Tuna Limit?

Slow Roll · 02-24-2003, 02:14 PM

Stacey and I went to Garibaldi on Saturday with some freinds of ours. After a day of crabbing (33 on 4 pulls) we went to the public cleaning station to take care of the bugs.

I was looking at the big regulations board that has the limits on it and noticed that the limit on Tuna, Sand dabs and Perch is 25.

Did I miss it sometime where they put a limit on tuna? [img]graemlins/stupid.gif[/img] I know this is a recent correction beacuse they used that white plastic stickyback film.

Just an FYI if you don't already know.

Paul B.

Gregotis98 · 02-24-2003, 04:06 PM

I think it's been 25 for a few years now, but when I was at Garibaldi a few weeks ago bottom fishing I was checked by a lady from the National Marine Fishery Council. I asked her about future tuna regs. and she said they are looking seriously at reducing the limit next year due to the more people fishing for them in the last few years. I hope it's not true, but I can see it happening.

wak'm&stak'm · 02-24-2003, 06:07 PM

ggggrrrrrrrrrrrrr..........

Albacore Tuna Captain · 02-24-2003, 08:33 PM

The limit for tuna has been 25 since I can remember. And it is true, the gov is talking about reducing the limit because more people are fishing for them. However, this just isn't justified in any sense of the word when you look at the overall picture. Albacore are pelegic and when you look at Washington, no limit and other states with no limit, why does Oregon feel it needs to reduce the limit?? Because it is the touchy feely thing to do when you are a biologist. They don't look at the total picture, tuna reproduce very quickly and they have no idea how many are out there. It's just something ODFW wants to do but have no justification for. So if you know of any hearings they are planing, go there and demand they give a reason to justify any reduction.

Captain Mike [img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img]

puffins crew · 02-24-2003, 09:29 PM

Right on, Capt'n Mike.

Peace, Tom

wak'm&stak'm · 02-25-2003, 04:43 AM

Well said Mike....that was what the grrr...was all about. I have a problem with our friends down at the ODFW that always take care of us when it is not JUSTIFIED.

id. painter · 02-25-2003, 07:52 AM

As of now, ive felt welcome, , to come and try my luck at catching tuna. I would hate to think that cause of my new found interest , the law makers will lower your limit. Sorry, i didnt expect that reaction .... id. p.

Chum King · 02-25-2003, 08:04 AM

A few points of clarification:

1. The 25 fish limit for marine miscellaneous species (including albacore, sharks, flounder, etc.) has been in effect for as long as I can remember. I just checked the 1986 Oregon Sport Fishing Regulations and it was in effect at that time. The original intent of the 25 fish bag limit regulation was to reduce potential wastage issues with marine fish, and was not driven by any over harvest concerns.
2. ODFW is not recommending or pursuing a reduction in recreational albacore bag limits at this time. There is a draft proposal to look into changing fishing regulations for pelagic species off Oregon, but this would actually relax current regulations. This was discussed and details are available on the previous post of Tuna Regulations Keep in mind that the West Coast has a wide open commercial troll albacore fishery. There is no current management concern over the abundance of albacore tuna, and there is no indication of overfishing in our area.
3. The Pacific Fishery Management Council is finalizing their Highly Migratory Species Plan which does include albacore, but they are leaving almost all regulations for the recreational fisheries up to the states. There are some items in the plan that will affect charters i.e. logbook and permit/license for albacore.

The ODFW proposal that is referenced above is scheduled to go to the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission in August.

[ 02-25-2003, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: Chum King ]

WP · 02-25-2003, 08:05 AM

I will never exceed the 25 fish limit and have no plans to even get half of a limit per person! That is really beside the point...why is the government trying to fix, once again, what isn't even close to being broken? They have such a good track record for improving things I guess....
WP with tongue bleeding

DriftR · 02-25-2003, 08:17 AM

WP,
I agree with you. After you have fished for albies the work begins. Why anybody would want 25 albacore per person is beyond me. Just not enough time in a day (or night) for that matter to clean that many fish by yourself. Even with help it gets to be a real chore. Icing that many down and transporting them in a smaller boat is a real workout. Unless of course you have Fish Assassins boat, then your into taking more people, better ice and fish storage etc. just a true tuna machine. But I would think that if ODFW were looking at our limits of Albies then they should really look at the catch rates down in S. CA on those party and sport boats. We are lucky to get any up here after they go through the gauntlets down along the CA. coast. Just my thoughts

Mark Mc · 02-25-2003, 08:39 AM

Dearest WP, why are you doubling a contract when you haven't heard the bidding? And Wak'm, why the growling at ODFW when they could be doing YOU a favor WRT tuna?

This looks like a case of some lack of understanding of what is actually going on, and then jumping to a conclusion. The PFMC has been working on a highly migratory species plan sine October '99. There have been many public hearings, and many opportunities to write letters with your response to the draft plan. Have you written yours? This has been discussed at length on this board. So before firing off the cannon, you might go look at the actual draft HMS plan, and also look at the last set of decisions (which in most part was to choose the "preferred options.") These options are actually very good for sport fishers and very good for the sustenance of the fishery.

ODFW would be taking proactive steps to put matching language into state regulations, in addition to cementing the practices we already have in place. This is a good idea.

So re-channel the growling energy, get your favorite drink, and get comfortable at the computer. Then if you're interested in contributing to the process, the HMS subpanel still meets. You can either attend, or direct your concerns to the right group. Dan Waldeck is the contact.

This newsletter is a must-read / great start: PFMC Winter Newsletter

HMS Background

Draft HMS Plan

Plan Background, Meteing Minutes

OK....safely down from soapbox (for now?!)

[ 02-25-2003, 09:41 AM: Message edited by: Mark Mc ]

WP · 02-25-2003, 12:16 PM

Mark,
My original opinion still stands. The PFMC has a job to do and, in general, does a pretty reasonable job. State agencies take their direction from the rules the \y are handed. No need for them to get a political discussion going yet! What does pre-emptive rules serve? I have almost no trust of any government agencies decision making or honesty, or good sense...history would support my position!
WP

wak'm&stak'm · 02-25-2003, 05:20 PM

Thank you WP, and for the record my views still stand as well.
I also have very little respect for many of the Gov. decisions that have inpacted my life.

I am not getting into this discussion again.

I will say that I have lots of respect for many of the idividuals, it is just the political part that gags me.

Mark Mc · 02-25-2003, 07:27 PM

Well, so be it Wak & WP. In Greg's original post he mentions a person from the "National Marine Fishery Council" so I assume he means NMFS. This is the federal body. If they want to implement a new sport limit on tuna, it will affect all states not just Oregon. I'm not sure how the leap was made to Oregon setting a lower limit. This has not been mentioned in any official statement yet, so it sounds like heresay or a misunderstanding. Oregon wants to put in place some very positive things, like making it officially legal to use handlines & multiple lines / rods for tuna. I don't think anyone will object to this. So all I see so far is evidence that ODFW is doing a good job on this one, and there is no reason to panic. Do we still need to be vigilent and speak up if they start heading the wrong direction? Of course! And I will continue to do just that.

See ya on the briny asphalt (3/15).....Mark

wak'm&stak'm · 02-25-2003, 08:11 PM

I do agree with you, and when the day comes I will do what I can to voice my concerns.

I realize some fish stocks have changed and there is need for control, as with the sturgeon and such. It has just been a long time since a fishery started where we can freely fish somewhat uncontrolled.

My fear is that they would do something stupid like impose a 5 fish limit, and add on a bunch of other expences. ( this is the trend anyway )

I agree 25 fish is a healthy limit, yet I am unwilling to budge because once you start to give......it never stops. And there is no proof that it needs addressed.
I believe it was Ugly Green that researched the stock and harvest levels, hopefully they will leave us alone.

I look forward to seeing you the 15th...takecare

Albacore Tuna Captain · 02-27-2003, 07:19 AM

I love It!! This is the only way that we can insure the protection of our rights and priviledges. SPEAK OUT! Ideas get kicked around and information gets out. I may be wrong some times when I voice my opinion but I'm always encouraged when there is someone out there that can change my mind. I too am always suspicious of what government does in the name of protecting our resources. Unfortunately, many times those who are doing the "protecting" are acting more on their ideas than the ideas and information of the masses. I look at what happened on the Grand Banks. Nothing was done to protect the stocks until they were gone. Can that happen here? You bet and sometimes the government will go to far the other way. over protecting stocks like they are doing with the halibut. Of course the IPHC is a treaty between Canada and Alaska and they are protecting THEIR stocks but that's another story.

So it is a good thing to get concerned when an action is proposed or in the rumour mill. We can never sit back and expect somebody else will be looking out for our best interest. Speak up, be heard and don't let em drag you to regulations without a good fight! [img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img]

Capt. Mike

Birdnest · 02-27-2003, 02:19 PM

Well at the risk of making enemies....if you can't make yourself happy with less than 25 tuna per person per trip you've got issues.

From what I can tell the average tuna you guys are catching is what, 30lbs each? So do you really need 750 lbs of tuna per person per trip? Three guys go out for a nice day of fishing and can legally harvest over a ton of fish. That doesn't seem toooo restrictive.

I am not some PETA freak, and I also feel that at least in WA if we get any more over regulated they will need to print our regs in volumes 1-5.

I don't have all of the information on population numbers and current impacts of sport/commercial fishing on these guys. So it is only my big fat OPINION that just because we can, doesn't mean we should. I also am not suggesting a new limit. I think these "limits" should be from a responsible sportsmans ability to limit him/herself.

I also did not post this to "stir the pot", just wanted to participate the the great open forum that ifish is. :smile:

Tight lines and tasty tuna,

Birdnest

OceanBlue · 02-27-2003, 02:31 PM

I'd be worried about the 25/angler/day if we were able to get out and fish them more often, but the season is short, the ocean infrequently friendly and most of us have limited availability.

Further, there isn't really any way that those of us in small boats could manage to haul 25 fish/angler back to port. The max for the "Pilar" was 36 for 2 anglers last year.

What do we need with all that fish? Trust me, none went to waste. It was turned into gifts, frozen, canned, smoked, shared, etc.

Birdnest · 02-27-2003, 02:54 PM

PM,

Remind me to get on your gift list. :smile:

It should also be noted, that my above post is before I have been on my own tuna carking trip and reserve the right to completely take back everything I posted, after said trip.

Birdnest

OceanBlue · 02-27-2003, 03:04 PM

Birdnest,

You ain't seen nuthin' yet! :grin:

wak'm&stak'm · 02-27-2003, 07:18 PM

Last year I and RJ caught 40 and quit, grrr....it still bugs me. I wish we would have stayed for our last ten. BUT NO we headed in instead.
You can call me anything you like....but I still wish we could say we did it.

Oh by the way...not one fish went to waste, and I still had friends wanting fish.

I am glad someone else thinks they over protect the halibut....right on.

Albacore Tuna Captain · 02-28-2003, 07:51 AM

I'll have to say one more thing on this subject. Twenty five tuna is a lot of meat. If anyone were to waste this beautiful fish would have to be a fool and glutton. Only one time in the past ten years was I able to limit the boat and that was an unusual day in all respects. The limit on Albacore is just right because most the time you can have fun all day trying to catch the limit and still not get them. On the trip when we limited the boat, I didn't get one single fish for myself because the customers wanted them all. Albacore are too valuable to waste. So I really think most tuna fishermen will not abuse the limit or waste it.

Capt. Mike

Mark Mc · 02-28-2003, 09:46 AM

What a lot of folks are concerned about is choice. If the limit is 25, then everyone gets to choose how they manage their fish take within that limit. Nobody wants to hear someone else dictate to them how many fish they should take. For me personally, I like to get a good haul once or twice a season for canning. Then after that, I'm happy to take home one or two fish to eat fresh. My problem is at this point in the season, I still want the thrill of catching a lot more, even though I only want one or two to take home.

What a lot of us do feel though is that we have a moral responsibility to speak up if we see a true waste of fish. The highest crime is when tuna are left in the dumpster because someone caught more than they could process or carry. A "misdemeanor" might be when someone unknowingly takes improper care of their fish, and lets it spoil. This latter point is why we have devoted so many postings on this board to proper fish care (bleeding, spiking, chilling, etc.) This is not just for getting the best tasting fish, but also a food safety issue. We need to continue to share this information with folks. As people refine their tuna handling / processing skills, they will experience how much better this fish tastes & lasts (shelf life). Then folks will know what their natural (processing) limit is, whether it be 25 or 5; they'll self-manage appropriately.