Home Tournaments Calendar Weather Merchandise Sponsors

Go Back   Spearboard.com - The World's Largest Spearfishing Diving Boating Social Media Forum > United States Geographical Locations > California Spearfishing

California Spearfishing Talk here about spearfishing on California's Pacific Coast, and post those reports and photos!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 6 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
Old 11-21-2012, 04:35 PM   #31
ocean_314
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 8,082
Re: Old Giant Lingcod Picture

Quote:
Originally Posted by freeride View Post
I have seen some huge ones taken in alaska. They are common there at about 40lbs
35 lb lings are caught every year in mendo, i got one that size last year on H&L.
ocean_314 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 04:44 PM   #32
ocean_314
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 8,082
Re: Old Giant Lingcod Picture

For the first time looked hard at the pic. The max size of the largest rockfish is 36" so if you compare the rockfish to the lings they are not that big.

the pic is deceptive to say the least.
ocean_314 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 04:57 PM   #33
Greenstar
Registered User
 
Greenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 135
Re: Old Giant Lingcod Picture

Definitely are rockfish larger than 36", Cowcod, Rough eye, Short raker etc. As far as for the size of the lings they are definitely some toads and I know draggers still occasionally get some around the 5' mark off the CA coast. Back then I am sure a longline draped over a virgin reef with a bunch of small salmon for bait would produce some real monsters.
Greenstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 05:17 PM   #34
So-Cal Spearo
Austin Derry
 
So-Cal Spearo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Laguna Beach
Age: 34
Posts: 3,611
Re: Old Giant Lingcod Picture

Wow... Great photo!

Imagine going out and getting a stringer of 50lb lings and then cruising down south and smackin a few of these beasts.



Ahh I wish we still got fish like that on a regular basis...
__________________


So-Cal Spearo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 07:46 PM   #35
Mr Paul
Queerboard Kook
 
Mr Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Age: 42
Posts: 2,536
Re: Old Giant Lingcod Picture

Quote:
Originally Posted by So-Cal Spearo View Post
Wow... Great photo!

Imagine going out and getting a stringer of 50lb lings and then cruising down south and smackin a few of these beasts.



Ahh I wish we still got fish like that on a regular basis...
I'm pretty sure those are Totuava. I could be wrong, but look at the tail.
Mr Paul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 07:47 PM   #36
Sparkie
Registered User
 
Sparkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Bering Sea
Posts: 346
Re: Old Giant Lingcod Picture

There are many linked variables that ultimately determine the maximum size and population density of lingcod (as well as almost every other fish), many of which have been mentioned in this thread so far. Prevailing oceanographic conditions, quality and quantity of forage species (which is often influenced by oceanic conditions), suitable habitat for hunting, breeding, and fishing pressure, genetics, and many others all play a part.

As stated in previous posts, there are monster lingcod in California, though we don't see them as often as one might in Canada and Alaska. Based upon what information I've been able to find regarding their basic biology and ecology, the big models prefer depths that are outside the depth restriction for recreational anglers. Also, keep in mind that the 300 foot depth restriction is not a statewide limit; the Central, San Francisco, Mendocino and Northern management zones in California have increasingly stringent depth limits due to yelloweye and canary rockfish. So, it is conceivable that there is a much larger portion of suitable habitat that may be holding large lingcod that is inaccessible by the recreational angler.

California/northern Baja is also the southern end of the lingcods' geographical distribution (the northern end is around Kodiak Island, Alaska). It is not uncommon to find that the frequency and density of larger individuals is less at the ends of a species' range. If the fish in the photo are representative of an average catch in northern California around the turn of the century, imagine what you might find as you moved closer to the center of their distribution?

Ocean, how did you determine with such accuracy that the rockfish in the photo is 36 inches? Or are you just stating that no rockfish of any species has ever exceeded 36 inches in length? Do you have some fancy photo analysis software with a database of known lengths and proportions of glass bottles from the early 1900's that allowed you to extrapolate the length of said rockfish? If so, I'm sure everyone would like a length estimate of the lingcod as well. I know I would.

By the way, this guy was longer than 36 inches and was probably a young, spry teenager who was vigorously chasing the ladies when Alexander Hamilton was still being nursed. This species gets even larger.

__________________
Freedivers do it on a single breath.

Halibut biologists love the 'buts.
Sparkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 09:37 PM   #37
nmoyer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Cameron Park, Ca.
Posts: 16
Re: Old Giant Lingcod Picture

The largest H&L ling from Alaska stands at 87#. It's likely that there are some of those off the north coast but for shallow water rockfish fishing folks are not geared up for them. I spoke with a couple of divers about 30 years ago who were diving the sea stack offshore from Orick; they landed a 35# ling between them on SCUBA. They did not have a loaded gun between them when the big one came out for a bite. They said it dwarfed the one they had. They're out there.
nmoyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2012, 12:10 AM   #38
Defofthecrown
Chris Saxl
 
Defofthecrown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Napa, CA
Age: 44
Posts: 250
Re: Old Giant Lingcod Picture

Well, I think I got a little too excited on this one. I can't see anything to really gauge size, now that you all mention it. As for max weight:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingcod...ote-fishbase-4

Thats is from Wikipdeia, which is crap, it does however reference fishbase, which is pretty good. Says 130 and has a reference cited.

However Milton Love, in CMTYWTKATFOTPC (actual acronym for wonderful book- and sequel to PMTYWTKAFOTPC) Says 82.6lb, and if I had to put money on it, I'd side w/ Love.

Any one else have old, big fish pic's?

Last edited by Defofthecrown; 11-22-2012 at 12:11 AM. Reason: typo
Defofthecrown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2012, 12:24 AM   #39
fuzz
fuzzy logic
 
fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 1,906
Re: Old Giant Lingcod Picture

Quote:
Originally Posted by Defofthecrown View Post
Well, I think I got a little too excited on this one. I can't see anything to really gauge size, now that you all mention it. As for max weight:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingcod...ote-fishbase-4

Thats is from Wikipdeia, which is crap, it does however reference fishbase, which is pretty good. Says 130 and has a reference cited.

However Milton Love, in CMTYWTKATFOTPC (actual acronym for wonderful book- and sequel to PMTYWTKAFOTPC) Says 82.6lb, and if I had to put money on it, I'd side w/ Love.
Another thing to note - regarding the max weight, wikipedia references a fishbase article... which in turn references the IGFA... which states the world record as 82 lbs. 9 ounces... so there's definitely a disconnect somewhere.
fuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2012, 12:20 PM   #40
ocean_314
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 8,082
Re: Old Giant Lingcod Picture

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparkie View Post
There are many linked variables that ultimately determine the maximum size and population density of lingcod (as well as almost every other fish), many of which have been mentioned in this thread so far. Prevailing oceanographic conditions, quality and quantity of forage species (which is often influenced by oceanic conditions), suitable habitat for hunting, breeding, and fishing pressure, genetics, and many others all play a part.

As stated in previous posts, there are monster lingcod in California, though we don't see them as often as one might in Canada and Alaska. Based upon what information I've been able to find regarding their basic biology and ecology, the big models prefer depths that are outside the depth restriction for recreational anglers. Also, keep in mind that the 300 foot depth restriction is not a statewide limit; the Central, San Francisco, Mendocino and Northern management zones in California have increasingly stringent depth limits due to yelloweye and canary rockfish. So, it is conceivable that there is a much larger portion of suitable habitat that may be holding large lingcod that is inaccessible by the recreational angler.

California/northern Baja is also the southern end of the lingcods' geographical distribution (the northern end is around Kodiak Island, Alaska). It is not uncommon to find that the frequency and density of larger individuals is less at the ends of a species' range. If the fish in the photo are representative of an average catch in northern California around the turn of the century, imagine what you might find as you moved closer to the center of their distribution?

Ocean, how did you determine with such accuracy that the rockfish in the photo is 36 inches? Or are you just stating that no rockfish of any species has ever exceeded 36 inches in length? Do you have some fancy photo analysis software with a database of known lengths and proportions of glass bottles from the early 1900's that allowed you to extrapolate the length of said rockfish? If so, I'm sure everyone would like a length estimate of the lingcod as well. I know I would.

By the way, this guy was longer than 36 inches and was probably a young, spry teenager who was vigorously chasing the ladies when Alexander Hamilton was still being nursed. This species gets even larger.

The size of Rockfish in the mendo area from a DFG book on the rockfish species of N. Calif.

This area does not have the cowcod. How long is that rcokfish in the picture?
ocean_314 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2012, 12:36 PM   #41
Mo-Jo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 118
Re: Old Giant Lingcod Picture

Quote:
Originally Posted by ocean_314 View Post
The size of Rockfish in the mendo area from a DFG book on the rockfish species of N. Calif.

This area does not have the cowcod. How long is that rcokfish in the picture?
After doing a quick google search I found these:
http://www.farnorthscience.com/2007/...om-the-deep-2/
http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/ABL/MESA/mesa_sa_rock_rbrf.htm

Both fish have ranges extending into California waters and may exceed 36in in length.

What was the name of your "DFG book?" Could it have been referring to fish commonly (and presently) caught in our recreational catch?

Last edited by Mo-Jo; 11-22-2012 at 12:51 PM.
Mo-Jo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2012, 02:55 PM   #42
Sparkie
Registered User
 
Sparkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Bering Sea
Posts: 346
Re: Old Giant Lingcod Picture

That shortraker was 39 inches and 52 pounds. . .not from California though.

Information can easily become outdated, same as technology. The ocean is a big place, and no matter how well we think we have sampled/studied it, there are always more surprises.

For example, there is a population of California scorpionfish (sculpin) that live off Cape Mendocino. If you look at F&G's fish bulletin 157 (or fishbase.org), their range is described as only extending to Santa Cruz. The same publication (and fishbase.org) indicates the cowcod's northern range as Usal, Mendocino county. I personally have caught cowcod offshore of Eureka in Humboldt county while doing research.
__________________
Freedivers do it on a single breath.

Halibut biologists love the 'buts.
Sparkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2012, 04:03 PM   #43
Red Zeppelin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: California
Posts: 92
Re: Old Giant Lingcod Picture

Quote:
Originally Posted by North Star View Post
Size probably has to do with food density/availability. My guess is that the richer waters of the North have more food, and thus larger lings.
Don't insult us with common sense.
Red Zeppelin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2012, 06:11 PM   #44
Greenstar
Registered User
 
Greenstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 135
Re: Old Giant Lingcod Picture

Quote:
Originally Posted by ocean_314 View Post
The size of Rockfish in the mendo area from a DFG book on the rockfish species of N. Calif.

This area does not have the cowcod. How long is that rcokfish in the picture?
Definitely have caught Cowcod on a tow off of Eureka, also longlining for black cod routinely turn up monster Rougheye. As I have seen from previous posts you seem to enjoy taking your observations and extrapolating them into "facts".
Greenstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2012, 07:11 PM   #45
rojodiablo
My spawn kills on....
 
rojodiablo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Huntington Beach, Ca
Age: 53
Posts: 8,572
Re: Old Giant Lingcod Picture

Quote:
Originally Posted by chowderpuff View Post
My guess would be that the genetic stock of those "monsters" is severely diminished. Combined with the depth restrictions of less than 300ft, you probably aren't going to see many like that being brought up nowadays.

Supposedly back in the Mark Twain era people used to catch 300lb blue catfish in the Mississippi River with frequency. That doesn't happen anymore because the giant broodstock was subsequently overfished commercially 130+ years ago.

Those lingcod look like they would be monsters even for Alaska. The rockfish look like monsters as well. The one on the far right looks like a large yelloweye due to the dorsal fin shape as someone already noticed.
Seeing as how Twain was known for rampant embellishment with his stories, and the thing where the known and kept records have never put a blue cat over 130lb, give or take........ I have a real issue with this stuff.
__________________
Safety is but an illusion; Every grain of sand was once a mountain. Every speck of dust..... was once a man. Nothing can stop this, in time. So use the time you have well..... you won't get it back.
rojodiablo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:33 AM.


The World's Largest Spearfishing Diving Social Media Forum Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2014 Spearboard.com