Ca rockfish to close Nov.21

[black magic]

Department of Fish and Game
NEWS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE November 12, 2003 03:0107

Contact(s): Contacts: Carrie Wilson, Marine Region, (831) 649-7191
Tom Barnes, Marine Region, (858) 546-7167

California's Rockfish Fisheries To Close Nov. 21

Following federal action taken by the federal Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) and conforming action taken by the state, effective Friday, Nov. 21, California's recreational and most commercial fisheries for nearshore rockfishes, shelf rockfishes, California scorpionfish (sculpin), and lingcod will close in all ocean waters, announced the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG). In addition, the commercial California sheephead fishery in both state and federal waters will also close on Nov. 21.

The statewide closures were adopted Nov. 5 by the PFMC and subsequently by the DFG after review of projected fishery landings through October. Those landings showed that harvest limits would have been met or exceeded by the Nov. 21 closure date.

The PFMC's actions prohibit recreational and commercial fishing for groundfish in most waters off of California's coastline. For detailed information on the PFMC's actions, log on to www.pcouncil.org. The closures come with more than six weeks left of the current fishing season and will last for the remainder of the year.

In addition, DFG will submit a formal request to the California Fish and Game Commission to consider an emergency action to close recreational fishing for ocean whitefish and for other federal groundfish species not listed above. This action would also be effective on Nov. 21, or as soon as administratively possible, and will last through the end of the year.

Prior to the PFMC actions, the DFG was closely tracking unanticipated high landings of nearshore rockfishes, lingcod, and canary rockfish in California's recreational fishery.

"In past years, anglers had more opportunities to fish for rockfish in deeper waters. This year, fishing for rockfish was limited to waters shallower than 120 feet which put greater pressure on nearshore species," said Fred Wendell, DFG nearshore fishery manager. "When we combined landings from northern California, where fishing opened early in 2003, with later landings from central and southern California, we found that we have filled or exceeded annual limits faster than anticipated." High landings are also believed to have resulted from salmon and albacore anglers switching to rockfish due to poor fishing in the early part of the season.

While these actions close fishing opportunities for a large number of species, there are still recreational fishing opportunities for other species. Those fisheries include kelp bass, sand bass, surfperches, halibut, striped bass, sturgeon, white seabass, yellowtail, bonito, croaker, corbina, opaleye, halfmoon, and others.

For a list and description of fishes included in the closures, refer to DFG's Marine Region Web page at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/ or DFG's Fish Identification Guides, available online at www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/fishid.html. Printed information concerning fishing regulations is also available at your local DFG office.

[Sensei-san]

Typical... Gee...PFMC says we have to close rockfish... Dah... we have to run it through the fish and game commission... Ohh.. it meets after PFMC says we have to close....

So they got an extra week to ra@$ and pillage the rockfish. Now where did that figure that that triggered the emergency closure for the entire West Coast come from??? Not ODFW or WDFW.

[tailchaser]

"In past years, anglers had more opportunities to fish for rockfish in deeper waters. This year, fishing for rockfish was limited to waters shallower than 120 feet which put greater pressure on nearshore species"

Took a scientist to figure that one out. Oregon will be even worse next year when it goes into effect here. Pretty much kiss bottomfishing goodbye like we know it now.

tc

[fish-on]

why b/c of californias screw up that Oregon has to suffer with the closer especially for lingcod? It makes no sense, the ling dont travel between oregon and cali do they?

[Sensei-san]

The sad part of all this is that state's rights have been trampled in the rush to "protect" the groundfish.

California was given a chance by the PFMC to manage its own rockfish years ago. They argued that they could do a better job. So the PFMC allowed them to do their silly inside 120' thing and seasonal closures. All it did was overfish inside 120' and create pentup demand when the rockfish were deemed "recovered" enough to allow a fishery this summer.

So the PFMC in their infinite wisdom says that rockfish are a coastwide problem taking their clue from the collapse of the "cod" fishery off Georges Bank in New England.

In the mean time states like Oregon and Washington that have taken proactive steps to prevent user conflicts and overfishing in the rockfish fishery get nailed by the mess in California.

I just love one size fits all fisheries management.

[fish-on]

sensi by what you said , Oregon should not be nailed by this only cali, so again why in the world are we getting nailed?

[Mark Mc]

Fish-on, you and others keep asking "why"? Well there are a whole bunch of "why"'s before you get to the bottom of it. This is one version of the answer to your question "why in the world are we getting nailed?" :

1. Because these rockfish are federally managed, via the PFMC and NOAA Fisheries.

"But why did they do this?"

2. Because they are following their standard procedures, even if they are flawed.

"But if the procedures are screwed up, why don't they change them, like getting better data?"

3. Because they are very resistant and slow to change.

"Why?"

4. Because these organizations consist of many people who have been there a long time, don't like changes or new ideas, and care mostly about their own jobs and their own "silos".

"Why are they able to stay there so long?"

5. Some keep getting re-appointed by special interests. Some are there because they are part of a good-old-boy network, a network that most people (like sportfishers) don't have access to.

"Why?"

I don't really know. Maybe someone else can take over from here.

I do know that it was a blessing to get sportfisher Darryl Ticehust on the PFMC. He is speaking up aggressively already on our behalf. We need more appointments like this.

[ 11-13-2003, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: Mark Mc ]