Good news, bad new

I think we can expect lingcod fishing to improve a lot over the next 10 years.  The canary rockfish will probably keep the deeper water closed for most of our lifetimes, and that's where the big females live.  They come in shallow and spawn in dec-jan, which is currently closed, so the stock of females is almost fully protected.  They'll pork up and fill the oceans with linglets.

Here's the best hope for deeper waters to open up in our lifetime:




Project: Broodstock development, reproduction, and larval rearing of Canary rockfish (Sebastes pinniger) a new species of the Pacific Northwest.
State: Washington, NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center

Principal Investigators:

Robert Iwamoto, Michael Rust, Northwest Fisheries Science Center

The long term objective is to develop a viable commercial aquaculture system for the production of rockfish and to investigate the potential for stock rebuilding with cultured juveniles.

The specific technical objectives are:

document and describe adult spawning and parturition behaviors of fish held in public aquaria and tanks
use the information from number 1 to develop broodstock holding tanks that allow for and encourage mating behaviors
develop rearing methods
Accomplishments:

Succeeded in raising the first yelloweye rockfish ever in captivity this year. This is significant because Yelloweye and three other species of rockfish (including Canary) will likely cause much of the west coast fishery to shut down in the next few years due to by-catch of these depleted rockfish. Plans to partner with Hubbs-Seaworld Research Inst. in California to jointly address all four rockfish species along the Pacific coast and gain some synergism with the collaboration.

The reason for the partial closure is do to Klamath river stocks looking rather pitiful. While Delta/Sac stocks are at great levels a number of Klamath bound fish come through this area. The thinking is a partial closure will help some of that dwindling population make it further up the coast.

Just to add a little.  The klamath took a big hit a couple years back when too much water was diverted (aggribusiness $$$) to local farms.  The low water levels killed a couple hundred thousand juvenile fish and a large number of adults also. I'm no expert on fisheries but I'm guessing thats a pretty big hurddle to get over in only a few years.  Water is big business so there's a farmer over fish bias and once again we pay the price of mismanagement.

Thanks for the info.

I ask about the rockfish, not because I'm too lazy to go to the DFG site, but because the rules change so often I just want to hear from others what they know.

MolBasser

The male contributes essentially no mass to the young. Death occurs mainly due to the physical rigors of getting to the spawning ground.

This is not actually correct.  The body mass contribution is not referring to the milt or the eggs, but instead the carcass of the parent.  The decomposing parents form the base of the food chain that will support the eggs in the nest once the young emerge from the gravel.  Lots of fish travel a long way to reproduce without falling apart at the end of the road.  Salmon fall apart at the end of the road on purpose.  It is an ecological mechanism for bringing marine derived nurients, into the relatively nutrient-poor riverine environment.  Some people say they would do anything for their kids, salmon really mean it.

Bingo, Sean;

In our area the biologists are so concerned about nutrient depletion, they are now pitching carcesses into streams without large returns. Fisheries managers use to talk of "excessive" returns; I suspect that that concept is a myth.   BTW, marine bio was my first major, many years ago. Too bad I didn't stick with it.

I have to wonder about the long term viability of hatcheries for rockcod. lings, etc. Hatcheries are very expensive, and we (our society) tend to use them as band-aids for cases of severe ecological trauma. Rocks and ling are extremely slow growing. I think our best hope is learning our (and the earth's ) limits. I witnessed the crash of the striper stocks on the East Coast-- it took the complete closure of the fisheries for a lot of years for the stocks to recover. Now. they seem as healthy as at any point since I was a kid.  

Our fish stocks, especially the breeders, are like the Goose that laid the Golden Eggs. (Or like the principal in a large savings account.) As long as we respect them and their limits, they will support us.

I was hoping a rockcod hatchery could augment or replace the commercial catch. Making things grow fast, often at the expense of long term viability, seems to be something we are good at doing. We can force feed ducks, chickens and cows maybe we can do the same with fish? Leave the wild ones from recreational harvest.

Just a thought...

Sebastes are generally slow growing, but lings are not.  A sexually mature 24" inch ling is 5-7 years old.

I know they are slow growing in the wild but I am thinking someone could come up with a growth hormone like they have in cows. Again just a random thought.

The hatcheries are not for aquaculture.  The reason they'd be good is that rockfish are sporadic breeders, some years they fail entirely to reproduce, and others they succeed.  For some species, only 1 in 10 years is a good spawning year, so if a hatchery could pump out fingerlings year after year, it'd really bolster the population in the years where the wild fish completely fail to breed.

It could be that the increased frequency of el ninos, and perhaps global warming in general, is having a negative impact in spawning success, contributing to the collapse and  may someday render the southern populations of these fish non-viable.  Current law mandates returning stocks to better than 25% of virgin biomass, regardless of changing ocean conditions.  Think the greens will let us use global warming as an excuse for the rockfish disapearing/moving north?  Nope, there could be yellowtail and WSB to fort bragg and the coast would be closed for the non-viable canaries.  But, would the greens help fund hatcheries to help recover the fish faster?  Probably.  Between a bottomfish stamp and making the rounds with a tin cup, it could become a reality.

Sorry about mixing terms there, I was think aquaculture for producing "mutant" fish to ease some of the commercial pressure. Combined with a hatchery program that could produce a great uptick in wild population.

"The Greens"...  Sounds like a tough lot!  Isn't there a continuum of conscientious thinkers that have varying degrees of concern, involvement, knowledge, and desires?  To be divisive doesn't really help in my opinion.  Did you know that Uppper Klammath potatoes were on sale for less than market value due to all the water they got up there when they killed 30,000+ adult Chinook?  Are you a "green" on that issue?  

Abking,
I recall there were lawsuits flying back in forth regarding the precious little water avail in the Lower Klamath region last year or the year before that.

I recall seeing on the news, water being diverted from farmers and the Tule Lake/Lower Klamath NWR and allocated to river for the endangered coho.  If I remember from a sporstman's perspective, it was fisherman vs the farmers and waterfowlers.

I thought the farmers and hunters lost the battle, hence a big dust bowl inland.  I'm refering to the CA side.  Not sure about southern OR.  Given its all about money, I'm probably wrong and the wealthy corporate farmer's prevailed, and screwed both the fish and fowl.

Stuart

On lings---at http://www.pcouncil.org/habitat/habdocs/lifehist.pdf; pg 25... Female lingcod fecundity at 76 cm is about 40,000 eggs; at 97 cm fecundity is about 500,000 eggs!   Maybe I'm spoiled, but a 24" inch ling seems puny to me--- maybe 2-3 lbs? (bait?!) (The chinook that age in our river run 12-30 lbs.) Have you guys ever caught a  30lb ling ? I have, and I wish I could count on repeating (or bettering) that experience. Our state record is 61 lbs! (1986). If I remember correctly, our stocks are estimated to be at less than 10 percent of historical levels; that's pitiful. Personally, I think they would be a good candidate for a slot limit, say 28 or 30-36". That would allow both sexes to mature and spawn before harvest, and protect the largest, most fecund females. I believe in the precautionary principal--- if we're overly conservative, the worst case scenario is more fish than we expect. (Oh, bummer!) If we're not conservative enough, we could end up with no fish. (Major bummer!!!)

Stuart--- There was a dust bowl because of a bad drought; the farmers got to keep the water because they screamed bloody murder and threatened a virtual revolt, and thousands of returning salmon died in the Klamath because of low water levels and elevated water temperatures. I'll bet if you ggogled "Klamath fish kills", you could find out all the morbid details.


BTW--- I wish you guys would return some of our usual precip. We're running at about 30% of our average snowpack!  


On the bright side--- our new gov. canned and replaced 4 members of our Fish and Wildlife Commission. She wants a new emphesis on rec. fishing. Yeah!!!  For pretty much it's entire history, our commission has been dominated/controlled by commercial interests.

Thanks for the clarification Bill.  Its probably a combination of getting older and elevated mercury levels.

Agree with you 100% about the salmon.  Early 80's nocked the piss out of the salmon here in CA (drought wich led to El Nino).  The warm water did them in, but bonito and huge schools of macks replaced them.  Several years later and the salmon bounced right back.

Stuart

Personally, I think they would be a good candidate for a slot limit, say 28 or 30-36

I totally agree-except I would make it smaller.  Preserving the biggest females while allowing a decent rec. fishery.