Is WDFW insane/run by idiots?

[lokidog]

Just got email notifications for two rule changes....

Here's the title of the first one:  Rockfish retention allowed seaward of 30 fathoms in Marine Area 2

Here's the second:  Lingcod fishing closed in portions of Marine Area 1 and 2 - Close recreational lingcod fishing in deepwater portions of Marine Areas 1 and 2 year round

Then, the lat/long they give is approximately the same line for each of these.  So, according to this you cannot fish for lingcod because you might catch a yellow eye or canary rockfish, but you can fish for other rockfish??

SO what's up with this?

[NWWABOWHNTR]

I can answer the title..........

YES

[lokidog]

I know, the title was a bit rhetorical.   

[pjb3]

 

[Wea300mag]

Haha, the direct answer is "YES"

I think the main issue with the WDFW is only a small percentage of them actually hunt or fish so they are out of touch with reality. Anyone who has ever tried to call them and get a question answered can attest to this.

[Moose22]

YES, by all means.

[singleshot12]

"Out of touch with reality" is probably the more appropriate label. It is just a job to them and nothing more with common sense out the door. You see where the increase in license fee's get us! no where!..more complicated rules and less opportunity   Goodbye Washington 

[Special T]

Maybe we should push for some kind of explanation for these kinds of changes in hunting/fishing regs... they "might" have a good reason...  On the hunting side of this crap you also see it so i think its just best to call them on the carpet and require some kind of explanation. 

[lokidog]

The reasoning for the lingcod closure is to reduce the incidental mortality on the two endangered rockfish that turn into puffy shark food when caught from great depths.  I would assume (of course that could make an ass of u and me) that they meant to say "not allowed" for rockfish, but who knows.  Just typical of the insanity that sometimes issues forth from them.   

[robodad]

The reasoning for the lingcod closure is to reduce the incidental mortality on the two endangered rockfish that turn into puffy shark food when caught from great depths.  I would assume (of course that could make an ass of u and me) that they meant to say "not allowed" for rockfish, but who knows.  Just typical of the insanity that sometimes issues forth from them.   

I got the same emails and I thought the same thing, I was waiting to comment on this because I thought for sure I'd get an email correcting the wording on it but nothing so far. Maybe the answer is to come up with a better way to release these threatened or endangered fish so the mortality isn't so high when caught incidentally ??

I built a short fishing rod with a small penn reel and 50lb or so braided line and I built a heavy pipe jig with a huge inverted barbless hook on it so when I catch one of these fish( or any rockfish I don't plan on keeping) I just slip the barbless hook in the lip of the fish and send it down, then all I have to do is stop the decent of the pipe jig and the fish comes free and I never see them floating. anyone else have any ideas ? I know your not supposed to pop their bladders or anything.

[FC]

SO what's up with this?

If I had to guess I would say that they are doing that so the charters can still fish for the suspended sea bass.

[Bean Counter]

Way beyond idiots--its run by *censored*s!

[huntnnw]

I know of several people recieving multiple deer and elk tags in the mail

[shanevg]

Ned the thread but i can just say yes to the question to save some time.

[75johndeere]

The reasoning for the lingcod closure is to reduce the incidental mortality on the two endangered rockfish that turn into puffy shark food when caught from great depths.  I would assume (of course that could make an ass of u and me) that they meant to say "not allowed" for rockfish, but who knows.  Just typical of the insanity that sometimes issues forth from them.   

I got the same emails and I thought the same thing, I was waiting to comment on this because I thought for sure I'd get an email correcting the wording on it but nothing so far. Maybe the answer is to come up with a better way to release these threatened or endangered fish so the mortality isn't so high when caught incidentally ??

I built a short fishing rod with a small penn reel and 50lb or so braided line and I built a heavy pipe jig with a huge inverted barbless hook on it so when I catch one of these fish( or any rockfish I don't plan on keeping) I just slip the barbless hook in the lip of the fish and send it down, then all I have to do is stop the decent of the pipe jig and the fish comes free and I never see them floating. anyone else have any ideas ? I know your not supposed to pop their bladders or anything.

they sell tools that are used with great results in Florida that help deflate the swim bladder i was talking to a bio last year and they wanted it implament them but couldn't figure out how to train people on the use of them kinda self explanatory if you ask me

[Skyvalhunter]

Well we wouldnt have had an issue if they didn't allow those commercial fishing dredges in the puget sound years back. They literally raped the bottom of lings, rock, red snapper etc. Still pisses me off to remember how good it was back then.

[lokidog]

The reasoning for the lingcod closure is to reduce the incidental mortality on the two endangered rockfish that turn into puffy shark food when caught from great depths.  I would assume (of course that could make an ass of u and me) that they meant to say "not allowed" for rockfish, but who knows.  Just typical of the insanity that sometimes issues forth from them.   

I got the same emails and I thought the same thing, I was waiting to comment on this because I thought for sure I'd get an email correcting the wording on it but nothing so far. Maybe the answer is to come up with a better way to release these threatened or endangered fish so the mortality isn't so high when caught incidentally ??

I built a short fishing rod with a small penn reel and 50lb or so braided line and I built a heavy pipe jig with a huge inverted barbless hook on it so when I catch one of these fish( or any rockfish I don't plan on keeping) I just slip the barbless hook in the lip of the fish and send it down, then all I have to do is stop the decent of the pipe jig and the fish comes free and I never see them floating. anyone else have any ideas ? I know your not supposed to pop their bladders or anything.

they sell tools that are used with great results in Florida that help deflate the swim bladder i was talking to a bio last year and they wanted it implament them but couldn't figure out how to train people on the use of them kinda self explanatory if you ask me

I bought one of those, have only had to use it twice since I did, it semed to work both times.  They require every boat to have one down in the Gulf of Mexico.  Seems silly not to recommend it here.  A good utube video on how to would do wonders.  Robo, the pipe jig thing sounds like it would work as well.

[robodad]

The reasoning for the lingcod closure is to reduce the incidental mortality on the two endangered rockfish that turn into puffy shark food when caught from great depths.  I would assume (of course that could make an ass of u and me) that they meant to say "not allowed" for rockfish, but who knows.  Just typical of the insanity that sometimes issues forth from them.   

I got the same emails and I thought the same thing, I was waiting to comment on this because I thought for sure I'd get an email correcting the wording on it but nothing so far. Maybe the answer is to come up with a better way to release these threatened or endangered fish so the mortality isn't so high when caught incidentally ??

I built a short fishing rod with a small penn reel and 50lb or so braided line and I built a heavy pipe jig with a huge inverted barbless hook on it so when I catch one of these fish( or any rockfish I don't plan on keeping) I just slip the barbless hook in the lip of the fish and send it down, then all I have to do is stop the decent of the pipe jig and the fish comes free and I never see them floating. anyone else have any ideas ? I know your not supposed to pop their bladders or anything.

they sell tools that are used with great results in Florida that help deflate the swim bladder i was talking to a bio last year and they wanted it implament them but couldn't figure out how to train people on the use of them kinda self explanatory if you ask me

I bought one of those, have only had to use it twice since I did, it semed to work both times.  They require every boat to have one down in the Gulf of Mexico.  Seems silly not to recommend it here.  A good utube video on how to would do wonders.  Robo, the pipe jig thing sounds like it would work as well.

Yeah it does work very well, I have seen folks also use a weighted upside down milk crate to get the fish back down as well but I think it would take up too much room in the boat !!

I'll have to look up that device your talking about, maybe I'll even get one, I hate to see them discarded fish just floating by.

[pianoman9701]

I've done a little studying on this subject and also have a call into the fish biologist working on this. The whole problem has been created by trawlers, not sport fishermen. The by-catch of rockfish by ling cod bottom net trawlers is what has caused the populations to take a dive in the first place.

Seafood Watch from Monterey Bay Aquarium is a good source to find out which fish you should buy and why certain ones should be avoided or are endangered. They list hook & line rockfish as a "good choice", so I'm not quite clear as to why DFW would go after the sport fishermen on this. I'll find out if they've restricted the commercial trawlers, as well. So unlike the DFW in other areas, this may be a knee-jerk reaction to a problem (unlike being sarcasm) caused and sustained by people who remain unrestricted in their pursuit of these fish.

[lokidog]

My released fish are too big for a milk crate.....      

Well we wouldnt have had an issue if they didn't allow those commercial fishing dredges in the puget sound years back. They literally raped the bottom of lings, rock, red snapper etc. Still pisses me off to remember how good it was back then.

This is so true.  Unfortunately part of the problem still exists as the cattle boats are allowed to yard out hundreds of fish from any given structure due to the regs allowing others to catch the limits of all the pukers out in the salt.  A person should have to catch their own fish!  Maybe an exception for the kids, but they should at least have to help real them in.

Pianoman, there have been depth restrictions for years off the coast to reduce the incidental harvest of the threatened ones.  The big knee-jerk was closing all rockfish in the sound when a depth restriction similar to lingcod fishing would have reduced the incidental catch of yelloweye and canaries and the never abundant to begin with bocacio in the Sound by 99%.

[dreamingbig]

To the thread title... I will go with run by idiots.

[sirmissalot]

Robodad how heavy is your pipe jig setup? I've had a 4lb weight not sink a big yelloweye before, without popping their swim bladder those big yelloweye and bocaccio are pretty tough to sink.

As far as the bottomfish closure, its total BS, but its a pretty tough situation. The big rockfish are up to 100 years old and they reach sexual maturity very late in their lives, they have a huge mortality rate when caught and released, even when done "correctly" its hard to know if the fish was able to regain its composure and swim along on its way or go belly up and feed the dog fish and halibut. Unfortunately they like rocky structure just like lings so the F&G doesn't have much other options other than to shut down "sanctuaries" in order to leave enough of them to reproduce... otherwise our halibut fisheries would be in jeopardy more than they already are. I agree the recreational fishermen are not the ones who caused this but thats where we all need to take a stand... the commercials have a lot more power than us little sportfishermen.

I also wouldn't blame it on charters in any way, they are sportfishermen just like us and actually do a lot to help the sport.

[lokidog]

I'm sorry, Sirmiss, but I have to disagree on the charters being "sportfishermen".  The people on the boat are, but the charters are commercial enterprises and are just out to make money using a "public" resource for their personal gain.  But this is a bit off topic.

The main thing here is the inconsistency of regulations that WDFW puts out.

[robodad]

Robodad how heavy is your pipe jig setup? I've had a 4lb weight not sink a big yelloweye before, without popping their swim bladder those big yelloweye and bocaccio are pretty tough to sink.

Yeah I don't think it's 4# but I haven't had any trouble sinking the fish I catch LOL !! 

[pianoman9701]

I just talked to Heather, the WDFW contact for this. This effects fishing out beyond the 30K line and is in deep water, 300 ft plus. It is mainly aimed at charter boats. There have been restrictions on the amount of yelloweye and canary rockfish these boats could land and they've, for the most part, been ignoring those restrictions, according to her.

In addition, there have been several existing restrictions on commercial trawlers regarding the recovery of these two species and more were added in 2011 and recently in 2012. They're given strict quotas of by-catch and are essentially done when they reach them, so they're showing much more care. She said that the by-catch of the sport fishermen in these sensitive areas is absolutely the concern here.

I'm not a big ling fisherman although I love the meat. So, this doesn't affect me as much, but I understood what she told me.

[lokidog]

I still don't get why you can fish for rockfish but not lingcod in the same area?  It still makes no sense to me.  The ling populations have no problems so if the state is willing to allow a certain amount of bycatch and subsequent mortality of the protected rockfish while targeting other rockfish, why the restriction on the lings during the same time period?

I think I can answer this... the Charter boats can get more people to pay for trips to catch 10 rockfish per person than 2 lingcod, so follow the money....     The Charter boat lobby is big here, hence the exception for salt water of the rules over the rest of the state that you cannot catch someone else's limit.

None of this actually effects my fishing as I generally do not fish Area 2 nor do I target lings in deep water in Area 1, but the inconsistency and lack of logic troubles me.

If these endangered fish are a concern, and they mostly live deeper than 150 feet (which they do), then shut off all fishing deeper than 150 feet!

[sirmissalot]

Lingcod are almost always on the bottom, on, in or near structure. Rockfish are often suspended, especially in westport where a lot of rockfish spots are just gravel bottoms and there is no real structure present. Your odds of catching an endangered rockfish, which unfortunately for us live in similar habitats as lingcod, are much higher if you were targeting lingcod than if you were fishing for suspended rockfish. I will have to plug the new closure coordinates into my GPS, but either way in my opinion its better that they still allow some fishing in the area than none at all like you seem to be suggesting.

Attacking charter boats isn't going to solve anything, its like hook and line anglers attacking spear fishermen, or hunters attacking trappers, we are all fighting for the same thing, sticking together will make us a lot stonger than bickering at eachother. I know a couple Charter captains that have probably done more for the sport fishery than most of us on this board combined. Sure they are mostly doing it to make money, but wouldn't you like to make money doing something you loved?

[pianoman9701]

I still don't get why you can fish for rockfish but not lingcod in the same area?  It still makes no sense to me.  The ling populations have no problems so if the state is willing to allow a certain amount of bycatch and subsequent mortality of the protected rockfish while targeting other rockfish, why the restriction on the lings during the same time period?

I think I can answer this... the Charter boats can get more people to pay for trips to catch 10 rockfish per person than 2 lingcod, so follow the money....     The Charter boat lobby is big here, hence the exception for salt water of the rules over the rest of the state that you cannot catch someone else's limit.

None of this actually effects my fishing as I generally do not fish Area 2 nor do I target lings in deep water in Area 1, but the inconsistency and lack of logic troubles me.

If these endangered fish are a concern, and they mostly live deeper than 150 feet (which they do), then shut off all fishing deeper than 150 feet!

According to the fish biologist, these areas are deeper than 150 ft. They're at 50 fathoms, or 300 ft and more than 4 miles out.

[lokidog]

Pianoman, that's my point, why allow any fishing there if they are worried about catcing the endangered ones, that is where most live?

I don't think the line is new, it is the same 30 fathom line they have had for years.  What species of suspended rockfish exactly are they targeting in these depths?  Even black rockfish tend toward the bottom and areas with structure. 

Another question, why is it OK to shut off all rockfish in the Sound to protect these same fish that they allow to be incidentally killed off the coast?  Answer again, money!  There are no cattle boats that I know of that targeted rockfish in the Sound so their lobby would not care about it being shut down in the Sound where most of us, that just want to feed some fish to our families, have access.

[sirmissalot]

There are a lot more rockfish in the ocean than in the sound, thats how its always been. The rockfish in the sound were wiped out many years ago, the reason they shut it down is there are hardly any left...

Also, the 30 fathom line is the same you are correct. The species they are most likely targeting out in the deep water is probably yellowtail rockfish, often times a bycatch while salmon fishing, I've caught them down to 300ft while trolling for salmon. This way people can keep those fish instead of feeding them to the birds, as well as stop and target them when you run over a school you see on the sounder.

[pianoman9701]

Pianoman, that's my point, why allow any fishing there if they are worried about catcing the endangered ones, that is where most live?

I don't think the line is new, it is the same 30 fathom line they have had for years.  What species of suspended rockfish exactly are they targeting in these depths?  Even black rockfish tend toward the bottom and areas with structure. 

Another question, why is it OK to shut off all rockfish in the Sound to protect these same fish that they allow to be incidentally killed off the coast?  Answer again, money!  There are no cattle boats that I know of that targeted rockfish in the Sound so their lobby would not care about it being shut down in the Sound where most of us, that just want to feed some fish to our families, have access.

No idea how to answer that Loki. I'm just reporting what I was told by Heather Reed, (360) 249-4628 ext. 202. Maybe call her. She's nice and forthcoming with information.

[LeeMajors]

The open area is ALL of Areas 1 and 2 outside the 30 fathom line.

The closure area is relatively small, and right outside of Westport.  (relative to the open area)

Seems to me, there is a problem with charters and others heavily targetting that particular area.

[sirmissalot]

The open area is ALL of Areas 1 and 2 outside the 30 fathom line.

The closure area is relatively small, and right outside of Westport.  (relative to the open area)

This is incorrect

[LeeMajors]

The open area is ALL of Areas 1 and 2 outside the 30 fathom line.

The closure area is relatively small, and right outside of Westport.  (relative to the open area)

This is incorrect

Depends on how you look at the map.  All the area to the East of that is open, and everything 'near' shore from the Columbia all the way to La Push is open (your map doesn't show much north of the Queets).  But I fish the Ocean from a kayak and don't have the same range that 30+ ft charter boat has.

Edit:  Additionally, everything past the 30 fathom line was already closed for bottom fishing except during halibut season anyway right?  So they definitely opened up a lot of territory.

[sirmissalot]

Here is some great information on the subject by Ron Garner:

"Kevin is right about what happened. This is a very serious matter. Unfortunately most don't have a clue to have sensitive our Yelloweye and Canary rockfish protection is. This action was caused by a few people that engaged in an area that had Yelloweye. Yelloweye are known to be on the same grounds as Lingcod and that is what makes it tough. If WDFW/PFMC hadn’t done this reaction and the same guys went back again next year with more people, we could have our coasts shut down. We are playing with dynamite.

This is the sort of thing that makes it tough on us that work the political side to try to keep us fishing. When coastal YE and Canary ESA protection first came out I worked with WDFW as they wanted to shut down the entire north coast to halibut except three small postage sized areas. One near the SW corner closure, one at Bluedot, and one near Swiftsure. I worked with them to keep our coasts open. It was all for the protection of yelloweye and canary.

We asked them to leave it the way it was and to let us hammer out most of our halibut on the SW corner where a lot of the yelloweye had already been removed, thus keeping us off of them. Since we had so few days on the water it was thought we would not impact the YE as much. They agreed and left it open and next came the 120' depth restriction, 180'in MA 2.


We have a small Yelloweye and Canary mortality quota. This means that we are allowed to kill just so many YE to get our targeted fish. If there was zero mortality we would be shut down from all bottomfishing. There is a management plan to recover the Yelloweye and Canary by a certain date. I believe 2047. So instead of it happening all at once shutting down all fishing, they have used a rebuilding plan spread over years to recover our YE and Canary Rockfish.

It wouldn't take but one commercial fisher anywhere in Washington, California, or Oregon to hit a good bed of Yelloweye and the entire coast could get shut down to all bottomfishing immediately.

We would still have full open seasons on deep water if it weren’t for federal YE and Canary protections to restore them. WDFW is the buffer that has to figure out how we can keep fishing without taking too many YE and Canary Rockfish. The Yelloweye and Canary kill quota gets less and less every couple of years. Its up to us to educate others about these fish and if someone gets into yelloweye, you need to leave the area immediately.

There will be a policy review in 2014 on our YE and Canary. If we are shown we are going over our kill quota, we will have a bottomfish shutdown. If you read between the lines this is a shot across the bow that worse things are yet to come if we don’t clean up our act. We could lose this great fishery and data shows it is what it is.

This is an older post from WDFW and think the current Washington tonnage is 2.5 M tons.
Fishery Management

A recent stock assessment indicates that the yelloweye rockfish population has declined over 80% from its initial level. As a result, immediate action must be taken if the stocks of these long-lived fish are to be rebuilt.
To rebuild yelloweye rockfish populations, the harvest opportunities for this species must be severely curtailed. In recent years, the Pacific Fishery Management Council has set yelloweye rockfish harvest levels for all commercial, recreational, and tribal fisheries combined for California, Oregon, and Washington of about 17 (now I think is 14) metric tons (mt). This number includes yelloweye rockfish that are discarded at sea.

The Washington recreational harvest target is about 2.7 mt (fewer than 1,000 fish) in coastal waters. To put this in perspective, in 2001, the Washington recreational fishery harvested 15 mt.

Halibut Fishery in Jeopardy
Yelloweye rockfish, in general, are harvested during the Washington recreational halibut fishery. If the yelloweye rockfish catch is projected to exceed 2.7 mt, then Pacific ocean waters adjacent to Washington outside 25 fathoms will be closed to recreational bottomfish fishing (including halibut).



If yelloweye rockfish cannot be avoided when anglers are targeting halibut, then we may have to close recreational halibut fishing in the future to protect yelloweye rockfish. Because the yelloweye rockfish stock may not be rebuilt for over 100 years, the problem of managing the yelloweye fishery will continue through our lifetime; however, you have the ability to help save the halibut fishery now and preserve the yelloweye resource for the future.

So to sum this up each individual carries a huge responsibility to help us conserve and restore these fish and still be able to enjoy our fishing seasons."

This should answer a lot of questions

[LeeMajors]

Sounds like it was the most reasonable approach to the problem.  If they would just attach reasons with the rule change emails, fewer people would get all worked up for no reason.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[DoubleJ]

I know of several people recieving multiple deer and elk tags in the mail

How do I get on this mailing list?