Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 04, 2026, 07:16:30 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Recent Topics

[Today at 07:39:27 AM]

[March 03, 2026, 02:53:07 PM]

by jed
[March 03, 2026, 09:56:29 AM]

[March 02, 2026, 07:00:29 PM]

[February 24, 2026, 11:20:44 AM]

[February 19, 2026, 03:44:35 PM]

[February 16, 2026, 01:50:11 PM]

[February 14, 2026, 09:26:02 PM]

[February 13, 2026, 02:54:41 PM]

[February 06, 2026, 11:41:56 AM]

[January 27, 2026, 10:01:41 AM]

[January 22, 2026, 04:53:00 PM]

[January 19, 2026, 10:31:33 PM]

[January 19, 2026, 04:53:11 PM]

[January 18, 2026, 11:35:59 AM]

Picture Of The Month



Guess who's back?
jed with a spring Big Mack

Topic: WA bottomfish rule changes  (Read 3721 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

no_oil_needed

  • Lingcod
  • *****
  • Location: Lake Washington
  • Date Registered: May 2013
  • Posts: 256
Relax. You'll live longer.


Northwoods

  • Sturgeon
  • *******
  • Formerly sumpNZ
  • Location: Sedro-Woolley, WA
  • Date Registered: Nov 2011
  • Posts: 2308
I guess I'm OK with the cutback in retention limits if the black rockfish really are being pressured more than they can handle.  I'm not so happy about axing the minimum length on ling cod.  Though, I guess, more people keeping the small ones will leave the bigger ones (that are more often females) to breed. 

Personally, I still probably won't keep a ling under 22" as even at that length they are almost not worth the effort to fillet.  Especially knowing the bigger ones are out there.
Formerly sumpNZ
2012 ORC 5th Place



 

anything