[STGRule]

ODFW Staff have proposed a reduction of the sturgeon annual limit from 10 fish to 5 fish. Do you think that is a good thing for the fishery or not? Do you have any comments? I'm keeping this a simple yes or no. Please feel free to add comments. I would appreciate it if the comments are kept civil. We can't learn if we don't listen.

 

[Hogmaster]

I think a compromise would be best. Go for 7.5 fish!

Seriously, 5 fish a year? That would do for many people, but what would F&H News do for stories if Nickle was limited to 5 monsters of the deep?

Seems awful restrictive. Is there a similar proposal to restrict the commercial numbers?

 

[Hogmaster]

PS - If it keeeps the fishery healthy and sustainable, then it would be worth it.

What happened to the Sturgeon stocks supposedly (supposebly :smile: ) already being healthy and sustainable?

Is it because many more anglers are targeting them? What has changed???

 

[STGRule]

This is NOT a reduction in the number of fish available to sport anglers. This is an individual angler reduction. I believe it is an effort to spread the fish out over an ever increasing number of sturgeon anglers.

 

[jet]

I just voted, amazing 100% so far. Most of what I do now is catch and release anyway.

It is nice to keep a few.

Jet~~~

 

[Tagster]

Wow, the results are very interesting.
Tag

[ 06-06-2003, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: Tagster ]

 

[fishingfirst]

That would sure limit the sturgeon derbys. If you fish three or four derbys then you couldn't keep many the rest of the year. Maybe this is a good thing???

Scott

 

[cosmo]

I'm all for lowering the annual limit to 5 fish, but I don't think it would save any sturgeon. Lowering the limit would allow for a potentially longer season (based on how many people tag over five) but you won't cut harvest without lowering the qouta.

STGRule - Were you at the fishery and Beacon rock on Wednesday? There was some great discussion about the oversize fishery with biologists from OR & WA and Molly Webb, an assistant professor from OSU.

 

[STGRule]

Cosmo: No, I wasn't there. But I share a lot of the same beliefs as Molly. I try to stay objective but I still lean toward her way of thinking.

[ 06-06-2003, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

 

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

:shocked:

 

[STGRule]

***: She is well spoken for and you're married. :wink:

 

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

:depressed: :depressed: :depressed:

:laugh:

 

[Lured In]

I voted yes, but I am not sure this will solve much. Theoretically spreading out the fish, across anglers, doesn't necessarily happen. There are those that catch lots of fish (fill their tags) and those that get none, one or two. Those that aren't very capable are not necessarily going to catch more fish just because somebody else doesn't.

I would like to see catch data on how many people actually fill their tag (or tag more than 5 keepers even), vs. the total number of anglers. STG...is this kind of information available?

The other issue that was brought up awhile ago, was the "oops, I lost my tag" issue. If someone wants more than 5 sturgeon they can still get it by replacing their tag. Perhaps it would be more of a deterrant, but who knows.

Personally, I would prefer not to target specific 'succesful' anglers (as a group). When the fishery closes to retention, it closes to everyone, regardless of how many you have on your tag. I think the current block closures and overall reduced quota are good steps in the right direction. (Although, I have to admit, I don't like loosing all of April-Jun here in the upper sections below Bonnie). Why not wait and see what happens in two years with the current regs? If you change everything at once, how will you know which program had the best net effect on the fishery? :wink:

 

[cosmo]

Molly shared a lot of data, but not a lot of beliefs.

Lured In- If you cut the limit, the season should get longer, therefore more of the less capable anglers should get their one or two. The fishery remains open until the qouta is filled. The change in tag space doesn't address that, like you say, so it is just trying to spread the fish around.

Personally, I think the block closures are a disaster. Why kill your options for months at a time vs. giving up a few days a week and have some opportunity all year.

I'd like to see the question asked about cutting tag limit to two fish. Along with an 80% reduction in both sport and commercial quotas. If you haven't noticed, there are very, very, very few fish in the range of 5' to 7'. Where are they?..dead (or somehow avoiding fisheries in total) Waiting a couple of years to hope for a change won't do it. The over harvest that caused this is a decade (maybe more) past already, so we are just adding to the years recovery will take. Of the 180 or so fish Molly tagged last year, the core size range was 7' to 9.5'. Some bigger ones immediately below Bonneville with nets but really no small spawners. If we don't begin to pass keepers into the brood stock, a severe and guaranteed crash of this fishery is in the future.
STGRule, am I way off on this?

***-She is quite cute, but it kind of scares me (or maybe it should her) you can produce a picture of her that fast :blush: .

[ 06-06-2003, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: cosmo ]

 

[CATCH AND EAT]

I have never kept even 5 sturgeon a year. Why the heck keep 10? Lured IN has a point though. Limits keep getting cut and we get less and less fishing. Kind of a bummer in my way of thinking.

 

[STGRule]

Lured in: I don't know if that info is available or not.
I don't know the exact reason for the limit. I am speculating. But I do know that waiting another two years is not an option. We, and I mean sport anglers, have over-harvested our quota already. We have to make that up now. We can make mistakes for a period of time then it catches up. Sturgeon populations can absorb the problems for awhile and then it crashes quickly. The science is a calculated, sincere, best guess based on the available data. Sometimes it is a good guess and sometimes it could be better. I wish it was different but that is reality. There is simply too much effecting the populations in subtle and not-so-subtle ways to measure with the resources we have available.

Cosmo: The quickness of ***' picture isn't a big deal. If you go to Google and put in her name with the word "sturgeon", it is the first hit.

 

[Guest]

"If we don't begin to pass keepers into the brood stock, a severe and guaranteed crash of this fishery is in the future."

I agree with that statement.

*** I hope she finds you and smacks you. :blush: :laugh:

 

[Gooseman]

I wouldn't mind a reduction in the number of keepers that I keep. Over the last 4 years, I've kept 4, 6, 3, and 1 so far this year.
What I do mind is the "incidental" catch by the netters. There are certain holes that they target between Beacon rock and Longview where the "incidental" catch out weighs the target catch.
Are they going to have a reduced "incidental" limit?
I hope so.

 

[cosmo]

The incidental sturgeon take in the salmon net fisheries are counted against the commercial's annual sturgeon quota. Those fish are not over and above the directed sturgeon fisheries. At least that's how I understand it.

 

[farm5]

My computer crashes when I attempt to vote. Another dissapointing part of life.

The more restrictions on the harvest of sturgeon the the better. They are an extremely slow maturing animal. Thirty years ago it was very easy to go out into the Willmette and limit, then the law was 36" to 72" and 3 per day. It was very enjoyable, no competion, few fished for them.

Now we have an on slaught of individuals that have moved in and discouvered sturgeon. So many persue them that their numbers have declined immensely.

Now we have a group of individuals who find pleasure in targeting over size sturgeon. There is no animal breeder alive that would allow any kind of abuse to occur to their breeding stock. We who breed animals for a living know first hand the outcome of such abuse. We have laws and we have individuals who seek justification for the laws to not fish for over-size sturgeon. The bioligists have to come up with proof of damage to the species. They are burdened with supplying the proof to shut down the over-size targeting. Many of those who persue them I bet were raised on small lots in congested city environments, never had the experience of raising anything and find extreme pleasure in fighting a potentially spawning sturgeon to near death. Well, wake up and smell the roses this can not continue. Even if the law allows it, it is only common sense that this is detrimental to the species. If you ever had the experience of raising anything, you would know it isn't an acceptapel burden to place on the breed stock of the spieces.