Interim Nearshore Interim Management Plan

[fish assassin]

The following information was sent to me with my license
and permit applications. I thought it might be interesting to the
folks who frequent this board. Anyway, I tried to edit the
original material down to an acceptable pain level. If
you want to read more, try the following link:

www.hmsc.orst.edu/odfw/devfish/nsplan.html

I would think that this would make the sportfishermen happy
as it cuts fishing pressure on certain Near Shore rock
fish species (just not *all*).

"The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commision adopted an interim
N.S. Groundfish plan at their October 11,2002 meeting.
The new interim plan will decrease commercial
harvest in 2003 on nearshore rockfish, greenling and
cabazon."

The page goes on to say that this is a stop gap measure
while fishery managers determine Optimum harvest levels
for a healthy and sustainable resource. Then it goes
on to say:

"The plan also is intended to keep the numbers of commercial
nearshore boats at low levels in areas of high recreational
use."

They list 21 species of groundfish as being "long lived
and susceprible to over harvest." These 21 species include:
cabazon, 4 types of greenling, buffalo sculpin, a couple
of types of Irish Lords, 12 types of rockfish and treefish.

This new plan "requires commercial harvesters to apply
for a Developmental Fisheries Permit by December 31, 2002.
Applicants for a permit must own a vessel that
has landed at least 500 lbs. of N.S. species in any one
calander year between Jan.1, 1997 and July 1, 2001 for North of
Heceta Head or 750 lbs. south of Heceta Head,"

One provision restricts gear to hook-and-line or pots
depending on what gear was used to qualify the boat/
applicant.

Another provision will limit commercial vessels without the
permit to 15 pounds of incidental harves provided that they
do not comprise more than 75% of the landed, legal catch.

Also increases minimum length for commercially caught
cabazon from 14 to 16 inches and reinstates the commercial
harvest of black rock fish (what most of us call sea bass)
to 200 lbs. or 65 fish per landing (whichever is greater).

In addition the PFMC is capping limits of both commercial
and sports nearshore species to four catagories of fish
(blue and black rockfish, cabezon and greenling species)
back to levels that equal landings in 2000.

There are only going to be 70-75 permits *coastwide* that
will be issued, so that should decrease the "live fish" fishery
pressure on the species listed above ... or anyway, that's
the intent.

-assAssin-

[fish assassin]

OOPS!! The header was really suppose to read:

"Oregon's Interim Nearshore Groundfish Management Plan"

Sorry for any confusion ...

-assAssin-

[craigc]

fish assassin... Thank you for taking the time to post this information... It's good information... Craig

[RFA Janice]

This interim plan does not include limits on black and blue rockfish for Oregon waters (though there continues in force some kind of landing limits through PFMC). Evidently it did not include them because of the complexities of doing so. There is some movement amongst commercial nearshore fishermen to go to the legislature to get a statutory (as opposed to Developmental Fisheries Board) permit which would have limited entry (LE)status and be saleable. This LE permit would include black and blue rockfish. :smile:

[Pilar]

Janice,

Does this mean that they (nearshore commercials) would bypass the restrictions placed on the livefish traffic?

Can they undo ODFW restrictions?

[fish assassin]

Janice,

Right, black and blue rock fish are not included in this permit,
and neither are Ling Cod. However, there is presently a daily
quota on blacks and blues of 200 lbs or 65 fish, whichever
is greater. On the Ling Cod front the limit is 300 lbs per month!
(BTW, there is also a 2000 (?) lb. a month limit on the blues
and blacks as well as the daily limit.)

These limits are all under the 'open access permits' and have not
yet been regulated as a seperate fishery, although as Janice says,
there is a push to also use some means to make these limited
entry fisheries as well.

In the early 80's I bought a Salmon permit from another boat
that was going out of business because of bad seasons. This
is also an option with crab permits but the price is *very*
steep as crab L.E. permits were created for financial impact reasons
rather than any environmental impact reasons.

The nearshore fisheries permit is NON-transferable and the states'
intention is to wait for those that qualify for the original
round of permits to either drop out of the fishery or lose thier
liscenses due to lack of landings/poundage to bring the total
number of nearshore fisheries permits down to 50 (or less).

-assAssin-
Me?? I don't have the answers ... I just wanna fish!!
:grin:

[RFA Janice]

Laws (passed by Legislature and signed by governor) always trump administrative rules (what ODFW did). We need to keep close track of what the provisions of the proposed bill are. Don't want to back down from the limits imposed by the Commission, or to subvert Commission's ability to regulate fisheries. Regulation by legislative process is HIGHLY undesireable--ask California folks--a page out of the past. Keep eyes open. No on this one.