RF depth restrictions in 2017

Good news...the current proposals on the table include a provision that allows angler to fish deeper for RF. It's a pretty radical approach; and appears to be catering to rec anglers.
From May 1-Oct 31, the northern region would go to 30fm. The bay region has same season but open to 40fm; central region has same season but open to 50fm, and southern region has same season but open to 60fm. (there's 6ft in a fathom btw)

The Mendo region [shelter cove] would remain at 20fm between May & Oct 31.

BUT...they would extend the Northern & Mendo seasons through Dec 31.
AND...depth limits in Northern & Mendo regions would be eliminated during Nov & December?!!!  (I think I understand the reasoning behind this, but it's still kind of surprising)
I am in favor of these proposed changes.
 
http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/F6a_Sup_CDFW_Rpt_APR2016BB.pdf

I know this one will make Rob matanaska happy too. The last part mentioned allowing petrale sole to be taken outside of the RF season...and at any depth.

Oh, and we may get to keep canary RF again.

With some of these changes we have to give of yelloweye areas called YRCA  that will be closed to fishing.  I don't see any reason why areas south of Point Arena need any deeper since the party boats there and south have caused lots of the problems with rockfish.

You fog og to note that blacks are going to a bag limit of 3, canary take will be 1,  and lingcod will be reduced back to 2.  This will only work if people use descenders and don't kill lots of fish by fishing deep and bringing them up fast so they experience too much barotrauma. 

and we can finally eat one Canary!

Excellent info. Thanks for sharing.

Dayum. I wonder how big those coppers/verms and lingcod now.

I figured the 3-ling limit would be a temporary thing.  No real surprise there.  If anglers are permitted to fish deeper, then perhaps the overall black RF harvest would decrease given that folks wouldn't be restricted to fishing the shallow-water stuff that blacks tend to hang in.  So the 3-black RF sublimit could also be a temporary thing.

Great news on the petrale sole front.  This could give the northern ports SOMETHING to fish for during the off-season besides sand dabs.  Personally, I'd LOVE to get into some petrale fishing.  Great fillets, they reach decent size, and it'd be a different and unique fishery for anglers.

All that being said, I'm concerned with the proposed yelloweye closures.  Although there isn't much info to go on in the pdf, I'm envisioning these things as looking like MPAs: a big block of water closed to fishing that extends from the shoreline out to some rounded mileage.  I very much hope the Department does what it says when they say "the proposed hot spot closures will be forwarded for further exploration and refinement." So taking into account the typical depth ranges that yelloweye inhabit and not imposing a closure that doesn't meet their objective (i.e., closing off a bunch of 20-30 foot depth reefs to fishing in order to protect YE).

In addition, I assume the "industry" they're working with for this information consists of charter boat operators and others who rely on bottomfishing as a livelihood.  The Department should keep in mind that, while these guys are going to be very knowledgeable about the areas they fish, that these guys will likely want to retain the areas they LIKE to fish and not be forced to drive further than usual to fish new areas (increased operating costs).  So the knee-jerk reaction from these guys could be to propose closures in places where they may have fished a couple times, or are longer distances from port than they like to drive.  And there could be bias within the Department itself.  Similar to how the MPAs were formed, there will be preference to close off areas of coastline that are expected to have minimal effects on local economies.  But the flaw with that approach is: if areas are selected for closure based more on "what are the effects to local economies", which by that logic would also be areas considered to be "minimally fished", then how does closing a minimally-fished area that (likely) didn't have much effect on YE numbers equate to "increased protection" for yelloweye to the point of permitting deepwater fishing near heavily-fished areas?  I understand they're trying to achieve a balance of protected areas in exchange for new fishing areas, but they need to carefully consider a wide range of factors before proposing these closure areas.  If you open up deep-water fishing, you can bet your life savings that all the deep-water stuff near ports is gonna be hit much harder than any of the shallower (near-shore) stuff that's faaar away from any port and is proposed for closure.  And then by default, your impacts on YE are going to be higher than they were previously because their preferred habitat (the deep stuff) is now being exploited.

I just hope they look at this from all angles, and not just using square mileage and maps.

With some of these changes we have to give of yelloweye areas called YRCA  that will be closed to fishing.  I don't see any reason why areas south of Point Arena need any deeper since the party boats there and south have caused lots of the problems with rockfish.

You fog og to note that blacks are going to a bag limit of 3, canary take will be 1,  and lingcod will be reduced back to 2.  This will only work if people use descenders and don't kill lots of fish by fishing deep and bringing them up fast so they experience too much barotrauma.

Bringing a rockfish up slowly does not decrease the barotrauma.  Anglers realistically would never be able to reel up a fish slow enough to reduce the barotrauma.  So bring them up fast and get them back down fast so as to minimize the time a fish bloated.

-Allen

Well said, Chris.
Here is the entire collection of data from the April PFMC debriefing: http://www.pcouncil.org/resources/archives/briefing-books/april-2016-briefing-book/#gfApr2016

I understand they have to find another way to reduce impact on YE, if they allow deeper fishing (because deeper fishing would inevitably result in increased YE harvest). To be clear, the YRCAs were established 7 or 8yrs ago. These newly proposed "hot spots" are complete BS. I don't see the dept taking those seriously.

So, in a perfect world, the solution would be to simply allocate more incidental harvest of YE in CA by shifting some of the annual quota from other areas like Oregon, Washington, or the general scientific research community (which is allowed to harvest 3.3 metric tons of YE in the name of science! All of CA is only allowed to incidentally harvest 3.5mt). 
This idea is suggested in one of those docs: ""The Council has not yet finalized two-year allocations for yelloweye rockfish and it is possible that additional yelloweye rockfish could be allocated to the California nearshore fishery. If this occurs, allowing access to deeper depths could likely be accommodated within the allowable allocation.""



Speaking of barotrauma, checkout this cool new device: http://seaqualizer.com/

Those descenders are pretty slick. They were using them on an Into the Blue episode I was watching the other day.

Funny this.is.being brought up. This is the first time i have ever had.a bioligist who was at the dock opening day.giving away fish decenders. Coincidence ?

I wish they would require the charter boats to use them. I've been on some where they were available and even being used, but most of the time they just toss the floaters and let the birds have them. So often they were canary's as well.

Cheers,
Brad

The YRCAs are from 2008.  The Overfished Species Hotspots are new this year.  Some overlap with YRCAs and the majority of the OFSH are within the areas proposed to be opened, but are currently (2015/16) beyond their respective fathom lines and are not open to fishing.  There is one glaring exception.  Most of them have video evidence of significant yelloweye populations.  Again, with one glaring exception.

Under the current plan the OFHS will be implemented before the 2017 season.  The YRCAs will be held for use as an in season adjustment if CA DFW determines that YE are being caught at a rate that would exceed the allocation of 1.9mt. 

NMFS supports CADFW's proposals.

If you have strong feelings about any of this, now is the time to speak up. 

I wish they would require the charter boats to use them. I've been on some where they were available and even being used, but most of the time they just toss the floaters and let the birds have them. So often they were canary's as well.

Cheers,
Brad

DFW complained that enforcement would be too difficult, and that defining "descender" would be too confusing.  THey also believe that they get better compliance with optional use rather than mandatory use.

I'm not making that up.  Guy said it with a straight face too.