WDFW NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/

February 16, 2017
Contact: Michele Culver, (360) 902-2182

WDFW announces changes to 2017 ocean bottomfish fishery

OLYMPIA – Anglers can expect changes to recreational bottomfish fisheries when ocean marine areas re-open March 11 to fishing for species such as lingcod and rockfish.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is making the changes to help ensure rockfish catches align with harvest limits adopted by the Pacific Fishery Management Council. The council is responsible for establishing conservation measures in ocean waters three to 200 miles off the Pacific coast.

Changes in effect beginning March 11 for the 2017-18 fishing season include:

Rockfish daily limit: Reduces the daily limit on rockfish to seven, from 10, in Marine Areas 1 (Ilwaco), 2 (Westport), 3 (La Push), and 4 (Neah Bay, west of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line).

Canary rockfish daily limit: Anglers fishing in Marine Areas 1 and 2 can retain one canary rockfish as part of the seven rockfish daily limit.

Bottomfish daily limit: Reduces the overall daily limit on bottomfish to nine, from 12, in Marine Areas 1 through 3 and Marine Area 4, west of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line. Rockfish count toward an angler's overall bottomfish daily limit. Anglers will be able to retain two bottomfish, such as lingcod or cabezon, in addition to their daily limit of seven rockfish.

Lingcod minimum size: Removes the 22-inch minimum size for lingcod in Marine Areas 1 through 3 and Marine Area 4, west of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line.

Deepwater lingcod closure: Reduces the size of the deepwater lingcod closure in Marine Area 1 by moving the southern boundary five miles north (to 46° 28.00' N. Lat. from 46° 33.00' N. Lat.).

WDFW is implementing the changes to daily catch limits to help ensure the conservation objective for black rockfish is met, said Michele Culver, intergovernmental ocean policy manager for the department.

"The black rockfish population remains healthy in Washington's ocean waters," Culver said. "However, we've seen an increasing number of anglers fishing for rockfish in recent years, which means more fish are being harvested than what we had estimated."

Meanwhile, anglers fishing in Marine Areas 1 and 2 now will be able to retain one canary rockfish as part of the daily limit for rockfish. Retention of canary rockfish previously had been prohibited in these areas to protect the species.

"Fortunately, the population of canary rockfish has rebounded and is now sufficient to allow harvest in areas 1 and 2," said Culver. "Anglers are still prohibited from keeping canary rockfish in Marine Areas 3 and 4, but that may change in the future."

In all four marine areas, anglers will now be able to retain lingcod regardless of fish size. Lingcod are abundant and removing the minimum size requirement is not expected to have any effect on the species' population, Culver said. The change also should benefit the yelloweye rockfish population, which is still rebuilding, by reducing encounters with the species while anglers are fishing for lingcod, she said.

Lastly, Culver said anglers should be aware that beginning July 1, they'll need to have a descending device onboard their fishing vessel in all marine areas, including the coast. Descending devices are used to release rockfish back to the depth of capture and significantly improve the survivability of fish that are released. More information about these devices can be found on WDFW's website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/bottomfish/rockfish/mortality.html

Good call on mandatory descender.

In a pinch, a downrigger and release clip can do wonders on some of the bigger fish.

I too am glad they formally addressed the descender issue, but July 1st? All the yearly carnage from the ocean lingcod/Halibut will have already happened. Once the 120ft restriction is in place, it's still relevent, but dragging fish up from 500ft is an almost guaranteed floater. Boccaccio can live to 50 and Yelloweye to 120, so everyone of those many floaters every year need all the help they can get. I've been "descender guy" on the boat for years, and have even dropped a few from the fleet that hadn't been picked at yet by the albatross. Worst part about Ocean Halibut for me is the floaters I see every year. Tom

I have to admit I am very confused as to what WDFW thinks it is doing with the descender device and why.

This rule change was proposed by Puget Sound Anglers to cover all of WA marine waters when fishing for halibut, ling, cabezon and rockfish. Staff altered it to apply to only Puget Sound waters (as if conservation of overfished offshore rockfish is not a worthy goal) yet expanded it to apply when fishing for any bottomfish - meaning kids fishing for perch/sole in shallow water still need a descender aboard and ready to deploy. How likely are they to need to descend an ESA listed rockfish????

Here is a link to the initial proposal as submitted which Staff recommended move forward: http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/rule_proposals/2017-2018/original.php?id=DFW429038-17.

The summary reads as follows:

"New Rule Proposal:
While fishing for Lingcod, Halibut, Cabezon, and Rockfish in all Marine Waters you must have a fish descender device on board and readily available to descend rockfish that are caught as by-catch."


Here is a link to the CR-102 Proposed Rule Making as submitted by WDFW to the Office of the Code Reviser : http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/2016/wsr_16-19-059.pdf.

(5) In Catch Record Card Area 4 east of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line
and Areas 5 through 13: It is unlawful for any person to take, fish
for, or possess bottomfish or halibut taken for personal use, to fail
to have onboard the vessel a fish descending or fish recompression device,
rigged for immediate use, and capable of rapidly returning fish
to depth of capture.


And here is the current pertinent portion of the WAC which explicitly is limited to inland waters:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=220-56-115

(5) In Catch Record Card Area 4 east of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line and Areas 5 through 13: It is unlawful for any person to take, fish for, or possess bottomfish or halibut taken for personal use, to fail to have onboard the vessel a fish descending or fish recompression device, rigged for immediate use, and capable of rapidly returning fish to depth of capture.

So now the Department has issued a News Release that descenders are required in offshore marine waters. Is this some form of Freudian acknowledgment that they really should have made it applicable to all marine waters?

And, if not, the question remains as to why Staff approved the original rule change proposal and then made significant changes without any discussion.

Did I mention I am confused???

Well put, Larry B

Thanks BB, but while working on my second cup of coffee and pondering the impact of the descender device rule as set forth in the WAC I realized that a fisher out of Neah Bay could inadvertently run afoul of the Statewide General Rule (page 12 of the pamphlet) that: "You May Not - Fish for, or harvest fish or shellfish in an area with catch in your possession that does not meet the rules of that area."

In short, one could go offshore and legally fish halibut or bottomfish without a descender and then make a stop east of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line on their way in to fish, crab, or even gather sea weed. At that point if they have halibut or bottomfish aboard and are without a rigged and ready to use descender they would be in violation. Ouch!

Could happen. Gear regulations need to be consistent or unintentional violations can be committed.

WDFW needs "Speed Trap" regs to cover shortfalls in funding. No increases in license fees; money has to come from somewhere.

In a book I read on Indian fishing, and supported elsewhere, halibut could be fished size-selectively based on hook size. While it would lower the number of halibut caught, moving to a large enough hook size could avoid many rockfish, thereby significantly reducing by catch issues. It would probably lengthen the season but lower the CPUE as the target would be larger fish.

Just an unsupported opinion (no data) the halibut season is so short any benefit to rockfish by a larger hook requirement would be minimal compared to mandatory use of descender device in coastal waters. How that larger hook size might impact average size of halibut hooked and retained and, consequently, the rapidity of using up the sport allocation is another discussion.

I will suggest that addressing the issue of commercial by-catch of halibut could yield quicker and larger improvements in recreational halibut seasons.

Just offering a rockfish protection idea, per the observation of floating rockfish in the halibut fishery.

Understand, but WDFW changing the proposed reg so as to not require a descender device when halibut/bottomfishing
in coastal waters is unexplained (and, maybe, unexplainable).

It is WDFW's conservation ethic. It would piss off too many halibuters to have to carefully deal with by catch. This is a get in, get out fishery. The time you spend taking care of a rockfish is time some other guy catches a 'but and gets closer to the allotment.

Well, those halibut guys are already pissed off.

Seriously, there were a number of descenders handed out to halibut and ling fishers and using them in conjunction with a downrigger makes for a pretty quick release process.

Thanks for sticking up for us little guys Larry B.
I go out and fish the flats for flatfish or perch in a float tube all the time. Don't have any extra space in the pockets. Bring groups of kids in rafts or kayaks. Why do I need a descender on each craft to fish 20-30 feet of water?

Obviously needing a descender should be based on the depth you are fishing.... Everywhere!

Too simple and easy?

As mentioned previously there was no discussion/explanation of why Staff changed the initial proposal from when fishing for ling, halibut, cabezon or rockfish to all bottomfishing but just in Puget Sound waters. I commented in writing and also testified to the Commission to no avail. Frustrating.

If you submit testimony in the regs process, WDFW is required by law to provide a written response in the formal "response to comments". While they don't have to specifically tell you, individually, they need to put out a public response. If they don't, they are in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act and it could be argued that the entire reg package adopted in that process are not legally adopted.

Looks like it will help this young man's workload tremendously...

It's easy to fillet fish fast if you don't care about waste.
Anyway, do descender released fish that have their bladder hanging out their mouths survive?

The Education, Fisheries and Conservation Chapter of Puget Sound Anglers was set up to handle grants to include those which have supported purchase and distribution of two types of descender devices as well as educational materials such as species identification handouts. You may have seen our displays and materials at the Puyallup Sportsman Show and Seattle Boat Show or been the recipient of a free descender device at one of the shows or at a boat launch.

Now, as to your question. What you describe protruding is the fish's stomach which has been pushed out by the expanded air bladder. When the fish is quickly returned to depth there is a significant increase in survival. For example, PFMC has accepted that Yelloweye brought up from 30-50 fathoms and released at the surface have 100% mortality but those same fish quickly and properly released at depth have a mortality rate of 27%. That is a 73% reduction in mortality! Yes, that is a best case scenario but certainly establishes the benefit of using a descender device.

Here is a link: http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/D3b_SUP_GMT_RPT2_MAR2014BB.pdf

Thanks for the opportunity to again tout the conservation benefit of using a descender device when releasing rockfish.