Halibut changes… permanent?

And for those of you who like to say, "Show us the data", two can play this game: Why don't you show us the data that supports the higher take? Until then, perhaps it would be wise to lean toward a conservative approach to this. After all, we are approaching the point of having nothing left to fish for.

Thats a fallacy. not only is it different to change the rules versus to maintain the long-standing rules, but it is an appeal to authority, and the authority here has no more insight than anyone else does without the data (by the way, the tens of years of empirical evidence we all have is in support of the long-standing 5 fish socal limit. look at where all these record CA hali are coming from; the socal fishery is alive and very well).  We could go on and talk about where the burden of proof falls too. 

impulsive reaction is never to be confused for an informed response, but as of recent in all facets of politics this is blatantly overlooked

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.'"

two fish per day is plenty. Yearly qota is bad idea I think. Maybe reduce bag limits in the BAy but not open ocean. So many guys brailing the hot spots in bay, taking lots of fish that are barely legal.

Bushy

^ what he said. I'm on board.

Two fish is plenty....especially if your Todd W

Problem with more yearly limits is more bureaucracy. I am not interested in another report card for dfg. Ineffective and inefficient IMHO.

Bushy

Problem with more yearly limits is more bureaucracy. I am not interested in another report card for dfg. Ineffective and inefficient IMHO.

Bushy

How is it "ineffective" to create an annual limit? To me, that sounds supremely effective - much more effective, anyway, than a reduced daily bag limit. Most anglers do not catch a 3-fish limit each time they fish for halibut. So, a limit reduced to 2 fish will have a minor benefit to the population. DFW has estimated that such a change could reduce take by 13% (see below). That sounds insignificant to me, and ultimately reducing the bag limit from 3 to 2 will not be a very bold action. But I'm all for it anyway.

https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=212956&inline

look at where all these record CA hali are coming from; the socal fishery is alive and very well

Do you have data to back this up? Or just pictures on Facebook of big halibut?
Anyway, in SoCal, they have lots more species to target than we do up here, so I'm guessing the pressure on the halibut is much less.

look at where all these record CA hali are coming from; the socal fishery is alive and very well

Do you have data to back this up? Or just pictures on Facebook of big halibut?
Anyway, in SoCal, they have lots more species to target than we do up here, so I'm guessing the pressure on the halibut is much less.

if you read the part of my quote, just before you trimmed, you'll notice I mention "by the way, the tens of years of empirical evidence we all have is in support of the long-standing 5 fish socal limit."

Malibu two, respectfully, how could you get to page 3 of this thread and ask such a question? It is pretty clear there is no data being used to drive these decisions. At least no public data, and that is a red flag.

That said yeah i guess the fish sniffer report is the best data we have until the DFG Decides to publish some, but first they would need to implement a way to collect it lol.  might as well focus on commercial take since that's the only measured facet rn


Also socal may have some pelagics (which by the way, norcal and central cal now have), but we have hundreds of rockfish species they dont, salmon they dont, rivers and a huge delta region with steelhead and stripers that they dont.

if you read the part of my quote, just before you trimmed, you'll notice I mention "by the way, the tens of years of empirical evidence we all have is in support of the long-standing 5 fish socal limit."

Malibu two, respectfully, how could you get to page 3 of this thread and ask such a question? It is pretty clear there is no data being used to drive these decisions. At least no public data, and that is a red flag.

That said yeah i guess the fish sniffer report is the best data we have until the DFG Decides to publish some, but first they would need to implement a way to collect it lol.  might as well focus on commercial take since that's the only measured facet rn


Also socal may have some pelagics (which by the way, norcal and central cal now have), but we have hundreds of rockfish species they dont, salmon they dont, rivers and a huge delta region with steelhead and stripers that they dont.

Well, it seems that you're setting a double standard; you feel some decisions can be made based on empirical evidence, mere observations, while others should require years of data gathering before any preventative measures are taken.

I'd bet that the five-fish limit wasn't created based on any data. It probably was an easy number to count, and it "felt" right.

Empirical evidence would indicate that the Tomales fishery is in serious decline; less and less fish being caught despite many people trying.

I saw a theory here on NCKA that the halibut were all gathered in the south bay this past summer due to the freshwater flush coming from the rivers in the north bay, so it just seemed like there were a lot of halibut, when in fact, they were possibly just concentrated in a small area. If that's the case, they would have taken a serious beating, and we'll see the impacts from that soon.

I hope I'm wrong, but why not take the cautious route, lower the bag limit, and then gather data to find out whether we can raise it again?

Problem with more yearly limits is more bureaucracy. I am not interested in another report card for dfg. Ineffective and inefficient IMHO.

Bushy

How is it "ineffective" to create an annual limit? To me, that sounds supremely effective - much more effective, anyway, than a reduced daily bag limit. Most anglers do not catch a 3-fish limit each time they fish for halibut. So, a limit reduced to 2 fish will have a minor benefit to the population. DFW has estimated that such a change could reduce take by 13% (see below). That sounds insignificant to me, and ultimately reducing the bag limit from 3 to 2 will not be a very bold action. But I'm all for it anyway.

https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=212956&inline

Lots of handwaving in the last couple posts about lack of data.  Follow the data.  Seems to be a good chart of recreational catch in the above slides.  They also state that the last good recruitment year was 2019.  The water has been cold since.

-Allen

It is all projection and guess without a report card or quota. There is no way for them to even know (especially this year) how many recreational guys are out each day and how many are taking limits. Especially with the species closures this year they have even less a clue what is going on. Nobody knows. there's an influx of commercial guys too, at least they have a clue on permits pulled. 

Malibu, I guess the question is then, without data, how small of a sample group's opinion/experience are you willing to accept as fact? your local tomales bay kayak buddies is enough to project regs across the state?   


All im saying is if a decision is being made, there needs to be some baseline or foundation or structure to the decision.  Right now we have a powerpoint that shows a single graph from one subset of the people fishing (Charter boats) with no data sources referenced.  I cant even look at the actual numbers because they're not referenced or included....  So, to say people are complaining about having no data, then providing the only single source of data which is done on a volunteer basis, irregularly, and without any rhyme or reason is not very helpful.. What makes it a good chart Pole? Is it the poor sample sample selection, or just cuz its pretty. fish counters go to like 1 dock for a day on a weekend.... lol

1) Collect real data, even if it require #s from all anglers, all the time. logging released fish and kept fish on a report card is not hard; make an app or something. The possession limit is daily limits anyway, so unless you're eating 1 halibut a week, you're not going to have more than like 20 keeper fish on your docket anyway.    If we are making decisions they should be informed, and until we can make informed decisions I don't think it is correct to make uninformed or poorly informed ones.    Of course this is just my opinion, but if other people's just as "poorly" informed opinion is all it takes to change regs, mines worth just as much.

The scientific models are there.  It's more than a guess.  However, one real issue is that the last stock assessment done in 2020 resulted in the following, "The Panel does not consider the northern area base model for halibut to be adequate for use in management".

Read more here, https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=193537&inline

Note that the reasons are mostly modeling issues.  I don't see any issues raised with data gathering.

You all keep talking about lack of data, but do you even know what data exists?  I think that is a large part of the problem, it's difficult for the general public to find the data.  Ideally we have up-to-date stock assessments.  However, I can't even find the full 2020 stock assessment, perhaps because it wasn't "ratified", and the previous one was in 2011.

-Allen

The scientific models are there.  It's more than a guess.  However, one real issue is that the last stock assessment done in 2020 resulted in the following, "The Panel does not consider the northern area base model for halibut to be adequate for use in management".

Read more here, https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=193537&inline

Note that the reasons are mostly modeling issues.  I don't see any issues raised with data gathering.

You all keep talking about lack of data, but do you even know what data exists?  I think that is a large part of the problem, it's difficult for the general public to find the data.  Ideally we have up-to-date stock assessments.  However, I can't even find the full 2020 stock assessment, perhaps because it wasn't "ratified", and the previous one was in 2011.

-Allen

for all intents and purposes, if the data exists but is so difficult to access / unable to be accessed / unfit for use, it may as well not exist at all. part of creating a valid test/model is that it should be repeatable.  nobody can repeat this because there's not a standard procedure

The scientific models are there.  It's more than a guess.  However, one real issue is that the last stock assessment done in 2020 resulted in the following, "The Panel does not consider the northern area base model for halibut to be adequate for use in management".

Read more here, https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=193537&inline

Note that the reasons are mostly modeling issues.  I don't see any issues raised with data gathering.

You all keep talking about lack of data, but do you even know what data exists?  I think that is a large part of the problem, it's difficult for the general public to find the data.  Ideally we have up-to-date stock assessments.  However, I can't even find the full 2020 stock assessment, perhaps because it wasn't "ratified", and the previous one was in 2011.

-Allen

for all intents and purposes, if the data exists but is so difficult to access / unable to be accessed / unfit for use, it may as well not exist at all. part of creating a valid test/model is that it should be repeatable.  nobody can repeat this because there's not a standard procedure

It exists to those that need access to it to make the decisions they are charged with making.  I doubt we'd even know what to do with the data.  But we'd probably be arguing over it. lol

Perhaps we should start by asking that the 2020 stock assessment be released in it's current form.  And by lobbying for more regular updates ...

-Allen

Empirical evidence would indicate that the Tomales fishery is in serious decline; less and less fish being caught despite many people trying.

Ocean conditions haven't been good in the northern area for halibut to spawn.  There hasn't been a good recruitment year since 2019.  The halibut you catch in Tomales Bay are mostly post-spawn females.  No spawn = no post spawn females dropping into Tomales to recover.

-Allen