You will in about 3 weeks!LCF wrote:(although I haven't seen a China yet).
Not more than an occasional stray China in Hood Canal unfortunately, not enough current/surge. They like it rough like EdgeLCF wrote:I'm going to do my first dive trip out there the end of this month, and I am SO looking forward to the vermilions. They are my very favorite rockfish (although I haven't seen a China yet).
Sounder wrote:Under normal circumstances, I would never tell another man how to shave his balls... but this device should not be kept secret.
CaptnJack wrote:Not more than an occasional stray China in Hood Canal unfortunately, not enough current/surge. They like it rough like EdgeLCF wrote:I'm going to do my first dive trip out there the end of this month, and I am SO looking forward to the vermilions. They are my very favorite rockfish (although I haven't seen a China yet).
As soon as you see one or two Vermilion RFs on the Pinnacle, start looking around - they'll be everywhere. I recommend NOT being on a scooter the first time, but doing it via scooter the second time. Going round & round the pinnacle at various depths is a great dive, and the best part is you never get lost!! The V's show up in "loose schools" but they're all there - they stick together. They just don't "school? like PSRF or Black RF traditionally do... but they're definitely social critters.LCF wrote:I'm going to do my first dive trip out there the end of this month, and I am SO looking forward to the vermilions. They are my very favorite rockfish (although I haven't seen a China yet).
i love diving around rockfish, sometimes there so skiddish but sometimes its neat because they swim with you; at keystone there was a small group of em and all i did was float right behind them for several minutes before they turned around and just stared...guess i look just as funny to them as they do to me.nwscubamom wrote:Thank you, thank you!
Here's a video to show how many fish there were around us - wouldn't it be super cool if this many fish was standard at every site we dove in Puget Sound? (click on the image to see the video - dunno why it doesn't show the play button!)
- Janna
nwscubamom wrote:Thank you, thank you!
Here's a video to show how many fish there were around us - wouldn't it be super cool if this many fish was standard at every site we dove in Puget Sound? (click on the image to see the video - dunno why it doesn't show the play button!)
- Janna
OMG -- I'd be happy with a Puget Sound King Crab; a China rockfish would put me over the top!John Rawlings wrote:You will in about 3 weeks!LCF wrote:(although I haven't seen a China yet).
Really? Copper Rockfish schooling? That seems like very uncharacteristic behavior for them David.Biodiversity_Guy wrote: What I also found was a large school of Coppers (~90) and Blacks (~20) hanging out about 90 fsw.
Has Kelp Greenling mortality decreased? How do we know that mortality hasn't stayed the same or increased as a result of factors other than consumptive angling?Biodiversity_Guy wrote: I also encountered a male Kelp Greenling. I have seen them before but only rarely at Sund Rock. Maybe with the decreased mortality, their numbers are building?
To clarify, I think the regulatory bottomfish closure only means that these fish may not be retained. Catch and release is still allowed as far as I can tell (non-consumptive angling activity, and bycatch by salmon anglers).nwscubamom wrote:Couple of weeks ago we did some diving on the Pinnacle, Hood Canal (off Don's boat, Pacific Adventure Charters). As you may or may not know, Hood Canal has been closed to bottomfishing now for quite a number of years - maybe like 6 or 7?
The Blacks and Yellowtails are quite nomadic and it is believed that there has been a major influx into the Sound in recent years. The other species don't move around much, but they don't grow very quickly either. If they were as depleted as believed in that area, do you think 6 or 7 years of growth would result in the large fish you're seeing? There may be other factors worth considering. Do you think it's possible that these structure oriented species might simply be working their way up to shallower depths to take advantage of easier respiration?nwscubamom wrote:I'm pretty much assuming that what we're observing now is a result of letting populations rebuild over that time. And if so, WOW! Just knock your fins off WOW! Seven different species of Rockfish to be seen there: Browns, Blacks, Coppers, Quillbacks, Puget Sounds, Vermilions and Yellowtails.
We found some nice sized schools of Blacks, Yellowtails and Vermilions. BIG Vermilions.
Hi Greg - long time no talk. Thanks for your efforts on the sculpin identification guide - it has motivated me to take a second, third and fourth glance at some of the sculpins I see. I see that your rockfish growth numbers were taken from Milton Love's book, but I have some doubts about their accuracy for fish in this area because: they give me the impression that they represent the fastest that some fish reach maturity in some waters - perhaps Northern California; the growth curve for Copper Rockfish later in the book suggests that they shouldn't be expected to reach 16" in length until they're 15 years old or so. That seems to fit very well with the research data the WDFW is working with - trawl surveys in both North Sound and South Sound. As for Vermilion Rockfish, I would expect them to be slower to grow and mature than Copper Rockfish - but since they are relatively new to the area (rarely reported before 2000) there seems to be little local data for them. My understanding is that Vermilion Rockfish are not making a comeback in Hood Canal - they're just now taking up residence. I wonder why that is. I don't think we can fully explain that by the most recent change in sport fishing regulations. In addition, I think the timing for the increasing observations of large Copper Rockfish at these sites (and most of the sites I dive in the San Juans) tends to suggest that other longer-term factors have played a very big role.Greg Jensen wrote:Copper rockfish reach 16 inches at 7-8 yrs of age; vermillions 19 inches in 9 years. Not inconsistent with what we see at Sund or the pinnacle.
I think that's tough for any diver, to be honest, but apparently the F&W commission do not agree. I talked to Wayne a couple of months ago about his drop camera and some of the observations he's made. Pretty neat stuff - particularly regarding some small and very specific areas which support outlying populations of some unusual or uncommon species. I didn't realize he used laser too - for range-finding so he can triangulate to get accurate size data eh? Very cool.Greg Jensen wrote:The numbers were from the text and are probably from California. On the other hand I don't think the coppers there are 16" yet (which would look like 20" underwater), rather more like the 12-13 inches the curve indicates for that time frame. (caveat: I'm not very good at estimating size underwater without putting my hand or something else for scale next to a fish. Wayne Palsson has done a lot of drop cam w/laser work and may have size info for those locations).
A lot of those curves are questionable - some of them show 10cm at age 0 - they're obviously a pretty simple fitted curve and I think the sample size was small for a bunch of them - not to mention the geographic variations as you point out.Greg Jensen wrote: The book doesn't specify from where around here the copper growth curve data were generated, and as the quillback graph on the next page shows, things can be dramatically different over fairly small distances.
Could be. It would be great to look more at historical records - native pictographs to old family fishing photos. I wonder if there's an archive somewhere. What troubles me with this stuff is that I think there's a tendency to assume that historically all the regional species were common in all the reaches of our waterways - then we're going to extraordinary lengths to "restore" something that just never was, and the end result will always be something unnatural and difficult to sustain. I think there's every chance that a given species (take Vermilions, for example) only occasionally made inroads into certain areas due to infrequent coincidences of tidal conditions, meteorological conditions and recruitment events. Maybe that particular event resulted in a population that lasted for some time but did not take hold long-term - perhaps the local environment better suited other species that compete for the same habitat. It's too bad that our state fishing regulators don't make data collection a priority as that could really be a good resource for information that would get us towards balanced and stable management (I have all but lost hope at this point). Maybe the feds will do something useful in April.Greg Jensen wrote: Back in the '60's lots of people fished for 'red snapper' in Hood Canal. I'd always assumed that these were yelloweye, but with the recent increase in vermillions I've wondered if that was at least in part what they were getting.
Would really like to see the photos if you get a chance David - maybe just email one to me?Biodiversity_Guy wrote: Yep, schooling Coppers. Mid water column. Will try and get a picture or two posted.
I don't know the full story on dissolved oxygen issues, but it seems to me that in the overall scheme of things, 50-90 feet is quite shallow, and probably has a higher concentration of oxygen in solution than can be found at greater depths? I guess my point is, this behavior seems unusual (to me), and I wonder why these fish have gathered from surrounding areas. I can't assume that this is a positive sign - it could be an indication that they are under some kind of environmental stress.Biodiversity_Guy wrote: Yes, my sense is that the coppers I am seeing down at Sund Rock are very recent arrivals to the area as opposed to local YOYs growing up quickly. And there are a LOT more individuals now than I have seen there in the past couple of years. They just seem to have shown up since December or so. Looking pretty gaunt actually. At depths of 50-90 feet (north wall, middle wall) so they are not being concentrated near the surface due to low dissolved O2.
Bottomfish has a very specific meaning in context of the fishing regulations booklet - it includes a certain set of species. Salmon are not the only species which are still open to anglers. Unless the area is closed to all fishing, it is essentially closed to _retention_ of those species listed in the bottomfish definition. If I am incorrect, then I am incorrect because the WDFW's regulation booklet is unclear.Biodiversity_Guy wrote: Hood Canal is closed to bottom fishing. It is open for salmon fishing so some bottomfish may be caught as accidental bycatch but fishers are not suppose to be targeting bottom fish there. Not even for catch and release fun. The closure was done in 2005 or there abouts as a reaction to the low DO problems that Hood Canal occasionally experiences.
Perhaps - it would not surprise me in the least. However, we both know that the data they're working with is poorly defined. What is CPUE exactly? A simple google search will turn up study after study concluding that CPUE data is questionable. What is a unit of effort? If an angler spends a day on the water trolling through tide rips in the middle of Rosario Strait with salmon gear set on a downrigger at a depth of 35' in 300' of water (ie, trolling for Coho), is that a unit of effort figured into the CPUE for Cabezon? Because the chances of catching Cabezon with that kind of effort are zero. Angler effort changes in accordance with prevailing regulations, changes in fish populations, trends in popularity of particular tackle/equipment, and trends in popularity of species sought. Effort is targetted to particular species - if Lingcod fishing has gotten much more popular in recent years and the favored tackle is large artificials, probably the CPUE will look high for Lingcod and low for Cabezon. And what do we conclude from that information? High CPUE for Lingcod - that could mean that Lingcod populations are doing great. Or it could mean they're being heavily targetted and more sucessful techniques have been adopted - so the population is taking a horrible beating. If Cabezon CPUE is high does that mean that Cabezon populations are doing well? Perhaps it means that anglers are using tackle and methods which target them more effectively so they're being depleted and may soon crash - why would they do that? Well, maybe the regulations changed on species they used to prefer - or maybe those other species are getting harder to find. Maybe people are catching more Cabezon because the FWC decided to shrink the slot limit on Lingcod so now anglers are spending more time on the water and catching more species incidentally. What is included in the catch exactly? Is that only fish which are retained? Or does it include those released also? Data collection policy on this changed relatively recently. How many times have you returned to the boat launch after a day of fishing to be questioned by the WDFW data collectors David? I've done it many times, and my experience has been that most of them don't know local species very well at all - often times they know just the few key species and that's it. Occasionally they'll ask about everything caught, everything released etc, but I've had the opposite experience more often than not - I've given them plenty of useful data only to be blown off. So trends in CPUE data could also result from the training and level of effort of the data collectors.Biodiversity_Guy wrote: When WDFW recently looked at Cabezon numbers in Puget Sound at the request of the FWC, they found the numbers caught dropped 65% in just the past 5 years (2003-2008) with the catch per unit effort also dropping, indicating that the fishing effort was there but the success rate fell--supporting the conclusion that the actual stock numbers were declining (rather than fewer folks fishing). And this is on top of the very large declines experienced during the 1980-1990s, as fishers targeted bottom fish when salmon fishing opportunities were decreasing. WDFW will be looking at other bottomfish species over the next year, and my guess is that their data will reveal significant decreases in the populations of greenlings and other species also.
I am aware of the concept of shifting baselines. Frankly, I see little value in baselines. I'm only interested in trends. What is "normal" anyway? Population densities and distributions as they were hundreds of thousands of years ago? With native harvest only? The reality is that predation by humans IS normal, there are some environmental stresses which are here to stay, and these things are going to have an impact. For me, "normal" is a state where people are allowed recreational opportunity (to view the fish, harvest for personal consumptive use, etc) which is balanced enough to allow for stable, self-sustaining populations. The FWC and WDFW do not seem to be moving in that direction unfortunately.Biodiversity_Guy wrote: One thing to be aware of is the concept of "shifting baselines". The last 10-20 years in Puget Sound have seen a sharp decline in the abundance of many rockfish species. So what seems "normal" numbers to me as someone who has been diving for less than 5 years in the sound is not really normal if one considers the densities documented in the mid 1980s.
Where can I see those graphs and read a detailed description of the survey methods etc ? Is a 90% reduced population unsustainable ?Biodiversity_Guy wrote: WDFW has graphs in their rockfish reports that show scuba surveys in the 1980s detecting 150-200 quillbacks with the same surveys in the late 1990s documenting only 10-20 individuals. Same sites, same survey methods. Statistically valid estimates with confidence intervals. Similar numbers are there for Copper RF as well. That is approaching a 90% reduction.
Are they? What makes you think so? Where? And what precipitated the change?Biodiversity_Guy wrote: It is really nice to see some of the species numbers building back.
