Is it time to reduce Rockfish limits?

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?

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

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?

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

Remember, in our system of laws, problems come first, regulations come second.

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.

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

seven pages ...

And have you learned anything yet?

-Allen

seven pages ...

And have you learned anything yet?

-Allen

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

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

-Allen

Working on it 

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

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.

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 

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%.

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

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