Is it legal

Netscape · 07-02-2003, 07:15 PM

Because of the cautions I've heard about the need to quickly cool tuna, I started a procedure last year. I bleed them as soon as they're caught. Then, each time I have 4 or 5 fish stacked up, I stop fishing to gut and behead them all and pack them in ice. This procedure saves space as well as cooling them much more quickly than leaving them whole. Can't see that this would be illegal since there's no length limit on tuna and we're outside juridictional waters (I think). Since I live in Reedsport, it's a lot less weight I have to haul and I can fit more fish into the coolers. I can see where this would be illegal near the harbors because of seal and "pollution" problems. Any thoughts?

Bendman · 07-02-2003, 09:47 PM

I would think it's very legal. If you can dump treated waste from an MSD than you sure should be able to dump fish guts.

Don't know for sure just my 2

Chum King · 07-03-2003, 05:33 AM

You can go ahead and bleed and gut the fish, but you are not allowed to remove the head. The rules are listed in the Marine Section of the sport fishing rules. Here is the URL to the online version of the pertinent regulations: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/ODFWhtml/...003_Marine.pdf

Quoting from the text as it applies to tuna, and other marine species: "Unlawful to mutilate so the size or species cannot be determined prior to landing, or to transport mutilated fish across state waters."

[ 07-03-2003, 06:34 AM: Message edited by: Chum King ]

Orca · 07-03-2003, 05:37 AM

You're fine dumping the waste beyond 3 miles out for sure. And, I don't think you have a problem with trying to disquise the species since it is pretty obvious what it is, and like you say, there is no length requirement to meet.

How has the Salmon fishing been at Winchester. I am coming down next Wed. the 9th and staying into the weekend. I would love to get a number of Chinook, so do you have the Hot terminal gear to run and height in the water column to target the Chinook?

Netscape · 07-03-2003, 06:29 AM

Orca - Salmon fishing has been excellent to good when you can get over the bar with this continual blow we've been having (and bouncing around in rough water). I was targeting coho recently and picked up a nice clipped 34" chinook at 25'. Best fight I've had in 3 years. As usual, though, most of them are at about 40'-50'. Best fishing lately has been around the whistler, south and north. You have to release a lot of coho to get to the chinook since the coho are so plentiful.

Back to the main topic:
ChumKing - Thanks for the reg reference. I'm going to check the interpretation on that quote since it says size OR species and not AND. I hope it means size when there is a size limit and species so you can tell if there's a size limit. Like Orca said, I sure can't disquise the species and wouldn't want to anyway. I'll post what the "powers that be" have to say.

I may have upset some people by talking about cleaning the fish at sea but isn't it really recycling? Like taking salmon carcasses upstream for fry food (like STEP) or putting organic stuff back in the garden. Saw an interesting tape taken over a period of weeks by a deep sea exploration vehicle that showed the eventual consumption of a whale carcass. Nothing's wasted.

Orca · 07-03-2003, 08:03 AM

Thanks Netscape.

What's the difference between putting your tuna head back in at 20 miles, or sticking it in your crab trap in the bay, or at 30' in the ocean in your crab trap?

I would definitely have a problem with a rule that would not allow you to remove the head when there is no size limit just because you would then not be able to determine the size.

Are the fish checkers measuring and recording tuna lengths? If not then there is certainly no reason to keep the head on. If so, then maybe we fishers could record the length (they like centimeters) and stick a tag on each fish for later recording.

If the rule is interpreted that we must keep the head on, then we should work with the ODFW/OSP and state our case for doing it otherwise.

crabbait · 07-03-2003, 08:07 AM

I would think that leaving the innards and heads at sea would be the best form of recycling. Consider the alternatives. Where do people think the offal in the dumpster goes, a sushi bar?

Point is, it all goes somewhere and right back into the ocean to feed the other denisons sounds best to me. I'm sure the guy who gets to push stuff around in a landfill thinks so, too.

CATCH AND EAT · 07-03-2003, 03:39 PM

I agree with Crabbaits logic here. But we are duely bound by the regulations and what they state. The head in the way I read it stays on. Not worth a multiple ticket to find out.

Time for someone to do the research here and find out how ODFW sees it. I sure would be interested on their take regarding tuna.

Denison, nice $10 word Steve.

Netscape · 07-03-2003, 04:10 PM

Well, I've heard from the "powers that be" and the news is part good and part bad. I'm told that the head must remain attached to all recreationally caught fish regardless of the species and regardless of whether or not there is a minimum size requirement. Not the interpretation we wanted to hear. I was also told that the regulations DO [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] allow gutting the fish at sea. At least this will help in getting Charlie cooled down more quickly.
As Orca said, we should pursue an attempt to change the regulations since size limits don't apply to tuna and there's no real reason to retain the head attached to the fish. It's too late for fishing year 2004, but if adopted in 2004, any change would take effect in the 2005 season. I'm going to write a letter to the Commission addressing the issue and suggesting a proposed change. I encourage everyone involved in tuna fishing to do the same. The address: P. O. Box 59, Portland, OR 97207-0059

Let our voices be heard!!

Mello-Yello · 07-03-2003, 10:21 PM

This whole thing is making me a little nervous. I would have suspected that whatever made the most sense, would be forbidden (keeping only the part you eat).

My concern for pushing for change is, one of the 'powers to be' would say "Tuna? They want us to address tuna regs? Hey, there aren't really many regs for tuna. Let's look into this..." Next thing we know, we'll be tagging our tunas too.

Maybe I'm just paranoid, or somewhat bitter over non-fishing folks controlling fishing regs, but it seems like every time we seek improvement in one thing, we end up compromising on another.

M-Y