Groundfish Management: Inseason Adjustments - Pacific Fishery Management Council

Commercial fishing is the one caught all the fish. They fish all year long with no breaks

Do you have data to back up "caught all the fish"?  We've been over this and the data does not support that boogeyman.

Go to Halfmoon pier, there are a lot of rock fish for sale. My wife and I used to buy rock fish from them because I did not caught fish when I gone fishing. They caught a lot of blacks and others.

So, that's your data?  An anecdotal observation?  Got it.

Remember that the people proposing the new MPAs will need a project next year, and the year after that, etc. Their projects will not involve adding fishing opportunities. Only mother nature can do that. The quillbacks are fine, rockfish and lings are abundant, and there's no actual problem for these clowns to address, but they've become more aggressive about restricting fishing and crabbing anyway.

These people are either politically compromised, easily manipulated by pressure, or true believers raised on every nature show telling them the ocean is dying because of fisherman. If there are no "problems" for them to address, they'll make things up and that's exactly what the new MPAs are. It's just the latest made-up cause. They want to reduce fishing opportunities gradually while saying that's not what they are doing. If limits are cut, that's not coming back. If MPAs are established, the fishing opportunities aren't coming back.

Exactly I will even go further and say they want to stop "any" fishing and diving along the coast, they are not angler friendly. There are a ton of things they could put in place to help out but there "only" response is it "close" the season.

I had posted annual commercial takes for the US in another thread and it was very flat for the last 20 years.  But the NOAA also allows you to query their databases and you can pull up by state / species.  So I queried California, last 15 years, all species of rockfish.  The results were eye opening.   Commercial rockfish take is climbing very rapidly.  Columns are Pounds, Tons, $. 

I had posted annual commercial takes for the US in another thread and it was very flat for the last 20 years.  But the NOAA also allows you to query their databases and you can pull up by state / species.  So I queried California, last 15 years, all species of rockfish.  The results were eye opening.   Commercial rockfish take is climbing very rapidly.  Columns are Pounds, Tons, $.

Is it possible add a dimension for nearshore, slope and shelf?  As I understand it, the majority of commercial rockfish take are from slope and shelf and don't even include the species we're all catching in the nearshore realm.  For example, I see mostly yellowtail and chilipepper for sale locally.  Those aren't species I'd expect to catch in my kayak range.  However, that's all anecdotal and data would be nice.

Rumor is Nearshore commercial RCG will be constrained to under-20 fathoms this year…? So we will all be competing for the same fish in the same space. Fun!

I had posted annual commercial takes for the US in another thread and it was very flat for the last 20 years.  But the NOAA also allows you to query their databases and you can pull up by state / species.  So I queried California, last 15 years, all species of rockfish.  The results were eye opening.   Commercial rockfish take is climbing very rapidly.  Columns are Pounds, Tons, $.

I'm getting different numbers when I run the query, using this page, https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/foss/f?p=215:200

-Allen

I had posted annual commercial takes for the US in another thread and it was very flat for the last 20 years.  But the NOAA also allows you to query their databases and you can pull up by state / species.  So I queried California, last 15 years, all species of rockfish.  The results were eye opening.   Commercial rockfish take is climbing very rapidly.  Columns are Pounds, Tons, $.

I'm getting different numbers when I run the query, using this page, https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/foss/f?p=215:200

-Allen

Same here. Attached is the table that I see. Harvest was much higher until 2003 and then dropped dramatically and has stayed pretty steady since. Note that I did not include all years for clarity. This is a great site by the way. Thanks sandwg for posting it.
 

Very different numbers if you include other "groundfish" species (like Lingcod), might be the reason for the discrepancy.

I had posted annual commercial takes for the US in another thread and it was very flat for the last 20 years.  But the NOAA also allows you to query their databases and you can pull up by state / species.  So I queried California, last 15 years, all species of rockfish.  The results were eye opening.   Commercial rockfish take is climbing very rapidly.  Columns are Pounds, Tons, $.

I'm getting different numbers when I run the query, using this page, https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/foss/f?p=215:200

-Allen

Same here. Attached is the table that I see. Harvest was much higher until 2003 and then dropped dramatically and has stayed pretty steady since. Note that I did not include all years for clarity. This is a great site by the way. Thanks sandwg for posting it.
 

I included my query for this one.  Not sure if I'm hitting the right buttons (I tell my wife that too). 

Interesting. I think the problem is indeed in the buttons. I initially selected Rockfish** assuming this was all rockfish. However, the asterisks are not wildcards as I thought they are footnotes denoting that this category is only rockfish that were not identified to species. When I select all rockfish species and rockfish** I get the attached table. It is indeed trending up, but not as dramatic as your first graph. Still interesting that there was a big jump in 2022, right before the quillback problem.

Actually, the table I just sent is almost the same as sandwg's fist table. I assume the difference is rockfish**

Yeah, I was using Rockfish ** too.  Sounds like that is not the correct thing to do.

-Allen

A quick scan.  The majority of the catch is  boccacio, widow, and chilipepper.  I'd guess that the take on these species is going up as the deep water rockfish opportunities open back up.

-Allen

In 1982 there were 29,625,515 pounds taken. 

-Allen

In 1982 there were 29,625,515 pounds taken. 

-Allen

Is that in addition to the millions of kgs that the Chinese and Russian trawlers took?