Rockfish and Lingcod - Daily limits & Closer times

Derby

Crew Member
Subject: FN0443-RECREATIONAL - Rockfish and Lingcod - Coast-wide - Areas 1 to 29, 101 to 111, 121, 123 to 127, 130 and 142 - Daily Limits and Close Times


Category(s):
RECREATIONAL - Fin Fish (Other than Salmon)
Fishery Notice - Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Subject: FN0443-RECREATIONAL - Rockfish and Lingcod - Coast-wide - Areas 1 to 29, 101 to 111, 121, 123 to 127, 130 and 142 - Daily Limits and Close Times
Effective May 19, 2017 to March 31, 2018, the following recreational daily
limits and close times apply to Rockfish and Lingcod in North and South Coast
waters.
North Coast – Areas 1 to 10, 101 to 110, 130, 142
Daily limits: Rockfish, all species combined - three (3); yelloweye rockfish -
one (1); lingcod - two (2)
Close time: November 16 to March 31 (open April 1 to November 15)
South Coast (outside waters) – Areas 11, 21 to 27, 111, 123 to 127, Subareas 12-
14 and 20-1 to 20-4, and Area 121 except for that portion outside the 12
nautical mile limit seaward of a line that begins at 48o34.00’ north latitude
and 125o17.386’ west longitude and continues southeasterly at a bearing of 116o
True to a point at 48o28.327’ north latitude and 125o01.687’ west longitude.
Daily limits: Rockfish, all species combined - two (2); yelloweye rockfish -
one (1); lingcod - two (2)
Close time: November 16 to March 31 (open April 1 to November 15)
South Coast (inside waters) – Areas 13 to 19 and Subareas 12-1 to 12-13, 12-15
to 12-48, 20-5 to 20-7 and 29-5
Daily limits: Rockfish, all species combined - one (1); yelloweye rockfish -
one (1); lingcod - one (1)
Close time: October 1 to April 30 (open May 1 to September 30)
Area 28 and Subareas 29-1 to 29-4 and 29-6 to 29-17
Closed April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018
Variation Orders 2017-272 and 2017-275
Notes:
Please review the BC Sport Fishing Guide online at
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/rec/index-eng.html, for any other
restrictions that apply to the Area that you are fishing in, such as finfish
closures, size limits, annual limits, and permitted gear.
Did you witness suspicious fishing activity or a violation? If so, please call
the Fisheries and Ocean Canada 24-hour toll free Observe, Record, Report line
at 1-800-465-4336.
For the 24 hour recorded opening and closure line, call toll free at
1-866-431-FISH (3474).
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
CONTACT INFO
Brad Beaith
South Coast Recreational Fisheries
250 756-7190
Brad.Beaith@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
John Webb
North Coast Recreational Fisheries
250 627-3409
John.Webb@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Fisheries and Oceans Canada Operations Center - FN0443
Sent May 18, 2017 at 10:52
Visit us on the Web at http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca
If you would like to unsubscribe, please submit your request at: http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fns-sap/index-eng.cfm?pg=manage_subscription
If you have any questions, please contact us via e-mail to: OpsCentre@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
 
This is a huge joke. Ling populations are extremely healthy and IMO this is bs to the max and shows that dfo doesn't give a crap what sfab or the Rec sector says.

Did the Commies get a 33% reduction in ling limits? No...because they actually know how to lobby and organize in a manner that dfo listens to. (Waiting for meat hunter comments etc ...that's not the point here. Point is we should be allowed what's fair. And when someone says oh they're still generous limits...That is the DUMBEST approach you can take as that's just resigning to being pushed around instead of pushing back!!!!)

I'm all for the yelloweye reductions. But the ling is absolute bogus. Once you lose something you never get it back. Unless sfab and rec sector can pull a rabbit out of our butt. We are the only sector that seems to voluntarily restrict ourselves and that just adds to how we get pushed around by dfo. I hear "we need to show dfo we care about conservation" etc etc type lines implying this will help us with our fight to get more in the long run. Yet the results speak for themselves and it does the exact opposite. The nice guy, good guy approach is back firing over and over again...yet it remains the approach we continue to keep going, silly and clearly not working.
 
I can't speak to other areas but for area 14 this rule opens lingcod 2 weeks early. Other then that it seems that these are the same rules we have been fishing by for many years. Am I missing something?
 
New post on The Ardent Angler
blavatar.png


Outside Yelloweye Rockfish – Again.
by Jeremy Maynard
A month ago I wrote about what I described as the front burner issue in recreational fisheries management for the outer BC coast this year, the acute need because of past mismanagement by DFO to conserve Yelloweye rockfish. On May 19th DFO released Fisheries Notice # 0443 containing details of the 2017 recreational management plan. It’s important to note that there are no changes to the decade old rockfish management plan for the inside coast from Johnstone Strait on throughout the Strait of Georgia and adjoining areas.

Along the west coast of Vancouver Island the daily limit for rockfish (all species in aggregate) is reduced from 3 to 2 fish per day, of which only one can be a Yelloweye rockfish. For the entire remainder of the central and north coast (Areas 1 – 10 and associated offshore areas) the rockfish daily limit is reduced from 5 to 3 rockfish in aggregate, of which only 1 can be a Yelloweye.

In addition, DFO has decided to reduce lingcod retention opportunity from 3 to 2 fish per day throughout this large area, despite the fact that the stock is healthy and supports productive recreational and commercial fisheries for them. This move has been taken because of what DFO asserts to be the potential for rockfish by-catch when fishing for lingcod – note that there is no planned reduction in commercial lingcod harvest. The department is claiming that the commercial reduction in rockfish encounters will be achieved by “other measures”, expecting that the encounter rate of Yelloweye rockfish in commercial fisheries directed at other species such as halibut, lingcod and sablefish will be reduced by 80% compared to two years ago. As well the WCVI lingcod closed season of November 16 to March 31 will now come into effect for the entire outer BC coast for both rockfish and lingcod, ending the year ‘round retention opportunity previously enjoyed on the north coast.

There’s much to be concerned about all of this but the reduction in retention opportunity for a biologically unrelated fish for which there are no stock abundance concerns creates a worrying precedent in my view and I would not want to see this concept more widely applied, in the world of salmon for example.

I wrote previously that this is a result of gross over harvest of Yelloweye rockfish in outside waters during the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, primarily in the commercial fisheries. I don’t blame the fishermen, they only caught what they were allowed to – the present situation is entirely the result of management failure by senior DFO groundfish staff at the time, now all long since retired I’m sure. Given that the long lives and other characteristics of rockfish were well known, why this over harvest in both the inside and outside waters of BC was allowed to happen remains a mystery, not that knowing would change the reality now.

And there’s another troubling aspect to these changes for the outside coast. After years of warnings by some voices in the recreational fishery that the rapidly escalating commercial rockfish harvest in inside waters was unsustainable, in the early 2000’s everything came to screeching halt. Having peaked at over 400 tons per year the inside commercial rockfish harvest was quickly reduced to 32 tons per year and anglers have ever since only been allowed to keep 1 rockfish of any species per day, with a closed season paired with lingcod (October 1 to April 30 on the inside). In addition it was at this time that the extensive series of Rockfish Conservation Areas was created in which no hook and line fishing is allowed, providing a theoretically unfished local stock to act as a seed bank for the surrounding area.

Having put inside waters rockfish management on a sustainable footing, it appears that DFO groundfish staff then forgot or ignored what was taking place in outside waters for the next decade, leading to the present circumstance. Given the very long life history of Yelloweye rockfish and with the damage largely already done perhaps the management outcome by now would be similar but at least the changes would have been phased in over a longer timeframe. This would have allowed for educating the angling public about such things as desired outcomes, rockfish species identification and much earlier knowledge and utilization of release descending devices, all aspects of rockfish management in which other jurisdictions like California are much advanced. Instead a decade or more has been wasted, requiring a “sixty to almost zero in a few seconds” type of management approach, generating anger and distrust towards DFO in the fishing community. I can’t in any way support what has occurred but in defense of the department I also can’t help but think that this is another outcome arising from the steady erosion of funds directed to DFO by all federal governments over the past quarter century – increasingly too few people having too much to do, with necessary work predictably going undone.

Few truer words than “what’s done is done” so what’s next? Expect a long overdue initiative to educate anglers on individual rockfish species ID – the age of erroneously classifying them “snappers”, red or otherwise, is long past. Paired with this will be a big push to raise awareness and use of descending devices that have been shown to significantly reduce mortality of rockfish if used promptly; I wouldn’t be surprised if within a few years they became a required piece of equipment when specifically fishing for any bottom fish. And there could be additional management measures such as maximum depth restrictions, additional closed areas of rocky ground or even zero retention of Yelloweye or other rockfish – DFO has stated that no measure is not up for consideration.

The Committee for the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) is scheduled to review outside Yelloweye rockfish in 2018. If it decides that despite all the reductions in fisheries that the stock is endangered this will automatically require additional action by the federal government under the Species at Risk Act (SARA), in turn quite likely triggering a “you ain’t seen nuthin’ yet” sort of response by DFO. Pray it doesn’t happen.


Jeremy
 
This is a huge joke. Ling populations are extremely healthy and IMO this is bs to the max and shows that dfo doesn't give a crap what sfab or the Rec sector says.

Did the Commies get a 33% reduction in ling limits? No...because they actually know how to lobby and organize in a manner that dfo listens to. (Waiting for meat hunter comments etc ...that's not the point here. Point is we should be allowed what's fair. And when someone says oh they're still generous limits...That is the DUMBEST approach you can take as that's just resigning to being pushed around instead of pushing back!!!!)

I'm all for the yelloweye reductions. But the ling is absolute bogus. Once you lose something you never get it back. Unless sfab and rec sector can pull a rabbit out of our butt. We are the only sector that seems to voluntarily restrict ourselves and that just adds to how we get pushed around by dfo. I hear "we need to show dfo we care about conservation" etc etc type lines implying this will help us with our fight to get more in the long run. Yet the results speak for themselves and it does the exact opposite. The nice guy, good guy approach is back firing over and over again...yet it remains the approach we continue to keep going, silly and clearly not working.
Your only bitching beacause you guide for a living .... relax pound the other fish for your guests!!!
 
Your only bitching beacause you guide for a living .... relax pound the other fish for your guests!!!

I think Fishtofino put it wonderfully.
I have no problem reducing my catch for conservation purposes but when i see the same 4 commercial boats pounding our Ling Cod reefs day after day for months on end i call ********!

Speaking as a recreational fisher, and guide, I wouldn't have the slightest problem with a 1 ling, 1 yelloweye, 1 halibut, 1 wild salmon(coho/chinook), 1 hatch, etc. limit IF, and this is a big if, it were to strictly conserve fish stocks so there are fish in the future. I'd happily curtail my personal fish limit, and even the amount of money I make from guiding if it means that there will be fish for my kids, and theirs.

The Problem inlays in that this isn't really a conservation decision as much as it is a relocation of quota decision. If the fish stocks are so low that a decision like this is warranted for sport-fishermen, Commercial fishermen should also have their limits cut. Furthermore, there should be more rockfish conservation areas allotted, to allow a healthy population and fair fishery. There's 2 ways to make sure fish stocks don't decline: Kill fewer or introduce more babies.
 
Some of those commie boats are unloading 10,000 lbs a week at the dock and yet the sport fishing fleet gets a reduction??

What do you say to the that ??? ....... Fishing " Hans " Solo?
 
Lingcod is now going to be the same as halibut. Watch and see


I agree. Used to get fish a chips made with hali and that ended because the price got so high that the shop discontinued. Then we would get ling for the fish and chips. Well that too has ended for the same reason. I fully agree with the quote above. Watch and see. The price get so high and the government starts whittling away at us sportsters and we react like pathetic Canadians. Not as an insult but we as canadians are pretty passive.
 
I agree. Used to get fish a chips made with hali and that ended because the price got so high that the shop discontinued. Then we would get ling for the fish and chips. Well that too has ended for the same reason. I fully agree with the quote above. Watch and see. The price get so high and the government starts whittling away at us sportsters and we react like pathetic Canadians. Not as an insult but we as canadians are pretty passive.

I'm following along from south of the border. We have some of the same dynamic, but have a tough time unifying as the rec sector to leverage our size and economic impact for change. We as Americans aren't all that passive when it comes to these issues, but have arrived at the same result mainly through internal divisiveness. Fish have increasing global value, and at the end of the day, it appears the almighty dollar is a tough nut to crack.

fb
 
Its a problem on both sides of the border.... we have USA visitor at our SFAB main board meeting regularly now seeing how our process is working.... sometime it works great other time falls on deaf ears as it seems.....
 
Write your MP and the Minister. Recreational fishery is treated like a privilege and commercial a right. Time for a shake up! We're 300,000 with the voice of a handful and it will only get worse.
 
IMG_4158.PNG Yeah...but for the love of our resource we need to let these go.
 
View attachment 33312 Yeah...but for the love of our resource we need to let these go.

Exact passive attitude that got us in the situation we are in now where we get the shaft and commies are laughing at us. Don't get me wrong, yes, catch and release is great to practice for all species, but that's not the point here...the point is why we get 33% reduction and commies are still kicking the **** out of them. THAT'S what needs to change for the love of the resource, we are a drop in the bucket when it comes to the fish taken from the ocean relative to commercial. Commercial is where the higher restrictions should come into play, especially considering overall benefit socially and economically to our country/province.
 
As far as limits/quotas and splits between sporties/commies, it seems the fishery managers on both sides of the border play by rules where seniority matters. At least in the AK Halibut fishery, IFQ's were assigned based on historical catches from the "Derby" fishery. My experience in BC is that back in the 70's & 80's the sporties never targeted bottom fish & we always caught enough while trolling for Salmon. Fast-forward to the 21st century where Salmon limits are less, numbers in many places are less, and 20 years of sporties targeting bottom fish have wiped-out Rockfish & at Neah Bay the Halibut season has gone from 3 months 2 fish a day to 3 days 1 fish a day. Rockfish in Puget Sound has been closed for years.

So it seems we all agree the solution is both catch reduction & catch reallocation.
 
Exact passive attitude that got us in the situation we are in now where we get the shaft and commies are laughing at us. Don't get me wrong, yes, catch and release is great to practice for all species, but that's not the point here...the point is why we get 33% reduction and commies are still kicking the **** out of them. THAT'S what needs to change for the love of the resource, we are a drop in the bucket when it comes to the fish taken from the ocean relative to commercial. Commercial is where the higher restrictions should come into play, especially considering overall benefit socially and economically to our country/province.

The Sport Fishery in this province takes MORE Chinook by far than the commercial fishery. As for bottom-fish as a whole, in Shore, we kick the snot out of the commercial fishery...that's reality. Halibut by pounds, no, we do not.
 
Back
Top