Post by: Da stump on February 28, 2017, 07:15:46 AM
Dale :yike:
Post by: singleshot12 on February 28, 2017, 07:18:42 AM
Post by: Duckslayer89 on February 28, 2017, 07:21:59 AM
WSFW just posted new regulations for lings in area's 1-4. There is no minimum limit now. I personally think this is totally wrong. Ling are a big fish and when taken young they don;t have as much meat or the fantastic fight. With any ling being able to be taken it will not be long and we won't have any.
Dale :yike:
I think your wrong there. Ling are a sensitive fish with a high mortality rate after being caught and released. In fact it should be first two ling caught is your limit no catch and release
Post by: Dhoey07 on February 28, 2017, 07:33:27 AM
Post by: spoonman on February 28, 2017, 07:51:48 AM
Post by: Igottanewknee on February 28, 2017, 07:59:55 AM
I think the charters pushed this as to limit their boats sooner.That is going to happen any way.... 7 rock fish limit... >:(
Post by: spoonman on February 28, 2017, 08:03:34 AM
Post by: Skillet on February 28, 2017, 08:07:59 AM
It's really not a bad rule change, imho.
Post by: trophyhunt on February 28, 2017, 08:22:37 AM
Post by: Skillet on February 28, 2017, 08:25:35 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on February 28, 2017, 08:48:57 AM
Just curious - why do you hope they throw back the smaller fish? If they keep the smaller ones, they won't catch the larger ones, which skew heavily female.Im no bio, and I could be wrong, but I just assumed if the smaller ones lived longer it would help the population? Almost like spike only for big game, but it's just my impression.
Post by: WAcoueshunter on February 28, 2017, 08:54:42 AM
Post by: Skillet on February 28, 2017, 08:56:33 AM
Post by: KNOPHISH on February 28, 2017, 09:13:24 AM
Reduced yelloweye and canary mortality as well.
It's really not a bad rule change, imho.
Looks like 1 Canary can be kept now in MA 1&2.
https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/erules/efishrules/erule.jsp?id=1924
Post by: Skillet on February 28, 2017, 09:16:45 AM
Post by: Wetwoodshunter on February 28, 2017, 09:45:43 AM
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"+
Post by: Skillet on February 28, 2017, 09:53:33 AM
:tup:
Post by: Da stump on February 28, 2017, 06:49:31 PM
Post by: lokidog on February 28, 2017, 07:10:31 PM
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
Post by: WAcoueshunter on February 28, 2017, 07:49:35 PM
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.
Post by: Duckslayer89 on February 28, 2017, 10:22:26 PM
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?
Post by: Sneaky on March 01, 2017, 05:34:08 AM
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.
Post by: Duckslayer89 on March 01, 2017, 08:22:36 AM
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
Post by: TeacherMan on March 01, 2017, 10:59:18 AM
Post by: lokidog on March 01, 2017, 02:28:53 PM
Post by: Skillet on March 01, 2017, 03:52:50 PM
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 :bash: 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 (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. :dunno: 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?
Post by: syoungs on March 01, 2017, 04:02:59 PM
Post by: Skillet on March 01, 2017, 04:23:07 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on March 01, 2017, 04:29:46 PM
Post by: Sneaky on March 01, 2017, 05:15:36 PM
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.
Post by: JKEEN33 on March 01, 2017, 05:15:45 PM
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.
We get some pretty nice lings as a byproduct of halibut. Once we drift over the soft bottom halibut hole and get into the rocky bottom we keep drifting and pick up the longs. 4' is not uncommon. We catch them on our homemade pipe jigs.
Post by: JKEEN33 on March 01, 2017, 05:20:09 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on March 01, 2017, 05:32:22 PM
Post by: Wetwoodshunter on March 01, 2017, 06:21:58 PM
I assume that removing the minimum size limit on will have no effect on the stock. Localized depletion may be a different story, I was talking to a charter fishermen a few days ago that said that when they changed the size limit to 22” all he started seeing were 21.5” fish. Well aside from the seasonal migration lingcod don’t move around that much and live on rocky pinnacles if the majority of the fishing pressure is on a single area that area will get fished out quickly. A great example of this is “the wreck” in Neah Bay right out from snow creek. Last year as I was fishing I assumed 200-300 lingcod per day opening weekend were coming off that single spot, its no wonder if you tried to fish it the next week you would probably only find barely sublegal lingcod.
Lingcod is an interesting species because the fisheries in Washington, Oregon and California are not managed in a way to take the full potential that the stock can handle. Since other bycatch of concern mainly yelloweye rockfish can be caught while fishing for lingcod the bag limits for lingcod are actually made with more consideration for yelloweye than for lingcod. Currently all three states use almost the entire allocation of yelloweye and if we did not have yelloweye as a bycatch concern we could easily see a 3-4 lingcod bag limit in the sport fisheries in Washington regardless of minimum size since total groundfish catch is measured in metric tons and not number of fish. The main difference here is since groundfish is measured in metric tons 2000 20” fish may equal 600 30” fish as far as catch accounting goes so by harvesting smaller fish you are taking more individuals out of the water to achieve the quota. But remember, due to yelloweye we come nowhere near to the lingcod quota so this is a moot point with this stock so the size limit could be removed without ill effects.
If this doesn't make sense or makes more questions let me know.
Post by: sumpnz on March 01, 2017, 06:40:07 PM
Post by: Wetwoodshunter on March 01, 2017, 06:45:42 PM
Post by: Wetwoodshunter on March 01, 2017, 06:48:42 PM
Wetwoodshunter - By that logic, since YE is almost exclusively at >120' (but not quite), would it make sense to open up a sub-season at <80' (or whatever pretty much guarantees no YE) with an expanded ling cod limit of, say, 4 per day? If they wanted to reduce black/blue rockfish pressure that would occur as a result of additional effort for lings they could just keep the (now) 9 bottom fish overall limit.
This is a great point and I think you could do it. The release mortality of rockfish gets better as you go shallower (less dead fish) so you would get an additional savings from that too.
Post by: Scvette on March 01, 2017, 07:03:20 PM
Post by: sumpnz on March 01, 2017, 07:05:55 PM
I commercial fish in the Bering sea,but on occasion we go to the gulf and fish cod fish,there's a spot on the south end of Kodiak we fish that is loaded with huge lingcod,I'm talking 60+++" lings. There are no sport boats that go down there cause it's too far from the town. I set 74000 hooks everyday so when we are over there I see a lot of them. I'm sure if someone went sport fishing there they could get a new state record,I remember one we got,I'd bet it was 80# easily. I'm going over there as I'm typing this,not sure if I will go to the south end of Kodiak,but if I do I'll get some pictures of the large ones and post them here.
Is there a market for those lings? If not do you try to release them back to the water? I would hope so if you can't/don't sell them. Lings that big are supposed to be prolific breeding females.
Post by: Scvette on March 01, 2017, 07:16:16 PM
I commercial fish in the Bering sea,but on occasion we go to the gulf and fish cod fish,there's a spot on the south end of Kodiak we fish that is loaded with huge lingcod,I'm talking 60+++" lings. There are no sport boats that go down there cause it's too far from the town. I set 74000 hooks everyday so when we are over there I see a lot of them. I'm sure if someone went sport fishing there they could get a new state record,I remember one we got,I'd bet it was 80# easily. I'm going over there as I'm typing this,not sure if I will go to the south end of Kodiak,but if I do I'll get some pictures of the large ones and post them here.
Is there a market for those lings? If not do you try to release them back to the water? I would hope so if you can't/don't sell them. Lings that big are supposed to be prolific breeding females.
We release them right away,unless my government observer is out taking his talley,if he is we have to give him 5 so he can weigh and measure them.......oh and sex them so they are killed. We don't put them up commercially though.
Post by: Bullkllr on March 01, 2017, 07:30:50 PM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on March 01, 2017, 07:34:13 PM
Post by: Bullkllr on March 01, 2017, 07:42:19 PM
Hhhhmmmm Water World size lings. :chuckle:
They get that big around here.
Most just get picked off before they get the chance. In the old days before bottomfish were much sought after, lings that size were actually pretty common.
Post by: Da stump on March 01, 2017, 08:23:27 PM
This post is about the minimal amount of meat on the small lings. Myself agree and would rather have no ling than have to clean a small one with nothing but head and bone on it.:yeah:
Post by: Skillet on March 01, 2017, 10:16:49 PM
WSFW just posted new regulations for lings in area's 1-4. There is no minimum limit now. I personally think this is totally wrong. Ling are a big fish and when taken young they don;t have as much meat or the fantastic fight. With any ling being able to be taken it will not be long and we won't have any.
Dale :yike:
This post is about the minimal amount of meat on the small lings. Myself agree and would rather have no ling than have to clean a small one with nothing but head and bone on it.:yeah:
To be clear, I am not taking issue with the statement about yield of small fish. Nobody is making anybody keep smaller lings. I am questioning the statement "with any ling being able to be taken it won't be long and we won't have any."
Post by: Skillet on March 01, 2017, 10:40:00 PM
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.
Not really, that I know of. We rarely target them during open salmon seasons and sometimes release legal ones, since they are just a pain to deal with when you're set up for salmon. When I catch lings as bycatch, I'm usually fishing for kings. And if I'm fishing kings, I'm fishing relatively deep. My starting depth for kings this year was 50 fa, and I fished up to 80 fa in the second king opener. My biggest ling on the Fairweather Grounds was only 30-ish #, and the average carcass was 16#.
Attached is the biggest I kept this year, 48" and went 42#.
Released one much bigger, but was too busy with kings to deal with it for what it was worth. If pressed, I'd guess 54-ish inches and around 55#. I hefted her out of the water to get a sense of her size, but let her go right away.
Here's a cool vid of a marine preserve just out of sitka sound - there's a few really nice fish in there.
https://vimeo.com/93307645 (https://vimeo.com/93307645)
Post by: Skillet on March 01, 2017, 10:55:09 PM
Scvette - hope you slay!
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on March 01, 2017, 11:31:47 PM
Post by: Dhoey07 on March 08, 2017, 07:04:19 AM
That video is great Skillet! I'd like to have a mini sub.
Man, they are stacked in there like cord wood :yike:
Post by: Alchase on March 10, 2017, 10:11:09 AM