Friday, February 11, 2022

4 Fishing Etiquette Tips

 

4 Fishing Etiquette Tips

4 Fishing Etiquette Tipshttps://thefishingwire.com/4-fishing-etiquette-tips/

 

One of the biggest pet peeves for many freshwater anglers is when they are having a good day fishing from a boat in a quiet spot on the lake or river and another angler comes along, pulls up right beside them and starts casting in the same area without asking first.

“It happens pretty much on a daily basis,” said Mercury Pro Team member Michael Neal.

If it’s a public body water, everyone is welcome to use the resource, of course. In most places, there are no written rules about how far you need to stay away from other boats and anglers. It’s within your rights to fish next to someone, as long as you aren’t harassing them (intentional angler harassment is against the law in many states). It’s up to each individual angler to decide what’s responsible behavior in terms of how much distance to put between your boat and theirs. Practicing good fishing etiquette means treating other anglers and boaters on the water with respect and giving them their space.

Neal, who fishes the Major League Fishing Bass Pro Tour and Pro Circuit, said it all comes down to following the Golden Rule. “Treat others the way you want to be treated,” he said.

“Communication is key. It’s the number one thing that makes your day on the water go smoothly,” added Mercury Pro Team member and Bassmaster Elite Series angler John Crews.

Here are four fishing etiquette tips from these two pros to help keep it friendly and fun for everyone on the water. What’s outlined here are unwritten rules that guide tournament anglers and serious recreational anglers.

  1. A “bent pole pattern,” indicating that an angler has a fish on the line, is not an invitation to take your boat to that angler’s position and start fishing right next to them. It’s probably better to go somewhere else, but if it’s a spot you had already hoped to fish, just wait it out. “My advice is to wait until they leave to go over to that spot,” said Neal.
  2. When another angler is fishing in a spot near where you would like to fish, stop your boat within hailing distance and let the person know your wishes. For example, if an angler is fishing partway back in a creek, and you want to fish all the way in the back, ask first if he or she intends to head deeper into the creek before you go there yourself. “If I go into an area where someone else is fishing, I ask them if they are going to continue, and if it’s OK for me to fish there. If they are having a bad day and they want to be rude about it, you don’t want to be fishing around them anyway,” Crews said. On crowded lakes, you’re likely to wind up fishing near someone. In that case, keep a respectful distance. “We usually have a mutual understanding: ‘Don’t get any closer to me, and I won’t get any closer to you,’” Neal said, referring to his fellow tournament anglers.
  3. Don’t pass too close to another angler’s boat. “Stay away from the side where their rods are; pass on the other side if you can,” Crews said, adding that it’s important to give other boats with active anglers a wide berth when you pass, if there’s room. “Two hundred to 300 feet is ideal; 100 feet at a minimum. Pass at speed and make a minimal wake rather than slowing down and pulling a big wake. However, if there isn’t room to pass far enough away, come off plane well before you get near the other boat and idle past.”
  4. Never, ever cross lines with another angler. “The number one no-no is to cast across somebody else’s line. I’ve had it happen to me personally. I decided to leave the spot to him. I figured, if it’s important enough for him to do that, he can have it,” Neal said.

Use common courtesy, and there should be enough space for everyone to fish in harmony. When in doubt, err on the side of being as respectful as possible.

“Most anglers are super cool, and as long as you can communicate with them, you can make it work,” Crews concluded.

Wednesday, January 19, 2022

 Join the latest and best Fishing Club in So Cal.. Join the a club with all the latest tools and tech for members. You Tube Video Meeting, On the Water seminars and in person events. MMFC - MAD MACKS FISHING CLUB. MMFC


Start with - Fishy Hour with Roman Twice a week Shows - Monday's and Wednesday. On You Tube

Fishy Hour with Roman 

 San Diego Fishing Talk Show. Salty Bay Bass Fishing with Roman and Brian. Grab a cold beverage and call in to be part of the conversation. Check out my Bay Kayak Fishing Fishing Setup - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS4Ew...

The Host Roman Castro is a get add to the So Cal. fishing community. 


 

 

Thursday, April 5, 2018

SkyOptik SO 70 Camera - SCAM, SCAM, SCAM.

SkyOptik SO 70 Camera - SCAM, SCAM, SCAM.. Don't get taken by these scam artist, they come up to you at a shopping center or in a parking lot and tell you some story about extra stock or wrong shipping and try to sell you a Go Pro type camera ($800 value) even show you a website of it... It is all a SCAM. the Company is FAKE and it is CHEAP CRAP.. Drones as well, the website has no links just a front page no contact info no product info - NOTHING AT ALL IS REAL- FAKE - SCAM - RIPE OFF... http://skyoptik.com/index.html

BUYER BEWARE - Videos on You Tube are stolen from other companies as well and not even their own..

Tuesday, June 2, 2015

Bluefin Tuna Invade Southern California Waters

Bluefin Tuna Invade Southern California Waters:

 

Anglers are finding Pacific bluefin tuna in excess of 100 pounds within easy range.

 

Monday, May 11, 2015

Senator Tom Berryhill and Assemblyman Frank Bigelow unveil Sportfishing Stimulus Act of 2015

Senator Tom Berryhill and Assemblyman Frank Bigelow unveil Sportfishing Stimulus Act of 2015. Senate Bill 345 (SB 345) Senate Bill 345(SB345)

This will allow you to buy a Fishing license for 12 month period of time , not from Jan.1 to Jan.1 - it would be 12months from when you buy it. Great plan, needs to be put in place - read the info on the link below.

 Senator Tom Berryhill and Assemblyman Frank Bigelow unveil Sportfishing Stimulus Act of 2015

The only problem I see is that if it is passed and goes into law, it won't start till 2018??? Why will it take 3 years???? The state moves so slow on this and they call this a Stimulus package, not much of a stimulus if it take 3 years...

Support this and get it to be put in place now not in 3 years...

Sunday, April 26, 2015

Fisheries Off West Coast States: Highly Migratory Species Fisheries - NOAA Regulation Input -Bluesfin Tuna

 Fisheries Off West Coast States: Highly Migratory Species Fisheries - NOAA Regulation Input -Bluesfin Tuna, Here is the chance to comment on the changes to the regulation for the 2015 and longer seasons. Help save our chances to still catch Tuna in US waters off Calif.


Comment Direct Link


This Proposed Rule document was issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
For related information, Open Docket Folder  Docket folder icon

Action

Proposed rule; request for comments.

Summary

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is proposing to modify the existing Pacific bluefin tuna (PBF) Thunnus orientalis recreational daily bag limit in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off California, and to establish filleting-at-sea requirements for any tuna species in the U.S. EEZ south of Point Conception, Santa Barbara County, under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). This action is intended to conserve PBF, and is based on a recommendation of the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council).

Dates

Comments on the proposed rule must be submitted in writing by May 6, 2015.

Addresses

You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0029, by any of the following methods:
  • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0029, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
  • Mail: Submit written comments to Craig Heberer, NMFS West Coast Region Long Beach Office, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802. Include the identifier “NOAA-NMFS-2015-0029” in the comments.
Instructions: Comments must be submitted by one of the above methods to ensure they are received, documented, and considered by NMFS. Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).
Copies of the draft Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) and other supporting documents are available via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, docket NOAA-NMFS-2015-0029, or contact the Regional Administrator, William W. Stelle, Jr., NMFS West Coast Regional Office, 7600 Sand Point Way, NE., Bldg 1, Seattle, WA. 98115-0070, or RegionalAdministrator.WCRHMS@noaa.gov.

For Further Information Contact

Craig Heberer, NMFS, 760-431-9440, ext. 303.

Supplementary Information

On April 7, 2004, NMFS published a final rule (69 FR 18444) to implement the Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species (HMS FMP) that included annual specification guidelines at 50 CFR 660.709. These guidelines establish a process for the Council to take final action at its regularly-scheduled November meeting on any necessary harvest guideline, quota, or other management measure and recommend any such action to NMFS. At their November 2014, meeting, the Council adopted a recommendation (http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/1114decisions.pdf) to modify the existing daily bag limit regulations at 50 CFR 660.721 for sport caught PBF harvested in the EEZ off the coast of California and to promulgate at-sea fillet regulations applicable south of Santa Barbara as routine management measures for the 2014-2015 biennial management cycle. The Council's recommendation and NMFS' proposed rulemaking are intended to reduce fishing mortality and aid in rebuilding the PBF stock, which is overfished and subject to overfishing (78 FR 41033, July 9, 2013; 80 FR 12621, March 9, 2015) and to satisfy the United States' obligation to reduce catches of PBF by sportfishing vessels in accordance with Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) Resolution C-14-06. (http://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles2/Resolutions/C-14-06-Conservation-of-bluefin-2015-2016.pdf).
Resolution C-14-06 requires that “in 2015, all IATTC Members and Cooperating non-Members (CPCs) must take meaningful measures to reduce catches of PBF by sportfishing vessels operating under their jurisdiction to levels comparable to the levels of reduction applied under this resolution to the EPO commercial fisheries until such time that the stock is rebuilt.” The proposed daily bag limit of two fish per day being considered under this proposed rule would reduce the U.S. recreational harvest of PBF by approximately 30 percent, which is consistent with the IATTC scientific staff's conservation recommendation for a 20-45 percent PBF harvest reduction and meets the requirements of IATTC Resolution C-14-06. The filleting-at-seameasures will assist in the enforcement of the proposed regulations by enabling enforcement personnel to differentiate PBF from other tuna species. This proposed rule is consistent with procedures established at 50 CFR 660.709(a)(4) of the implementing regulations for the HMS FMP.
The proposed regulations would reduce the existing bag limit of 10 PBF per day to 2 PBF per day and the maximum multiday possession limit (i.e., for trips of 3 days or more) from 30 PBF to 6 PBF. For fishing trips of less than 3 days, the daily bag limit is multiplied by the number of days fishing to determine the multiday possession limit (e.g., the possession limit for a 1-day trip would be two fish and for a 2-day trip, four fish). A day is defined as a 24-hour period from the time of departure. Thus a trip spanning 2 calendar days could count as only 1 day for the purpose of enforcing possession limits.
Most PBF caught by U.S. anglers are taken in the EEZ of Mexico, both on private vessels and on Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessels (CPFV). The bulk of these trips originate from and return to San Diego, CA, ports. During 2004 through 2013, approximately 78 percent of the fishing effort for PBF (measured by angler days) by U.S. West Coast recreational fishing vessels occurred in Mexico's EEZ. Fishing by U.S. recreational vessels in Mexico's EEZ is a permitted activity that is subject to management by the Government of Mexico, which has imposed bag and possession limits.
The daily bag and multiday possession limits being proposed for the U.S. EEZ off the coast of California might be more or less conservative than Mexico's limits. The proposed U.S. recreational limits would not apply to U.S. anglers while in Mexico's waters, but to facilitate enforcement and monitoring, the limits would apply to U.S. vessels in the U.S. EEZ or landing to U.S. ports, regardless of where the fish were harvested.
The proposed regulations would also establish requirements for filleting tuna at-sea (e.g., each fish must be cut into six pieces placed in an individual bag so that certain diagnostic characteristics are left intact), which will assist law enforcement personnel in accurately identifying different species given morphometric and phenotypic similarities between tuna species, specifically, yellowfin (Thunnus albacares) and PBF. These requirements would apply to any tuna species caught south of Santa Barbara (i.e., south of a line running west true from Point Conception, Santa Barbara County (34°27′ N. lat.)) In addition to enhancing enforcement, the proposed fillet measures would also assist port samplers and fishery biologists conducting fishery surveys in accurately identifying tuna species.
The State of California has informed NMFS that it intends to implement companion regulations to the Federal regulations being proposed here by imposing daily PBF bag limits applicable to recreational angling and possession of fish in state waters (0-3 nm). Currently, California State regulations allow, by special permit, the retention of up to three daily bag limits for a trip occurring over multiple, consecutive days. California State regulations also allow for two or more persons angling for finfish aboard a vessel in ocean waters off California to continue fishing until boat limits are reached. NMFS and the Council consider these additional state restrictions to be consistent with Federal regulations implementing the HMS FMP, including this proposed rule if implemented. The proposed fillet requirements differ from current State of California requirements, which allow tuna filleting as long as a 1-inch square patch of skin is left on the fillet.
Several comments received during public scoping for this action called for an exception to the fillet requirements for skipjack tuna, Katsuwonus pelamis. The Council recommendation to NMFS did not provide an exception for skipjack tuna. However, the California Fish and Game Commission is considering a possible exception, such that skipjack tuna taken from and possessed aboard a vessel south of Point Conception (Santa Barbara County) may be processed by removing the entire fillet on each side and shall bear the entire skin attached. Skipjack tuna possess distinct horizontal bands on their belly that remain visible and distinct allowing for accurate identification, even after the fish or fillet has been frozen. NMFS is seeking further guidance from the public on the issue of a possible exception to the proposed fillet requirements for skipjack tuna.
The proposed rule would apply only to recreational fisheries in Federal waters off California. Although PBF are occasionally caught and retained in Oregon and Washington, the catches are negligible. Therefore, the benefits expected from monitoring and regulating PBF catch in waters off those states does not justify the administrative or regulatory burden of doing so.

Classification

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the MSA, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the HMS FMP, other provisions of the Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

National Environmental Policy Act

The Council prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for this action that discusses the impact on the environment as a result of this proposed rule. None of the bag and possession limit alternatives analyzed in the EA are expected to jeopardize the sustainability of the PBF. However, the preferred alternative, which reflects the action proposed in this rule, is likely to have negative economic impacts on the affected fishing communities. The alternatives, including the preferred alternative, for tuna filleting procedures are not expected to result in significant socioeconomic impacts.

Executive Order 12866

This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this proposed rule, if implemented, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) is as follows:
The proposed regulations would reduce the existing bag limit of 10 PBF per day to 2 PBF per day and the maximum multiday possession limit (i.e., for trips of 3 days or more) from 30 PBF to 6 PBF. For fishing trips of less than 3 days, the daily bag limit is multiplied by the number of days fishing to determine the multiday possession limit (e.g., the possession limit for a 1-day trip would be two fish and for a 2-day trip, four fish). These limits will apply to recreational anglers in U.S. waters off the West Coast or any other ocean waters that return to U.S. waters and/or ports. This rule also proposes that tunas caught by recreational anglers to be filleted according to specified configurations for bag limit monitoring and enforcement purposes.
This proposed rule, if implemented, would not be expected to directly affect any small entities. This proposed rule would change the PBF recreational baglimit and the filleting requirements for caught tuna, which affects only individual recreational anglers. Recreational anglers, by definition, may not sell catch, and thus are not considered to be a business. Because recreational anglers are not considered to be a small entity under the RFA, the economic effects of this proposed rule on these anglers are outside the scope of the RFA. Although the for-hire sector of the sport fishery may experience indirect economic impacts due to the imposition of reduced daily bag and possession limits, those impacts are not required elements of the RFA analysis for this action.
Because this proposed rule, if implemented, would not be expected to have a significant direct adverse economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

Paperwork Reduction Act

There are no new collection-of-information requirements associated with this action that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, existing collection-of-information requirements associated with the U.S. West Coast Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan still apply. These existing requirements have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 0648-0204.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660

Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: April 15, 2015.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is proposed to be amended as follows:

Part 660 Fisheries Off the West Coast States

1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows:

Authority

16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.
2. In § 660.721, revise the section heading, introductory text, paragraph (a) introductory text and paragraph (b), and add paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 660.721
Recreational fishing bag limits and filleting requirements.
This section applies to recreational fishing for albacore tuna in the U.S. EEZ off the coast of California, Oregon, and Washington and for bluefin tuna in the U.S. EEZ off the coast of California. In addition to individual fishermen, the operator of a U.S. sportsfishing vessel that fishes for albacore or bluefin tuna is responsible for ensuring that the bag and possession limits of this section are not exceeded. The bag limits of this section apply on the basis of each 24-hour period at sea, regardless of the number of trips per day. The provisions of this section do not authorize any person to take and retain more than one daily bag limit of fish during 1 calendar day. Federal recreational HMS regulations are not intended to supersede any more restrictive state recreational HMS regulations relating to federally-managed HMS.
(a) Albacore Tuna Daily Bag Limit. Except pursuant to a multi-day possession permit referenced in paragraph (c) of this section, a recreational fisherman may take and retain, or possess onboard no more than:
* * * * *
(b) Bluefin Tuna Daily Bag Limit. A recreational fisherman may take and retain, or possess on board no more than two bluefin tuna during any part of a fishing trip that occurs in the U.S. EEZ off California south of a line running due west true from the California-Oregon border [42°00′ N. latitude].
* * * * *
(e) Restrictions on Filleting of Tuna South of Point Conception. South of a line running due west true from Point Conception, Santa Barbara County (34°27′ N. latitude) to the U.S.-Mexico border, any tuna that has been filleted must be individually bagged as follows:
(1) The bag must be marked with the species' common name, and
(2) the fish must be cut into the following six pieces with all skin attached: the four loins, the collar removed as one piece with both pectoral fins attached and intact, and the belly cut to include the vent and with both pelvic fins attached and intact.
[FR Doc. 2015-09093 Filed 4-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

2015 El Nino Factor

    I think many were using the "El Nino" description for last summer's warm water cycle for lack of any other descriptive term, even though it didn't fit the definition of a true El Nino.

     It's like calling a yellowtail a tuna: Looks kind of like a tuna and you can catch them on offshore tuna trips and many outside of the fishing community call them tuna, even though we know they are not.

     A "true" El Nino is defined by warm Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomalies near the Equator, specifically in the Nino 3.4 zone:
ninoareas c
     Southern California/Baja California do not really enter into the equation when it comes to the true definition of El Nino! Yes, we often see the side effects of El Nino in our waters, but not always...and vice versa.

"Was 2014's exceptional season that seemed like a full bore El NiƱo just a freak set of conditions that only brought sub-tropical species, but wasn't a larger cyclical event?"

     I think you hit the nail on the head.  While the Equatorial Nino zones were showing minimal positive anomalies, our local waters were MUCH warmer than normal. In fact, that warm anomaly extended all the way down to the Sea of Cortez. Certainly, last year (and carrying over into the winter) was truly a warm water cycle like none of us had ever seen before. The closest "match" to we experienced would be previous warm water cycles relating to El Ninos of the past: 1997-98 or 1982-83, for example.

"Now we have tuna crab on the coast and I'm wondering if this is the tail end of last season still or an early start to another summer of Central Baja in Southern California."

      I remember tuna crabs (pelagic red crabs) being a harbinger of the 1982-83 El Nino. It could very well be that the current weak El Nino actually gives us a little push and keeps the water warm again this spring and summer.
sstanim     While we're currently only seeing minor SST anomalies along the Equator, most models still predict SST anomalies that would support the classification of El Nino. Those conditions are predicted by the climate models to persist through spring 2015 and they support warmer than normal water along the California coast this summer:
SST 2015
     The above chart shows water along the west coast some 1°-2°C warmer than normal.  That's approximately 2°-5°F and if that forecast verifies (and we don't see a significant series of storms with the resultant upwelling along the coast) we very well could be in for another warm water year in Southern California. 

     Could it be two years in a row that wahoo are caught on overnight trips out of San Diego?  The trend over the next 5-6 months will be telling.
wahoo2