bottom fish

Discussion in 'Saltwater' started by Tyler Speir, Feb 27, 2006.

  1. ibn Moderator

    Posts: 1,885
    Federal Way
    Ratings: +10 / 0

    I have not, I have no idea how to even go about doing something like that. I'd like to think that WDFW has people working for them that have a grasp on what's going on, afterall that is their job, right?

    I'd love to talk to someone about a regs change, or at least voice my concern, just not sure who and where to do that.
  2. Roger Stephens Active Member

    Posts: 1,205
    Ratings: +326 / 0

    The wind can sometimes start blowing fairly quickly on the Sound. Before I would invest money in a 5 hp motor for your drift boat, I would fine out from some knowledgeable people how a drift boat would handle while motoring into +5-10mph wind chop. It would probably be a pretty uncomfortable, dicey ride since it has a flat bottom and is not able to cut through the waves. If you have to cross some open water during windy conditions to get back the boat ramp rather being able to hug a shoreline, it could get "down right" dangerous.

    When I fish on the Sound, I like to cover a lot of water. A 5 hp motor would probably limit your ability to check out a lot of fishing spots each trip.

    To be safe and have a good ride, a 14' or larger full V or semi-V hull boat is the way to go for fishing on the Sound.

  3. alpinetrout Banned or Parked

    Posts: 3,897
    Hiding in your closet
    Ratings: +74 / 0
    Not to advocate filling freezers with fish to freezer burn and throw away, but what you said isn't true. Possession limit is defined on page 21 of the regs as "The number of daily limits allowed to be kept in the field, or in transit". What you have in your home doesn't apply to your possession limit.
  4. Tyler Speir Artist

    Posts: 719
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings: +12 / 0
    Thanks for the info.

    So what I need to do is get one of you guys to take me out on your boat. heh.
  5. Chris Bellows The Thought Train

    Posts: 1,681
    The Salt
    Ratings: +823 / 0
    of course, i have discussed the issue with a few of the biologists but have never put a formal proposal through. honestly, i had three reasons. first, there were "bigger fish to fry" when it comes to the fishery at neah bay. with the dramatic reductions in season length in regards to the halibut fishery and the time spent trying to craft as long of a coho salmon season during north of falcon, bottomfish just weren't on my radar. not that i didn't care, but the reductions i mentioned are places i just don't fish anymore (i always felt my clients deserved more than just fishing around the entrance, and i loved trying new places far from any other pressure).

    second, any bottomfish limit reductions would face enormous public displeasure. from the charter operators to the hotel and marina, i would have been almost alone. without strong biology, intense public pressure would sink any proposal to reduce bottomfish limits on the coast. most regs that biologists don't favor need strong public pressure to pass, and this is one that just isn't going to fly.

    also, hindsight is a wonderful thing. seeing how the changing halibut and salmon seasons impact secondary species is not something that is easy to predict (i may not even be right). but i have seen the huge numbers of halibut fishermen with brand new ocean boats... and they are going to fish for something when halibut is closed and/or the ocean is too rough. the bottomfish in the strait are going to take the brunt of that pressure imo. unfortunetely, i haven't seen wdfw management take into consideration additional pressure when making decisions (they might, but i haven't seen it).

    as for complaining about "mis-management" without doing anything... i think that is a cop out. with the few numbers of fly anglers fishing for bottomfish in area 4... education is the first thing that has to happen if any future reductions in the limit are to take place (hopefully before they are biologically necessary). i think making the assertion that if you don't propose changes that you shouldn't talk about fishery issues is a bit unfair.

    the ocean fishery is dominated by commercial interests (both sport and commercial) and that means any changes in regards to bag limits are hard to change. it's easy when quotas are big, but when quotas are reduced such as last season... any changes in historical bag limits can be tricky.

  6. cabezon Sculpin Enterprises

    Posts: 1,718
    Olympia, WA
    Ratings: +237 / 0
    Hmmmm, the generous limits for rockfish in the outer straits and coasts may well prove shortsighted for the long-term health/sustainability of commercial and recreational fishing in these areas. Just take a look at what overharvest has done to fishing for these species in other areas. First, overharvesting of rockfish along the Pacific coast, primarily by commercial fishing, has already resulted in severe restrictions on fishing, including reduced seasons, reduced bag limits, increased mimimum sizes, in Oregon and California. Previous overly generous limits for rockfish in Puget Sound through the 80's led to a crash on local rockfish populations and imposition of severe limits. [The habitat is still fine as seen by the rebound in numbers and sizes of rockfish living in marine reserves.] From marine areas 5 to 13, the daily limit for rockfish is ONE fish (closed totally in Hood Canal), the first fish caught, regardless of size. What makes folks think that the outer coast is immune to the patterns seen to the south and east?? How long can one expect to overharvest fishes which live as long as we do and which show limited recruitment? Wouldn't it be better for the longterm financial health of commercial and recreational fisheries along the coast to accept reduced harvest now, to the point where harvest rates are sustainable, rather than face emergency closures when the fishery falls off the proverbial cliff??
  7. Smalma Active Member

    Posts: 2,831
    Marysville, Washington
    Ratings: +707 / 0
    Cabezon -
    There is no question that over fishing has seriously impacted species like yelloweye rockfish. These are long lived species with maximum ages of more than 100 years and it may take 20 or more years for 1/2 of the population to reach sexual maturity. However that doesn't necessarily mean that species like the blacks are as vulnerable. While they do not live as long; max. age of about 50 years, they do mature at a much younger age with 1/2 of the poulation reaching sexually mature at 6 or 7 years of age.

    The Puget Sound/inner strait fish were also clearly over fished though you have to admit that those populations were much more confined and accessible to anglers than the ocean populations. As a result they apparently experienced a much higher (excessive exploitation rates).

    Now don't get me wrong - I'm not defending the current generous bag limits; off the top of my head I would thing something like a 2 or 3 fish limit would be more than adequate though I suspect that would be a minority opinion in the angling community. Of course my thinking is undoubtly influenced by general conservative nature and the lack of a desire to eat more than an occassional rockfish.

    One of the reason that I would encourage concern anglers to think about submitting regulation change ideas is that often in the process of developing ones ideas you end up learning a fair amount about the species of interest which may either address or increase your concerns. Also hopefully the agency response to your ideas should supply additional information and the biological support for the current regulations. It never hurts the resource to have informed anglers caring about it.

    Tight lines