Ling Cod slot limits - how's that working out for ya?

[nwscubamom]

Been hearing from spearos regarding their experiences so far with the 26"-36" new slot limit for Lings - and would like to know your story. Have heard everything from "no problem at all" to "had to throw dead fish back once measured on boat".

- Janna

[H20doctor]

Its not in our Favor Janna.. Due to the Magnification of our Dive Masks.. I feel there will be sensless fish shot and then brought up to the surface , only to discover there either too small or too big ... I didn't hunt at Neah Bay due to this new size thingy .. I watched Pensacola at the Fingers stare down a ling with me , we both sat and wondered , is he legal ? After several mins , chad shook his head and swam off ... Just my PSI ..

[Seaslave]

It was horrible Janna!!! :angry: Lingcod will only let you get so close. Getting an accurate measurement is a joke. It's not like counting antler tines or being able to tell male/female from a distance. It's a matter of small fractions of an inch and it's I quit hook and line fishing for Ling years ago because of all the senseless bycatch to undersized Ling and rock fish but at least when hooked, Lingcod could be returned to the water fairly unharmed. It's pretty tough to release a Lingcod with a hole in his head...
The thing I loved about spear fishing was the high success rate and low mortality for huge fish, fish that were too small and fish that are not in season. This almost makes spear fishing not worth it, which is probably exactly what they want. I will continue to spear fish and hope that I continue to get "lucky". Fortunately, what happens underwater, stays underwater....


-Mathue

[Knight Diver]

I called and emailed WDFW last month about this. Here's the canned response I received:

"Thank you for your email correspondence to Director Anderson and the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission. The Director’s office forwarded your correspondence to the Department’s Fish Program for a direct response to you.

We understand your concern regarding changes in lingcod regulations this year and the regulations for spearfishing lingcod. We recognize that measurement of live fish length underwater may be difficult. However other states, such as California, OR and even the Washington Coast have imposed size restrictions for spearfishing for many years without undue problems. One good method to estimate fish length is to mark the legal length on your spear gun or spear pole to aid in determining if the fish is legal to take. When diving you can visually estimate the length of objects when you swim by them and then verify with the length marked on your spear gun as with hunting the ethic we promote is to only take the shot when you are sure it is legal to do so.

Thank you again for writing to express your concerns over this valuable Washington resource. We appreciate hearing from you and in the future you may contact the Department Fish Program directly. If you have other questions or concerns about lingcod, please contact Gregory Bargmann, Ecosystem Manager, at (360) 902-2825 or via email at Gregory.Bargmann@dfw.wa.gov."

Total BS. I also spoke with a fisheries biologist who said he spearfishes too and didn't have a clue how this reg change is going to work.

Good work WDFW.

[nwscubamom]

So here's a question. How would you change it? Bear in mind three things that need to happen:

1. Protect young ling cod
2. Protect the female breeding population (they are the ones over 36")
3. Provide equity in regulations with the angling community

(I realize all this isn't happening right now even - but those are the three considerations from what I understand)

If and when I get a chance to give some insight as to how this is shaking loose for the dive community, I'd like to be armed with not only specific examples of what has happened to you THIS SEASON (thanks to you who have emailed me already - and if anyone doesn't want to post, feel free to email me privately), but want to also be armed with some sensible solutions.

- Janna

[Maverick]

its actually pretty easy to tell the juvenile fish, they are as thin as pencils. to protect the juveniles it would be ok to inply a min size of 24" and not have a max size. Its really only a hand full of guys that shoot the big ones, to show the size of their and it doesnt happen to often. most want to eat it, and know that the slot limit is actually the size you want to eat. the slot limit is really the ideal eating size and I would say that most try to shoot this size anyway. the only part that is hard for me to grasp is getting a ticket, and maybe more if i shoot a fish 37", or even 26.25" Its really just not fair.

No proof I ate it, But I went spear fishing with a friend in the evening. (went in the morning with friends too.) I was not fishing in the evening, just being his buddy, as i went in the morning. I was luck in my shot in the morning, getting 30". My friend in the evening was on the other hand not so lucky. He shot a fish I pointed out, looked big underwater, thought for sure it was legal, we could see the whole fish on a rock. he laid my gun (he was using it) as close as he could, I had the slot marked off on the gun. looked over 26 to both of us. he shot and killed. we stung it and headed back to the shore. Only to get to the truck to find it was 25 3/4" no joking at all, a quarter inch to short. we stepped on it, pressed it, flattened the tail, the damn fish would grow 1/4" for us/ What to do, we thought???? I said to my friend when he asked me what to do? Dah, eat it. I mean it was dead on the tailgate, shot in good will, and i had Panko crumbs at home. Done eaten and no ticket. but it was a bummer that it was to small.

It would really be better to have no slot limit. When I fished Hook and line, I have never heard one fisherman say why can you spear any fish and I can only keep a certain size. it obvious you cant measure fish under water to everyone in the world, even challenged ones.

we have got to control the ling cod population, they are eating all the rock fish and shiner perch. n thats my theory anyway.

Benjamin

[enchantmentdivi]

I watched a guy walk out of the water at 3-Tree yesterday with a ling that was very clearly under the size limits.

[Maverick]

I watched a guy walk out of the water at 3-Tree yesterday with a ling that was very clearly under the size limits.

a lot of people dont know it changed

[Fishstiq]

Interesting followup on this topic........ I have a couple of thoughts.

First, I would LOVE to know who told you it was "no problem". There are newbies, experienced spearos, marine biologists, and a number of inventive creative measuring device creators who are having nothing but problems staying in compliance with the new regulations. Perhaps these "no problem" folks could hold a seminar on what they know that the rest of the spearfishing community doesn't. A class on responsable, legal spearfishing, wouldn't that be great!!! Oh wait, last time that was attempted it met some resistance and didn't end well......

Second, the idea of coming up with solutions seems a bit ridiculous to me. A good solution is pretty much irrelivant IMHO, since the new regs were at one point thought of as a "good solution". If the current regs are seen by the powers that be as a good idea, in spite of input and feedback from both those who hunt and those who enforce legal catching, what possable good solution can be expected from future suggestions?

[pensacoladiver]

So here's a question. How would you change it? Bear in mind three things that need to happen:

1. Protect young ling cod
2. Protect the female breeding population (they are the ones over 36")
3. Provide equity in regulations with the angling community

(I realize all this isn't happening right now even - but those are the three considerations from what I understand)

If and when I get a chance to give some insight as to how this is shaking loose for the dive community, I'd like to be armed with not only specific examples of what has happened to you THIS SEASON (thanks to you who have emailed me already - and if anyone doesn't want to post, feel free to email me privately), but want to also be armed with some sensible solutions.

- Janna

I see a simple solution. Remove ALL size limit restrictions on Ling Cod and keep the limit at ONE per day. With respect to spearfishing, the young Lings are going to be protected for the most part, since all spearos I know do not take a shot at a 14 inch Ling in the first place. Even if they did, that would be their one fish for the day.

As far as the bigger ones... thats a bit tougher nut to crack. At Neah Bay, I shot a 17 pound Ling Cod, clearly over 36 inches (no slot limit there, only a min size of 24 inches). It was cleaned, cooked, and deep fried that night for all to eat. Maybe folks were just being nice, but I did not hear one complaint about the fish being too tough or tasting worse than a smaller Ling.

I am not sold on the argument that a smaller Ling is better tasting. I believe with Ling as with any fish, it is all about how you clean it and the attention to detail during that process.

There is currently no equality between the angling communities right now. Spearos took it in the shorts on this one. I am actually OK with a short season, just don't give me an unrealistic slot limit during that short season.

I am also OK with a min size of 24 inches in all areas. I think a min size is fine as long as there is not a restricting max size on the other end. Like I have said before, out at Neah Bay where there is no max size, the following general rule works for me quite well... I look at the Ling, if I can say "Damn that is a big Ling", I take the shot.

The fish H20 Doc talks about above did not fit into that catergoy. There were plenty more around, so no need to take a questionable shot.

[rjarnold]

Two sizes to worry about is tough - from a fisheries standpoint, I'd put a max. size limit on it. Who cares if you shot a little ling instead of a big mama? I've mentioned before, the bigger fish is more likely to contribute more to future generations.

The only drawback (from a fisheries perspective) I see with that idea is that you might be more likely to get *a* fish that way, since larger ones -might- be harder to come by. But there'll probably still be less under/over-sized fish thrown back (dead) that way.

[Seaslave]

1. Protect young ling cod
2. Protect the female breeding population (they are the ones over 36")
3. Provide equity in regulations with the angling community

1. I agree with what Pensacola said. Impose a 24" minimum. All our small fish were over 24" but dangerously close to the 26" mark. For some reason the difference in size in that range is much easier to discern. Besides, it's much easier to pass on a questionably small fish when you can continue to hunt for one larger.
2. A much tougher one. There will be those that just have to bust the monsters, but they tend to be harder to find and access to them is much more difficult, usually boat only, which cuts down severly on the number of hunters. I also tend to believe that most divers know they are the breeders and tend to leave them alone. I am as much a conservationist as the next, I truly want to see fish around for the rest of my life and for future generations. However, I will admit, I have shot BIG lingcod but I have passed on many, many, many more.
3. If you want to make it equal, make it the way it was last year. Or even give spearos a few extra days. I have been as successful ast hook and line fishing for lingcod as I have been with a spear. Granted I have the benefit of scouting where to fish. But I've had days when I have been skunked on both methods.


-Mathue

[whatevah]

Been hearing from spearos regarding their experiences so far with the 26"-36" new slot limit for Lings - and would like to know your story. Have heard everything from "no problem at all" to "had to throw dead fish back once measured on boat".

I dove with my spearfisher friend on opening day. We'd marked the slot lengths on his gun. He decided that he would shoot the first Lingcod he thought was within the slot. The first Lingcod seen was deemed appropriate and speared. He estimated the length (before shooting) at 28 to 29" and I agreed. It turned out to be a hair under 27" in length. Continuing the dive, we saw eight or nine more Lingcod that I probably would've considered harvesting last year when I fished here - all seemed larger than the one my friend had on his stringer, and I suspect several were in the 36" to 40" range. We tried in all cases to make a better estimate of their length by bringing the gun near enough the fish for comparison against the markings - the fish would not accommodate and the technique was found to be essentially worthless.

[whatevah]

Two sizes to worry about is tough - from a fisheries standpoint, I'd put a max. size limit on it. Who cares if you shot a little ling instead of a big mama? I've mentioned before, the bigger fish is more likely to contribute more to future generations.

I made that suggestion, but the WDFW and F&WC didn't like it. I think either side of the slot limit is silly, to be honest, but if you were to choose one side, the max size is closer to sensible. If you see a fish that you think is too big for a max size, it probably is. Most fish encountered by spearfishers are smaller (since they're most common), and new spearfishers have a strong tendency towards reaching the surface with a fish much smaller than it was before they shot it. Lots of people are going to make a mistake on the low end of the slot.

[whatevah]

1. I agree with what Pensacola said. Impose a 24" minimum. All our small fish were over 24" but dangerously close to the 26" mark. For some reason the difference in size in that range is much easier to discern. Besides, it's much easier to pass on a questionably small fish when you can continue to hunt for one larger.

I don't really have a problem with a 24" minimum for spearfishers. However, I don't know any spearfisher who sets out to harvest a fish smaller than 24" in length - if they take one that small, it is because of an error in estimation. The reality is that the proportion of Lingcod harvested by spear is small compared to those taken by anglers. The proportion of those speared fish which measure under 24" is even smaller, and largely unintentional. So what purpose would a 24" minimum really serve? What observable difference would such a limit make upon the Lingcod population and the future fishery? My suspicion is that such a limit would really make no difference at all. It would be another rule for no apparent reason - no practical way to enforce it, and nobody would measure its actual effect. Hmm... might be a hit with the F&WC !

[Tom Nic]

I watched a guy walk out of the water at 3-Tree yesterday with a ling that was very clearly under the size limits.

Grrr.....

I am a hunter and fishermen and support our rights to do so.

But since spear fishermen are likely to read this - can I plead with ya-all to please NOT take fish from well known, well used inner Sound dive sites? This is only a request, I know you have the "right" to do so. It's just my opinion, but having the right doesn't make it smart or a good thing.

Once small Ling for a paltry meal that ends up potentially ruining good will in our community is not worth it, again, in my opinion. All it takes is a few "slob hunters" (and I hear good hunters use that phrase, not anti-hunters, so I use it specifically) to ruin it for everyone. Witness the above experience that was actually poaching, whether in ignorance of the regs (NO excuse) or not.

It doesn't help our cause when you walk by a half dozen divers carrying a fish that they were taking pictures of a few moments ago. I dive TTN all the time, and maybe see a half dozen Ling Cod, none very large.

OK, off my soapbox, and sorry for the thread hi-jack Janna.

[Jaksonbrown]

This new regulation is rediculous.

For starters, you are talking about regulating a group of fishermen that number most likely less than 200 in the puget sound area. And that number is probably very exaggerated. Out of this group, they may only get to go hunting during our pathetic 2 week season a couple of times. Even if they are successfull on every trip, you are talking about a couple hundred fish.
Compare this to the thousands of hook and line fishermen, and the tens of thousands of fish caught during their season,.. what are you really accomplishing anyway? I mean come on, lets at least be logical here! This is about politics and personal agendas, not about conservation or species sustainability.

And with this kind of idiocy by the people in charge....

"by Biodiversity_Guy » Sun May 23, 2010 10:11 pm

The nine member state fish and wildlife commission voted to adopt the current version of the spearfishing rules.

The vote was 8-1, with the active diver in the group speaking out against the proposed regulations and being the only NO vote."


I doubt any change will come anytime soon.

[Mattleycrue76]

One of the things that continues to frustrate me is the idea of only shooting when you're absolutely sure the fish is legal. This sounds great but in in reality it means this: In oder to be absolutely sure that I'm over say 26 inches my estimate would have to be at least 28-29 inches. To be sure it's under 36 I would have to estimate 33 to 34 inches. This means that I'm expected to look for fish that are in my estimate within a 4-6 inch slot. Going outside of that I run the real risk of error.

I am actually okay with a slot of 24-36 inches. There are plenty of fish out there that are within that size. But I'm not okay throwing back a fish that's already dead - shot in good will. Let's say there were a max fine of $100 for being outside of the slot by 2-3 inches - as a responsible spearo I would try my very best to stay within the slot limits and if I made the error I'd be able to own up to it- pay the fine and move on having gained experience and not wasting a recource. But the way it stands they can take my boat and all my dive gear, and my buddies gear too. That punishment simply does not fit the crime here.

I might support a voluntary self report system where you can call yourself in for shooting a fish that's a couple inches over or under and say get your fishing privliges suspended for the next four days.

I'm just throwing out some ideas here. To me the biggest problem is that an honest mistake in a very tough judgment call situation is tantamount to poaching and treated as such. If there was a a less drastic way to encourage staying within the slot I might be able to support it.

[sheahanmcculla]

What about getting 2 lasers, and fix them so they are parallel to each other on the gun showing the min. or max sizes? Then you don't have to get real close to measure with your gun. Would this work? Lasers are pretty cheap and small.

[Jaksonbrown]

One of the things that continues to frustrate me is the idea of only shooting when you're absolutely sure the fish is legal. This sounds great but in in reality it means this: In oder to be absolutely sure that I'm over say 26 inches my estimate would have to be at least 28-29 inches. To be sure it's under 36 I would have to estimate 33 to 34 inches. This means that I'm expected to look for fish that are in my estimate within a 4-6 inch slot. Going outside of that I run the real risk of error.

I am actually okay with a slot of 24-36 inches. There are plenty of fish out there that are within that size. But I'm not okay throwing back a fish that's already dead - shot in good will. Let's say there were a max fine of $100 for being outside of the slot by 2-3 inches - as a responsible spearo I would try my very best to stay within the slot limits and if I made the error I'd be able to own up to it- pay the fine and move on having gained experience and not wasting a recource. But the way it stands they can take my boat and all my dive gear, and my buddies gear too. That punishment simply does not fit the crime here.

I might support a voluntary self report system where you can call yourself in for shooting a fish that's a couple inches over or under and say get your fishing privliges suspended for the next four days.

I'm just throwing out some ideas here. To me the biggest problem is that an honest mistake in a very tough judgment call situation is tantamount to poaching and treated as such. If there was a a less drastic way to encourage staying within the slot I might be able to support it.

Matt has some good points here. And I want to expand a little on this. What this law has done is turned every spearo into a potential criminal. Yes a criminal. By washington law, if a guy makes an honest mistake and shoots a fish that is 1/2 inch too big or too small, after doing all he can to extimate the size of the fish, no matter what he or she does next, you are now guilty of comitting a crime! Yep,.. you are now a criminal. If you choose to take the fish, you are subject to basically whatever the officer at the time of the arrest decides to do with you, including confiscating your equipment, car, boat, etc. If you choose to throw the fish back, you are guilty of first degree wasting wildlife which carries a mandatory 5 year lisence suspension of all fishing and hunting rights. Oh... and they can still take your boat, car, gear etc....
I have always been a huge proponenet of the fish and game in most states as a great agency. Some might laugh, but I actually have a degree in Wildlife conservational Biology. It was my dream to work as a biologist for the fish and game many years ago..... So far be it from me to bash the Fish and game.....

But this law.... Is a failure of mega proportions, and appears to be deliberatly setting the stage for problems and conflict.



it is under washington Code # 77.15 and in the front of every fish and game regulations book every year.

Washington State’s Fish and Wildlife Enforcement Code (Revised Code of
Washington Chapter 77.15) requires the mandatory suspension of a person’s
fi shing privileges, for up to fi ve years, if a person is convicted of one of the following
violations:
• assaulting a Fish and Wildlife Enforcement Offi cer, or an employee or agent of
the Department performing offi cial duties
• fi rst degree waste of fi sh and wildlife
• harvesting endangered fi sh or wildlife
• unlawfully purchasing or using a license
In addition, repeat offenders (any person with three convictions for any kind of
violation within ten years) receive a mandatory two-year suspension of all fi shing
and hunting privileges. The law treats an uncontested notice of infraction, a bail
forfeiture (payment of the fi ne on a citation), or a guilty plea as a conviction that
will be counted. You will permanently lose your fi shing and hunting privileges if you
hunt or fi sh on a suspended license or demonstrate a willful or wanton disregard
for the conservation of fi sh or wildlife. Furthermore, property that is used to violate
any fi shing and hunting regulations, or that is held with the intention of committing
a violation, may be seized for evidence and may ultimately be forfeited to the state.

[WASP7000]

Practicality has just gone out the window...

suggestions like those are proof of how outrageous this restriction is to spearfishers. If you have to start attaching lazers ("all I want is sharks with friggin lazer beams attached to their heads") to your speargun, don't you think the rule may need to be amended?

I'm not saying that's not a good idea, I give you an A for effort and enginuity...but it's just not practical, and we shouldn't have to resort to something like that just to fish.

[whatevah]

What about getting 2 lasers, and fix them so they are parallel to each other on the gun showing the min. or max sizes? Then you don't have to get real close to measure with your gun. Would this work? Lasers are pretty cheap and small.

I'm in, you buy the parts, I'll mount them for you. I don't think it would be that bad as far as practicality.

For this to work, you'd need to be sure you were positioned perfectly perpendicular to, and holding the gun parallel with, the long axis of the fish. This is both difficult to be sure of, and quite impractical in many situations. The fish may not be completely straight. It might be partially obscured. It might be moving along at quite a clip - so you're probably only going to be truly parallel for moments at best. Even if the fish is laying straight, completely exposed, getting the right angle without getting close enough to scare the fish away is probably going to require hanging back off the structure at some distance and drifting by - you better hope that the visibility and your lighting is good enough to keep the fish in sight while you line up your lasers. And then you better hope you can outswim the current to hold or return to that position to actually take your shot. This is a clever idea, but I'm thinking you'd wind up resorting to making a judgement call based on visual estimates.

[Jeff Kruse]

Nobody has brought up the point that sometimes you cannot see the whole fish before shooting. About half of the fish I would shoot were in the rocks or facing me head on.

And how on earth are we supposed to practice? Maybe, just maybe, if ling was open all year round you could get good at estimating the size of fish not in the rocks but only spearing a few days a year? Come on. I consider myself a very good spear fisherman and would almost always get the perfect size ling every time out but even I would have a hard time with the slot (on the high side).

The low side is easier to judge and I could live with that but the high side is too hard. I can judge a Dungeness crab to within 1/8” of the limit but that’s after picking up one or two and “calibrating” my eye.

Go to the meetings. They closed shrimping by scuba until Rob and I went to three meetings to keep it open. They re-wrote the rules so we could continue to shrimp on SCUBA. They were very nice about it.

[elmer fudd]

Why not just have an upper size limit and maybe a 5 fish limit for the season? As others have mentioned, it doesn't hurt the species any more to take a fish under 26" than one over. Those fish aren't breeding anyway. What hurts the species is if someone shoots a 25" fish and then throws it back and needlessly shoots another fish. That's what this law wants us to do though.

As far as a 5 fish limit, JMO, but there's really no reason to take a ling a day for the entire 2.5 weeks or whatever it is that we get this year. There just aren't enough fish, (at least in the lower sound), if everyone were to do that. 5 fish gives us all a chance to get a few nice fish. Just include a lingcod punch card and fill it out when you get the fish back to the boat.

BTW, I really loathe WDFW. I can't think of a more useless and obnoxious agency. They're the ones who let our fisheries get into this condition and now it seems like they purposely go out of their way to make the laws obnoxious and cumbersome. For example, it's now illegal to take things like shore crabs or kelp crabs. Why? There are literally millions and millions of them out there and virtually no one was harvesting them anyway, but there were a few, (kelp crabs taste fine, it just takes more effort to get the meat out of them). From a game management perspective there was no reason whatsoever to ban their harvest. It's just an obnoxious environmental puritanism. They were afraid that someone, somewhere might have been enjoying themselves outside of their regulations.

I don't think any of us mind necessary and sensible regulations that are there to safeguard scarce resources, but in my opinion that only applies to about 10% of the laws we are expected to obey.

[Maverick]

maybe we could all in favor of fixing the regulations go to several meeting that were spoken of and voice our concerns with the max. size limit. Seems that most agree that the Minimum size is not the issue, its the max. I know when a mob of NWDC member showed up to Muk's council meeting the ban to dive the lighthouse park was lifted. Maybe we can influence the WDFW the same way. Just an Idea, I will go if others go.


Benjamin