b o a t s o r i g i n a t e d i n t h e Columbia and were b u i l t p r i m a r i l y i n A s t o r i a . They were used a long t h e Oregon and Washington c o a s t beg inn ing i n t h e e a r l y 1920s (Damron, 1975:83-85) (Fig . 24). However, t h e most common t r o l l e r b u i l t and used d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d was t h e Norwegian t r o l l e r ( r e f e r r e d t o by f ishermen a s a "double-ender" a term which d e n o t e s t h e canoe-shaped s t e r n ) . Kany of t h e s e t y p e t r o l l e r s a r e used today (Fig. 25 ) . These b o a t s were f i r s t adopted on t h e c o a s t n o r t h of t h e Columbia River i n t h e e a r l y 1920s and became t h e inost numerous t r o l l i n g b o a t by t h e 1930s (Damron, 1975:85). It was probably t h e most common t y p e found i n Coos Bay d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d . They were favored by t r o l l e r m e n because t h e i r des ign was g e l 1 adapted t o o f f s h o r e f i s h i n g and c r o s s i n g t h e b a r . They averaged 35 f e e t i n l e n g t h and g e n e r a l l y had more room t h a n o t h e r b o a t s , e n a b l i n g t h e f ishermen t o take more i c e and s t a y o u t l o n g e r i n a t r i p . FIG-VRE 24. A inn-type' Salmon Troller (Source: Damron, 1975) FIGURE 25. A "Norwegian" Salmon Troller (Source: Damron, 1975) Evolution of the Fishery Within four years, by 1920, trolling was well established in the --- area. Relative ta gillnet fishing, vhich was still being carried out in the bay, trolling became continually more popular until 1926, &en it became the primary fishing activity for local salmon fisheraen. Figures 26 and 27 shows the relative landings for gillnet (river caught) and troll caught salmon through 1935. Unforrimately, data were not col- lected separately on i h e two types of fishing until 1925. The decline i n the river catch %as caused by several factors. Migrations of salmon up the river, especially those in th.e spring, were Coho Landings in Coos Bay, 1923-1 935 --- gi l l -net Chinook Landings in 600s Bay, 1923- 1935 Bay Source: ----a gill-m t FIGURE 27 becoming more variable and were generally declining. One of the primary reasons for this was simply that salmcn were caught by trollers off- shore before their arrival in the estuary. Another reason for the decline was degradation of the estuarine and riverine habitat by logging activities and urbanization. The loss of vegetative cover in the watershed reduced its ability to hold moisture. Consequently, abnormal fluctuation in stream flow scoured gravel from the strean beds, reducing spawning habitat. Log jams blocked several small streams from salmon runs. The construction and use of splash dams were particularly damaging to the salmon population. Built for the purpose of sluicing logs down the rivers, splash dams not only eliminated the production of the streams above them, but also reduced production below by washing out spawning areas (Gharret, 1950:20). The effects of water pollution from urbanization is not known, but may have also contributed to the decline. Increasing regulations on gillnetting further decreased the oppor- timities for river fishing. Gillnetting for salmon in Coos Bay and Coos River continued to decline until it was outlawed in 1946. The net effect in the decline of salmon runs in the bay and its tributaries was a shift in focus of fishing activity. As Coos Bay's attributes as a fishing ground became less important, its attributes as a harbor becane more important. The shift became apparent in the local landscape and was reflected in the continuing evolution of certain landscape elements such as boat types. The new focus was to eventually cause basic changes in the location and appearance of fishing activity in the bay. Other Fishing Activity Although salmon fishing was the premier fishery during this period, the pursuit of other fish was occurring in the bay and offshore. The following is a brief discussion of the shad, striped bass, halibut, and crab fishing activity taking place during this period. Shad is an anadroinous fish which was first introduced to Pacific Ocean waters in 1871 in California. It was also planted in the Coludia River in 1885. The fish soon migrated to Coos Bay and considerable runs were established (Cleaver, 1951:56). Fishing was done with gillnets, and often occurred in conjunction with the striped bass and salmon fishing that took place in the bay. Variable quantities of shad were taken in the 1920s and 1930s (Fig. 28). Fish were caught from May through June when the fish enter the bay to spawn. Comercial striped bass fishing was incidental to shad fishing, the catch being somewhat smaller, although the bass had been popular for recreational fishing since the 1930s. Like shad, striped bass were an introduced species, first planted in San Francisco Bay in 1879. The fish migrated north and the first bass was caught in Coos Bay in 1914 (Coos Bay Times, 1931:58). They were first coimnercially pursued in 1922 (Morgan, ?950:8). Landings were first recorded in 1928 (Fig. 28). Together with shad, striped bass helped to sustain gillnet fishing in the bay during the decline in salmon gillnetting. Although no comprehensive statistics are available, indications are that offshore fishing for halibut fluctuated widely in Coos Bay during the years 1919-1934. One local processor, Charles Feller, shipped Commercial Landings, Shad and Striped Bass, Coos Bay, 1923-1968 - Shad ..-..s.....e. S t r i p e d Bass FIGURE 28 ha l ibu t throughout t h e country during t h i s per iod. Bal ibut was caught with schooners u s ing long l i n e gear . Like salmon t r o l l i n g , t h i s f i s h e r y depended on a r e l i a b l e harbor and bar . Crab f i s h i n g enjoyed a gradual increase i n landings throughout Oregon during t h i s per iod. No s t a t i s t i c s a r e m a i l a b l e f o r Coos Bay. I n t he e a r l y days of t h e f i she ry , most crabbing was done i n t he bay. Since 1915, however, an inc reas ing proport ion of t h e landings were from off shore (Waldron, 1958 : 13). The Fishlng Landscape--:935 I n t h e yea r s inmediately following 1935 s e v e r a l f a c t o r s t h a t would change the na tu re of f i s h i n g a c t i v i t y i n Coos Bay came i n t o play. By 1935, Coos Bay had developed i n t o a s i g n i f i c a n t node of f i s h i n g a c t i v i t y comprised mainly of salmon t r o l l i n g , g i l l n e t f i s h i n g f o r salmon, shad and s t r i p e d bass , and crabbing. I n r e l a t i o n t o o the r f i s h i n g p o r t s i n Oregon, Coos Bay was on a par wi th Newport, and some- what smal le r than Astor ia (Damron, P975:119). The l o c a l f l e e t was made up of a v a r i e t y of boa ts , inc luding Norwegian t r o l l e r s , g i l l n e t boa t s , a few h a l i b u t schooners, and o t h e r var ious adapta t ions . Most s f t he boa ts were one o r two man opera t ions . In add i t i on t o t h e Local f l e e t , t r a n s i e n t salmon and h a l i b u t v e s s e l s would be docked i n Coos Bay from time t o time. The range of f i s h i n g a c t i v i t y d i f f e r e d from f i s h e r y t o f i s h e r y . G i l lne t a c t i v i t y took p l ace i n t h e e s tua ry and t r i b u t a r i e s of Coos Bay. Shad and s t r i p e d bass were mostly caught i n t h e lower reaches of t h e Coos and Millicoma Rivers . Offshore t r o l l i n g from Coos Bay ranged from Heceta Head i n t he nor th t o t h e Ca l i fo rn i a border (Cleaver, 1951:47). Transient boa ts ca tch ing salmon wi th in t b i s a r e a would l i k e l y land t h e i r catch a t Coos Bay. Sonetimes l o c a l d e l i v e r i e s would be made t o one of the smal le r p o r t s i n t h e a r e a if a v e s s e l was p a r t i c u l a r l y c l o s e by (Fig. 29). Trans ien t boa t s were o f t e n found o f f sho re Coos Bay a t va r ious t imes of t he year . The "smoker" f l e e t (so-cal led because of t h e i r semi-diesel engines) was made up of r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e boa t s that were based i n Sea t t l e . These boa t s ranged from Alaska i n t h e sp r ing t o a s f a r south as the Coos Bay a r e a i n J u l y and August, where they f i shed f o r coho salmon (Damron, 1975: 103). Catch Range for Coos Bay Saimon Trollers ILLAMQQK HEAD MEWALEM BAY T l M M O O K BAY YAQUIMA BAY FIGURE 29 The local processors were still located in Marshfield and North Bend. Four were operating in 1935. One such processor, to use an example, was Charles Feller, Inc . Located in Marshfield, the operation was typical of processing plants of that time, although it was probably somewhat larger than other local plants. The company processed and shipped shad, shad roe, steelhead, halibut; and specialized in the catching, shipping, salting, and curing of chinook and coho salmon. According to a pamphlet the company circulated ca. 1925, their salmon was cured for the smoking trade in Europe, hardsalted for shipment to the Hawaiian Islands, and their fresh salmon was shipped by rail throughout the Pacific and Inter-mountain states (Feller, n.d.:4). The company had several fishermen in its employ; all engaged in river ffshing and perhaps halibut fishing. No salmon trollers were directly employed by the company. The plant was, of course, located on the waterfront (Fig. 30) and had docks for unloading fish and mooring boats between trips. FIGURE 30. Charles Feller Plant, Harshfield, circa 1925 (Source: Feller, n-d.) Because the other plants were dispersed along different sections of the Coos Bay waterfront, a well established fishing community had yet to develop. This was not to occur until fishing activity moved to Charleston, a process which began in 1936. Diversification. 1936-1959 Until the mid-1930s, the premier fishery in the state was the Columbia River salmon industry. In Coos Bay, other fisheries were rela- tively more important to the local area than the state as a whole, but salmon was still king. However, a new era in commercial fishing began In the mid-30s that was to have a major effect on the evolution of the fishing landscape in Coos Bay. The new era was based on a diversifica- tion of fishing activity which was to strengthen Coos Bay's importance as a comnercial ffshing port and eventually led to the development of a fishing community in Charleston. The period was characterized by a number of boom and bust cycles. As one fishery grew, then declined, another fishery grew to take its place. The catalyst for this new era was a strong but short-lived boom in fishing for pilchards; a fish that has absolutely no importance to comercial fishermen in Oregon today. The Pilchard Fishery Pilchards (Sardinops caerula, also known as the Pacific sardine), once supported the Western Hemisphere's largest fishery (Browning, 1974: 45). It supported a large number of fishernen on the Pacific coast, especially in California, frcm just before World War II until the 1950s it abruptly died. J o b Steinbeck is known for his stories about m n e v Row in Msnterey, California, which was the center of the fishery in its heyday. Fishing was done with purse seines and the catch was not only for human consmption, but a large amount was reduced to oil which was used in paints, varnishes, and toilet articles (Smith, 1977: 23). In the 1920s and early 1930s fishermen from Oregon followed the ffshery, but most of their landings were made in California because of laws which prohibited the use of pilchards for reduction. In 1935, the Oregon legislature revised the commercial fishing regulations to allow reduction. Two reduction ships immediately started operations at Coos Bay, stimulating local fishing activity for the fish, which led to the establishment of four shore-based plants by the end of the yeas (Oregon Fish Commission, 1938:5). Three plants were also built at Astoria. Qver 32 millfon pounds were landed at Coos Bay in 1935. The fishery didn't last lcng (Fig. 31). By\1939, the catch at Coos bay was insignificant, and in 1940 all reduction plants were located in Astoria. The fishery lfngered in Astoria until it also died in 1948. me failure of the fisheqt in Oregon was substantially drre to over- fishing (and also perhaps to poorly understood long term population CYeles), However, the failure of the fishery in Coos Bay, in par- ticular, as early as 1939 was apparently due to disputes between the reduction plants and the fishermen and ainong the fishermen themselves (Oregon Fish Comission, 1938:5). Many, if not most, of the fishermen engaged in the Oregon pilchard fishery were from California. The becsme discouraged with local disputes in both 1936 and 1937, PlBchard Landings, 1934-1948 - Oregas landings 1938, C w s Bay cat& not recorded @1939, Coos Bey catch incidental car^ Bay landings and went hack t o Cal i fornia before the bes t p a r t of the season i n Attzgust. Local p lant owners couldn't find enough f i s h e m e n t o harvest p r o f i t a b l e numbers of pi lchards, and eventual ly closed down. The decl ine of t h e pi lchard industry i n Oregon and eventual ly the whole P a c i f i c Coast is a sad chapter i n the h i s t o r y of the P a c i f i c f i shery . A 1949 Oregon Fish Commission repor t explained the Oregon decline: TaggLng experinents ind ica te Chat the p i lchards gradually migrate f a r t h e r t o the north each year from the p r inc ipa l spawning grounds off Southern Cal i fornia until they reach the coast of Oregon usual ly a t four years of age. Because of the in tense f i she ry f o r t h i s species in Cal i fo rn ia and because of poor recruitment i n recent years, the younger year c l a s ses have been depleted t o such a degree t h a t few f i s h sunrive t o reach t h e Oregon coas t . A s a r e s u l t t h e Oregon f i s h e r y i s now dependent on t h a t p a r t of t h e o lde r , more abundant year c l a s s e s which have escaped the Ca l i fo rn i a f i s h e r y and on i n c i d e n t a l spawning which takes p lace i n c e r t a i n years in t h e waters of t h e P a c i f i c Northwest (Harry, 1949:17). Soon a f t e r , t h e o lde r f i s h were gone a s we l l , and the Oregon f i s h e r y col lapsed. By the e a r l y 1960s, s tocks along t h e e n t i r e P a c i f i c Coast were depleted. Although shor t - l ived , t h e p i l cha rds d id provide impetus t o l o c a l fishermen and markets. The p i l cha rd f i s h i n g l e d t o t he albacore and t rawl f i s h e r i e s qhich a r e s t i l l a c t i v e l y pursued today. The Albacore Fishery I n the e a r l y 1900s the P a c i f i c coas t a lbacore f i s h e r y slowly became e s t ab l i shed i n Southern Ca l i fo rn i a . This f i s h e r y was dominated by S a i t boa ts which used hook and l i n e f i s h i n g a f t e r the f i s h were a t t r a c t e d by churning. By the e a r l y 1920s, t r o l l i n g f o r a lbacore became more popular, and i t is t h i s method which is used today. Albacore f i s h i n g is very unpredic tab le , based on t h e vaga r i e s of t h e f i s h e s h i g r a t i o n p a t t e r n s . A s explained i n Chapter Three, a lbacore a r e very s e n s i t i v e t o water temperature changes. The l o c a t i o n of t h e Japanese Current has been i d e n t i f i e d a s one poss ib l e cause of v a r i a t i o n i n t h e i r movement pa t t e rns . I n t h e l a t e 1920s and e a r l y 1930s a lbacore v e r e scarce i n American i waters . I n 1934 and 1935, t h e f i s h e r y began a r e v i v a l wi th t h e r e t u r n t L t 1 of t h e a lbacore t o more nor thern waters. Thus the s t a g e was s e t f o r t h e j I beginning of a lbacore f i s h i n g i n Oregon. In 1936, a p i l cha rd boat encountered a lbacore while searching f o r p i l cha rds , and landed 2,000 i in Coos Bay. Within a few days, five boats were engaged in afbacore: fishfng, landing 10,000 pounds all of which were shipped south for processing (Coos Bay Times, 1942:60). In the foll~wing two years, landings increased greztly, bur records for individual ports were not kept until 1939 (Fig. 32). Landings at coos Bay, and fn the state as a whole fluctuated widely over the years dependTrig on the location of the fish and other factors. To illustrate, a poor year in I341 was attributed to bad weather, lack of consistent fishing, the interest in shark and salmon fishing, arid difficulties in obtaining bait part of the season (Coos Bay Tlmes, L942:60). Landings were also made at Astoria and Newport, with Coos Bay a distant third in most years. Albacore Landings 1937-1 959 So C-6 Bay recar4 before 1939 and after 1953 Cleaver, 1951 Tolle £son, 1959 OFC .bnual Statist ic6 Unfortunately, data do not exist for Coos Bay for all years. The graphs show, however, that often very little correlation existed between catches at Coos Bay versus the state. For example, 1944 was a peak year for landings in Oregon, but Coos Bay did not have a particularly good se~son. Extremely large albacore catches were not made in Coos Bay until the 1960s. Bowever, the albacore fishery did play a large role in Coos Bay before that time. Owners of larger salmon trollers (over 40 feet), were attracted to the albacore fishery, because of their ability to follow them up to 300 miles offshore. The bigger boats were needed for their seaworthiness and their ability to stay out for up to two weeks. This combination effort still exists today and many of the boatowners in this class plan each gear on "making their season with albacore fishing" (Browning, 1974:12). The smoker fleet described earlier fished for albacore as well as salmon as far south as the Coos Bay area after 1935. These fishermen, accusto~ed to ranging long distances, were the core of the Northwest's albacore fleet in the early gears. Each year after albacore fishing subsided, usually in October, the smokers returned to fishing the fall run of salmon (Damron, 1975:103). The Otter-Trawl Fishery Early records show that between 1884 and World War XI there were several isolated attempts at trawling for bottom fish, but because of lack of markets, the fishery was never firmly established until the war created a demand. An otter-trawl is a bag shaped net pulled on or near the ocean floor. The nouth of the net is held open by the force of the current against otter boards or doors attached to each side of the net. ~~itially, trawlers used a beam-trawl in which the mouth was held open by a rigid frame. Mswever, these were relatively 2wkward and by 1940, the otter-trawl hsd completely replaced it (Harry, 1963:5, 24). Nineteen thirty seven was the first year the otter-trawl was used in Oregon. The Pacific Fisherman reported in 1939 that several trawlers delivered trawl caught bottom fish to Coos Bay in 1937 and 1938 (Harry, 1963:9). The industry rapidly expanded during World War I1 in order to satisfy the demand for large quantities of fish. After the war, the fishery declined, with a resurgence occurring in the late 1950s. Unfortunately, no data on landings in Coos Bay exist for the fishery during this period; thus data for Oregon is presented. Records have been kept since 1941 (Fig. 33). Several types of bottom fish were landed at Coos Bay, depending on the demand. During the early 1 9 4 0 ~ ~ dogfish and soupfin sharks were caught for their livers, which were in great demand. The war had cut off this country's regular supply of cheaper foreign fish livers and liver oils, which were a source of Vitamin A, and the local fishery boomed. Synthetic Vitamin A was introduced in 1949, and the fishery immediately collapsed. The catch of flat fish for fish fillets was also very high during the war, but declined severely afterwards. During the year 1953 to i958, one to six trawlers were landing bottomfish at Coos Bay for trans- shipment to Eureka, California processors. In 1959, the Astoria Sea- Ofegsn C?tte~-Trawl Landings, 1941-1959 Swzcer Barry, 1963 foods Co. purchased the Charles F e l l e r p lant i n Coos Bay and began processing bottomfish a t the Coos Bay Seafood Co. (Harry, 1963:24). The t rawl f i she ry f o r mink food was a l s o an outgrowth of the war. The mink ranching indust ry i n Oregon had been growing s ince 1925. Early ranchers r e l i e d on red meat a s a source of prote in , u n t i l the war caused shortages. The development of the trawl f i she ry durfng the war made an inexpensive source of p ro te in ava i l ab le t o the rancher i n the forms of carcasses from the f i l l e t processors. With the decl ine i n the f i l l e t markets, and a dramaeic increase i n m5nk ranching following the war, the demand f o r f i l l e t sesap exceeded the supply, A s a resu l t , a s p e c i f i c f i she ry f o r whole f i s h f o r mink food was es tabl i shed, s t a r t i n g i n 1953. For the next several years, the mink food industry sustafned the trawl fishery in Oregon. Coos Bay received only minor quantities of mink food until 1955, when a processing plant was opened at Winchester Bay, inmediately to the north. After that, the local share of the catch continually incpeased until 1960 (Jones, 1961:14-26). Overall, the Oregon trawl fishery did not recover from the decline after World War 11 until 1960. During that time, however, several aspects of the fishery changed. Trawlers were larger and more efficient. Boats built between 1945 and 1961 averaged 68 feet long, while boats built before 1942 averaged 57 feet long (Harry, 1963). Many gear improvements were introduced. In the early days of trawl fishing, boats stayed relatively close to their home port, and fished in relatively shallow water between 120 and 300 feet. Gradually the boats fished deeper waters, up to 1200 feet. Boats also began to expand their range. By 1960, local boats fishing in grounds near Coos Bay were competing xith trawlers from Eureka, Winchester Bay, and Newport. Salmon Fishing For reasons already outlined, salmon gillnetting in Coos Bay con- tinued to decline after 1936, until the bay was closed to commercial salmon fishing in 1946. Meanwhile, ocean trolling for salmon continued as a viable fishery. Figures 34 and 35 show chinook and coho landings in the bay (gillnet) and offshore (trolling) for the Coos Bay area and Oregon in general. The Oregon landings reflect only those fish landed at Oregcn ports. The catch in the Columbia River area was landed in fols 38y gillnet landings 1936-1916 7 Oreqon troll-caught landings no Cooe B q records after 1953 7 6 FIGURE 34 FIGURE 35 , i ther Washington o r Oregon p o r t s depending on which buyers were o f f e r ing the b e s t p r i c e o r had buying scows n e a r e s t t o t h e f i s h i n g (Cleaver, 1951). Af te r a peak year i n 1935, the Coos Bay ffshery experienced peak years i n 1940, 1947, and 1952, a l though records do not e x i s t , based on Oregon da t a , another l a r g e ca tch probably i n 1957. The rap id developaent of t he a lbacore f i s h e r y a f t e r 1936 r e s u l t e d in s i g n i f i c a n t changes i n salmon t r o l l i n g . A s discussed e a r l i e r , t h e large t r o l l e r s were we l l s u i t e d f o r a lbacore , and they f i shed f o r them in l a t e sumnet. These l a r g e t r o l l e r s then d id most of t h e i r salmon f i sh ing during May and June. Thus, t h e he ight of t h e f i s h e r y s h i f t e d t o some degree from l a t e sunmer when t h e f i s h were concentrated o f f t h e r ivers t o e a r l i e r i n t he s u m e r , when they were found on the feeding banks. Y ~ n y t r o l l e r s , e s p e c i a l l y t h e smal le r boa ts , s tayed with salmon throughout t h e season. The p r o f i t a b l e tuna f i s h e r y , combined with high Prices f o r f i s h during and a f t e r World War II helped inany of t he t r o l l f i shemen buy b igger boats . The number of boa t s probably decreased from the e a r l i e r years , bu t t h i s w s s coupled with an inc rease i n t h e i r s i z e and e f f i c i ency (Van Hyning , 1951 : 46) . The advent of a lbacore f i s h i n g a l s o had an e f f e c t on t h e range of "lmon f i s h i n g a c t i v i t y . The b igger boa t s had a g r e a t e r range, and loca l boa ts , while mostly f i s h i n g i n proximity of Coos Bay could now runs of salmon from Eureka t o t he coas t of Washington. Similar ly, when salmon were repor ted o f f t he Southern Oregon coas t , ' ' a le rs from Ca l i fo rn i a and var ious Washington and Oregon p o r t s would there , competing wi th t r o l l e r s from Coos Bay. Beginning in 1948, regulations %ere imposed on the salmon troll fishery, consisting of size limits and seasonal closures (Van Hyning, 1951:47). These were the first of many editions of salmon trolling that have evolved into the present-day restrictions. Crab Fishing The sharp increase in crab fishing in Oregon from 1933 to 1943 was most likely due to the repeal in 1933 of a variable bag ltmit on commercial crabbing. With the elimination of this restriction, there was an increase in the number of fishermen and probably in the amount of gear used by each fisheman, as well (Waldron, 1958:9). By 1943, the fishery had gro-n to the extent that the catch for the most part reflected variations in the abundance of the crabs (Cleaver, 1951:73). In the years after 1948, Coos Bay assumed an increasingly greater proportion of the state's catch. Like the other fisheries during this period, the.boats gradually got larger and fishing ranges greater. The Fishing Landscape 1935-1959 The upsurge of offshore fishing that was taking place during this Period brought with it an increased emphasis on Coos Bay as a harbor and fish processing node. Before 1935, all cf the local processors were found in North Bend and Marshfield, 10 to 12 river miles from the entrance. This represented additional time and fuel for fishermen traveling to these plants. Charleston was ideally suited as a center of f i sh ing activity because of its proximity to the entrance, and the mouth Of South Slough was relatively deep and protected from incoming seas. Activity in Charleston remined limited until substantial human modification of the area allowed increased moorage and flat land for processing and other ancillary activities. Fishing activity in Charleston before 1935 was confined to gillnet fishermen who lived there and based their operations from small docks. When offshore fishing became more popular in the 1920s and early 1930s some moorage was found in Charleston, but this was limited, because no processing plants were located there. The first fish processfng operation in Charleston, Hallmark Fisheries, established in 1936, began as a family enterprise, with the men fishing out of Charleston and the women canning the catch (U.S. Amy Engineer District, 1979~22). Fishing activity in Charleston increased dramatically during the war. By 1942, 75 boats, most of them locally owned, fished regularly for Hallmark's and included crabbers, shark fishers, and trollers. The boats moored to a long floating dock at the mouth of South Slough in front of the cannery. Forty-five to 60 people were employed at the plant during the crab canning season (Coos Bay Times 1942 : 5 9 ) . -9 Soon after the war, a local boat building industry was established, whish continues today. Rowever, the processing industry reinained limited until the development of a boat basin in the late 1950s. Inpetus for the basin came from the increased number of fishermen fouod in Charleston during the war. A bond issue was.approved in 1955, Providing funds for the construction over the next two years (Fig. 36). Construction of the basin involved dredging a channel to the entrance channel, construction of a break-water, and filling FIGURE 36. Char les ton Boat Basin , c i r c a 1964 approximately 40 a c r e s of i n t e r t i d a l and s u b t i d a l a r e a . The f l a t l and c rea ted provided s u i t a b l e a c r e a g e for p rocess ing and o t h e r a n c i l l a r y o p e r a t i o n s which form t h e h e a r t of t h e contemporary f i s h i n g l aadscape . By 1958, 100 b e r t h s were a v a i l a b l e . Th i s nunber doubled o v e r t h e next few y e a r s u n t i l t h e b a s i n was f i l l e d t o c a p a c i t y . The S e a t t l e Fishermen's Co-op, one of t h e many f i shermen ' s co-cps e s t a b l i s h e d a long t h e c o a s t t o h e l p s u s t a i n t h e p r i c e of salmon, opened a branch i~ Char les ton i n 1958 (U.S. Army Engineer D i s t r i c t , 1979:22). Bowever, even w i t h two p l a n t s i n o p e r a t i o n t h a t y e a r , f i s h i n g a c t i v i t y was such t h a t only 40 people were l o c a l l y employed i n f i s h p rocess ing . The f i s h i n g i n d u s t r y i n Char les ton a t t h e c l o s e of t h e p e r i o d lg35-1959 was po i sed f o r r a p i d growth. A w e l l develcped f i s h i n g com- a m i t y was emerging t h a t would draw o t h e r p r o c e s s o r s , i n c r e a s e d mocrage, and h e ~ c e inore f i s h e r n e n t o t h e c o m u c i t y . A f t e r t h e boom duririg t h e war years, and the subsequent decline, the local fishing industry was just beginning a resurgence which was to explode in the late 1960s with the introduction of the shrimp fishery and the increasing development of the other trawl. fisheries . Recent Trends, 1960-1980 The 1960s and 1970s witnessed unparalleled growth in the local fishing industry. Expanded markets, bigger and more sophisticated boats and gear, and more processing capacity contributed to this Increase. Nore fishing activity led to further development of Charleston's identity as a fishing comnity, and e n y of the elements of today's fishing landscape were established during this period. The Shrimp Fishery Prior to the 1 9 5 0 ~ ~ pink shrfrnp were known to inhabit the waters off the Oregon coast, but no attempt has been made to calculate the extent of the fishing grounds or the abundance of the species until explorations by the Oregon Fish Commission in 1951 and 1952 (Ronholt, 1961:31). Shrimp were found to be abundant in commercial quantities, but it was not until 1957 that any commercial shrinping took place. In the summer of 1957, several California trawlers caught approxi- mately 100,000 pounds of shrimp off Coos Bay. In 1958, two peeling machines were installed in Warrenton, Oregon and the bulk of the Oregon catch was landed there for the next three years. In 1959 and 1960, shrimp caught in southern Oregon was primarily landed in Brookfngs and shipped to Eureka for handpicking. Very little was landed in Coos Bay during these two years. In 1960, interest was renewed in the grounds o f f coos Bay and approximately 80,000 pounds were landed at Charleston (~~~holt, 1961:32). The shrimp were originally handpicked in mrleston, until the installation of peeling machines by some processors in the early 1960s. The fishery rapidly expanded in Coos Bay as well as the state as a &ole through the 1960s and 1970s (Fig. 37). A number of factors were responsible for the expansion of Coos Bay: ~rocessing capabilities in Charleston continually expanded; Coos Bay is 5 957- 1980 - Oregon L d i n g s FIGURE 38. Br ing ing in a Shrinp Ne t very c lose t o prime f i s h i n g grounds o f f t he coas t , and bigger and more e f f i c i e n t boa ts became a v a i l a b l e t o the fishermen. Fishing methods a r e very s i m i l a r t o bottomfishing. A n e t which has b a s i c a l l y t h e same r igg ing a s an o t t e r - t r awl i s dragged through a r e a s where t h e bottom c o n s i s t s of green mud o r green mud and sand. T r ips a r e usua l ly two t o t h r e e days i n length , bu t due t o t he c lose proximity of the f i s h i n g grounds o f f Coos Bay, some shrimpers take day t r i p s . Double-rigged (two n e t assemblies) boa ts were introduced i n 1969 and were iiiimediately succes s fu l , which l e d t o t h e conversion of many s ingle- r iggers o r t h e importat ion of l a r g e , double-rigged v e s s e l s from the Gulf of Mexico where shrimp f i s h i n g had been dec l in ing . Landings f o r shrimp increased dramat ica l ly i n Coos Bay and throughout t h e s t a t e i n 1977, This l a r g e harves t encouraged a l a r g e increase i n t he number of v e s s e l s opera t ing from and de l ive r ing t o Coos Bay (Table 3 ) . The increased c a p a b i l i t y l ed t o a peak i n shrimp landings i n 1978. P r o f i t s were extremely good these two yea r s , and s t i l l more v e s s e l s were brought i n t o the f i s h e r y i n 1979 and 1980. Although f i s h i n g e f f o r t was higher than ever before , t he ca tch during 1979 and 1980 decl ined. A s a r e s u l t , many shrimpers turned t o bot tonf i sh during t h e win ter months, o r converted t h e i r boa t s t o mid-water t rawl ing (Hosie, 1981) . This shows up i n t he ca tch s t a t i s t i c s , wi th a l a r g e increase i n bottom-fish landings during these two years . 85 TABLE 3. Mumber of Vessels Delivering Shrimp to Coos Bay Home Port Vessels 2 7 3 7 5 4 69 Total Vessels 33 (including tracsients) Catch (million 12.1 17.5 9.1 10.5 pounsa SO-IRCE: ODFW, Sealens, et al., Lukas, Bruneau. Other Fisheries Figures 39 through 43 show the extent of landings for the salmon, albacore, bottomfish, and crab fisheries from 1960 through 1980. Unfortunately, data are not available on every fishery for every year. The albacore landings (Fig. 39) fairly reflected variation in abundance of the fish off coastal Oregon. The year 1968 was an exceptional one for the Oregon catch and an account of it illustrates the relationship between albacore migration patterns and the catch. Browning (1974:12) notes of 1968: . . . the fish first were encountered just south of San Juan Seamount (off Southern California) early Fn June. No substantial fishery took place off California that season, however, because the economics of fishing interfered. Fishermen and their organizations held out firnly for a favorable price and on July 10 settled for $425 a ton. But by then, the offshore waters had warmed quickly and the bulk of the albacore had moved northward to the Oregon and Washington coast where California fishermen were forced to follow them. First sightings were made off Southern Oregon during the first week of July and after July 10, fishing areas ranged from Cape Blanco, Oregon, to Grays Harbor, Washington, and up to 100 miles offshore. Fishing continued good through August A! bareare Lsndiwgs 1960-1980 - Otegcn landing8 ----- Coos Bay landings but f e l l of f rapid ly f n September f o r t r o l l e r s . But during t h i s month, b a i t boat catches picked up sharply. The t r o l l e r s found t h e i r bes t f i s h i n g from 60 t o 100 miles out f o r albacore averaging 13 pounds. Bai t boats did bes t i n the 20- t o 40-mile range fo r f i s h running from 18 t o 25 pounds. The f i she ry was over f o r most vesse l s by October 10. Landings by a l l vesse l s were ch ie f ly i n Oregon because of i t s proximity t o the main f i she ry a reas and because of the r e f u s a l of most Washington processors t o accept albacore. Crab landings (Fig. 40) f luc tuated with abundance, per the cycles explained i n Chapter Three. D u r h g poor years , crab f i s h e m e n f i shed f o r a wide v a r i e t y of o the r species. Grab Landingsl - Qcegan 1anGfngs ----- Ccas Bay landings Source: Salmon (Figs. 41 and 42) showed an overall increase during this although landings fluctuated widely. Variation in abundance, replati~n~, and change in the composition of the salmon fleet created a set of complex interactions which were reflected in the landings from year to year. Groundfish landings (Fig. 43) showed an overall increase throughout the period. The late 1970s brought huge increases in the bottomfish catch due to a large expansion of the fishing effort, new markets, and increasing processing capability. Also, in 1977 domestic management and control of offshore fishing grounds was increased with extension of regulations to a 200 mile limit. These factors, coupled with the relatively poor shrimp harvest in 1979 which caused many shrimpers to turn to bottonfishing, led to a peak in bottomfish landings that year. An emerging technology, mid-water trawling, contributed to the increase in importance of bottomfish in the latter half of the 1970s. By setting a net to be dragged at predetermined depths, the mid-water trawl has allowed the pursuit of new species that were previously uneconomical. Coho Landings. - Oregon Landings Chinook Landings - Oregon landings ----- C w s Bay landings FIGURE 4 3 The Fishing Landscape 1900-1980 Continuing alteration of the local environment directly toward bwroving Coos Bay's attributes as a harbor, characterized this period. 37 the early 1960s, the boat basin at Charleston had been filled to and an addition was made to the facility in 1966 by dredging a t e ~ acre Inner basin from previously filled land (Fig. 44). By and large, the configuration that resulted from these changes exists today. FIGURE 44. Charleston Boat Basin, I969 Several new processing plants were established in Charleston during this period. By the middle 1960s all processing was done in Charleston, except one plant in Empire, which still operates today. Three fish r eze iv ing stations were also built in Charleston, their landings being skfpped elsewhere for processing. The nuinber of employees in the marleston fish processing induscry reached a peak of 506 in 1969 (U.S. bm Esgineer District, 1979:23). All of the plants and receiving ,taci~ns built during this period are operating today, except Barbey's which burned down in 1970. As elements of the Contemporary qandseape, these plants are discussed further in Chapter Five. In the early years, the local fishing industry was characterized by a fleet of older, wooden vessels ranging in size from 20 feet to 60 feet. Several factors changed this situation in the early to mid-1970s: vessel financiiig became more readily available and additional tax incentives were offered to stimulate boat cons'eruction, and more efficient gear and new electronic equipment came into use. Because of the increase in demand for shrimp, several fishermen procured large boats from the Gulf of Mexico, where the shrimp fishery had collapsed. As a result, the composition of the fleet changed dramatically, with an increase in both the nunber and size of boats. While the largest boats during the early 1360s were 60 feet, by 1980 some boats were ever 90 feet (Fig. 45). This chapter has described the man-made changes in the physical environment and tecbnological improvements which have led to today's Pattern of comercia1 fishing activity in Coos Bay. The contemporary landscape that has resulted from this evolution is described in the chapter. FIGURE 45. Some of the Larger Shrizpers and Trawlers in the Basin l~ardweather f i s ~ s are those t b t operate on the open ocean &long the northern cos-such as halibxt, tuna trolling, or salmon trolling (Damron, 1975 :*I. C W T E R FIVE THE CONTElPOPSLRY FISHING LANDSCAPE The previous two chapters have illustrated some of the interactions between man and environment which have resulted in the contemporary pattern of commercial fishing activity in Coos Bay. While commercial fish landings and processing occurs in various locations around the bay (Fig. 4 6 1 , the bulk of the activity is now concentrated in Charleston, and its physical manifestation largely defines the landscape of the local comtlnity. This chapter atteiripts to describe some of the important inter- relationships of the local fishing industry and its manifestations that j make up the present landscape scene. This is done by cataloging the t ! elements of the landscape which are products of fishing activity. t Contemporary Fishing Patterns B The current patterns of fishing activity constantly reflect count- t less individual decisions of fishermen, both local and transient. The Patterns of the aggregated decisions can be described in terms of sea- 8 # sonal variability, geographic range, economic characteristics, and E Participation by fishermen. Port of Cats my Pert at C w e Bay FIGURE 46 Seasonal i ty Fishing a c t i v i t y is no t cons tan t throughout t h e year . Ffgure 47 shows the f i s h i n g seasons f o r Coas Bay fishermen, based on cu r ren t regulat ions. Within t h e season f o r each spec i e s , c e r t a f n months produce Peak landiags. During an average year , crab landings peak i n Apr i l o r shr inp landings i n June, coho landings i n J u l y , chinook landings i n August, and a lbacore landings i n August o r September. CB~erall , t h e most ac t ive time f o r Coos Bay f i s h e m e n i s i n summer, wi th r e l a t i v e l y inactive months during win te r , because i n summer c e r t a i n spec i e s a r e mQst a v a i l a b l e and t h e weather is more conducive t o f i s h i n g a c t i v i t y , b e t t e r bar condi t ions and calmer seas . FIGURE 47. Fishing Seasons for Coos Bay Fishermen Participation by Fishemen No information Is available on participation of Coos Bay fishermen in different fisheries. The number of statewide vessels engaging in each fishery is shown in Table 4. Informal observation of the fleet in Coos Bay indicates roughly the same configuration with perhaps a slightly higher ratio of shrimp and groundfish trawlers than the Oregon fleet. Of these vessels, those with no other significant activity in other fisheries (i.e. a "single fishery vessele~), range from 80% for salmon trollers to 24% for crab vessels. TABLE 4. Kumbers of Vessels Havlng significanta Activities in Only One Fishery, 1979 No. of Vessels with No Other % of No. of Significant Total Fishery Vessels Activity in Oregon Vessels Groundfish Trawl 148 Shrimp 203 Crab 587 Troll Salnon 3,114 a There can be no generally agreed upon definitian of "significant" activity. For the shrimp fishery, if troll salmon landings were less than 500 pounds and groundfish trawl landings were less than 2,000 pounds, such activities were not considered significant. For the groundfish trawl and crab fisheries, if troll salmon landings were less than 500 pounds, the activity was not considered significant. SOURCE: Carter, 1981:26. Many fishermen engage i n two o r more f i s h e r f - throughout t he yea r (see Tables 5 and 61, which has t h e e f f e c t of i n c r e a s i n g t h e t o t a l f i s h i n g e f f o r t . TABLE 5 . Two-Wag Mul t ip le Fishery A c t i v i p Chart f o r 1979 Groundfish Shrimp Crab Albacore Salmon Groundfish 148 7 3 2 7 7 4 1 Shrimp 203 72 11 6 7 Crab 587 6 2 449 Albacore 286 159 Salmon 3,114 SOURCE: C a r t e r , 1981:28. TABLE 6. Numbers of Vessels With Se l ecced Three-Way and Four-Way P a t t e r n s of F i s h e r y A c t i v i t i e s , 1979 a P a t t e r n 1979 a Symbols used f o r p a t t e r n description a r e : G = Groundfish Trawl S = Shrimp C = Crab A = Albacore T = T r o l l Salmon SOURCE: C a r t e r , 1981:33. The number of boa t s involved i n each f i s h e r y only i n d i c a t e s t he o v e r a l l l e v e l of a c t f v i t y of t h e e n t i r e f l e e t . Some boa t s a r e not par- t i c u l a r l y a c t i v e , For example, only 12% of t h e salmon t r o l l e r s landed 57% of t h e o f f sho re salmon ca t ch f n Oregon i n 1980 (Table 7). TABLE 7. 1980 Oregon T r o l l Salmon vesse la Catch D i s t r i b u t i o n Number 0 f Poundage Category Boats over - 13,000 12,001 - 13,000 11,001 - 12,000 10,001 - 11,000 9,001 - 10,000 8,Q01 - 9,000 7,001 - 8,000 6,001 - 7,000 5,001 - 6,000 4,001 - 5,000 3,001 - 4,000 2,001 - 3,000 1,501 - 2,000 1,001 - 1,000 801 - 1,000 601 - 800 401 - 600 201 - 400 101 - 200 51 - 100 21 - 5 0 1 - 20 Pounds i n Category Z Tota l Cuinula t i v e Pounds (Dressed) 1.95 4.01 4.83 6.08 9.16 13.31 17.46 23.80 32.53 43.03 56.60 71.11 78.00 85.13 88.77 92 -06 95.18 97.87 99.01 99.54 99.82 100.00 % Tota l Cumulative Boats a Includes only landings by v e s s e l s w i t h Oregon t r o l l permits. Includes landings reported by December 11, 1980. Recent estimates of the number of commercial fishermen in the Coos Bay area, both full-time and part-time range from 400 to 620 persons. Records show that most of the commercial boat owners are local residents, although a significant portion live elsewhere (Table 8). No data exist on crew membersf location of residence, although many are known to be local. Part-time ffshemen are m d e up of both general Coos Bay area residents and non-local residents gho fish out of Charleston on weekends and in the summer. It is likely that a higher percentage of part-time fishermen are non-local residents than full-time fishemen. Most of the part-timers either own or work on mall vessels which usually fish for salmon, crab, or black cod. Many of these vessels are not equipped for extended trips and so make day trlps only. Local part-timers say fish daily during part of the gear, returning in the early afternoons to work a land-based job, often lumber processing in Coos Bay (Army Engineer District, 1979:25). Larger boats, such as trawlers, shrimpers, and combination boats, are run mostly by full-time fishemen. The large capital outlay for these vessels requires year-round production. Economic Characteristics The increase in fish landings which have occurred since the late 1960s have had a significant impact on the local economy. The value to local fishermen for all the fisheries was $13,098,000 in 1981, a sizable portion of the state total (Table 9). Coos Bay has the second largest commercial landings in Oregon, behind Astoria. TABLE 8 . Charleston Boat Basin--Commercial Fishing Boat Owners' Place of Residence Pereenage Place of Origin Number of Total Charleston Coos Bay Korth Bend East side Coos Bay Area 200 57% Rest of Coos County 2 6 9% Curry County Douglas County Lane County Regional Rest of State Other States TABLE 9. Estimated Value a t Fishermen's Level of Commercial Food Fish Landings, 1980 Coos Bay Oregon Chinook $ 1,567,000 $ 6,723,000 Coho 487,000 3,774,000 Crab 2,514,000 12,375,000 Shrimp 5,723,000 16,683,000 Albacore 389,000 2,746,000 Groundfish 2,322,000 11,601,000 Total $13,098,000 $55,086,000 The economic impact generated by fish landing to the entire economy are greater Ehan any other basic industry. The economic survival of many local firms, such as ship building and repair, rnachine shops, marine e l e c t r o n i c s , and f u e l s u p p l i e r s a r e dependent upon c o m e r c i a l fishermen. The bas i c income m u l t i p l i e r (an index of t he r a t e a t which an indus t ry con t r ibu te s t o new economic a c t i v i t y ) f o r t h e f i s h i n g indus t ry is 2.41 (Ebert , 1981). Given the va lue t o fishermen, t h i s y i e l d s a t o t a l d o l l a r va lue t o t he community of $31,563,000, when i t i s c i r c u l a t e d through the l o c a l economy. Fishing Range A f isherman's range of a c t i v i t y depends on many f a c t o r s , and t h e r e a r e nea r ly a s many a c t i v i t y s t r a t e g i e s a s t h e r e a r e f i s h e n e n . Each s t r a t e g y i s dependent on equipment ( s i z e of boa t and e l e c t r o n i c gea r ) ; smal le r boa t s may be a b l e only t o s a f e i y and p r a c t i c a l l y s t a y out f o r t he day, while l a r g e r boa t s a r e f r e e f o r l onge r and wider-ranging t r i p s . Salmon f i s h i n g r egu la t ions have been h ighly v a r i a b l e over t he years , and a s a r e s u l t , fishermen change t h e i r s t r a t e g y from year t o year . De- pending on the opening and c los ing d a t e s of each of t he P a c i f i c s t a t e s , fishermen have t r ave l ed no r th o r south f o r p a s t o r a l l of t he season. Some f i s h i n Northern Ca l i fo rn i a p a r t of t he y e a r , while o t h e r s t r a v e l t o Alaska f o r t h e season. The range of a lbacore f i s h i n g depends mainly on the l o c a t i o n of t he f i s h from year t o year . Some Coos Bay f i s h e m e n have been kzlown t o t r a v e l a s f a r a s t he Hawaiian I s l ands and Midway Is land f o r a lbacore (Hal l , 1981). Groundfish and shrimp f i s h i n g gene ra l ly ranges from Cape Blanco i n the south t o Cape Perpetua i n t he north. A few boa t s may range as f a r no r th a s Tillamook Bay and south of Cape B l a n c ~ . Transient boa t s a r e numerous i n Coos Bay during t h e he ight of t h e season. T r o l l e r s may be fol lowing a lbacore runs, o r salmon f i s h i n g seasons. Shrimpers and t r awle r s have been known t o come from home p o r t s a s f a r away a s South Bend, Washington. Because of dramatic f u e l increases i n t he l a s t s e v e r a l years , t he t rend has been t o d e l i v e r f i s h t o c lo se p o r t s , r a t h e r than t r anspor t ing them back t o home por t . A s a r e s u l t , t he number of t r a n s i e n t d e l i v e r i e s i n Coos Bag has r e c e n t l y been increasing. Landscape Elements Charleston c l e a r l y r e f i e c t s i t s cha rac t e r a s a f i s h i n g co~~imunity. Vessel moorage, processing p l a n t s , rece iv ing docks, marine-related businesses , boat bu i ld ing and r e p a i r f a c i l i t i e s , and parking and s to rage a r e a s a r e a l l f unc t iona l ly r e l a t e d t o t he f i s h i n g indus t ry (Fig. 48). These f a c i l i t i e s , along wi th the f l e e t dominate t he v i s u a l landscape. Therefore, t o understand the l o c a l landscape, I desc r ibe both the appearance and the func t ioning of t h e f e a t u r e s r e l a t e d t o t he f i s h i n g indus t ry . The F l e e t Figure 48 shows t h e r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e amount of a r ea i n Charleston devoted t o mooring t h e f l e e t . The hodgepodge of boa ts i s Char les ton ' s most d i s t i n c t i v e f e a t u r e , and is a source of l o c a l p r ide and a s i g n i f i - can t t o u r i s t a t t r a c t i o n . While a s i z a b l e por t ion of the v e s s e l s i n t h e basin a r e r e c r e a t i o n a l boa ts , a h igher percentage of boa t s a r e eomer- c i a l , and these tend t o b e l a r g e r and v i s u a l l y more dominant (Fig. 49) . -. FIGURE 48 FIGURE 49. The Outer Basin The fleet is in constant flux, because of daily and seasonal vari- ation in the number of boats in port, and because of the evolution of its composition. As explained in Chapter Four, the fleet has continued to expand, with currently approximately 440 commercial vessels using Coos Bay as a hone port. In addition, the overall size distribution of fishing boats is larger than ever before, and this trend is expected to continue (Table 10). Essentially, a commercial fishing basin can be viexed as a collection of individual "factoriesf' each of which clearly reflects the prosperity of its owner. The more successfui operations usually provide better maintenance for their boats, and these are brighter and healthier in appearance than boats which bespeak mere mar- ginal operations. Many of the trollers (as a group, older and smaller than the rest of the fleet) display "for sale" signs, indicating the unhealthy state of the salmon fishing business. TABLE 10. Configuration of Charleston Boat Basin Fleet, 1979 Foot Class Commercial Percent Apart from the no-nonsense functional aspect of these "factories," each vessel embodies the hopes, dreams, and personality of its owner. The boats manifest this through individual features such as boat colors and boat names. White is a traditional color that seems to predominate, but boats painted this color are interspersed with boats from every shade of the rainbow. Generally speaking, newer, more modern boats are more often pained in the brighter shades, perhaps showing disregard for convention. Boat names are an especially direct reflection of individu- ality. Five categories predominate: referring to the poetic ("Miwanda," "Windsoag"), the adventurous ("Scimitar," "Wailder1ust"), the humorous ("Ketch-22," "~atch-U-~a~er"), the exotic ("Tiki," "(juasar"), or the name of a special woman ("Shirley Dee," "~ennie K."). FIGURE 50. White is a Traditional Boat Color It is the compact collection of all the individual personalities that gives the fleet its diversity. Perhaps it is in this sense that the fleet represents an idealized landscape; one which symbolizes a free life, a daily gsmble, and rhe dream of private entrepreneurial. success. Moorage Providers of moorage basically act as landlords for their tenants, the fleet. They sell not only physical space, but other services such as electricity, sewage and garbage disposal, and security protection. The Sulk of the moorage in Charleston is in the Charleston Boat Basin, owned and operated by the Port of Coos Bay. Other moorage Is provided by processors and private boat landings (see Fig. 48). The Port affects the appearance and operation of the basin in two ways: by its design of t he f a c i l i t i e s , and by ordinances which a f f e c t t h e ope ra t i on of b o a t s us ing t h e bas in . Besides t he pub l i c boat ba s in , moorage i s found a t two p r i v a t e docks i n South Slough. One of t he se docks i s ad jacent t o and opera ted by Pe te rson ' s Seafoods, which provides p r imar i l y temporary moorage f o r t r a n s i e n t s . The o t h e r f a c i l i t y , knom a s Hansonls Landing, provides moorage f o r 100-110 v e s s e l s , 60% of which a r e used by c o m e r c i a l v e s s e l s . An a d d i t i o n a l small amount of temporary moorage i s provided by t h e Po r t i n downtown Coos Bay (Table 11) . TABLE 11. Moorage S l i p s in Coos Bay Persleanent Seasona l l Snort Comnercial To ta l Temnorarv Total Charleston Boat Basin 163 33 1 494 64 558 Hanson Boat Landing 2 4 36 6 0 4 0 100 Coos Bay Docks 9 9 18 5 23 T o t a l 196 3 76 572 109 681 Moorage f a c i l i t i e s c o n s i s t b a s i c a l l y of f l o a t i n g p i e r s a t t ached t o p i l e s . Smaller f i n g e r p i e r s run a t r i g h t angles t o t h e main p i e r s , forining ind iv idua l " s l i p s " f o r one o r two boats . F i shemen a r e ass igned s l i p s by t h e ha rbo rnas t e r s o f f i c e , which a t tempts t o app rop r i a t e ly match v e s s e l s wi th moorage spaces t o maximize use of t h e a rea . For a number of yea r s , demnd f o r moorage has exceeded supply. A 1980 r ja i t ing l ist f o r moorage spaces i n t h e bas in l i s t e d 99 r eques t s f o r a space. This condi t ion becomes e s p e c i a l l y apparent during the peak aonths of summer, when t r a n s i e n t s (many of whom would r a t h e r be per- m n e n t l y moored a t Charleston) a r e " ra f ted" o f f t h e ends of the p i e r s i n t h r e e s and fou r s , and jockey f o r temporar i ly empty s l i p s . A c t i v i t y i n Charleston focuses on t h e bas in . Espec ia l ly dur ing t h e peak months, t he p i e r s b u s t l e wi th fishermen a r r i v i n g and depa r t i ng , making minor r e p a i r s t o t h e i r boa t s , o r p repar ing gear . They c o e x i s t , b u t do no t i n t e r a c t much, with t h e t , o u r i s t s and r e c r e a t i o n a l fishermen who come t o t h e bas in t o gawk, t ake p i c t u r e s , and f i s h from t h e p i e r . The l a r g e r boa t s t i e t o p i l i n g s over t h e oppos i te s i d e of t h e main p i e r , s o i t i s c r i ss -c rossed with ropes which pier-walkers must nego t i a t e . Most t r a n s i e n t fishermen, and some cha t a r e pernanent ly moored t h e r e , l i v e on t h e i r b e a t s , so a t n igh t many of t h e v e s s e l cab ins a r e lit. During t h e win te r months many f i s h e m e n leave a l i g h t e d bu lb going i n t h e cab in t o keep t h e i n t e r i o r dry (Fig. 51) FIGiJRE 51. A P i e r i n t he Outer Basin Processing Plants Six processing plants and three receiving stations are presently located in Charleston (Fig. 48). Before construction of the boat basin, the most desirable sites for processing plants were along the mouth of South Slough, which has channels deep enough for fishing vessels, and is close to the bar and yet protected from seas and swells coming through the entrance. Deep water access has been accomplished by building piers that extend from shore. Hallaark Fisheries and Peterson's Fisheries are now Located here. Another plant adjacent to a all mark's was destroyed by fire in 1979 and has not been rebuilt. Construction of the baat basin provided several more sites with access to deep and protected water. Alaska Packers, located on the end of the protective jetty north of the basln, uses one of these sites. Three other sites are used as receiving docks for fish that is processed elsewhere. The two most recently built plants in Charleston are set back from the water, evidently because no property with deep water access was functionally, politically, and economically available. Both facilities process fish trucked from other sites. One processing plant and three receiving stations are located up the bay on the waterfront near Empire. The Port of Coos Bay also operates a receiving dock on North Spit that can accomodate vessels over 90 feet long which have too deep a draft for the chacnels at Charleston. FIGURE 52. A Fish Receiving Dock Design of the shoreside plants is straightforward, with the following general characteristics: a dock Suilt on pilings which affords a flat working space and deep water access; unloading boons and conveyors which bring the product onto the wharf for handling by fork lifts; a building shell (sometimes partially standing on the wharf) which houses processing machkery, filleting and picking tables, and cold storage. The landward side of a plant sonetiaes has shipping docks designed for large trucks. Early plants such as Hallmark Fisheries (Fig. 53) are const~ucted with wood, using posts, beams, and wood siding. More recently, plants have been constructed fro3 prefabricated zeta1 or use balloon framing with plywood siding. The plant constructed in 1979 by Charter Ocean FIGURE 53. Hallmark Fisheries FIGURE 5 4 . Charter Ocean Products Products, for instance, is similar in appearance to any number of modern industrial facilities found throughout the country (Fig. 54). Besides selling their fish, fishermen can take on fuel, ice, and buy bait. Processors typically use enticements such as showers, wzshing machines, and free beer, to lure fishermen to their docks. Not all the plants process all types of fish at any given time. Whether or not a firm decides to process a particular species i s an individual business decision based on complex economic factors, though naturally the plants as a group respond to seasonal cycles in fishing activity. In general, the most active time of year for processors is early summer, when fish landings peak. Coos County fish processing employment is currently estimated to range from 340 to 615 people through the season (Ebert, 1981). However, this seasonality is changing. Increased emphasis on groundfish which are caught year-round, and cold storage facilities help to levelize production throughout the year. A portion of all the major species landed locally is exported in unprocessed form. Several dealers, including those who operate receiving docks and some processors, buy whole fish and transport it as far as Sacramento, California and Vancouver, B.C. for processing. Boat Building and Repafr Facilities Building and repair facilities for fishing vessels first came into operation in the yezrs immediately after World War 11, in response to the expansion of the fishing industry in the bay. They eventually be- FIGURE 5 5 . A Processing Plant with Retail Outlet came established across South Slough from Charleston in Barview where these activities still take place. Boat repair facilities are necessarily adjacent to the water so 11 boats can be pulled otit on "ways, as illustrated in Figure 56. The ~ajor comercia1 boat building enterprises in Charleston are built close to the water, but many smaller individual boats are built in backyard operations located throughout Charleston and elsewhere through- out the Coos Bay area. Access to a boat launching ramp is a key factor in the location of these facilities, especially for large boats which are subject to roadway size restrictions. The facilities found in Bar~iew consist of large structures housing vessels, and construction and repair equipment. A large collection of vessels in various stages of construction and repair are also stored outside, along with miscellaneous equipment (Fig. 5 7 ) . FIGURE 5 6 . Boat Ways F I G W E 57. Boat B u i l d i n g Facilities at Earview Marine-Related Business Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , t h e s a j o r concent ra t ion of bus inesses t h a t s e rve f i s h i n g opera t ions i s loca ted i n t he Charleston a rea . They include d e a l e r s i n marine e l ec t ron ic s . marine hardware, mariae engines, and n e t s . Many of t hese d e a l e r s se rve r e c r e a t i o n a l boa t s a s wel l . For t he most p a r t , they a r e housed i n bu i ld ings t h a t a r e of f a i r l y convez- tional design; many a r e cons t ruc ted from p re fab r i ca t ed meta l ( ~ i g . 58). Parking and Storage Large a reas of t h e P o r t ' s bas in property a r e devoted t o parking and s to rage f a c i l i t i e s . C o m e r c i a l f i s h e m use t h e s e a r e a s f o r long- and shorr-term auto parking, and f o r temporari ly s t o r i n g gear such a s crab FIGURE 58. A ~ o c a l Business Serving Fishemen pots. A good portion of the area is used by recreational boaters for auto and boat trailer parking. One large boat storage garage that houses vessels is operated by the Port. Other Facilities A variety of public institutions directly serve the fishing industry, and many of these are physically located within close proximity to their constituents. The basin's sznager's office, public showers, and restrooms, all operated by the Port, are directly adjacent to t3e outer basin. The U.S. Coast Guard has moorage facilities located in the outer basin and service quarters located on Port property (Fig. 59). The State of Oregon has a field office of the Departnent of Ffsh and Wildlife adjacent to the inner basin on its west side. FIGURE 59. The Coast Guard Rouses Vessels Ready for Rescue Work Three trailer and recreational vehicle parks in the local area (Fig. 48) serve fishernen who live in Charleston on a seasonal basis, although some fishermen live in them year-round. The Landscape of Charleston The landscape of Charleston owes a great deal to America, the West, and Oregon--but it is the elements associated with the local fishing industry that are super-imposed over the generic eleaents of the above three that gives rise to the distinctiveness of the local scene. Gordon Hewes has noted that: In a literal sense, fairly homogeneous aquatic environments may cut across widely differing terrestrial environnents or life zones, thus ucifying one sector of the economic lives of people who inhabit otherwise diverse territories. . . . In the same way, the littoral zones of continents . . . tend to make similar the fishing activities of coastal peoples in spite of greatly differing hinterland economics (Eewes, 1348: 240-241). Consequently, the landscape of Charleston may have more in common with other fishing ports up and down the coast, than it does with other com- munities in Oregon, or even other communities in the Coos Bay area. It should be reiterated at this point that even though aquatic environments are relatively more uniform latitudinally than their ter- restrial counterparts, variation does exist in aquatic habitats and resource productivity, as explained in Chapter Three. Thus the pattern of exploitation that has developed through the local fishing industry, coupled with Charleston's unique physical setting, has served to m k e Charleston's fishing landscape unique. Nonetheless, its morphology is similar in many respects to other Pacific fishing ports. The two most significant physical detemiaants that functionally relate to the shoreside fishing industry are proximity to deep water and flat surfaces (on land or water) far work areas. Both of these are gvailable in Charleston, although much of it has been artificially created by filling or by pilings. The Port's filled area, though not Charleston's most visually distinctive feature, has made possible most af the other elements which make up the local fishing industry. To the observer, the area is obviously man-made, annexed to the original shoreline. The sensation of relative newness is pervasive. All structures built upon it are less than 20 years old, most less than 10 years old. Open areas are barren, largely because of the sterility of the fill material, and the Port's desire to maintain them for parking. Other snaller fills have been made in the Charleston area, the most notable being the property on which Peterson's Fisheries is located. This fill, along with pilings that extend out into the water, gives the processor the necessary deep water access. Pilings such as these are a distinctive landscape feature found throughout Charleston (Fig. 60). Charleston is relatively small in areal extent, so that all facilities that serve fishernen are within walking distance, an important circumstance, since transient fishermen have no access to transportation by auto. This "convenience" factor is especially evident in the location of showers, restrooms, a cafe, and a bar, all of which are within 100 yards of the boat basin, and which cater primarily to fishermen. F1GUP.E 60. P i l i n g s , Shown a t High Tide Because t h e f i s h i n g indus t ry i s given t o booms and bus t s , t he economic s t r u c t u r e b u i l t upon i t has a t t imes been uns tab le . In Charleston, t h i s has l e d t o numerous openings, c lo s ings , and o~ jne r sh ip changes of a s soc i a t ed businesses . A s a r e s u l t , t h e community is r e p l e t e t ~ i t h r e l i c structures t h a t have long s i n c e seen t h e i r prizie. Many of t hese a r e no longer i n use (Fig. 61). I n add i t i on , t he marginal cha rac t e r of some opera t ing bus inesses has produced s e v e r a l bu i ld ings t h a t have f a l l e n i n t o va r ious s t a g e s of d i s r e p a i r . Some bus inesses f u r t h e r t h s t image by harboring junk and r e l i c machinery. Because of t he shor tage of moorage, most r e l i c v e s s e l s a r e s to red on land , and these can be seen throughout t he c a m u n i t y (Fig. 62) . The i n d u s t r i a l FIGURE 61. A Relic Structure, Originally a Boat Works FIGVRE 62. Relic Vessels, Seen Throughcut the Cornunity nature of much of the fishing operation has resulted in a lot of marine- related equipment and part8 lying around the processing and moorage areas. With the salt-air environment, rulrt has taken its toll on much of it (Fig. 63). FIGURE 63. Derelict Firhing Equipment Finally, a significant portion of the morphology of the local scene comes from the water. A great deal of the built. environment in Charleston is either built over it or floats upon it. Fluctuations in water level from tidal influence cause a constant change in the exposure of much of the waterfront landscape, including tidal flats, pilings, and rip-rap. Those items which float are subject to continual vertical and horizontal movement from tides, currents, and waves. Consequently, piers and vessels are relatively unstable work platforms, naking water- front activities more difficult and ~npredictable than land based operat ions. Why is a seaside community such as Charleston such a persistently attractive place? Several scholars single out coastal environments as being particularly appealing to humans. "Fishing comunlties in the modern world are poor, generally speaking, when compared with farming cornunities in the interior; and if they endure it is less for the economic rewards than for the satisfaction to be got out of an ancient and lore-drenched way of life" (Tuan, 1974:116). This "way of life" lends a great deal to the persistent appeal of Charleston. The daily life of the fishemen is inextricably tied to the morphology of the port. Each morning throughout the year, a number of fishermen gather in the local cafe at the boat basin to decide on the day's dishing. They assess the weather, bar conditions, market prices, and fishing condi- tions, then weigh these factors against the condition of their boat and their financial situation. The daily gathering also gives the fishermen a chance to socialize and to find out about the latest good fishing areas and what fishing technique is working best. Fishing involves a lot of waiting. As often as not, especially during the off-season, conditions are not right for the fishernan to risk his time, money, and safety, so he goes home leaving his boat docked in the harbor, ready for another day. Fishemen get as mgch fishing in as they can when the "gettin's good." Consequently, fishing activity occurs in spurts. Naturally, good weather means lots of activity. On those days, boats are seen In the channel coming and going, and receiving docks are busy unloading fish; at tines boats are backed up waiting their turn. Thus, the functioning of the fishing landscape lends to its appeal; the activity of fishermen in the port gives a glimpse of the adventure of the sea to the land-locked viewer. But apart from its functioning, the local landscape has an aesthetic quality which is more difficult to define. One of the nost striking elements of Charleston's landscape is its smell. "Odor has the power to evoke vivid, emotionally-charged memories of past events and scenes. . . . We cannot recapture fully the essential feel of a visual world belonging to our past without the help 11 of a sensory experience that has not changed . . . (Tuan, 1974:lO). As the farmer who grows comfortable with the smell of his cow barn, so the fisherman and local resident feels at home with the heady mixture of salt air, diesel, and fish parts. Vhen the tide is low, the smell of decaying vegetation on the flats blends in. To returning visitors, the first whiff of these combinations can conjure a host of mixed emotions and remembrances. Eut perhaps the most powerful impressions come from Charleston's visual impact. On this, Tuan has noted: "When we look at a landscape and see a church spire at the end of a tree-lined road, our eyes have automatically combined visual data to form a ste~eoscopic image, 2nd our mind has integrated with little conscious effort, diverse clues and experiences to give rich neaning to that image" (Tuan, 1 9 7 9 : 9 6 ) . The boat basin's visual appeal to a wide audience i s imediately apparent; next to sunsets, it is perhaps the most photographed scene in the local area. Evidently, the composition of the fleet in terns of the language of art (its coIor, texture, mass, line, position, spaetry, balance, tension) (Meinig, 1979 :46 ) strikes a responsive, personal chord in nany who experience it. FIGURE 64. Boat Basin Scene CHAPTER SIX S W Y The establishnent of commercial fisheries in Coos Bay occurred in a context of fisheries development throughout the Northwest. Salmon fishing activity began in the 1860s on the West Coast in rivers and estuaries that showed significant salmon runs. Commercial salmcn fishing in Coos Bay was initiated at a relatively late date (1880s) and its early development was modest. Other streams on the south coast of Oregon, especially the Rogue River, were more important centers of fishing activity than Coos Bay in the early days. The Rogue, for instance, had substantial fall and spring runs of salnon which enabled productive gillnetting activity. The smaller runs at Coos Bay simply csuhd not support as large a fishery. Early development of the fishery at Coos 3ay was also hindered by the area's isdlation. Traosportation was available only by sea, and this was unpredictable because of bar conditions. It was not until the development of offshore fishing that Coos Bay emerged as a significant node of activity. Offshore fishing was made possible by a nunber of changing conditions, including the development of a suitable boat, improvements to the harbor entrance, and expansion of markets which were generated by better preserving methods and improved transportation. By 1920, offshore trolling was a well estab- lished activity in the local area. This led to whzt was perhaps the major transition in the fishing landscape of the bay. Fairly suddenly the estuary was seen as a fishing harbor rather than as a fishing ground. The growih of the local fishlng industry in the community of Charleston, located cloee to the harbor entrance, clearly reflected the new view. Diverrffication after the late 19308 brought new problr~u and v prorp.ctr. Firhrrrrwn became less dependent oa the local rrrourar. & tho trollera' ran80 expanded they became lncreaoiagly drpandmt oa ffrk ?&. frw other rtreauu. In addition, access to a greater divrrrity of mgeaier offrhore gave the local fishery increased stability. Coaro- qwutly, even with the booms and busts which have occurred with pltticul8t species, the local fishery has maintained relativrly rteady ~rawth. These characteristics are manifested in the local landscape with unique accumulation of old and new elemontr. 8- local laadrcape feature8 are r-tr of rativities no longer prrcticrd at their prak lrvrlr. A notable e m i r fa the abandoned trollarr locally evident. Uowavar , tkaaa Cuturar are largely obscured by the grnrral health and d$vrreity of aoatmporrry activity. A larue part of the contrmporrry lrndr~apr in Charleston reeults from a conrciour effort of public bodirr, rrpecially the Port of Coos Bay, which rtrerres economic drvelogornt. Alterations of the environ- ment, primarily through the placrlrmt of fill material to create addi- tional flat ground and deep watrr accerr, have made possible the loca- tion of much of the local firhing industry. Future alteration of the shoreline for industrial purpose8 will be weighed heavily against the loss of estuarine productivity. Consequently, lack of additional space mzy preclude Charleston from further industrialization. Any substantial growth in the local fishing industry will most likely occur on North Spit or elsewhere on the bay. BIBLIOGRAPHY Biere, R. "pelagic Distribution." Encyclopedia of Oceanography, R. W. Fairbridge, Ed. New Yoric: Reinholt Publishing, 1966. Browning, R. F. Fisheries of the Worth Pacific. Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Northwest Publishing Co., 1974. Bruneau, C. "The 1979 Oregon Shrimp Fishing." Information Report 1980-81. Salem, Oregon: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1980. Carter, C. N. Mraltifishery Activity in Oregon Commercial Fleets: An Economic Analysis of Short-run Decision-making Eehavior. Unpub- lished Ph.D. Dissertation, Oregon State University, 1981. Cleaver, F. C. Fisheries Statistics of Oregon. Contribution No. 16. Portland, Oregon: Oregon Fish Corinnission, 1951. Cobb, J. N. Pacific Salmon Fisheries, 4th ed. U.S. Bureau of Fisheries, Docuinent 1092. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1930. Coos Bay Times. "Southwestern Oregon . . . A Seven League Giant." Coos Bay, Oregon, 1942. Coos-Curry Council of Governments. Draft Coquille Estuary Plan. North Bend, Oregon, 1480. Damron, J. E. The Emergence of Salmon Trolling on the American Rorth- west Coast: A Maritime Historical Geography. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Oregon, 1975. Dodge, 0. Pioneer Bistory of Coos and Curry Counties, Oregon. Salem, Oregon, 1898. Ebert, F. N., R. P. Adams, & J. Dills. North Bay b r i n e Tndustrial Park Environmental Impact Statement. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Amy Engineer District, 1982. Fairbridge, R. W. Encyclopedia of Oceanography. New York: Reinholt Publishing Co., 1966. Feller, Charles Inc. Coos Bay Salmcn. Coos Bay, Oregon, n.d. Food and Agriculture Organization of fhe United Nations. Atlas of the Living Resources of the Seas. Rome, 1972. Gharrett, J. T. 8 J. I. Hodges. Salmon Fisheries of the Coastal Rivers of Oregon South of the Columbia. Portland, Oregon: Oregon Fish Commission, Contribution No. 1 3 , 1950. Barry, G. Y. 'The Pilchard Situation in Oregon." Fish Comission Re- search Briefs, Vo. 2, no. 1 . Portland, Oregon: Fish Cornmission of Oregon, 1949. Harry, G. Y. & A. R. Morgan. "History of the Oregon Trawl Fishery, 1884-1961." Fish Conmission Research Briefs, Vol. 9 , no. 1 . Portland, Oregon: Fish Commission of Oregon, 1963. Ball, Leonard, retired fisherman. Personal interview, January 1982. Bayden, M. V. History of the Salmon Industry in Oregon. Unpublished aster's Thesis, University of Oregon, 1930. Hewes, G. W. he Rubric 'Fishing and Fisheries."' American Anthro- pologist, Vol. 50, 1948. Hewes, G. W. Aboriginal Use of Fishing Resources in Northwestern North - America. PLDT Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1947. Hosie, Michael, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Personal inter- view, January 1982. International North Pacific Fisheries Camission. Salmon of the North Pacific Ocean, Vols. I-IX. Vancouver, B.C.: 1976-81. Jones, W. G. & G. Y, Harry. he Oregon Trawl Fishery for Hink Food-- 1948-1957.'' Fish Commission Research Briefs, Vol. 8, no. 1 . Portland, Oregon: 1961. Kulm, L. D. "Morphology and Geology of the Ocean Bottom--The Oregon Region." The Marine Plant Biomass of the Pacific Northwest Coast, R. W. Krauss ( e d . ) . Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University Press, 1977. Loeffel, R. E. & H. 0. Wendler. "Review of the Pacific Coast Chinook and Coho Salmon Resources with Special Emphasis on the Troll Fishery." Reports by the United States and Canada on the Oregon Kitration and Exploitation of Northeast Pacific Stocks of Chinook and Coho Salmon, to 1964. Infoma1 Committee on Chinook and Coho, 1969. Loy, W. G. Atlas of Oregon. Eugeoe, Oregon: University of Oregon Books, 1976. Lukas, J. "1978 Oregon Shrimp Fishery." Informational Report 79-1. Portland, Oregon: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1979. Major, R. L. "Distribution and Origin of Chinook (Onc'hoq-nchus tshawtscha in Offshore Waters of the North Pacific Ocean.'' Inter- national North Pacific Fisheries Comission Bulletin No. 38. Van- couver, B.C.: 1978. Kanzer, 3 . I., et al. "Offshore Distribution of Salmon." Bulletin No. 15. Vancouver, E.C.: International North Pacific Fisheries Com- mission, 1965. Harshfield Sun. Special Edition, January 1901. Marshfield, Oregon: Sun Publishing Co., 1901. McNeil, W. J. & J. E. Bailey. Salmon Ranchers Nanual. Seattle, Washington: Northwest Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1975. Meinig, D. W. co he Beholding Eye." The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes, I?. W. Meinig ( e d . ) . New York: Oxford University Press, 1979. Morgan, A. R. & A. R. Gerlach. Striped Bass StudFes on Coos Bay, Oregon in 1949 and 1950. Contribution No. 14. Portland, Oregon: Oregon Fish Cornissfon, 1950. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Unpublished commercial food fish landings. Portland, Oregon, 1975-1980. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Unpublished tzble, "1980 Oregon Troll Salmon Lessel Catch Distribution.'' Portland, Oregon: 1981. Oregon Fish and Gaze Protector. Annual Reports, First-Sixth. Salem, Oregon, 1893-1898. Oregon Fish Commission. Unpublished comereial food fish landings. Portland, Oregon, 1953-1974. Oregon Fish Comission. Report on the Pilchard Fishery of Oregon. Portland, Oregon: 1938. Oregon State Board of Fish Commissioners. Aqnual Reports, First-Sixth. Salmon, Oregon: 1887-1892. Pacific Fishernan Yearbook, 1913-1923. Seattle, Washington. Percy, K. L . , et al. Descriptions and Informaticn Sources for Oregon Estuaries. Sea Grant College Program. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University, 1974. Peterson, E. & A. Powers. A Century of Coos and Curry. Coquille, Oregon: Coos-Curry Pioneer and Historical Association, 1952. Poggie, J. J. & C. Gersuny. Fishemen of Galilee: The Human Ecology of a New England Coastal Community. Sea Grant, University of Rhode Island Marine Bulletin Series No. 17. Kingston, Rhode Island: 1974. Polk, R. L. Coos County Directory 1907-08. Portland, Oregon: 1907. Ronholt, L. L. 8 A. R. Magill. "Biological Observations and Results of the 1960 John N. Cobb Exploratory Shrimp Cruise Off the Central Oregon Coast." Fish Commission Research Briefs, Vol. 8, no. 1. Portland, Oregon: Fish Commission of Oregon, 1961. Saelens, M., et al. "1980 Oregon Shrimp Fishery." Informational Report 81-1. Portland, Oregon: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 81-1. Schroeder, D. F. Some Effects of European Beachgrass Amnophila Arenaria (L.) Link, in the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area. Unpub- lished Master's Thesis, University of Oregon, 1978. Shalk, R. F. Foragers of Northwest Coast of North America: The Ecology of Aboriginal Land Use Systems. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Arizona, 1978. Shalk, R. F. "The Structure of an Anadromous Fish Resource." - For Theory Building in Archeologyt L. Binford (ed.). New York: 1977. Smith, C. L. Fish or Cut Bait. Sea Grant. Cornallis, Oregon: Oregon State University, 1977. Smith, H. S. Fisheries Statistics of Oregon, 1950-1953. Contribution No. 22. Portland, Oregon: Oregon Fish Commission, 1956. Spurlock, C. History of the Salmon Fishing Industry in Oregon. Unpub- lished Master's Thesis, University of Oregon, 1939. Thompson, K. E. & D. Snow. Fish and Wildlife Resources--Oregon Coastal Zone. Newport, Oregon: Oregon Coastal Conservation and Develop- - ment Comission, 1974. Tollefson, R., et al. A Summary of Fishery Statistics of the Pacific Coast. Northwest Pulp and Paper Association, 1959. .Tuan, Yi Fu. "Thoughts and Landscape--The Eye and the Minds Eye." In The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes, D. W. Neining (ed.). New York: Oxford University Press, 1979. Tuan, Yi Fu. Topophilia A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes and Values. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentlce- Hall, 1974. U.S. Amy Engineer District. Charleston Breakwaters Extension and Grain Structure Environmental Impact Statement Supplement No. I . Port- land, Oregon: 1979. U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey. Coos Bay, Oregon Navigation Chart, 1890. U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey. Coos Bay, Oregon Navigation Chart, 1892. U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey. Coos Bay, Oregon Navigation Chart, 1894. U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey. Coos Bay, Oregon Navigation Chart, 1933. Van Hyning, J. M. The Ocean Salmon Troll Fishery of Oregcn. Oregon Fish Coinmission Contribution No. 15. Portland, Oregon: Oregon Waldron, K. D. The Fishery and Biology of the Dungeness Crab (Cancer Magister Dana) in Oregon Waters. Oregon Fish Commission Contribu- tion No. 24. Portland, Oregon: Oregon Fish Commission, 1958. Wilkes, C. Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition, Yol. IV. Philadelphia, PA: Lea and Blanchard, 1845. ZSrges, M. H. & J. G . Robinson. "The Oregon Pink Shrkp Fishery, Management History and Research Activities." Infornational Report 80-1. Portland, Oregon: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1980.