Article on lingcod bag limits

http://www.marinij.com/outdoors/ci_26296191/alastair-bland-fish-wrap-anglers-divided-increased-lingcod

I didn't really like this article.  Sorta felt like Alistair was stretching to make a point that fishermen are divided on this.  It makes it seem like there is more dissent than I believe there actually is.  I'd love to see him do an article on why it took them so long to increase the bag limit.  The article states that lingcod are at 62% of virgin biomass.  The context that is missing here is that the fishery is managed to 40% of virgin biomass.  In other words there are more lingcod than they are managed for (and relative to other species).  However, the general population will read this and believe that lingcod are depressed, because 62 is less than 100.

Come on Alistair, you can do better than this.

-Allen

Interesting points, Allen. I'll pass on the feedback. As a diver, though, I have to back up what he says about the rockfish and lings, side by side. There are more rockfish now than I've seen in almost a decade. Lings sometimes have rockfish in their stomachs, but just as often have octopus, monkeyface, smelt, etc. I think the argument that lings will decimate rockfish populations is exaggerated. On top of that, who needs 3 lings? And the commercials get to catch more too? I'd rather enjoy an abundance than risk squandering it with greed.

This article is bad and if you agree with it you should feel bad.

This article is bad and if you agree with it you should feel bad.

Explain please.

He also points out that 62% is very healthy: "the lingcod population is currently at about 62 percent of its estimated unfished, "virgin" biomass. Compared to other targeted species, this is a very healthy stock."

I didn't like that the author is already decided on the issue, but doesn't clarify that this really is an editorial:  It's what he believes.  The selected facts are sorta used to backup his opinion.  The author is not impartial.

I've never liked the argument of "what is someone gonna do with three lingcod?"  Fishery scientists are supposed to be, well, scientists.  Their job is to gather and analyze data and show what the fishery can sustainable support.  They're supposed to be impartial.  It's impossible to know if someone needs three ling cod or not.

In this case, they're managing the fishery for 40% virgin biomass and it's all the way past 60--and increasing.  Something is going right.

Sportfishers should feel like fishery managers are acting in their interests, so if things go well they should get some benefit--rather than always having the fishery guys taking stuff away.

Anyways, you don't have to take three.  I caught ten yesterday afternoon and kept one.

Dave, do you suppose the DFW will immediately revert to the current regs once/if the population sinks back to 40%?

All this effort to increase the lingcod catch. But what about halibut? 15 or 20 years ago, there was a very impressive halibut fishery in SF Bay. Not anymore. Instead of micro-managing a healthy stock of fish, why don't they focus on restoring the halibut? I suppose they could do both, but are they?

Dave, do you suppose the DFW will immediately revert to the current regs once/if the population sinks back to 40%?

Absolutly.  They have in the past.

Dave, do you suppose the DFW will immediately revert to the current regs once/if the population sinks back to 40%?

One would hope so.  It's called adaptive management.   I think they'll drop the limit faster than they took to increase it.  The department is very conservative these days--and I think the real players here are the Pacific Marine Fisheries Council (PMFC).  I'm not quite clear how it works, but I think CDFW just okays their decisions about west coast stocks.  I'm sure someone else here knows better how the politics works.

The difference now, compared to the bad old days, is that we have much better information systems on what the stocks are doing.  Our "gas gauge" is way better.  We didn't even used to have PMFC, which manages the stocks for all the west coast, which is how you need to manage it.

Dave

This article is bad and if you agree with it you should feel bad.

Explain please.

It isn't impartial. It conflates the opinions of fishermen with the opinions of charter boat captains, who very obviously have different motivations, the main one being economic. It offers without rebuttal "who needs three lingcod?" As though we are supposed to immediately see the wisdom in the statement without explanation. "Who needs more than X number of Y?" is insulting. It has nothing to do with science, is political, and is imposing the judgment of one person on an entire society, usually done while preaching to the choir. Like when gun control advocates want to limit the number of handgun purchases or ammunition purchases. Who needs more than one handgun every thirty days?

Why does an increase in bag limit get met with such opposition?  It is but one management tool at our disposal.  Other tools include seasons, size limits, location limits.  In the past few years, we've seen our season lengthen and the minimum size limit decrease.  We've also seem location get more limited (MPA's).  The goal to harvest more fish is there BECAUSE WE CAN.  Management goals are not changing.  What we are changing (adapting) is current regulations to meet the already agreed upon goals.

Lingcod are a great species to practicing adaptive management.  The have relatively short lifespans and seem to respond well to management changes.  For instance, remember the years in the early 2000's in which we had a 1 lingcod limit, over 30"?  We didn't have to suffer through too many of those before the lingcod population was "recovered".

Personally I'd like to see something like limit of 3 over 26" with not more than one of them over 32" (or maybe a little larger).  Anyone want to guess why?

-Allen

Personally I'd like to see something like limit of 3 over 26" with not more than one of them over 32" (or maybe a little larger).  Anyone want to guess why?

-Allen

Because the larger ones are usually the females?

Personally I'd like to see something like limit of 3 over 26" with not more than one of them over 32" (or maybe a little larger).  Anyone want to guess why?

-Allen

Because the larger ones are usually the females?

A male lingcod may have spawned by the time they were 22".  A female lingcod likely hasn't spawned by the time they are 22".  Give them a chance to at least do it once.  Besides a 26-28 inch ling offers a much better meat harvest.  For the single fish over limit, I just like to see more big fish on the end of my line.  This gives them a chance to get bigger.  Yeah, the large females have a higher fecundity too!

There is an interesting trend in the ling cod catches.  4 years ago, we caught a lot of snakey underlings.  They got bigger and bigger and now we're seeing a lot of 28-30 inchers, but we're also not seeing as many underlings any more.  Focus the catch on the size range of the excess lings right now instead of allowing the less prevalent size groups to get hammered.

-Allen