Rockfish Closures are coming

Andy called and wants you to dry clean the marshmallows off his New "Carhartt" jacket.

I didnt mean to

 because they want to protect the Quillback Rockfish.

Andy called and wants you to dry clean the marshmallows off his New "Carhartt" jacket.

Best night ever 

And another thing… Correct me if I’m wrong but it seems that there is low or no survivability of RF brought up from the 300’ and deeper depths, descended or not. If so, then all those fish should count as a “take” and they should institute a “first 10” rule requiring you to keep all first 10 fish caught regardless of species. That would actually reduce the take. Potentially an angler could use barbless and allow smaller fish to come off at depth if they are not feeling heavy.

Andy called and wants you to dry clean the marshmallows off his New "Carhartt" jacket.

Best night ever 

 

I know. Just messing with Craig.

Andy called and wants you to dry clean the marshmallows off his New "Carhartt" jacket.

Best night ever 

 

I know. Just messing with Craig.

It's just so EASY.

Thats why im easy
Im easy like sunday morning

Kayak boat blockade at state capital - paddles full gear - nets - block the steps

Thats if you want somebody other than the neighbors to know they closed the outdoors

“How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?“

Winston thought. “By making him suffer”, he said.

“Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own?"

George Orwell saw this coming, just like he saw Zoom.

Thats why im easy
Im easy like sunday morning

https://youtu.be/MgGHequc_hE?si=WCPDuaXfwtZOK5n9

https://sustainablefisheries-uw.org/ray-hilborn-funding/

This is the heart of the matter, to me. I read through the document and my read was that they lack sufficient data on Quillback survival after release, so they assumed mortality equivalent to other demersal (bottom-dwelling) rockfish. I think most of us here would agree that is unsound, as Quillbacks appear to suffer less barotrauma than any rockfish other than Blues, and certainly are not comparable to, say, Gophers.

As to descenders, I asked James Phillips about that, and his response was basically that Oregon and Washington indicated poor compliance. The law says you must have one on board, so boaters carry them but won't use them. I didn't get any more information or data from him about that so I don't know if it is based on published research or anecdote.

The final aspect of this that bothers me is, the commercial fishery is not affected. The inshore stick-riggers can still fill their live-fish tanks for the Asian markets. And they like Quillbacks because they look pretty.
Tim

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.

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.

Clayman where is the resistance to making descenders mandatory in CA coming from? Not doubting what you’re saying I just haven’t seen it anywhere


Off topic a little but call this a hypothetical

If 3 scientists are hired to do stock assessments say for canary rf; 2 conclude the stocks are healthy, 1 that the stocks are in peril

Which one should CDFW go with for a decision about closures etc?