Yellowfin or Bluefin TUNA Caught in Newport Ca Harbor!!!

[sundaytrucka]

Saw this on BDs...Reported from 976 Tuna


http://www.petethomasoutdoors.com/2014/07/yellowfin-tuna-caught-in-newport-bay-could-this-be-the-work-of-a-developing-el-ni%C3%B1o.html

http://www.bdoutdoors.com/forums/threads/yft-in-newport-harbor.546156/


Promising stuff!!!...whether a promise of things to come or a fluke...pun intended.

[Ron Jones]

Please guys, don't fly out to Oahu and cut my throat, but when Ca started their MPAs the people for it said their would be tuna inside the wall at Long Beach. This is certainly effected by water temps, but could the greenies be rite on this one?
Ron

[sundaytrucka]

Lol Ron.

The possibility of having bluefin catches on local half day boats is quite exciting. Anchovies are here, maybe, just maybe they will attract the tuna and albacore on a consistent basis.

Yeah!!!!!

[SoCalAngler]

Please guys, don't fly out to Oahu and cut my throat, but when Ca started their MPAs the people for it said their would be tuna inside the wall at Long Beach. This is certainly effected by water temps, but could the greenies be rite on this one?
Ron

Ron the MLPA and wide closers of the best fishing grounds really have nothing to do with pelagic fish. They swim in and out of these zones on a daily/hourly basis. They were put in place to protect slow growing ground fishes. One of the main fish they were trying to protect is the Bocaccio/Samon Grouper. We already had depth reg's which will limit the catch of these fish but the reg's were 0 could be kept. One of the main problems was even with the depth restrictions fishermen could not help but catch these fish. Why? Because their everywhere even in the shallower water that is not their preferred habitat. Sport boats had lines of floating dead Bocaccio behind them as they tried to find a place these fish were not. The DGF since changed the reg's to allow one to be kept per angler on the boat so there was not as much waste. Boats are still having a hard time finding areas to fish to stay away from the suposed endangered Bacccio.

I worked in a tackle store there the DGF would come to buy gear because we gave them a good deal, 10% over cost, so they could do their testing. I would see them a few times a year and talk to them about closers and such. Let me say I'm for smart conservation and respect the job the DGF does but blanket closers are not the answer. When we spoke many times all they could do is shake their heads in agreement and remind me they don't set the laws only enforce them.

All the closers were based on one persons JUNK SCIENCE and with all the money from the green weenies us fishermen and women didn't stand a chance. The last gear I sold the DGF was to study Rockfish and the Bocaccio and the person doing the study said to me these fish are everywhere and hard to get away from.

[Tightlines667]

Unfortunately close 90% of the scientific research that has been done on MPAs is inherently flawed and self-supporting.  The basic premise is to compare biodiversity, habitat robustness, and explore specific species indecies (i.e. Age/growth/recruitment/survivorship/presence of keystone spp., etc) within established MPAs with that of adjacent areas of similar size that are unprotected.  These studies fail to account for the fact that MPAs, by design, have inherently been established in the areas with higher biomass, better diversity, robustness, etc....so of course they will be significantly 'healthier then the adjacent areas examined.  These studies then provide scientific evidence that MPAs work.  Unfortunately most do not adequately account for immigration/emigration, home range, seasonal shifts (I.e. Spawning season), or base differences in habitat types.  The majority of these studies promote the establishment of many smaller MPAs in the best bio hotspots. There have been a due notable exceptions to this rule.  Unfortunately many of these studies which are typically cost prohibitive and both time intensive and extensive have been largely discounted when forming management policy and practice.  These studies show that yes a few, small, key areas are important but there should be a move towards fewer larger areas which include mixed habitats/species compositions in favor of more smaller ones.  Also, the total percent of protected to unprotected does not need to increase and can actually be quite small in order to achieve species/ecosystem recovery goals, and provide maximum benefits (such as increased recruitment due to the 'seed stock').  Many times once a management idea gains backing and momentum it may spin out of control, take on a life of its own, and get over applied.  We can't lose sight of the goals that these areas are designed to address.  Monitoring is also crucial. 

Just a few thoughts that came to mind on MPAs.

[Keta]

If they locked up the right 10% of the Oregon coast they lock up 100% of our fishing, they want a buffer zone so they don't miss anything and are shooting for 12%.  We currently can not retain yelloweye or canary rockfish but they are abundant in their habitat.