Halibut changes… permanent?

Does anybody truly believe the emergency action to reduce CA halibut take to 2 is permanent? Because it is NOT permanent. That sort of ends this entire discussion. If you’ve been fishing & paying attention for long enough, you will see bag limits/minimum sizes/methods of take/etc are constantly changing. I appreciate the adaptive management approach the dept has been using the last 15yrs. The opposite/alternative would be to keep the same regs each season, regardless of the fishery health. That sounds worse, right?

How about we petition for more CA halibut regions? Because the populations are totally different in various regions. We currently have 2 regions: south & north of Pt Conception. But the SF bay population has nothing to do with the halibut in SLO or Tomales or Humboldt. In fact, if they split them up into the same categories as the respective marine regions, it would make a lot of sense: Northern, Mendo, SF, Central, and Southern.

Does anybody truly believe the emergency action to reduce CA halibut take to 2 is permanent? Because it is NOT permanent. That sort of ends this entire discussion. If you’ve been fishing & paying attention for long enough, you will see bag limits/minimum sizes/methods of take/etc are constantly changing. I appreciate the adaptive management approach the dept has been using the last 15yrs. The opposite/alternative would be to keep the same regs each season, regardless of the fishery health. That sounds worse, right?

How about we petition for more CA halibut regions? Because the populations are totally different in various regions. We currently have 2 regions: south & north of Pt Conception. But the SF bay population has nothing to do with the halibut in SLO or Tomales or Humboldt. In fact, if they split them up into the same categories as the respective marine regions, it would make a lot of sense: Northern, Mendo, SF, Central, and Southern.

I mean the CDFW says it's permanent... Sure they're not saying it can never be changed, but their point is the emergency reg is no longer an emergency reg, it's the NEW normal reg. nobody here thinks they're locking the 2 fish rule in and throwing away the key forever...

"The proposed regulation change aims to make permanent the existing two-fish daily bag and
possession limit in northern California established by emergency regulation in Section 28.15,
through a regular rulemaking (certificate of compliance). It is expected that the fishery will
require additional time to rebuild following the high take caused by an effort shift from the
salmon and nearshore groundfish closures, and environmental conditions, documented in
2023. Due to the necessity displayed by the emergency regulation, and interest from the
recreational industry for increased stability in the halibut population, the Department has
determined that the fishery should not revert to a bag limit of three fish in this region."

I'd also like to point out they openly admit they're not using data-driven decision-making here. They just say (paraphrasing for those who take things literally) "The fishermen said to do it, so we will do it, also they told us to do it for the emergency regulations back when the salmon season closed." Both of their supporting reasons are disconnected from data..  Similar to this 20 fathom kayak only discussion. it's not data-driven rulemaking, it's just pandering to the masses with some pseudoenvironmentalist crap.

Ok I guess I should’ve read the latest updated update. Thanks for that, Christian.

Just so it available to interested parties and starting point for discussions, I’m of a like mind -

AS wrote:

<snipped>  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 ...

How many fish do you all think we've been catching recently?  From DFG, 50-100K per year in the past 5 years, last year being ~70K.  Actually, I'm unsure of the units, as the data source says #, but the data correlates to the Halibut Stock Assessment, whose units are kg.

In 1995, recreational fishermen caught 267K.  In 1991, they didn't even catch 5K.  By 1999, it was 23K.  By 2002, it was 118K.  BTW, in 1999, the recreational low year, the commercial fishery was 200K.

The recreational catch has varied so much, with the last 5 years not being anything out of the ordinary.  While there may have been an effort shift, is it really going to move the needle to 267K?   So ... why are the regs changing?

-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.

Raise limit back to 3, sell halibut report cards, use proceeds and the no-turn in fees to fund yearly population sampling. hollyyy imagine the uproar that would cause. Even better if after a few years the data supported a 2 fish limit, the tantrums would be legendary.

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

Allen, I like this explanation and I hope it's correct.

But I mostly recall seeing egg sacs bursting with roe in my T-Bay halibut. I pay attention to this because I make bottarga with the roe. What would the egg sac of a post-spawn halibut look like? (Empty and floppy, I'm guessing. I see those occasionally.) And how rapidly after spawning do the egg sacs replenish?

Thanks,
Alastair

Raise limit back to 3, sell halibut report cards, use proceeds and the no-turn in fees to fund yearly population sampling. hollyyy imagine the uproar that would cause. Even better if after a few years the data supported a 2 fish limit, the tantrums would be legendary.

Boo hoo let them cry. at least its irrefutable unlike emotional and impulsive changes.  That system seems a whole lot more effective than taking a sample every 10 years, deeming it unsuitable for proper stock modeling, and then changing the regs anyway.,

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

Allen, I like this explanation and I hope it's correct.

But I mostly recall seeing egg sacs bursting with roe in my T-Bay halibut. I pay attention to this because I make bottarga with the roe. What would the egg sac of a post-spawn halibut look like? (Empty and floppy, I'm guessing. I see those occasionally.) And how rapidly after spawning do the egg sacs replenish?

Thanks,
Alastair

They spawn multiple times in a year.

-Allen

The more I think about this, the more the lack of a current valid  stock assessment bothers me to no end.  In the lack of that, there is no choice but to be conservative.  Because we really don’t know.  CDFW needs to be held accountable. 

For federally managed fish, the Magnusen Steven’s Act requires up-to-date stock assessments.  However, CA halibut are state managers.  I wonder what they are held accountable by.

The other thing that bothers me is the nursery fishery in SF Bay.  The impact of that fishery needs to be assessed and measures taken to lessen it.  The number of small fish released to their death a few years back during the high productivity years was appalling.  We’d have more larger fish to catch if we weren’t killing all the smaller ones.

How about we have charter boats log their catches of undersized in the Bay?  Perhaps they already do log shorts,  I don’t know.  I have nothing against charter boats.  It’s just the most straightforward way to gather data.

-Allen

Damn you guys for sucking me into this discussion.  Been re-reading the 2011 stock assessment this morning.

Here is my biggest takeaway.  There is a leading indicator.  The Bay Delta Study Index, which is a measure of relative abundance, has extreme swings with peaks of ~5X the normal happening in 1993, 1999, and 2006.  Corresponding peaks in recreation catches happened 2 years after in 1995, 2001, and 2008.  That seems correlated!

The majority of fish in the Bay Delta Study Index were <22", just juveniles.  And of course the recreational catch were all over 22".  Those juvenviles grew into recreational catches 2 years later.

Interesting sidenote that I can't explain, the commercial catches peak about another 2 years later, not sure why.  They do fish in different areas like offshore trawl fisheries, so perhaps something to do with their migration patterns, just a guess.

Please, enjoy more reading ... https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=36259&inline

-Allen

I’m glad you’re deep in this…it may just keep my freezer properly supplemented with a tasty assortment of proteins for many years. 

Damn you guys for sucking me into this discussion.  Been re-reading the 2011 stock assessment this morning.

Here is my biggest takeaway.  There is a leading indicator.  The Bay Delta Study Index, which is a measure of relative abundance, has extreme swings with peaks of ~5X the normal happening in 1993, 1999, and 2006.  Corresponding peaks in recreation catches happened 2 years after in 1995, 2001, and 2008.  That seems correlated!

The majority of fish in the Bay Delta Study Index were <22", just juveniles.  And of course the recreational catch were all over 22".  Those juvenviles grew into recreational catches 2 years later.

Interesting sidenote that I can't explain, the commercial catches peak about another 2 years later, not sure why.  They do fish in different areas like offshore trawl fisheries, so perhaps something to do with their migration patterns, just a guess.

Please, enjoy more reading ... https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=36259&inline

-Allen

than for posting that. Seems to be the best connection we can get and deffo brings some substance to the table. I hope a similar study is done for these closures

More food for thought.  Reference points from PFMC are to manage flatfish to a target level of 25% virgin biomass, with a 15% min target.  Why so low?  To compare, Quillback rockfish are managed to 40% virgin biomass, and 25% minimum target.  BTW, the CA Halibut stock assessment seems to make it a point to say these are reference points.  Nowhere can I easily find that they are actual targets established for CA Halibut.

There is also the following problematic statement, "We are not sharing stock biomass or target yield amounts in absolute terms currently due to
the need to improve the model."  We're back to the data being suspect.

Instead of debating individual catch limits, I would propose it is more fruitful to push for 1) addressing the deficiencies in the model in terms of determining virgin biomass and 2) setting target levels to 40% of that virgin biomass, inline with many other fisheries.  This would be especially beneficial in the CA Halibut fishery which is extremely cyclical.

You can change individual catch limits all you want, but if these targets don't move, the fishery doesn't magically become better.  I haven't followed the commercial side so much, but do they have yearly quotas and did that change too?

I don't know why flatfish targets are so low, and while I really don't want to guess.  My conspiracy theory mind is running wild.   

-Allen

I reached out to CDFW staff regarding 2020 California Halibut stock assessment.  Here is their response.

I took the opportunity to follow up with them on the 25%/12.5% thresholds as well as Bay Delta relative abundance as a leading indicator.  Will let you know what they respond with.

-Allen

Thank you for your concern regarding the California halibut fishery. We consider California halibut a top management priority. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) is currently working on a California halibut management process which includes all fishery sectors statewide: recreational, commercial hook-and-line, trawl, and gill net. Please visit the California Halibut Scaled Management Process webpage for more information and subscribe to receive email updates. For a detailed overview of the California halibut resource and management, please see the California Halibut Enhanced Status Report.

The full 2020 California halibut stock assessment is not available due to peer review concerns that the model was not ready for management purposes. Efforts to respond to the peer review are ongoing. The following information is included in the Enhanced Status Report under Abundance Estimates:

The Department does not have any estimates of the absolute abundance of the halibut stock. The most recent stock assessment, completed in 2020, treated halibut as two separate stocks— a northern and southern stock—with a boundary at Point Conception, similar to the treatment by the previous stock assessment in 2011. While there is some connectivity (movement of larvae and adults) between stocks, regional differences in the biology, history of fishery regulations, and availability of data support the treatment of halibut as two stocks. Results of the 2020 efforts were reviewed by a panel of stock assessment experts and found not to be ready for use in management, particularly for the northern stock. The California Halibut 2020 Stock Assessment Review Panel Report outlined recommendations for additional data collection, analysis, and model improvements, including reconstructing historical halibut landings to reflect an unfished or nearly unfished condition and initial population estimates.

Landings separated by region since 1930 show that the majority came from southern California until the 1960s. Landings are now consistently higher in northern California and were substantially so during some years in the 1990s and 2000s. While landings of species with a long exploitation history can be sustainable at substantially lower levels than early, peak catches, the magnitude of the difference informs our understanding of fishery and other impacts. Regional shifts may be the result of a combination of regulatory and environmental forces that are difficult to disentangle. These are issues that the Department hopes to address with continued effort to improve the stock assessment.

Initial efforts to respond to the 2020 peer review are focusing on the southern model because 1) it showed greater stability across alternative model structures and had fewer technical issues compared with the northern model and 2) there is more concern over southern stock status. Revisions are focused on extending the landings time series farther back in time using historical data to resolve issues related to model initial conditions. The revised model will likely undergo additional peer review. If the model is found to be able to inform management, the biomass relative to an unfished condition could be evaluated relative to the Pacific Fishery Management Council target for flatfish of 25% and the Minimum Stock Size Threshold of 12.5%. However, state managed fisheries are not bound to management relative to these reference points.

CDFW invites you to share this information with your peers and constituents through your communication channels, and we look forward to maintaining open lines of communication as we continue our work on California halibut.

Please email mlmafisheriesmgmt@wildlife.ca.gov with questions or concerns at any time.