20-Fathom Rockfish Conservation Area Boundary Line - Public Comment

Like Paul said the most important part is to show unity and support when it comes to working towards a common goal.  If we are not recognized as a significant stake holder and group the kayak fishing community will be brushed aside and new regulation will forced on us.

We have a small body of guys working on this issue but have shown that our presence is recognized as an important stake holder in this fishery. I can't express the importance of this.

50-100 active anglers willing to take time to show up and participate in the political process will go a long way to protecting the interest of our sport, and with it the peace of mind we all get from being out in the ocean we all love.

Make no mistake. Inaction, standing on the sidelines, or not doing anything is action in itself.
The results we put in will be the results we get out. Paul has taken the bulk of the action of getting us organized and understanding the process moving forward. He deserves the all the credit, but we need people to help show up for these important and pivotal meetings.

Join us online or better in person on Thursday December 14, 2023. Hope to see you all there --TLA

We used draft 20-fathom Rockfish Conservation Area (RCA) Boundary Line waypoints provided by CDFW.


AlsHobieOutback generated the line from the waypoint data.  Which I am not smart enough to do.

Paul

I can't make it to the meeting tomorrow, but I did send emails to DFG, CFG, and the other folks listed on Paul's website.

I can't make it to the meeting tomorrow, but I did send emails to DFG, CFG, and the other folks listed on Paul's website.

I appreciate your support.

Paul

Thanks Paul,
there are some free converters (I used them ~ 10 years ago, forget the names) that will convert a file full of waypoints to different versions.

does the file generate the 20fathom/120' line? or specific waypoints shoreward of the 120' line?

Thanks,
Brian.

In this case they had to manually gather the waypoints from the proposal site, and I then converted them to decimal format and then to a gpx format. Once we have the official GPS coordinates I'll make a version that works for Navionics, and fish finders, easy peasy.

Been appreciating everyone's attention and ideas around the rockfish season changes. Unfortunately, my trust in "the system" that has decimated the rockfish season is at zero. The quillback "problem" seems like a convenient, non-disprovable rationale for the recent restrictions. What really appears to be happening is the fulfillment of preconceived political promises to groups that would prefer zero fishing and are implementing a long-term strategy to get us there. Call me conspiratorial, but my trust in our institutions didn't make it though the last few years. Unless there's a wholesale change of governance in Cali and nearby states, the appointees to the regulatory groups will continue, ratchet-style, to gradually and irreversibly reduce opportunities and it has nothing to do with the health of the fisheries. Bargaining away opportunities in an attempt to appease will only quicken the pace of it.

Been appreciating everyone's attention and ideas around the rockfish season changes. Unfortunately, my trust in "the system" that has decimated the rockfish season is at zero. The quillback "problem" seems like a convenient, non-disprovable rationale for the recent restrictions. What really appears to be happening is the fulfillment of preconceived political promises to groups that would prefer zero fishing and are implementing a long-term strategy to get us there. Call me conspiratorial, but my trust in our institutions didn't make it though the last few years. Unless there's a wholesale change of governance in Cali and nearby states, the appointees to the regulatory groups will continue, ratchet-style, to gradually and irreversibly reduce opportunities and it has nothing to do with the health of the fisheries. Bargaining away opportunities in an attempt to appease will only quicken the pace of it.

You realize this isn't coming from CA?  PFMC/Noaa determines the status of the fishery and designates quota.  CDFW has to adhere to quotas and determines regulations to do so.

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/overfished-declaration-quillback-rockfish-california-likely-limit-fishing

-Allen

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/overfished-declaration-quillback-rockfish-california-likely-limit-fishing

How You Can Help Quillback Rockfish
* Use descending devices to safely return any quillback rockfish caught to their natural depth, maintaining their numbers so the stock can rebuild
* Commercial vessels should record all catches, including quillback rockfish, even if discarded; this information can help refine regulations to allow for continued fishing opportunities.
* Recreational anglers should submit their groundfish bag limits for inspection and accurately respond to surveys to provide managers with the most complete data, including whether any quillback rockfish were caught and released and if a descending device was used in their release

In a kayak-only fishery/season that has limitations on impacting Quillback, data collection will be difficult to impossible.  There are no commercial vessels (charters) or power boaters reporting data.  And kayak anglers are mostly not using the main launches where anglers surveys are routinely done.  Surveyors can only cover so much ground, which means that effectively the majority of kayak anglers will not be surveyed, so no data from them either.

I've always wondered why there wasn't a volunteer self-reporting site.  Gathering any more data than what is currently done can only be a good thing for the fisheries.

-Allen

Been appreciating everyone's attention and ideas around the rockfish season changes. Unfortunately, my trust in "the system" that has decimated the rockfish season is at zero. The quillback "problem" seems like a convenient, non-disprovable rationale for the recent restrictions. What really appears to be happening is the fulfillment of preconceived political promises to groups that would prefer zero fishing and are implementing a long-term strategy to get us there. Call me conspiratorial, but my trust in our institutions didn't make it though the last few years. Unless there's a wholesale change of governance in Cali and nearby states, the appointees to the regulatory groups will continue, ratchet-style, to gradually and irreversibly reduce opportunities and it has nothing to do with the health of the fisheries. Bargaining away opportunities in an attempt to appease will only quicken the pace of it.

You realize this isn't coming from CA?  PFMC/Noaa determines the status of the fishery and designates quota.  CDFW has to adhere to quotas and determines regulations to do so.

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/overfished-declaration-quillback-rockfish-california-likely-limit-fishing

-Allen

NOAAhas no say in this matter. This is only on PFM and CDFW

Been appreciating everyone's attention and ideas around the rockfish season changes. Unfortunately, my trust in "the system" that has decimated the rockfish season is at zero. The quillback "problem" seems like a convenient, non-disprovable rationale for the recent restrictions. What really appears to be happening is the fulfillment of preconceived political promises to groups that would prefer zero fishing and are implementing a long-term strategy to get us there. Call me conspiratorial, but my trust in our institutions didn't make it though the last few years. Unless there's a wholesale change of governance in Cali and nearby states, the appointees to the regulatory groups will continue, ratchet-style, to gradually and irreversibly reduce opportunities and it has nothing to do with the health of the fisheries. Bargaining away opportunities in an attempt to appease will only quicken the pace of it.

You realize this isn't coming from CA?  PFMC/Noaa determines the status of the fishery and designates quota.  CDFW has to adhere to quotas and determines regulations to do so.

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/overfished-declaration-quillback-rockfish-california-likely-limit-fishing

-Allen

NOAAhas no say in this matter. This is only on PFM and CDFW

PFMC is under the NOAA umbrella, isn't it?  Did you read the link?

In June, the Pacific Fishery Management Council, based on input from the Scientific and Statistical Committee, recommended that quillback off each of the three states be managed as separate populations. NOAA Fisheries approved the change.

https://www.pcouncil.org/about-the-council-2/

Management measures developed by the Council are recommended to the Secretary of Commerce through the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Management measures are implemented by NMFS West Coast Regional offices and enforced by the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement, the 11th and 13th Coast Guard Districts, and local enforcement agencies.

NMFS is also known as NOAA Fisheries.

-Allen

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.

Thanks Clayman!

Been appreciating everyone's attention and ideas around the rockfish season changes. Unfortunately, my trust in "the system" that has decimated the rockfish season is at zero. The quillback "problem" seems like a convenient, non-disprovable rationale for the recent restrictions. What really appears to be happening is the fulfillment of preconceived political promises to groups that would prefer zero fishing and are implementing a long-term strategy to get us there. Call me conspiratorial, but my trust in our institutions didn't make it though the last few years. Unless there's a wholesale change of governance in Cali and nearby states, the appointees to the regulatory groups will continue, ratchet-style, to gradually and irreversibly reduce opportunities and it has nothing to do with the health of the fisheries. Bargaining away opportunities in an attempt to appease will only quicken the pace of it.

You realize this isn't coming from CA?  PFMC/Noaa determines the status of the fishery and designates quota.  CDFW has to adhere to quotas and determines regulations to do so.

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/overfished-declaration-quillback-rockfish-california-likely-limit-fishing

-Allen

I did type out “Cali and nearby states” for this very reason.

A once size fits all solution at 20 fathoms does not seem appropriate as quillback depth ranges vary by region.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-10-02/pdf/2023-21710.pdf

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.

This same document shows that the Annual Catch Target was exceeded by 2.3x even with the shortened seasons.  A combined ACT for all of CA of 1.76 mt is not very many total fish.  Assuming 2 pound average, that’s less than 2000 fish for the entire coast.

We’re fighting over scraps.

-Allen

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.