An interesting article from today’s newspaper. Morbidly funny comments from commercial fishermen @ the end of the article. This action is (IMHO) long overdue and probably too little-too late. Over thirty years ago I was fishin fer silvers @ Pt D and these guys came by w/so many rockfish that they were carryin em with the helpf a large pole supported on their shoulders--musta been a hundred of good sized rockfish.

Rockfish limits only beginning of restrictions

By Hal Bernton
Seattle Times staff reporter

In an effort to protect several depleted species of rockfish, the Pacific Fishery Management Council this week approved sweeping fishing limits to take effect this year and outlined options for more restrictions in 2003.

In a meeting in Culver City, Calif., that marked a painful turning point in West Coast fisheries, the council imposed tough new restrictions on California sport fishing and approved a Sept. 1 closure of a broad, productive swath of the ocean bottom to commercial rockfishing.

Options under consideration for next year could put much of the prime Pacific halibut fishing grounds off limits to Washington sport fishermen and also limit the areas open to sport fishing for rockfish.

The protection efforts are the undersea equivalent of forestry efforts to protect the spotted owl, said Phil Anderson, a Washington state Department of Fish and Wildlife biologist who serves on the council.

"I've been on this council for 15 years, and this groundfish issue is the greatest challenge that we've ever faced," Anderson said.

Rockfish — often sold in supermarkets as red snapper — are a signature fish of the West Coast, with more than 80 species swimming off the coasts of Oregon, Washington and California.

The council actions are intended to protect seven seriously overfished rockfish species. Some of these species — bocaccio, yelloweye, canary — may live to be 80 to 100 years of age, and recovery is expected to take decades.

The council is a mix of federal, state, industry and other officials charged by federal law with helping to manage a coastal fishing zone off Washington, Oregon and California that ranges from three miles to 200 miles out to sea. Its recommendations will be sent to the federal Department of Commerce for final approval.

None of the council restrictions will affect Puget Sound, which is managed separately by the state and which already has tight rockfish limits imposed for anglers.

The rockfish-conservation efforts will hit hardest at a West Coast commercial trawl and hook-and-line fleet that already has been socked in recent years by earlier harvest cutbacks. This fleet includes more than 70 Washington vessels based out of Neah Bay, Bellingham, Westport and other state ports.

To protect the dark-blotched rockfish, the commercial bottom-fishing boats will be banned from depths of 600 to 1,500 feet off Washington and Oregon. The restrictions are likely to make rockfish harder to find — and drive up supermarket prices. And some commercial fishermen are likely to be pushed out of business.

Fishermen who attended the meeting expressed shock at the council's actions.

"I expect two-thirds of the fleet to go out of business,'' said Bill James, a nearshore commercial fisherman in the Morro Bay area of California. "The way it looks now, we're not going to be able to access those fish and that's going to be devastating."

Hal Bernton: 206-464-2581 or hbernton@seattletimes.com. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2002 The Seattle Times Company

Glad to hear it

I get so sick and tired of comercial fishermen crying that they are going out of buisnees because there are not enough fish left to catch!Go find yourself a new job!There are very few if any inshore comercial fishermen that are paying the rent and feeding there family off there fishing buisness.I would like to know the truth behind what two thirds is.I am an excomercial fisherman and know what is going on out there in our great oceans.I quit because I could not stand decimating the ocean just to make a few square heads rich,and I could see the writing on the wall.Now I build houses.I do not blame the state for having to find a new carreer,I blame the fishing industry for letting it happen and doing it.You canot tear into an ecosystem like we have out on our oceans and not have very bad consequences.Man always ignores the consequences for the sake of money and then back peddles like they had no idea what they were doing.

About Time

I'm an ex-commercial also, just so you know my perspective. I quit 18 years ago because it's not the kind of life I wanted as a husband and future father, not because of it's effect on the resource.

I don't blame the industry itself, I blame the government agencies that don't have the balls to stand up to the corporations standing to lose millions to legislation. Very few harvesters of natural resources (as a population) are going to volunteer to give up their livlihoods. Just ask a logger. It has to be legislated, and it has to include special rights groups (native Americans, for example).

I see a lot of comments on this board and others that imply that commercials don't make a living at it and they only do it so they can get a tax break for their gear and boat. That may be true in some fisheries, but I also know many guys that still make good money, still have record setting seasons, in fact, and LOVE THE WORK and couldn't imagine doing anything that they like more. They bust their asses, risk their lives, leave their wives and kids for months at a time (and struggle with that decision), and consider what they do as an honorable profession. They're not all sporting evil grins and speculating on how they can rip off the system. I don't expect anyone to sympathize with them, but don't make them out to be evil doers. They like their job. They may wish not to see what's inevitable, but that's where good science and legislation need to step in.

The various commercial fisheries are in different states of repair, and should be dealt with differently, from all-out condemnation to limited entry, and include buy-backs as incentive. For instance, I know I'd put up some cash to help eliminate the Puget Sound commercial (especially if it includes natives) seine fishery. Who else would?

Have to disagree with you skywalker, its the industry that pushes the legislation which allows the industry to continue to overfish.

An example: Congressman Don Young from Alaska is a good congressman, he represents his constituents. Mr Young is in his 15th term and is the 5th highest ranking Republican of a republican controled house. Mr young is vice chair and former chairman of the house resources committee. Mr Young is an advid hunter and gets the highest rating from the NRA. Mr Youngs constituents are commercial fisherman and people who make their living supporting commercial fishing so Mr young kills legislation that is not in the best interests of his constituents, the commercial fishing industry.

When Congressman Duncan Hunter introduced legislation to outlaw Pelagic Drift Longlines along the west coast from California to Washington, Mr Young refuses to let it pass unless Oregon and Washington are removed from the legislation. Why would Mr Young care about Oregon and Washington? His constituents, the commercial fishing industry, wanted it that way.

This kind of political manuvering has been happening forever. The commercial fishing industry has allways had thier hands in the process, geting themselves a better deal. Working to get themselves a better deal, they have opened up the ocean to overfishing.

They are a spoiled kid....they will get their way until someone responsible puts their foot down.

I also don't think we have quite the same picture here in WA, relative to the perceived strength of the resource. In comparing revenues from specific commercial fisheries I think it would be obvious to anyone that Puget Sound seiners aren't making much of a living compared to S.E. Alaskan seiner. This is speculation, and I haven't looked lately to compare numbers, but I'd be very surprised if it weren't the case.

My original point anyway is that I don't to see commercial fishermen made out to be evil and operating out of malice and disdain for everyone else. That may apply to the suits at the top, but the guys at the bottom are just doing what they love, or all they know...just like loggers, miners, etc.

Puget Sound is still lacking Black Sea Bass, Tom Cod, True Cod, Pollock, Many Species of Rock Cod and Hake in cacheable numbers. I've sport (salmon) fished an average of 3-4 times a week in the last 25 years and during the 1980's WDF allowed bottom Trawlers in for about 3-4 years, I can't remember for sure but I think it was 84-88. To show the impact this had on Puget Sound my Son and I have caught 2 Pollock, 0 Tom Cod, 0 True Cod, 0 Pollock, 0 Sea Bass since the early 90's, I was not targeting these fish but PRIOR to the BOTTOM TRAWLING your catch would include at least 5-15 of a mixed bag of these fish while salmon fishing.

In theory Skywalker is right about the fishing industry in that it should have been controlled by the government agencies, but in our system of legalized bribery as campaign contributions and campaigns for public office costing millions, the theory doesn't work. With a uninformed and apathetic public we end up with government by special interest and the people get screwed out of tax dollars AND natural resources.
BTW,the puget sound hake and pollock were wiped out by a trawl fishery that was supplying fishmeal to the Washington State fish hatchery system.