Initial PFMC ocean alternatives - www.ifish.net
The Oregonian's Bill Monroe!

Go Back   www.ifish.net > Ifish Fishing and Hunting > Ifish Community

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-06-2020, 11:45 AM   #1
darth baiter
Steelhead
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 182
Default Initial PFMC ocean alternatives

Attached contains the first round of ocean salmon fishing alternatives that the PFMC will be reviewing and assessing this week in California. By the end of this weeks meeting they will have 3 Alternatives that will be available for comments and assessments for the next several weeks leading up to the final round of the chosen seasons at the April meeting in Vancouver. This is very first cut for this weeks meeting. Its pretty grim for NOF fisheries as Alternative 3 has no fishing for non treaty. Once again these are the initial round for this week. Things will change this week as modeling progresses and the results are compared to the conservation goals for the various stocks.


https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/2...ch-6-2020.pdf/

__________________
L2

Ifish #98 ABC (after board change)
darth baiter is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-06-2020, 12:03 PM   #2
ron m
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Corvallis & Newport
Posts: 8,403
Default Re: Initial PFMC ocean alternatives

Thanks, good to know the alternatives. Even though they may change, the alternatives for the central OR coast are better than I expected. So far I prefer Alt I over Alt II and both over Alt III for the central coast.
ron m is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2020, 02:28 PM   #3
fishin"G"man
Ifish Nate
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 2,643
Default Re: Initial PFMC ocean alternatives

ALTERNATIVE I ALTERNATIVE II ALTERNATIVE III North of Cape Falcon North of Cape Falcon North of Cape Falcon Supplemental Management Information Supplemental Management Information Supplemental Management Information Model #: Coho-20xx, Chinook xx20 Model #: Coho-20xx, Chinook xx20 Model #: Coho-20xx, Chinook xx20 1. Overall non-Indian TAC: 60,000 Chinook and 35,000 coho marked with a healed adipose fin clip (marked). 2. Non-Indian commercial troll TAC: 30,000 Chinook and 5,600 marked coho. 3. Trade: May be considered at the April Council meeting. 4. Overall Chinook and/or coho TACs may need to be reduced or fisheries adjusted to meet NMFS ESA guidance, FMP requirements, upon conclusion of negotiations in the North of Falcon forum, or upon receipt of preseason catch and abundance expectations for Canadian and Alaskan fisheries. 1. Overall non-Indian TAC: 45,000 Chinook and 25,000 coho marked with a healed adipose fin clip (marked). 2. Non-Indian commercial troll TAC: 22,500 Chinook and 4,000 marked coho. 3. Trade: 4. Same as Alternative 1 Closed



Not separated/charted out and delineated as in the information but you can get the idea...


Scraping option/alternative 3 (simply not acceptable to Indian treaty nor bi state economics) I'm betting on alternative II. 1. Overall non-Indian TAC: 45,000 Chinook and 25,000 coho marked with a healed adipose fin clip (marked). 2. Non-Indian commercial troll TAC: 22,500 Chinook and 4,000 marked coho.

fishin"G"man is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-06-2020, 03:48 PM   #4
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 18,063
Default Re: Initial PFMC ocean alternatives

Fully expected the NO FISHING for NON-treaty as the low option with the dismal coho forecast.


Whatever option eventually comes to pass (assuming NON-treaty ocean fisheries are a go) we will run out of coho LONG before we can access the available kings.


They need to just model a more realistic chinook guideline and pass the unused chinook impacts to more terminal inside fisheries.
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2020, 05:30 PM   #5
Pipe Dream
Ifish Nate
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: University Place and Whidbey Island
Posts: 3,053
Default Re: Initial PFMC ocean alternatives

Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeFISH View Post
Fully expected the NO FISHING for NON-treaty as the low option with the dismal coho forecast.


Whatever option eventually comes to pass (assuming NON-treaty ocean fisheries are a go) we will run out of coho LONG before we can access the available kings.


They need to just model a more realistic chinook guideline and pass the unused chinook impacts to more terminal inside fisheries.
That is a very pragmatic recommendation.
Pipe Dream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2020, 04:14 AM   #6
R Bob
Chromer
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Yreka/Neotsu
Posts: 518
Default Re: Initial PFMC ocean alternatives

Thanks for the link!
R Bob is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2020, 07:44 PM   #7
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 18,063
Default Re: Initial PFMC ocean alternatives

PFMC 1 adjourned last night....

The options include the following quotas for state recreational fisheries off the Washington coast:

Option 1: 30,000 Chinook and 29,400 marked coho. This option includes an early season Chinook fishery from June 14 through June 28 in all ocean areas, followed by a Chinook and marked coho fishery from June 29 through Sept. 30.

Option 2: 22,125 Chinook and 22,500 marked coho. This option opens Chinook and coho fishing in all ocean areas from June 27 through Sept. 13.

Option 3: All ocean areas closed to salmon fishing.
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2020, 07:59 PM   #8
Seafrk
Ifish Nate
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Exit 30
Posts: 2,480
Default Re: Initial PFMC ocean alternatives

I'm not the brightest bulb , could someone splain to me when we have dwindling coho forecasts are they even contemplating opening up the big pond on June 14th or any time in June period?
Seafrk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2020, 08:37 AM   #9
Radke
Ifish Nate
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: 45:29.265 N 122:18.377 W
Posts: 2,329
Default Re: Initial PFMC ocean alternatives

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seafrk View Post
I'm not the brightest bulb , could someone splain to me when we have dwindling coho forecasts are they even contemplating opening up the big pond on June 14th or any time in June period?
To a great deal, it is political. On our southern Oregon coast, the Coho come in much sooner than they do up north. There are a lot of people who make their living selling guided fishing trips, and they need to be on the water when the fish are there. The political part comes in when the people who make their living selling trips do not get a chance to make a living, they can be vocal.

Last edited by Radke; 03-10-2020 at 08:39 AM.
Radke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2020, 09:57 PM   #10
Paddler
Ifish Nate
 
Paddler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 3,436
Default Re: Initial PFMC ocean alternatives

Any updates?
__________________
TEAM 50 WIDE- We don't reel fish in more than once.

Single main, no kicker.
Paddler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2020, 06:28 AM   #11
Chum King
Chromer
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Newport, Oregon
Posts: 566
Default Re: Initial PFMC ocean alternatives

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paddler View Post
Any updates?

I replied to your other post on Salty Dog board, but for all:


I'm not sure what updates you might be looking for. The PFMC (https://www.pcouncil.org/) meeting for the 2020 seasons is scheduled to start on April 4. You can find the briefing book materials for the April meeting here: https://www.pcouncil.org/april-2020-briefing-book-2/ I assume you are looking for the salmon information, and that will be under agenda item E. Agenda item E.1.b has summaries of the three public hearings.

The April PFMC meeting will be by webinar only this year. The Salmon Advisory Subpanel will similarly be meeting by webinar only. More information about this and the detailed agenda can be found here: https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/2...ed-agenda.pdf/

Public comments are still being accepted via their E-portal at https://pfmc.psmfc.org/Meeting/Details/1383 through April 2nd. You can also link to the E-portal via the briefing book.
Chum King is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2020, 08:15 AM   #12
darth baiter
Steelhead
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 182
Default Re: Initial PFMC ocean alternatives

An analysis of the 3 ocean alternatives can be found at:

https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/2...report-ii.pdf/


This report provides comparison of modeling the 3 alternatives and the results as it relates to meeting management objectives and fishery distribution. It doesn't go into analysis of inside waters fisheries such as Puget Sound.
__________________
L2

Ifish #98 ABC (after board change)
darth baiter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2020, 01:30 PM   #13
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 18,063
Default Re: Initial PFMC ocean alternatives

The historic record would lead me to believe the PFMC has neither the discipline nor fortitude to exercise the NO FISHING option NOF for 2020.

If we fish NOF, we will ASSUREDLY run out of coho before we are anywhere close to expending the available chinook.

Hoping sound and intellectually honest thinkers on the council can make the prudent decision to pass those surplus chinook impacts to inside fisheries right out of the gate.
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2020, 06:21 AM   #14
nook of the north
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 141
Default Re: Initial PFMC ocean alternatives

Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeFISH View Post
The historic record would lead me to believe the PFMC has neither the discipline nor fortitude to exercise the NO FISHING option NOF for 2020.

If we fish NOF, we will ASSUREDLY run out of coho before we are anywhere close to expending the available chinook.

Hoping sound and intellectually honest thinkers on the council can make the prudent decision to pass those surplus chinook impacts to inside fisheries right out of the gate.
Yes!
nook of the north is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2020, 12:42 PM   #15
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 18,063
Default Re: Initial PFMC ocean alternatives

Question for darth baiter...

Can't help but notice the huge discrepancy in PFMC's expected chinook:coho ratios between commercial troll and rec.

Commercial trollers are expected to catch chinook over coho at a ratio of just under 6:1 while recs are expected to catch chinook and coho at virtually equal rates 1:1.

The way I see it, there is NOTHING inherently species-selective about the gear either sector is using, so it begs the question of why the huge discrepancy in encounter/landing rates between the two sectors?

Or is it simply that the comm trollers use all their coho as release mortality to gain access to more chinook?
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2020, 04:46 PM   #16
darth baiter
Steelhead
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 182
Default Re: Initial PFMC ocean alternatives

Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeFISH View Post
Question for darth baiter...

Can't help but notice the huge discrepancy in PFMC's expected chinook:coho ratios between commercial troll and rec.

Commercial trollers are expected to catch chinook over coho at a ratio of just under 6:1 while recs are expected to catch chinook and coho at virtually equal rates 1:1.

The way I see it, there is NOTHING inherently species-selective about the gear either sector is using, so it begs the question of why the huge discrepancy in encounter/landing rates between the two sectors?

Or is it simply that the comm trollers use all their coho as release mortality to gain access to more chinook?
oh boy, there's a number of things going on here but you are sort of getting the gist of it. For the commercial fishery, Chinook are the money fish so they focus on this species. They have the May-Jun Chinook only season where they take a majority of their allowable Chinook catch. In most years, the Chinook abundance is best north in Area 3, 4 in the "the Prairie" and "Blue Dot" etc. Chinook catch in Area 1 is usually pretty light; Area 2 sometimes good. But yes, the trollers would like to use their coho mortalities to cover the impacts for Chinook first, then take some as supplemental MSF catch in the All-Species season in the summer. The recreational fleet has a bit more mixed bag interests. Coho down south, Chinook and coho as you move north. So in the sport fishery, coho is usually the driver and priority. This difference in priority can result in some trading of Chinook and coho impacts between the troll fishery and sports in-season to get one or the other farther along if one is starting to get pinched. Generally, the trade is sports give some Chinook to the troll fishery and the troll fishery gives some coho in return. Trades are made when both sides agree that they will gain something but they have impacts to spare on one species.

One other factor is that the PFMC salmon management plan contains a table of troll vs sport percentages in NOF fisheries. The percentages change with total allowable harvest. The split for Chinook has been 50:50 for most years, including 2020. You will notice that the 2020 alternatives follow this rule. The coho split is bit more confusing but shows that the bulk of the harvest goes to sport.

A table describing the splits is on page 53 of this beast.



https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/2...ndment-19.pdf/


Hope this helps.
__________________
L2

Ifish #98 ABC (after board change)
darth baiter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2020, 09:02 PM   #17
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 18,063
Default Re: Initial PFMC ocean alternatives

Where might one see a historic accounting of the commercial "shaker" coho encounters? They gotta cycle thru a pile of coho releases.... or just a bunch of undetected tow mortality until they pull the gear outta the water.

I remember one year testifying at the PFMC Westport hearing in favor of an ocean rec early season MSF for chinook only... citing the exceedingly small likelihood of rec coho encounters during that time.

I was informed by technical staff that while coho encounters were far and few between, they were VERY expensive in terms of Queets coho ER. Wouldn't want us recs out there adding to the demise of this stock of concern. Of course there was no mention of how hard commercial trollers operating in that same early timeframe were hitting those depressed Queets coho.
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2020, 09:52 PM   #18
duke1122
Tuna!
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,119
Default Re: Initial PFMC ocean alternatives

Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeFISH View Post
Question for darth baiter...

Can't help but notice the huge discrepancy in PFMC's expected chinook:coho ratios between commercial troll and rec.

Commercial trollers are expected to catch chinook over coho at a ratio of just under 6:1 while recs are expected to catch chinook and coho at virtually equal rates 1:1.

The way I see it, there is NOTHING inherently species-selective about the gear either sector is using, so it begs the question of why the huge discrepancy in encounter/landing rates between the two sectors?

Or is it simply that the comm trollers use all their coho as release mortality to gain access to more chinook?
Not sure this comment will be of help, but, out of Garibaldi the May and June trollers do a lot of their chinook fishing at 250 to 300 ft. 20 ft. off the bottom. Is it possible that coho don't get encountered much at that depth? If sports wanted to fish for those fish they would have to let the gear sink, slowly power up, let it rise, go to idle, sink it, repeat. With good bait and patience, fish on. Maybe even a halibut or two. IMO.
duke1122 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2020, 05:16 PM   #19
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 18,063
Default Re: Initial PFMC ocean alternatives

No discipline. No conservation. No problem...

The evolving Ocean Option at PFMC seeks to assert the hi option for coho and midway between the hi and mid option for chinook.

Surprise, surprise.... ( in my best Gomer Pyle)
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2020, 10:05 AM   #20
ron m
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Corvallis & Newport
Posts: 8,403
Default Re: Initial PFMC ocean alternatives

For along the OR coast south of Falcon, the commercial trollers are limited to the number of lines per wire and they mostly fish all of their lines deep. A study was done some years ago and the data showed that less coho were encountered with this limitation and the chinook catch was essentially the same. Most years at OSIGM a few of them complain about this restriction, but the majority support it every year because they get charged for less coho with the limitation.
ron m
ron m is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2020, 10:41 AM   #21
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 18,063
Default Re: Initial PFMC ocean alternatives

Curious if anyone on home quarantine is using the PFMC virtual meeting app to follow the proceedings?
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2020, 11:10 AM   #22
Two_Dogs
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 162
Default Re: Initial PFMC ocean alternatives

Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeFISH View Post
Curious if anyone on home quarantine is using the PFMC virtual meeting app to follow the proceedings?
yeah, salmon coming back on at 1PM or 1:30 today. Its pretty slick if you want to try it.
Two_Dogs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2020, 11:20 AM   #23
LineIsTight
Steelhead
 
LineIsTight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 197
Default Re: Initial PFMC ocean alternatives

Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeFISH View Post
Curious if anyone on home quarantine is using the PFMC virtual meeting app to follow the proceedings?
I downloaded the app and installed, but have yet to make a meeting....maybe today. Can't believe I'm finding as much to do around my house as I thought I might.....ugh!

For those keeping a close eye on the proceedings of the PFMC...keep us in the know.
Thanks!
LineIsTight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2020, 11:28 AM   #24
LineIsTight
Steelhead
 
LineIsTight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 197
Default Re: Initial PFMC ocean alternatives

Quote:
Originally Posted by Two_Dogs View Post
yeah, salmon coming back on at 1PM or 1:30 today. Its pretty slick if you want to try it.
Salmon advisory subpanel starts up at 12:30...just a couple minutes from now.
LineIsTight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2020, 11:47 AM   #25
LineIsTight
Steelhead
 
LineIsTight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 197
Default Re: Initial PFMC ocean alternatives

Quote:
Originally Posted by LineIsTight View Post
Salmon advisory subpanel starts up at 12:30...just a couple minutes from now.
Schedule change for the meeting. Not until 3PM due to negotiations with the tribes running slower than expected. Not sure if it's a COVID-19 issue or just banter back and forth....we will see.
LineIsTight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2020, 01:57 PM   #26
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 18,063
Default Re: Initial PFMC ocean alternatives

That's the backdoor stuff that happens out of public sight. Several groups in WA desperately trying to open up those meetings to the light of day so we can all see what happens behind closed doors.

https://www.facebook.com/OpenNOF/
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2020, 01:58 PM   #27
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 18,063
Default Re: Initial PFMC ocean alternatives

I see they need another 1/2 hour on top of the initial delay to conduct their "secret" meeting.
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2020, 02:16 PM   #28
LineIsTight
Steelhead
 
LineIsTight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 197
Default Re: Initial PFMC ocean alternatives

Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeFISH View Post
That's the backdoor stuff that happens out of public sight. Several groups in WA desperately trying to open up those meetings to the light of day so we can all see what happens behind closed doors.

https://www.facebook.com/OpenNOF/
Signed the petition while I was waiting for the "secret" meeting to be possibly "partially unveiled".
LineIsTight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2020, 02:33 PM   #29
tailchaser
Sturgeon
 
tailchaser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Coos Bay to Redmond
Posts: 3,707
Default Re: Initial PFMC ocean alternatives

Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeFISH View Post
Where might one see a historic accounting of the commercial "shaker" coho encounters? They gotta cycle thru a pile of coho releases.... or just a bunch of undetected tow mortality until they pull the gear outta the water.

I remember one year testifying at the PFMC Westport hearing in favor of an ocean rec early season MSF for chinook only... citing the exceedingly small likelihood of rec coho encounters during that time.

I was informed by technical staff that while coho encounters were far and few between, they were VERY expensive in terms of Queets coho ER. Wouldn't want us recs out there adding to the demise of this stock of concern. Of course there was no mention of how hard commercial trollers operating in that same early timeframe were hitting those depressed Queets coho.
I know a lot of Commy's out of Coos and they absolutely hammer the shaker coho. I had one friend tell me he estimates releasing 120-200 a day sometimes. Most of them belly up. That's just 1 boat!! I've had discussions with ODFW about my displeasure on it and they just shrug saying there isn't anything they can do. There's a reason a lot of seals trail behind them in the summer picking up easy meals. They simply see it as collateral damage unfortunately.

I do agree that a lot of commy boats troll deeper in general than sports do, but they also start the lines at 50-feet down most of the time and string them down to 200+. So it covers a lot of the water column.


tc
__________________
36' LUHRS Convertible
Sponsored by:
Garmin,Eat Me Lures,Shimano, GLoomis,Avet Reels, Owner, Braid
tailchaser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2020, 02:38 PM   #30
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 18,063
Default Re: Initial PFMC ocean alternatives

NOF: Chinook problems in CR (LRH tules) Hood Canal and Puget Sound under all three options on the table.
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2020, 02:40 PM   #31
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 18,063
Default Re: Initial PFMC ocean alternatives

I sense lots of posturing going on amongst stakeholders without revealing their hand
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2020, 02:52 PM   #32
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 18,063
Default Re: Initial PFMC ocean alternatives

Accepting public comment now.... virtually all commercial trollers, buyers, processors... mostly all in support of proposed options.
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2020, 02:58 PM   #33
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 18,063
Default Re: Initial PFMC ocean alternatives

Lots of names being called to testify, but NOT present to comment. Probably couldn't hang around after the LONG delay for backdoor meetings.
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2020, 03:08 PM   #34
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 18,063
Default Re: Initial PFMC ocean alternatives

ODFW Chris Kearn advocating for South Oregon (KMZ) June 20 - Aug 4
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2020, 03:20 PM   #35
LineIsTight
Steelhead
 
LineIsTight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 197
Default Re: Initial PFMC ocean alternatives

Quote:
Originally Posted by eyeFISH View Post
Lots of names being called to testify, but NOT present to comment. Probably couldn't hang around after the LONG delay for backdoor meetings.
Did you notice when Phil scrolled down on his spreadsheet that he forgot to round back up to the top of the list where someone wanted to comment? You could see line 6 and on, but 1-5 were covered up. Pretty sure there was one, if not two folks that wanted to comment that weren't listed as commercial, industry, etc. Most comments, if not all, were in support of the most recent proposals.
LineIsTight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2020, 03:34 PM   #36
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 18,063
Default Re: Initial PFMC ocean alternatives

Quote:
Originally Posted by LineIsTight View Post
Did you notice when Phil scrolled down on his spreadsheet that he forgot to round back up to the top of the list where someone wanted to comment? You could see line 6 and on, but 1-5 were covered up. Pretty sure there was one, if not two folks that wanted to comment that weren't listed as commercial, industry, etc. Most comments, if not all, were in support of the most recent proposals.
He's one SHARP cookie, he got to them all eventually... til no one else responded, even the guy using his wife's iPad account.
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2020, 03:40 PM   #37
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 18,063
Default Re: Initial PFMC ocean alternatives

Adjourned til 8AM
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2020, 05:29 PM   #38
deeplines
Steelhead
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 147
Default Re: Initial PFMC ocean alternatives

Quote:
Originally Posted by tailchaser View Post
I know a lot of Commy's out of Coos and they absolutely hammer the shaker coho. I had one friend tell me he estimates releasing 120-200 a day sometimes. Most of them belly up. That's just 1 boat!! I've had discussions with ODFW about my displeasure on it and they just shrug saying there isn't anything they can do. There's a reason a lot of seals trail behind them in the summer picking up easy meals. They simply see it as collateral damage unfortunately.

I do agree that a lot of commy boats troll deeper in general than sports do, but they also start the lines at 50-feet down most of the time and string them down to 200+. So it covers a lot of the water column.


tc
I know many trollers and know for a fact no one would sit on a school of Coho and shake 200 off while fishing Kings. There is King gear and Coho gear, yes there will be incidental Coho catch while fishing Kings but you would be crazy to shake Coho all day.
deeplines is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2020, 06:16 PM   #39
pearl
King Salmon
 
pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Fishin The Rip
Posts: 6,720
Default Re: Initial PFMC ocean alternatives

Quote:
Originally Posted by deeplines View Post
to shake Coho all day.
I think this terminology sums it up with in the commercial industry. We just shake em out.

It’s all about now with disregard to the future. Sad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
__________________
I know of nobody who has ever lost a small fish
pearl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2020, 06:18 PM   #40
deeplines
Steelhead
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 147
Default Re: Initial PFMC ocean alternatives

Quote:
Originally Posted by deeplines View Post
I know many trollers and know for a fact no one would sit on a school of Coho and shake 200 off while fishing Kings. There is King gear and Coho gear, yes there will be incidental Coho catch while fishing Kings but you would be crazy to shake Coho all day.
Trollers south of Falcon are limited to 4 spreads per wire making catching that many Coho a little difficult if your targeting Kings which are deep
deeplines is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Cast to



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:29 AM.

Terms of Service
 
Page generated in 0.73457 seconds with 54 queries