NorCal Kayak Anglers

General => Fish Talk => Topic started by: srdave on September 04, 2017, 09:06:42 AM

Title: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: srdave on September 04, 2017, 09:06:42 AM
I think its time and actually way over due to reduce the daily bag limit on rock fish. My background is I have been fishing these waters Bodega Bay and up north sense the mid 1960's diving, spearfishing, Kayaking and fishing from the beach and rocks. There is just to many of us. We all love to fish I don't want to sound like a snotty tree hugger. I too like to harvest the oceans and teach my sons to do the same but there are so many boats and kayakers now its just getting over run/fished.
Oregon has 7 daily bag limits I think Calif should do the same. I would rather keep 7 nice fish than 10 tiny or small fish any day.
The only ones I can think of that would have a cow is the Party boats I can see them screaming out against this , who would pay 150.00 to catch 7 small cod.
Anyway slam me if you want but there are going to be more and more fishermen and less and less nice size fish....Am I wrong?
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: SOMA on September 04, 2017, 09:20:06 AM
I look at it as "sport fishing."  Target the larger fish, catch and release the small fish.  I don't need to limit out every trip.  Lowering the limit would have little impact on my fishing.  I could live with a smaller limit.  (Hey, it makes limiting out a lot easier!)
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: Tinker on September 04, 2017, 09:28:56 AM
I'm not taking sides on retention limits.  I'm from Oregon.

About over-harvesting = smaller fish, 'though, where I live, the area was over-fished by the commercial fleet for years until they voluntarily stopped, and after more than a decade free of commercial fishing, the area is only now beginning to show signs of starting to recover.

We have a joint NOAA/university-sponsored research station in town.  They measure these things, and yes, the fish are smaller than in other areas not too far away.  Rockfish are 29% smaller on average, greenlings (sea trout) are 16% smaller, and there are very few legal-sized lingcod (22" in Oregon) to be found, most are in the 12-20" range.

It does happen.  I don't know what the solution may be.  Should recreational anglers take on the entire burden?  Would that be enough to help?
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: Martianfish on September 04, 2017, 09:32:58 AM
Catching more of the poachers would definitely help. Especially the ones that keep shorts of all fish types 
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: krusty on September 04, 2017, 09:45:22 AM
Catching more of the poachers would definitely help. Especially the ones that keep shorts of all fish types 

That would work except there is no rockfish size limit.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: charles on September 04, 2017, 10:00:05 AM
The only ones I can think of that would have a cow is the Party boats I can see them screaming out against this , who would pay 150.00 to catch 7 small cod.
Anyway slam me if you want but there are going to be more and more fishermen and less and less nice size fish....Am I wrong?

No. You are right. Like you I've fished the Sonoma Coast since the late 1950's till now and the large rock fish pupulation has dropped dramatically. There was a time when no one had fish finders or GPS to locate reefs close in or far out. Fish had a better chance of remaining hidden and surviving. And yes. Party boats would scream but with a 65 foot vessel, think Sea Angler here, that can fish in 20 knot wind and big seas with 30 to 40 fisherman guided to every GPS marked spot on the ocean, they take more than their share.

Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: kayakjack on September 04, 2017, 10:08:19 AM
I can't remember the last time I actually kept 10 fish. I'm ok with it.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: Widgeon on September 04, 2017, 10:13:33 AM
I dunno...I don't think lowering the limits would help fish mortality much. On the party boats people would just be tossing back more fish with barotrauma that would float away to die. Mandating the use of descending devices would help, I'm sure.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: srdave on September 04, 2017, 10:39:02 AM
No I don't think its the almighty answer but something is better that doing nothing. Most anglers I talk to boaters, kayakers in general agree 7 would be fine.
Fish and Game is sometime knee jerk reaction and sometime slower than crap to change I can only surmise that its the party boats that are stopping it.
All fish caught from rocks can be thrown back and I send a lot of fish back if I am in shallow enough water and all lings and blues and blacks go back too.
I just don't want to see it get as bad as the abalone in Sonoma and wait till its panic stage. The no kelp has me worried too the the fry fish have no place to hide and grow there in open water and super easy prey. I dive too so under water right now looks like a burned out forest.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: Tote on September 04, 2017, 10:53:38 AM
I don't think I have EVER kept a limit of rockfish.
I keep what I'll eat in a day or two, that's it.
Since my teens I've practiced catch and release before it was even a catch phrase.
My friends thought I was crazy. I even had one friend's dad, after I released a 15lb striper, tell me if I ever did that again I was no longer welcome to fish on his boat.
It just made more sense to me to keep the factory up and running rather than to deplete it's resources.
I also have no need to 'keep the refrigerator stocked' either.
So lower bag limits or greater size limits wouldn't bother me a bit.
I'm tellin' ya, kayak fishing was WAY more productive in the 90's than it is now.....
WAY MORE!
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: SOMA on September 04, 2017, 12:15:43 PM
Catching more of the poachers would definitely help. Especially the ones that keep shorts of all fish types 

That would work except there is no rockfish size limit.

You need to spend some time at the cleaning table after sunset.  Powerboat fishers with undersize lings, zero limit fish.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: LoletaEric on September 04, 2017, 12:21:58 PM
Lower the limit.  Teach people actual ethics.  Do things that push our culture toward being conscientious as a rule - we need to revere these species before they're gone.

Hell yes.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: Lost_Anchovy on September 04, 2017, 01:13:18 PM
haha certain people know my position on this fish. Call me a snob. :smt044
Although Verms still have a certain place in my heart. Lol.  :smt007
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: Hojoman on September 04, 2017, 01:35:24 PM
Rockfish limit used to be 20. Don't put the blame solely on partyboats. Many people don't fish very often and do provide an occasional fish fry for their families.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: Willha on September 04, 2017, 03:52:37 PM
In all honesty, I wouldn't mind a smaller limit on Rock fish.  AND I would love for there to be a law that prohibits commercial fishing.  Me personally have never and will never purchase fish or any seafood from a store. I understand that that would in-turn affect hundreds of thousands if not millions of jobs but sport fishing will never in a million years affect the numbers if we were to prohibit commercial fishing.  I've seen first hand 60 pound King salmon caught commercially and thrown overboard dead.  If we were to just say goodbye to commercial fishing it would greatly increase the amount of poaching but our oceans would finally be able to catch up on years and years of Raping.  When I was 13-14 my grandparents and I would limit out on Coho everyday we went out, we could drop a shrimp fly rig down with 5 flys and have 5 fish on before you flipped the bail.  I would kill to be able to fish like that again. 
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: srdave on September 04, 2017, 03:57:16 PM
Cal F&G would get so much pressure from party boats owners but what the heck if the fish size and population is shrinking its bad for even the party boats.
Hey if populations increase and the fishing is healthy then up it back to 10. They change ling cod size and limits back and forth all the time. Some fish are apparently not doing so good the blacks are now cut to 3 but now you can keep 1 canary so we can change it any time.
Yes the loss of kelp is real and this is huge issue for me I used to curse all the kelp. You practically had to crawl over the kelp to get to the dive spots. Fisk Mill was always like that towards the end of summer. I was just at (Stillwater north) and I saw no kelp none. Now I ain't no biologists but I can tell you for the abalone this ain't good and I would bet it ain't so good for the fish either.
Why wait till its a real problem? If fishing gets really good again just change it back to 10. Not a big deal.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: charles on September 04, 2017, 06:27:43 PM
Willha

Alaska does very will with balancing commercial fishing and maintaining health fish stocks. The state has a direct monetary interest in doing so. Salmon stocks off California face a far greater threat from agriculture  than from the few salmon trollers left. The war over water in California has been largely won by central valley farmers and the threat of them getting even more water, especially under the currrent administration, is real. At one time there were large runs of salmon in the San Joachim river. No more. Water diversion. Coho or siver salmon were abundant off the California coast in the 1960's. No more. They more than King salmon require cool flowing water for survival. Logging and withdrawal of water for urban and ag were more responsible than commercial fishing for the drastic drop in numbers. If spawing conditions are right it does not take too many salmon to repopulate but even if a huge school enters a river and there are low warm water conditions very few salmon will hatch and live to return to the sea.

This year the commercial salmon fishing season north of Pt Reyes didn't open till August. Sport salmon fishing begin in May with a size limit of 22 inches compared with the commercial size limit of 27 inches. Who do you think caught more fish, sport fleet or commercial?
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: crash on September 04, 2017, 06:34:23 PM
I fish in Oregon often enough.  They manage their rockfish fishery better.

7 RCG limit.  Sublimits for minor inshore species, blacks, and cabezon.  OPEN YEAR ROUND, but closed to cabezon retention Jan. 1-June 30.  Mandatory use of descenders.

I like all of those things, with the possible exception of the cabezon closure.  Although some Oregon ports have a really nice cabezon fishery.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: Vermillion on September 04, 2017, 06:53:58 PM
I am fortunate to live close to the ocean. I dont freeze my catch unless its worth it, (halibut, wsb, salmon) I brought home one Blue RF last tuesday. It had bad Barotrauma, so I was obligated to keep it. It fed my family. The California fisheries and game can not support over harvesting. If you are gonna live off of it you are in the wrong state, there are too many people takng more than their share of fish and game. My 2 cents is lower it, or just make it harder with sublimits. No more than 3 of any type. Just an idea.

Or maybe adjust the sights on Big Jim's spear gun. :smt044 :smt044
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: srdave on September 04, 2017, 06:55:16 PM
Besides what the heck is 3 rockfish more that's nothing we don't need them just keep the bigger ones even better let some of the bigger ones go. Here is another way of looking at it: 100 fishermen 3 less each that's 300 fish now if you have a 7 fish limit that 300 saved divided by 7 equals 42.8 more limits for other fishermen.
So for every 200 fishermen that's 100 more limits to catch. Right? Hows my math...LOL
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: polepole on September 04, 2017, 07:14:28 PM
Besides what the heck is 3 rockfish more that's nothing we don't need them just keep the bigger ones even better let some of the bigger ones go. Here is another way of looking at it: 100 fishermen 3 less each that's 300 fish now if you have a 7 fish limit that 300 saved divided by 7 equals 42.8 more limits for other fishermen.
So for every 200 fishermen that's 100 more limits to catch. Right? Hows my math...LOL

The math may be fine, but the thought behind it sort of implies that we'll still catch all those fish.  Not sure how that would help the resource.

Limits are set in support of annual take goals as determined by the PFMC.  You wanna do something for the rockfish, change the annual take goals.  Limits will then change accordingly in support of those goals.  They likely won't be changed due to "feel good initiatives".

-Allen
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: polepole on September 04, 2017, 07:16:43 PM
In all honesty, I wouldn't mind a smaller limit on Rock fish.  AND I would love for there to be a law that prohibits commercial fishing.  Me personally have never and will never purchase fish or any seafood from a store. I understand that that would in-turn affect hundreds of thousands if not millions of jobs but sport fishing will never in a million years affect the numbers if we were to prohibit commercial fishing.  I've seen first hand 60 pound King salmon caught commercially and thrown overboard dead.  If we were to just say goodbye to commercial fishing it would greatly increase the amount of poaching but our oceans would finally be able to catch up on years and years of Raping.  When I was 13-14 my grandparents and I would limit out on Coho everyday we went out, we could drop a shrimp fly rig down with 5 flys and have 5 fish on before you flipped the bail.  I would kill to be able to fish like that again.

To be fair, here in CA, sport fisherman take way more black rockfish than commercials.  It's been that way for the past 50+ years.

-Allen
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: crash on September 04, 2017, 07:19:24 PM
Besides what the heck is 3 rockfish more that's nothing we don't need them just keep the bigger ones even better let some of the bigger ones go. Here is another way of looking at it: 100 fishermen 3 less each that's 300 fish now if you have a 7 fish limit that 300 saved divided by 7 equals 42.8 more limits for other fishermen.
So for every 200 fishermen that's 100 more limits to catch. Right? Hows my math...LOL

The math may be fine, but the thought behind it sort of implies that we'll still catch all those fish.  Not sure how that would help the resource.

Limits are set in support of annual take goals as determined by the PFMC.  You wanna do something for the rockfish, change the annual take goals.  Limits will then change accordingly in support of those goals.  They likely won't be changed due to "feel good initiatives".

-Allen

The PFMC target numbers for Oregon assumes 10 fish limits.  Oregon keeps the 7 fish limit to allow year round fishing for rockfish.  Granted the farther north you go the fewer fishable days there are, but california has damn near year round fishing down south.  Yelloweye is our constraining fish (it is also Oregon's), the answer to that is depth limits during the summer and early fall, which we just started doing here.

As for the slant of srdave's complaint, isn't that supposed to be what the MPAs are for?
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: AnnieAreYouOk on September 04, 2017, 07:26:42 PM
What if people were required to have a descending device on board and actually use it… I've never seen more floaters than the one time I went on the new sea angler.. a very sad sight…
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: Willha on September 04, 2017, 07:29:03 PM
In all honesty, I wouldn't mind a smaller limit on Rock fish.  AND I would love for there to be a law that prohibits commercial fishing.  Me personally have never and will never purchase fish or any seafood from a store. I understand that that would in-turn affect hundreds of thousands if not millions of jobs but sport fishing will never in a million years affect the numbers if we were to prohibit commercial fishing.  I've seen first hand 60 pound King salmon caught commercially and thrown overboard dead.  If we were to just say goodbye to commercial fishing it would greatly increase the amount of poaching but our oceans would finally be able to catch up on years and years of Raping.  When I was 13-14 my grandparents and I would limit out on Coho everyday we went out, we could drop a shrimp fly rig down with 5 flys and have 5 fish on before you flipped the bail.  I would kill to be able to fish like that again.

To be fair, here in CA, sport fisherman take way more black rockfish than commercials.  It's been that way for the past 50+ years.

-Allen

I would never want to debate you, you're older and much wiser lol.  But this year alone there are nearly 4,500 commercial fishing vessels off the coast of california.  Each allowed to take 1,200 pounds of fish ever 2 months.  Its not just the fish that they are coming in with that's affecting the population its the weight that doesnt get counted that those boats kill of in the process.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: polepole on September 04, 2017, 07:36:16 PM
The PFMC target numbers for Oregon assumes 10 fish limits.  Oregon keeps the 7 fish limit to allow year round fishing for rockfish.  Granted the farther north you go the fewer fishable days there are, but california has damn near year round fishing down south.  Yelloweye is our constraining fish (it is also Oregon's), the answer to that is depth limits during the summer and early fall, which we just started doing here.

From the PFMC's latest assessment Black Rockfish Assessment.  I'm using Black Rockfish as a proxy for all rockfish.  That thinking may be flawed.

Quote
Oregon had no recreational bag limits for marine fishes until 1976 when the state established a
25-fish limit. In 1978 the state established a daily limit of 15 fish for each angler’s combined bag
of rockfish, cabezon and greenling, which stayed in effect until 1994 when the state established a
10-fish-per-angler daily bag limit specifically for black rockfish. Following the early closure of
the fishing season for black rockfish in 2004, the daily bag limit for black rockfish was dropped
to 5 fish at the start of 2005 but was increased in-season to 6 fish. The per-angler daily bag limit
was 6 fish during 2006 and 2007, 5 fish at the start of 2008 and increased in-season to 6 fish, 6
fish at the start of 2009 and increased in-season to 7 fish where it has remained since.
The goal of Oregon’s sport fishery management is to maintain year-round fishing opportunities.
In-season adjustments to regulations can be made more restrictive or less restrictive, depending
on circumstances and the prospects for early attainment of harvest caps. Seasonal depth
restrictions (e.g., inside 30 fathoms April 1 to September 30) are one tool used regularly in recent
years to control the fishery, driven largely by the need to avoid bycatch of the primary rebuilding
species, canary rockfish and yelloweye rockfish.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: crash on September 04, 2017, 07:38:30 PM
In all honesty, I wouldn't mind a smaller limit on Rock fish.  AND I would love for there to be a law that prohibits commercial fishing.  Me personally have never and will never purchase fish or any seafood from a store. I understand that that would in-turn affect hundreds of thousands if not millions of jobs but sport fishing will never in a million years affect the numbers if we were to prohibit commercial fishing.  I've seen first hand 60 pound King salmon caught commercially and thrown overboard dead.  If we were to just say goodbye to commercial fishing it would greatly increase the amount of poaching but our oceans would finally be able to catch up on years and years of Raping.  When I was 13-14 my grandparents and I would limit out on Coho everyday we went out, we could drop a shrimp fly rig down with 5 flys and have 5 fish on before you flipped the bail.  I would kill to be able to fish like that again.

To be fair, here in CA, sport fisherman take way more black rockfish than commercials.  It's been that way for the past 50+ years.

-Allen

I would never want to debate you, you're older and much wiser lol.  But this year alone there are nearly 4,500 commercial fishing vessels off the coast of california.  Each allowed to take 1,200 pounds of fish ever 2 months.  Its not just the fish that they are coming in with that's affecting the population its the weight that doesnt get counted that those boats kill of in the process.

Bycatch is accounted for in the rockfish allocations.  We've been borrowing blacks from commercial fishierman's allotment for the last few years and that's why we are reduced to 3 fish.  There aren't any more to borrow and virgin biomass is getting depleted to trigger points.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: polepole on September 04, 2017, 07:39:34 PM
In all honesty, I wouldn't mind a smaller limit on Rock fish.  AND I would love for there to be a law that prohibits commercial fishing.  Me personally have never and will never purchase fish or any seafood from a store. I understand that that would in-turn affect hundreds of thousands if not millions of jobs but sport fishing will never in a million years affect the numbers if we were to prohibit commercial fishing.  I've seen first hand 60 pound King salmon caught commercially and thrown overboard dead.  If we were to just say goodbye to commercial fishing it would greatly increase the amount of poaching but our oceans would finally be able to catch up on years and years of Raping.  When I was 13-14 my grandparents and I would limit out on Coho everyday we went out, we could drop a shrimp fly rig down with 5 flys and have 5 fish on before you flipped the bail.  I would kill to be able to fish like that again.

To be fair, here in CA, sport fisherman take way more black rockfish than commercials.  It's been that way for the past 50+ years.

-Allen

I would never want to debate you, you're older and much wiser lol.  But this year alone there are nearly 4,500 commercial fishing vessels off the coast of california.  Each allowed to take 1,200 pounds of fish ever 2 months.  Its not just the fish that they are coming in with that's affecting the population its the weight that doesnt get counted that those boats kill of in the process.

Well, are they all fishing rockfish?  Because they're not doing a very good job if they are.  The stats come from the PFMC Black Rockfish Assessment doc.  In other fisheries, the portion of commercial take is different.

-Allen
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: Willha on September 04, 2017, 07:42:51 PM
Willha

Alaska does very will with balancing commercial fishing and maintaining health fish stocks. The state has a direct monetary interest in doing so. Salmon stocks off California face a far greater threat from agriculture  than from the few salmon trollers left. The war over water in California has been largely won by central valley farmers and the threat of them getting even more water, especially under the currrent administration, is real. At one time there were large runs of salmon in the San Joachim river. No more. Water diversion. Coho or siver salmon were abundant off the California coast in the 1960's. No more. They more than King salmon require cool flowing water for survival. Logging and withdrawal of water for urban and ag were more responsible than commercial fishing for the drastic drop in numbers. If spawing conditions are right it does not take too many salmon to repopulate but even if a huge school enters a river and there are low warm water conditions very few salmon will hatch and live to return to the sea.

This year the commercial salmon fishing season north of Pt Reyes didn't open till August. Sport salmon fishing begin in May with a size limit of 22 inches compared with the commercial size limit of 27 inches. Who do you think caught more fish, sport fleet or commercial?

The fishing adventure i was speaking of was out of Port Hardy BC.  Their fishing regs on commercial fishing are a joke from what the F&G in Canada have told me.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: crash on September 04, 2017, 07:44:22 PM
The PFMC target numbers for Oregon assumes 10 fish limits.  Oregon keeps the 7 fish limit to allow year round fishing for rockfish.  Granted the farther north you go the fewer fishable days there are, but california has damn near year round fishing down south.  Yelloweye is our constraining fish (it is also Oregon's), the answer to that is depth limits during the summer and early fall, which we just started doing here.

From the PFMC's latest assessment Black Rockfish Assessment.  I'm using Black Rockfish as a proxy for all rockfish.  That thinking may be flawed.

Quote
Oregon had no recreational bag limits for marine fishes until 1976 when the state established a
25-fish limit. In 1978 the state established a daily limit of 15 fish for each angler’s combined bag
of rockfish, cabezon and greenling, which stayed in effect until 1994 when the state established a
10-fish-per-angler daily bag limit specifically for black rockfish. Following the early closure of
the fishing season for black rockfish in 2004, the daily bag limit for black rockfish was dropped
to 5 fish at the start of 2005 but was increased in-season to 6 fish. The per-angler daily bag limit
was 6 fish during 2006 and 2007, 5 fish at the start of 2008 and increased in-season to 6 fish, 6
fish at the start of 2009 and increased in-season to 7 fish where it has remained since.
The goal of Oregon’s sport fishery management is to maintain year-round fishing opportunities.
In-season adjustments to regulations can be made more restrictive or less restrictive, depending
on circumstances and the prospects for early attainment of harvest caps. Seasonal depth
restrictions (e.g., inside 30 fathoms April 1 to September 30) are one tool used regularly in recent
years to control the fishery, driven largely by the need to avoid bycatch of the primary rebuilding
species, canary rockfish and yelloweye rockfish.

It's good enough for this discussion I think.  At least as it relates to norcal.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: Willha on September 04, 2017, 07:55:19 PM
Whats the best way to get polepole to respond to a PM?  :smt003 :smt044 :smt044 :smt044 :smt044
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: polepole on September 04, 2017, 07:56:24 PM
Whats the best way to get polepole to respond to a PM?  :smt003 :smt044 :smt044 :smt044 :smt044

Wait, which PM did I not respond to?  Please re-send.  Apologies ...

-Allen
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: AlexB on September 05, 2017, 06:32:06 AM
I'd support reducing the sport rockfish limit to 7, but I have no delusions that it would fix the problem. There are much bigger factors at play (climate change, commercial fishing, habitat changes, etc, etc, etc).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: srdave on September 05, 2017, 06:34:11 AM
To be nice you are making this too confusing...3 less rockfish caught is not going to make your life miserable well maybe if your already a miserably ol'e fart.
I just go by what has happen to the abalone to much pressure,die off now no kelp and starving. I just think its time to cut back give the system a break.
Diving with no kelp after 35 years of cursing that stuff scares the crap out of me its ugly as sin. Can it come back sure but lets give it a break and if it does come back and fishing improves up the limit back to 10 not a big deal. You could just make it counties that get a ton of pressure. Abalone take has different amounts for Mendo than it does for Sonoma so it is doable.
 
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: charles on September 05, 2017, 06:44:25 AM
Willha

There may be 4,500 commercial boats licensed in California for commercial fishing but only a fraction of them are actually fishing. Many guys, especially the older ones, are maintaining their permits in hope of a better future season that raises the value of boat and permit. They will then sell out. If you take a glance at the fleet in Bodega Bay it looks big but probably only 20 boats are actively trolling salmon this year. Perhaps a few, and it is very few, might fish for lingcod but there is a 400 pound limit per week. I don't know what the dock price is for lings but I'd bet after expenses the profit margin is slim.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: Willha on September 05, 2017, 11:29:51 AM
Willha

There may be 4,500 commercial boats licensed in California for commercial fishing but only a fraction of them are actually fishing. Many guys, especially the older ones, are maintaining their permits in hope of a better future season that raises the value of boat and permit. They will then sell out. If you take a glance at the fleet in Bodega Bay it looks big but probably only 20 boats are actively trolling salmon this year. Perhaps a few, and it is very few, might fish for lingcod but there is a 400 pound limit per week. I don't know what the dock price is for lings but I'd bet after expenses the profit margin is slim.


Oh I see, So its sorta like a Liquor license then? only so many are given out annually that makes sense.  I've only seen stores constantly stocked with fish everywhere and Commercial boats every time I've gone out so naturally I assume but I totally forgot that a lot of that seafood is farmed as well.  Plus in Canada the commercial fishing out there is Waaaay more prevalent.  Ive seen a lot of fish killed in the process of going for a specific species on commercial vessels more times I can count.  plus I was taking into account the countless times I go out annually for salmon, halibut, striper and sturgeon and even sometime trout and get skunked.  I catch a lot more fish than my circle of personal friends and family and I dont feel as if every sport fisherman is actually taking a ton of fish out of the Ocean when the ocean is 70% of our planet.  When everybody you know that fishes is in a group of fishing masters like the NCKA I guess it would seem as if sport fishers are raping the ocean lol.  But I know 10 people that get an annual license that fish 1 or 2 times a year and dont even catch anything. So there is that factor as well as how many people fish inland only.  I totally trust your guys judgment though I'm only pointing out what I've noticed from my personal experience but lets be honest for a second and think of how awesome it would be if there were no commercial fishing and everyone had to rely on actually catching their own fish or from a friend or family member.  It would make us all a little more awesome in our friends and families eyes.  haha
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: polepole on September 05, 2017, 11:55:06 AM
lets be honest for a second and think of how awesome it would be if there were no commercial fishing and everyone had to rely on actually catching their own fish or from a friend or family member.  It would make us all a little more awesome in our friends and families eyes.  haha

Let's be honest, there will always be commercial fishing ...  :smt002

-Allen
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: Willha on September 05, 2017, 01:40:34 PM
lets be honest for a second and think of how awesome it would be if there were no commercial fishing and everyone had to rely on actually catching their own fish or from a friend or family member.  It would make us all a little more awesome in our friends and families eyes.  haha

Let's be honest, there will always be commercial fishing ...  :smt002

-Allen

I know, I'm just selfish  :smt002 :smt044
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: Willha on September 05, 2017, 01:41:04 PM
lets be honest for a second and think of how awesome it would be if there were no commercial fishing and everyone had to rely on actually catching their own fish or from a friend or family member.  It would make us all a little more awesome in our friends and families eyes.  haha

Let's be honest, there will always be commercial fishing ...  :smt002

-Allen

I resent that PM did you receive it?
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: polepole on September 05, 2017, 01:55:33 PM
lets be honest for a second and think of how awesome it would be if there were no commercial fishing and everyone had to rely on actually catching their own fish or from a friend or family member.  It would make us all a little more awesome in our friends and families eyes.  haha

Let's be honest, there will always be commercial fishing ...  :smt002

-Allen

I resent that PM did you receive it?

Yes, I'm conferring with the powers that be.

-Allen
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: Willha on September 05, 2017, 02:39:19 PM
AWESOME.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: srdave on September 05, 2017, 02:55:24 PM
One reef 7 fishermen this is what it looks like
 :smt003 :smt003 :smt003
Dave's illustration NOTE: NO KELP...
So how long before its fished out..........
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: polepole on September 05, 2017, 03:24:19 PM
One reef 7 fishermen this is what it looks like
 :smt003 :smt003 :smt003
Dave's illustration NOTE: NO KELP...
So how long before its fished out..........

Those are fake tracks, right?  And I count only 5.

I can think of a number of reefs that I consider get hit hard.  Guess what?  They're still producing fish.

-Allen
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: Sin Coast on September 05, 2017, 03:49:07 PM
Just to clarify some minor innacuracies, the good stick boats can produce over 1200lbs of salmon in two DAYS; not MONTHS.

Also, most of these comments have been repeated multiple times in various conversations throughout the years on NCKA (and the dozens of other similar sites). Not that it invalidates the current conversation; but reading those prior discussions would probably lead to more 'informed' opinions & debate. That is, if you enjoy reading about fish & fishing with a hint of politics.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: charles on September 05, 2017, 04:15:52 PM
Quite true. A good stick boat can produce 1,200 pounds in a couple of days. In 1988, a banner year for salmon, while fishing alone I had  days of up to 2,000 pounds but those days are the exception. Most days the catch averaged 20 to 30 fish. In a poor year like this one desperate guys are fishing for five a day although there will always be someone who has a lucky tack and get 20. Price is high. 8 to 9 dollars a pound so it keeps some fisherman from going belly up this year. Personally I think commercial trolling for salmon has a very limited future. Chances are that eventually the state will declare a state of emergency due to repeat years of inadequate water flow down the Sac and buy out the existing commercial trolling permits.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: polepole on September 05, 2017, 04:28:48 PM
Just to clarify some minor innacuracies, the good stick boats can produce over 1200lbs of salmon in two DAYS; not MONTHS.

Was he talking salmon?  I thought we were discussing rockfish.  Willha, can you provide more context for this stat?

-Allen
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: srdave on September 05, 2017, 04:37:53 PM
You cant tell me that we cant wipe out a reef from fishing. We most certainly can and do. The jetty like Bodega are just a shell of what it used to produce. I used to go there and fill a gunny sac of nice blue and black rockfish and I mean nice size fish too you wont see that anymore.
I see it all the time even diving in some spots the abalone get wiped out too. There are areas like Fort Ross head used to have Hundreds of 9 to 10 inch abalone like coins in a fountain huge schools of Blue and Black rockfish you could spearfish in 45 minutes and have a limit of nice rockfish. Try that now you might not even see a blue rockfish.

Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: polepole on September 05, 2017, 04:44:47 PM
You cant tell me that we cant wipe out a reef from fishing. We most certainly can and do. The jetty like Bodega are just a shell of what it used to produce. I used to go there and fill a gunny sac of nice blue and black rockfish and I mean nice size fish too you wont see that anymore.
I see it all the time even diving in some spots the abalone get wiped out too. There are areas like Fort Ross head used to have Hundreds of 9 to 10 inch abalone like coins in a fountain huge schools of Blue and Black rockfish you could spearfish in 45 minutes and have a limit of nice rockfish. Try that now you might not even see a blue rockfish.

I didn't say we can't wipe out a reef.  And certainly your experience proves that we can.  But I can say that I have experienced reefs that are hit hard, but still manage to produce.

BTW, was that a fake track image?

-Allen
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: ex-kayaker on September 05, 2017, 04:49:06 PM


plus I was taking into account the countless times I go out annually for salmon, halibut, striper and sturgeon and even sometime trout and get skunked.  I catch a lot more fish than my circle of personal friends and family and I dont feel as if every sport fisherman is actually taking a ton of fish out of the Ocean


Got a good chuckle from this [emoji1]

There's no (legal) commercial fisheries for wild striper, sturgeon or trout and they're not being hammered and discarded as bycatch in other fisheries......maybe your lack of success can be attributed to other factors lol.




Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: srdave on September 05, 2017, 05:09:22 PM
No that was not a real image... Just my sense of humor....LOL :smt003
Not only can a reef get depleted but a whole species of fish like the canary and Yellow Eye some of it from other reasons than just fishing but if we lighten the load it might help and what the heck is 3 more fish anyway? BUT you ain't going to get the party boats to agree with this they will scream like crazy so I doubt it would even get brought up. So it ain't going to happen but you know what most of you will be around long after I am gone I hope the ocean can sustain it for your kids to enjoy it too.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: crash on September 05, 2017, 05:12:05 PM
NCKA is fake news
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: Hojoman on September 05, 2017, 05:14:26 PM
Just to clarify some minor innacuracies, the good stick boats can produce over 1200lbs of salmon in two DAYS; not MONTHS.

Was he talking salmon?  I thought we were discussing rockfish.  Willha, can you provide more context for this stat?

-Allen
Also wondered why abalone was involved in the talk about reducing the rockfish limit
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: srdave on September 05, 2017, 05:32:53 PM
Abalone are over fished/harvested YES...NO? Same Ocean yes ?
I put abalone in the conversation because they have been hit hard and this is what happens to a reef full of fish if it get hit often enough. It will play out. In your opinion do you feel you will be able to take your grand kids out in 20 years and the fishing will be as good as it is now.......?
I don't think it will without real change now. Heck the abalone are starving what else is going on that we are not aware off?
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: polepole on September 05, 2017, 05:41:30 PM
Let me stick with my black rockfish example as a proxy for other rockfish ... from 2006 to 2015, do you think black rockfish populations have decreased, or increased?

While we all probably have anecdotal evidence of local reefs being depleted, please keep in mind that management regions are much much larger.

Also keep in mind that fisheries are managed for Maximum Sustainable Yield, meaning harvest is set to maintain a relatively fixed level of population.  Unless a fishery is overfished, it is not managed for growth.  Reducing individual limits, in the absence of increasing the MSY levels (or decreasing quotas) will have relatively little effect other than perhaps extending the season, so that we collectively still harvest the pre-determined quotas.

-Allen
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: srdave on September 05, 2017, 06:38:17 PM
You ask if the Black rockfish population has increased or decreased ? Well fish and game have answered that question 3 years ago we could keep 10 then last year they changed it to 5 this year lowered it to 3 with that and my own observation it has decreased. You can see it when you dive too they are just not around like they used to be. I am sure the kelp loss is certainly not helping matters.
The kelp loss and starving abalone has many worried as to what else is being affected and will this will have on the fisheries. Its all part of the same system. I know 3 fish is not going to save the world but my point is who cares if you take 3 less fish, can it help? .... I don't know maybe just little but certainly cant hurt either.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: crash on September 05, 2017, 06:49:09 PM
If only that were an easily answerable question with all of the data compiled in one place for easy reference so we didn't have to rely on anecdotal evidence. That would really be something.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: polepole on September 05, 2017, 06:57:43 PM
You ask if the Black rockfish population has increased or decreased ? Well fish and game have answered that question 3 years ago we could keep 10 then last year they changed it to 5 this year lowered it to 3 with that and my own observation it has decreased. You can see it when you dive too they are just not around like they used to be. I am sure the kelp loss is certainly not helping matters.
The kelp loss and starving abalone has many worried as to what else is being affected and will this will have on the fisheries. Its all part of the same system. I know 3 fish is not going to save the world but my point is who cares if you take 3 less fish, can it help? .... I don't know maybe just little but certainly cant hurt either.

Black rockfish populations increased every year from 2006 to 2015, the last year for which PFMC has data on their website.  Note that there was a noticeable spike in landings the last couple years of that timeframe, perhaps correlated to the fact that salmon season was shut down and many people switched to rockfish.  Also, over this time period, we generally saw an extension in seasons (maybe not in the far north, I don't know that region as well).  Individual catch limits don't tell the whole story.

-Allen
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: Hojoman on September 05, 2017, 09:55:25 PM
Abalone are over fished/harvested YES...NO? Same Ocean yes ?
I put abalone in the conversation because they have been hit hard and this is what happens to a reef full of fish if it get hit often enough. It will play out. In your opinion do you feel you will be able to take your grand kids out in 20 years and the fishing will be as good as it is now.......?
I don't think it will without real change now. Heck the abalone are starving what else is going on that we are not aware off?
You started out talking about rockfish. Now you're expanding the discussion. What other creatures will you include next?  My point is your discussion started out regarding rockfish and then you went off on a tangent about abalone.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: srdave on September 06, 2017, 06:46:28 AM
I cant believe someone does not understand why I would including abalone and the loss of kelp and some other fish species from an ocean ecosystem in the fish take conversation. Tangent? what don't you understand?
First off if when you dive for abalone AND spearfish you see whats under the water and things just look way different. With the loss of kelp and with that disaster what else is it affecting? I see and catch and spearfish less blues and blacks than I have in the past and definitely smaller even if you do find them. Other divers say the same.
The limit on black rockfish ALSO pertains to spear fishing YES?
 
Now I am speaking of only what I know this would be Sonoma county so I don't know about Mendocino or Marin but you cant tell me there are more black and blues in Sonoma than 10-20 years ago no way. We used to see huge schools of blues and blacks when spearfishing now even if you see a little school there small you don't want to bother shooting them. So lets just change the limit to 7 its not a big deal 7 nice fish and 2 ling cod that's a lot of fish heck you can even keep a Canary now.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: polepole on September 06, 2017, 07:01:34 AM
Now I am speaking of only what I know this would be Sonoma county so I don't know about Mendocino or Marin but you cant tell me there are more black and blues in Sonoma than 10-20 years ago no way.

Actually I can, but I have a feeling you won't agree as your experience doesn't align with the data.

Try reading this ... http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Black-rockfish-2015_FINAL.pdf

-Allen
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: srdave on September 06, 2017, 07:33:06 AM
PolePole WOW now that is some reading. I do believe this is too wide spread to focus on Sonoma near shore. Where do they get the info for sport fishing if it form the party boat take thats NG. I have never in 50+ years been asked how many blues and black I have taken and that includes many many party boat trips so who are there asking? My old Divers and Kayaker buddies have never been asked I don't get it please explain?
How many of you other kayaker/Divers have been ask exactly what species of fish you caught and how many of each?
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: crash on September 06, 2017, 07:47:11 AM
Wait, you've never been creel checked?
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: LilRiverMan on September 06, 2017, 09:01:53 AM
Creel checked ?  I have been checked many times. Typically a couple times a season at a couple different locations. They were not only interested in what I caught, they were interested in what I was targeting - OTW catches by others, I knew of - etc                                     
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: srdave on September 06, 2017, 09:02:10 AM
Yes I have been checked mostly for abalone with spearfishing included they look in the bag or cooler and said ok they rarely counted and NEVER checked what species I or others caught. From a kayak a park range once looked in the cooler said ok and left did not even check count or species. I don't consider that a "creel check" From kayak I cant remember any other time. 20 years ago you would see some kayaks out fishing Sonoma now you cant even get to the beach sometimes there are 100s more kayak fishermen maybe in the 1k more and more every year. You don't think that has an impact on the rockfish count?
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: matanaska on September 06, 2017, 09:13:12 AM
A reduced bag to 7 including your 2 lings would be fine with me.

Here up North, they should allow more blacks to be taken cause we have no shortage up here.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: LilRiverMan on September 06, 2017, 09:17:39 AM
One kayak one fisherman. Lack of a kayak doesn't stop a man from fishing.  They can shore fish or shore dive, or buy a PB and take out three friends for four limits instead of just one limit.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: crash on September 06, 2017, 09:30:04 AM
My experience is vastly different wrt creel checks. I get checked probably 10 times a year and know the checkers by name. Species, location, avg depth, number released, descended used, length and weight of all retained fish, etc.

They definitely have sufficient data for a proper statistical sampling and the results are in the PFMC publications.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: Life_is_Yak on September 06, 2017, 10:33:33 AM
Interesting read.  I moved out from the east coast a while back so my experience pertains mostly to east coast but seem to correlate to west coast/ all over the world.   I've listened to old timers talk about fishing in the good old days, and know several that basically don't fish because they don't catch enough to consider it entertaining anymore.  I've seen the photos of huge limits of fish they caught every year for many years.  No when I was on the east coast I didn't live near the coast so trips were planned and people would go one or two times a year.  In that regard you catch your limit and you save it for the remainder of the year.  On the east coast there are times when I'm excited to catch 2 or 3 keepers, other times its easy to limit out, depending on the species. I would base the number of fish I kept on the number of trips I think I'll be able to make.. lets face it fresh fish is just better and I love fishing so even if I catch nothing one day I still love going.  Now that I'm living in Salinas and I'm 6 minutes from the beach I don't see the point in keeping extra fish to freeze unless I just cant fit fishing into my schedule.  So even if the limit was 2 it wouldn't effect me much.

My brother and I have always wondered what would happen if all fishing was banned for 3 years.  Then commercial fishing banned for an additional 5.  We would speculate how the bait fish populations would rise in 1-2 years and how the fish populations would start to rise after 2-3 years.  Dreams of catching so many fish we were tired of casting would fill our heads.  HAHA, I'd hate the ban but its be the only real way to measure our sport and commercial fishing effect on fish population.  If numbers skyrocket enough said.  If they don't we need to look at other environmental factors.

I grew up on Smith Mountain Lake in VA and it kind of follows the same story line where fishing was great back in the day, but now its tough.  I wonder if there was just a tremendous amount of food and cover for the bait fish back when the lake was new.  That in turn means more bait, means more bass/ game fish.  Maybe we need to focus more on our target species food sources than the actual target species.

Either way I'd love to catch so many fish I'm tired of fishing.. Dream big or go home
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: Der_Huntsman on September 06, 2017, 10:53:12 AM
PolePole WOW now that is some reading. I do believe this is too wide spread to focus on Sonoma near shore. Where do they get the info for sport fishing if it form the party boat take thats NG. I have never in 50+ years been asked how many blues and black I have taken and that includes many many party boat trips so who are there asking? My old Divers and Kayaker buddies have never been asked I don't get it please explain?
How many of you other kayaker/Divers have been ask exactly what species of fish you caught and how many of each?

I got checked by a state biologist out at OC the first time I ever went fishing. They're out there and counting, and weighing, and measuring, but they can't check everyone.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: polepole on September 06, 2017, 11:19:09 AM
My brother and I have always wondered what would happen if all fishing was banned for 3 years.  Then commercial fishing banned for an additional 5.  We would speculate how the bait fish populations would rise in 1-2 years and how the fish populations would start to rise after 2-3 years.  Dreams of catching so many fish we were tired of casting would fill our heads.  HAHA, I'd hate the ban but its be the only real way to measure our sport and commercial fishing effect on fish population.  If numbers skyrocket enough said.  If they don't we need to look at other environmental factors.

Not true.  We already know how many are caught each year and we already know the population base.  We have the numbers over time.

I keep hearing people talk about the good old days.  When exactly is that?  I hear of people talking about fishing being better 20 years ago.  Well, going back to black rockfish, their population is higher than at any time since the 70's, well more than 20 years ago.

We all like to dream about the good old days.  However, one must always keep in mind that fisheries are managed for Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY).  To do that, fisheries are targeted to maintain a level of 40% of virgin biomass.  Any more than that, and we target to catch more to reduce the numbers, any less than that and we target to catch less to increase the numbers.  Those are the realities of today's fisheries.

-Allen
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: Life_is_Yak on September 06, 2017, 01:49:27 PM

Not true.  We already know how many are caught each year and we already know the population base.  We have the numbers over time.
I disagree, we do samplings to estimate populations and in general it gives us a good idea, but we really don't know how many are caught, how many are killed, etc.  We have numbers but errors are there as well, again they are baselines and they paint a good picture but not the whole picture.

I keep hearing people talk about the good old days.  When exactly is that? I hear of people talking about fishing being better 20 years ago.  Well, going back to black rockfish, their population is higher than at any time since the 70's, well more than 20 years ago.
I think, and this is my personal opinion, it is any time when people could catch an abundance of fish with minimal effort.  Its interesting to read about the pilgrims coming over and they had to plow through fish to get to the shore.  Now there may be some exaggeration in their accounts but it seems logical to think they saw many many fish coming to shore. 

On a side note
We had the largest migrating heards in the world right here in the US and we completely killed that system to put rail roads in.  Monterey has cannery row for a reason.  Seems reasonable to think the fish population was completely different in the 1800's.


We all like to dream about the good old days.  However, one must always keep in mind that fisheries are managed for Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY).  To do that, fisheries are targeted to maintain a level of 40% of virgin biomass.  Any more than that, and we target to catch more to reduce the numbers, any less than that and we target to catch less to increase the numbers.  Those are the realities of today's fisheries.
I get that and its all based on statistical analysis.  What happens if you increase the number of fish 10 fold.. those ratios work exactly same doesn't matter its a billion or 100.  My point is we should target to catch less and increase the numbers

another side note
we only know what we see, imagine, or learn about in other ways.  Nearly 100% of what we see on a daily basis has been shaped by people.  The effects we have as a whole are unfathomable, and that can be a good thing!  We imagine a world we want, we build it. We learn of the way the world use to be we restore it.  If we chose to only know what we see then we don't see our effect at all and we don't plan, we react.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: Schills206 on September 06, 2017, 01:53:31 PM
Already purchased my RF Descender.  C&R is the way to go!
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: crash on September 06, 2017, 02:32:55 PM
I get that statistical analysis is hard, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't work.  There is plenty of junk science to criticize, but you have to point to a flaw in the data.  Just because we don't get a 100% count doesn't mean that the data is flawed.  Far from it.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: Sin Coast on September 06, 2017, 04:04:53 PM
I feel like we're talking about a number of different yet inter-related topics. But I bet most of the participating members of NCKA would favor a reduction in daily bag limit from 10 to 7. You're preaching to the choir.
I've probably caught a limit of rockfish from my kayak over 150 times during the last 12yrs...and kept a limit maybe 10 times (conservative estimate; it's probably more like 8/225 trips). So, not everybody OTW is keeping the max.

People tend to over-romanticize things they enjoyed doing when they were younger. It's a common emotional trait. So, the 'good old days' is a relative term, based on perception & experience (e.g., Make America Great Again). And, according to some, perception is as important as a talking cat... :-)  For me, this IS my good old days. Right meow! Although, 2012 was pretty good too--fish were practically jumping into my kayak. People need to stop worrying about what they don't have; instead be grateful for what you got!
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: Life_is_Yak on September 06, 2017, 04:27:09 PM
I get that statistical analysis is hard, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't work.  There is plenty of junk science to criticize, but you have to point to a flaw in the data.  Just because we don't get a 100% count doesn't mean that the data is flawed.  Far from it.
I wasn't saying the margin of error is unacceptable, far from it.  My intent wasn't criticizing the science other than to point out we have know errors which people tend to forget.  My intent was to point out we have the capability to improve but as polepole pointed out we choose the margin that favors harvesting in our current planning or cultural mindset.

I guess overall my thought is: we don't fully understand the fish behavior enough to say that the act of fishing is 99% of the reason rockfish aren't so plentiful you catch 10 an hour.  Maybe its just sardine harvesting that lowers the primary food source by 80% which drops the fish population by 40% and we catch 40% and the other 19% goes another way.  That's all hypothetical.  So the only real way to measure our impact is to remove us from the picture on a large scale and see what happens.  That would give a baseline.  Now there are loads of scientific journals with cases that study ecosystem health but I've never read anything on that scale.

Hmm just had a crazy thought.  What if we had an earn a fish program.  Where you had to catch and release 10 fish to keep one.  documenting them with an app or something.  That'd be some data.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: srdave on September 06, 2017, 04:29:32 PM
Good ole days? Any of you ever fish the Cordell Bank just ask someone who has how that fishing was.
Anyway most on this site feel 3 less fish is not a big deal and that is doable now. They say the black population is healthy yet they have lowered the limit 2 years in a row. They lowered the Lings too so it make little sense to me if were so healthy why lower it to 3? I am guessing they are looking at the issue of "no" kelp in Sonoma for the fry to go and it could mess with populations in the future. Black rockfish fry grow up in the kelp and sea grass and we ain't got no kelp. What do ya think about that analogy?
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: polepole on September 06, 2017, 06:06:33 PM
Good ole days? Any of you ever fish the Cordell Bank just ask someone who has how that fishing was.
Anyway most on this site feel 3 less fish is not a big deal and that is doable now.

Whoa.  It's a bit premature to draw that conclusion.  What if it was phrased this way?  Do you support reducing limits by 3 knowing full well that the reduced catches would be made up elsewhere.  For instance, seasons might be extended.  Or allocation might be shifted.  Heaven forbid commercials or charter boats get to catch more due to forgone opportunity by the the sports fishermen.  The question/statement is not quite the same now, is it?

They say the black population is healthy yet they have lowered the limit 2 years in a row. They lowered the Lings too so it make little sense to me if were so healthy why lower it to 3? I am guessing they are looking at the issue of "no" kelp in Sonoma for the fry to go and it could mess with populations in the future. Black rockfish fry grow up in the kelp and sea grass and we ain't got no kelp. What do ya think about that analogy?

I do not think you can necessarily draw these sorts of conclusions from the changes in catch limits.  I think crash brought up the point that other fish (yelloweye) are the limiting stock.  Reduced limits of other species has been a means to reduce overall fishing time therefore reducing impacts on other stocks.

-Allen
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: srdave on September 06, 2017, 06:24:30 PM
Why do we have to make it so complicated just reduce the limits to 7 leave everything else the same the season should stay the same. Why the heck do we need to make up anything? Less fish caught more fish live or am I missing something here?
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: polepole on September 06, 2017, 06:30:50 PM
Why do we have to make it so complicated just reduce the limits to 7 leave everything else the same the season should stay the same. Why the heck do we need to make up anything? Less fish caught more fish live or am I missing something here?

You need to understand the goals of our fisheries management.  MSY MSY MSY!  We target to maintain fisheries at 40% of their virgin biomass.  If it can be caught, and still maintain this level, it must be caught.

This is a concept that many (most?) people miss out on, including the MLPA proponents.  They think they will increase the fisheries.  I maintain that as long as PFMC adheres to the MSY principles, they will increase fish populations within the MPA's and decrease the fish populations outside proportionally and thereby maintain MSY levels.  Our fishing experience will go down, yet we'll still catch the same total amount of fish.  Hmmm ... I wonder if that is what is happening already?!?

-Allen
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: Scurvy on September 06, 2017, 07:01:01 PM
Remember, in our system of laws, problems come first, regulations come second.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: srdave on September 06, 2017, 07:02:19 PM
Our fishing experience will go down, yet we'll still catch the same total amount of fish? That one you need to explain in laymen's terms.
If you mean experience as in catching 3 less rockfish is going to be less of an experience? Oregon only has a 7 limit catch and cant have nearly the pressure we put on our coast. Now I am speaking of Sonoma county not way up north where the pressure probably is substantially less.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: polepole on September 06, 2017, 07:06:58 PM
Our fishing experience will go down, yet we'll still catch the same total amount of fish? That one you need to explain in laymen's terms.

It can be explained in a number of ways.  Our CPUE (Catch Per Unit Effort) may go down, but our Effort may go up, thus maintaining constant the total catch.  A couple ways for Effort go up, we end up spending more time on the water in a given day to catch a limit, or catch seasons lengthen so we take more trips on the water.  Or, we have more fisherman, which I don't think is the case.

-Allen
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: polepole on September 06, 2017, 07:09:11 PM
seven pages ...

And have you learned anything yet?

-Allen
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: polepole on September 06, 2017, 07:14:20 PM
seven pages ...

And have you learned anything yet?

-Allen

you know better , I have been told on many occasions ,I cant be taught anything    :smt003

At least you learned that you can't be taught anything.

-Allen
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: srdave on September 06, 2017, 07:16:02 PM
Working on it  :smt003 :smt003 :smt003
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: ex-kayaker on September 06, 2017, 07:30:08 PM


Anyway most on this site feel 3 less fish is not a big deal and that is doable now.

Not me.  I think your abritrary 3 fish reduction lacks any sort of rationale or data to support such a regulation change.  I also don't believe that your observation or proposed changes take into consideration the extensive conservation efforts that are already in place.   In short.....you've oversimplified a very complex issue, its not as easy as you think it is.



Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: srdave on September 06, 2017, 08:00:39 PM
So for some of you 3 less in your bag could have a negative effect?  Some how I just don't see that for sport fishing in Sonoma county. I guess we just trug along and do nothing and see how it goes and if it gets worse then we change it. I don't agree with that at all. I sure don't rely on fish and game to fix it.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: Life_is_Yak on September 06, 2017, 08:41:17 PM
So for some of you 3 less in your bag could have a negative effect?  Some how I just don't see that for sport fishing in Sonoma county. I guess we just trug along and do nothing and see how it goes and if it gets worse then we change it. I don't agree with that at all. I sure don't rely on fish and game to fix it.

if your talking about ex-kayakers comment then it was just stated that it was a big deal.  They never mentioned if they wanted to reduce the limit.  In general if you reduce the limit by 3 from 10 that is a 30% change and statically that's a big deal.  But when you look at a fisherman like myself who has access to fishing at least once a week it doesn't change my overall catch.  In fact you could reduce to limit to 3 per day and it still wouldn't change anything for me.  Well maybe I'd get to go fishing more  :smt003

I do agree we need to be pro active vs reactive, maybe a 7 fish limit would increase rock fish number, maybe not.  But like polepole said if their always working the 40% then if a 7 fish limit is implied nothing will change in the fishery because their still working based on 40%.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: polepole on September 06, 2017, 08:49:33 PM
So for some of you 3 less in your bag could have a negative effect?  Some how I just don't see that for sport fishing in Sonoma county. I guess we just trug along and do nothing and see how it goes and if it gets worse then we change it. I don't agree with that at all. I sure don't rely on fish and game to fix it.

I guess you still don't quite understand what I've been pointing out???

-Allen
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: ex-kayaker on September 06, 2017, 09:04:16 PM


So for some of you 3 less in your bag could have a negative effect?  Some how I just don't see that for sport fishing in Sonoma county. I guess we just trug along and do nothing and see how it goes and if it gets worse then we change it. I don't agree with that at all. I sure don't rely on fish and game to fix it.


Yes, it's 3 less for no reason. And I'm sure it matters a whole lot to dudes that fish once or twice a year, people that drive 3-4 hours to get to the coast, or anybody else that doesnt have the luxury of keeping two and coming back the next weekend to get a couple more.  After decades of stacking bodies and filling sacks I can see why you don't place any value on them, but your opinion doesnt hold any more weight than theirs, no matter how good it makes you feel.

We're also not trudging along.....more evidence that you dont really know what you're talking about.  I haven't been the biggest fan of the dfg but their adaptive management of the groundfishery as of late seems to be alot more responsive than years past. 

We also have a whole lot of untouchable real estate out there thats off limits due to depth restrictions, mpa's or marine sanctuaries....so the'res plenty of fish swimming around out there. 

You dont trust the dfg but you dont make any effort to understand why they do what they do?

 



Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: crash on September 06, 2017, 09:57:51 PM

I guess you still don't quite understand what I've been pointing out???

-Allen

I don't even see any effort to try to understand.  I'm not even sure what we are doing here at page 7 except maybe teaching Vic how to make toast out of bread.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: srdave on September 06, 2017, 10:38:59 PM
I can only go by what I see and catch and having talked to other friends who have fish and dove this coastline sense the 60s and have watched it on top of the water as well as in the water we just think its time to trim the limit back to help with the pressure. I don't know what I am really talking about ? Good grief this is just kayak forum not an institution of fine learning. I just don't agree that 3 less fish caught is such a disastrous move. Your fun to chat with for sure. Good thing its just a chat.

Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: polepole on September 06, 2017, 10:44:18 PM
I can only go by what I see and catch and having talked to other friends who have fish and dove this coastline sense the 60s and have watched it on top of the water as well as in the water we just think its time to trim the limit back to help with the pressure. I don't know what I am really talking about ? Good grief this is just kayak forum not an institution of fine learning. I just don't agree that 3 less fish caught is such a disastrous move. Your fun to chat with for sure. Good thing its just a chat.

If only CDFW did the same.  They don't.

-Allen
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: Hojoman on September 06, 2017, 10:49:31 PM

I guess you still don't quite understand what I've been pointing out???

-Allen

I don't even see any effort to try to understand.  I'm not even sure what we are doing here at page 7 except maybe teaching Vic how to make toast out of bread.
Page 8 is imminent.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: crash on September 07, 2017, 06:42:17 AM

I guess you still don't quite understand what I've been pointing out???

-Allen

I don't even see any effort to try to understand.  I'm not even sure what we are doing here at page 7 except maybe teaching Vic how to make toast out of bread.

I'll clarify my statement " wait..what ? I was looking at toasters " and my being taught to make toast.

There is no need for me to be taught .

I do know how to make toast.

I don't have any data to prove it .I could provide photos of me making toast , however they could be photoshopped or airbrushed to alter the appearance of me making toast .

My experience making toast or what I preceive to be toast , goes back to approximately 1967-1968 .My parents were my mentors .

You know the good old days , well for me as I experienced them or shall I say in my opinion they were good as far as making toast was/is concerned.

I have no data, documentation  or statistics to verify that they were good for others , I can only hypothesize that making toast in 1967-1968 was as good for everyone else as it was for me .

Except for those that weren't born or perhaps those that were too young and prohibited by their parents to operate small home appliances. Again I lack the statistical data to verify that statement .

Now to the heart of the matter regarding my statement "wait..what ? I was looking at toasters "

I was thoroughly engaged reading information regarding a Darth Vader Star Wars model toaster along with other themed toasters available to the general public for purchase .

As I was caught off guard and enthralled at the idea of making toast with the choices available for purchase such as the Dart Vader Star Wars model , I was also enticed and just as equally enthusiastic by the thought of a Storm Trooper Star Wars model as well as a 3CPO Star Wars model and a R2D2 Star Wars model.

All of which I'm sure would provide hours of toast making fun, however that would be nothing short of conjecture on my part as I did not purchase any of the aforementioned Star Wars model toasters .

Not for lack of funds mind you , my spouse said no . She thinks she's the boss of me . I trust we can keep that comment among ourselves ?

I digress.

In closing , I just hope my humble ,yet thorough explanation , is worthy as at this point anything else I could offer would be nothing more than superfluous hyperbole.













I bet they make a BB-8 toaster.  Despite your feelings of nostalgia, these are the good old days - RIGHT NOW
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: DG on September 07, 2017, 06:50:11 AM

I'll clarify my statement " wait..what ? I was looking at toasters " and my being taught to make toast.

There is no need for me to be taught .

I do know how to make toast.

I don't have any data to prove it .I could provide photos of me making toast , however they could be photoshopped or airbrushed to alter the appearance of me making toast .

My experience making toast or what I preceive to be toast , goes back to approximately 1967-1968 .My parents were my mentors .

You know the good old days , well for me as I experienced them or shall I say in my opinion they were good as far as making toast was/is concerned.

I have no data, documentation  or statistics to verify that they were good for others , I can only hypothesize that making toast in 1967-1968 was as good for everyone else as it was for me .

Except for those that weren't born or perhaps those that were too young and prohibited by their parents to operate small home appliances. Again I lack the statistical data to verify that statement .

Now to the heart of the matter regarding my statement "wait..what ? I was looking at toasters "

I was thoroughly engaged reading information regarding a Darth Vader Star Wars model toaster along with other themed toasters available to the general public for purchase .

As I was caught off guard and enthralled at the idea of making toast with the choices available for purchase such as the Dart Vader Star Wars model , I was also enticed and just as equally enthusiastic by the thought of a Storm Trooper Star Wars model as well as a 3CPO Star Wars model and a R2D2 Star Wars model.

All of which I'm sure would provide hours of toast making fun, however that would be nothing short of conjecture on my part as I did not purchase any of the aforementioned Star Wars model toasters .

Not for lack of funds mind you , my spouse said no . She thinks she's the boss of me . I trust we can keep that comment among ourselves ?

I digress.

In closing , I just hope my humble ,yet thorough explanation , is worthy as at this point anything else I could offer would be nothing more than superfluous hyperbole.
Go fishing already.  Don't you have a new kayak you can play with. 
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: DG on September 07, 2017, 07:19:54 AM
Cmon you Two , you cant tell me  you didnt laugh a just a little ..I was cracking up  writing it   :smt044
I don't like toast.  But I love turtles
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: Fisherman X on September 07, 2017, 07:27:04 AM
Cmon you Two , you cant tell me  you didnt laugh a just a little ..I was cracking up  writing it   :smt044
I don't like toast.  But I love turtles
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: DG on September 07, 2017, 08:21:10 AM

Perhaps being in the Corps and having to eat  SOS has ruined for you ,the wonder toast is 
Was there toast in that? 
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: polepole on September 07, 2017, 09:03:16 AM

I guess you still don't quite understand what I've been pointing out???

-Allen

I don't even see any effort to try to understand.  I'm not even sure what we are doing here at page 7 except maybe teaching Vic how to make toast out of bread.

I'll clarify my statement " wait..what ? I was looking at toasters " and my being taught to make toast.

There is no need for me to be taught .

I do know how to make toast.

I don't have any data to prove it .I could provide photos of me making toast , however they could be photoshopped or airbrushed to alter the appearance of me making toast .

My experience making toast or what I preceive to be toast , goes back to approximately 1967-1968 .My parents were my mentors .

You know the good old days , well for me as I experienced them or shall I say in my opinion they were good as far as making toast was/is concerned.

I have no data, documentation  or statistics to verify that they were good for others , I can only hypothesize that making toast in 1967-1968 was as good for everyone else as it was for me .

Except for those that weren't born or perhaps those that were too young and prohibited by their parents to operate small home appliances. Again I lack the statistical data to verify that statement .

Now to the heart of the matter regarding my statement "wait..what ? I was looking at toasters "

I was thoroughly engaged reading information regarding a Darth Vader Star Wars model toaster along with other themed toasters available to the general public for purchase .

As I was caught off guard and enthralled at the idea of making toast with the choices available for purchase such as the Dart Vader Star Wars model , I was also enticed and just as equally enthusiastic by the thought of a Storm Trooper Star Wars model as well as a 3CPO Star Wars model and a R2D2 Star Wars model.

All of which I'm sure would provide hours of toast making fun, however that would be nothing short of conjecture on my part as I did not purchase any of the aforementioned Star Wars model toasters .

Not for lack of funds mind you , my spouse said no . She thinks she's the boss of me . I trust we can keep that comment among ourselves ?

I digress.

In closing , I just hope my humble ,yet thorough explanation , is worthy as at this point anything else I could offer would be nothing more than superfluous hyperbole.

Just think Vic, you could have been sleeping.

-Allen
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: steelhead on September 07, 2017, 09:35:18 AM


So for some of you 3 less in your bag could have a negative effect?  Some how I just don't see that for sport fishing in Sonoma county. I guess we just trug along and do nothing and see how it goes and if it gets worse then we change it. I don't agree with that at all. I sure don't rely on fish and game to fix it.


Yes, it's 3 less for no reason. And I'm sure it matters a whole lot to dudes that fish once or twice a year, people that drive 3-4 hours to get to the coast, or anybody else that doesnt have the luxury of keeping two and coming back the next weekend to get a couple more.  After decades of stacking bodies and filling sacks I can see why you don't place any value on them, but your opinion doesnt hold any more weight than theirs, no matter how good it makes you feel.

We're also not trudging along.....more evidence that you dont really know what you're talking about.  I haven't been the biggest fan of the dfg but their adaptive management of the groundfishery as of late seems to be alot more responsive than years past. 

We also have a whole lot of untouchable real estate out there thats off limits due to depth restrictions, mpa's or marine sanctuaries....so the'res plenty of fish swimming around out there. 

You dont trust the dfg but you dont make any effort to understand why they do what they do?

 



Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

Excellent post!
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: crash on September 07, 2017, 10:33:54 AM
You misspelled "."
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: yakyakyak on September 07, 2017, 10:48:49 AM
You misspelled "."

Lol ... cracked me up good.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: scottymeboy on September 07, 2017, 12:46:01 PM
Hey Vic,
Just windering if u know how to boil water?!?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: crash on September 07, 2017, 01:08:12 PM
Hey Vic,
Just windering if u know how to boil water?!?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I excel at boiling water and am quite fond of doing so as I use a French press for coffee every morning.

However as much fun and interesting the topic of boiling water is , let us not continue to detract from the original topic.

I have already monopolized and mongrolized it enough on my own and do not want to be the impetus for others to follow suit. 

We were done talking about that other stuff tho.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: scottymeboy on September 07, 2017, 03:11:05 PM
Hey Vic,
Just windering if u know how to boil water?!?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My Bad on the water thing... couldn't resist

Back on track, Dave, less is fine with me,
I never seem to get limits anyway so 7 is OK.
I do remember 5 yrs ago when I started ocean kayak fishing, catching those
 Big Ft Ross blacks(20 in plus) on light tackle, that was a blast!
I havn't caught those in 2 yrs ....???

Scotty


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: srdave on September 07, 2017, 04:16:36 PM
Scott ya I feel the same way. Watch out they might throw a toaster at you for agreeing with me. :smt003
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: polepole on September 07, 2017, 04:37:23 PM
Back on track, Dave, less is fine with me,
I never seem to get limits anyway so 7 is OK.
I do remember 5 yrs ago when I started ocean kayak fishing, catching those
 Big Ft Ross blacks(20 in plus) on light tackle, that was a blast!
I havn't caught those in 2 yrs ....???

I don't think a 2 year window or a 5 year window is good enough to draw any long term trends.  How many times a year did you fish in that time frame?  How often did you encounter those 20 in blacks?   What about numbers of fish?  Are you catching the same number of fish, or less.  Short term variations in distribution could very well explain your experience.  So many variables ...

-Allen
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: crash on September 07, 2017, 04:41:34 PM
They are in Trinidad.  We are catching huge black rf there right now.  I have caught more black rf this year in trinidad than in any year since the 90s and more 20+" rf than ever.  I also had one trip this year where I caught 10 canaries and 8 blacks along with a smattering of other rockfish.  That had never happened before in any year I fished trinidad, which I've been doing for over 20 years.

Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: srdave on September 07, 2017, 05:05:53 PM
Sonoma county especially Fort Ross gets private boats, kayaks, party boats , scuba divers and free divers, and I understand up north the kelp is still healthy too.
Do you get all that types of craft on the reef you fish at Trinidad ?
Refresh my memory 3/4 years ago we had fat abalone they were healthy and we had kelp beds in Sonoma too. last year it was gone no kelp, abalone started to skinny out this year kelp looks like scorched earth under water abalone starving dead shells showing up so the ecosystem can change in 3 years who knows maybe even less.
Hold the toasters please...

Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: crash on September 07, 2017, 05:27:52 PM
Yes. It gets pretty heavily used.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: srdave on September 07, 2017, 05:29:40 PM
Everyone slams me for asking this but how is the kelp up there out of Trinidad?
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: crash on September 07, 2017, 05:43:16 PM
Everyone slams me for asking this but how is the kelp up there out of Trinidad?

It's slowly recovering. Probably about 25% of "normal". There's still tons of purple urchins but there are also a lot of starfish and sea stars now. I think those hold the key to kelp recovery.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: crash on September 12, 2017, 11:00:34 AM
2017 Oregon bottomfish closure is imminent.  Overquota on black rockfish.  I have 3 unrelated confirming sources, seems really credible even though I don't really want to believe it.  Expect announcement soon.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: Tinker on September 12, 2017, 12:49:14 PM
It appears ODFW may have to drastically reduce next year's quota, too.  This could last a while.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: crash on September 12, 2017, 01:05:34 PM
That will teach me to sing the praises of oregon's management of groundfish. Everyone lol@crash now. brb eating some crow.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: Clayman on September 12, 2017, 01:18:06 PM
2017 Oregon bottomfish closure is imminent.  Overquota on black rockfish.  I have 3 unrelated confirming sources, seems really credible even though I don't really want to believe it.  Expect announcement soon.
Would that mean a closure to all bottomfishing, or just closure of black RF retention?
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: crash on September 12, 2017, 01:42:01 PM
2017 Oregon bottomfish closure is imminent.  Overquota on black rockfish.  I have 3 unrelated confirming sources, seems really credible even though I don't really want to believe it.  Expect announcement soon.
Would that mean a closure to all bottomfishing, or just closure of black RF retention?

Word is closure of all bottomfishing. There is an internal email that went out this morning that gives details. I'm trying to find a copy of it leaked somewhere. It would be nice if ODFW got out ahead of all the rumors sometime very soon.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: polepole on September 12, 2017, 01:47:58 PM
2017 Oregon bottomfish closure is imminent.  Overquota on black rockfish.  I have 3 unrelated confirming sources, seems really credible even though I don't really want to believe it.  Expect announcement soon.
Would that mean a closure to all bottomfishing, or just closure of black RF retention?

Word is closure of all bottomfishing. There is an internal email that went out this morning that gives details. I'm trying to find a copy of it leaked somewhere. It would be nice if ODFW got out ahead of all the rumors sometime very soon.

Flatfish to remain open?

-Allen
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: crash on September 12, 2017, 01:50:29 PM
2017 Oregon bottomfish closure is imminent.  Overquota on black rockfish.  I have 3 unrelated confirming sources, seems really credible even though I don't really want to believe it.  Expect announcement soon.
Would that mean a closure to all bottomfishing, or just closure of black RF retention?

Word is closure of all bottomfishing. There is an internal email that went out this morning that gives details. I'm trying to find a copy of it leaked somewhere. It would be nice if ODFW got out ahead of all the rumors sometime very soon.

Flatfish to remain open?

-Allen

Yes.

4K lbs of south quota (out of 10k total) was moved to central inshore a couple weeks ago and there's still 14k of all depth remaining for halibut. South is getting screwed bad.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: Edlovestofish on September 12, 2017, 02:12:52 PM
I blame the seals so many of them things out there eating all the fish time to open season on him! :smt044
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: polepole on September 12, 2017, 02:15:31 PM
2017 Oregon bottomfish closure is imminent.  Overquota on black rockfish.  I have 3 unrelated confirming sources, seems really credible even though I don't really want to believe it.  Expect announcement soon.
Would that mean a closure to all bottomfishing, or just closure of black RF retention?

Word is closure of all bottomfishing. There is an internal email that went out this morning that gives details. I'm trying to find a copy of it leaked somewhere. It would be nice if ODFW got out ahead of all the rumors sometime very soon.

Flatfish to remain open?

-Allen

Yes.

4K lbs of south quota (out of 10k total) was moved to central inshore a couple weeks ago and there's still 14k of all depth remaining for halibut. South is getting screwed bad.

And other flatfish (that Mr Mayes likes to fish for) will remain open as well?

-Allen
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: Tinker on September 12, 2017, 02:16:15 PM
This is the official announcement:

[Oregon] Recreational Bottomfish Closure set for end of day Sunday, September 17
 
Oregon’s recreational bottomfish season will close to all species but flatfish as of Sunday, Sept. 17 at 11:59 p.m. due to the annual quotas for several nearshore species having been reached. After Sunday, Sept. 17, anglers may no longer catch or retain lingcod, any species of rockfish, cabezon, greenling, or other bottomfish, except for flatfish species (sole, flounders, sanddabs and halibut other than Pacific halibut).
 
Recreational efforts have been higher than anticipated this year, higher than any other year in the last 15 years, and peaked during the month of August. High catch rates, good fishing weather, and fewer other angler opportunities led to more boats and anglers targeting bottomfish this year. “It’s been a poor salmon season and tuna haven’t really made a strong showing within range of most recreational anglers,” said Maggie Sommer, ODFW. “This increased fishing pressure on bottomfish, and anglers had a lot of success pursuing these species.”
 
And the News Release:
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/news/2017/09_sep/091217b.asp
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: Clayman on September 12, 2017, 02:23:04 PM
Well shoot, I was looking forward to fishing for big lings in December.  This Saturday is looking real nice for Depoe Bay.  Might have to give it one final hurrah for a limit of lings before shifting over to scratching for Chinook in the bays.

Good news on the flatfish front at least.  I'm slowly accumulating waypoints for them.  Should be a fun day to explore more sandy ocean floor if I score my lings early  :smt001.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: Fish 'n Brew on September 12, 2017, 03:57:00 PM
Seems a little unfair to issue an annual license and close off the fishing.  What would happen if you just purchased your license last week?
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: M.A.S.HAT on September 12, 2017, 04:06:34 PM
In addition to Oregon, Southern California (I was told by a Santa Barbara resident) has closed their bottom fishing season in an effort to revive rock fish populations.  I would not be surprised if Nor Cal was to do the same.  That being said, ALL of my kayak fishing this year has been for bottom fish.  I go out probably twice a week and pull up all the fish I could ever need, but have never limited out.  I cant imagine needing ten fish to feed my self/family.   So I don't think the idea of reducing the bag limit to seven is a bad one. 

The majority of my catch are Brown and Gophers, and if I happen on a Blue or Black, I release them because they are scarce in my local fishery.  However, my pals up in Arcata slay Blues and Blacks on a daily basis and almost never see a brown or a gopher. 
I think a more realistic approach to managing ground fish populations is to limit specific species bag limits county by county.  I know this could be frustrating for the traveling angler, but it just takes an easy Google search to find county by county restrictions and if an angler is too lazy to do their research before they drop a line, then perhaps they don't deserve to be on the water. 
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: polepole on September 12, 2017, 04:06:53 PM
That will teach me to sing the praises of oregon's management of groundfish. Everyone lol@crash now. brb eating some crow.

I view it differently.  Adaptive management is working.

-Allen
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: polepole on September 12, 2017, 04:07:25 PM
In addition to Oregon, Southern California (I was told by a Santa Barbara resident) has closed their bottom fishing season in an effort to revive rock fish populations.

Reference please .. because I have not heard a thing about this.

-Allen
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: M.A.S.HAT on September 12, 2017, 04:12:03 PM
In addition to Oregon, Southern California (I was told by a Santa Barbara resident) has closed their bottom fishing season in an effort to revive rock fish populations.

Reference please .. because I have not heard a thing about this.

-Allen

I was told by a friend who goes to school down there, but have not been able to find any official statements on line so perhaps its all BS.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: Clayman on September 12, 2017, 04:24:33 PM
I think a more realistic approach to managing ground fish populations is to limit specific species bag limits county by county.  I know this could be frustrating for the traveling angler, but it just takes an easy Google search to find county by county restrictions and if an angler is too lazy to do their research before they drop a line, then perhaps they don't deserve to be on the water.
While this may be effective for homebody rockfish like China and gopher, it would be unlikely to be effective for species that are more migratory, like blacks and blues.  These species are documented traveling hundreds of miles over their lifetimes.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: Sin Coast on September 12, 2017, 04:55:07 PM
In the past, CA has enacted an emergency closure of RCG seasons due to exceeding the yelloweye rf harvest quota. I think the last time was 2009? Before that it was maybe 2003. And they closed lingcod prematurely in 2000, if I recall. It generally takes about 10 days to become law when they do these things. So if they were gonna claim emergency closure in CA, we'll have a small warning before it's official.
On an unrelated front, I fished Carmel on Sunday and encountered more blue rf than I've seen since like 2006...I couldn't keep em off my hook.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: Clayman on September 12, 2017, 05:08:25 PM
Looks like the official closure will happen midnight Sunday, so us Oregon anglers will at least get one more weekend out of it.

Similar to "true" NorCal, there's an amazing amount of black rockfish up here.  A lot of big ones too.  I think by pure biomass, they dominate the nearshore rocky habitat.  When I fished out of Newport on a boat earlier this month, I could hardly keep them off my lingcod gear.  Was CnRing massive 20+ inch blacks left and right.  The problem was that they were too damn easy to catch, and everyone caught a ton of them this summer since the tuna and ocean Chinook seasons sucked, and coho season was good for maybe three weeks total out of the time it was open.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: crash on September 12, 2017, 05:09:50 PM
Yeah California does emergency actions all the time. There is a current and lengthy razor clam closure in humboldt and del Norte. Pacific halibut just closed for quota. Mendocino area RCG closed a few years back because of yelloweye limits being reached, and that was because of 2 assholes that went out and caught bunches of them between shelter cove and Westport to prove that there were a lot of them and they should be allowed for retention. Klamath River also normally has emergency closures once quotas are met, and maybe we can look forward to that again someday.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: Tinker on September 12, 2017, 05:41:13 PM
My understanding is that the Pacific Fishery Management Council may reduce the Oregon groundfish quota significantly next year and that could mean Oregon will have seasons for all groundfsh species, similar to the cabezon season up here.

 
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: crash on September 12, 2017, 05:53:21 PM
My understanding is that the Pacific Fishery Management Council may reduce the Oregon groundfish quota significantly next year and that could mean Oregon will have seasons for all groundfsh species, similar to the cabezon season up here.

 

That meeting is happening right now in Boise.
Title: Re: Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?
Post by: Edlovestofish on September 12, 2017, 10:40:41 PM
One reef 7 fishermen this is what it looks like
 :smt003 :smt003 :smt003
Dave's illustration NOTE: NO KELP...
So how long before its fished out..........

Those are fake tracks, right?  And I count only 5.

I can think of a number of reefs that I consider get hit hard.  Guess what?  They're still producing fish.

-Allen

Yes I see 5 to you have to go in to go out