Groundfish 2004 - Read it and Weep!

[OceanBlue]

This just in - posted by request of ODFW

Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) Recreational Groundfish Management Decisions for 2004 Oregon Fishery

Bag Limits:

Recreational bag limits remains at 10 fish (including rockfish, greenling, cabezon, etc. excluding: salmon, lingcod, perch sp., sturgeon, sand dabs, striped bass, tuna and baitfish including herring smelt anchovies and sardines)

No retention of canary rockfish and yelloweye rockfish. *

Additional two-fish lingcod bag limit with a 24 inch minimum size. Cabezon size limit increased to 16 inches, and greenling will have a 10 inch minimum size limit.

Season Closure:

The recreational groundfish fishery will be open year-round except that from June 1 through September 30th, the fishery will be closed offshore of the 40-fathom depth curve (to be defined by lat/long). The state will monitor harvest and may take action in-season if any catch limits are exceeded to restrict recreational fishing to inside a line that approximates the 30-fathom curve (defined by lat/long).

Ocean boat recreational fishery:

Ocean boat fishery must stay within the state species catch caps for nearshore rockfish, greenling and cabezon species. Caps to be set in December by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission.


* Note that the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission expressed to the PFMC their desire to avoid regulations resulting in discard of species that would likely not survive such as canary rockfish and yelloweye rockfish. The PFMC adopted no retention of either canary rockfish or yelloweye rockfish in all three states sport fisheries (OR, WA, CA). This will be revisited in April, 2004 with the possibility of a one fish bag of each species. The PFMC adopted no retention to avoid anglers targeting canary rockfish and yelloweye rockfish.

[ 09-17-2003, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: OceanBlue ]

[Miss B Haven]

This really burns me! [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img] Pretty much cuts off my bottom fishing spot. Oct-May is not a good time to be going 26 miles out of the CR. :shocked:
The shale pile is a great place to pick up the "non-orange" guys. There's a bazillion Widows out there and they hold up off the bottom so you can target them without picking up many of the Orange guys (last trip I was 4 Orange out of 60 and 2 of those were Rough Eyes).
Catch and release on those Yellows and Canary's is wasting resources IMHO. I don't believe that any of them live long even when you let the air out of their tires. Somehow I think if my stomach was hanging out my mouth and then sucked back in there would be issues. [img]graemlins/1zhelp.gif[/img]

[OceanBlue]

Sorry, Mel... I know that our Marine Resources folks strongly recommended AGAINST a non-retention rule for just the reasons you state. The commission agreed. A fish "released" is a dead fish. But apparetnly the PFMC thinks that a non-retention rule will discourage sport-fishers from fishing areas where these fish live. Unfortunately, it doesn't discourage the fish from dying anyway... when you don't know for sure where they live until you catch one, it's too late. I say fine, bring it on board, you know you can't keep any more, so the responsible thing is to move on to another spot...

Yes, the closure sucks. There are many spots along the Oregon coast that don't like the 40 fathom rule. The south coast guys fought a 30 fathom closure, but the OSP said they couldn't enforce 40 in some areas, 30 in others. So apparently they decided on 40. It will be a real drag if they pull it into 30. It is a shame that anything has to be closed.

The other thing that never made sense to me is that OR, WA and CA all share a quota.

[tailchaser]

If I'm reading this right, then this ends all halibut fishing as well after June 1???? If so, this chaps my hide like you wouldn't believe. :blush: [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img] Where in the heck to we get lumped in with California?? Show me a canary or any rockfish that travels from Newport to San Diego and back and I might reconsider, but I don't think that's going to happen. The PFMC can suck eggs for all I care. [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img] If they wanted to close some months to fishing, fine do it during the winter when it's not safe anyhow. Chalk one up for the Greenies. :blush:

tc

[Sea Jypzee]

Well, there goes any of the better deep water holes. Looks like all the near shore bottom fishing spots are going to be drastically over fished and depleted now. Gee, that makes real good sence!

[kamloops]

If I was a Lingcod I'd be worried. Looks like the little guys (fish that is)and us, are going to be the loosers in this deal.
I don't think this is going to be end to these
"Experts" curtailing oportunity to our historic fishing grounds.
Look what they have done in California and the East Coast.
Looks like our PFMC are going to let a few large companies i.e. Tyson and others run us out of our State Waters.

[Longfin]

Looks like the charter industry wins another one. The all depth May halibut fishery stays open. Lets all hope for fishable seas in May next year for us smaller boats. Looks like the Halibut quota will never be filled by sportsman so look for the commercial interest to try and pick up the unfilled quota in a couple of years.

[OceanBlue]

Y'know, I gotta get on the hood of the truck now and say to y'all... if we don't like it, then perhaps we should be speaking our minds on the front-end, rather than the back-end, of these decisions. Some of us have. It's time for more to get involved. I (and others) post information about upcoming hearings, etc. on a regular basis. If we're not taking the time to show up and express our interests, or at least submit them in writing, then we have no cause to complain after the rules are made.

You have no idea how impactful it is to have one sportfisher give up a day at work, a day when s/he can be fishing, to testify at a hearing. Imagine how impactful it is to have many voices, all speaking... all sacrificing to save what they love. The commission hears that. They honor it. They give it great weight when we speak out because we speak from a passion, not from our pocketbooks.

Think about it. Put the commission meetings on your calendar and go voice your opinion... constructively. Don't wait for topics of your interest to come up, you can testify in any meeting during what they call "unscheduled testimony." Here is a link to meetings and agendas ODFW Commission meetings

Getting off the hood of the truck now... and thinking about swordfish...

[Miss B Haven]

OB- :blush: [img]graemlins/stupid.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/1zhelp.gif[/img] :depressed: Hit it on the heaD (right in the soft spot). Man- it's tough when they schedule those mid week mtgs a couple hours away.... but I'll be at the next one being

[Orca]

This is bad news. And Ocean Blue, you are so right, although I don't think they planned to listen to anyone on this one. They just want to eek out every last red fish for bycatch so the commercials can throw them away by the tons.

We can start now and try to get better representation of the recreational interests in the mix at the PFMC - if that is at all possible. Ocean Blue, do you know at what level of Govenment we should be talking to that may hold some sway over the PFMC? It is about time someone holds these folks accountable for the continued destruction of our fisheries.

[Lepper]

as was spoken before on several different subjects.. "this sucks eggs"

[OceanBlue]

Guys - let's set the record straight... your marine resources folks/ODFW commissioners really are fighting for us. But they need help!

What can you do? Check out Recreational Fishers Alliance. A political organization, sure, but they employ full-time lobbyists that fight for us. And the more Oregon constituents they get, the more they pay attention to us. Oregon Anglers is another that you cannot overlook. Black Magic is involved there and he is our voice, but we need to show support. OA is understandably focused where their membership is... freshwater, primarily.

If anyone can spare the time and expense to get involved with PFMC directly, FABULOUS. They hold meetings in CA mostly. Sometimes in WA DC. I cannot bear the expense and time to do this as a single parent, but maybe others can. I'd certainly be willing to help with expenses if someone is willing to go and keep the "silent majority" from being so silent.

But really, the point here is start at home. Watch for and attend some of these ODFW hearings locally. Make it a priority. Give up one night's sleep, one vacation day, one fishing trip, in order to be the voice. It DOES make a difference!

Don Bodenmiller of the ODFW Marine Resources Program regularly sends me notices to post. He does this because he cares. Patty (the head of the program) cares. They've expressed to us numerous times how great it is to see recreational representation. Because WE care. We're not exploiting the resource. We want it there for us, for our children, for our children's children and on and on.... It is far better for Oregon's economy to sustain the resource for sport fishers than it is for commercial fishers... and with the help of RFA, we're making this understood in Oregon.

(I'm NOT a political activist... really, I'm NOT... okay, I tell myself this, but I'm finding myself reluctantly taking that role, time and time again!)

Bottom line is... ask yourself... What am I doing to help sustain our fisheries?

OB out

[Mr. Fisherman]

Yea, I remember testifying about the issues facing attendance of midweek meetings and the guys and gals who pay the taxes having issue with them
It changed the dates and times for one or two meetings
I think that since we are paying the tab at least half of the scheduled meetings should be scheduled and conducted when regular tax paying intrest bearing folks can attend without taking time from work to do it (and stoping the meter on the tax machine to boot).
Chalk one up for the commercials (Who hold sway over the board and the commission)
I understand it is somewhat of a compromise but what research has been conducted to support this decision?
What impact will this have on our coastal ecomomies and what are the figures to support it? Where did the figures come from?
I testified several times asking for this type of stewardship with decisions that impact our (and our childrens) fishery.
How does this decision constructively support the charter of the decision making body?
I must say that I appreciate the work that helped to reach this compromise but I am very dissapointed.
Look for me to start taking my vacations in Alaska or Canada. I'll be putting together plans and inviting whoever wants to go that has worthy equipment. Somewhere there is a responsible stewardship who's communities are looking forward to receiving the displaced recreational dollars from our unlucky coastal towns.
No wonder the gas dock in Depoe Bay is closing. He is connected and knows what is coming. (No, I don't know if this is true or not but it sounds good and might have a glint of reason).
I will still fish off shore. Where seems to be the [img]graemlins/stupid.gif[/img] question....

[OceanBlue]

Mr. F: You are definitely one of the folks who contributed to the intitial meetings on the groundfish issue. Please, this is not meant to discount your efforts at all!

Some things are beyond the ODFW. PFMC is a body that is NOT based in Oregon and they address issues based on worst case scenario - CA is in huge jeopardy - would you really have them be more liberal? Okay, I'd certainly have them be more realistic, but I guess I'd prefer that they be cautious rather than losing our children's future recreational opportunities and totally devastating our coastal economy.

As far as our local ODFW? - Meeting times are set based on the best probability for attendance. Realistically, how many fishers will attend a meeting on a Saturday, say, 1pm? Nope, they're gonna be out fishing. The ODFW and Marine Resources folks go out of their way (and I'm quite sure that salaried employees aren't getting paid for late night meetings 100 miles away from their homes) to try to schedule meetings when the PEOPLE are able (and willing) to attend. Yes, most are held on the coast, but that's because that's where the fish are. So, maybe we suggest that they hold one of these hearings in PDX, Salem, Eugene... maybe, but I'd sure feel bad if they went to those lengths and no one showed.

Suggestions?

[SKSPAWNER]

OB: While not able to attend these meetings for many of the same reasons stated by others, I have been active within my immediate family. Going behind the official channels, I have been bending the ear of my family relative who is Governor of the state just north of us. While he has not been an avid outdoors person, he understands the plight and also sees the ridiculous turns that some of these regulations have taken. Right now he is involved with the salmonid regulations, but he has assured me that he will bend a few ears of our behalf with anyone who can do us any good. WE WANT A SWORDFISH!!!!!!!

Sunny K

[id. painter]

Ocean Blue is absolutly correct.
There is enough voice when you all work together. Sign petitions , send letters to your elected officials , Get lots of signitures threaten to change your vote ,, Get after them, make them accountable. Make them show the public the scientific studies that are the basis for the radical regulation changes. If enough of you really got together you could do much to influence these changes. id. painter

[Mark Mc]

On a related subject, did any of you read the Sept 7 Oregonian article in the Biz section "Fishing for a solution"?

link: Sept 7 Oregonian article

A commercial trawler admits to the reporter that they discard thousands of pounds of Dover sole because they don't want to fill their sole quota with the lower $ dover instead of petrale:


Quote:
"One example: Each permitted vessel is allowed to catch 20,000 pounds of sole every two months, including up to 10,000 pounds of petrale. But the price fishermen receive -- $1.15 a pound -- is three times that of Dover or English sole.

So if a fisherman is 3,000 pounds under his sole limit, and still hasn't come close to netting his 10,000 pounds of petrale, and the nets come in full of Dover sole?

"We throw it over," said Tom Morrison of Warrenton. "I didn't do that before. But they've got us screwed down so tight now that if we don't, we can't make it."
-------------------

Talk about a bizarre combination of stupidity and honesty...

[Chilly one]

Ocean Blue, thanks for the updates re: PFMC 2004 Regs. etc. I was VERY curious if this new closure during the summer months outside 40 Fthms. is going to exclude/eliminate sport fishing Halibut on our coast, for offshore Halibut. I surely hope NOT! that would be a tough one, altho we could lump the quota into say 5/6 days a week in May for Halibut. There will be upcoming meetings in Newport I believe at HMSC in South Beach, we all should be there with new formulated sportfishing options we want for the 2004 Halibut season.Yes the BIG BOYS have big ties to the $$ and it's parrell to bycatch and how that now dictates the seasons on both fronts sport and commercial. California has a Sportfishermen's Alliance with thousands of members and have influence in numbers perhaps they would be a good contact for how to organize/formulate efforts and save a few steps along the way. Please let us know if in fact this does affect the months of June and after for offshore H'butting! Thanks, Chillyone...
"Happiness is a Bent Rod!"

[OceanBlue]

Don Bodenmiller assures me that Pacific halibut WILL be open at all-depths during authorized seasons during the June through September closure period. The expected impacts (dead fish) in the halibut fishery have been accounted for.

Additionally, there will be more public meetings on the topic coming up. PFMC will be making a decision at their November meeting. See below for ODFW proposal.

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE PROPOSALS FOR MODIFYING THE PACIFIC HALIBUT CATCH SHARING PLAN FOR THE 2004 OREGON FISHERY



The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife held a public meeting on September 3, 2003 to discuss proposed changes to the Pacific Halibut Catch Sharing Plan for Oregon fisheries. Based on the meeting comments, and other public input, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife recommends the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) consider adopting the following options for additional public comment.


1. Increased flexibility in adopting the Spring and Summer all-depth open dates from Cape Falcon to Humbug Mountain.

The Spring fishery (May through July) would continue to be managed under the “fixed day” concept. The “fixed” days will continue to occur on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays. The fixed season dates will be established preseason and will occur in consecutive weeks starting the second Thursday in May, with exceptions to avoid adverse tidal conditions. If, following the “fixed” dates, quota for this season remains unharvested, a second opening will be held. The fishery will be open every other week on Friday and Saturday except that week(s) could be skipped to avoid adverse tidal conditions. The potential open Fridays and Saturdays will be identified preseason. The fishery will continue until there is insufficient quota for an additional day of fishing. Any remaining quota will be added to the Summer quota.

The Summer fishery (August through October) would no longer be managed under the “fixed day” concept. The fishery will continue to be structured for Friday and Saturday openers, and will open on the first Friday in August. The fishery will be open every other week on Friday and Saturday except that week(s) could be skipped to avoid adverse tidal conditions. The potential open Fridays and Saturdays will be identified preseason. The fishery will continue until there is insufficient quota for an additional day of fishing. Any remaining quota will be transferred to the nearshore fishery (presently inside the 30-fathom curve).

Rationale: During both 2002 and 2003 insufficient “back-up” dates were established preseason and quota was left unharvested in 2002 and is likely to be left unharvested in 2003. Many factors contributed to this situation, including improved salmon fishing opportunity, and adverse weather during the Spring “fixed day” fishery. This proposal adds potential open days to avoid this situation in 2004.

2. Nearshore fishery depth limit

If the recreational groundfish fishery is constrained to depths within the 40-fathom curve or shallower, the outside depth of the nearshore Pacific halibut fishery, presently open inside the 30-fathom curve, would be adjusted to match the outside depth closure of the groundfish fishery.

Rationale: Enforcement

3. Nearshore fishery retention of Pacific halibut

It would be illegal to have Pacific halibut taken in the nearshore fishery (presently constrained to inside the 30-fathom curve) on board a vessel that is outside the open area.

Rationale: Enforcement


4. Combine central coast subareas during the Spring all-depth fishery

Combine the two sub-areas in the Cape Falcon to Humbug Mountain area during the Spring all-depth fishery.

Rationale: If the proposal to increase flexibility to the central coast all-depth fisheries is adopted (proposal 1), participants at the public meeting suggested that having a separate sub-area from the Florence north jetty to Humbug Mountain was not necessary.

5. Extend duration of South of Humbug Mountain fishery

Last year the Council adopted an October 31 ending date for the fisheries south of Cape Falcon. In the Federal Register, the area south of Humbug Mountain was not included in the season extension.

Rationale: Housekeeping

[Albacore Tuna Captain]

Originally posted by Fred R.:
Looks like the charter industry wins another one. The all depth May halibut fishery stays open. Lets all hope for fishable seas in May next year for us smaller boats. Looks like the Halibut quota will never be filled by sportsman so look for the commercial interest to try and pick up the unfilled quota in a couple of years.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Fred, I don't understand where you are coming from when you say this is a win for the charter boats. Everyone that rides a charter boat is a "Sport Fisherman" who cannot afford his own boat. Every "Sport Fisherman" has a right to the alloted fish. The inside 30 fathom fishery was originally set aside for the sport boat concerns because of the claim they could not get out during the all depth fishery due to weather and that the charter boats were taking all the quota. ODFW has been very consciencious of everyones concern and there has been no special interest applied. The sport fishermen on charter boats are affected just like those on their own private boats.

To address the concerns of all it takes effort on everyones part. I attend the meetings by ODFW every year and most of the time, the number of concerned sport fishermen are few. We don't need to be devisive on this issue, we all need to work together.

[corrirod]

The million dollar question here is:

"How do you fix the bycatch problem of the commercials?"

And before you take the easy road and say "shutdown the commercials" think about it first.

I don't have the answer but that "question" is "the problem" that is causing this whole mess.

There are a lot smarter people on this board than me and I'm hoping you'll think about this and voice your possible solutions.

Because I started commercial salmon fishing this summer I know that any opinion I would have would be construed as being bias so that is why I pose the question for someone else to answer. Please keep in mind that the solution has to be accepted on both sides though. These commercial fisherman have a lot more to lose than just their fishing season, they lose their jobs, their boats, their homes, and much more so you should understand their motivation. If I told you I was taking away your primary way to make a living that has been passed on to you for generations, how motivated would you be to stop me? My guess is pretty motivated.

I don't approve of what the big commercials are doing at all but I realize the impact they will face and I know that someone out there has a better "mousetrap" or plan to create a compromise.

If nobody can figure it out, or if that plan is unobtainable, then by all means shut it down. Depleting a resource is unacceptable.

Put the thinking caps on folks and let's figure this out. [img]graemlins/1zhelp.gif[/img]

[skein]

Corrirod said:

Because I started commercial salmon fishing this summer I know that any opinion I would have would be construed as being bias

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">
Not so. We respected your knowledge and commitment as a sportfisher, and somehow I don't think you've suddenly gone through a complete transformation just because you now fish commercially.

I think you are in a perfect position to shed some much-needed light on both sides of the issue. Don't hesitate to tell us how it looks from your new perspective, and how that coincides or conflicts with your previous position.

Of course you're a troller. If you had bought a gill-net boat we would hunt you down and cut your liver out. :grin: (just kidding)

Skein

[ 10-21-2003, 09:43 AM: Message edited by: skein ]

[Miss B Haven]

Originally posted by skein:
(just kidding)
Skein [/QB]

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Or Not! :shocked:

PS- there's a bottom dragger that winters in a slip by me at Warrenton. I've got to know him over the years. He and his family used to own some 80 footer commercial boats. He's down to a little 30 something to stay in business with all the restrictions.
He fishes for those nasty little flat guys (whatever they are) that they make the fake crab and use in catfood or whatever.
Anywho... we were taking about the changes comning up. He said it shouldn't effect him cause he's ALREAD restricted away from the reefs where bottom fish are found. He said he catches almost zero rock fish. He did pick up a few lings one day this year cause he found an uncharted wreck and got his gear hung up on it. Once he got broke loose and pulled the net he found the lings. Normally he can't fish anywhee near rockfish/ling structure.
I wasn't aware of that- not sure you folks were either!
Doesn't help my being peeved about not being able to fish the Shale Pile (except in the winter) though! [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]


[ 10-21-2003, 10:03 AM: Message edited by: Miss B Haven ]

[Threemuch]

I was out albacore trolling and we saw a trawler who was leaving a trail of floating red rockfish. I am talking about many hundreds of 5-10 pound rockfish.

I am dead set against this kind of fishing. Bottom trawling does not make environmental sense. It's not selective enough, and damages reefs. Midwater trawls are better, but still not selective enough.

Rod, I have a really hard time with the whole argument that we should keep on commercial fishing because our daddy did it, and we have this boat and all this gear and I will lose my income and my home and I don't know what else to do. People lose their livelyhoods all the time, you find something else to do. You adapt, you overcome. When another kind of business lays off 100s or even thousands of workers, they don't wring their hands about it for years and years before finally doing it.

A wise old salt once said to me, you can't really hurt a fishery with hook and line, but when you bring in nets and pots and other non-selective gear, you are flirting with disaster.

Just how far are we going to push the stocks of the fish before we put a halt to destructive fishing practices?

I have no problem with the powers that be deciding that bottom fish need a break and we can't fish for them anymore, but they better get the bottom draggers out of there too. I bet all the bottom fish caught by everyone I know don't add up to the quantity of fish I saw floating behind that one trawler.

Trawling gear should be illegal. Especially bottom trawls. It should also be illegal to fish with pots, stick gear, or long lines. Put em all on hook and line. If that won't support the fishery, let supply and demand take care of it. If it doesn't, the fish sure won't mind.

Commercial fishing is the harvest of wild animals for profit. Any practice of it should be as closely scruitinized as a commercial hunting operation on land would be.

[corrirod]

Kurt, perhaps you should go back and re-read my post. My point was not that a commercial fisherman should keep his job because "his daddy did it", my point was these commercial fishermen are not going to just roll over and let you take away their livelyhood without a fight.

Just maybe there is an alternative to just sending them out on the streets? You make them out to be criminals yet they are following the rules, the rules that are set by a governing body that YOU help pay for.

Similating their occupational disposition with other "companies" that lay people off is completely off base. To create a valid analogy you'd have to say that companies could no longer LEGALLY hire "engineers" so they fired them. Now how would that make YOU feel? Angry? Upset? Wanting to fight for for the right to keep your occupation that you spent 4-6 years of college training for? I would think so. I guess your right though, you could "adapt". You'd just have to take a regular hourly job, sell your home, and downsize the way of life your family enjoys currently. No problem huh?

Let's stick to finding ideas and solutions.

Kurt's idea is to get rid of trawl gear, longline gear, pots, etc.. I'm not opposed to that if nobody can come up with a better solution, but that's the easy, cut and dry solution. Then you have to figure out what happens to all that lost revenue, all the seafood processing jobs, all the marinas, etc.

Can someone out there figure out if there's a way to accomodate both sides? I'd be more interested in that.

[Threemuch]

Rod, maybe it's not criminal, but anyone dumping hundreds of pounds of bycatch over the side because it is protected can't be thinking what he is doing is "right". And I know I paint with a broad brush there. Most commercial fishermen are not running bottom trawl gear.

However, I disagree with your statement that my analogy is not valid. There wouldn't need to be a LAW, just economic reality to force me to retrain myself to do a new job. Been there, done that. It made me want to fight, but there wasn't really anyone to fight against.

I strongly feel that to continue to exploit dwindling wild resources for the livelyhood or profit of relatively few people is wrong and shortsighted.

I am with you in your calling for a better mousetrap. 100% selective gear against scientifically valid quotas of catch for the species that can support that catch. Quotas managed without regard to anyone's livelyhood or bottom line. Unfortunately, I don't have any idea how you get there.

KB

[puffins crew]

"Trawling gear should be illegal. Especially bottom trawls. It should also be illegal to fish with pots, stick gear, or long lines. Put em all on hook and line. If that won't support the fishery, let supply and demand take care of it."

The last part of this quote is well worth thinking about. The trawl fishery should be driven by demand, not supply.

Just a thought.

Peace, Tom

[Threemuch]

Not sure if I follow you, tom? If we let trawling be driven by demand only, the oceans would be strip mined of every last fish. Believe it. Don't underestimate the worlds hunger for fish, especially asia.

[corrirod]

To the best of my knowledge there is no 100% selective way to fish, is there?

Wait, I've got it!!!!!!

We need to create a machine that drives on the bottom(without damaging it of course) that sucks up fish and distinguishes species and spits out the bad ones! Basically a really big ocean version of a HOOVER with smart capabilities. :tongue:

[Gregotis98]

This is a hard one. Offer a buy back option for the permits of the trawlers that is realistic and worth it to some of them. Shutting it down the way it is now is going to cost alot more in money and jobs this way, charters and deckhands, tackle and bait employees, boat repair shops, etc. This would also bring the price of these fish back up to where some of the commercials could make a living at it. Some skippers as it is now do it for suplemental income or just as a tax write off. If it were worth it to some of these old salts that are about to give it up, or the tax write off guys the number of permits could be reduced and all of us would be happy.

Oh wait, we just spent 86 billion on something else.

[The Bad Fish]

not to get off the subject but.. [img]graemlins/1zhelp.gif[/img] ... does this mean the rockpile is off limits now??? how deep is the 40 fathom curve and how far out is it?? thanks to the all knowing.

[Sensei-san]

I think the operative words in the PFMC decision is ALL THE STATES CA-OR-WA. In the last few years one of the states was closed down during much of the year. I think it is the one with a new terminator. Somehow the PFMC seems to tilt toward the state with the most people. I guess they like for us in a state that had good management to share the pain of a state's bad management. Doesn't make much sense.

As for the comment about charters. I think that ATC had the best observation. I attended the Newport halibut meeting and most of the changes were made by both skiff anglers and charters. I thought that the meeting was good and that all left happy about the changes. In fact most of the halibut changes were made by skiff anglers as the southern ports were closed down this spring because they met the quota in the May fishery. They wanted the open season that is being proposed.

[corrirod]

Keith, 40 fathoms is 240ft. and yes, that would eliminate the Rockpile as it is beyond the first 40 fathom line, unless PFMC somehow decides to go around Stonewall Banks.

[Albacore Tuna Captain]

The proposal as I read it states that the Rockpile (Stonewall Banks) would be off limits to rock fishing from June 1 thru September 30. Basically no fishing there during the summer. This closure is obvious in that the intent is to reduce the impact on the Canaries and Yellow eyes during the high sport fishery season. It falls short of a complete closure which I'm sure we all want to avoid. There are spots inside of the 40 fathome curve but are a distance from most ports.

Winter fishing at the Rock Pile will be awesome both in the catch and ride. :shocked:

[The Bad Fish]

looks like i will be saving my money to go to neah bay for my halibut and rockfish. what a bummer. how do you find out about these ground fish meetings?

[KeyWest]

Sticking to the original challenge, to attend the meetings - here is the PFMC meeting schedule:

http://www.pcouncil.org/events/future.html

The next one is Nov 3 - 7 at:

Hilton San Diego/Del Mar
15575 Jimmy Durante Blvd.
Del Mar, California 92014-1901
Phone: (858) 792-5200

Miss B - Mel - should the TA get together be moved from Beaverton to San Diego?

By the way, here is the page on how to get involved:

http://www.pcouncil.org/operations/involved.html