Oct 11, San Jose FGC Meeting - Groundfish Petition

interesting response from the commission with regards to descenders.

A chair asked herself why descenders weren't required in cal when they are in others states along the PNW and another guy answered something about it not being enforceable? He said they could somewhat enforce boats to carry them but could not enforce their use, He did state that most good intentioned fisher peoples would definately use their devises but something about the difficulty to enforce use was the reason. Doesnt really make sense, maybe from a ticketing perspective but im sure enforcing every boat to carry one would be good enough. Similar to an 18" net for undersized fish, you cant enforce its use but you can at least make sure people have it.

I think the rule should be to use descenders, even if difficult to enforce. Without requiring the use, someone could openly not use it while carrying it on board and not be subject to any action.

I conceal carry my 18” net and never use it.  But I do use the descender.

Shrug.

5.   Greatest Quillback densities are at depths between 20 and 40 fathoms. So opening up fishing to 20 or 25 fathoms would have minimal impact on population, especially if descenders are required.

7.   Studies in Oregon and Washington have shown the effectiveness of descending devices when used at depths less than 150’.  California has missed a conservation opportunity by not requiring descenders while fishing for rockfish.

Quillback have a 9% mortality rate when caught in 0-30 fathoms of water when descenders are used.

Quillback have a 21% mortality rate 0-10 fm, 35% mortality rate 11-20 fm, 51% mortality rate 21-30 fm when no descenders are used.

While that is a substantial reduction when using descenders, it is far from "minimal impact".

https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/2022/11/h-4-a-supplemental-gmt-report-3.pdf/

-Allen

I thought you guys did an excellent job representing the kayak community. I don’t think we were even on their radar whatsoever but with your presence we might have a change in 2024 thank you for everyone involved. Wish I could’ve made it but couldn’t take a day off work.

The meeting video is posted now, and we spoke close to the beginning:

 https://cal-span.org/meeting/cfg_20231011/

I made a video of the portion that was related to our petition.
It is not a high-quality video, as I was rushed.

https://youtu.be/qh6d2FCr9xQ?si=l1LWz-vRgUEh5Zj7

Paul

Watched the video conference. Thanks to all that attended and have supported discussion..

Quillback have a 9% mortality rate when caught in 0-30 fathoms of water when descenders are used.

Quillback have a 21% mortality rate 0-10 fm, 35% mortality rate 11-20 fm, 51% mortality rate 21-30 fm when no descenders are used.

While that is a substantial reduction when using descenders, it is far from "minimal impact".

https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/2022/11/h-4-a-supplemental-gmt-report-3.pdf/

-Allen
[/quote]

Thanks for that link. Excellent information.

"Minimal impact" is a descriptive, not quantitative term, and to me 9% mortality of an infrequently caught fish, which is already protected in 20% to 30% of its range, would be minimal impact. It certainly doesn't mean that 9% of the population is taken - far from it.

Also, it may be all the difference needed to not exceed the take quota for the year. The shut down was based on exceeding the quota for the year. So zero take is not necessary.

Quillback have a 9% mortality rate when caught in 0-30 fathoms of water when descenders are used.

Quillback have a 21% mortality rate 0-10 fm, 35% mortality rate 11-20 fm, 51% mortality rate 21-30 fm when no descenders are used.

While that is a substantial reduction when using descenders, it is far from "minimal impact".

https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/2022/11/h-4-a-supplemental-gmt-report-3.pdf/

-Allen

Thanks for that link. Excellent information.

"Minimal impact" is a descriptive, not quantitative term, and to me 9% mortality of an infrequently caught fish, which is already protected in 20% to 30% of its range, would be minimal impact. It certainly doesn't mean that 9% of the population is taken - far from it.

Also, it may be all the difference needed to not exceed the take quota for the year. The shut down was based on exceeding the quota for the year. So zero take is not necessary.

The point being that you should think in quantitative terms.  In the descriptive sense, the statement made can be viewed completely opposite of what you intend.  I did, and still do.  You said “minimal impact on population, especially if descenders are required”, which implies minimal impact even if descenders are not required.  This was in the context of opening up to 20-25 fm.  Can we agree that 51% mortality rate in 21-30 fm) is not minimal impact?

Descriptive sense is not science.  It is wishful thinking.  You guys need to tighten up your argument.

Infrequently caught fish?  Obviously it’s caught often enough to force a closure.  Infrequent catches of a low population can have high impact.

Thanks for the discussion JoeDubC.

-Allen

I heard numbers of 150% (Northern) and 110% of take quota mentioned by the commission as reason for emergency shut down.
With zero take allowed, then I assume release mortality accounts for 100% of estimated take.
(but 1 QB was allowed at start of season so my numbers are off. We need to know what percent of take was counted from retention at beginning of season vs release mortality)

If descenders reduce mortality from (21%+35%+52%)/3 = 36% (surface release avg from 3 depth bins) to 9% according to their studies, then take should be cut to 1/4 of estimates and well within quota.

I thought you guys did an excellent job representing the kayak community. I don’t think we were even on their radar whatsoever but with your presence we might have a change in 2024 thank you for everyone involved. Wish I could’ve made it but couldn’t take a day off work.

I agree from their comments that the kayak fishing community was not even on their radar. I think having a presence and letting them know that we have an active and thriving community does impact their decision making in the future.  In fact our community is one of the most eco-friendly ways to get on the water.

We do a lot to support environmental efforts such as supporting coastal clean ups, providing funds to local non profits and supporting the salmon fishery -- I don't think that was lost on them.

I am hopeful that we can build a constructive and mutually beneficial relationship with CDFW rather than an adversarial one. (We vs. Them). From their comments it seemed they want to maintain an open dialogue with us as they make policy for 2024.

I'm cautiously optimistic this will lead to better policy for our community come 2024; but there is still lots of work to be done. The working committee is meeting offline and in active discussion how to move forward. We will keep every one updated. Fingers crossed for better results some 2024 -TLA

What working committee?  You claim to represent “us”, yet who are you?  Not trying to be confrontational, but nobody I’ve talked to even knows who you are and what you’re about.  Some information would go a long way.

-Allen

What working committee?  You claim to represent “us”, yet who are you?  Not trying to be confrontational, but nobody I’ve talked to even knows who you are and what you’re about.  Some information would go a long way.

-Allen

Here is the original request for members: https://www.norcalkayakanglers.com/index.php?topic=100663.0

Here is the list of original members of the group: https://www.norcalkayakanglers.com/index.php?topic=101060.msg1131954#msg1131954

That doesn’t actually say who you are, other than a few internet handles.

I see a lot of opposition on those threads, with many questions essentially ignore.

-Allen

That doesn’t actually say who you are, other than a few internet handles.

I see a lot of opposition on those threads, with many questions essentially ignore.

-Allen

Did you watch the full video of them presenting to the CDFW board? Their proposal might not be perfect for everyone but at least they are making the effort to give more representation to the kayak community. They made some valid points and the director and board might listen to them in 2024.

That doesn’t actually say who you are, other than a few internet handles.

I see a lot of opposition on those threads, with many questions essentially ignore.

-Allen

Did you watch the full video of them presenting to the CDFW board? Their proposal might not be perfect for everyone but at least they are making the effort to give more representation to the kayak community. They made some valid points and the director and board might listen to them in 2024.

I have no doubt they have good intentions, but they do not represent the kayak fishing community.  At this point they represent themselves with some individual support from some kayak anglers.  I asked them to at least post a poll here to see if NCKA was in favor or not (I don’t think their own poll asked who was opposed).  They didn’t. Without that, such statements can’t be made.

-Allen