Lingcod limit reduction

I'm a bit torn inside about how I'll respond this coming season.  Last year with a bout a dozen days on the water searching for lings and RF, I only had one day with one ling.  The rest of the days were celebrated with a limit and 1 to 10 throwbacks.  I didn't keep any on the stringer and high-grade and didn't waste meat or carcasses.  I did fish with big iron and big plastics until limiting on lings then changed over to smaller gear for RF.  I never did pull a limit of RF last year.

I'm afraid I might just go with a little smaller gear this year and target more RF and be happy if I bag a keeper ling.  Is this good for the RF fishery/population....  Not sure

the bigger question is what happens with the commercial regs.  if they don't reduce these numbers what's the point

Thanks for the link Riverwatcher LT

From The Article:
“Lingcod harvest limit for the recreational and “non-trawl” commercial fisheries, which dropped from 683 metric tons (mt) in 2018 to 565 mt in 2019, and will drop to 471 mt in 2020. The reduction in the recreational Lingcod bag and possession limit to one fish, as well as lower commercial fishery trip limit allowances, are now in effect south of 40°10’ N latitude (near Cape Mendocino).”

I really don’t need more than one

thanks.  this is good to see. 

also agreed, no need for more than one.

Its awesome that some of you guys don't need more than one! its also great that the lower limit may encourage some to use more of the fish!

Please keep in mind that just because some of y'all wont use more than one fish, it doesn't mean that others couldnt, or justify a reduction in the limit (think herring run, I know of a guy that swears people couldn't use more than 1 5 gal bucket, so that should be what the limit is. I just took 2 and a 1/2 70qt coolers and 90% will be used for human consumption)

I am glad that the commercial limit is getting lowered, and hope that allows for rec ling regulations to go back up to 2 or 3, if the scientific monitoring says the population can sustain it.

I love fishing, and eating fish is a huge motivation for me to go.

aloha,

hapaik

Well duh! Jack it to 3 and everyone pounded them and kept 3 every trip out. Of course the ling population is going to get smashed. Every party boat dredging them off the carpet cleans out a local fishery fast too. One ling limit is great, in five years lings, decent lings, will be abundant. DFW will screw it up rest assured.

Lingcod grow to maturity and reproductive ability much sooner than most if not all rockfish species, so the management of their population changes more rapidly than that of rockfish.  About 15 years ago the minimum size limit was 30" for one season in California - it was often tough to get a legal lingcod.  It helped to bring the population of spawners up.

When the limit was 3 per day it seemed like too much to me.  For me, 2 is plenty, and the ability to retain a keeper and then try for a larger one if you wanted to was a good way to fish.

To hear talk of non-sportsmen putting a lingcod or any fish on a stringer and then "upgrading" to another one later is a shame.  People who believe the ends justify the means when it comes to fishing are way out of touch with what it means to be an honorable person - much less a sportsman.

I recommend fishing with single barbless hooks and not ever counting on meat that you may feel you need.  It's fishing - not social climbing or wealth building.  The activity should relate more closely to your soul and spirit than to your personal power. 

But I'm a preachy mo-fo who's killed lots of fish. 

Sad that the limit is lower but I think I may have only harvest one legal ling last year as a by catch when going for salmon. Sure seemed to see a lot less around when going for rockfish.

I remember when I used to go party boat fishing with 20 or so anglers and everyone getting in on boat limits of 2 or 3 it sure seemed it would impact the population. I am hopeful that a year or two of reduced limits will allow the population to rebound but also see logic in a slot limit as an alternative.

Eric wrote:

<snipped> About 15 years ago the minimum size limit was 30" for one season in California - it was often tough to get a legal lingcod.

Neither Joe nor I got any keepers that year. By Gualala, we caught and released a lot of 28” lings, from kayaks and a zodiac.

Do we really know what we're doing?  Even the scientists get it wrong.

https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-rockfish-restrictions-lifted-20181211-story.html

-Allen

Don't know the answer to that, Allen, but they can't and don't sample the entire ocean and what's going on out over the horizon affects what we can get to, and that's the region that's changing rapidly.  First a blob, then no blob, now a northern blob...  I don't think anyone knows how to predict what those kind of changes are doing to the location of the fishing stocks, and maybe we shouldn't be making assumptions based on single year counts?

Do we really know what we're doing?  Even the scientists get it wrong.

https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-rockfish-restrictions-lifted-20181211-story.html

-Allen

You are pointing at 20 year old science and saying "see, they got it wrong!"  When all we are asking is for tptb to use the best available science and to err on the conservative side when in doubt.  The science evolved.  There were major recruitment events that were not forecast.  It's a bit more nuanced than most people would let on.

That and politics has infected the process to the point that science is a tool for an agenda, to be put forth or buried as dictated by the needs and desires of the speaker.  It is distasteful and it is difficult to know who to believe and makes a rec fisherman want to just burn it all down sometimes.

Do we really know what we're doing?  Even the scientists get it wrong.

https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-rockfish-restrictions-lifted-20181211-story.html

-Allen

You are pointing at 20 year old science and saying "see, they got it wrong!"  When all we are asking is for tptb to use the best available science and to err on the conservative side when in doubt.  The science evolved.  There were major recruitment events that were not forecast.  It's a bit more nuanced than most people would let on.

That and politics has infected the process to the point that science is a tool for an agenda, to be put forth or buried as dictated by the needs and desires of the speaker.  It is distasteful and it is difficult to know who to believe and makes a rec fisherman want to just burn it all down sometimes.

20 year old science? Where do you get that?  It's only been lately that they've opened up this discussion.  The fishermen knew long in advance what was going on here.  We saw it on the water.  Don't get me wrong, I'm all for best available science.  In fact, in the absence of any real science, it's my first line to fall back on.  But what do you do when the best available science is conflicting?  Yeah, I agree on your view of the world of science bering used as a tool for an agenda.

Who is "we" that is doing the asking here?  tptb?

-Allen

Do we really know what we're doing?  Even the scientists get it wrong.

https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-rockfish-restrictions-lifted-20181211-story.html

-Allen

You are pointing at 20 year old science and saying "see, they got it wrong!"  When all we are asking is for tptb to use the best available science and to err on the conservative side when in doubt.  The science evolved.  There were major recruitment events that were not forecast.  It's a bit more nuanced than most people would let on.

That and politics has infected the process to the point that science is a tool for an agenda, to be put forth or buried as dictated by the needs and desires of the speaker.  It is distasteful and it is difficult to know who to believe and makes a rec fisherman want to just burn it all down sometimes.

20 year old science? Where do you get that?  It's only been lately that they've opened up this discussion.  The fishermen knew long in advance what was going on here.  We saw it on the water.  Don't get me wrong, I'm all for best available science.  In fact, in the absence of any real science, it's my first line to fall back on.  But what do you do when the best available science is conflicting?  Yeah, I agree on your view of the world of science bering used as a tool for an agenda.

Who is "we" that is doing the asking here?  tptb?

-Allen

When the stocks were declared overfished on the brink of collapse that was 1999-2000.  Horizons for rebuilding were in the 2040 to 2050 range.  Specifically for canaries and yelloweye, I didn't really pay attention to the cowcod because it doesn't really affect any fishery I spend time in.  Both canaries and yelloweye stocks have been rebuilt in a fraction of the projected time.

tptb = the powers that be

we = me and the mouse in my pocket.  I'd hope that others felt that way but maybe not?

SCIENCE SUCKS
I NOW VOTE NO BMB OUT

Do we really know what we're doing?  Even the scientists get it wrong.

https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-rockfish-restrictions-lifted-20181211-story.html

-Allen

You are pointing at 20 year old science and saying "see, they got it wrong!"  When all we are asking is for tptb to use the best available science and to err on the conservative side when in doubt.  The science evolved.  There were major recruitment events that were not forecast.  It's a bit more nuanced than most people would let on.

That and politics has infected the process to the point that science is a tool for an agenda, to be put forth or buried as dictated by the needs and desires of the speaker.  It is distasteful and it is difficult to know who to believe and makes a rec fisherman want to just burn it all down sometimes.

20 year old science? Where do you get that?  It's only been lately that they've opened up this discussion.  The fishermen knew long in advance what was going on here.  We saw it on the water.  Don't get me wrong, I'm all for best available science.  In fact, in the absence of any real science, it's my first line to fall back on.  But what do you do when the best available science is conflicting?  Yeah, I agree on your view of the world of science bering used as a tool for an agenda.

Who is "we" that is doing the asking here?  tptb?

-Allen

When the stocks were declared overfished on the brink of collapse that was 1999-2000.  Horizons for rebuilding were in the 2040 to 2050 range.  Specifically for canaries and yelloweye, I didn't really pay attention to the cowcod because it doesn't really affect any fishery I spend time in.  Both canaries and yelloweye stocks have been rebuilt in a fraction of the projected time.

tptb = the powers that be

we = me and the mouse in my pocket.  I'd hope that others felt that way but maybe not?

Yes, based on best available science at the time.  The point being that the best available science is often an interpretation of the science to further ones cause.  I could probably argue both sides of this based on best available science.  Now, I'm an engineer, so I find it difficult to groc this, as I like to think the world is black and white.  But having seen it in action, I know it to be the truth.

Save the lingcod!

-Allen