Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner

Could be trouble...Rockfish Plan out for review, meetings scheduled

2K views 31 replies 14 participants last post by  cabezon 
#1 ·
http://wdfw.wa.gov/do/newreal/release.php?id=oct1909a

The proposed plan is out for review and could significantly impact all fishing in Puget Sound. Included in the plan are proposals to establish Marine Protected Areas throughout the sound which have the potential to not only stop harvest, but fishing and perhaps even boating access as well. I haven't done my homework on this yet, but Rob Tobeck has, and I encourage you to check his blog for more questions and answers.

http://blog.theoutdoorline.com/author/Rob-Tobeck.aspx

This could turn out to be a big deal, and the Dept. has established a short review period - Nov 19. Please take a few minutes to look and if you have time to attend a meeting, please do so, and ask the hard questions.

Thanks, Gents.
 
#3 ·
Look at what the same proposals did to CA fishing... Not to say there is not a need to do more to protect rockfish, but rather, the idea of creating sanctuaries, usually in accesable and rather large areas, concentrates the fishing in smaller and less user-friendly waters.

That leads to poor fish and poorer fishing in open areas and large underwater, untouchable "garden spots" teeming with fish.
 
#5 ·
In fact, the rockfish plan is based on solid science. I have observed dramatic returns of rockfish (and ling cod) populations to marine protected areas in the San Juans. I watched the numbers fall through the floor as populations were decimated by commercial fishing and recreational fishing in the 80's and I have seen the abundance and size of some rockfish species (quillbacks and coppers) increase dramatically in marine protected areas off San Juan and Shaw Island; in years with some quillback and copper recruitment, the young fish thrive. Other species, like black rockfish and yellowtails, have not recovered, even in protected areas that used to have large populations; their recruitment has been abysmal.

It is a well-demonstrated fact that larger fish produce many more offspring than do smaller fish; if you want more recruits, you want more, larger fish reproducing large numbers of offspring. The role of marine protected areas is to provide enough offspring from these spawners to seed non-protected areas. Many studies have demonstrated how sedentary rockfish and ling cod are; once they recruit to an area, they are unlikely to move more than a few hundred meters in their lifetimes (and they can home if displaced).

The regulations severely limiting harvest alone have proven to be inadequate to return populations to any reasonable level of abundance. At the low abundances now present in Puget Sound, even the current limit of one rockfish is too many for these populations to support; most of these rockfish do not mature until they are 10-15 years old and can live longer than even Old Man Jim. While there may be water quality issues in parts of Puget Sound (in my opinion, a red herring in this argument to divert attention from the main cause - fishing mortality), the major limiting factor for recovery appears to be establishing a large enough population of spawners to produce enough offspring to fill the available habitat, let along augmented habitat from artificial reefs (another diversion tactic).

There are sportfishing advocacy groups which have a visceral rejection of marine protected areas, in spite of the scientific evidence for their success as part of an integrated fisheries management strategy. Their attitude is that anyone who restricts their access to their usual fishing spots is denying them their patrimony. Who cares that the fishing is abysmal; they want to fish there anyway.

Steve
 
#7 ·
Cabezon -
I agree that the rockfish plan is based on science though even the authors admit that it is incomplete science.

It seems to me that using SSBR (spawning stock biomass per recruit) as a measure of the stocks health is a reasonable way to go however I have to wonder that the managers are demostrating a lack of patience to see if the current management paradigm is successful or not. The current 1 fish limit (yes I agree that zero may be better) has been in place only since 2000. With a slow grow critter like rockfish especially with the sporadic spwaning success (I seem to remember reading that some species pull of successful spawns on the average of once every 5 or 6 years) is it really reasonable to be expecting to see dramatic improvements in such measures as SSBR this soon?

As aside in some of the areas in central sound that I fish (all shallow water spots) we are now seeing more larger coppers (fish of 20 inches or so) than we have seen since the late 1980s. Over the last decade we watched those fish grow up from 10 inchers. I realize that coppers are among the faster growing rockfish in the area and we still are not seeing those 6 and 8 pounders of 30 years ago but to me it is an encouraging sign that rockfish may be heading in the right direction. Especially as shown in the report in the last few years the average size of rockfish being kept is increasing and now is on par with that seen around 1980 (though of course with only a 1 fish limit that is hardly comparable to whent he limit was much more generous (excessive!).

Of course with critters such as the canaries and yelloweye even with "best" management it may well take many decades to some sort of "recovery".

What do you think of this proposal to limit bottom fishing to water shallower than 120 feet? Could it be some sort of alternative to MPAs? A rockfish protection area if you will; especially when coupled with the zero limit.

Appreciate your thoughts/insights.

Curt
 
#9 ·
Question Curt, is there any research on where the main spawning stock biomass reside? If there was a depth limit, (which i don't have the scope to say yay or nay too) would that doom any shallower colonies of rockfish to overfishing/over harvesting? Just wondering, a very interesting topic, both of you gentlemen have very well articulated opinions. Thanks for sharing!
 
#11 ·
Nate -
First I must be honest -I'm hardly an "expert" on rockfish. Really I'm just a concern angler that has been around for a long time with an interest in these critters. Out of that interest I have done a little reading and some thinking about the conservation concerns associated with these species

Unfortunately there isn't a simple answer to your question. While folks tend to think of "rockfish" as a homogeneous critter here in Puget Sound we are talking about 28 different species each of which occuply different niches.

That includes species that might be considered to be "deep water", others that are "shallow water", and even others that are more pelagic. In addition during the fish's life it is common to see them using different habitats. Pretty common in a number of species to see the immature and small individuals in relatively shallow water and with the deeper water species have them move deeper as they mature. Others have seasonal movements - for example coppers tend to move to deeper waters in fall only to return to shallower waters in the spring. In addition we noted that gravid female coppers at times move into extremely shallow water to release their eggs in the spring.

The good news about the proposed 120 feet limit is that the yelloweye, canary, and Bocaccio (to be ESA listed) are considered to be deep water critters with most adults found in depths from 150 to the deepest waters of Puget Sound. With the dramatic up and down relief found in the North Sound (San Juans) I suspect there is quite abit of suitable deep water habitat however in south Sound (MA 8 to 13) I'm sure how much deep water habitat there really is. The Tacoma narrows area and the steep walls of Hood Canal (which has its own set of problems) are obvious areas however much of the deeper water of central sound seems to me to be pretty flat and may be better suit for geoducks than rockfish.

A good question for the State that your question hints at is how much of 2,471 acres of good rockfish habitat found in south Sound would be deeper than 120 feet?

I don't think that it necessarily follows that the shallower groups are doomed to be over fished. As so often in these kinds of discussion it probably depends. As I mention earlier in at least some areas there seems to be decent numbers of coppers (a shallow species) and with increasing sizes

Tight lines
Curt
 
#12 ·
The justification to limiting fishing for bottom fish to above 120 feet is that one could release rockfish without causing too much trauma. A hypodermic needle into the swimbladder is an effective way to release the expanded gas in the swimbladder because of the drop in pressure [120 feet = 5 atmospheres of pressure vs. the surface = 1 atmosphere of pressure. The gas which held a rockfish neutrally bouyant at 120 feet expands by a factor 5 to make the fish hyperbouyant when brought to the surface.] However, that would now close off deepwater ling cod and halibut populations, species that lack a swimbladder.

Most of my prior experience has been in observing populations changes via diving and 120 feet is a deep as I have gone on rare occasion. I know that there has been some survey work done with remotely operated vehicles and cameras, but I have not seen the results of those surveys. Yellow-eye, canaries, and boccacio do tend to be deepwater species (and I wonder just how abundant those ever were in Puget Sound even before extensive exploitation). I do not know if other rockfishes that are of concern, like blacks and yellowtail, have extensive deeper water populations. It may well be that the MPAs, placed in the limited, quality shallow-water habitat, are expressly designed to provide refuges for more shallow-dwelling species.

The successful repopulation and growth of some rockfish species, like coppers, does indicate that quality habitats are still there. But neither black rockfish or yellowtail rockfish have made much of a recovery (neither have true cod, another bottom-dweller hammered in the 80's). As Smalma pointed out, not all rockfish are the same. In my experience, while coppers and quillbacks may change depth a bit on the same reef, both blacks and yellowtail appear to move into the Straits in the winter and return to rocky pinnacles, at least in the San Juans. I used to see schools of black rockfish at the same spots year after year until they were fished out. Why their recruitment has been so poor is not clear to me.

The time-scale of recovery is daunting for such long-lived, slow-growing species as rockfish; a several pound rockfish is a decade old, while a several pound pink salmon is two years old. As Smalma points out, successful years for recruitment may happen only a few years in a decade. Why this is so is a great question and I do not know if it is well-understood.

Like any proposal for fisheries management (read people management - the fish would do fine without us), this one deserves scrutiny and critical examination. But scare-tactics, cherry-picking of some scientific studies and ignoring the consensus, and obscuring who the responsible culprits are for the problem (we have met the enemy and it is us), as the knee-jerk opponents of this plan have been doing, is a bad way to set public policy for the good of the public at large. Environments and their resources need to managed for all, not just a special interest group (sport fishers), no matter how dear sport fishing is to our hearts.

Steve
 
#13 ·
This is the response so far.

SEPADesk2 (DFW) to me
show details 9:09 AM (1 hour ago)

I have forwarded your link to Greg Bargmann for response. Unfortunately I cannot save blog comments as SEPA comments. You will need to submit the comments individually for them to become a part of the official record. Comments can be submitted on line at: http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/hab/sepa/sepa.htm

Thank you

Teresa Eturaspe
SEPA Responsible Official
360/ 902-2575
Habitat Program
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North
Olympia, WA 98501-1091
Teresa.Eturaspe@dfw.wa.gov
 
#14 ·
Did not intend to sound knee-jerk and certainly have far more than cursory knowledge of the situation and experiences in other areas with rockfish.

My primary reason to reject the no fishing zone management concept is the simple fact it will never go away once in place. My solution is far more draconian in the near-term, but will lead to more fish and better sustainable fishing much sooner.

There is absolutely no reason to allow any rockfish to be taken at the current population levels. The fish killed this year will have a huge impact on stock rebuilding. If commercial fishermen can be shut down completely there is no reason not to stop sport fishing for a few years. Even that will not eliminate C&R incidental mortality. The gent speaking to swim bladder issues on deepwater fish is also missing the very real issue of over-pressuring the eyes of deepwater fish.

A closure will have far-reaching effects on folks that will lose the interest and/or not be introduced to rockfish fishing during the shutdown.

The other route will lead to intense fishinig in open areas and lots of fish in the closed areas. Pelagic stocks will be less affected, but non-pelagic fish will not be straying into open areas which will remain barren. Relying on pelagic spawners to repopulate the Sound is a very slow way to go.

In total, my ideas are just a tad more knee-jerk though opposite the first blush given by my initial post.

Fortunately I fish rockfish on Kodiak Island mostly and the stocks are healthy with daily limits of 10 and even mature yelloweye can be found in large concentrations.
art
 
#15 ·
I recently spent over a grand gearing up to kayak fish for rockfish and lings along the S Jetty here at Westport. I bought a new SOT fishing kayak specifically to fish the Jetty for rockfish and lings. Also a new wetsuit and other gear. Otherwise, I would not have bought any of this. I'd rather fish for Ling Cod than steelhead.

I'll fight anything tooth and nail that attempts to restrict my Jetty fishing here.:beathead:
Hmmm. Looks like its only for the Sound, Strait, San Juans, etc. and not the Coast. Hope they don't have their eye on the shallow coastal waters.
 
#16 ·
Marine Protected Areas, with absolute closures on fishing, diving etc, within those boundaries, have proven to be very effective in sanctuarying rockfish and other deep water species and have provided the much needed nursery they need to spawn and develop. If anything the experience and research points to larger areas required to be set aside than most managers have been willing or able to delineate and regulate. Once again public and industry outcry has limited an effective recovery tool.

Most of the recent literature that I have seen came from reading a great book published in 2007- "The Unnatural History Of The Sea" by Callum Roberts.

http://www.york.ac.uk/res/unnatural-history-of-the-sea

This book is loaded with scientific citations, (almost all of it qualified peer-reviewed publications ), and historical fisheries information and data dating to about 1200 a.d. I spent the past summer studying most the references and citations in that book. It is a serious scholarly work but anyone interested in fisheries issues, and in particular the utility of Marine Protected Areas, would benefit form the information. Mr Roberts has been instrumental in developing many of the modern protocols for Marine Protected Reserves and Marine Portected Areas around the world in recent years. There is enough solid information on these protected areas to show that they are worth our investment.

IMHO: It is idiotic for the State of Washington to allow a continued harvest fishery on Puget Sound Rockfish.
 
#17 ·
Thanks for the reference Bob. I'll have to see if I can find that in the Library here.

I would support decreasing the catch limit of Black Rockfish from the current 10 fish to 5 on the coast though, if scientific data supported a reduction in catch here. I only like to keep no more than 5 anyway. I kept my full limit of 10 once or twice, and didn't like having to fillet that many fish at one time. I decided that 5 was about as many as I wanted to deal with on the cutting board at any one time. I often pick up a couple of other species, there, too, so 5 Blackies in a mixed bag is plenty.
I have no real data to go on, but it seems that the population of Black Rockfish along the jetty has declined a little since I started fishing from it nearly 25 years ago. I also think I have noticed a decline in the Greenling population there.

The jetty gets hammered by gear and bait fishermen any time the conditions are decent out there, from mid-March thru mid-Oct. On nice Spring weekend days, I have counted upwards of 50 anglers on the rocks out there. One day when it looked like there were no decent rocks left to stand on, I stopped counting at 70. All "my" rocks were occupied.

That's when I decided I would have to eventually get a SOT fishing kayak and ditch the knee-hammering, ankle-twisting jetty rockhop to nowhere.
 
#18 ·
Bump

Point of the post is to ensure we get the opportunity to comment before this bus leaves the station. MPA's may affect much more than just recreational fishing, and if history is correct, may or may not create positive change. Expressing your opinion will help ensure appropriate scrutiny whatever opinion you may have. Interestingly the report identifies both marine mammal predation and and ghost net kill as having order of magnitude greater impact than recreational fishing. MPA's will address neither.

Let's not get so focused on one part that we fail to get a good plan.

Thanks again, gents.
 
#22 ·
Please expand "may affect much more than recreational fishing" and "if history is correct, may or may not create positive change".
MPA's can restrict all access - the Orca proposal included a ban on all recreational vessel access. The report shows that both marine mammal predation and ghost nets were at least an order of magnitude (10x) higher impact on rockfish than recreational fishing. An MPA would focus seal/sea lion predation on the protected areas assuming enhanced populations. Although ghost nets are identified as a very significant issue, there is no prohibition on creating more ghost nets in the plan (net ID, mandatory net loss reporting, selective commercial gear, etc.) Just a few examples.

What Rainbow said...
 
#21 ·
Many years ago when I moved into the Dash Pt area, I was often awaken by engine noises early in the morning. They were the sounds of fishing boats netting all along the shore, taking every fish possible. The nets are partially responsible for the loss of fish. Fishermen are also part of the problem and I don't necessarily mean flyfishermen. I often walk the pier at Dash Pt and look in buckets to judge the catch and I see "small" flounders by the dozens. The fishermen who frequent these areas take everything they catch as well. And, as a boy, I often caught sea perch in the 12" range. I didn't know about conservation then but when was the last time you saw a 12" perch anywhere around except in an aquarium? We have to look at the entire picture. We as predators in general, have overfished the resource and if we don't do something about it, there won't be any fish. I haven't kept a fish other than a salmon in more than 20 years. The matine protection areas might or might not be the answer. The reefs might help. The hatchery program might help but if we don't get behind all of the efforts, including the closure of some seasons, we'll get a lot of water casting practice with nothing to show for it but a wet fly.
 
#23 ·
I don't think I'd like to see a marine preserve anywhere around where I live. then I'd have to drive somewhere else to fish. But, I think we might have to re-think the minimum size and possession limits on the Coast before we see any declines show up in any population surveys (are there, or have there ever been any done out here???). Population survey results are lagging indicators, anyway. By the time a survey is completed and published providing info that indicates a decline in fish populations, its already been happening and is getting to the 11th hour.

So I voluntarily limit my take. Part laziness, part conservation ethic. I release all my smaller surf perch, greenlings, and rockfish. There's no minimum size limit on those. But anything under about 8" is too small for surf perch, and I usually only keep rockfish and greenlings over 10". Maybe we should have minimum size limits on more of these species.
During the last razor clam dig here, two weekends ago, I took my perch outfit to the beach and lobbed a chunk of clam neck out into a trough. Caught two small red-tail surf perch, about 5" and 6" and one 5" sculpin. They are still swimming. After the next day's dig in the same spot, I fished the same trough and released one 7" red-tail. It was getting dark, and there wasn't time to catch another. That fish was just getting big enough to bonk and eat, but it was only one. That fish will be bigger this coming Spring.


I can tell you that if there wasn't a minimum size limit on Ling Cod, they would get hammered down to nothing in a few years. Last time I fished the jetty, I released 4 undersized lings about 17" to 20." Those juvies are really aggro and hungry all the time.
 
#24 ·
Jim -
With critters like rockfish one would probably be better off just keeping the first ones caught (large or small). This is especially true if the fish are being caught at any depth.

In addition given the much large feccundity of the large females if one were to selective harvest rockfish it would be better for the resource to release those 20 inchers and keep the 10 inchers.

The above is a classic illustration how important that an understanding of the biology of the critter of interest is when designing fishing regulations. What makes prefect sense with a species like trout may well be upside down with another.

Tight lines
Curt
 
#25 ·
Thanks, Curt. One of those extremely rare times when I caught and kept my limit of 10 was this last Spring. Up through rockfish #9, I hadn't caught any large ones. 7 of them were rather small, around 10"-11" and two were only a little larger. I C&R'd a couple more small ones, and then i finally got my largest one of the day, which was still under 20" long.
I'm fishing for these mainly in 15' to 30' of water. Shallow. Deepest spots along the jetty are around 40' -45' out near the end, as far as I know. I'll be fishing larger lures for Lings out there. They don't have air bladders, so no worry. This is shallow water bottom fishing I'm doing. I'm going to rig up a barbless hook "descender jig" that I read about that takes a rockfish quickly back down to the bottom and releases it with a jerk of the rod. I'll have a second rod rigged up with this if I fish deeper water. This will be for fishing in depths deeper than 30'.

But now you have me thinking that I should release any Black Rockfish 20" or bigger. Thanks for the info. It is in my best interests to keep this fishery healthy.

Any easy way for a layman to identify a female of the species?
 
#26 ·
Any easy way for a layman to identify a female of the species?
If they yell at you for fishing the wrong way and spending too much money on gear and your new kayak it is probably a female.

If it says, 'Dude sweet boat', its a guy.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top