Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Clayman

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 89

AOTY / Re: Ideas for AOTY

« on: January 23, 2024, 05:40:20 PM »

There are a handful of NorCal lakes that support Sac perch. Biggest I personally came across was this 16 incher, but I caught him from the shore, so no AOTY points. Some Internet sleuthing will unveil most of the places you can find them.

I've seen some pretty big redear sunfish come out of the CA Delta. Bigger than the typical bluegill sizes.

General Fishing Tips / Re: I kinda think putting a motor on a kayak removed too much “kayak-ness”

« on: January 21, 2024, 03:32:23 PM »

That's good that you know your physical limits when it comes to paddling. I'm worried about the people who don't. With the increasing popularity in motorized kayaks, new guys who jump right into a motorized kayak with no experience on a pedal or paddle kayak aren't going to be familiar with their physical limits. The motor could lull them into a false sense of security and capability. When the time comes where they've motored several miles offshore and the motor dies, I hope they can safely pedal or paddle back to shore, assuming they have a pedal drive or a paddle. If not, hopefully there's someone around to come save them, whether it's the CG or a boat.

I'll continue recommending to the new guys with motors, to be aware of their physical capabilities and be comfortable paddling--or pedaling--whatever kind of kayak they take offshore before they fire up that motor.

General Fishing Tips / Re: I kinda think putting a motor on a kayak removed too much “kayak-ness”

« on: January 17, 2024, 08:10:01 AM »

Quote from: E Kayaker on January 16, 2024, 08:29:52 PM

I think any kayaker can get in over their head if they don’t stay within their abilities. It’s not like there has been a shortage of kayaker’s getting into trouble before motors came on the scene. It’s possible to paddle to far and not be able to fight the wind or tide to get back. Is the rule, never motor farther from shore than you can paddle? Does that only apply to kayaks? Motorboats can breakdown too. Should they stay within paddle distance as well? Lots of things can go wrong on the ocean. I imagine a lot of people think it’s crazy for anyone to take any kayak on the ocean. We all have different abilities and different levels of risk tolerance. Motors are tools and can be used safely or not. Motors are not for everyone but I think one person’s misuse doesn’t condemn them for everyone else. Paddles, peddles or motors, whatever floats your boat.

Are you suggesting that it's reasonable to rely on a motor to go beyond your physical capabilities? If you use the motor to go three miles, but the motor dies and you can't paddle three miles back to shore, then someone's gonna have to go "rescue" you. It's like filling your car with 200 miles worth of gas when you know you're going on a 300 mile trip.

Yeah, lots of things can go wrong on the ocean. Kayaking on the ocean carries risks that we try our best to mitigate, via PFDs, immersion gear, VHF radio, etc. But this one--relying on a motor to take you beyond your physical capabilites--seems like a real easy one to control. It's one less rescue effort that can be saved for someone else, and reduces the risk of others getting into trouble from trying to rescue you from a situation you knowingly and willingly put yourself into.

General Fishing Tips / Re: I kinda think putting a motor on a kayak removed too much “kayak-ness”

« on: January 16, 2024, 11:43:18 AM »

Those ePDLs look pretty cool. Still heavy though. The specs below are for the Old Town Bigwater ePDL:

LENGTH
13’ 2” / 4 m
WIDTH
36 in / 91.4 cm
ASSEMBLED BOAT WEIGHT
143 lbs / 64.8 kg
HULL WEIGHT
95 lbs / 43.1 kg
ePDL+ DRIVE WEIGHT
32.5 lbs / 14.7 kg
INCLUDED BATTERY WEIGHT
8.5 lbs / 3.8 kg
SEAT WEIGHT
6 lbs / 2.7 kg
TOTAL WEIGHT CAPACITY
500 lbs / 226.8 kg
USABLE WEIGHT CAPACITY
357 lbs / 161.9 kg

The ePDL drive with battery clocks in at 41 pounds. For comparison, the Mirage Drive 180 is 8 pounds. Hobie Revo 13 fully-rigged weight (seat, drive) is 88 pounds. The Bigwater ePDL is 62.5% heavier than the Revo.

Gentle water with access to a boat ramp or a beach you can drive on, I can see this being a nice set-up. Is it worth $6k? I guess that's up to the individual user.

General Fishing Tips / Re: I kinda think putting a motor on a kayak removed too much “kayak-ness”

« on: January 15, 2024, 10:41:59 AM »

This last summer, I was fishing the salt from my Revo 13 a few miles north of a boat ramp. Heard chatter over the radio of a guy with a motorized kayak who flipped among the kelp beds and couldn't get the kayak upright. From what I gathered, the motor prop got caught in the kelp and caused him to flip. Some other anglers helped him upright his boat. His motor was dead, and he didn't have a paddle with him. I don't know how he got back to shore, but he eventually did.

Anyway, the story made me wonder "What if I had that kayak?" A boat so big and unweildy that I'd have trouble flipping it upright. If the motor dies, then I'm stuck paddling this big barge for however many miles I'm away from the beach. Then do the multiple trips back and forth across the beach with my heavy-ass kayak, gear, and motor. Then, if I can't fix the motor like I can fix a Mirage Drive, I have to send the motor to the dealer to have them fix it for however much money and for however long of a time.

I'm confident in self-rescue on my Revo 13. I can flip that thing upright like nobody's business. If the Mirage Drive breaks, the Revo paddles just fine. I can fix the Mirage Drive at home or order spare parts. The beach launch only takes one trip down and one trip back. Those slooow salmon trolling days can make me want a motor sometimes, but other than that, the hazards and bulkiness of the motor outweighs the benefits for me. Might be a different story if I was still into black bass fishing, I guess.

Besides, pedaling is good for you!

CA Regulations / Re: Frog Hibernation

« on: January 11, 2024, 04:05:09 PM »

Quote from: NowhereMan on January 11, 2024, 02:15:46 PM

Quote from: Hojoman on January 11, 2024, 11:32:30 AM
But unlike a hibernating turtle, frogs would suffocate without access to oxygen-rich water.

So, a hibernating turtle will not suffocate without access to oxygen-rich water? What does that mean? Maybe I need to consult ChatGPT to parse this sentence...

It's mostly accurate. The key word is "oxygen-rich". Hibernating frogs always need oxygen: they'll die in anoxic water pretty quickly. However, many turtle species can hibernate for months in nearly anoxic conditions.

Source: I worked with Cascades and Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs, and western pond turtles, on the Lassen National Forest for many years.

CA Regulations / Re: Beaver Observation Survey

« on: January 03, 2024, 12:38:31 PM »

CDFW considered beavers a non-native nuisance species in the Sierra Nevadas for decades. Their conclusion was based on old reports from the 1930s and 40s stating as such. I know a now-retired fisheries bio in Indian Valley who pushed CDFG for years to acknowledge that beavers were indeed native to the Sierras. Ancient beaver dams buried in sediment were discovered in the NF Feather watershed. The dams were radiocarbon-dated in 2012, the results of which put them at over a thousand years old. This evidence only came to light a little over a decade ago, and significantly strengthened the case for beavers being native to the Sierras.

In general, CDFW was reluctant to challenge the 1930-40 studies that claimed beavers were not native to the Sierras. One reason for this could be due to politics. Beavers have a habit of building dams and flooding valleys that could be transformed into prime grazing and homesteading land. If beavers were considered native to the Sierras, they'd have to be managed as a native species, which could make trapping and removal of beaver more difficult vs treating them as a non-native species. Now that grazing and homesteading isn't as big of a thing, managing for beaver in the Sierras isn't as politically charged as it used to be.

This is a cool paper for folks interested in learning more about this topic: https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrO7kjov5Vl8ngDphNXNyoA;_ylu=Y29sbwNncTEEcG9zAzMEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Ny/RV=2/RE=1705522408/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fnrmsecure.dfg.ca.gov%2fFileHandler.ashx%3fDocumentID%3d183271/RK=2/RS=004w7kgT6SS0FXh7b1e.Kmhchws-

Fish Talk / Re: salmon know the way to San Jose...

« on: December 29, 2023, 12:06:11 PM »

Pretty cool, but unfortunate that they didn't go up the main Sac to contribute to the escapement goals. Most of this year's returning adults consist of trucked hatchery fish. Turns out the trucking leads to extremely high stray rates, up to 98% for Coleman fish. The low escapement to the main Sac doesn't bode well for a salmon fishing season in 2024. But with such low natural-origin returns this year, probably better to have eggs in the gravel vs no eggs at all, regardless of the fish's origin.

Table source: https://www.calfish.org/Portals/2/Programs/CentralValley/CFM/docs/2017_CFM_CWT_Report.pdf

CA Regulations / Re: 20-Fathom Rockfish Conservation Area Boundary Line - Public Comment

« on: December 21, 2023, 09:18:31 AM »

Quote

A further consideration of limited available spatial data indicated that quillback rockfish are very rarely encountered in waters deeper than 50 fathoms (91.4 meters (m)) but that the depth ranges where they are most commonly encountered varies somewhat by latitude with more attributed catches in shallower depths (e.g., 11–30 fathoms, 20.1–54.9 m) in the more northern areas and deeper than 20 fathoms (36.6 m) in southern parts of the California coast.

Pulled the above quote from page 3 of the FR for context. If a <20 fathom fishery were opened in the northern areas, along with zero retention and mandatory descender use, would the bycatch mortality rate be reduced in the modeling to a point where a "full" season is available to anglers in 2024? Depends on how conservative they are with the modeling.

Purely anecdotal on my part, but I've caught several quillbacks in the 100-150 ft depths up here in Oregon and never had to descend one. They've all darted straight back to the bottom. The barotrauma mortality rate seems pretty low at those depths. But again, purely anecdotal with a sample size of a couple dozen fish doesn't mean much on the grand scale.

CA Regulations / Re: 20-Fathom Rockfish Conservation Area Boundary Line - Public Comment

« on: December 20, 2023, 03:57:46 PM »

This page breaks down the NOAA-MSA-PFMC-State linkages and processes. Highly recommended reading for those unfamiliar with the process. It's salmon-centric, but the processes are similar for groundfish management: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/sustainable-fisheries/pacific-fishery-management-council

This page is a Fact Sheet pertaining to the PFMC's role in groundfish management: https://www.pcouncil.org/fact-sheet-groundfish/

In a nutshell: Magnuson-Stevens Act was enacted in 1976 and subsequently spurred the formation of the PFMC. The PFMC submits recommendations for fisheries to NOAA. Then it's up to NOAA to approve or reject the recommendations. The approved recommendations then go to the States, who are tasked with crafting fishing regulations that adhere to the fishing recommendations from NOAA.

A general understanding of how Federal fisheries management processes work, and the role of the States, is vital for constructive dialogue and debate.

General Talk / Re: Salmon numbers are up?

« on: November 27, 2023, 05:39:12 PM »

Quote from: jremi on November 27, 2023, 03:13:42 PM

Not good, the Coleman hatchery, whose low returns last year were the primary reason why we did not fish this year did not have great returns again. Per facebook they got 9.5 million eggs out of their goal of 12-15 million. They will truck some eggs from the moke to coleman which is good news for the future but does not fix the original problem of low numbers of returning salmon to the sac.

+1

If the data collected from the 2022 run is similar to what's happening in 2023, a lot of these fish did not originate from the Moke. Turns out those smolts CDFW trucked straight to the Bay a few years ago due to extreme drought are straying...a lot. Some data are describing a 90% stray rate for these trucked fish. High odds that a lot of those fish originated from Coleman and other hatcheries.

The 2023 salmon season was contingent on, among other things, meeting minimum escapement goals for the Sacramento River. Forecasts didn't predict enough fish to allow for a fishing season this year. Unfortunately, the current returns for the Sac are looking even worse than the predictions.

Unless the crazy-high stray rates of the trucked Coleman fish are incorporated into the models, this doesn't bode well for the potential for a salmon season in 2024.

General Talk / Re: Sea Lamprey

« on: October 25, 2023, 12:56:26 PM »

The video is a little misleading by calling all anadromous lamprey "sea lamprey". The true "sea lamprey", Petromyzon marinus, is native to the North Atlantic and is the one that caused havoc in the Great Lakes as an invasive species. On our coastline, we have Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus) and river lamprey (Lampetra ayresii). We also have the Western brook lamprey (Entosphenus lampetra), which is a resident non-anadromous species that is much smaller than the anadromous species.

I'm leery of promoting the consumption of Pacific lamprey because their numbers have been in the crapper for a long time now. All those traditional fish ladders constructed at dams for salmonid fish passage were ineffective for passing lamprey, as they can't navigate 90 degree angles when "sucking" their way up a traditional fish ladder. It's also hard to gain public support for lamprey conservation because of their parasitic reputation and their looks.

When Pacific lamprey would die after spawning in late spring, they were often the only dead fish in our rivers that were delivering marine-derived nutrients to those systems that time of the year. Juvenile salmonids would feed off the lamprey carcasses themselves, along with aquatic insects that would then be eaten by the salmonids. Increasing Pacific lamprey numbers would have beneficial effects on salmonid production.

That being said, lamprey are highly nutritious and are packed with calories. The video is correct about that. They have significantly more calories in them than a salmon of equivalent size.

Fish Talk / Re: Urgent Action to Save Spring-run Chinook Salmon

« on: October 15, 2023, 08:39:09 AM »

I was part of snorkel surveys counting spring-run Chinook in Deer Creek from 2003-2016. We went from a high of over 2,800 fish in 2003, to a low of 140 in 2008. After 2008, numbers vacillated from 300-1,000 adults per year. A total of 22 fish is shocking.

That 2,800 fish year was pushing the carrying capacity for Deer Creek. There just isn't that much spawning gravel to accommodate that many springers in there. Deer and Mill creeks were never huge springer producers, but they're nearly all that's left of what you could call true "native" springers in the CV mostly free of hatchery genetics.

Stripers aren't the problem. It's all about the water. There were too many years where adult springers couldn't make it upstream out of the valley in time before they died from high water temperatures. We had mass adult die-offs in the valley, especially around water diversion structures that occasionally were blocked with debris, or low flows due to lack of snowmelt in May.

I know Deer Creek like the back of my hand. Every pool from Upper Falls down to the west end of the Ishi Wilderness. To see the numbers crash like this is like a stab in the heart.

Hookups and Fishing Reports (Viewable by Public) / Re: Rockfish Closures are coming

« on: September 04, 2023, 09:02:57 AM »

Even if I assume James Phillips is right regarding low compliance in OR and WA, making descenders mandatory would increase awareness about them. More people would carry them. Charter boats that don't already use them would almost certainly use them if required by law, as anyone with a phone could record non-compliance. There would be a net positive effect for the fish.

The resistance in CA to making descenders mandatory is so mysterious. Resisting descender enforcement due to alleged noncompliance in OR and WA is a lame and defeatist attitude. Are there lobbyists behind the scenes pushing against a mandatory descender rule?

The graph below comes from the 2021 CA quillback stock assessment (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362024265_Status_of_quillback_rockfish_Sebastes_maliger_in_US_waters_off_the_coast_of_California_in_2021_using_catch_and_length_data). Recreational quillback take has eclipsed commercial take since 2003.

Hookups and Fishing Reports (Viewable by Public) / Re: Rockfish Closures are coming

« on: August 30, 2023, 03:23:54 PM »

Quote from: bioman on August 30, 2023, 12:38:58 PM

Clayman, you're thinking in the right direction.
A couple things you might consider. The model considers something they call "discards" but isn't obvious about whether they consider those 100% mortality or not. I believe they attribute a percentage (maybe 50%) survive.
As to whether the quillbacks you return from 180' make it because you don't see any barotrauma... I would say be cautious about that. I don't know how well quillbacks float, but they did quite a bit of research on survival rates. According to their data a very high percent of fish from 60'+ die. Thats part of why the commercial guys think descenders make no sense. From their perspective any fish brought up from 200' feet is not going to make it, descended or not...
You're on the right track, though. How do we reduce quillback mortality and still fish?

I think descending devices didn't become common until the last few decades, and the recreational discard mortality rates used by CDFW in this report don't jive with the science of the last two decades. It was Table 4 in the report I linked. I'm including the table at the bottom of this post.

There are many studies on rockfish barotrauma and survivability when descended back to depth. Here's one that documented 100% survivability of descended quillback rockfish when caught up to 64 meters (210 feet) in depth: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19425120.2012.655849

Alaska, Oregon, and Washington all require the use of descending devices when rockfishing. I don't know why California hasn't followed suit. The science seems pretty clear that descending devices work.

My personal observations are purely anecdotal. I know they don't mean anything from a statistical standpoint. Just sayin, I've never had a quillie blow up on me.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 89

User Area

Recent Topics

Support NCKA

Articles

Show Posts

Messages - Clayman

AOTY / Re: Ideas for AOTY

General Fishing Tips / Re: I kinda think putting a motor on a kayak removed too much “kayak-ness”

General Fishing Tips / Re: I kinda think putting a motor on a kayak removed too much “kayak-ness”

General Fishing Tips / Re: I kinda think putting a motor on a kayak removed too much “kayak-ness”

General Fishing Tips / Re: I kinda think putting a motor on a kayak removed too much “kayak-ness”

CA Regulations / Re: Frog Hibernation

CA Regulations / Re: Beaver Observation Survey

Fish Talk / Re: salmon know the way to San Jose...

CA Regulations / Re: 20-Fathom Rockfish Conservation Area Boundary Line - Public Comment

CA Regulations / Re: 20-Fathom Rockfish Conservation Area Boundary Line - Public Comment

General Talk / Re: Salmon numbers are up?

General Talk / Re: Sea Lamprey

Fish Talk / Re: Urgent Action to Save Spring-run Chinook Salmon

Hookups and Fishing Reports (Viewable by Public) / Re: Rockfish Closures are coming

Hookups and Fishing Reports (Viewable by Public) / Re: Rockfish Closures are coming