Norm Baker -
First thank you for taking the time to post your insights and thoughts on these issues as well as providing some additional information.

However I do think that some here are more informed about mariner protection areas (MPAs) than you give us credit for. I have read some of the subject and am very interested in the heatlh and well being of the rockfish resource of the State and would love to see the management of that resource be based on the latest science.

I agree with you that from the reading I have done that in areas like Puget Sound that those advocating MPAs suggest that 15 to 20% of the habitat be set aside as MPAs. The DEIS on Puget Sound stated that there is something like a little more than 2,400 acres of high relieve rocky habitat used by rockfish in what they called south Puget Sound. IN reviewing the existing MPAs in the area I found that there is a number of them that include rocky habitats used by rockfish. In fact there were more than 500 acres of such MPAs. In short more than 20% of the key rockfish habitat in South Sound has set aside as MPAs for some time. In addition with the situation in Hood Canal as well as the recent regulation changes much of the region is more rockfish conservation areas.

Based on the available science one would have thought that south Puget Sound rockfish would be on the way to recovery when one couples the MPAs in place with the management changes that have taken over the last 15 years. Again with the available science one would have predicted that it would take 10 to 20 years to see significant chagnes in the abundance and age structure of the rockfish populations and further one would have expected to see those kinds of changes in the more prodcutivity species with a shorter generation time; that is with species such as the copper and quilback rockfish.

I believe that any objective review of the information available since 2003 (primarily creel information) shows that the souther Puget Sound rockfish are responding exactly as predicted above. I too took the time to sit in as an observer at a couple of the Rockfish meetings (don't know if that makes active in the process) and heard a number of folks common on seeing more juvenile rockfish in a number of areas as well as some larger fish. The recent creel information on for exampel copper rockfish also indicates that the length frequency of larger fish is increase. In other words a stock status review using the latest information potentially would show that recovery has all ready begun.

I do agree whole heartly with your statement -

"The proposals foreclosures in the Area 4B have some problems. I cannot in good conscience as a scientist support the closures proposed here, because there is inadequate biological data to support the areas chosen. I think, perhpoas hope Dave jenni9bngs meant well when he proposed a dive park in 4B because I know for a fact he is aware of the benefits of marine reserves. But to do it without adequate science to back the creation of marine reserves is not right."


The current proposal is not using the best science; in fact as I posted here earlier the attempt to apply "science" concerning the status Puget Sound Rockfish is not valid. Virtually all would agree that the rockfish populations at the western end of the Straits is much more closely aligned with the ocean populations than the Puget Sound fish. I further agree that the best chance of success would be for the commission to table this whole discussion until a more reasoned and science base approach can be developed. Such an approach must be included in the context of the larger picture including the needs of a broad spectrum of rockfish species (across a larger geographic area) as well as the needs of potential users of that resource.

Tight lines
Curt