What an unbelievable waste of fish!

[Waterfish]

I just posted this on the general fishing forum, and then realized that the Salty Dogs forum would be more appropriate:

My son and I went on a bottom fishing charter today. It was a great day on the ocean, and we both limited on big lings, and caught some nice rockfish and one coho that was promptly and carefully released. Also caught on the boat was one 30 lb halibut and four or five chinook. There was one thing that was quite disturbing not only to us but just about everyone else on the boat: In the first couple of hours of fishing, quite a few yellow eye and canary rockfish were caught. At one point the captain said that if any halibut were caught, all the "orange fish" had to go over the side. I thought he was making some kind of joke that I didn't get... Right after the halibut was landed, I noticed half a dozen yelloweye and canary rockfish floating by the boat. Other people saw this too, and the captain then explained that the regulations say that if you catch any halibut, there can be no yelloweye or canary rockfish on the boat because Fish & Game would saw you are targeting them, and they are endangered. Throughout the rest of the day, quite a few more were caught, and after being pulled up from 180', most or all had expanded guts and blown eyes, and were dead or dying as they were thrown back in. Everyone, including the captain, thought it was a terrible waste. He mentioned that if he was caught with any "orange fish" on the boat (since there was one halibut), there would be a $700 fine. I hope that somehow this captain has just misinterpreted the regulations. Is this common practice? If it is common practice and he was doing things right, this seems like the dumbest game law I've heard of since the new law that will be in effect this deer/elk season that says you have to keep the genitals attached to the hind quarters! OK, maybe the yelloweye/canary rockfish regulation is even dumber...

[WildHawg]

We caught two VERY large Canary Rockfish today-however we had a halibut aboard, and were forced to release 2 fish. One did make it down, while the other floated away.
Tough thing to swallow.

[Sea Jypzee]

Yes, that is the law and the captain was correct in his interpretation. Very [img]graemlins/stupid.gif[/img] law if you ask me, but then they didn't ask me.

[Mr. Fisherman]

I agree with Sea Jypzee.
I have been able to resucitate (sp) some of these fish by venting the swim bladder. I sure like it better when they take off and slap water on your face than to see them float away to be picked over by the birds. Yellow Eye is one of my favorite eating fish. I usually only harvest 2 or 3 a year. I don't target them anymore and move on when I do get one. It sure is a shame to have to waste the fish but overfishing has brought us to the use of drastic tactics. I don't know what the perfect answer is or how far the current regulation is to said perfect resolution but I do know that a lot of effort has been spent by those who are trying to solve this delima. If ya don't like it get involved.

[Born to be Wild]

I thought yelloweye was the only sebastes that you couldn't keep while retaining a halibut?

The law is in place like Mr. Fisherman said because they have been over fished.

It is so that fishermen won't go out and target yelloweye when on a halibut trip. Too many people targeting halibut and then fishing places like the rockpile on the way in = too many yelloweye caught.

Unfortunate, but true.

Dan

[Burner]

So how do you vent the bladder without damaging it? Hypodermic or something? Just curious, it would be nice to be able to release the fish and give it a reasonable chance of survival.

James

[Uglygreen]

but overfishing has brought us to the use of drastic tactics

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Overfishing by whom?

Industrialized commercial fishing (especially Draggers) are the ones that have brought about this problem, they should be the ones who have to pay the price to fix it. 40-60% bycatch is just plain WRONG!

Maybe the Draggers and other large comercial boats should BE REQUIRED to hire a sport type boat with an observer to fish and sample the area 12-24 hours before hand. If they catch a prohibited species on the sampling trip they have to go elsewhere to drag. If they catch nothing but the target species, they are OK to fish on the larger scale. Or just ban them (the draggers) alltogther. Ocean draggers are the equivilent to strip mines on land in my opinion.

UG

[Sea Jypzee]

Overfishing by whom is exactly right. And the problem isn't even in OREGON. It's California where the problem is at!! They count pretty much the entire West coast as a 'region' and California has nearly devistated the YellowEye population. We're getting the shaft because of poor management in Ca. Oregon's population of Yelloweye and Canary rockfish is great. Thus look at all of them that're being caught.

[Mello-Yello]

Am I missing something here? With the law written the way it is, it seems that a decision should be made when one of the species of discussion is landed.

On the yellow boat, if we're targeting halibut and someone catches a Yelloweye or Canary, it goes back immediately...no discussion. The only other option is, if the decision is made to keep the forbidden redfish, then halibut is off the menu...period!

If I'm not mistaken, there is a law that forbids "waste", and when people are dumping dead gamefish in the ocean so they can keep another, this is definetly waste.

I saw several redfish floating the surface on halibut hill last friday, accompanied by several gulls. This just seems wrong. [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]

[Mark Mc]

Mello, I'm thinking the same thing you are. Seems to me that if the charter boat "plan" is a rockfishing trip, they ought to decide real early which fish they are going to keep: the orange ones or the flat ones. When that fisrt orange one hits the deck, they should declare "OK if we keep this, then no halibut." But to keep a bunch of orange ones, then decide to throw them over after they bring up a halibut, just seems like poor planning. Yes, maybe most of the orange ones will die even when released immediately (unless special methods used). But tossing themn over after being in the fish box clearly does not show any intent on releasing them in order to survive.

I read a post by a guy down south who experimented with a rig whereby he uses a barbless hook and a heavy weight to forcibly pull the fish back down deep, then gets the hook to come out. Said he was successful at this deepwater release, although it's obviously not known how well the fish survive. Theoretically it should offer the best chance since it is natural compression of the bladder.

[Mello-Yello]

If a person really wanted to attempt to "save" a yelloweye or canary, I would think this would work...

After pulling the poor thing to the surface, rebait your hali rig. Have a couple small (cheapo) hooks rigged with say, 6lb. test (I'd recommend STREN or budget-buy...same thing as far as I'm concerned). Clip the cheapo leader to your hali rig, stick the hook in redfish's tail, and lower your rig down as if to start another hali drift. At or near the bottom, give'r one good tug and the redfish should be off, and hopefully at least somewhat normalized it's pressure.

Another option might be one of those sinker releases...

I realize 1 in a hundred folks would consider doing this, but no one can say "Hey, there wasn't anything I could do about it!"

Better to have tried and failed than to do nothing at all...right?

M-Y

[Born to be Wild]

I'll agree that the halibut should have been released if they already had canarys and yelloweyes on board per the regulations as they exist now.

I'll even agree that it is the "moral" thing to do.

Would someone please explain to me how anyone in that situation would help the canary population by throwing back the Halibut?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Brad,

If you weren't required to throw back the halibut then fishermen would go get their limit of halibut and then go catch (target) some canaries and yelloweye in the offshore fishery where those over fished species are present. Therefore it helps out the canaries and yelloweye by discouraging fishermen to fish places where they are present. That's the purpose of the regulation during the offshore halibut fishery.

Another option would have been to close halibut areas like the rockpile to fishing rockfish and halibut completely to protect the canaries and yelloweye. What option would you prefer?

There would be too large of a canary and yelloweye harvest if they allowed all the large numbers of halibut fishermen to target those areas offshore for rockfish when they are already out there fishing halibut. Not my proposals but what we were given to work with.

Would someone please explain to me why, when you are Halibut fishing, and already have a halibut on board and dead, (but not a limit) throwing back an obviously dead or going to die bloated up canary helps the situation?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Same reason as above. Unfortunately you can't trust fishermen to not target those species or areas if they are allowed to retain the fish.

Perhaps the regulation should be that you can keep 1 canary per person while halibut fishing, however when you are limited on halibut you must quit bottom fishing.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Again, that would create a situation where too many of the canary/yelloweye rockfish would be harvested as happened in the past.

Go to the pile after limiting on halibut and then fish rockfish at the pile. Who is going to check all the bottom fishing boats out there on the "pile" to see whether they have a limit of halibut on board or not. You really don't think we could trust all the fishermen to be honest do you?

One of the other options for next year is no (zero) retention of a canary anywhere or anytime of the year. I expressed my opinion on that option on the salty dog thread about the groundfish meeting. That was my least favorite option because of the waste of canaries inshore and offshore.

It's really the same principal of releasing wild coho during the hatchery coho season. To a lesser degree a lot of wild coho were killed out there during the season but if you allowed fishermen to retain the wild coho they accidently killed, there would be a lot more wild coho killed.

Again this is the important reason for attending these meetings to help choose the options that you as a whole prefer and possibly come up with other options that are sound or modify existing options that are out on the table.

Very important and I have seen where it has made a difference in the past.

By the way Brad I'm not arguing with you but just trying to explain the reasoning or logic behind the regulation to the best of my ability.

If you have an idea that might be a better option and think it scientifically sound you might email Don Bodenmiller at ODFW. He's a good guy and is open minded.

I've got lead to pour and a Salmon River meeting to attend at the Salmon River Hatchery at 5:00pm.

Kinda late notice but if anyone sees this in time and interested in helping out, see you there.

Dan

[Waterfish]

DepoeBayDan,

I purposely did not state the name of the charter because I first wanted to see how widespread the problem is. And based on some of the responses (including where I posted this on the General Fishing Forum), this charter is not the only one killing and throwing back yelloweye and canary rockfish. Maybe the captain could have done things differently, like announcing that we would immediately release all halibut if we caught any canary/yelloweye rockfish. It sounds like he is facing a regulation that forces him in a bad place whichever way he goes. Rather than put him under the microscope, I think it is better to look at the regulation that is causing the problem.

At the start of the trip, the captain announced that we would be fishing for mainly for bottomfish, and that we may catch a halibut or two and maybe some kings. After the halibut was caught and all the yelloweye/canarys were thrown back in, we did keep other yellow/orange rockfish; the captain and deckhand knew how to tell them from the yelloweye/canarys.

I’ve read some recent posts about bad charter captains, and although there may have been better ways to handle the situation, I think this captain was trying follow the laws and at the same time give the customers a good trip. In addition to the 4 or 5 kings that were caught (while bottom fishing), 4 or 5 cohos were caught, including one by myself. The captain and deckhand released those without the fish even coming all the way out of the water.

If you were in a small boat with 2 or 3 other people, maybe you could take the time to do CPR on a canary/yelloweye. But on a charter with 15-20 people all catching fish at the same time, I don’t think this would be realistic. And even if you could deflate the fish’s air bladder, once those eyes have popped out from coming all the way to the surface, I bet the fish would be blind. And I don’t think the other fish on the bottom would be as helpful to the blind fish as we people were to Helen Keller!

Ugly Green, you have made some very good points on this topic, and although I don’t know what the solution to the problem is, I think I am on the same page as you.

[Pilar]

The obvious solution to this problem of the rare and overfished (sarcasm alert) is to close the areas where they are being caught.

How long would the Newport sport fishing last without the Rockpile? My friend Ocean Blue attended a meeting recently and reported to me some things over heard at the meeting within the meeting. A great deal of informal business is done around the coffee mess during breaks at these meetings. The commisioners and other officials at ODFW, PFMC and other regulating bodies talk to each other and to the public in attendance.

Don't laugh .. the last ODFW commisioners meeting in Astoria showed an understanding of the impact of the yelloweye ban on Halibut days by the powers that be. Some of the commisioners were discussing how ineffective the rule was to limiting the take of these fish and things like closures were being seriously discussed.

In other words the folks who are charged with enforcing the quota on 'red' fish caught by you sport fishers (yes me too) are looking for ways to make sure we do not exceed the allowed take.

One of the options discussed was area closures of yelloweye habitat......


Think about that while you watch a gull peck the eyes out of a 50 year old fish that you are not allowed to retain.

[Badger]

I agree with most of the previous posts, particularly about the morals of the issue. Suffice it to say, the federal and state governments can't leave it up to human morals to manage fishing (species populations, commerce, and recreation) or there wouldn't be any fish left. :depressed: Although I didn't see where they came from, I saw the plume of floating red fish floating at the rock pile on Friday and figured this is what had happened. :whazzup: So, my two cents:

I don't think the charter boat captain was in a difficult position at all. He just made a stupid (environmentally speaking) decision to skirt through a loophole in the regulations and IMHO intentionally broke the intent of the law. Regardless of where one stands on the issue of whether or not he broke the rules as they're written, it was an intentional waste of a threatened species (not an endangered species "yet", correct me if I'm mistaken here) and it was just plain wrong. I don't think the regulation forced him into a bad place per se, I think he just made a few very poor decisions along the way.

I'm glad to hear that it was primarily a bottom fishing trip, as opposed to a halibut trip, that's about all the simpathy I have for Mr. Unnamed Charter Boat Captain. In my opinion, he should have been cited the going rate ($304 per fish or there about) and been told to go talk to the judge about his problem. When they left the dock the rules should have been explained -- its also open halibut fishing so we can only keep one of two species (flatties or canary/yelloweye), its EITHER ONE OR THE OTHER (the regulations don't allow for both). I doubt many (if any) of the passengers could have identified the "threatened" fish from some of the other red ones, but I'm sure they could have handled that simple one.

As the skipper, I'd probably make that call rather than giving the choice to 15-20 individuals who probably couldn't agree on any one thing other than lets get fishing. But if democracy rules on his boat give 'em the choice, they're the ones paying the bills anyway.

Once this "tough" decision has been made, the question is where to go to catch our target species, not what do we have to do to skirt the rules and regulations. If halibut is to the liking, go to places where canaries/yelloweyes are not as likely and if you incidentally start catching them, pick up the gear and move.

Unless the industry starts self-regulating itself a little better, fish and game folks will just keep writing more and more stringent rules. And an easy way to elinate the stupidity of intentionally dumping a catch of fish to the sea is to close critical habitat areas, such as the rock pile during open halibut seasons (or even year round if populations and habitat decline further) and help make decisions easier for the likes of Mr. Unnamed.

Either way, once they started keeping "one of the species or the other" (canaries/yellowfish in this case), then the other (halibut in this case) must become incidental and be released immediately in an effort to allow survival. I realize that only a small percentage of the bloated fish may survive; however, there is a food chain that will solve that problem.

Writing regulations that allow for all the "ifs and buts" (they're like candy and nuts :smile: ) is almost impossible and the rule book is thick enough already.

I find it tough to say, but perhaps this rule should be strengthened though to avoid this example of pitiful waste. Maybe it should read something like the following:

"You may not retain both halibut and canary rockfish/yelloweye at the same time (i.e. one or the other, your choice). You also may not harvest (catch, kill and put in the box) fish and then throw them back to sea."

Ditto the dragging - strip mining comparison.

Different subject, about keeping the sex organs connected to the hind quarters of a deer or elk... fat chance. I'll put them in a bag and haul it back to camp with the last load, after the meat, the antlers and the hide. They can come around from camp site to camp site if they want and pick up bags after checking tags... cite me if you want, I'll explain that one to the judge if I have to. Maybe I'll change my opinion on that one later, only time will tell.

[Born to be Wild]

Actually Nancy Oregon's population of yelloweye and canary's have been over fished also. Big time!

In Oregon the sports fleet is estimated to have only harvested 3% of the total canary catch (if I remember correctly) but you know who caught the rest.

We aren't paying the price on California's behalf but actually gained last year as we skated through on a liberal season because California couldn't fish their share of the west coast canary harvest because of their bocaccio problems and we gained there percentage. Thanks California.

This year they are going to be able to fish a larger quota of boccacio (salmon grouper) therefore being able to harvest their share of canary's again and we will not skate through as we did this year and will in all probability take some severe cuts in offshore rockfish. For example we could see a closure on bottom fish from 40 fathoms or so out, or a 4 month closure, or some of the other options that were listed on a thread here on salty dogs a while back prior to the meeting.

There is not a very good possibility that either the rock pile or tug will be open to fishing next year.

I need to make a correction from the post of mine above. I didn't fish halibut this year and asked the question above:

I thought yelloweye was the only sebastes that you couldn't keep while retaining a halibut?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Actually it is the Canary and yelloweye that can't be retained this year when there is a halibut aboard at least during the offshore halibut season. That could be the scenario during the inside 30 fathom halibut fishery also and I could understand the reasoning why that would or would not be in affect in that fishery.

You don't have to throw back a vermillion rockfish. They are easily to distinguish from a yelloweye or canary.

Over fishing by whom?

Industrialized commercial fishing (especially Draggers) are the ones that have brought about this problem, they should be the ones who have to pay the price to fix it. 40-60% by-catch is just plain WRONG!

Maybe the Draggers and other large commercial boats should BE REQUIRED to hire a sport type boat with an observer to fish and sample the area 12-24 hours before hand. If they catch a prohibited species on the sampling trip they have to go elsewhere to drag. If they catch nothing but the target species, they are OK to fish on the larger scale. Or just ban them (the draggers) all together. Ocean draggers are the equivalent to strip mines on land in my opinion.

UG

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Brad you are correct on the over fishing by the trawl fleet (draggers) on the canary stocks. Even here in Oregon where they have also ruined a lot of habitat. Unfortunately when the commercial fishermen over fish a species the sport fishermen usually have to pay also. That is another important reason to attend meetings.

Then there is the Magnuson-Stevens act:

http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/pr...noaa97-58.html

But you can’t blame all over fishing on the commercials. Our inshore black rockfish are taking a beating by the sports namely the charters. I believe the sports took a fair share of the lingcod stocks and I’m not sure but possibly had a hand in the over fishing of the yelloweye stocks.

The local Depoe Bay charters have for years said that our local inshore reef Government Point used to have a lot of yelloweye rockfish on it and point the finger on the now extinct or threatened Pacific Dory fleet. When the hammer was coming down on the black’s they also blamed the dory fleet. Of course they didn’t consider themselves into the equation.

I have a hard time buying into that one after seeing the way the charters are exploiting the blacks.

The fishery for black rockfish (the charters “bread and butter”) is still excellent but the populations are not near what they used to be. Wasn’t that long ago that they were considered a nuisance by fishermen and I am told you couldn’t even troll into 10 fathoms because they would load up all your lines. Before the time of the loran, GPS and fish finders a sport boat could easily go “blind” fishing and load up the boat full of blacks.

Now I believe they are studying the health of the china rockfish stocks because of a concern there. They are an inshore rockfish and are not at all affected by the commercial troll fleet.

Or just ban them (the draggers) all together. Ocean draggers are the equivalent to strip mines on land in my opinion.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Well they have basically fished themselves out of business. Heard about the buy-outs?

I’ll have to agree with you that they are about the equivalent to strip mines on land. Their are probably some folks that would disagree with us that like to buy seafood at the local markets and restaurants, but they over did it and it will take years to correct the over
fishing and habitat damage they have caused. Have my doubts that the habitat they distroyed can be restored in our life time.

Unfortunately the day and age we live in there are too many people wanting too many fish for consumption. Look at the sturgeon.

Dan

[Born to be Wild]

Mark MCand Mello Yellow I have to agree with you there.

My son and I went on a bottom fishing charter today. It was a great day on the ocean, and we both limited on big lings, and caught some nice rockfish and one coho that was promptly and carefully released. Also caught on the boat was one 30 lb halibut and four or five chinook. There was one thing that was quite disturbing not only to us but just about everyone else on the boat: In the first couple of hours of fishing, quite a few yellow eye and canary rockfish were caught. At one point the captain said that if any halibut were caught, all the "orange fish" had to go over the side. I thought he was making some kind of joke that I didn't get... Right after the halibut was landed, I noticed half a dozen yelloweye and canary rockfish floating by the boat. Other people saw this too, and the captain then explained that the regulations say that if you catch any halibut, there can be no yelloweye or canary rockfish on the boat because Fish & Game would saw you are targeting them, and they are endangered. Throughout the rest of the day, quite a few more were caught, and after being pulled up from 180', most or all had expanded guts and blown eyes, and were dead or dying as they were thrown back in. Everyone, including the captain, thought it was a terrible waste. He mentioned that if he was caught with any "orange fish" on the boat (since there was one halibut), there would be a $700 fine. I hope that somehow this captain has just misinterpreted the regulations. Is this common practice?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">After re-reading this it was stated that the captain prior to catching the halibut stated he would toss (WASTE) the "orange fish" (which shouldn't have included vermillion's, etc.).
He had a decision to make before hand to fish for halibut and release canary's and yelloweye, or to fish for rockfish and release an incidental halibut. He decided instead to keep the prized halibut and waste several excellent quality rockfish. He should have been cited for this.

Were you guys on a halibut trip or a rockfish trip? He has to by law retain one or the other Halibut or yelloweye/canary and that doesn't mean retain them 'till they are dead and then throw them back. You can legally catch and retain halibut and other types of rockfish.

This is not a common practice I hope but when you see the way a lot of them handle wild coho out there it doesn't surprise me.

As far as I know the canary and yelloweye rockfish are not listed as "endangered" but are over fished.

and the captain then explained that the regulations say that if you catch any halibut, there can be no yelloweye or canary rockfish on the boat because Fish & Game would saw you are targeting them, and they are endangered.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">It's not a matter of saying you were targeting them but that is the reason for the regulation as so the many offshore halibut fishermen don't stop off at the rockpile on the way in and target rockfish in an area that is known for canary and yelloweye. You could accidently or incidentally catch yelloweye or canary's at other halibut locations but not likely as much as you would at the rock pile.

In this case the halibut should have been released. If it was a halibut trip then the captain knew that the "orange" fish should have been released imediately.

Real curious what type of trip (halibut and/or rockfish) you were on.

Mark MC,

That was a good point and am real curious about the natural compression whether it decompresses or not or simply if it works.

Dan

[Uglygreen]

I'll agree that the halibut should have been released if they already had canarys and yelloweyes on board per the regulations as they exist now.

I'll even agree that it is the "moral" thing to do.

Would someone please explain to me how anyone in that situation would help the canary population by throwing back the Halibut?

Would someone please explain to me why, when you are Halibut fishing, and already have a halibut on board and dead, (but not a limit) throwing back an obviously dead or going to die bloated up canary helps the situation?

Perhaps the regulation should be that you can keep 1 canary per person while halibut fishing, however when you are limited on halibut you must quit bottom fishing.

EG - You are allowed to keep the incidential Canarys when Halibut fishing, but when the halibut tags are full you are not allowed to continue to bottom fish.

UG

[Mr. Fisherman]

Education could be key here. There is no need to watch these fish float away to get their eyes and other parts pecked out.
Vent the swim bladder and the fish has a fighting chance.
Perhaps there is a publication that shows the proper location and depth to inject a needle to vent the bladder. I know that I have seen this done on TV. I have used a knife in a pinch to vent the bladder on a large Yellow Eye and that fish seemed to come right back to life and tail splash me when I released it. It swam out of sight in the blink of an eye.
Perhaps a little research like a tagging program to go with the education to see if the mortality rates from incidental bycatch is actually reduced by this procedure can help to justify one course of action or the other. At least that way if the area does need to be closed to protect these fish there will be solid data and an effort documented to justify the action that will no doubt have a very negative impact on our coastal communities cash flow.
Show me how to do it properly and give me tags and I'll volunteer for the program. I bet I can find a few friends who would join me .
Yellow Eye is one of my all time favorite fish to eat but I want my son and future grand children (did I say that? :whazzup: ) to enjoy them too.

[RJ]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Waterfish:
[QB] this seems like the dumbest game law I've heard of since the new law that will be in effect this deer/elk season that says you have to keep the genitals attached to the hind quarters! I guess you have your opinion and by the way its not a Law its a ruling its sole purpose is to save people lives from the likes of mad cow disease,this ruling is long overdue.The state of Idaho has had this in effect for several years now

[HawgJaw]

I agree that this is a silly regulation. With that said, if this was a bottom fish trip, then he should have released the halibut and kept the yellow eyes. If someone pays $150.00 (instead of $65-$70) then just target halis. IMHO, HJ

[Waterfish]

RJ, How will keeping genitals attached to hind quarters on deer and elk save peoples'lives from Mad Cow Disease? My understanding of the new regulation is that the intent is to prevent people from disquising the sex of an animal. Last fall I shot a nice 6x6 bull. I took the quarters to Sportsmans' Meat to have them cut and wrapped, and a Fish & Game officer who was there asked if he could take a brain sample to test for CWD. I said sure, and he followed me back home, and after I carefully caped part of the head (because my next stop was the taxidermist), he cut into the skull and took a brain sample. You're right, it is my opinion that this is a dumb regulation. And just because Idaho or California has a dumb law, that doesn't justify having the same dumb law here in Oregon.

[Hamachi]

Forget these rockfish... Let's go kill the TUNA!!!

[Albacore Tuna Captain]

This is a really sad situation for several reasons but the most detestable issue is that a halibut was chosen over the orange fish. :depressed: I know about this incident and have some serious issues with it but the most problematic is that the orange fish were caught first and KEPT. Therefore it was illegal to retain a halibut! The captain of this charter vessel broke the law and also wasted a good product. [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img] The halibut would have survived if returned to the water. The other fish were dead, dead, dead. The law was written for a reason to protect the fish. The captain of this charter acted in response to his ego. To catch and land a halibut! It was a wasteful act and very illegal! Speak out and let it be known! We cannot tolerate these acts of stupidity and wastefulness regardless of how the law is written. Use common sense and put your ego on the back burner!

[Tuna Chaser]

To everyone who hate this kind of thing as much as I do. There is a way to release those nice red unharmed, even on a large Party boat. If you will take a large 32 oz. Jighead like you would use on Scampi and cut off the hook just past the barb, then sharpen the cutoff end to a point. Keep a rod filled with about 30 lb. super braid of Dacron handy. Tie the jig head onto the Dacron at the bend of the hook so that the head and the new point are pointing down. Take your fish as soon as you get it on the boat and run the point through the soft fleshy part of the lower and let the fish back down to the bottom. Once you hit the bottom, pull back HARD and your fish is released and re-compressed at the same time. It's no different than a diver with the bends. Once the pressure is back on the fish, he has a good shot a making it. If your on a Party or Charter boat, this can be the deckhands job. I've been doing it for years and I figure if it only save 50% of the fish, that's 50% not gone to waist.

Just a thought,
Mike

[Born to be Wild]

Right on Mike (Albacore Tuna Captain)!

I emailed this URL to Wayne Butler the Oregon Charter Boat Association President and I would imagine he will be issuing a bulletin to all the charter offices. I imagine he will be addressing this and the handling of wild coho also at the next meeting.

Next year we might not have to worry about this situation because places like the rock pile might be closed to all bottom fishing and halibut.

There might also be a new regulation in effect regarding handling of non fin clipped coho in the salt. Definately will be more education on the handling of non fin clipped coho if nothing else.

Dan

[RJ]

Waterfish,

the whole Idea behind the new ruling is the hunter doesnt have to come in contact with the brain,Ive packed alot of bulls out of the woods on my back, some whole heads but most half the scalp with eyes attached just like the law said (eyes must be attached)anyway my opinion again but its a lot easier and one heck of a lot lighter to cape and cut horns away from head and leave a ****** attached to one side of a quarter than to pack the whole head out for proof of sex,your right though it is a unbelievable waste of fish

[ 08-27-2003, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: RJ ]

[stick flicker]

I agree with Pilar on this one. The laws intention to reduce bicatch has failed miserabley and has had an extremely negative affect with regards to ODFW. The fish are still being killed, because people are still fishing in the habitat that they exist in. If this area was temporarly closed during halibut season than anglers would be forced another 10 miles offshore but no canary's would be caught.
As far as the issue on draggers go, thats going to be a tough one these people are very vocal and very well represented. If you don't belive the strangle hold industry has on the state agencies than your as dumb as the people who sit back and complain about the regs and say nothing about it to the right people. The PFMC meeting is an excellent place to do this. Sport fishers need a leader to step up for our rights and represent us.