Ling Cod

[Wetwoodshunter]

Well, I am a groundfish biologist and one of the species that I look at periodically is lingcod, I will have to say I have no say in sport fishing and do not work for the state. Lingcod is one of the last fish in the ocean you guys need to worry about currently. Lingcod is annually under-harvested coastwide by hundreds of thousands of pounds from the available biological catch limits. The move that you see by the state will have two impacts in the Washington sport fisheries, lower incidental catch of rockfish mainly yelloweye rockfish, and allow areas where lingcod are hard to find for charters to limit faster. I guess in Westport charter captains were unhappy because they had to release small lingcod and some clients were not limiting, so its my understanding the Westport Charter Association asked for this change. 

As I see above and note for you all that are thinking about releasing smaller lingcod. Lingcod have a nearly 100% survival rate if released immediately. I posted a study in another thread on here and in the study I think of the 90 ish fish landed only one lingcod died due to fishing mortality and that was due to it being hooked in the gills. If you gill hook a lingcod, I would probably keep it.

I'll also say, I sportfish a lot and we typically don't keep lings unless they are 27"+

[Skillet]

Thanks for the input Wetwoodshunter - valuable info.
 

[Da stump]

My son Teacherman is in alaska now and they don't keep them unless they are in a 55-65" window, just their own window not an official one.

[lokidog]

The big ones are the spawners.  Bonk the little ones and the spawners keep spawning.

This whole conversation revolves around your definition of"big". 

Keeping a 20" or smaller lingcod is, frankly, stupid IMO! The amount of meat increase from 20 to 24 inches is huge, let alone compared to a 30 incher.  I can't remember the last time my boat did not limit easily on ling's over 26 inches and I didn't even go far from Westport.

I'm glad I don't fish there any more since with this new rule, the numbers of midsized fish (26-32") in closer more accessible locations will likely plummet.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

[WAcoueshunter]

I can't remember the last time my boat did not limit easily on ling's over 26 inches and I didn't even go far from Westport.

I'm glad I don't fish there any more since with this new rule, the numbers of midsized fish (26-32") in closer more accessible locations will likely plummet.

These statements seem inconsistent to me.  If it's so easy to limit on 26" fish, why would opening it up to 21" fish suddenly make fish populations plummet?

My take, allowing someone to keep 21" fish (should they so choose) will just save that many more big fish.  At present, I don't think there's a lot of people out there going home without a limit because they couldn't bonk that last 21 incher.  They just keep fishing longer until they get one big enough. 

[Duckslayer89]

Well, I am a groundfish biologist and one of the species that I look at periodically is lingcod, I will have to say I have no say in sport fishing and do not work for the state. Lingcod is one of the last fish in the ocean you guys need to worry about currently. Lingcod is annually under-harvested coastwide by hundreds of thousands of pounds from the available biological catch limits. The move that you see by the state will have two impacts in the Washington sport fisheries, lower incidental catch of rockfish mainly yelloweye rockfish, and allow areas where lingcod are hard to find for charters to limit faster. I guess in Westport charter captains were unhappy because they had to release small lingcod and some clients were not limiting, so its my understanding the Westport Charter Association asked for this change. 

As I see above and note for you all that are thinking about releasing smaller lingcod. Lingcod have a nearly 100% survival rate if released immediately. I posted a study in another thread on here and in the study I think of the 90 ish fish landed only one lingcod died due to fishing mortality and that was due to it being hooked in the gills. If you gill hook a lingcod, I would probably keep it.

I'll also say, I sportfish a lot and we typically don't keep lings unless they are 27"+

Released immediately. What about taking them onboard, letting them flop and fight around as you try to dehook, then stretch them out on a cooler tape measure trying to measure them?

[Sneaky]

Well, I am a groundfish biologist and one of the species that I look at periodically is lingcod, I will have to say I have no say in sport fishing and do not work for the state. Lingcod is one of the last fish in the ocean you guys need to worry about currently. Lingcod is annually under-harvested coastwide by hundreds of thousands of pounds from the available biological catch limits. The move that you see by the state will have two impacts in the Washington sport fisheries, lower incidental catch of rockfish mainly yelloweye rockfish, and allow areas where lingcod are hard to find for charters to limit faster. I guess in Westport charter captains were unhappy because they had to release small lingcod and some clients were not limiting, so its my understanding the Westport Charter Association asked for this change. 

As I see above and note for you all that are thinking about releasing smaller lingcod. Lingcod have a nearly 100% survival rate if released immediately. I posted a study in another thread on here and in the study I think of the 90 ish fish landed only one lingcod died due to fishing mortality and that was due to it being hooked in the gills. If you gill hook a lingcod, I would probably keep it.

I'll also say, I sportfish a lot and we typically don't keep lings unless they are 27"+

Released immediately. What about taking them onboard, letting them flop and fight around as you try to dehook, then stretch them out on a cooler tape measure trying to measure them?

New Law = No more measuring. If it looks like a fish you want, bleed it.  If its too small or big let it go. Should reduce handling prior to release.

[Duckslayer89]

Well, I am a groundfish biologist and one of the species that I look at periodically is lingcod, I will have to say I have no say in sport fishing and do not work for the state. Lingcod is one of the last fish in the ocean you guys need to worry about currently. Lingcod is annually under-harvested coastwide by hundreds of thousands of pounds from the available biological catch limits. The move that you see by the state will have two impacts in the Washington sport fisheries, lower incidental catch of rockfish mainly yelloweye rockfish, and allow areas where lingcod are hard to find for charters to limit faster. I guess in Westport charter captains were unhappy because they had to release small lingcod and some clients were not limiting, so its my understanding the Westport Charter Association asked for this change. 

As I see above and note for you all that are thinking about releasing smaller lingcod. Lingcod have a nearly 100% survival rate if released immediately. I posted a study in another thread on here and in the study I think of the 90 ish fish landed only one lingcod died due to fishing mortality and that was due to it being hooked in the gills. If you gill hook a lingcod, I would probably keep it.

I'll also say, I sportfish a lot and we typically don't keep lings unless they are 27"+

Released immediately. What about taking them onboard, letting them flop and fight around as you try to dehook, then stretch them out on a cooler tape measure trying to measure them?

New Law = No more measuring. If it looks like a fish you want, bleed it.  If its too small or big let it go. Should reduce handling prior to release.

Big improvement don't even have to break surface now

[TeacherMan]

I think its absolutely crazy the thought of people keeping ling that are literally the size of good bait... You will have people focusing on the little guys now. Up in my area I believe the min size is around 42" but we don't bring them into the boat unless they are well over that. I like them around 60" and yes we catch a ton of little ones and have no question about letting them go. You will quickly see your bigger ling in the 15-30 lb class you get down there disappear. It will be like fishing for walleye  Every time I think I miss WA I see stuff like this. The waters I fish around Seward are hit very very heavy but also very well managed. 4 rockfish, 2 ling and 2 halibut. This is what a good day of fishing should look like if you manage it correctly and don't take the babies...

[lokidog]

 

[Skillet]

I think its absolutely crazy the thought of people keeping ling that are literally the size of good bait... You will have people focusing on the little guys now. Up in my area I believe the min size is around 42" but we don't bring them into the boat unless they are well over that. I like them around 60" and yes we catch a ton of little ones and have no question about letting them go. You will quickly see your bigger ling in the 15-30 lb class you get down there disappear. It will be like fishing for walleye  Every time I think I miss WA I see stuff like this. The waters I fish around Seward are hit very very heavy but also very well managed. 4 rockfish, 2 ling and 2 halibut. This is what a good day of fishing should look like if you manage it correctly and don't take the babies...

I gotta ask a bit more about this.  Just to clarify, the minimum in your area (assuming that is cook inlet, north gulf sound or PWS) is 35".  But you like them around 60"?  How many of those have you taken?  The AK state record of 76# was only 54" long.  Heres a link to the website for the charter outfit that caught it. They list many other monster lings they've caught, not a single one of which is over 58".  How many 60" fish have you boated?

http://www.orioncharters.com/lingcod.htm


Call me dense, but I can't understand the logic presented here and elsewhere on this thread that by catching the little ones, you are reducing the larger fish population.  It is physically impossible to reduce the larger fish population when a limit removed from the water consists of smaller fish.     If the assumption is that by removing, say, 1000 ea 20" fish instead of 1000 ea 35+" fish from the population will somehow decrease the average size of the fish, I would be very interested in the mechanics of this theory.  Perhaps @wetwoodshunter could weigh in?

[syoungs]

im guessing that argument has a basis of, the not so good anglers, are now going to be snatching up all the small fish. and everyone that was already catching big lings, is still going to just catch big lings, therefore, increasing the harvest rate, yet lowering the average?   

[Skillet]

They can only take two fish a day.  Are there really  enough "not so good" anglers out there with the equipment to chase lings that it could make a dent?

[trophyhunt]

Skillet, do you guys catch the big, big lings?  We have never had luck with the 30 plus pounders, we've tried to fish with smaller greenling as bait but it just never works.

[Sneaky]

Skillet, do you guys catch the big, big lings?  We have never had luck with the 30 plus pounders, we've tried to fish with smaller greenling as bait but it just never works.

Try using a larger greenling

Most of the really big fish are caught well offshore because the areas just don't get the pressure. Although the largest lingcod I have ever seen was caught at the green can near the entrance to neah bay. Wasn't quite one of teacherman's 60" fish but was bigger than anything i've seen come from offshore... they are around! ask any diver about the fish they see even in puget sound. These fish exist by limiting the harvest of larger female fish, not by allowing smaller fish to grow.

Skillet is spot on in his assessment. Lingcod populations are healthy enough to allow for an increase in harvest.

Rather than raise the limit and encourage people to take more large fish that are typically female and are the backbone of the lingcod population, the department has wisely opted to remove the minimum size as it is not necessary as a conservation measure. The result will be less handling of fish around that 22" mark that would have been abused prior to release and a very slight increase in harvest for those who would rather keep a smaller fish than go home empty handed. The real threat to the lingcod population is recreational fishermen exceeding the limit (Which does happen especially on the coast) as well as commercial groundfish under-reporting and quota abuse.