Not all conspiracy theories are just theories. Again, remember that Commissioner Jennings is on record as having opined that half of Puget Sound should be set aside as non-consumptive areas. And I don't think he meant the shipping lanes.

The intent of this is clear, and I quote from the WDFW 4B Draft Management Objectives and Alternatives for Public Comment:

Alternate 2: "would provide additional protection for bottomfish and increased non consumptive recreational opportunities..." (emphasis added)

Alternate 3: "would provide protection for all marine resources and maximize non-consumptive recreational opportunities....." (emphasis added)

This is NOT about conservation nor is it really about recreational opportunity as nothing currently precludes diving or other non-consumptive users from these areas. It is all about taking away areas where we fishers (consumptive users) can enjoy our various activities so that others may have an enhanced experience.

Also, let us not forget that the 120 foot rule (and daily catch limit reductions and non-take species specific limitations) was imposed in this area despite the relative abundance both as a precautionary effort and to have an area where the large breeders (particularly rockfish) can do their thing producing disbursed eggs/larvae that float with the currents. Staff indicated they had no data on the impact of the 120 foot plus areas nor the off-shore canary rockfish closed zone on the populations of these near shore area fish populations. Again, no data!

For those who support closures without a biological basis (last resort) and without a sunset clause and who consider themselves environmentalists let me opine that most consumptive users are at heart environmentalists. What they are not is preservationists at the expense of others.