Halibut limit decrease

Saw this on Yahoo. Haven't found anything on the Cali fish and game site yet. https://www.yahoo.com/sports/emergency-california-halibut-regulations-river-091517407.html

Too little, too late. This should have gone into effect months ago.

I'm pretty sure its official as of June 1. MY Question is "what about commies?"  the price for halibut bottoms out at like 6 to 7 a lb and its already there yet ppl still fishing and converting their setups to commie.  They will scrape whatever we don't. they are open year round and have no quota.  we're attacking this from the wrong side i think. I will harvest 10 less fish this year due to the change. a commie will catch an extra 10 fish a day because of this lol

I'm pretty sure its official as of June 1. MY Question is "what about commies?"  the price for halibut bottoms out at like 6 to 7 a lb and its already there yet ppl still fishing and converting their setups to commie.  They will scrape whatever we don't. they are open year round and have no quota.  we're attacking this from the wrong side i think. I will harvest 10 less fish this year due to the change. a commie will catch an extra 10 fish a day because of this lol

That's why I said "too little."
I agree, commercials should have a reduction as well. But the recreational fishermen are no drop in the bucket.
I don't disagree with this change, I just think it should apply to more.

Is it really that bad, or just a really good year?  https://marinespecies.wildlife.ca.gov/california-halibut/the-fishery/. Seems like there is a cycle looking at the dates/catchrates of really good years and average years.  2000 - 2006 looked like great year over year catching, then a steep decline in 2007. What other factors might be at play vs just catch rates?

Someone else on here suggested that perhaps the halibut are concentrated in the south bay due to the fresh water coming out of the rivers, making it seem as though there are more this year. It's an interesting theory. Next year will be very telling.

I had suggested that as we are having very little halibut at marin rod and gun club compared to last year. when we catch a fish it is the only bite all day. we are also getting many stripers and they are staying later than last year. some of the old time anglers have suggested that the fresh water and of course the colder water is not a nice environment for halibut. that is why they may congregate more in the south bay area, such as ARW and OP. I have heard in these areas, it is happening, so. I have also heard that the party boats are more in this area as opposed to further up north. I think this is a complicated issue and that the people who make the decisions are more interested in saving the commercial industry that ships up to 50 % of the fish out of state/out of country and the party boats that sell a easy way to catch your limit, as long as you are willing to pay the fee they charge, oh well, just my feelings on this matter.

It's official now posted on DFG website halibut limit is 2

https://wildlife.ca.gov/Fishing/Ocean/Regulations/Fishing-Map/Central#halibut

Thanks for the info Jason!

I have already talked to two kayakers that are buying a commercial license to allow two rods and NO limits, I guess I sort of understand why but if enough people do this, it will just kill the halibut numbers. Again as I said in a last post this change is more about saving the commercial industry (and the people who will pay the extra cash for a commercial license) and the businesses that provide party boats to the people who will pay big bucks to catch halibut the easiest way possible, letting a boat taking them right over where the halibut are and helping them bring them aboard. It's all about the money that businesses make, not about the sport fisherman or the halibut numbers.

I have already talked to two kayakers that are buying a commercial license to allow two rods and NO limits, I guess I sort of understand why but if enough people do this, it will just kill the halibut numbers. Again as I said in a last post this change is more about saving the commercial industry (and the people who will pay the extra cash for a commercial license) and the businesses that provide party boats to the people who will pay big bucks to catch halibut the easiest way possible, letting a boat taking them right over where the halibut are and helping them bring them aboard. It's all about the money that businesses make, not about the sport fisherman or the halibut numbers.

I think your heart's in the right place, but the fishery managers are required to strike a balance among several competing interests. The decisions are not strictly focused on the fish, or the economics, or the equity. They're based on all of those interests and more. The daily limit reduction still allows everyone to catch some halibut. Charters are still in business. It'll take a little bit of pressure off the fish. It's a balancing act where you don't want to veer too far in any one direction unless the data proves it necessary.

View the situation from CDFW's perspective. They're in a tough spot trying to formulate mid-year management restrictions on a fish that doesn't even have a population estimate. If they go too restrictive, say a 1-fish limit, or if they reduce the commercial catch, people will start asking "where's the data to support this?" There is no data. Basing dramatic management decisions on anecdotes and conjecture is a slippery slope.

Hey there Clayman, thank you for your balance on my comment, you of course quite correct in everything you said. I think what I am realizing is that overall the fish numbers are down because of way to much overfishing. At the heart of the problem is the globalization that allows many commercial fishing industries to sell out of state and out of country. I think one of the principles of balance of nature is that a given local fishing area can not support the whole world. Another example is there are businesses that fish krill in Alaska to make nutritional supplements for humans and there is a lot of controversy on if they really offer any benefit.Now it turns out krill are eaten by whales so now wales are not getting their nutritional needs because a private company is making money at the whale populations expense. Overall there is a need to make commercial profit that will ultimately decimate our fish population and with all the other issues, such as global weather change, we are seeing this vanish right before our eyes. I think these policies you speak of are from a time (early 50's, 60's) when many of these issues were not present. So, at the heart of correcting this problem and to make sure the fish population is growing for future use we must re-think many of these policies and just like when the auto industry had major changes and Detroit turned into a ghost town, the same think must happen to the fishing industry. This means an end to sending fish to other countries, it means keeping the price of fish to a certain level so the fishing industry can make a good profit without having to decimate a population to make a profit. I am not sure that the party boats really make a difference in the local economy. If the people who pay the fee do not go on party boats they will spend the money on other local business so it is not a loss to local economy but a change for one business to probable many more small business and overall it will help the local fish population. I do not have a problem with private boats, as they usually have a limited fishermen on board as opposed to the bigger party boats. If we do not make changes we will deal with these issues and soon all recreational fishing may be canceled to allow these commercial fishing industry to continue to make money and decimate fishing population. These are just my feelings on the subject. Thank you again for your discussion point, I do understand, I am just afraid we are at the tipping point, take care, Ron.

At the heart of the problem is the globalization that allows many commercial fishing industries to sell out of state and out of country. I think one of the principles of balance of nature is that a given local fishing area can not support the whole world.

I totally agree. There are small-time commercial guys - commercial kayakers even - who ship overseas.

I've always said this same thing about the Central Valley. We grow way too much food there, so much that our rivers are running dry and our once-mighty salmon runs are going extinct. One state shouldn't be feeding the whole world or even the whole country.

Perhaps there should be some sort of tax on exporters/producers and the cost goes higher and higher the further a food product is shipped from its source? Maybe there already is.

In the end, all of these problems exist because we have too many humans, but that's another problem altogether.

In the end, all of these problems exist because we have too many humans, but that's another problem altogether.

I guess Thanos was right after all

Can o' worms here...

Depopulationist agendas...hmmm...very sad statement for the living...I believe there are plenty of resources just very poor distribution.