fishing for meat

#16
A little off subject but any one know if they are still trying to plant hatchery raised Ling Cod in the Narrows. I remember getting wind of it a few years ago and have not really heard any thing about it since then. Have they had any luck with it or was it just a bust?:confused:
 

ChrisW

AKA Beadhead
#17
polepole said:
Does it change your thinking if Lingcod actually have a 20 year life span and reach sexual maturity at 4 years (20" male) and 7 years (24" female)?

-Allen

I believe the spawning potential of large fish is much much greater. And yes, ling cod can recover quicker than some other species, like rockfish. Some species of rockfish are not mature until they are 12-15 years old and can live 80, 100 or even 120 years, sometimes ranging not more than a few feet their entire life. They are also very easy to catch making them vulnerable to over harvest. I think its ok to harvest these species if the populations are healthy and pressure is light but when they get hit hard they are slow to recover.

We also need to be aware that rockfish caught at depth are not likely to recover from C&R. I have seen rockfish hauled up from 200-300 feet that were undersize, had to be released, and then floated on the surface like beach balls. I'm not sure where this line of depth is, and its probably out of the range of flylines. 30' might be safe and 60' might be pushing it, perhaps soemone else knows? In any case if you haul a rockfish up from the depths (most likely with gear) it may be better to keep it and quit fishing than release a bunch of them.

I still have yet to find black rockfish on the surface or otherwise but they are on my short list.

And yes there is nothing tastier than a fresh rockfish cooked on the BBQ on the back of a sailboat as I watch the sunset...:beer2:

CW
 

gt

Active Member
#18
rockfishs, in all of their varieties, cannot deflate their swim bladder. when you haul them to the surface, they bloat and float. i don't know of any means to get them back to depth so you don't kill fish you can't keep.

this has much to do with the regulations in place which let us fish for them but then not keep them. i have written WDFW several times regarding this exact issue and they do admit that the swim bladder is an issue, one which they are not going to address!
 
#19
I have pulled rockfish up from 90' off the downriggers while salmon fishing. They would take a couple of seconds and down they would go. From the 120' range it seems to be a little tougher on them. Their bladders do deflate when the eagles put their talons into them. Those birds are smart, they know where to hang out when the boats troll by.

Tight lines




t
 

ibn

Moderator
#20
I've only seen 1 rockfish caught fly fishing where the swim bladder was an issue upon release. That fish was caught while we were eating lunch floating in over 100' of water, we just let the entire fly line out and then some and put the rod in the rod holder.

99.9% of the rockfish we catch fly fishing are taken in 0-40 feet of water or so, they release just fine.

As far as eating bottomfish from the Puget Sound, I wont do it, I'll harvest em from the straits or the pacific, but usually don't take more then 1 or 2.
 

alpinetrout

Banned or Parked
#21
In Australia, I learned a technique for deflating bloated swim blatters by taking your fillet knife and making a clean puncture right behind the pectoral fin, under the edge of a row of scales. If necessary, you could give the fish a gentle squeeze to help the excess air out. It sounds brutal, but it works great and reportedly doesn't cause any major damage to the fish when done carefully, usually healing within a few days. The guy who showed me has a doctorate in fisheries biology, so I'm taking his word for it. The technique was developed in Florida to help deal with release of undersized bottomfish such as grouper.
 

ceviche

Active Member
#22
Anil said:
I personally have a hard time killing a fish that has a 30+ year lifespan, such as a Lingcod, particularly, in areas with limited numbers. Almost all ‘trophy’ lingcod are breeding females to boot. I choose not to keep them, and urge others to do the same.
iagree Same goes for Rockfish in general. Some of you might want to propose retroactive abortion upon your teenagers, but most rockfish of any decent size are as old. Be kind to both.

Anil said:
As an added deterrent, an apex predator that has lived in polluted water for a dozen years or more probably has quite the collection of toxins in its meat. Besides, there are absolutely no Lingcod in the Puget Sound. ;)
Anil
:thumb: Beware of bottomfish!
 
#23
gt said:
rockfishs, in all of their varieties, cannot deflate their swim bladder. when you haul them to the surface, they bloat and float. i don't know of any means to get them back to depth so you don't kill fish you can't keep.
There has been some promising techniques employed in CA in which they use a upside down weighted milkcrate to deliver inflated rockfish back down to the depths. While I haven't used this technique, I HAVE used a barbless jig head to hook a rockfish in the lip and sink it back down. Tie the line to the bend in the hook and after you sink the rockfish back down, give it a tug and the hook will come out and the fish will swim free. Give this a try.

-Allen
 
#24
alpinetrout said:
In Australia, I learned a technique for deflating bloated swim blatters by taking your fillet knife and making a clean puncture right behind the pectoral fin, under the edge of a row of scales. If necessary, you could give the fish a gentle squeeze to help the excess air out. It sounds brutal, but it works great and reportedly doesn't cause any major damage to the fish when done carefully, usually healing within a few days. The guy who showed me has a doctorate in fisheries biology, so I'm taking his word for it. The technique was developed in Florida to help deal with release of undersized bottomfish such as grouper.

A hypodermic syringe achieves the same effect (though often not handy in the field, unless you're doing research- I don't have one on me when I fish!), it's used when releasing the deepwater snapper in Hawaii-- opakapaka, anyone? :thumb:

And Crazysalmon- it would be better if it was just scare tactics by bringing up toxins and long life spans-- except that the research backs it! Anything that grows up in Puget Sound (or Lake Washington, etc for that matter) probably shouldn't be eaten by women of childbearing age. There are some 'hot' fish cruising the beaches/depths... high human density + long-lived fishes = better to get fish from the Strait or Alaska :beer2:
 

mr trout

Trevor Hutton
#25
MauiJim said:
A hypodermic syringe achieves the same effect (though often not handy in the field, unless you're doing research- I don't have one on me when I fish!), it's used when releasing the deepwater snapper in Hawaii-- opakapaka, anyone? :thumb:
You gotta have a syringe with you when you fish! How else do you puff the worms up to float 'em off the bottom?


(Actually, that is my brother's favorite way of fishing, and dang it...it works...)
 

Anil

Active Member
#26
polepole said:
Does it change your thinking if Lingcod actually have a 20 year life span and reach sexual maturity at 4 years (20" male) and 7 years (24" female)?

-Allen
No. They are still a slow growing fish with a population that is a small fraction of their historical numbers. Keeping fish is not something that I have any moral or ethical opposition to. Like many fly fishermen, fish that I pursue have a higher ‘sport’ than table value to me. I would rather release a fish with questionable or low population numbers in the hope that I (or others) might catch and release it again in the future.
In my relatively short life, I’ve seen a few Lingcod ‘hotspots’ decline, apparently through over-harvest. One I can think of in particular, held good numbers of large fish. The friend, who showed me this spot, would often keep his legal limit of fish. After several years of this, he was surprised and disappointed that the size and number of fish had declined. I was considerably less surprised.
There are many fish that I have no problem keeping for the table. This is a decision that we must all make for ourselves.
 
#27
Cool Anil,

I hope you didn't take my posting as confronting you in any way. When I read your quote of my post, it kinda sounded that way to me. It wasn't meant to be.

Out of curiousity, what fish are on your list of "able to keep"?

Regarding lingcod overfishing, I've seen the California ling populations rebound quite a bit in the past few years over a relatively short period of time. Much of his I can only attribute to the 20 fathom fishing restriction. Well, that and the closure of the season during the spring season. Indeed, sometimes there are so many underlings (<24") that they are pesky.

Why do we open up the ling fishery in the sound in the month of May. Isn't it still the tail end of the spawn?

-Allen
 

SilverFly

Active Member
#28
Well, I for one like to eat fish. Unfortunately this is something that increasingly presents challenges from ethical, conservation, and health standpoints.

My "ground rules" on keeping fish for the table are as follows:

1) Can I really use and appreciate this fish on my table?

2) Are there any stock conservation concerns with keeping this fish?

3) Is this a species I can purchase without supporting detrimental fish-farming or non-selective commercial fishing techniques?

4) Are there any health concerns with eating this fish based on the species, size, and location of catch?

5) Is this a marked hatchery fish that may present a genetic threat to native fish in a mixed-stock fishery?



Of course, it goes without saying that these rules are in addition to angling regulations and catch limits.

------------------------------
 

Jim Wallace

Smells like low tide.
#29
Nice set of ground rules, SilverFly. I agree with all of them, except that I bend #3, as the black rockfish I catch off the jetty here (mainly in the Spring) are alot fresher than the ones I get in the market. I only fish out there about once a week on average, and only keep a max of 6 fish (usually less...last time I kept one), as I don't want to have to fillet more than that!

I remember back in the early 80's when I lived on the West side of Bainbridge Island, I would still catch True Cod, when jigging. In the Spring there were always scads of boats just South of the Agate Passage bridge going after them. Later, after I moved to the coast, I heard their stocks really got depleted and the fishery there collapsed.
Does anyone know if their population is coming back?

Jimbo
 

Smalma

Active Member
#30
Jim -
While the occassional true cod is now caught in Puget Sound the population has not really bounced back at all. The fishery in the Agate Pass area was targeting the spawnig aggregations of the population resulting in the collapse of the fishery. It has been popular to "blame" the trawl (draggers) fishery for the collapse of the population but it is impossible to ignore the intense sport fishing on those spawning aggregations as a significant contributing factor

The groundfish experts I have talked with tell me that Puget Sound is at the southern edge of the species distribution and it may well be decades (if ever) before the population rebounds to previous levels. They think it may take a special set of envirnomental conditions for a successful spawn and survival of the young to occur and at current abundances it may take several fsih generations with those conditions for some sort of recovery.

Tight lines
Curt
 

Latest posts