Carifornia row anyone???

So do nothing? What are you proposing? Or are you part of the "not in my lifetime" camp? No one is stopping you from catching as much bluefin as you want, you just have to release them after you get two. Is that really such a huge sacrifice for you? If you kept more than two decent sized BF, I'd bet $100 it would just sit in your freezer for six months and be catfood grade by the time you got around to eating it anyway!

Look I'm not trying to make enemies or piss people off. I just don't get why a bunch redneck kayak fishermen (myself included here) think they know more than scientists who have devoted their entire lives to understanding marine ecology and climate. The folks at fisheries aren't eco-nazis... Many of them are avid anglers themselves. Just recently I had dinner with a former director of fisheries. This person was so excited and stoked to see pictures and hear stories of fish that I had caught. They love the ocean and want to make it accessible to all of us, especially our future generations. Who do you think will be able to limit the evil commercial fisherman anyway? A bunch of disgruntled kayakers?

Lol that's great right there

I do agree with you that a couple kayak fisherman will not sway any commercial fisherman from doing what they do. And I'm definitely not one who thinks I'm living in my lifetime so screw younger generations. After all, I will have kids, grandkids, and so forth and would want them all to have every experience that I had and maybe better. I also agree that catching that much bluefin tuna for one person may eventually lead to some waste. I've come back from 3 day charters looking at my phone and waiting for that service to come in so I can make calls and dump some fresh fish with family and friends. Actually, I enjoy giving this fish away more than I do eating it myself. And I love seafood. The point that I was trying to make is that even while limiting recreational fisherman, the commercial guys will still be doing their jobs. Not saying that anyone can do one thing about the fishing that takes place in international waters, but I just don't feel that I personally take a whole lot out of BFT fishery.

Jim, I've been called names before, but never like this.

But hey, the rest is spot on buddy!

Comment sent, thanks for the link.

http://i.imgur.com/8k6QnwDl.jpg

No One In Particular
 

My post was not meant for any one expert in particular on fishing or global warming...

Just commented....
 

I gave'm hell!

No worries Jim, I was just having fun with it, while trying to bring a little attention back to your links.

I did click on the link for "reduced BFT limits" it is true. That does not mean that I want to wade through a bunch of personal opinion spouted as fact about other far reaching topics. Comparing those that don't believe the way you do to "Rednecks" is not productive to any of those topics. Nor, in my opinion, is comparing someone pointing out that an organization (NOAA) "fudging" numbers is comparable to saying that they (NOAA) would lie about a life threatening situation ("Category 5 Hurricane"). Contrary to your accusation that I am trying to "insult everybody involved", most of the other posts and several of your ideas are constructive.

There are probably a lot of people in the fishery management business to do just that "manage the fishery". But if you don't believe that there are others there, in this day and age, that want to protect all wildlife from all take activities, I believe you might have blinders on (but I will concede that this is just opinion).

I don't mind a good debate on an issue, but I have never seen it happen on the Internet. A good debate requires much more back and forth than is usually capable on a forum before the "Mob Mentality" takes over.

I would love to see some hard numbers on the proportion of BFT caught by recreational anglers between the border and Santa Barbara to the take in the entire Pacific. Those numbers, I would hope, would be "facts". Giving an opinion on what those numbers might mean without having the real numbers is just that Opinion. Unfortunately, today opinion trumps fact too often because of the way it is marketed.

For the record, I would be considered pretty liberal when it comes to catch limits. Other than a few times when the WSB limit was 1, I don't remember having caught and kept a limit of any fish except stocked Trout. If the numbers showed that there was any reasonable chance that reducing the limit from 10 to 2 BFT in this tiny zone would help, I would be all for it.

I'm not real sure how much this regulation will effect most anglers. Last time I caught a blue fin was on an 8 day trip two years ago.

Personally, for one trip, two blue fins are plenty for me.

I do think that if we are to be regulated that restrictively that the commercial interests should be also.






Hey! Who has the popcorn!?!?

this thread is like Herpes...........it just keeps coming back

Probably right, this regulation isn't going to effect most anglers because how often does an angler catch 2 bluefin a trip let alone 10 in US waters...? The truth is not often. To me it seems....(I could totally be wrong about this, but I don't think so)...but they're trying to fix something that isn't a problem to begin with. Why?

In my opinion, the bluefin out there are going to get caught no matter what we do. If we regulate the sportfishery and reduce the limit to two, the fish we don't keep or catch will eventually be caught by the commercials. I'm all for protecting the fishery but let's do it in a way that will have some real impact. Here's a suggestion....how about the commercials be limited to a hook and line fishery like the guys on the east coast like we see on wicked tuna. Lets do away with all the seiners, how about that? Now that would make a huge impact.


Pass the popcorn please!

Seems reasonable to me
 

Extra butter on mine please;)

Opinion approved! Sounds like a logical reaction to a diminishing BFT biomass. Same standards for all involved with a "harvest". The purse seiners seem to have the largest impact on both the Atlantic and Pacific BFT fisheries. According to NOAA and a few other sources, smaller BFT seem to be the majority of the west coast catches. Maybe a size limit could improve the fishery, but I would want to review a study that could scientifically support such measures.

Scientists can't catch fish... but they love to hear about other people catching though :drool5:

And that Greg Andrew guy sure can be a total jerk. He always seems to get in the way and make obnoxious comments ;)

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/p_dS2h_fAcs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I was at a seminar given by NOAA scientists last week..... this year and last year are quite warm.

But they said it's likely inter-annual variation, and not climate change.

That said, the NOAA scientists say the ocean off the US west coast is as warm as they have ever seen it for this time of year.

That said we only have data that goes back 50-60 years.... which is a SMALL time period.

So who knows.

That said, the links you put up about NOAA falsifying or changing their data are quite comical. Thanks for sharing that Liprippa. It made my day :)

Like ^^^^

FYI Tony, I literally plagiarized this word for word as part of my comment :D

Meteorologist
 

It's refreshing to hear inter-annual variation, I couldn't agree any more.
But does not the second statement contradict the first one?
If you could, please let me know why that link is comical. My co-worker who has an advanced degree in physics and is a Director of the Meteorologist Department and believes in man made climate change has no issues with those comparison graphs. He strongly believes that NOAA has not done a complete job on explaining the changes/documentation in the published temp data sets. But sides with there conclusions. Any input?

If that video is of you tagging YT....any data being generated from the study? If so, anything online or published?

These guys will get to the bottom of it. http://www.tempdatareview.org/

Lol, this says it all. ....Attachment 15352