New proposed ling cod regs for CA

[Nofish]

I thought I would share this with the Salty Dogs:

Department of Fish and Game
NEWS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 04:022 February 20, 2004

Contacts: Tom Barnes, Marine Region, (858) 546-7167
Marci Yaremko, Marine Region, (805) 568-1220
Carrie Wilson, Marine Region, (831) 649-7191

Recreational Lingcod Minimum Size and Bag Limits to Change

To comply with new federal recreational fishing regulations expected to be effective April 1, 2004, the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) is recommending an increase in the lingcod minimum size limit to 30 inches, and a reduction in the daily bag limit to one fish. The new regulation changes will apply to recreational anglers fishing for lingcod in all waters off California. The DFG will make this recommendation to the Fish and Game Commission at the Commission’s March 4-5, 2004 meeting in Redding, when the Commission will consider taking emergency action to conform to the new federal regulations.

The regulation changes are necessary to ensure that catches of lingcod in California remain at or within the coastwide acceptable harvest levels. The lingcod stock off the coast of California, Oregon and Washington has been formally classified as overfished by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC), and is currently managed under a rebuilding plan to achieve recovery of the stock. A key element of the rebuilding plan is to constrain catches to levels that allow the stock to increase to a healthy level within a specified period of time. In 2002 and 2003, coastwide lingcod catches have well exceeded allowable levels needed to achieve rebuilding of the stock.

"While the Department is reluctant to make in-season changes to recreational size and bag limits, this was the only feasible way to keep catches within allowable levels short of prohibiting all take of lingcod,” said Patty Wolf, DFG Marine Regional Manager. “This management approach continues to provide some fishing opportunity for lingcod throughout the remainder of the year, and allows those anglers who catch large fish to retain them.”

The DFG anticipates by increasing the minimum size limit to 30 inches and reducing the allowable daily bag limit to one lingcod per person, California’s lingcod catches will be held to the allotted amount for the recreational fishery. Current regulations allow two fish per person at a minimum size of 24 inches.

Public testimony will be allowed during the March 4-5 Fish and Game Commission meeting. The need for additional measures has been determined in part from new information on fishing during the last part of 2003 which was not available to managers when the current regulations were established prior to the start of the 2004 season.

###

[Mark Mc]

Yea..there was a rumble that this was coming... You can be sure that certain people will be showing up at the public hearings screaming bloody murder about this, saying that this is based on the flawed, outdated marine survey (called the MRFSS)... Those who are actually out on the water will share their stories of an abundance of lingcod...sportboats with 3 or 4 guys releasing 50+ lings a day. This one will be quite the battle for sure.

[Nofish]

You are right Mark, it will be a battle. I guess I am ok with it as even with the proposed ling restrictions, the bag limits for rockfish, cabazon and greenling are still generous. I am surprised they lump all of the California coast and didn't cut it off at Punta Gorda like they have done some of the other rockfish regs. We do most of our bottom fishing between Crescent City and Brookings. Honestly, the smallish lings (up to about 28 inches) are so abundant in some areas, we have to move to get away from them. We usually have no problem finding lings 30 inches or larger. Stay tuned. Bob

[Nofish]

This is the response I got from one of the Coastside guys that has been working with DFG on bottomfish issues...makes sense:

Yes, we were notified of this plan a while ago. Once again it is because the data indicates we are catching a lot of lings. This can be interpreted a couple of ways - we are catching too many to sustain the population, or there are lots of fish to catch - making it easy to catch them. Next year our allocations are planned to go up (we all think the ling stock is healthy), but without an expensive and time consuming stock assessment to prove that is the case, the fishery management is taking a conservative approach.

Actually this is a general approach we have been discussing with the Dept - when it looks like we are about to exceed our OY (Optimum Yield - read that as total catch limit) then we need to be slowed down by some mechanism, rather than waiting for us to exceed the OY and then closing the fishery. The thinking is that it is better to stay on the water with more restrictive conditions, than to be shut off the water completely.

[Sensei-san]

Mark and Nofish, The proposed CA lingcod regulations are very ominous. As we know, the rockfish are dealt with as a SINGLE fishery from the Mexican Border to the Canadian Border. If CA imposes a 30" minimum with one fish, Oregon and Washington have to follow. This is why Oregon has a 40 fathom rockfish closure despite the relative abundance of fish.

It is very important that people show up for the ODFW meetings on rockfish next week. See the thread about 2005-6 groundfish meetings.

http://hmsc.oregonstate.edu/odfw/adm...tings0402.html

[Salty Walty]

Sensei-san is correct that the entire West Coast is one area. The CA fish are our fish and vice versa. So it would be to our benefit for them to more accurately and closely monitor their stocks and harvest. If they over fish and it is found out the season and entire fishery will be closed to everyone. They are fishing the rockfish and lings pretty hard now and doing pretty well. Those fish are part our catch total too. Chumking could explain this better. We talked about it a few weeks ago and told me it would be a good idea to go to the meeting.

[backlash442]

I fish the Channel Islands. In some areas lings can be a pain. Too many under 24". I mean like every drop you catch one. 30" limit is still doable but I bet you'll have to go through 20 or more fish to keep one. You'd think it would be better to keep the smaller fish and let the larger ones go.

[Nofish]

Here's a response from Coastside Fishing Club guru Bob Franco to a post which complained about the ling cod restriction. He makes some interesting points about the politics of this process:

I admire your tenacity, but we must pick the fights we can possible win, or we will have an army to tired to fight.

The bad guy here is the MRFSS methodology. Most states have abandoned it, and so has this one.

The new data will not come on line until June. The other bad guy is the Magnuson-Stevens act that said you must use the best available science, and MRFSS is the only science at this time. It's pathetic when the only data is bad data.

I have talked with everyone that could help all the way to the director. There is just no way out of this box.

If the state was not on our side, the rockfish season would of been over. This deal was the only way we could keep fishing.

We can still at the present time catch rockfish, and fish and release lings. The 30 inch was not by accident. They need to come up with a number that resulted in almost none being taken.

To come up with anything shorter would of closed us down. This will get better but for now we must bite the bullet.

Bob

[seabass]

My favorite lingcod is one in the 24-30 inch range. Any bigger and they are still excellent but not quite the texture that I prefer. Any smaller they are still excellent but I want them to grow up. Are there any biological reasons for setting a 30 inch minimum rather than a smaller range? I believe the females are the large ones (but what size) and the small ones are males, but how small?