http://salmonchronicles.com/2015/04/28/w...gered-rockfish/

I realize the headline of that article is a little sensationalized...but this is very concerning. We're still smarting from the MA10 closure, it's tough to face the possibility of yet more closures.

As I am just scratching the surface of this, I'm wondering if anyone closer to the issue happens to know...

If there were to be closures, are the specific regulations (dates, locations, etc.) dictated by NOAA or recommended to WDFW? I'm imagining our hands would be tied.

How would the tribal fishing rights figure into this? Would they be bound to comply or would they be exempt?

If tribes would be exempt, I imagine they would actually SUPPORT the RCAs because it would take more harvesters (us) off the water. Also, if they are still allowed to fish the RCA waters, how effective does NOAA think an RCA would be?

If they are not exempt, would they be the sportfisher's ally in fighting this?

How scared should we be?

We should be very concerned about this as we were the ones that brought this to the author of the article. PSA is at the table with NOAA where they are driving the recovery of ESA listed Rockfish. Bocaccio, Yelloweye, and Canary rockfish were listed and slated for recovery. We have another meeting with them at Sandpoint at the NOAA facility today. This is a work in progress

First there is no good data of how many rockfish were ever in the sound and most info is extrapolated using ocean data and some BC data. It is data poor. So it has to be built.

The Puget Sound is mostly mud with rocky structure and vertical reliefs (steep banks) is where these fish normally live. So not so great for rockfish. The San Juans has the best aggregate and structure as well as the steep banks of Hood Canal.

Nothing is in stone right now as we are awaiting the recommendations of the Rockfish recovery team. We we will then bring this out and have to flood them with our opinions. The fish descender device is where we need to go to keep fishing. It is probably time to put it into law. They are advocating that the biggest impact to Puget Sound Rockfish will be salmon fishers.

Our strategy is to keep our fisheries open and that is why we have been doing the fish descender talks and giving them away. We are prepared to change the law to make it mandatory to have one on your boat to fish, if need be so we do not close any more fisheries. Salmon fishers are being targeted as the biggest impact to the ESA rockfish.

What has been advocated is that they are breaking the Puget Sound into 5 regions. Hood Canal, South Sound, Central Sound, San Juans and Eastern Strait.
All east of the Victoria Sill or Port Angeles. The chart in that link shows the critical habitat for rockfish.

So they are saying they could take up to 20-30% in each of those areas marked on that chart in each of those five regions. We have told them that where there is structure for rockfish, there will be Chinook and it will be someones fishing spot. This will not go down easy.

In the test fisheries, rockfish have been normally down in the 220' and deeper range and not up high, such as 120'. But when they take and close an area down to fishing, it will not only be in the deep but they will take it all of the way up into the shoreline for the juvenile rockfish.

We are trying to make sure that they do not do closures. I am trying to get the tribes to say they will not honor them. Just want to make sure we are not the only ones that are excluded. some of the tribes I have talked to are against them.

Ron,

Who is this? NOAA??

"They are advocating that the biggest impact to Puget Sound Rockfish will be salmon fishers. "

Any plans to bring the explosion of pinninpeds to table? Frankly, I've hooked a helluva lot more pinnipeds in the last 25-years than rockfish! (1-rockfish in the last 25-years.)

So what are your thoughts about NOAA?

1. Wild Fish Conservancy sued WDFW because WDFW did not have our HGMPs approved and in place. NOAA had over 11 years to go over these and chose not to due to them so they would not get sued. So they let WDFW get sued instead. Admitted in Senator Pearsons hearing. All hatcheries are now in jeopardy.

2. North of Falcon, I was on the phone (PSA) the entire negotiation in California with our PSA salmon advisors. We said no deal. They came back with you do not have the power to say no. So what good is all of the hard work by WDFW staff and all of our advisors? This was to be a co-managers meeting. Where is the "Co" and what does negotiation mean? Both of those to me say, we do have power to strike a deal. But are told otherwise.

3. NOAA sent a letter to WDFW about concerns on our 11 inner halibut days impacting those ESA rockfish. There is a meeting in Port Townsend to deal with halibut on a possible halibut closure in MA 7-10. This letter talks about impacting ESA rockfish while halibut fishing and recs possibly going after deepwater Lingcod where ESA rockfish might be. So while we might impact a handful of fish max, there are literally hundreds of tribal longline sets, equating to thousands of hooks on 1500' sets allover the straits and San Juans. The tribes are required to keep their rockfish if they get them on the halibut longline sets. But yet we are the ones being monitored.

We still have deep water derelict nets in the Puget Sound that are not removed deeper than 105'. These nets can impact those fish. Seals and sea lions completely are out of check and wiping out our fisheries. Cormorants and other birds are eating our salmon fry by the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, but yet it falls on the backs of the recreational fishers of Washington state.

Capt DR

Yes, this is NOAA.

Thanks Fishinnut, I figured you of all people would already be on top of things
Thanks for all your hard work, by the way.



That is INSANE! Where exactly do they get that idea? Just querying the dockside data they should be able to see that salmon fisherman encounter almost NO rockfish. That same data would tell them that the majority of salmon fishers stay above 120'. Are they seeing something I'm not?



OK good. So if there were NOAA-mandated RCAs, the tribes would have to abide by them, correct? If so that would severely hamper NOAAs efforts. I might even smell a court case or two.

Finally, is there anything we can do right now (preemptively), or do we need to just wait for NOAA to issue their recommendations?

I am definitely on board with making fish descenders law. Nobody likes floaters. I certainly don't like dead, wasted fish on my conscience.

Just to toot my own horn... I am geared up and ready for ling/halibut season with a dedicated rockfish descender. Sawed off an already-broken rod, patched together a franken-reel and stuck a shelton descender on the end.



Two things I've learned about rockfish descending: 1. It has to be easy. If you have to unclip your bait and clip on a descender, send the fish down, reel up, and clip your bait back on....it's just not gonna happen. Too much hassle. You need to have a dedicated rod. 2. actual descender devices work way better than home-brew devices (like upside down barbless jig heads). After a few failed attempts with the homebrew device you get frustrated and give up. Bonus lesson: if the descender is compact it helps ALOT (that's why I chopped mine off). Boat decks are usually cramped already, the last thing they need is more gear in the way.

Chasin' Baitman -

I agree that salmon anglers encounter relatively few rockfish but keep in mind there are whole lot of folks that fish Puget Sound for salmon.

In WDFW's "The Biology and Assessment of Rockfish In Puget Sound", 2009

available at -

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00926/wdfw00926.pdf

I found in table 5.5 that in 2007 that 7,423 rockfish were encounter by anglers targeting salmon. That seems like a lot until consider that there were nearly 211,000 salmon angler trips that year on Puget Sound. Or to put it another way those salmon anglers would be expected to catch an incidental rockfish once in every 28 trips. That does not seem to far out of line to me.

As other has said this is a huge issue that requires close attention and in an ideal world would require contributions from more than just the fishers to address factors limiting PS rockfish.

Curt

Great feedback on the fish descender device. The best is the Seaqualizer that clips on a downrigger. We are working on a grant to get those and give them out in 2016 and 2017 to the general public. We have already been doing the ocean for two years and now the Puget Sound this year We already got most of the Washington state charterboats supplied with Seaqualizers.

For the ocean we have used the pigtail swivels on our mainlines. We have a 5 pound ball sitting in a holder with a shelton fish descender attached. Who ever catches a bycatch rockfish, grabs the shelton and twists off their lure and puts the shelton on and sends it back down. Its very easy and quick. Like you said though might not happen with others. I dont think you need more than three pounds in here. 5 pounds will sink most rockfish in the ocean. We keep additional weights close by to clip on the main line if the fish doesn't go down. We caught a 3' yelloweye several years ago and it took 11 pounds to get it back down. 5 pounds pulled its head under water. Added 3 pounds more and it pulled it straight down, 3 more pounds took it right down.

I am sure that most people would have and use a fish descender if it kept their fishing area from shutting down.

Right now this MPA stuff is still a work in progress. WDFWs ROV did see one of their tagged yelloweye in Hood Canal that was pregnant and ready to spawn. This is the best news ever. This was one that they previously caught, visual tagged it and took it back down with a Seaqualizer fish descender. This shows that descended yelloweye/rockfish not only live, but recover give birth to more rockfish.


The problem with the ESA listing of these rockfish is it has the potential to be one of the worst fishing impacts on recreational fishing that we have ever seen.

There are many groups advocating MPAs or fishing closures in the Puget Sound. Many are funded by crisis. No crisis no funding. So they want to play it up to the max. Divers are telling us rockfish are rebounding very well. Some divers put this video together for us to show this as no one else is advocating they are rebounding. You have to see this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiRbRmkWXWc

To date the hundreds of closures around Vancouver Island have shown no change. They have not gotten better or worse. There is no proof they work in our region. In fact Lingcod unchecked can take them out.

Smalma, I get what you're saying. It's kind of like the scam they ran in "Office Space"...shave a penny here and there off enough transactions and pretty soon you have ton of money.

OK so 7K rockfish were encountered by salmon fisherman in '07, but what does that say about salmon fishing's impact on NOAA's stocks of concern (bocaccio, yelloweye and canary)?

Even if they were abundant, the chances of a salmon fisherman running into one are so slim simply because of their preference for very deep water. I mean, I'm sure it happens from time to time (esp in the ocean), but it seems to me shutting down salmon fishing in a certain area would have almost no impact because the contacts are already so low.

FN - love that video. I actually have started to catch blacks with some regularity while ling fishing past couple years. Before that, never.

I'd heard the RCAs put in place up in Canada have had no positive results. What about the MPAs they put in place in CA? Given those are coastal I don't think there's going to be much correlation there. The BC ones are probably much more relevent.

.....and of the 7K+ rockfish encounters, how many were of the listed species. The potential is there, for sure, but the overall impacts are probably much lower than the losses to tribal halibut long-lines, shrimp trawlers, and ghost nets.....

In bandying around numbers of how few rockfish are taken in salmon fisheries look at the response here to the AK pollack fisheries that take Chinook. Multi-millions of pollack and may a few tens of thousands of salmon. A minuscule fraction of the catch and they defend it that way "It is just a teeny tiny fraction.

If conservation, recovery, and restoration are to actually work, then the measure has to be the damage done to the resource we want to rescue. If the cost is too high (I wanna catch salmon in saltwater, for example) then we need to say that and accept the loss of the by catch species.

one of my favorite places and ways to catch coho for years were the rocks in 12-30 ft of water off of Possession Point. I would troll a plug cut herring on a light weight actively trying to dunk and dive the bait on the lee side of those rocks on an outgoing ripping tide. the coho, that I think were headed to the bait house there, would sit behind those rocks to avoid that heavy tide. So I was fishing in prime rockfish habitat. big rocks and kelp beds with small baits. still I caught only a few rockfish (7 in my journal) in the 10 years I fished that. I did have a few good days (like 5) where I got some small ling that were back there but the ling seemed to only be around every so often.

why bring it up?

those and a handful of rockfish caught in the late 70's early 80's at the alki point buoy are the only rockfish I remember catching while salmon fishing. I didn't journal until the 90's. For most of my fishing life I did not troll at all, preferring to mooch, yet rock fish were almost never encountered. "one in every 28 trips" seems high to me. yet I think I would be on the high end of the spectrum due to my choice to almost always use bait, over lures, and avoid trolling.

thats my real world data.