Seems to me that anytime restrictions are placed on our privileges and our rights, they should be initially justified and then periodically re-justified so that we can gain those privileges back in a timely fashion.
I’m thinking that depth closures to protect certain rockfish species (e.g., cowcod, yelloweye, canary) are potentially out of date and not supported by sufficient current science to justify our loss of fishing rights in deeper water.
Our rights and privileges should not be taken lightly, and should never be taken from us without strong and clear evidence that the restrictions are needed to preserve a viable population of fish.
Once those criteria have been satisfied and a restriction put in place, that restriction should always have a sunset date, when it is lifted, unless new strong and clear evidence shows that our continuing loss of fishing opportunity is absolutely necessary.
It looks to me like that old worn-out term, “best available science” is used to close areas to fishing and then keep them closed until a windfall of money (which rarely comes along) allows for funding of modern science to effectively study the underlying factors with modern techniques.
Such science would include recently-proven methodology such as using seasoned sportfshing skippers equipped with high-end fish-finders to assess the populations of various fish species on deeper structure spots.
Experienced skippers have proven (by ground-truthing with ROVs) that they can correctly identify specific species of rockfish by their sonar signatures and how they interact socially and interact with their habitat.
This methodology beats the crap out of old ways such as sample trawls which can produce erroneous results because too much extrapolation is made from too little of a sample on only one part of a reef zone. Besides, the sample trawl method kills critters. Those erroneous results are the ones called “best available science” and may be used to perpetuate closures.
In huge areas along the West Coast, anglers are limited to surprisingly shallow depths when fishing for bottom fish like rockfish and lingcod. Protecting species of concern is the stated reason for the draconian depth restriction decisions and “best available science” is the typical justification.
When those decisions are made, anti-fishing groups have paid staff right there fighting for any and all restrictions to fishing. A related example is during the decision process to lower the bag limit of bluefin tuna from 10 to a number that will better protect the species over the long haul.
Many possible bag limit numbers were discussed and population modeling was worked out. Yet the bag limit that the anti-fishing groups wanted was zero. Zero!
That is not sustainable management. That is absolute preservation, for the sake of preservation.
Anglers want sustainable management that keeps us in the mix so that we can fish and enjoy fresh, healthy seafood dinners for our families and to pass on our traditions and culture. We need to get the radical preservationists out of serious gamefish management discussions.
Or at least, give them less of a say in the decisions. They are not looking out for the health of fisheries. They are simply after absolute preservation.
Our professional fisheries managers have shown that they can work past those forces though and make good decisions, such as increasing the bag limit of lingcod. We need them to do likewise with regards to depth closures.
I’m a fan of the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC). They strive to do good work and balance the needs of the various stakeholders, including the fish.
I applaud them for trying to solve the very problem I’m writing about. For instance, in June they sent out a message stating that after much hard work and sacrifice, two important West Coast groundfish stocks – canary rockfish and petrale sole – that were formerly overfished have now been rebuilt ahead of schedule.
The fishing community did that as a collective effort and we can be proud. Some science was engaged in to draw the happy conclusions from. I sincerely hope that these achievements lead the way to fishing greater depths very soon. What I want is for the PFMC to be armed with the tools to let them make it so.
Typical fisheries management processes take two years. What I feel would be right is to first tighten up what “best available science” looks like before it can be used to restrict our fishing rights.
Anglers want healthy and sustainable populations of fish and we have proven that we are willing to back away from a fishery when it is needed (black seabass in SoCal is a shining example of what we can do).
But it is wrong to shut down vast areas of ocean and say that reopening it will be considered someday when science proves that it is the right thing to do. The problem is, money is simply not available to do that kind of science regularly so the closures just sit, eroding our rights and fueling the campaigns of the anti-fishing preservationists.
That just ticks me off!
We have a relatively new tool, which makes it possible to better sustain populations of species of concern while still being able to fish deeper waters. More and more boats (including my own charter boat, WaveWalker) now carry and use deep release devices which put rockfish down to pressurized depths where they can swim away and thrive.
Discard mortality rates no longer need to be 100 percent (and possibly never did). They can be dropped to something like 30 percent, which changes the population modeling to show that we are sustaining our populations of groundfish while we are fishing.
We are beginning to get some credit for use of these wonderful devices, and we want more credit to reward our conservation efforts. I feel that the 4,500-square-mile Cowcod Conservation Area should be opened back up after engaging in science to show that cowcod stocks have rebuilt.
I propose that any fishing restrictions come only with sunset clauses which lift them in a reasonable amount of time (2 years or a maximum of 4 years), unless new and peer-reviewed science shows a strong and clear reason why our rights must continue to be infringed upon in order to bring our fisheries back to abundance.
— Capt. David Bacon operates WaveWalker Charters and is president of SOFTIN Inc., a nonprofit organization providing seafaring opportunities for those in need. Visit softininc.blogspot.com to learn more about the organization and how you can help. Click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are his own.
