Sturgeon Rule Change - Good or Bad?

[STGRule]

ODFW Staff have proposed a reduction of the sturgeon annual limit from 10 fish to 5 fish. Do you think that is a good thing for the fishery or not? Do you have any comments? I'm keeping this a simple yes or no. Please feel free to add comments. I would appreciate it if the comments are kept civil. We can't learn if we don't listen.

[Hogmaster]

I think a compromise would be best. Go for 7.5 fish!

Seriously, 5 fish a year? That would do for many people, but what would F&H News do for stories if Nickle was limited to 5 monsters of the deep?

Seems awful restrictive. Is there a similar proposal to restrict the commercial numbers?

[Hogmaster]

PS - If it keeeps the fishery healthy and sustainable, then it would be worth it.

What happened to the Sturgeon stocks supposedly (supposebly :smile: ) already being healthy and sustainable?

Is it because many more anglers are targeting them? What has changed???

[STGRule]

This is NOT a reduction in the number of fish available to sport anglers. This is an individual angler reduction. I believe it is an effort to spread the fish out over an ever increasing number of sturgeon anglers.

[jet]

I just voted, amazing 100% so far. Most of what I do now is catch and release anyway.

It is nice to keep a few.

Jet~~~

[Tagster]

Wow, the results are very interesting.
Tag

[ 06-06-2003, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: Tagster ]

[fishingfirst]

That would sure limit the sturgeon derbys. If you fish three or four derbys then you couldn't keep many the rest of the year. Maybe this is a good thing???

Scott

[cosmo]

I'm all for lowering the annual limit to 5 fish, but I don't think it would save any sturgeon. Lowering the limit would allow for a potentially longer season (based on how many people tag over five) but you won't cut harvest without lowering the qouta.

STGRule - Were you at the fishery and Beacon rock on Wednesday? There was some great discussion about the oversize fishery with biologists from OR & WA and Molly Webb, an assistant professor from OSU.

[STGRule]

Cosmo: No, I wasn't there. But I share a lot of the same beliefs as Molly. I try to stay objective but I still lean toward her way of thinking.

[ 06-06-2003, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

http://fw.oregonstate.edu/images/webbm.jpg :shocked: :cool:

[STGRule]

***: She is well spoken for and you're married. :wink:

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

:depressed: :depressed: :depressed: graemlins/hearton.gif :laugh:

[Lured In]

I voted yes, but I am not sure this will solve much. Theoretically spreading out the fish, across anglers, doesn't necessarily happen. There are those that catch lots of fish (fill their tags) and those that get none, one or two. Those that aren't very capable are not necessarily going to catch more fish just because somebody else doesn't.

I would like to see catch data on how many people actually fill their tag (or tag more than 5 keepers even), vs. the total number of anglers. STG...is this kind of information available?

The other issue that was brought up awhile ago, was the "oops, I lost my tag" issue. If someone wants more than 5 sturgeon they can still get it by replacing their tag. Perhaps it would be more of a deterrant, but who knows.

Personally, I would prefer not to target specific 'succesful' anglers (as a group). When the fishery closes to retention, it closes to everyone, regardless of how many you have on your tag. I think the current block closures and overall reduced quota are good steps in the right direction. (Although, I have to admit, I don't like loosing all of April-Jun here in the upper sections below Bonnie). Why not wait and see what happens in two years with the current regs? If you change everything at once, how will you know which program had the best net effect on the fishery? :wink:

[cosmo]

Molly shared a lot of data, but not a lot of beliefs.

Lured In- If you cut the limit, the season should get longer, therefore more of the less capable anglers should get their one or two. The fishery remains open until the qouta is filled. The change in tag space doesn't address that, like you say, so it is just trying to spread the fish around.

Personally, I think the block closures are a disaster. Why kill your options for months at a time vs. giving up a few days a week and have some opportunity all year.

I'd like to see the question asked about cutting tag limit to two fish. Along with an 80% reduction in both sport and commercial quotas. If you haven't noticed, there are very, very, very few fish in the range of 5' to 7'. Where are they?..dead (or somehow avoiding fisheries in total) Waiting a couple of years to hope for a change won't do it. The over harvest that caused this is a decade (maybe more) past already, so we are just adding to the years recovery will take. Of the 180 or so fish Molly tagged last year, the core size range was 7' to 9.5'. Some bigger ones immediately below Bonneville with nets but really no small spawners. If we don't begin to pass keepers into the brood stock, a severe and guaranteed crash of this fishery is in the future.
STGRule, am I way off on this?

***-She is quite cute, but it kind of scares me (or maybe it should her) you can produce a picture of her that fast :blush: .

[ 06-06-2003, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: cosmo ]

[CATCH AND EAT]

I have never kept even 5 sturgeon a year. Why the heck keep 10? Lured IN has a point though. Limits keep getting cut and we get less and less fishing. Kind of a bummer in my way of thinking.

[STGRule]

Lured in: I don't know if that info is available or not.
I don't know the exact reason for the limit. I am speculating. But I do know that waiting another two years is not an option. We, and I mean sport anglers, have over-harvested our quota already. We have to make that up now. We can make mistakes for a period of time then it catches up. Sturgeon populations can absorb the problems for awhile and then it crashes quickly. The science is a calculated, sincere, best guess based on the available data. Sometimes it is a good guess and sometimes it could be better. I wish it was different but that is reality. There is simply too much effecting the populations in subtle and not-so-subtle ways to measure with the resources we have available.

Cosmo: The quickness of ***' picture isn't a big deal. If you go to Google and put in her name with the word "sturgeon", it is the first hit.

[Nanook]

"If we don't begin to pass keepers into the brood stock, a severe and guaranteed crash of this fishery is in the future."

I agree with that statement.

*** I hope she finds you and smacks you. :blush: :laugh:

[Gooseman]

I wouldn't mind a reduction in the number of keepers that I keep. Over the last 4 years, I've kept 4, 6, 3, and 1 so far this year.
What I do mind is the "incidental" catch by the netters. There are certain holes that they target between Beacon rock and Longview where the "incidental" catch out weighs the target catch.
Are they going to have a reduced "incidental" limit?
I hope so.

[cosmo]

The incidental sturgeon take in the salmon net fisheries are counted against the commercial's annual sturgeon quota. Those fish are not over and above the directed sturgeon fisheries. At least that's how I understand it.

[farm5]

My computer crashes when I attempt to vote. Another dissapointing part of life.

The more restrictions on the harvest of sturgeon the the better. They are an extremely slow maturing animal. Thirty years ago it was very easy to go out into the Willmette and limit, then the law was 36" to 72" and 3 per day. It was very enjoyable, no competion, few fished for them.

Now we have an on slaught of individuals that have moved in and discouvered sturgeon. So many persue them that their numbers have declined immensely.

Now we have a group of individuals who find pleasure in targeting over size sturgeon. There is no animal breeder alive that would allow any kind of abuse to occur to their breeding stock. We who breed animals for a living know first hand the outcome of such abuse. We have laws and we have individuals who seek justification for the laws to not fish for over-size sturgeon. The bioligists have to come up with proof of damage to the species. They are burdened with supplying the proof to shut down the over-size targeting. Many of those who persue them I bet were raised on small lots in congested city environments, never had the experience of raising anything and find extreme pleasure in fighting a potentially spawning sturgeon to near death. Well, wake up and smell the roses this can not continue. Even if the law allows it, it is only common sense that this is detrimental to the species. If you ever had the experience of raising anything, you would know it isn't an acceptapel burden to place on the breed stock of the spieces.

[Smj]

Well put farm5!
Now, let's get rid of all commercial sturgeon fishing, that includes guides or a limit on how many sturgeon guides may put in their boat per year, how about 10-30.

I don't know what it's like where everyone else shops, but when my local Albertsons gets sturgeon they sell it for $8.99/lb or more when it first comes in. Eventualy they mark it down, and finaly they throw a good portion of it away 'cause nobody will buy it, what a horrible waste.

As far as the pole goes I don't think it matters one bit unless the commercial fishing and harassment of sturgeon is stopped. It can't possibly be good for shakers to be caught mutiple times. There have been times when shakers we've caught had four or five fresh looking wounds in their lips.

STGRule, I think you are of great value to this board, Thanks for being here!

Smj

[The Fishing Geek]

farm5:

Voting problems at Ifish can usually be fixed by upgrading your Java files (http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.1/download.html). It's a long download for those on a modem (maybe a couple of hours) but that should fix both voting and if you ever want to use the chatrooms here at Ifish.

[5-Cents]

I think a reduction in the number of fish you can keep is fine, it still does not solve the problem of over harvest if the quota's are not reduced. :shrug:

The biggest problem it seems is the commercial guys with their nets. How is entangeling a sturgeon in a net, letting it sit there for who knows how long, pulling it up onto the boat, ripping it out of the net then kicking it back in the water better for a fish than an angler catching it? :shrug: graemlins/stupid.gif Until ODFW and WDFW have the balls to step up and ban all nets, this means salmon too, on the CR you will see poplulations decline! graemlins/dork.gif

One other observation... when I was out sturgeon fishing yesterday in the estuary there must have been 20 charter boats out there with 10-20 people on each boat. When they caught a shaker they would yard it up on deck unhook it and toss it over! :mad: What gives??? There are a lot more problems with nets and charters than with the sport fishers. Yet sport fishers are always the first ones to take it in the shorts! :hoboy:

Get a clue... get rid of the nets and reduce our take, I would agree with that. Go talk to the netters and see how they would feel about reducing their catch. graemlins/berry.gif

[invader]

AND WHAT WILL WE TALK ABOUT WHEN THE ANNUAL CATCH WILL BE NONE????? WAKE UP!! THEY WILL MAKE IT SO!!! ITS ALLMOST THERE NOW!! TOO MANY CLOSEURES!!! BAN ALL NETS IN THE COLUMBIA!!!

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

invader

FYI..... "caps lock" is on your left graemlins/program.gif

[Nanook]

"5-Cents you are 110% correct"

Well, 100% anyway.

[scrod]

I would suggest that the C & R season be limited if stress is a factor on reproduction. I agree that 5 fish is plenty per year given the lack of keepers seen in the past few years. Catching 40-50 undersized to 1 keeper is fun but something is amiss. Yeah, I know its me.

[cosmo]

[ 06-07-2003, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: cosmo ]

[Fish Hawg]

5-Cents you are 110% correct graemlins/applause.gif it seems that every one over looks the Gill nets and charter boats and point the finger at us sportsmen most of the charter boys limit the boat then go back out w/ 10-15 more clients to finish the day :hoboy: also 5-Cents please keep those great pictures and reports coming :cheers:

[Born to be Wild]

STG and ***,

That was pretty funny! :grin:

I gather the gal in the pic was Molly?

Anyway, I think lowering the limit to five isn't a bad Idea either. STG said; "I believe it is an effort to spread the fish out over an ever increasing number of sturgeon anglers".

We've had to do the same with salmon/steelhead, halibut, trout and bottom fish (rockfish), etc.

I've worked for a southwest Washington sporting goods store in the off season the last several years and it gives me somewhat of a guilt complex selling sturgeon rods/reels and terminal tackle for sturgeon and advice when, where and how to catch them . I've been known to say on more than one occasion; "how do these fish stand a chance"?

A real problem I would like to bring up is all the illegal sturgeon kept by sport fishermen. I have seen it time and time again, short sturgeon all the way down to two footers being kept and legal size sturgeon being kept and not tagged so they can catch more than there alloted 10 (of course the undersized ones aren't tagged).

This is a real problem on the Washington side of the river from the Longview port docks all the way down to Mill Creek.

Some of these anglers (outlaws) justify their actions because of the gill netters...

These fish are managed on the best available science and numbers, but if you have so many sports fishermen blatantly disrespectful of the laws and regulations, you have a serious problem.

Something needs to be done there. If I fish there in the future, I will let it be known I will turn them in if I see this taking place. But more than that needs to happen. There needs to be public awareness that this behavior and lack of ethics will not be tolerated or condoned.

Dan

[BigBeanCounter]

BAN ALL NETS, SHOOT ALL POACHERS !! (Yes, i know where the caps lock button is :tongue: )

[roadsend]

We need to reduce keeper size limit to 55" to increase recruitment to spawner ranks. We should also ban catch and release when retention is not allowed to reduce stress on spawners. We need to go to a 4 or 5 day week to lengthen the season.

[AuntyM]

I favor more restrictions on sturgeon statewide in both states. I feel sturgeon are in trouble in other systems also and since many migrate between the C and other rivers, you have to manage the entire species. Lowering it to 5 will help accomplish this I think?

Hubby and I both fish for sturgeon. We never keep more than two a piece per year no matter where they are caught. I love to fish for them, but I worry!

Is it feasible to enforce a first keeper caught be retained, to prevent the "upsizing" later situation?

[WaterDog]

I have no problem with this. Couple a year is enough for me.

We also need a system in place that will not allow someone to "lose" or "forget" their tag in their pants so it "accidently" gets washed. :hoboy:

[boater]

STGrule, just a stupid idea, how bout leaving the keeper size the same but break the sizes down that a sportsangler can keep, lets say 2 fish from 42-46, 1 from 46 to 50, one from 50-55 and 1 from 55 to 60, or is this to restrictive ? it would spread the size around more instead of just targeting the biggest keepers you can catch.

[Born to be Wild]

Too complicated and confusing boater. In my opinion anyway.

[SHLEPROCK]

I would only take 5 fish if that is the answer to the problem. But with the current closures in place I will be lucky to take five fish,the only good fishing to be had is in the lower river. When the upper river reopens I am not expecting much success. In the winter the gillnetters take theirs. So I figure that I need to take all my fish RIGHT NOW and that is the problem with block restrictions.
Added preasure on sturgeon!
Now everyone that buys a harvest tag MUST get the sturgeon tag and since you paid for it you might as well use it. :shrug:
If I could catch halibut in the river :rolleyes:

[Freighter Bait]

2 x 5 = 10 Take your spouse or your kid, and you keep the ten fish limit. :wink: Read my last post and see who gives sportsmen a bad name, and where control is needed. :mad: More power to the highly capable fisherman, you earn it by learning it. Just leave the greed out of the picture. graemlins/berry.gif

[AtWorkALot]

Forgive my ignorance. Is there a weekly bag limit? Can you catch all five or ten fish in consecutive days? If there isn't a weekly limit, would implementing one help? I'm not much of a sturgeon fisherman myself, I only get after them 5-10 times a year.

Jim

[ReelMcCoy]

I agree something needs to be done. When I started fishing from John Day area you could find a parking spot even in the peak of the season. Now if you are not there early your out of luck.

I hear talk about guides and charters and agree we need to make some changes. I also know that those who do not want to spend thousands of dollars on gear should have a chance to catch fish too. And before someone claims you don’t need to spend that amount of money to get out there. I will remind them by the time you buy a boat, fish finder, rod, reel , tackle. fuel, insurance and bait if you can get out for less than that it would be a miracle. The guides are going to fight this due the fact of what they charge. If you charge around a hundred dollars a head you take that times say four people times seven days they are bringing down $2800 a week. The charters are only charging halve that but take twice as many people or more.

The current system of short seasons will not work because people will just take time off during the week. I feel we should keep the current seasons but limit it to only say Saturday, Sunday and Monday that would limit guides, charters and sportsman.

When I started fishing the estuary it was common to see days of forty to fifty legal fish a day for two rods and that’s before noon. I have watched these numbers decline dramatically to the point of getting only a dozen keepers a day and you have to work at it to do that. We need to do something before they are fished out.

DepoeBayDan:

If you see a poacher and don’t report them then you are just as bad. We all have a responsibility to be good stewards of our resources and turn in all poachers. So don’t be surprised if you poach a fish and someone like me picks up his radio and calls in your boat numbers or license plate number.

[greenbuttskunk]

Reduce the annual harvest, reduce the catch quota. You have to do both or I don't see a reduction and increased protection. These fish have such slow growth, that I am part of the camp that believes there will be a crash one day. I spoke to a biologist who had a tagged fish we caught and I asked him the fishes age. This was a 47" one. He said about 18 years. I thought about all I've done, seen, and experienced in the last 18 years (that I can remember) Then I thought about the fish, and it seemed like an unfortunate waste. I have to say I felt some remorse. Don't get me wrong, I love to eat sturgeon, one of my favorite to eat, and I'm not a "hater". I enjoy seeing everyone's success. I average about 3-4 keepers a year, but it's enough for me. Cut it back, that's fine with me. They are too important a resource.
I'd also love to see reductions in the commercial harvest as well. Hopefully this fishery will be around for a very long time, and my grandkids can
enjoy the same fun I've had. I Hope so.
GBS

[Seefood Man]

I'm with bean counter/ This is just another stab at the sportsman graemlins/berry.gif I'm PO'd :mad:

[birdhunter]

STGrule,

Not to get to far off topic, but does ODFW has any further ideas about green sturgeon management? Might we be seeing that species closed to retention?

[invader]

SO WHERES THE CAPS LOCK THING??

[ 06-09-2003, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: invader ]