California environmentalists seek protection for unfished species

http://www.insidebayarea.com/argus/ci_20907520/california-environmentalists-seek-protection-unfished-species

I side with the hippies on this one.  Forage fish are the foundation, the better off they are the better off our local fisheries are.

Well grow my ponytail, give me a drum circle, and a joint...I also must be a hippy!

I side with the hippies on this one.  Forage fish are the foundation, the better off they are the better off our local fisheries are.

+1

Oregon-based Pew Environmental Group. "Suspend any new fisheries unless and until we can show that they can be fished at a sustainable level."

This part concerns me, I support the reasoning but this wording is suspect. Espically coming from some one from out of state. Smelt are good halibut bait and some enjoy eating them. I would like to see a plan drawn up rather than ban everything and figure it out later. I stand on the side of hard science to prove the need, then regulation, not the other way around. I am only talking about on a recreational level too not commercial. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't like when someone form another state tells my state how to spend my tax dollars against me.

Oregon-based Pew Environmental Group. "Suspend any new fisheries unless and until we can show that they can be fished at a sustainable level."

This part concerns me, I support the reasoning but this wording is suspect. Espically coming from some one from out of state. Smelt are good halibut bait and some enjoy eating them. I would like to see a plan drawn up rather than ban everything and figure it out later. I stand on the side of hard science to prove the need, then regulation, not the other way around. I am only talking about on a recreational level too not commercial. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't like when someone form another state tells my state how to spend my tax dollars against me.

+1

I am only talking about on a recreational level too not commercial.

The whole conversation is centered around the commercial fishery of the species mentioned.  Right now there is no fishery for them but that is likely to change as the demand for farm raised fish increases.  Its a proactive approach rather than the traditional f it all up then figure out how to fix it. 

This isn't just a local problem either, its global and goes hand in hand with the major seining operations that wrap entire schools of fish to pen them up.  At 7-10lbs of forage to grow 1lb of tuna its gonna take forage by the ton to keep up with demand.

There's no real mention of recreational, I would assume the same dfg regs would still apply id the fisheries were not opened to commercial take.

The way I read it there was no deffination between the two, if an environmentalist is talking about fisheries in my experience they are talking about both recreational and commercial. Again poor wording is concerning to me. If its only for commercial fishing then they should say that out right. It's a good idea to regulate the fisheries to commercial take, but the regulations need to clearly state only commercial. Leaving this loosely worded is a great way to creat a loop hole to target other species and recreational fishing.

Here's another article.  I don't trust the enviro hippies any further than I can throw them, I just don't forsee the pfmc tightening recreational regs for species that aren't regularly targeted by recreational anglers.   

http://crosscut.com/2012/06/14/environment/109180/fish-pacific-fisheries-maritime-council-forage/

If history is any judge, don't expect the PFMC to get this right. They and the IPHC brought us Halibut IFQs, which are doing a great job stabilizing the Halibut fishery. Not so much...

Speaking of Halibut, the biomass of Alaskan Pacific Halibut is now thought to be 50% of target. What's the PFMC/IPHC response? Drop commercial take by approximately 18%, and continue to ignore the elephant in the room (bycatch by Alaskan trawlers).

As for not tightening regs for species that aren't targeted by recreational anglers, well Kodiak used to have a 10 per day rockfish limit, with up to 5 being Yelloweye. ADFG tightened down the limit to 5/1 per day, not because the current take was effecting the population, but TO REDUCE THE LIKELIHOOD THAT SPORT HALIBUT TAKE WOULD DISPLACE TO  ROCKFISH.

Put me in the "either way it goes, the sport anglers are going to need lube" camp.


</cranky geezer mode>

Scott