PDA

View Full Version : sorry guys



sehoner
09-14-2007, 06:44 PM
California Department of Fish and Game

NEWS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 07:070 Sept. 14, 2007

Contact: John Budrick, Associate Marine Biologist, (650) 413-1501


DFG Announces Changes to the 2007 Recreational Fishing Regulations for
the Area from Pigeon Point to the Oregon Border Effective Oct. 1

The sport fishery for rockfish, lingcod, cabezon, and greenlings will
close from Pigeon Point to the Oregon Border (North and North-Central
Management Areas) on Oct. 1. Shore-based anglers and divers are not
affected by this action, announced the California Department of Fish and
Game (DFG). The closure will remain in effect through the end of the
calendar year. DFG approved these conforming fisheries management
measures following the adoption of similar regulations for federal
waters by the Pacific Fishery Management Council at their meeting on
Sept. 13, 2007. Seasons and other recreational fishing regulations will
remain in effect for these species in areas south of Pigeon Point (See
2007 California Ocean Sport Fishing regulations booklet, Sections
27.35-27.50).

Recreational catch estimates through July, and projected catches for
the remainder of the year, indicate that harvest guidelines will be
exceeded for canary and yelloweye rockfish (“overfishedâ€[ch65533] species) if
these measures are not taken. Factors that led to the increase in
projected catches include redistribution of recreational fishing effort
to the northern areas where canary and yelloweye rockfishes are more
common, poor salmon catches resulting in salmon fishermen switching to
groundfish, and an increase in the daily catch rate per angler for
yelloweye and canary rockfish. Exceeding California’s recreational
harvest guidelines for these species could jeopardize rebuilding of
these species to healthy population levels.

“While we are aware that a shortened season will affect sport
anglers, we are also concerned that failure to take action at this time
would jeopardize the future rebuilding success for these important
“overfishedâ€[ch65533] species,â€[ch65533] said Marija Vojkovich, marine region
manager.

Under current management measures, the Director of DFG has the
authority to take in-season action deemed necessary to prevent catches
from exceeding federal harvest limits. As a result, beginning Oct. 1,
2007 the seasons and depth restrictions for boat-based anglers in the
Northern and North-Central Management Areas will include:

Northern Management Area (Oregon border south to 40°10' north latitude
near Cape Mendocino in Mendocino County): CLOSED - Fishing for rockfish,
cabezon, greenlings and lingcod is closed to boat-based anglers
beginning Oct. 1, 2007.

North-Central Management Area (40°10’ north latitude near Cape
Mendocino in Mendocino County to 37°11’ north latitude near Pigeon Pt.
in San Mateo County): CLOSED - Fishing for rockfish, cabezon,
greenlings and lingcod is closed to boat-based anglers beginning Oct. 1,
2007.

Regulations for all Management Areas south of 37 degrees 11’ north
latitude: Seasons remain as noted in the 2007 California Ocean Sport
Fishing regulations booklet.

For more detailed information about the action taken by the Pacific
Fishery Management Council visit www.pcouncil.org.

For more detailed information regarding recreational groundfish
regulations and to stay informed of in-season regulation changes, call
the Groundfish Hotline (831) 649-2801, or visit the Marine Region Web
site at www.dfg.ca.gov/marine.

Jan_from_Humboldt
09-14-2007, 10:25 PM
This is a big pile of horse manure.

Read this section of that DFG release carefully...

Recreational catch estimates through July, and projected catches for the remainder of the year, indicate that harvest guidelines will be exceeded for canary and yelloweye rockfish *if these measures are not taken. Factors that led to the increase in projected catches include redistribution of recreational fishing effort to the northern areas where canary and yelloweye rockfishes are more common, poor salmon catches resulting in salmon fishermen switching to groundfish, and an increase in the daily catch rate per angler for yelloweye and canary rockfish. Exceeding California's recreational harvest guidelines for these species could jeopardize rebuilding of these species to healthy population levels.

The DFG has first IMHO under funded the recreational section of fishing for rockfish for starters, secondly they are "Estimating and "Projecting" *using partial solid evidence provided by the creel census and then adding anectdotal word of mouth kill projections recorded by the creel census people at the dock.

They are managing this fishery using the time honored process known as a S.W.A.G. THATS A SCIENTIFIC WILDASSED GUESS in case you were not aware of the acronym. *I am totally onehundred percent done with ever talking to the DFG creel census people about what and where I've caught period end of story.

I strongly suggest that all the rest of you that read this first think about doing the same and also more importantly don't let this issue die, pass the word to all the other fishermen you know.

Depope
09-15-2007, 02:36 AM
Jan_from_humbolt, I'm on board. I will no longer give out information at the docks. Thanks for your passion and commitment on the subject.

sehoner
09-15-2007, 05:49 AM
ya i had a trip to moss landing a while back with my bro and dad. one of those creel people came up to us when we were leaving and asked us what we caught. before i answered i asked why she wanted the info. after she told me i said, "yeeaa, unfortunately we didnt catch anything."

the simple fact of the matter is DFG is basing their prognosis on info from people who either volunteer or possibly only make minimum wage. if youve ever been in a supervisory position you know that a low wage person usually isnt the most reliable or hard working. me and my ego being a somewhat savvy business man wouldnt bet my business on info from someone that isnt reliable.....

but thats just me and im crazy like that sometimes.

but you can still fish from the shore.....whooopee! ::)

GCinGV
09-15-2007, 06:21 AM
I don’t get it. How is it possible that the creel census data shows too many Yellow Eye and Canary Rock Fish being caught when you can’t keep any? It also seems to me that closures should be based on species that are not being caught rather then on ones that are. If lots are being caught wouldn’t that mean the species is plentiful and in good shape?
At this rate we may have to change this to a golfing forum.
Gary

triggerfish
09-15-2007, 07:02 AM
next year we will not be fishing for rockfish,salmon for that matter,not halibut,tuna or striper. *We will be TARGETING *Tarpon,or cobia,maybee Snook,bonefish.etc. *then when the checker askes if we were sucessfull,we can say "It's pretty slow!"

żżż
09-15-2007, 07:34 AM
How is it possible that the creel census data shows too many Yellow Eye and Canary Rock Fish being caught when you can’t keep any?
I don't quite understand that either. *Obviously their number isn't coming from observed takes, otherwise they could look at their citation counts. *Even so, how the heck can you tell if there's 'too many' being taken if your number is not based on surveyed data (actually going out on the water and conducting samples).

I'm disturbed by the fact that they make no mention as to the commercial fisheries' impact on the numbers, and make out as purely caused by 'recreational angling'. *Case in point. *I got back from a coastal rock cod trip out of HMB (impressions will be given in another thread!). *As I was loading my gear back into my car I noticed the harbor was operating one of those massive lifts - they were unloading a catch from a commercial boat. *I asked a guy that worked on the boat what his catch was. *He replied 'rock cod'. *Interesting. *I asked where they fished. *Well, they fished the coastal reefs! *Same grounds we fished that day. *We managed only 1/2-3/4 bags for 7. *The size of the fish were pretty sad too. *Don't tell me there's no relationship between these two events. *They are taking from the same waters. *

Oh, how was the commercial catch? *I could see some large reds in their crates and they had at least three cratefuls. *I would estimate their take to be easily over 1000 fish. *Of course this is speculation as I did not see all their catch or count them. *Hey! *Maybe I could work for the DFG!! * ::)

I'm sure the commercial fishing folks have strong lobbys in place. *I starting to feel that the major reason for the closure isn't party boat fishing, but rather the commerial boats that harvest out of the same locations as recreational fishermen.

Anyone here fish freshwater? *What if they passed a new law that said commercial fishermen could trawl net your favorite lake for trout? *Then when they took a creel count of the 'recreational catch' it looked like the counts were down (DUH). *Uh oh, looks like we need to close the lake due to overfishing. *If this happened in your lake you would be livid.

It's a pie-in-the-sky dream, but there should be designated areas RESERVED for recreational sportfishing. *THEN they can take a survey of THAT area and determine how the health of the fish population is.
Can anyone confirm whether commercial boats fish in the Farallons as well?
Someone from the commercial fisheries side please chime in. *I don't want to place fault on any party that does not deserve it. *Is the correlation I've sited above in error? *Please enlighten me....

Redwine
09-15-2007, 10:09 AM
Isn't the latest news just dandy?
Once again the sport fishermen take it on the jaw!

Just a thought, but considering how much money we all won't be spending on gas alone, why don't we start a fund, say $100.00 per person on this site, to hire a (for lack of a better term) lobbyist to speak for us in Sacramento?

Let's not go down without a fight!