PDA

View Full Version : Rockfish ages



THE_SQUID
09-28-2006, 06:30 PM
I was in the DFG Region II offices recently and noticed a chart showing color photos of all the west coast bottom fish. It had their maximum lengths and the ages they can reach. It was amazing how old they could get. I believe the Yellow Eye could be up to 118 years old! Most of the other bottomfish would get to 50 with a few of them reaching their 80s and 90s. You can see why such slow growing animals can take so long to recover from a population decline. If you're near there, it's worth dropping in and checking that chart out.

triggerfish
09-28-2006, 07:12 PM
I don't believe anything fish and game says !! They don't have a clue about how many sturegon there are. How many salmon will come back. how many Canarys rockfish they are. Just a few years ago the ling cod were indangered. And dont forget about those thousands,and thousands of silvers. You can't tell my 118 years ago they started keeping track of how long rockfish live.

ocean_314
09-28-2006, 09:00 PM
Actually its quite easy to tell the age of fish. If i remmember my college classes correctly the inner ear bone on a fish has growth rings just like a tree does. Each year the fish lives another ring of bone is deopsited on the ear bone.

ocean_314
09-28-2006, 09:05 PM
for your information Lingcod grow very fast. A couple of lbs or more per year. So do the blues and i think the olives and blacks. I am not sure of the rest of them it was a few years ago when i studies these fish. But some grow fast some grow very slow.

red_dog
09-29-2006, 07:58 AM
I bought the chart you are talking about at the Outdoor Pro shop in RP. I paid only 7 bucks and I found it has the best rockfish pictures I have ever seen and its laminated. I too was shocked at the ages of the fish. And just for the record I'm positive the chart was not made by the DFG, the information was obviously taken from marine biologists.

THE_SQUID
09-29-2006, 09:02 AM
Right you are red dog. Best I've ever seen.
Pretty right you are ocean-314. Lingcod had one of the shortest lifespans at 20years. That doesn't seem to be as short as say a salmon but it's short in the bottomfish world. I think the part they check is called an otolith. Just like a tree, slice it and count'em.
triggerfish,I didn't say DFG produced the chart, I said it was in their office. As you can see from the above info., the producers of the chart aren't saying they've been keeping track of fish ages for 118 years just using a simple method to age fish. :)

cabbagehead
09-29-2006, 10:39 AM
Whaaaaaat, you mean that 5,000 years ago, people didn't start keeping track of bristlecone pines' ages? ;)

DFG has plenty of marine biologists on staff qualified to make that chart, but they save that work for student aides or they award grants. The biologists are busy trying to figure out sampling regimes for elusive and dynamic fish populations, running statistical analyses that they can have confidence in, etc. etc., all on a shoestring budget. It is difficult work at best, next to impossible at worst. It takes NASA-like mathematics, but they have the budget of the local Salvation Army. Sampling by boat for extended periods over extensive areas (which is needed for statistical certainty), takes A LOT of money and time, and they have neither. Screw CALTRANS, I say give DFG biologists a break! (at least the biologists...management and politicians, that is another story.)

THE_SQUID
09-29-2006, 03:24 PM
I guess I should have anticipated that any post that included references to DFG, rockfish, slow growing, old as Methusala, etc. would be controversial. I should have looked to see who produced the chart so I could reference them correctly.
Everything that deals with fish biology is not necessarily produced by DFG. Places like Scripps and Woods Hole produce the occasional piece of information too. The fish live to be very old and most grow very slow. That's the point in the comment.

triggerfish
09-29-2006, 04:35 PM
Squid,ocean 314'red dog,cabbage head, OK,OK,OK I believe you guys rockfish can get old! But I still Dont Believe ANYTHING THAT FISH and GAME,Says.. ;)

isaaco77
09-30-2006, 01:03 PM
I don't believe anything fish and game says !!

I think all of us who fished rockfish this year in water from 120' to 180' have seen what good regulation by the DFG can do to improve the fishery. There is a lot of pressure on these fish and if unregulated it doesn't take a genious to figure out that they would soon be gone or very close to it.

bigworm
10-01-2006, 10:24 PM
Triggerfish did DFG rub you wrong at one time or another. You seem... well, disgrutled to say the least :-?. Just questioning your reasons. I'd think their bioligist would have more of an idea what was happening to a species say, more than the average weekend fisher. I may be out of bounds but was just wondering if you had a bad run in with them regarding a reg or two in the past? I too once was a disgruntled fisherman but realized as much as they bust our bulls if we are clear of any wrong doing they are pretty nice people... at least a majority of the DFG Wardens that have had the privlege sneaking up on me ;D.
I think they should trak their warnings some how and not write as many ridiculous priced tickets. A helpful warning would be better and in turn anglers would be more likely to respect and support them more.

triggerfish
10-02-2006, 09:14 PM
I don't believe anything fish and game says !!

I think all of us who fished rockfish this year in water from 120' to 180' have seen what good regulation by the DFG can do to improve the fishery. *There is a lot of pressure on these fish and if unregulated it doesn't take a genious to figure out that they would soon be gone or very close to it.

I dosen't take a genious to figure out that when you take away 75% of the fishable water. Of course the near shore stuff close to launch ramps will suffer! They used JUNK science to close down our Bottom fishing. Just look at the impact it had to the central/northern coasts. Most of the big party boats are gone. And the fishing before these ,B.S.regulations went into effect was still great! As for the Fish and game,its a big fat bloated goverment agency. It is a shame because This department SHOULD NOT be political. But it is. They should promote from with in. Not by Governor Appointment. We had A great member on the F&G commishion,Her name was Marylan Hendrexson,SP. But she did not fit in,why because she hunted,and fished! so Arnold did not conform her. We Can not attract any good officers,because the CHP and other agencys get the Good people. All of the funds go to the dead wood in the management.I would be willing to bet 1/2 of the game wardens that we have now dont even hunt or fish.
Don't Get me wrong I know that there are good game wardens . Its just just too bad that there are old and ready to retire!

fishhogg
10-03-2006, 03:44 PM
talk about mis management, anyone been out to the banks latly? Of course not, i was out there last january on a research trip with biologists, and the size and abundance of fish is unlike anything they have ever studied, yet make us fish shallow to fish out what small fish we have left, thank god for the 180 ft this yr, otherwise we would see a complete extinction on our local school fish in the short yrs to come!
Fish and game uses the biologists for there relugations and laws, yet the data collected always ends up in the lost files where the fish, fisherman, and everyone else down the line will suffer. Anyways incredible fishing out over the banks in 300 ft or less where baccaci, golden eye, and canaries are scarce talk about management, enjoy it while you can fellas!

ocean_314
10-03-2006, 07:28 PM
I think you guys dont understand the way the DFG operates. They are trying to balance the interests of the commerical and sport fisherman with the politics of a very liberal state.
The DFG is a reactive not proactive organsation. The real problem with all the ocean fish and fishing is with the commercial fisherman. they have an attuide of take all that you can before the DFG shuts them down. The commercial guys rape the oceans until the populations are threatened and then and only then does the DFG act.
Around the Ft Bragg area and i am sure most of the coast what brought the rockfish close to the point of no return was the inshore live fish commercial fisherman. These guys where selling live rockfish to the chineese makets in SF and La. The market was for live rockfish of around a pound, ( they would get $9to $12 per lb) which was an inmature fish for many species. The live fish commercial fisherman would lay miles of pvc pipe down over the inshore reefs with hooks sticking up every 6" or so. The pvc pipe prevented them from getting snagged on the rocks.
For years we emial the DFG telling them begging them to put a stop to these guys raping the ocean. For the few years before the DFG finally acted by restricting the season it was hard to get a limit of 20 rockfish of any kind, even blues where hard to come by.
If you want to know why rockfish and salmon seasons are restircted all you need to do is to understand that the commercial fishreman will take everything they can and make as much money as they can until they get shut down. Crabs are probally next.

THE_SQUID
10-05-2006, 06:29 AM
If you doubt ocean-314, look at the cod and scallop fisheries on the east coast. Both collapsed due to strictly commercial fishing pressure. They put themselves out of work.