Does this make sense?

[Pilar]

Some of you new tuna fishers may be wondering ... What are the rules? Or better yet, why are there so few rules regarding Tuna here in Oregon.

There has been much discussion here regarding limits, methods and reporting catches. If you have a chance and an idea regarding this subject please post here.

Some of the Salty Dogs are going to approach ODFW with suggestions for tuna fishing. We need to do some things to make sure we can keep fishing and that the stock is not damaged by the increase in fishing effort.

The limits bother me the most. Is 25 Swordfish a sensible limit? Or how about 25 Marlin? And really do you need 25 albacore for every fisher on the boat?

I can tell you that 36 for 2 fishers was alot of fish. We could have sunk the boat and legally taken 50 that day but stopped when we had a 'moment of clarity' in the heat of blood lust.

These are but a few of the many topics and concerns I heard discussed this summer at our various forays into the blue.

What do you think?

[seasquid]

I'll just say 25 is ridiculous! What is one person going to do with 25 on one trip? In my opinion, you could easily cut the limit in half to 12.5, make that 12. I'm plenty busy with 12.

My $.02.

ss

[Threemuch]

It's not just here, CA has no limit at all on albacore. Mexico has a limit of just 5, I think.

I think talking about limits for Swordfish and Marlin is silly. How about the limit for Dorado, Yellowtail, and Roosterfish? Or bluefish, togs and sails? Somebody stop us, before we deplete the resource!

For me, I think 5 is a sensible limit. I have only kept more than 5 albies a couple of times. Our best day was 47 for two people and as punishment for our sins, the boat broke down. 50 miles is a long ass tow. Gave us plenty of time to have them all shucked by the time we hit the dock. The last two fish were hooked up on the tow in.

KB

[tailchaser]

I'm not so sure I would agree with the 5 limit. It's not economical at all to go 40 miles, fish all day and be able to bring home 5. I'm not saying 25 is a reasonable number either.

If it's going to happen I would say 15 is plenty for anyone and would make the trip well worth it for me. It's liberal enough to give you a good amount of fish for those who don't make it out there every other weekend, and will cut some of the overfishing as well.

tc

[skein]

'Tis true. I've been wondering just what I would do with a cord of tuna stacked in the fish locker. I also worry about the flak I might take by quitting when the bite is on, simply because I have all the fish I think I can handle. (Could I really do that?)

Bottom line - and all kidding aside - I'm a sustainable fisheries kind of guy, and feel we ought to be smart enough to look ahead and manage a magnificent resource like off-shore fishing.

Thanks for bringing this up, John.

Skein

[skein]

One more thing. Everything I've read indicates there is no chance for catch and release with these puppies. Sounds like they're toast by the time you get 'em near the boat.

I agree with tailchaser, it's not economical to go to tuna town for 5 fish. I'm thinking 10 - 12 might be more realistic.

Skein

[Longfin]

Of all the stocks of fish currently off the Or coast the albacore is by far the most healthy. Not to say that it could change in the future but as of now. Commercial interest is mainly selling the caught fish off the boat because cannery prices dont make economic sense for the fisherman. Also the number of sport boats fishing for them is so small at the current time that the catch doesnt even put a dent in the fishery. I am all for a limit on albies smaller than the current one but dont think the current limit and the amount of pressure puts the resource in danger at the current time. Also just viewed a 25' C-dory just now in production with twin Honda 90's. Any comments on the C-dory construction and fishability?

[Sadie-Lynne]

One other thing to consider is most people only make it out once or maybe twice a year.
maybe the limit should be based on a season.
a max of so many a trip not to exceed so many in any one season.

[Beer Waggin]

As I seem to remember, there used to be hordes of sturgeon on the Columbia so thick that salmon couldn’t be harvested. After they knocked the crap out of those fish, they proceeded to deplete the salmon runs (not that the dams helped this in any way either).
If we don’t put limits on our healthy tuna fishery, we may some day see it limited to the point that it’s not worth the cost to catch the fish. I couldn’t imagine running out 30 miles to only catch a couple of fish. Oh wait, that’s what we get to do for halibut now! It will only be a matter of time, before the commercial fisherman deplete their catch of tuna in other parts of the world and start looking for new water. (I’m not sure of the commercial impact on the Pacific Tuna. Anybody know?)
I’ve yet to fish for tuna and hopefully next year I will. I just hope it’s a lasting resource that we can all enjoy for many years to come. Limits are needed, but to what extent, I’m not sure. 10-12 fish per person seems like more than enough.

[tailchaser]

This whole subject raises the hackles on my neck wondering what in the heck ODFW is up to now. It's not new the fact they would love to regulate the fishery for the sole fact of making it into a tag that you must purchase. What that means is $$. They don't regulate things for free, and they've tried to get their paws on it for years. We pay them to manage local fisheries and I would like someone to enlighten me on how they would improve that one?? I'm not against making a lower limit to 15 or so, but if there's more involvement than meets the eye I'm not too fond of their ideas from the past.

Bottom line is there's a fishery off of our coast that they don't have any control over and it bugs them. Thier own laws say they don't have the say so, but they need our approval to change it. I'm pretty sure the fishery is in great shape. It seems to be every year. When the water's warm the tuna are there. From S. Cal to Washington for gods sake. I just question how many changes we might see.

tc

[Beer Waggin]

Well from the looks of the PFMC summary on Albacore, it doesn't look like the fish are being over harvested. It also says that the members who regulate the fishery don't have to agree. So I'm assumeing that that means that if Japan wants more fish, there isn't much the US can do about it.
Huge report. I only looked at the Albacore section and then briefly skimmed the other tuna sections, but will take a closer look when I have time.

[Deepslayer]

After reading the PMFC I have no problem leaving the limits as they are now. The Albacore biomass has been increasing dramatically since 1980! So abviously we are not hurting this fishery. As far as other bill fishes I can't imagine catching more than one or two of them off the Oregon coast. So I don't think I would worry about anybody ever catching 25!
I have always stopped before reaching 25 because I know how much fun - NOT - it is cleaning them, but someday I may want to keep 25. And I would like to maintain that option as long as the stocks are as healthy as they presently are!
IMHO, Ed

[Chum King]

I have to agree with Sensei-san, the main issues that should be addressed are those that limit fishing methods. Currently, both Oregon and Washington anglers are limited to one fishing rod/line and chumming is prohibited. In California, they allow both chumming and multiple lines for albacore and some other marine species. These techniques are apparently very important in being able to fish albacore effectively, but are currently illegal off Oregon.

Neither Washington or California have a bag limit on albacore, and in the PFMC Highly Migratory Species plan there is no proposal to adopt federal limits on the sport catch at this time. I have been informed that PFMC is deferring to the states for recreational management. To the best of my knowledge, there is not a current resource management concern for albacore that is tied to the sport fishery.

As for state jurisdiction outside of 3 miles, yes the state can regulate and enforce state regulations from 0-200 miles on any species not managed by PFMC and NMFS. That includes such things as dungeness crab, albacore tuna, pink shrimp, etc. There is some question about how that would be interpreted for albacore after the Highly Migratory Species plan is adopted assuming there are no specific regulations for the sport fishery.

The 25 tuna bag limit in Oregon is not really a tuna bag limit. It is the bag limit for miscellaneous fish and includes all the marine fish not listed under other regulations including albacore, marlin, dogfish, shiner perch, etc. Is it excessive to come in with 25 albacore per angler? Probably. Is it excessive to come in with 25 striped marlin per angler? Definitely. Is it excessive to keep 25 shiner perch? Hardly. The limit was originally established to discourage waste, and should probably be reviewed in light of the growing offshore albacore fishery.

Although California does have special limits on a number of the "big game" species. I guess I wouldn't worry about establishing special bag limits for species like mako shark, broadbill swordfish, or striped marlin off Oregon, until someone actually manages to catch a few.

So go get 'um Pilar!

[WP]

Oregon doesn't limit the number of lines for tuna outside 3 miles! 10-12 tuna per day is more than I can process anyway! My boat with 50-100 tuna would be an issue as I can't put that many in it! Let us enjoy the resource and notcreate problems where they don't exist yet. I agree with John that being proactive is a good way to reduce the number of "bad" rules and laws, but proposing some that are not needed or desirable seems foolish. Albacore, like salmon, halibut, rockfish, sardines, cod, etc. have had their numbers reduced below critical mass because of greed. Mostly commercial greed, but also sport greed. If we eliminated commercial harvesting, or reduced it to a very minimal supportable level (~10-25% of current harvests) and enforced sanctions on over harvest offenders, we would not need this discussion. Take the dollars and greed away and the resource will take care of itself.
Just my opinion, as a former commercial fisherman and current sport fisherman....we need to do this...or our fish resources will do it for us...with a little help from mother nature.
WP

[Chum King]

One more time:

Through the Magnuson Fishery and Conservation Act the federal gov't took over management authority of most fishery resources within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). That zone extends from 3-200 miles from shore. The Magnuson Act also spelled out that authority for species not managed under the act (including albacore) were under the authority of the state and state laws could be applied out to 200 miles. That means that current state rules that limit the number of lines per angler to one and the prohibition on chumming apply out to 200 miles off Oregon (if you are in an Oregon licensed vessel - that is the test as to whether you fall under the state laws outside of 3 miles). Here is the text right from the act which is available on the web at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/magact/

104-297
(3) A State may regulate a fishing vessel outside the boundaries of the State in the following circumstances:
(A) The fishing vessel is registered under the law of that State, and (i) there is no fishery management plan or other applicable Federal fishing regulations for the fishery in which the vessel is operating; or (ii) the State's laws and regulations are consistent with the fishery management plan and applicable Federal fishing regulations for the fishery in which the vessel is operating.

[wak'm&stak'm]

I am not sure where this is coming from either.

I sure as hell wouldn't put a bug in someones ear if it is not nessesary. To approach any fishery with a suggestion of limits less then the present ones is insane to me. Ask for 50 and you will get 10.

The day we caught 40 for two of us was great, and I kick myself everyday for not sticking around for the last 10.

If they drop the limits I will just put another person in the boat, if that they drop in again, I will just add another....so on and so forth.

The day I came back and the fish checker lady meassured every fish just ****** me off. Then to top in off she wanted to know where I caught them, what my income was, do I rent or own, blah blah blah........ geez...don't get me started on the states bull#%%#$#%^^

[Uglygreen]

DITTO Wak'em&Stack'em.... Let this dog lie.

As for Chumking... read the oregon revised statutes. In chapter 496 the state limits the applicibility of its wildlife laws and the authority of ODFW to manage fish and wildlife to the boundries of the state. Thus the landing limit is the only Oregon law that applies.

For the provision of the Magnuson act that you quote to apply, the state would have to create statutory authority for ODFW to magage fisheries or wildlife outside the "lands and waters of the state".

"104-297
(3) A State may regulate a fishing vessel outside the boundaries of the State in the following circumstances:"

The important part of this is "may regulate" which is optional. The legislature has never given ODFW statuatory authority to do or to regulate anything outside 3 miles.

NOTE that this has been tested in court and that is the whole reason that they wrote the "landing" regulation to try to control something that is outside their (ODFW's) control.

LEAVE THIS ALONE >>> the simple physical protection of 30 + miles of open ocean to get to the fish will keep the recreational harvest to the point where there is no impact from us. The state has pretty much screwed up every other recreational fishery, why would you think that this will be any different?

UG

[Mark Mc]

Last January, I posted the following "white paper" on this board, and also a follow-up survey. At that time, most of the comments from responders were not very supportive of any involvement in the process, nor was there much support for providing sportfishing data. So I'll say it one more time: If our sport-caught tuna are not counted, then if there is ever a quota system the sport allottment will be based on a severe underestimate of our actual catch (Oregon scores at the bottom of the 3 western states for recording sport albacore catches).

Last spring the PFMC did make some decisions. Some were real favorable, such as bans on gillnets down south, and restrictions on longlines. But much of the other proposals were not acted on.

Here's my original post; it's a long one. MM
-------------------------------------------------------
Hi All, this long post is about the “Highly Migratory Species” (HMS) plan being developed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council. The actual title is “Draft Fishery Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species.” You may have heard about the upcoming public hearings on this plan, between January 28 and February 4 at various locations.

I requested a copy of the plan, and recently received it in CD ROM form. It’s a set of Acrobat files, about 64 Meg, and about 800 pages long.

The purpose of this post is:
- to share the highlights of the plan, and how it may impact recreational fishing for HMS;
- to share a few of my interpretations of certain elements;
- to share how you can get more information, and how you can provide feedback to the PFMC;
- to solicit your feedback on a few specific issues, in order to formulate my comments which I will submit to the council.

I’ll use arrows >>> to emphasize my interpretations or opinions.

Out of the 4 appendices and 10 chapters, I focused on 4 sections:
- Introduction
- Chapter 2, Description of the Fisheries
- Chapter 8, Proposed Action and Alternatives
- Chapter 9, Environmental Consequences of Proposed Action and Alternatives

The Introduction summarizes the whole plan, including concerns around recreational & charter boat fishing.

Chapter 2 describes all the different commercial fisheries, sport / charter, and where it all takes place. It also discusses socio-economic aspects of all the major ports in CA, OR, and WA.

Chapter 8 contains the proposed regulations, restrictions, data gathering plans; basically, what changes will happen, or might happen.

Chapter 9 describes some of the anticipated impacts to people from the proposed actions & alternatives, and the “logic” used to arrive at these impacts.

------------------------Introduction –----------------

The beginning of the introduction describes this plan as “.….a “Framework” fishery management plan (FMP), which includes some fixed elements and a process for implementing or changing regulations without amending the plan. The framework will provide flexibility to address new issues as they arrive.” >>> In other words, there are some specific new rules being proposed, but other areas that still need to be worked out. The framework will allow future changes in regulations, related to these yet-to-be worked out issues, without a major approval (“act of congress” as we sometimes say).

18 separate “Management Goals and Objectives” are listed, including:

#1 “Promote and actively contribute to international efforts for the long-term conservation and sustainable use of the HMS fisheries that are utilized by west coast-based fishers, while recognizing these fishery resources contribute to the food supply, economy, and health of the nation.”

#2 “Provide a long-term, stable supply of high-quality, locally caught fish to the public.”

#3 “Whenever practicable, minimize economic waste and adverse impacts on fishing communities when adopting conservation and management measures.”

#4 “Provide viable and diverse commercial fisheries and recreational fishing opportunity for HMS based in ports in the area of the Pacific Council’s jurisdiction, and give due consideration for traditional participants in the fisheries.”

The other 14 include things such as optimum yield & sustainable harvest levels, minimizing federal / state conflicts, acquiring better research data, and allocation of harvests.

The scope in terms of species covered is:
- 5 tuna (north pacific albacore, yellowfin, bigeye, skipjack, and northern bluefin)
- 5 pelagic sharks
- 2 billfish
- dorado

The scope in terms of geography is: West coast based fisheries. Hawaii and Island Territories are covered by the Western Pacific Management Council, which has their own management plan.

Regarding Recreational Fisheries, following is the short paragraph:
“Data on catch, effort and economics of west coast recreational fisheries for HMS are inadequate, and the plan includes recommendations for research and data collection that would fill these gaps. Current reporting requirements, license provisions and bag limits in the three west coast states are different. The need for bag limits to reduce waste, the level of such limits, and whether federal bag limits are required, are issues. Initially, the Council proposes to defer to the states on most measures.” It also talks about a voluntary catch-and-release program. >>>This lack-of-data issue is what’s behind a potential change for recreational fishers, covered in chapter 8.

Regarding a commercial fishing implication that overlaps into charterboat operations:
Where they discuss specific fisheries (still in the introduction), it appears that “some” individuals from the US jig boat (“surface hook and line”) expressed concern to the PFMC about the Canadian fleet abusing the mutual privilege of fishing in the other’s waters, and “….that a limited entry program may be needed to control excess capacity. In response to this concern, the Council adopted a control date of March 9, 2000 in the event that a limited entry program may be needed in the near future……and that any new entrants in the fishery after the control date might not qualify for a permit.” >>> So even though this plan does not declare that we must have limited entry, you can almost guaranty that it’s going to happen sooner or later. Under this system, if a charter boat can not prove it ran trips for tuna before 3/9/00, it will not get the permit, and will not be able to take paying passengers on tuna trips. It can take all it wants for free, though!!!

------------Chapter 2 Description of the Fisheries-----

All fisheries (commercial & sport) are discussed, with much data (charts, landings, revenue, etc.) relating to commercial.

The section on Recreational Fishing has 2 parts: Charter/Party Boat Fleet and Private Sport Fishing Fleet. There is a historical summary that discusses mostly southern California & Baja Mexico. Under the charter section, there is much data about number of boats, number of those employed (including both crew and shore-based), number of angler-trips, and dollars spent.

Differences are noted in state regulations: No catch or possession limit in Washington for albacore, but a 25 fish limit in Oregon. It doesn’t mention California limits here. CA requires charter boats to fill out catch log books; OR & WA do not, but WA has a voluntary charter logbook program, with a 69% compliance rate in yr 2000.

Some noteworthy quotes regarding data:

“Biological and socioeconomic data for HMS recreational fisheries pale in comparison to those for HMS commercial fisheries.”

“In Oregon,It is difficult to separate the charter/party boat fishery from the private vessel recreational fishery. Private vessels make up approximately 30-40% of the total recreational catch.”

Earlier in the intro part of this document, it states that in 1999, for all west coast ports, commercial albacore landings from all gear types was 9,706 metric tons ( 1MT = 2,204 lbs). The sport albacore catch (both private & charter) was 180,000 fish, or 1,746 MT (21 pound average).

>>> Discussion
The commercial landings are probably pretty accurate because of the recordkeeping requirements & methods. And records for California charterboats are pretty good as well, and we know about the 69% of Washington charterboats. But how do they know what the private boat catch was? They cite a “Marine Recreational Fishing Statistical Survey” done by NMFS……Have YOU ever been surveyed at the dock, or via the mail? (See other post for informal survey!) And how would they know that private boats in Oregon get 30 – 40% of the catch, when neither the charter boats nor privates are required to keep a log or add tuna to the fish ticket (on the personal license)? My gut feeling is that the sport-caught albacore (the 180,000 fish) is an undercount, but by how much? In chapter 9, some solutions to this problem are proposed. One requires that all charterboats keep a log. This is a no-brainer, great idea. But how will they count the private boat catch? This plan alludes to “fairly’ sharing the harvest. Therefore, sportfishing counts need to be accurate, otherwise any sharing quota will be based on a likely undercount. Stay tuned…..

-------Chapter 8 Proposed Action and Alternatives,
and Chapter 9 Consequences (together)--------------

Proposed Action 8.5.1: “Require that all commercial HMS fishing vessels obtain a federal permit with an endorsement for the gear type(s)…; do not establish a federal permit for requirement for vessels used in recreational HMS fishing; and authorize adjustment of the permit requirements through the framework process.” >>> So no actual limited entry permit for commercial or charterboats yet, but the cutoff date of 3/9/00 has been set. Alternatives to this proposal include:
#1 No Action

#4 “Require a federal permit for all recreational vessels to fish for HMS…Similar to commercial fishing, this would provide a mechanism for identifying the vessels and participants in recreational HMS fisheries so that data collection and research could be more focused and effective in monitoring these fisheries.”

#6 “Require a federal or state permit for all recreational vessels to fish for HMS. An existing state permit or license for recreational vessels could meet this requirement. Federal permits would only be required for those that do not have a state program.”

Proposed Action 8.5.2: “Require all commercial and charter HMS fishing vessels to maintain and submit to NMFS logbook records of catch and effort statistics for all waters fished..”

Jump to chapter 9:
In 9.3.3.2.2 Recreational Fishing Vessels, it discusses the needs, and the pros & cons of requiring a permit for sportfishers. It begins: “One alternative being considered in this category is to require that every owner of a vessel used to recreationally fish for HMS obtain a permit for that vessel. During the development of this FMP, the lack of data to permit complete description of and analysis of alternatives relevant to recreational fishing was often discussed, and the major shortfall in completing proper analyses is the lack of a good data base. A permit for all recreational vessels harvesting HMS would provide the statistical ‘universe’ needed for monitoring the fisheries; however, there are difficulties with this approach.”
It goes on to list these difficulties, which include:
- previous opposition to federal permits;
- distinguishing between HMS fishers and other recreational fishers;
- cost to establish a data base;
- fee for permit, and objections by HMS fishers that they are being singled out (from all sportfishers);

>>> Discussion
To pull this all together: In order for the sport catch to be fairly represented, it needs to be counted. In order to be counted, there needs to be a process. The plan’s primary recommendation for this process is via a permit system. But there are concerns about resistance to this, and concerns for cost of creating & managing the database (“where will NOAA or the PFMC get the money to process this data?”) The plan does not actually say how the permit would tie to any data collection process, anyway. In all likelihood, it would just amount to a mailing list of permit holders,
And they would need to mail us or call us with a survey, which would be somewhat voluntary anyway.

My own opinion is that since this data is needed so badly, they should take a stand on this, and figure out a process for collecting data. Taking no action at all to collect data is the worst option. How about at least a voluntary plan for private sportfishers? Create a log sheet or survey form, and put it on the web. We voluntarily fill it out & send it in each year. Give us a baseball cap with “PFMC HMS Volunteer” on it (oh, that’s for an extra $10 bucks).

If you have an opinion on permit, versus a voluntary log sheet, or other idea, please see the other post HMS Part 3.

----------------------- In Closing---------------------

Although there are items that may be of concern to us, overall this plan document is quite impressive. A huge amount of research was done. It clearly points out the need for much more data from private sportfishers. The upcoming short hearings, and the final multi-day hearings in Sacramento, and the mail-in option, offer a process by which your voice can be heard. Please take advantage of this opportunity.

If you’d like more information on the hearings & input process, receive several pertinent chapters of the plan by e-mail, or obtain the whole plan, see other post (HMS part 2)

This ends my little report. Thanks for spending the time on it.

[Chum King]

Well UG, I am not sure where in the Oregon Revised Statutes you are getting your information. I would appreciate it if you could cite the section. I read through chapter 496 but was unable to find any language that would limit the jurisdiction or applicability of the regulations to within 3 miles of shore.

In 1974, prior to the Magnuson Act being adopted, the Oregon had already established their own fishery conservation zone out to 50 miles off shore see ORS 506.755 below. Although I believe the intent was primarily to manage commercial fisheries, the language of the section is more general and has been interpreted by the state attorney general to include the recreational fishery as well.

506.755 Fisheries Conservation Zone; rules; jurisdiction over zone; penalty; construction. (1) The State of Oregon adopts a Fisheries Conservation Zone for the maintenance, preservation and protection of all coastal species of fish and other marine fisheries resources between the mean high water mark of the state and a straight line extension of the lateral boundaries of the state drawn seaward to a distance of 50 statute miles.

(2) Activities of marine commercial fishing within the limits and boundaries of the Fisheries Conservation Zone shall be under the jurisdiction and regulation of the commission.

(3) The commission shall study the fishery within the zone and when appropriate adopt, amend or repeal all rules, according to the provisions of ORS 506.119 and 506.129 necessary for the maintenance, preservation and protection of all coastal species of fish and other marine fisheries resources.

(4) The jurisdiction within the Fisheries Conservation Zone shall include, but not be limited to, provisions for inspection of catch, particularly regarding anadromous fish; rules relating to methods of fishing, size and kind of gear and nets; rules designating seasons, closures and restricted areas.

(5) ORS 506.501 to 506.695 shall provide the authority for enforcing rules adopted by the commission as specified in this section.

(6) Subject to ORS 153.022, any person convicted of violating any rule authorized under the provisions of this section shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $10,000.

(7) Nothing contained within this section is intended to abrogate a nation’s right of free passage or navigation of the high seas.

(8) Nothing contained within this section is intended to abrogate international fish compacts, agreements or treaties providing for the management of anadromous or pelagic fish species. [1974 c.3 §2; 1983 c.740 §204; 1999 c.1051 §313]

[OceanBlue]

John, I'm wondering where this is coming from? Are you hearing that there might be regulation coming, or are you trying to suggest that we should be proactive?

I know that regulating billfish is being considered - and I'm all for it! 25?! That's insanity.

Albacore? I'm thinking 15 is more than enough for a person in a day. BUT - considering that these fish are highly migratory, would it have much impact if Oregon managed the fishery without the rest of the pacific-bordering states/countries doing the same?

[Sensei-san]

I have actually caught the Oregon limit on a partyboat but it was over two days so technically it was half a limit. So twelve seems like a reasonable limit for albacore. But the issue of a humongous number of swordfish or billfish seems excessive. I do believe that they are already covered under international treaty or the PFMC to a lower number.

More important I think the issue of the number of poles, chumming, and live bait fishing should be clarified. Under the Oregon regulations, live bait fishing in the marine zone is legal but nobody knows that. But the number of poles and chumming should be clarified. As tail-chaser and skein point out, going all that distance to fish with a couple of poles or not being able to attract the fish if you want to live bait fish seems stupid. In tuna fishing, the total limit is more important than enforcing silly state regulations in the EEZ.

[black magic]

It is my understanding that this issue is outside of ODFW jurisdiction. They can only regulate 0-3 miles offshore. This is a matter for NMFS through Pacific Fisheries Management Council. ODFW can only do enforcement from 3-200 miles.

[OceanBlue]

Uh-oh.
PFMC Highly Migratory Species Draft Management Plan

It talks about managing HMS from Albacore to striped marlin and dorado to thresher sharks.

It also mentions prohibiting retention of several species INCLUDING: Pacific Halibut and Pacific Salmon.

Happy reading!

[Snakebite]

Sounds like WakEm's got a chip on his shoulder. People should realise that being able to fish is a privilige, not a right, and as such should be a bit more sensitive and cooperative when it comes to what ODFW is doing. Remember, when the fish checker pi$$es you off, that they are just doing their job, and dissing the bottom of the totem pole doesn't do you or anyone else any good.

[wak'm&stak'm]

I was polite and charming to her, as i am to almost everyone.....BUT .....I am sick and tired of the states ********, and when asked all kinds of questions about my income just adds fuel to the fire.

They are stewarts of the wildlife that we are all owners of. They have made it a business and $$$$ is the bottomline.

I try to be as law abiding as possible....BUT it is pretty DAMN hard when they cut a river into a dozen regions, ( flies here, no chinooks here, bait OK, hardware only, kid area, tribal area, no motors, blah blah blah......
They have made a joke out of the regs, and created jobs for themselves.

Maybe you can stomach it all......but I think it is ridiculous.

Gee lets start on game laws, and cow and doe tags next. If you want to see some fleecing of Oregonians going on.....read the Big Game Synopsis.

I believe everyone should be able to enjoy the outdoors, and I realize they have it so &$%#$#%^& Up that many low income families can't teach their children what we enjoy.

I AM SICK OF OVER REGULATION.........PERIOD

Wak,
Yes. :depressed:

[ 10-20-2002, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[corrirod]

Wow, I've been out elk hunting but this thread is much more exciting than my trip.

I'm going to keep this short for my own health,

WHO SCREWED UP THE FISHERIES?

ODFW? I don't think so.

WHY ARE THE REGS SO SCREWED UP?

Because all of the recreational fishermen voice their opinions at the ODFW meetings? I don't think so.

If we don't help them we can't complain when the regs are screwing us!

Believe me, I'm more than unhappy about some of the regs currently but I didn't try to stop them so now I'm stuck with them.

This looks like an opportunity to make rules that we establish. I would much rather follow rules I established than have someone, whose removed from the situation, make rules for me.

I'm think 15 fish limit on albies is plenty (but that's probably because I can never catch more than that! :tongue: )

Unlike some of the people on this board, I don't want to test the legal system by going to court. Either I'm fishing lawfully, or I'm not.

Wak'm is right about completely confusing the regs and that needs to stop. One of the things that confuses me is measuring ocean salmon vs. inside salmon. Why the hell can you fold the tail in the ocean but not in the bay? Now I have to remember where I'm at before I release/retain that fish! It's crazy!

But again, I need to stop complaining on this board and start complaining to ODFW to change it.

I'd like to get a tally of just how many tuna fisherpeople (notice the PC) and future tuna fishers are on this board. Maybe we could setup a poll. The reason I wonder is because Pilar told me it was all he could do to find people to fish with a year or two ago. This year we had whole fleets of fishermen going out. It's certainly not going to get any smaller. Several people, including myself, are planning there next boat around it's tuna fishing ability! Needs to be bigger; hold more gas; have outriggers; autopilot; 4 stroke outboards for fuel economy; etc....

We (Ifish) are becoming a strong political force in Oregon. Hopefully we can use it for the good of our sport.

******I tried to keep it short but....

[ 10-20-2002, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: corrirod ]

[Deepslayer]

That folding a tail thing really threw me for a loop. :whazzup: I must have missed something this year. I know that you don't have to put the measurements of the salmon on your tags. Just the type, date and location and make sure they are legal sized.
I agree with you about the regulations. Complaining on this board does no good. From what I saw at the meetings I attended all we have to do is submit rule change proposals to the board on anything we want changed. I am not sure how they wave their wands and approve the changes though.
,Ed

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Corrirod

Although I would tend to disagree with you over who is to blame regarding screwed up fisheries I believe you are correct with respect to looking at fixing the current regulations. Fishermen should help come up rules that can be applied equally and evenly.
I spoke with Rhine Messmer at ODFW a while back and he indicated that they will be doing a complete redo on the regulations for 2004 and that they will start working on them in several months. E-mail him and let him know you want to help with streamlining and simplifying the current regulations. Ask him how you can help. Tell him you want to get involved…

His e-mail is: Rhine.T.Messmer@state.or.us

[RFA Janice]

The PFMC, a conjoint council of the states, NMFS, tribes, charters fishermen (as it now stands), commercial fishermen, and processors, manages the HMS species under the M-S Act as soon as it adopts a fisheries management plan for them. At its next meeting, in SF, it has on the agenda doing exactly that (agendum D, Tuesday).

So far as I know, this plan was developed partly because the Hawaiian long-line fleet wanted to come over here--having been shut out of large parts of the seas there--to continue their longlining. I think the plan may be pretty sound with regard to longlining, but it has been a long uphill battle fought almost entirely by sportfishermen from Southern California. Anyway, the plan will cover tuna.

Everything about your tuna fishing, your bill fishing, your limits, your seasons, allocations between commercail and sports, will be controlled by the PFMC. There is a HMS Advisory Subpanel on which Oregon should have much better representation than it does. (We have decent representation on advisories for salmon, but sportfishing in general gets short shrift at the Council level, particularly ignoring non-charter sportfishermen.) California does have two sportfishermen on the HMS subpanel. Oregon has one processor from Newport.

So here is what I would say. To protect yourselves and your fishing, and to have some voice in what happens to your beloved tuna, you need to have someone who pays attention to what is happening to HMS at the Council level. I would nominate Mark, but anyone who could attend the important meetings, even only the meetings which occur in Portland (about half), would be a plus. It kinda has to be a passion, as it has little positive reward over the short haul; it has to be an act of giving to protect the cultural rights of future sportsmen.

Anyway, anyone who is interested in the Council process, how to get involved, how to improve Oregon's representation on the HMS panel, how to start building allies, can e-mail me and we will get a longer discussion going.

I can't do it for now, as I have been representing non-charter sportfishermen on the Groundfish Advisory Subpanel as best I could, and that is all one can handle at these meetings. I'm really, really interested in salmon, for instance, but only have time for the groundfish meetings. I'm real interested in tuna, too, but I wouldn't be able to attend the pertinent meetings while active on groundfish. We need more Oregonians knocking at the door, saying we have a fishery, and we need to be considered.

I've been trying to just get one other non-charter sportfisherman from any state on the Groundfish Advisory Subpanel. They're going to consider that request again this upcoming meeting, so I am making a little progress (I think).

OK. I'm off my soapbox.

[boater]

wak-um, i agree with you, its all about money.

[out 2 launch]

Hi to all. Only 2nd mess. I have sent, but read your comments everyday. I find this group very interesting & informative. As to Tuna fishing, I hooked my 1st one last year, & am now HOOKED myself. As for limit, even tho there aren't many days I would go out the distance needed to find the tuna, I believe 25 is excessive. We canned 50 + pints, ate steaks, & smoked some, & that was 8 fish. I would think 12 to 15 would be more than enough. My 2 cents worth. You have a great day

[OceanBlue]

Wow! In reading all the comments about regs, one thing is certain: NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THEY REALLY ARE, who writes them, who enforces them, etc.

Darned shame.

Wak, I think perhaps you might consider that all the questions you are asked at the dock are intended to understand the importance of sportfishing to the economy. If that is understood, our voice is only that much stronger than it is today - which is admittedly weak, but getting stronger due to our recent, unified involvement.

*** - If anyone has screwed up our fisheries and wildlife, it is because WE, the PUBLIC have allowed it.

Boy, am I sick to death of hearing complaints about agencies who are just trying to do their jobs for people who don't want to get involved, but would rather sit around and complain after the fact.

I can tell you from personal experience how much appreciated all the input has been. How much it has been valued. How effective it has been.

For those of you who want to continue to "blame", you'll be gratified because you'll only have more to complain about by sitting back and doing nothing.

For those of you who would rather put your energy to more positive use, get on board this train and take your turn at driving it.

'Nuff said. Spanking over.

[Sensei-san]

Ever watch the British Parliment on TV? What they put down as a cheer in the printed version is often a Bronx cheer. For all you cheering on the few that actually go to meetings, I have news for you. There are damn few that actually attend meetings and have something new to say.

But the few that actually attend and offer constructive input are the ones that make a big difference. Some of them are John and Jennifer. When they speak the commission listens. Why? Because they are sincere and over time have convinced the commission that they actually do speak for the sport angler.

I think that in starting this thread Pilar is trying to head off any attempt to impose similar draconian measures that have befallen all the other ocean sport fisheries. You only have to look at salmon, rockfish, ling cod, halibut and other ocean fisheries to see the restrictions that have been imposed in the past.

It is better to be proactive that reactive.

[ 10-21-2002, 09:04 AM: Message edited by: Sensei-san ]

[wak'm&stak'm]

I agree with you Jennifer on most counts.

I have been involved on many levels in the past.....and have been deflated.

For example....several years back they were shutting down many elk areas because of bull to cow raios.... I knew one logger at that meeting that lives for elk and they presented their data. They fly over clearcuts in mid Jan. So my friend spoke up and told them on XX day you counted x cows and x spikes in a certain area (which they agreed was true), and then he gave them dated photos of 5 big bulls he saw that day in the timber. The herds are split up that time of year.

And guess WHAT.....they blew it all off and did exactly what they wanted.....and the 2 years later they said their data was screwed up.

Then came the Umpqua cutthroat survey....we argued this one as well.....the Umpqua is a warm river full the smallmouths, and does have and issue. But they extended it to all rivers...(up north I heard they were over fished) but they shut it all down. I know lots of old timers who can't wait to sit on the river bank and visit and fish bluebacks.....we argued the point....And guess what...........they shut it down.
Then several years later...they come out and say that their survey was incorrect.

I can give several other examples, but the point is.....They general do whatever the hell they want to do...AND I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED.

I have gill netted spawner with the state boys for the Yaquina egg program, I clipped fins, I have been involved in STEP programs....and I have attended meetings up the butt. (maybe not lately, but in the past). I have tons of respect for the effort that members of this board have put forth and you had more sucsess then I ever had. I have not given up hope that they care about US.

We also.....questioned their logic on salmon / stugeon / halibut tags......our point was.....why should some poor family in Eastern Oregon have to pay 16 dollars for a tag that allows them to catch Halibut, and sturgeon when all they want to do is fish steelhead in the Johnday twice per year....and Guess what.......it was all about the money....

It would be great to see some kind of common sense begin to prevail.....maybe it will, but I don't think it is because they have seen the error of their ways....I think it is because they have everything so screwed up that they cant understand themselves anymore.

They have lost my respect and the respect of every sportsman I know... they have become no more than a joke and a pain in the ass. as far as I am concerned.

I will gladly attend more meetings now....my blood is flowing again......

[OceanBlue]

Daniel H. Burnham would be proud! (see signature file)

Thanks Wak! I'm glad to see you are re-energized! :grin:

[Pilar]

I encourage you all to read the PFMC draft that Jennifer gave a link to early on in this thread.

Especially pay attention to the fact that the rules governing fishing in the ocean are word for word the same as the rules in the general regulation section in the Oregon sport fishing handbook.

Does it make sense to use the same rules for fishing in fresh and Saltwater?

I believe that this draft proposal is written that way for lack of more inspired or informed input. That is where you come in. We must go over the one line per fisher rule, chumming, live bait, cleaning fish at sea and boat limits with the rulemakers. The PFMC is using the Oregon sport rules verbatim! Lets work the system and fix the sport rules.

Before we do that we must solicit opinions from you barnacle encrusted individuals on what makes sense.

Here's my $0.02 ...

Tuna fishing is not like other fishing of any kind. Multiple lines are needed to attract the school and get the ball rolling. Handlines, teasers and chum attract a feeding school and bring them to the boat. If these methods are fished effectively this means the fish stay on the surface and you can catch more. I'm all for limiting my exposure to the elements of the ocean. Drive out on a nice day, bag as many as you need in a short time and drive back.

Try fishing just one line sometimes and be resigned to picking off a few strays. Does it make sense to drive for hours and get one or two fish?

Should I be forced to bring back whole fish? Or pack ice (up to 300#) for cooling whole fish? I'd much rather carry excess bouyancy or fuel or maybe another fisher.

Wak I agree with you about intrusion by the Government. I must ask you to join us in trying to change what is (the rules) to what should be. What is now makes no sense to me. We can change it if we come together and educate the rulemakers.

You guys and gals are an effective voice, we should speak on these issues before someone else does.

[Miss B Haven]

Pilar - I'm 100% with you on the last post (tackle regs). I'm mixed on the Tuna bag limit. I personally would not keep 25 fish anyway. A lower limit would not bother me a bit.
I got a chuckle about the 25 billfish though. I'm pretty sure there haven't been 25 sport bills TOTAL landed in Oregon in the last 10 years. Kind of a pointless limit any way you want to set it. [img]graemlins/stupid.gif[/img]

[Deepslayer]

As I stated in an earlier post according to the PMFC date in the report from Jen, the biomass of Albacore has been going up every year since 1980. Why in the h3ll reduce the limit? Although 90% of us would never try to catch and clean that many fish, there is no reason to deny that privledge to the few who only get out once a year and try to get the most bang for there buck. There are also those who sell some of their catch to help defray expenses for the rest of the catch.
Amen Jen! The "spanking" was justified. I understand why they are collecting all the data they do, and sometimes I need to be a little more understanding when I am standing there tired with a load of fish still to be cleaned.
John I agree with you 100%. Using the same rules for the ocean and the freshwater fishing is ridiculous. I have reviewed some of the PMFC report, but going through the whole thing and writing comments line by line, would be like writing a college thesis. I am too old to do that anymore. I will try to read it more thoroughly and I will support other's ideas on reasonable changes with letters attendance at some meetings etc.

[Snakebite]

Hey WakEm!
I don't mean to diss your opinion, but after being a fish checker on places like the upper Rogue, I've been held personally responsible for the regs, and verbally & physically assaulted. I'm glad you're nice to the fish checkers. I wish I'd been afforded that. Most were nice to me, but it was that small percentage that treated me like trash that stand out in my memory. I'm glad those days are over. As far I'm concerned, as the gomn't trying to take more money from you and I alike (as I am also a sport fisherman), It's more an issue of federal regulations like the Magnusen Stevens act that force the states to implement more regulations and control. Trust me, the states have precious few dollars available to do these things, and the cuts that the states have to abide by when a budjet get slashed are exeedingly painful. How would you like to do the job ob somebody you used to work with when their job got axed...along with your own? I'll leave it at that for now. As for all the economic questions you are asked, it's used to establish the value of the fishery, and provide information as to it's value to the community as a whole. Don't you want the government to know how important your recreational endeavours are to the economy? I do!

No Worries, Steve

[wak'm&stak'm]

I agree with you Snake (Steve)....I don't dislike or treat anyone bad. I am not frustrated with any individual...it is the whole political wheel as a whole.

I am just get tired of the Gov. whining about no money...when I bring home 54% of my check (Single, good wage) and then I pay Property taxes on 3 houses, gas tax, and every other kind of tax and lic. fee.

I am sure I live on about 30% of my income.

I pay my dues..........I owe them nothing more than they take. I recieve very little in return...the only thing I would ask for....is....let me just enjoy fishing without the bull***.

John....I understand your point and you are correct, and I will support in anyway I can.

[Snakebite]

Point taken! And generally agreed upon. So when are we going to go fishing together, and really get a consensus on the issues? We can bite each other here, or talk face to face. trust me, I get real easy to deal with when I have a line in the water. Fishing is more important than fighting over it! 336-1633 don't worry, we screen our calls....or visa versa.

[wak'm&stak'm]

I wrapped the boat up for winter....and am putting a few days in hunting now, and then off to mexico in a week.

I am all for going fishing...just busy right now.

Oh ya...those who know me, know I am 50% ******** myself....but it sure is fun.

I am a firm believer in "flush release" (not for steelhead) but I don't want to clean 25 tuna.

It would be to our advantage to work with the board and get the regulations that we want.

[Pilar]

Alright. Sounds more than a few of you have some opinions. Pilar's Mate and I have looked at part of the draft. It's in a PDF format and has hundreds of pages of appendices as well as a very lengthy main section. This makes excerpts and quotes difficult because the PDF format is limiting. The only remaining choice is to download and print. Arrrrrgghhhh! Kill another tree for the cause.

Believe it or not most of what it takes to change the world is to read. These regulating agencies specialize in C.Y.A. and have reams of paper to do just that. It amazes me what I learn when I read some of this stuff.

I'll post a poll on fishing methods for HMS and get some more detailed info out of you guys and gals.

Mark Mc. Thanks buddy for the additional reading material. :grin: Maybe we (Tuna fishers) need to get together somewhere and hash this out.

The info is the important thing. Somehow what we know about the fishery has to get back to the people who need it for their population assessments. That and the data about the money spent and the economic value of the Ocean fishery to the coastal towns. I can hardly believe that a government agency would refuse info about a fishery freely given.

How do we get catch statistics put together and in what format?

How do we work out what the rules should be for saltwater big game fishing?

Thank you for your support Wak. Guys like you walking into a meeting can have a big impact. You are doing this for the love of the game not your own personal benifit.

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Pilar

“Fishery Management Process

This FMP was developed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council, one of 8 regional councils in the U.S. charged with developing fishery management plans for marine fisheries. The Pacific Council’s management area includes the ocean waters off the States of Washington, Oregon and California, beyond 3 miles and out to 200 miles from shore. This is a portion of the area known as the “exclusive economic zone” (EEZ) of the U.S. Councils make recommendations to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (in the Department of Commerce of the federal government), which approves and implements the councils’ FMPs by adopting federal regulations to govern fishing activities. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act is the federal law which authorizes this process. Under this Act, highly migratory species
of fish are managed by the councils in the Pacific Ocean area: the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Hawaii and the U.S. Pacific Islands), the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Alaska), and the Pacific Fishery Management Council.”

If you need any help with PDF files (stealing stuff) let me know :grin:

[ 10-22-2002, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: *** Clerk ]

[OceanBlue]

Hey, hey now! That's a neat trick ***! I'm impressed. We may take you up on that offer!
:grin: