Rockfish Trouble: Backround Article

[Mark Mc]

The public first became aware of this issue via a state hearing on May 21 in Oakland CA. Article from the Oakland Tribune is a few paragraphs down.

The sportfishing clubs and associations in California are screeming bloody murder, and are planning large turnouts at the June 17 - 21
PFMC meeting near San Francisco. I hope we get the same opportunity up here. 'Hookup' makes some great "thought points" in the earlier post.

At this time there is no written proposal available to us, the public. So it is hard to provide comments to an invisible proposal. That being stated, what I would say at this time would be: (1) Sportfishing (the sport harvest) must be given complete precedence over the commercial harvest at this time. If there is any allowable by-catch, it must be used to allow for a sport harvest of non-endanged fish (i.e. salmon, halibut); (2) If commercial fishing for groundfish is banned from the shelf (which it almost certainly will), then under no circumstances should near-shore sportfishing (i.e. < 20 fathoms, for blacks & blues etc) be restricted to allow for an increased commercial harvest, to "compensate" for the displaced commercial fishers.

And if I get the courage, I'd like to say "you *******s, salmon gorge themselves on baby boccaccio every year when they hatch. You'll save 1000 X more boccaccio by letting us harvest ocean salmon, than the few you'd save by not allowing salmon fishing."

Write & Speak Up! - Mark Mc

The Article
Thursday, May 23, 2002 - 3:08:56 AM MST

Overfishing could bring tougher rules
Feds may close Pacific shelf
By Douglas Fischer
Staff Writer

Federal fish managers are preparing brutal new restrictions -- possibly shutting down the entire continental shelf from Mexico to Canada to fishing next year -- as they realize efforts to prevent overfishing off the coast of the Pacific Ocean have failed.
The unprecedented cutbacks, to be implemented in September and effective in 2003, are certain to affect virtually every fishery off the coast -- from salmon to halibut to shrimp to even the Dover sole locals like to hook for dinner, federal managers say.

At worst -- a scenario that many on Wednesday said was quite likely -- the new rules could force recreational and commercial fishers off the water completely, stopping cold an industry that pumps more than $5.5 billion into California's economy.

"We basically could be telling a million people or more that they can't go fishing in the ocean," said Ralph Brown, an Oregon trawl fisher and a member of the Pacific Fisheries Management Council, the federal panel overseeing ocean fishing. "It's that serious."

The magnitude of the decision had anglers, commercial fishers, environmentalists, state and federal biologists grasping for words Wednesday. New harvest levels -- and the Draconian measures necessary to meet them -- were first unveiled Tuesday during a Pacific Fisheries Council subcommittee teleconference.

"If they shut down the shelf, boy, the commercial folks -- it's hard to imagine they could be in deeper trouble," said John DeVore, the council's ground-fish management coordinator. "The levels allowable under even the most optimistic conditions might not even be enough to accommodate the by-catch" of the various fisheries on the continental shelf.

Even worse is the rebuilding period necessary to restore the fishery's health: 156 years for one species, yellow-eye rockfish, assuming all fishing stops next year, according to federal estimates. Boccacio, another hard-hit species, needs 90 years.

The continental shelf gradually slopes from the coast to a depth of about 600 feet, before dropping preciptiously to what is called the continental slope. The bulk of California's commercial and recreational fisheries -- including salmon, halibut, sole, squid, shrimp -- come from the Pacific shelf.

"This is scary stuff," said Pete Leipzig, executive director of the Fisherman's Marketing Association, which represents commercial harvesters in California, Oregon and Washington. "People like myself are struggling with how to get creative -- how we can structure some kind of fishing off the shelf, on the continental slope, to sustain some fishing."

The concern centers on three types of rockfish, a long-lived, slow-growing fin fish once common in offshore reefs and sold as pacific red snapper: boccacio, yellow-eye and canary.

Overfishing has dropped populations so precipitously that fish wardens fret that even accidental by-catch -- fish inadvertently caught while trolling or fishing for other species such as shrimp and halibut -- will push the rockfish into extinction.

This year boccacio, for instance, has an "allowable by-catch" of 100 tons for the entire West Coast. That will shrink to between zero and 14 tons next year, DeVore said. Yellow-eye is even worse, with Oregon, Washington and California splitting no more than 1,200 pounds, or about 300 fish, next year.

For perspective, the International Pacific Halibut Commission conducts an annual survey to assess the health of its stocks. That survey alone, Brown said, will accidentally hook all 300 of those fish, effectively closing every other fishery as no more accidental catches would be allowed.

"If scientists decide to stop doing surveys, we shut down the fisheries," he said. "Because we don't have the information."

Problems won't stop there, either, other experts warned. Fishing restrictions on the continental shelf will send both commercial and recreational boats into the deeper waters of the continental slope or the shallow, state-controlled near-shore waters.

The latter is already under considerable distress, with more than 150 recreational anglers protesting at a state hearing Tuesday night that current harvest limits, particularly for commercial boats, are unsustainable.

Deputy Director Dirk Brazil of the California Department of Fish and Game cautioned that the federal discussions are still too preliminary to start predicting outcomes. "This obviously complicates things. There's no way to sugarcoat that," he said. "But how it's going to manifest itself -- there's no way to say right now."

But privately, others within the department called the situation "extreme," one that could force dramatic change to near-shore regulations that have been nearly three years in the making.

Marine sport fishing, according to department estimates, kicks $5 billion into California's coastal communities and employs 150,000 people. The state's commercial harvest -- the fifth largest in the nation -- is worth about $550 million with the industry keeping 17,000 employed.

"People are going to play the blame game big time on this one," said DeVore. "It got to the point where the game was over 10 years ago, but we just realized it today."

Federal law requires the council to act to protect the species if the data stand up over the summer. Congress or the courts could step in, but there's an example of what happens if politics trumps science, said Mark Powell, acting director of fish conservation for the nonprofit Ocean Conservancy.

In the 1980s scientists predicted the Grand Bank of Canada's Newfoundland coast was being gravely overfished. Regulators fudged and delayed, but by 1992 the decision was made for them: Cod populations crashed, and 30,000 people were thrown out of work, the largest mass layoff ever in Canada.

DeVore said the situation in the Pacific is worse. Cod at least is starting to come back 10 years later. Rockfish will need a century.

"You have a complete cessation of the fishery here, and no one alive today is going to see it come back," he said. "This is one of the most extreme management challenges I'm aware of in fisheries management."

[Sensei-san]

Ahh... Mark... I posted that same article when it was published. May 25, 2002. I really think that Pilar and Jennie should lump all the postings about the rockfish crisis on one topic board. It is going to be as big as the hatchery issue. Maybe bigger as it is looking like a complete closure of all near shore rockfishing. The sad part is that by and large the sport fishing community had almost nothing to do with this crisis.

As Telly Savalas used to say on Kojak years ago.... "I love ya babe... keep up the good work."

[Pilar]

I love the line ...

'

"We basically could be telling a million people or more that they can't go fishing in the ocean," said Ralph Brown, an Oregon trawl fisher and a member of the Pacific Fisheries Management Council, the federal panel overseeing ocean fishing. "It's that serious."

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Horse crap!

I'm quite sure Mr Brown would love for all of us salty dogs to share his pain. If I have my way he will be going down alone .. without the sport fishers. But remember who is on this PFMC council. We have no rep. there, it's all commercial interests.

A million responsible stewards of the resource continuing a selective minimal impact fishery minus the several hundred commercial stripmining vessels that destroyed the fishery in the first place is what it should be.

Just look at Florida and the huge rebound in fish stocks since commercial netting was restricted there. It would take longer here but the results would be the same.

We must resist any attempt by drag netters to include legitimate sport fishers in the draconian measures proposed.

Time for a career change fellas ...

[black magic]

Does anyone know where I can find information on how they know what the populations of certain groundfish species are, what the historical populations have been, and what is the goal as far as a definition of a healthy population. My own personal observation is that there are a lot of canary rockfish near Tillamook Bay. I release several when bottom fishing.

[black magic]

Does anyone know where I can find information on how they know what the populations of certain groundfish species are, what the historical populations have been, and what is the goal as far as a definition of a healthy population. My own personal observation is that there are a lot of canary rockfish near Tillamook Bay. I release several when bottom fishing.

[OceanBlue]

Apparently from the ad hoc meeting yesterday:

The Council and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) are asking recreational and commercial fishers to voluntarily avoid bottom fishing in yelloweye rockfish habitats. This includes avoiding bottom fishing in waters off Washington bounded by the following latitude/longitude coordinates:

48°04'00"N; 125°11'00"W
48°04'00"N; 124°59'00"W
48°00'00"N; 125°11'00"W
48°00'00"N; 124°59'00"W

http://www.pcouncil.org/groundfish/g...w.html#Fishery

Black Magic: The information you seek may be at the PFMC web site... I just haven't had time to find it. I'm sure you could write them and request it, though.

[Mike Gilchrist]

Unfortunatly, we really don't have much of a choice in the matter. Magnuson act (full name: Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act) does not give any specific breaks to any user group. We all pay for the overfishing of one group. Its a fundemental flaw in the legislation. It does not go along with this countries philosophy of crime and punishment, do the crime and do the time. Back in the mid-90's when Magnuson was last amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act we had the opportunity to put a hold on this legislation and wanted to, but we found out to do so would allow a particular pro-commercial fishing legislator to have another crack at it. It was better off going through as is.

But now that Mangnuson is up for re-authorization again this year, it presents and opportunity to make some changes for the better.

-----

Pilar's Mate, The area within those four coordinates is and has been an area closed to halibut for recreational fishing. It was originally put in place because there are many large halibut in that area and that caused us to go through our quota too fast, too few angler days. This year the southern extents of that area was moved farther South because we found out that the majority of our yelloweye were caught in that area. It has helped to reduce recreational yelloweye catch in that region from 14 metric tons last year to less that 3 (hopefully) this year.

Not being very familiar with coastal Oregon, I wonder if there are areas where you catch halibut but just don't find yelloweye. We have a few in Washington like that. It might be helpfull to define areas to allow fishing.

[ 06-05-2002, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: Mike Gilchrist ]

[OceanBlue]

Thanks for the info Mike.

Here is the link for the article in today's Oregonian... it doesn't look like too much is new...

http://www.oregonlive.com/environmen...8180287931.xml

The one piece of info I haven't seen before is that under the new proposal:

"Sport fishers would not be able to keep any rockfish caught at a depth greater than 20 fathoms to 27 fathoms, which is 120 feet to 162 feet."

Interesting.

[Mike Gilchrist]

I don't understand that rule either. The majority of the yelloweye we run into up here is in the 300 range because we get them while fishing for halibut. It would not solve the problem, unless it means that all water would be closed deeper than 20-27 fathoms and they are not sure where in that range they will make the cutoff.

[Mark Mc]

Ahh...Sensei-San, sorry for re-posting the same article; I didn't realize that's what "Oh Brother" was about. I now resolve to read all "Salty Dog" posts!

Regarding yellow eye rockfish habitat: most common depths would be 45 to 70 fathoms. But plenty of strays are caught in 30 to 40 fathoms, such as around the edges of Stonewall Banks.

Mr Brinkman kindly faxed me a copy of the handout from the meeting. This really is a "draft of a draft" plan. The statements are very brief, such as:

"Oregon & California sport: zero rockfish from greater than 20 - 27 fathoms; season restrictions." But no statements on Oregon sport halibut or salmon. But for Washington sport it says: "zero rockfish (zero canary, yellow eye all depths) greater than 25 fathoms; halibut area restrictions."

One guess about 20 vs 27 fathoms: The state-controlled waters is a 3 mile limit. Look at the chart for Oregon: this line fluctuates between the low to upper 20 fathoms for most of the coast. Which is a more easily definable and enforcable boundary, depth or distance? Each has its pros & cons.

One other desperate attempt to read into this, since they mention halibut restrictions for WA but not OR, we could hope it would not affect OR halibut. But what about salmon? Who knows except for those in the smoke-filled rooms...

Do y'all have any thoughts about getting organized to respond to the PFMC on this?

To Mike Gilchrist: What is the role of the RFA up here, in terms of a presence at PFMC meetings, etc? Is the local RFA in communication with the California chapters on this issue?

Thanks everyone! - Mark

[OceanBlue]

Mark: Yes, Pilar and I talked of getting 'organized' today. The goal: to be heard by the council (and perhaps other governing bodies) before any formal proposal is completed. Pilar mentioned trying to reach Mike to see if there is already an effort by his organization to do something similar. The hope is to add the $.02 of the sport fisher, in a constructive manner, so that a win-win-win solution might be reached.

Lots of energy around this issue on the board, unfortunately not all positive. Understandably, this comes from feeling helpless and powerless in the face of this situation. Why not channel some of that energy in a way that might make us all feel better? Who knows? Perhaps it will help the commercial guys, the economy, the sport fishers AND the fish!

Thoughts?

[Mark Mc]

Hello P.M. -

So here is a thought: Yes there are many opinions on this issue, and I hope many folks who would like to do something. But the one thing that really needs to happen now, more than ever, is not just for the hundreds and thousands of sport fishers to speak up, but to do so with a unified voice, with one message. This is what the commercial folks have been doing with their smaller numbers, and it explains in part why they have (for the most part) gotten their way.

Several organizations in California are working on combining their "message" (United Anglers, RFA, and at least one club: Coastside Fishing Club). Although many Oregonions like to trash Californians, with this issue it will work to our benefit if all (interested) sportfishers on the west coast join together to support the same proposal or alternative proposal, as much as they can be common proposals for the 3 states.

So sure, I can write my one letter and show up at a hearing. And we can urge each other on this board to write letters and show up. But we can be more effective by stating & supporting the same message, from many geographical areas.

So that's why I'd like to hear what Mr Gilchrist knows about the NW lobbying efforts, as a starting point.

Best Regards, Mark

[Deepslayer]

There is an interesting legislative proposal at the http://www.freedomtofish.org/f2f/ web site. It deals with the right of sportsfishers to fish. Although it is directed towards areas they are planning to ban fishing in in California, the law could easily apply to all of our West Coast States.
,Ed

[Sensei-san]

I shared some of the thoughts of one of the posters on ifish with a friend in California. He was kind enough to offer some suggestions. He is Jim Martin, a long time sport fisherman on the Mendocino Coast.

Terry's talking points need some editing. Talking points need to be short, and to the
point.

My comments (that of Jim Martin, an expert on rockfish), numbered as in the original:

1. REC FISHING EXPENDITURES: $2.4 million a year, according to NOAA/Dept. of Commerce (2000). Saltwater anglers spend $20 million at least on gas, bait and ice alone. Throw in stuff like boats and tow vehicles, and we are talking serious money. The
nearshore commercial live fish business is estimated to be worth less than $4 million by the DFG.

2: REC VS. COMMERCIAL LANDINGS: Rec: 7% Comm: 93%. We shouldn't argue that we
have no effect at all however. Even a second grader knows that if you eat a fish, it cannot reproduce. The proportions are the key. Deal with the main problem.

3. REC VS. COMMERCIAL MANAGEMENT FUNDING: For every pound of sport caught fish,
recs pay 98 cents for management. Commercials contribute 1.4 cents for each pound.
Nuff said.

4. C&R for rockfish is not a solution. The point is, rec fishing is very manageable. We did
not even whimper when our abalone limits were cut 75% this year, because we trust the
biologists, and besides, 24 abs is enough for anyone.

5. HABITAT - excellent point.

6. Again, recreational fishing is easily managed when we can trust that our conservation
efforts will result in increased fishing opportunities later, and better results (bigger fish,
easier fishing).

7. Loss of management funding will be a very serious point to make: if they close us
down, who is going to pay for all this?

8. Sportfishers are the canary birds of the resource. Keep us around.

9. a. Climate change? Sure, that's an issue, but we cannot change that. If the fish are
depleted because of global climate shifts, we will still need to reduce our impact. Not a
point to defend ourselves.

9 b. Pollution? Not a factor north of San Francisco, and not an identified factor at all by
scientific research. Drop this as a talking point.

9 c. Fur Bags? Drop them, too, from our talking points. Not a changeable factor in our
lifetimes. (I'm adding this.) Sea lions have been here forever and cannot dive deep
enough to deplete shelf rockfish... also salmon eat juvenile rockfish, from time
immemorial... trust me, I am doing everything I can to eradicate the salmon factor :-)

10. REGIONALISM: Be careful here. Local conditions apply, but there are serious pitfalls
to "regional management" - duplicated bureaucracies, one region being played off against
another. Fishermen are mobile- fish, less so. We should stay united as rec fishermen and
not get into regional disputes about who gets what. I will be fishing in your back yard if
fishing is closed in mine.

11. Federal vs. State regs: Terry is way offbase here. State rules must comply with
the Feds or be more restrictive. For example, Washington State closed commercial
rockfishing in its state waters, but they could do that because they were more
restrictive than Federal regs. Washington will have an easier time with the shelf closure,
I imagine, for having the wisdom to take that action a few years ago. Meanwhile, the
Cal. DFG is telling the Nearshore Chapter they can't act on the nearshore commercial
closure because the Feds have authority over many of these species.... don't buy it.

[OceanBlue]

Mike,

Brinckman (the reporter who wrote the Oregonian article) says that they haven't decided where the cut-off will be.

[OceanBlue]

Mark: EXACTLY! I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. YES. A unified message. Crafted with the input of many. There's a lot of brainpower out here. Let's get it together.

Mr. Gilchrist? Do you already have something in the works?

Sensei-san: You have good discussion points.... as many on this board have.

Let's see what efforts are already ongoing and try and join them instead of re-inventing the wheel. I agree that it is better to bring forth a unified voice.

[black magic]

There are three issues ongoing which influence Oregon ocean fishing: Hatchery closures (regional), Groundfish restrictions (west coast), and MPA's (national). I am willing to help with these issues but not alone. Can anyone recomend groups that I can join or work with on each of these issues? (such as the RFA) I must reluctantly reveal that I am politically ignorant. [img]graemlins/1zhelp.gif[/img]

[OceanBlue]

Black Magic:

You inquired in an earlier post about statistics. I did find commercial and recreational information on the NOAA site. There are database queries you can run for historical data on landings.

Recreational: http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/recreatio...ies/index.html

Commercial:
http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/commercial/

They're not terribly complete (or consistent). Good luck!

[Sensei-san]

For blackmagic and others that want to get involved, there are some good groups that are working on the rockfish crisis. Some of them have been mentioned on previous posts. United Anglers of California is a good one. Bob Strickland, the President, is an old friend and a tireless worker. He gave up a good career as a drywall contractor to fight for fishermen. RFA respects Bob and has made Bob one of their key point people on the West Coast. Ted Danson's group American Oceans Campaign, www.americanoceans.org , has done a lot of good scientific research on the damage that trawlers have done to the ocean.

Blackmagic is absolutely correct on the three part issue that faces the rockfish crisis. We need to try to address each of them and try to craft a good course of action. One issue that I do not see getting much press play or scientific interest is the damage that trawlers have had on the benthic environment. Everyone in Oregon complains about the roller and rockhopper trawls but nobody is willing to scientifically prove that the benthos has been destroyed. If it has been destroyed, perhaps like the old bailout programs for loggers, the feds should put the out of work trawlers to work rebuilding the benthos. Did I hear artifical reefs???

[black magic]

Mike Gilcrist,
I would love to meet with Jim Donofrio. A weekday would be better for me as I am self-employed. However I am flexible. I would suggest Waddles Restaurant at Jantzen Beach.
John Holloway

[Mike Gilchrist]

Mark Mc:

The role of the RFA in the Pac NW is one of trying to take on critical issues at the same time trying to get established. There are really only a handful of RFA volunteers across Washington and Oregon putting in the time to work issues. So right now our biggest barrier is manpower. California is a bit more organized with two chapters and a lot of volunteers. I have not spoken personally to any of the California Reps but this is certainly the issue that we should be approaching together with one voice. Our staff at the national office should be aware of the California issues. In the future, I would like to see RFA Reps at every council meeting and all three states have basic knowledge of what issues they should be watching for the other states.

As far as lobbying efforts, nearly all the lobbying by sportfishing in Washington and Oregon is directed at salmon. The only recreational voice out there has been charter boats and coastal businesses. There are organizations that I know of in Oregon but not sure of their size: Oregonians for Fish and Fishing, and another that escapes my memory. In Washington, Puget Sound Anglers take some interest in coastal fishing, but they are not really set up politically. RFA has probably the best infrastructure to tie all the fishing clubs into a unified voice.

Deepsleeper:
The freedom to fish act was the baby of the American Sportfishing Association (ASA), a trade group. RFA is in full support of that legislation as it will protect anglers from MPA's in the future all over the country. You can find our support for it and our position paper against MPA's at www.savefish.com.

Sensei-san:
I love Jim's list. The only thing I disagree slightly in is #10. While I agree that we don't want to play one region against another, we also don't want to have a region (or regions) with specific problems dragging other regions down with them. An example, its going to be tough to convince me that we have a yelloweye problem in Washington State when recreational fishing alone caught between 10 and 12 metric tons in less than 2 months worth of fishing for three consecutive years. Yet we are looking at loosing our halibut fishery because we don't have enough yelloweye in other areas, as if Washington yelloweye stocks will somehow help out Oregon and California.

A bit of lucky timing, Jim Donofrio, executive director of RFA, is flying into Seattle next week. For those of you who are interested in talking more, we will be making a trip to the Portland area. I haven't scheduled it yet, but if there is interest, I can plan it for Saturday the 15th to try to accommodate those who work for a living. Unfortunately, I would not know where to meet so someone would have to work that out for me. Jim will know what is going on with our chapters and affiliate clubs in California. He also knows all the federal laws that apply and if we need to hire a lobbyist out here to deal with these issues.