New Thread about MR's Per Jennies request

[fyshndad]

DISCLAIMER
I started this thread out of frustration and emotion
MY facts are not completely accurate
My bias shows and I regret not digging up numbers to be sure I had the right ones
I posted out of emotion and this is the result

As such I hope that others will learn form my haste and not make them selves look foolish like I did here by being too quick on the trigger and end up shooting yourself in the foot


Ok lets start by listing facts and facts only on this thread
Please no debate or flaming

I will start with a few facts as I understand them
1st I will list AGAINST MR FACTS
Then I will list what I understand from the supporters of MR's


Fact
There is only 5% of the ocean floor inside 3 miles that has been mapped to show what structure is even out there
Fact
Only about 8 species of various rock fish have had assesments out of how many species? ( if someone has the exact # please PM it to me and I will edit this part) so we need stock assesments to show what we have to work with ( we need a base line to compare with future studies to show any gains or losses)
Fact
Oregon has one reserve and several areas set aside that could be used for scientific study but again no money to do so
Fact
There are no funds to do any kind of studies
Fact
There are no funds to impliment MR's
Fact
There is no money for enforcement issues

Now for what supporters are saying

Big fat females produce more babies so we need reserves for them
True but those females do not use waters inside 3 miles for spawning

We need reserves so we can study the problem?
What problem? We do not know what we have so how do we know we have a problem?

If I saw the science to put in reserves and science to show that they would benefit the fish I would be the 1st in line to support them

Please keep this on topic and do not use peoples names in this thread
It is ok to name groups but Please no names of individuals

Ok lets add more FACTS

[Smoked Salmon]

First, understand that I am not a proponent of MR.

You should refrain from commenting on facts presented by other folks. I doubt anyone will disagree with you, but it seems unfair to present and discredit the "other sides" case before they even have a chance to post their version of the facts.

There are 14 Oregon MPAs and no MR. The most restrictive MPA, Whale Cove, still allows kelp harvest.
Habitat details for 95% of the nearshore area is unknown.
8 harvested fish species have had stock assessments.
35 harvested and all non-harvested fish species have NOT had stock assessments.
The unknowns continue to drive harvest closures, out of concern and conservatism.
Marine Reserves are not intended to be a fisheries enhancement tool.

There are more, but I'm sure some others can chime in.

[Nordic Sun]

Originally Posted by fyshndad

Ok lets start by listing facts and facts only on this thread

Big fat females produce more babies so we need reserves for them
True but those females do not use waters inside 3 miles for spawning

Ok lets add more FACTS

Closing off areas of ocean to protect these females is not the best use of the resource. Those females can be protected with a slot fishery which requires only juvenile fish may be kept. The slot fishery works all over the world, like our sturgeon fishery.

Do the required studies in order to determine what problem might exist before even thinking about removeing the resource from the public use.

And a sunset clause to determine if the MRZ should or could become a MPA, with fishing, gear, access restrictions.

Fact: this process is not being driven or funded by Oregonians.

[ron m]

Originally Posted by Smoked Salmon

Marine Reserves are not intended to be a fisheries enhancement tool.

For me, this is not so clearly a fact. I've listened to the MR discussions at several OPAC meetings and while they do say this, if you listen to what they say MRs will do, they are seeing (by how they describe what it will do) it as a fisheries management tool.

MRs are said to protect against extractive activities. OK, I'll agree with that. But are there any extractive activities in OR territorial seas that are not fishing related? Maybe wave energy, I don't know of any others. If not, then MRs are to stop fishing and hence by definition of what they do will be a fisheries management tool (at least I see it that way). If extractive activities besides fishing might threaten Oregon's territiorial sea, why not get legislation passed to require permits and reviews for other extractive activities?

Fact: We have a state agency, ODFWs MRP, that does an excellent job of regulating fisheries within restrictions set by PFMC and federal law. Let 'em do continue to do their job.

ron m,
aka Ron Mason, Corvallis

[Grady252]

I am not here flame or otherwise.... I don't think I support MR, but I try to keep an open mind, and generally feel the special interest groups hit a fly with a sledge hammer, and they do it with little on no information.... it is usually a knee jerk reaction or hidden agenda.

All that being said..... this thread started out that it is to post facts and only facts, and not designed to flame, but it is not written that way at all, nor does it seem fact based. Each fact posted is followed up with a subjective opinion of Hank....... If you don't want others to flame, you should post a thread with "real" objective facts that are based on objective findings and information, otherwise this is just a flame on post....

Sorry Hank, I know you mean well, but your post if far from fact based, when you discredit each fact you don't like with subjective comments.

[CATCH AND EAT]

Fact: We do not need MPZ's

Fact: We do not want MPZ's

Fact: We the sportsman loose again

Fact: These areas may never be reopened to harvest

Fact: Environmental groups are pouring millions into taking away your right to access both land and sea areas

Fact: Sport groups are fractionally organized at best

Fact: Environmental groups want zero fishing period.

[Moldy45]

Fact: I am against Marine reserves

[Pilar]

Educate yourself. Buy Love's book "The Rockfishes of the Northeast Pacific" and get the facts. $26 and every ocean fisher should own a copy. This is a well written and educational book. Many pictures and illustrations including Ray Troll. Our fish and ocean are unique and anything done here had better bear that in mind.

http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/9786.php

We are all very concerned about this process and the organizations that are pushing it. And of course we are all very concerned about the people that are paid to spread information outside the OPAC process that is officially doing so. There is an official state sponsored public outreach (OPAC) and there is the NGO no take, no fishing agenda process by paid lobbyists and environmentalists.

On this forum that is Greg Harlow (Fishkisser) and Bob Rees (TGFwriter). I'm quite sure there are others but they are not known yet. Please out them here only when they state that they are paid lobbyists. Read TGFwriters tagline about BOFFS and realize that the distressed species that the professionals who actually are responsible for their management all agree that they do not live nearshore in the shallow waters. Just knowing that you most likely know more about the fish, the life history of the fish, where they actually live and other pertinant facts than the paid lobbyists should give you a high level of alarm. They dont know anything but what their keepers are telling them to say to win over the 5 second soundbite, intellectually incurious public.

They are spreading info that is in part incorrect. And they are stating that they represent the sportfishing community. I have to say that personally it makes me mad and I want to go to every meeting to make sure that the misinformation is challenged with documented facts.

As the big Lebowski said

"This will not stand man".

But alas I am not a paid lobbyist and work a job like most of you do. A day at a meeting held during the week is a day off from work. But I go because this crap won't stand.

We all have to take responsibility for getting the facts out there and countering the disinformation. I'm using the word responsibility. If you want to take your kids fishing on the ocean you need to go to meetings and represent yourself so that others who do not represent your interests will not pretend to do so.

And I ask each of you to be clear and concise and accurate. Check your facts and be ready to quote a source.

There are other misleading things being said. For example the prohibition against mining and oil extraction will benefit Oregon. No one drills for oil or extracts minerals from our waters for reasons which are obvious and largely unstated by those of us that spend any time on an actual boat on the actual waters under discussion.

The ocean is in charge here most of the time. Very few venture out for 6 or 7 months of the year due to very challenging ocean conditions. At their worst we have winds to 100 kts and seas approaching 50 feet in height. And various other lessor combinations all of which are suicide for a small boat. Maybe 10 days a winter season are actually possible.

These things are obvious. Many areas that are seasonally closed are in fact almost always closed because of where we live.

Fyshndad
Fact
There is only 5% of the ocean floor inside 3 miles that has been mapped to show what structure is even out there
Fact
Only about 14 species of various rock fish have had assesments out of over a hundred species ( if someone has the exact # please PM it to me and I will edit this part) so we need stock assesments to show what we have to work with ( we need a base line to compare with future studies to show any gains or losses)

I'm not picking on you, Hank. The 5% was stated to be in the waters from 3 to 200 miles if I heard the speaker at the Newport event correctly. The near shore is surveyed but not in great detail over much of it. Some areas are mapped to sufficient detail.

8 species of rockfish are assessed if you quote the ODFW. Of those 8 Widow rockfish, Yellow eye rockfish and Canary rockfish were declared to be overfished. This is a statistics game. Overfished means they are at less than 25% of thier unfished biomass. Magnusen Stephens legislation mandates actions be taken at different levels of population.

Widow rockfish are no longer as big a problem as they once were. The take was reduced and the population is no longer overfished. Widow rockfish are relatively shortlived. So they will recover in a short time. Years not decades. Widows live suspended in open deep water and move around more than most rockfish. They are often caught in trawls This was once done as a targeted fishery but you all know the old story. They were overfished and declined.

Canary Rockfish are longer lived and will take longer to recover. They are still the limiting factor along with one other species I'll mention in a moment. All fishing off our coast involves bycatch. The bycatch of overfished rockfish can close a trawl or halibut season. That's what I mean by limiting. The recovery time is going to be decades. Canarys are rarely caught in less than 100 feet of water. They like rocky structure and the Rockpile or Stonewall bank is now closed due to this fact. They like to find a rock and live close to it.

Yellow eye rockfish is prized by many. I ate a few and they were tasty. But they are the most overfished. And the longest lived. Allowed fishing bycatch for Yellow eye is down to 2 or 3 thousand pounds a year. Same haunts as the canary. And a life of up to 100 years and beyond. The recovery is projected to be 75 years. Most of the activities that killed yellow eye have been regulated out. The exception is halibut fishing. Once that ton or so of yellow eye is caught the fishing closes. This fish is almost never caught in less than 40 fathoms and I have only caught 1 here on this coast since the closure of sport harvest. We sent it down to the bottom and released it. Sportfishermen working with ODFW closed the prime habitat to halibut fishing and then altogether to reduce bycatch of canary and yelloweye. Yellow eye is a home body and lives in one spot once it settles on a deep reef. Personally I can do more by deciding where to fish with avoiding these rockfish in mind than any Marine reserve can do.

Odin
Closing off areas of ocean to protect these females is not the best use of the resource. Those females can be protected with a slot fishery which requires only juvenile fish may be kept. The slot fishery works all over the world, like our sturgeon fishery.

That is a great idea and it works with many other fish. But no evidence is in hand that suggests that these fish survive the barotrauma they get when caught. Even when release methods are used. Barotrauma or the 'bends' as many of you know it is caused by the physiology of the fish and the depth change when you catch them. They cant vent their swim bladder and they swell up with gas when you reel them up. The best idea is not to fish anywhere near them and avoid bycatch. All I need is some concern and knowledge and I can (and have) stop catching the wrong fish.

We can discuss this civilly. And we can also counter the propaganda with facts. This will be very important when the meetings come to the valley.

[Metal Manipulator]

This E-Mail I have received a couple of times. As John has pointed out they speak in halve truths. My memory is not the best in remembering details, I implore some one to refute those claims that are untrue and distort the reality which is taking place off of our shores. One that is true is that we have one of the richest ecosystems in the world but I am biased.

E-mail is as follows

We encourage you to come out to a series of public meetings along theOregonCoast to voice your support for establishing a network of marine protectedareas and marine reserves in Oregon coastal waters. The meetings, starting inNorth Bend on Feb. 18th, are being organized by Oregon Sea Grant, theOregonState University-based marine research and outreach program, at the request ofthe state’s Ocean Policy Advisory Council (OPAC). Oregon’s coastal waters include some of the richest marine ecosystems inthe world, but today our ocean faces some threats and uncertainty. 25 percentof fish species that are currently scientifically assessed in Oregon have beenoverfished and are depleted. Large die-offs of baitfish, seabirds, and othermarine life have occurred off the West Coast just since 2005, and there is aserious shortage of the kind of large, older fish whose survival is crucial tothe future of our fishing stocks. Scientists have not even studied the currentpopulation status of most marine species, so the situation could actually bemuch worse. It is clear that we should act now to protect the health of ourocean. Based on science, marine reserves and marine protected areas are a responsiblemeans of ensuring the long-term health and biodiversity of our ocean. Strategically placed protected areas and reserves will help protect depletedfish populations and other marine life dependent on a healthy ocean ecosystem.They will allow us to be precautionary and provide for opportunities for fishand wildlife to grow and thrive rather than continue to risk overfishing andthreatening marine life.But right now, Oregon is the only West Coast state without a system of marinereserves and protected areas. Governor Kulongoski is now working to get such asystem in place to create a legacy that future generations of Oregonians willbenefit from and appreciate, and the state needs to hear from you!This series of 8 public meetings will take place from 6:30pm to 8:30pm on thefollowing dates: 1) Feb. 18 – NorthBendCommunity Center, 2222 Broadway, North Bend2) Feb. 20 – GaribaldiCity Hall, 107 6th St., Garibaldi3) Feb. 21 – NewportCity Hall, 169 SW Coast Hwy, Newport4) Feb. 22 – FlorenceEventsCenter, 715 Quince St., Florence5) Feb. 26 – Port of Umpqua, 364 N 4th St., Reedsport6) Feb. 27 – Chetco Grange Community Center, 97895 Shopping Center Ave.,Harbor7) Feb. 28 – PortOrfordCity Hall, 555 W 20th, Port Orford8) Feb. 29 – WarrentonCommunity Center, 170 SW 3rd St., WarrentonThese meetings are open to the public, and it is important that Sea Grant hearsfrom you and why you feel it is critical to conserve our ocean resources forthe future. We need to show strong support for marine reserves at thesemeetings, so come and bring family and friends!For questions or more information, please contact:Bob Rees (NorthCoast) at (503) 812-9036; brees@pacifier.comJim Carlson (CentralCoast) at (503) 801-5538; simplylivin@oregoncoast.com Gus Gates (SouthCoast) at (541) 997-1316; ggates@surfrider.org


Since these people wrote the email to me I am not going to delete any of their information. It is a fact they sent it to me.

[Nordic Sun]

Originally Posted by Pilar

That is a great idea and it works with many other fish. But no evidence is in hand that suggests that these fish survive the barotrauma they get when caught. Even when release methods are used. Barotrauma or the 'bends' as many of you know it is caused by the physiology of the fish and the depth change when you catch them. They cant vent their swim bladder and they swell up with gas when you reel them up.

John
We have seen the studies done by OSU that state that these fish when released at depth do recover. Caught, tagged, released and recaught.
Since the reserves are proposed to be shallower water Barotrauma should not be an issue.

When I talked to Selena (the OSU biologist) she agreed. So I stand by my slot fishery proposal.

Stay away from the deep hang outs...............you bet.

Bob

[KeyWest]

All of the "facts" we are quoting come from the ODFW (statistics, etc). So we seem to take them at face value and don't question if they are fact or not. We accept them.

Since none of us really know the facts ourselves we must rely upon these government sources to gather our facts. Hopefully we all know that once a study or survey is taken by a private entity (purported facts) the study or survey will surely support the stance of the one funding the survey. If you think otherwise - I'm really sorry to say you really need to grow up. Thinking that an unbiased study will be done by a private entity such as the PEW trust or any other environmental group is pretty childish.

Personally, what is troubling about all of this is the trust factor. Do I trust the ODFW - yes - as they don't seem to have a hidden agenda - or at least I don't have any personal experience where they have had a hidden agenda.

The MPA process, however, is a totally different animal. I am personally opposed to the MPA process because I believe that this is but the first step in total closure. I know - I'm paranoid - but it is the stated objectives of many enviromental groups (those funding the MPA process and surveys that say the oceans are in trouble) that all fishing, hunting, etc., should be closed. And as our friends in California can attest, this is but the first step. After they are established, it is much easier to expand them. The ultimate goal is to close all offshore access to the general public. If we do not take a stance at this point, stay vigilant, and continue to fight - we might as well sell our boats now and cry uncle. If you think that by giving in on this initial effort will assure long term access and fishing in the future - you are sure to be disappointed - and I must say - please have the decency to find out what is happening elsewhere (Calif) prior to forming an opinion. Even today on the news (NPR) it was announced that Ted sent a letter to the legislature that he wants to make Oregon more like California in terms of the number of protected forrests. So - if you want to find out what is ahead for Oregon, simply study California. If you say "we are different and it wont happen here" - I really feel sorry for you. Please, quit being childish and take the rather small amount of time it takes to educate yourself on the issues before voting or even weighing in on the issues.

One last thing, if your thinking we are going to save the resouce so your grand children can enjoy it in the future - the opposite will most likely be true. You will be assuring that your children will have no access to the resource. A much better approach (again, in my opinion) would be to press the ODFW to make sure the resurce is managed sustainably so it will be around for your grand children. If you do that, you will get no push back from the Salty Dogs, the commercial fleet, etc.

Again - no facts here as all we can do is rely upon others for those facts.

I would enjoy seeing a thread where we can all state if we support or don't support the reserves and why - but with the rule that no one can flame one another or no one can refute someone else's opinions. Who knows, we all may learn something from each other's opinions.

[garyk]

As I try to understand this issue, I found this 17 page document is worth the time to read.

It's the briefing paper on marine reserves that ODFW staff prepared for the ODFW Commission.

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/publi...esBriefing.pdf

[garyk]

Originally Posted by KeyWest

I know - I'm paranoid - but it is the stated objectives of many enviromental groups (those funding the MPA process and surveys that say the oceans are in trouble) that all fishing, hunting, etc., should be closed.

For someone like me who's been around the conservation block, that IS news. Care to share where those stated objectives can be found? You write with certainty so I'd really like to know. I might have to re-think my financial support.

Originally Posted by KeyWest

Even today on the news (NPR) it was announced that Ted sent a letter to the legislature that he wants to make Oregon more like California in terms of the number of protected forrests.

Actually the issue was wilderness areas. And one of the areas the desert Badlands near Bend doesn't have forests. "Forests" weren't the issue. Also compared to Oregon was Washington and that a far greater percentage of that state, as well as California, is designated wilderness. Yes, facts do matter.

[garyk]

Originally Posted by Pilar

Educate yourself. Buy Love's book "The Rockfishes of the Northeast Pacific" and get the facts. $26 and every ocean fisher should own a copy.

Thanks for the tip. Just ordered a copy. Plug the ISBN into your searches for best price:

ISBN-10: 0520234383

[Bill Monroe]

Have any inland meetings been scheduled?

[Nalu]

Originally Posted by Bill Monroe

Have any inland meetings been scheduled?

In this round by Seagrant there were no inland meetings scheduled. Someone did question why inland communities were not being covered, and the response was this in essence:

The areas that will be impacted lay off of the Oregon Coast. While this resource is every Oregonians, the informational meetings fact gathering, and public outreach regarding this resource will take place where there will be potential impact- the coast. Those that use the resource from other areas are welcome to attend, but the outreach process is not designed to try and cover every individual in all areas of the state.

They pointed out that in discussion other Oregon resources such as public lands, informational meetings are always held near the areas that are impacted, and that this is no different. If it is important to you, then you need to take the time to come to where the issue is.

[CATCH AND EAT]

Originally Posted by Bill Monroe

Have any inland meetings been scheduled?

Rarely does that happen.

[fyshndad]

Originally Posted by Grady252

I am not here flame or otherwise.... I don't think I support MR, but I try to keep an open mind, and generally feel the special interest groups hit a fly with a sledge hammer, and they do it with little on no information.... it is usually a knee jerk reaction or hidden agenda.

All that being said..... this thread started out that it is to post facts and only facts, and not designed to flame, but it is not written that way at all, nor does it seem fact based. Each fact posted is followed up with a subjective opinion of Hank....... If you don't want others to flame, you should post a thread with "real" objective facts that are based on objective findings and information, otherwise this is just a flame on post....

Sorry Hank, I know you mean well, but your post if far from fact based, when you discredit each fact you don't like with subjective comments.

John
Thanks for the input
I should have taken more time to actually get MY facts straight

I apologize to all that took exception to my errors
I am happy that this thread has stayed on track however

I promise to take more time to be accurate and to be less emotional in the future


Good job everyone lets keep on with the facts so that we all know them

[ron m]

Originally Posted by Bill Monroe

Have any inland meetings been scheduled?

As of 8:51 am on Mar 3, no. At least none is on the meeting list on the seagrant website and I haven't received email notification of one.

http://seagrant.oregonstate.edu/outreach/reserves.html

You can submit comments vial email. Check the website link above for info.

Ginny responded to my emailed question about inland meetings a few weeks ago that she hoped to schedule at least one in the valley. If there was only one, she said it would probalby be in Corvallis.

I'm still hoping.

BTW, two OPAC meetings have been scheduled in Corvallis, both have been cancelled for reasons other than being in Corvallis. There was one STAC meeting in Corvallis. There was also a meeting in Salem, I think it was OPAC but it may have been a STAC meeting.
ron m

[Moldy45]

Originally Posted by Pilar

Educate yourself. Buy Love's book "The Rockfishes of the Northeast Pacific" and get the facts. $26 and every ocean fisher should own a copy. This is a well written and educational book. Many pictures and illustrations including Ray Troll. Our fish and ocean are unique and anything done here had better bear that in mind.

http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/9786.php

Got my copy coming,and I wll read it even though I did post A real fact

[Salty Walty]

Thanks for all that have contributed to this thread. I will try and provide a little History of this issue as this is also important.

The old Ocean Policy Advisory Council (OPAC) did make a recommendation to the Gov. Kitzhaber try and establish experimental Marine Reserves in State Waters. OPAC was disbanded soon after that. One of the reasons was that the Department Heads were also voting members. This was seen as a conflict of interest as most of these persons were appointed to their positions by the Gov. The other voting members who represented the Coastal residents did not have the #s of votes to over turn an issue with the Department heads as voting members. This made OPAC a rubber stamp for the Governors Office. There was another incident that was part of the disbandment. There was also a personal matter between one of the South County commissioners and the Govs office and Staff member. Shortly after the disbandment Rep. Krieger and Commissioner Griffiths wrote HB 3534; http://www.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/legis...tionHB3534.pdf
Which in part restructured OPAC to more fairly represent the Coast in Ocean Matters. The Department Heads were no longer voting members and OPAC was to operate independent of the Govs Office. Marine Reserves were addressed in Section 9.

Fast forward to Oct 2005. OPAC is reconstituted. Next will be a timeline for the Proposals and terms used.

Dec 2005; Gov. Kulongoski announces his desire to nominate the entire Coast of Oregon out to the Continental Shelf as a National Marine Sanctuary. OPAC Members find out about this proposal from the Oregonian not Salem.

Mar 2006; Tillamook OPAC Meeting. This issue was getting heated and one of the members James Good asked the question, "Is No, an option to tell the Gov. regarding his proposal?" Yes was the answer given by Jessica Hamilton. The tone of the Meetings changed after this.

Nov 2006; Depoe Bay OPAC Meeting. OPAC recommends that a Coastwide Sanctuary might not be the States best interest. The Sanctuary is off the Table for now but can be revisited on the future. OPAC is retasked to look at the old OPACs recommendation. For "Oregon establish a limited system of marine reserves in order to test and evaluate their effectiveness in meeting marine resource conservation objectives.” The Marine Reserve Working Group is formed with Frank Warrens as Chairman.

April 2007; Reedsport OPAC Meeting. Direction changed to setting up a limited system for his legacy and to Protect "Special Places". Louise Sollidays remarks were made at this meeting.

June 2007; Corvallis MRWG Meeting. After a 6/1/2007 Meeting in Salem another set of marching orders. (The first post in this thread has a copy of the Meeting directives. Please take note of the persons at the Meeting.
http://www.ifish.net/board/showthrea...highlight=OPAC )
Public Nomination is introduced around this time and timelines set.

Sept 2007; Pacific City OPAC; Fishing Group Consensus Presentation this is important in that it gave Salem some persons who they could use as contacts and spokespersons.

Nov 1 2007; Sen. Verger and fishing representatives meet with Gov. See post #8 for coppy of press release. http://www.ifish.net/board/showthrea...highlight=OPAC

Dec 2007; Vote is taken to not approve Outreach or go further on MRs until South Counties have representation and voting member appointed. Subtle changes in terminology research is being used as a goal more than Heitage.

Jan 2008; Astoria OPAC Meeting; Outreach program is passed and is to start in Feb.
-Govs Chief of Staff Chip Terhune makes whirlwind tour of Coast.
-Commissioner John Griffiths Curry Co. is appointed to his South County seat on OPAC.

Feb 2008; OPAC(full) Meeting Cancelled by Governors Natural Resource Office.
- HB 3609 introduced. It basically stated the Govs 11/1 letter to the fishing community and the process that would be followed as per HB 3534.

Next OPAC Meetings are in Newport 3/27,28

[Cornfed]

Originally Posted by Pilar

That is a great idea and it works with many other fish. But no evidence is in hand that suggests that these fish survive the barotrauma they get when caught. Even when release methods are used. Barotrauma or the 'bends' as many of you know it is caused by the physiology of the fish and the depth change when you catch them. They cant vent their swim bladder and they swell up with gas when you reel them up. The best idea is not to fish anywhere near them and avoid bycatch. All I need is some concern and knowledge and I can (and have) stop catching the wrong fish.

I have read a few items with regards to rockfish survival. I believe that it was an OSU study but will have to look for it. A couple things I learned with regards to the rockfish issue:

When bringing a rockfish up from depth, the last (upper) 15ft of water does the most damage.

The longer the rockfish is at the surface, the more damage that is being done to the fish so the quicker you can get him or her back down, the better.

Different rockfish have different survival rates when brought up from depth. I would imagine this is due to different swim bladder sizes.

From my own experience at Neah Bay:
I have caught a ton of canary's in 60 feet of water. There have been a couple days when we have caught more canary's then other fish. Even in 60' of water, this can be harmful to rockfish.

At Neah Bay, it is difficult to avoid the Canary's at the near shore reefs, but I have never caught one at BlueDot or Swiftsure.

I brought up a copperhead in 300' of water while halibut fishing and he didn't have a single problem. I threw him back in the water and he shot for the bottom.

We discussed rockfish survival rates and conservation and some people had good comments:
http://www.bloodydecks.com/forums/wa...s-methods.html

[Pilar]

Barotrauma survival is great news. I had not heard about it after earlier gloomy results.

Do you have a link to the studies?

Are canaries normally caught that shallow near Neah bay? Is this a recent thing?

[Metal Manipulator]

John I thought that 2 years ago they spoke at the convention in Newport at the Elks. They stated that fish from deep water when lowered in test boxes would start to revive at 40 feet and at 60 feet they were very active and were able to swim back down on their own accord. This gave rise to all the release mechanisms including the 32 oz. modified jighead that I use. They also did testing in pressure tanks so they could monitor them for days as they recovered. I think the survival rate was different for each species and was between 70 and 80% for all fish.

I claim SCD''s for any inacuracies.

[Pilar]

I knew about the swim away part. The sticking point was long term survival. With any luck they have figured that out.

[Metal Manipulator]

Mark MC or Walter, were you not a part of some tagging studies. Can you tell us of any results?

[Salty Walty]

Troy Buell gave a great presentation on the PIT Tagging/Barotrauma study being done by ODFW at the SD Convention. How many saw it? I did and it was one of the more important presentations that you could have attendeded.


The gist of much of the barotrauma research is that more needs to be done. Having said that. There is a big range according to species on the effects. Some fair better than others and some not well at all. The saddest part is that the results of this have been and will be used but are not strictly controlled enough to be valid for scientific purposes as far as sport anglers are concerned. This does not in any way mean that release devices and avoiding undesirable species does not need to occur. We need to also understand that the importance of education ( Ocean.org ) of all anglers needs to be primary goal. The conundrum that occurs here is that if it was deemed OK to release these fish there are those who would continue to fish and impact these fish. I consider the members of this Board to be in the upper echelons of awareness but all we need to do is take a look at the ramp and see how far we need to go.
The best that I can say is that release devices work. If you are targeting rockfish. Please dedicate a rod to a release device, use it and report the species you encounter truthfully.

[Cornfed]

Originally Posted by Pilar

Barotrauma survival is great news. I had not heard about it after earlier gloomy results.

Do you have a link to the studies?

Are canaries normally caught that shallow near Neah bay? Is this a recent thing?

I was told by a WDFW official at Neah Bay that canary's are a mid-water column fish. To that, I said..."Really? I have been catching them on the bottom." SO, to answer your question: I don't know if this is a recent development. I have been fishing Neah Bay for 2 years now and we have caught the canary's in shallow water. i will say this though: I have never caught them north or east of tatoosh: only on the outside and south of the cape. I couldn't tell you why they are shallow: Are they the new stock of fish or juveniles? None of the canary's were really big. They were all (what I would consider) average size, maybe a little smaller than the black rockfish but definitely bigger than the china rockfish. The faster you bring them up, the worse it is for them.

Where can a Washington guy get a bunch of those "reverse hooks" to release these guys? I would like to do a little bit more educating at Neah bay so any posters or suggestions would be welcome.

[Pilar]

Talk to strikefighter he sells the shelton release device.

[ron m]

The shelton release devices work and so do many of the homemade ones. The problem I had was the time it took ;and my device required lowering them carefully to keep the hook form comeing out before the device could take them down to depth.

My solution was to make a basket. My son bought me a metal basket, the metal is covered with vinyl, and I wired about 8 lbs of lead around the top of the basket, attached a rope harnes to the bottom and 100 ft of rope to the harness. It's much quicker to use than the other device I had. I use my pot puller to bring it back up. I realize this isn't what everyone wants ot do, but it's quicker and easier and I'm pretty confident that increases the chances the fish will survive. but as someone else said, it you are catching canary and/or YE, move and fish somewhere else. And as Walter says, be honest about what you've caught and released at depth. If we don't report catching these fish, it will probably be taken as an indication that there are not many of them out there.

ron m

[Bill Monroe]

I think I recall some were using milk crates, upside down...

[Salty Walty]

There are open seats available for the PIT Tagging surveys. They have been using 2 different models for the last few years. PM me if you are interested.