New Oregon Regs - if you go up there check this out

http://www.myoutdoorbuddy.com/articles/67873192/get-ready-now-for-oregon-2017-rockfish-regulations.php

Have a good one. See you at Shelter Cove!

Dusty

West marine has the releases on sale for 10 right now.

All of these changes are good.  I wish halibut fishermen had to carry descenders in case they catch yelloweye bycatch, but all in all these are very good for the fishery AND for fishermen.

Why does it seem like Oregon does everything more or less right and California manages to screw it up more often than not?

All of these changes are good.  I wish halibut fishermen had to carry descenders in case they catch yelloweye bycatch, but all in all these are very good for the fishery AND for fishermen.

Why does it seem like Oregon does everything more or less right and California manages to screw it up more often than not?

if california required fishermen to use descenders on RF, don't you think a bunch of fisherman would complain about overregulation and how its a failed liberal state?

these seem like good regs.

I feel like mandatory descenders will come to Cali eventually

All of these changes are good.  I wish halibut fishermen had to carry descenders in case they catch yelloweye bycatch, but all in all these are very good for the fishery AND for fishermen.

Why does it seem like Oregon does everything more or less right and California manages to screw it up more often than not?

if california required fishermen to use descenders on RF, don't you think a bunch of fisherman would complain about overregulation and how its a failed liberal state?

Probably.  When is the last time that stopped California from overregulating something tho?

Meanwhile those same guys have floated 32 blacks trying to catch a 10 fish RCG limit with a 3 black sublimit.  So the failed liberal state of the People's Republic of California is already overregulating.  At least the seagulls will eat well.

All of these changes are good.  I wish halibut fishermen had to carry descenders in case they catch yelloweye bycatch, but all in all these are very good for the fishery AND for fishermen.

Why does it seem like Oregon does everything more or less right and California manages to screw it up more often than not?

if california required fishermen to use descenders on RF, don't you think a bunch of fisherman would complain about overregulation and how its a failed liberal state?

Probably.  When is the last time that stopped California from overregulating something tho?

Meanwhile those same guys have floated 32 blacks trying to catch a 10 fish RCG limit with a 3 black sublimit.  So the failed liberal state of the People's Republic of California is already overregulating.  At least the seagulls will eat well.

All I'm saying is that when other states make fairly significant changes in a short time period, its much less magnified as they're smaller and there's less overall impact.  They're seen as being progressive with their rule changes and people like that.  When CA makes changes like increasing lingcod limits to 3 and a shorter minimum size, a significant number of people get pissed off because they think things will end up getting worse.  So our state commission is pretty much in a lose-lose situation no matter what.

In AK they have regulations that change on occasion from week to f'n week - and yet if CA did that people would riot.

In AK they have regulations that change on occasion from week to f'n week - and yet if CA did that people would riot.

They change from day to day sometimes.  I can remember getting 12 hours notice of a salmon opener on more than one occasion.

In AK they have regulations that change on occasion from week to f'n week - and yet if CA did that people would riot.

They change from day to day sometimes.  I can remember getting 12 hours notice of a salmon opener on more than one occasion.

yup, i recall that as well.  here we only really have low flow closures, not based upon some river sonar count.  if CA did that, people would go postal.

and yet, CA fishermen think that CDFW screws everything up and they wish they were like AK.  Regulation is easier in AK - there are more fish per person, because there are less people.

Sounds to me, that you are trying to start a riot. Relax, in 8 years, you can have the whitehouse back.

In AK they have regulations that change on occasion from week to f'n week - and yet if CA did that people would riot.

They change from day to day sometimes.  I can remember getting 12 hours notice of a salmon opener on more than one occasion.

yup, i recall that as well.  here we only really have low flow closures, not based upon some river sonar count.  if CA did that, people would go postal.

and yet, CA fishermen think that CDFW screws everything up and they wish they were like AK.  Regulation is easier in AK - there are more fish per person, because there are less people.

What is wrong with requiring descenders?  Or with allowing us 5 blacks in the northern and mendocino management areas and 3 down south where the actual problem is?

I asked about mandatory descenders and DFW told me, with a straight face, that they think more fish are descended when it is voluntary than if it were mandatory, and that defining descender is too difficult. 

Wut.

I'm not so sure about regulating like Alaska and we definitely should not regulate like washington because that place is really screwy, but a lower bag limit, year round fishery with reasonable sublimits and mandatory use of descenders sounds pretty darn good to me.

Sounds to me, that you are trying to start a riot. Relax, in 8 years, you can have the whitehouse back.

I don't have a whitehouse.  My house is grey.  Why would I want a white house?  THat's crazy.

In AK they have regulations that change on occasion from week to f'n week - and yet if CA did that people would riot.

They change from day to day sometimes.  I can remember getting 12 hours notice of a salmon opener on more than one occasion.

yup, i recall that as well.  here we only really have low flow closures, not based upon some river sonar count.  if CA did that, people would go postal.

and yet, CA fishermen think that CDFW screws everything up and they wish they were like AK.  Regulation is easier in AK - there are more fish per person, because there are less people.

What is wrong with requiring descenders?  Or with allowing us 5 blacks in the northern and mendocino management areas and 3 down south where the actual problem is?

I asked about mandatory descenders and DFW told me, with a straight face, that they think more fish are descended when it is voluntary than if it were mandatory, and that defining descender is too difficult. 

Wut.

I'm not so sure about regulating like Alaska and we definitely should not regulate like washington because that place is really screwy, but a lower bag limit, year round fishery with reasonable sublimits and mandatory use of descenders sounds pretty darn good to me.

Nothing is wrong with them to me. I love descenders.  I'm just sure that if it was required the crazies would come out of the woodwork against it. 

I'm ambivalent towards a lower overall bag limit if its supported by science.  And i am not a fan of general subspecies limits for more difficult to identify rockfish, as it causes confusion to the fishing population, potentially increasing fines and tickets for "average" fisherpeople out of general misunderstanding of the regs (and identification) rather than via malicious intent.

Oregon's 7 bag limit is in order to provide a year round fishery.  Their federal allocation is just like CA and WA, 10 fish.  They choose lower bag limits so that they can have a year round fishery.

Oregon is actually conscious of the identification problems.  nmfs wanted a one blue sumblimit a couple years ago.  Oregon DFW refused and went with three, because they were concerned that misidentification would lead to accidental overlimits.

Nothing is wrong with them to me. I love descenders.  I'm just sure that if it was required the crazies would come out of the woodwork against it. 

And this idea comes from the idea that people bitch and moan every year about a few dollar increase in fishing licenses, when they have no problem dropping $50 in sturgeon bait on a single trip, or spending $200 on a new phenix abyss.  If CA required descenders to be used, those same people would complain that it costs them what, $10, $20, $30 for some sort of required device when they prefer to do their own thing.