Interesting comments to say the least. I will respond to them in the order given. I had no idea there would be so many comments. My apologies for a series of postings.

Salmon Hawk – Never said I was a member. Said I participated and gave a talk. Salmon hawk, Rob Tobeck, never heard my presentation on marine reserves. Frankly he has doe limited reading. Also, I had two PhD fisheries biologists and a former fisheries state fish and game Dept manager review that talk to be sure it was accurate and on-point. All said it was and offered a few additional suggestions and citations which I took seriously.

Fishinnut – Our letter that was not published was rebuttal to an article published in The Reel News by Rob Tobeck . That article was full of slanderous half truths and outright misrepresentations. Perhaps I should publish that rebuttal here. Perhaps I’ll put it on every fishing blog in the state. Perhaps I’ll send it to the Seattle Times. On the case of misrepresentation, I made a simple mistake in the introductions at our 4b focus group meeting and took steps to correct it as soon as it was pointed out. There was no misrepresentation intended. My goal is to use the best available science for fisheries restoration. From all that I have seen and read, the best available science is a network of marine reserves and marine protected areas, covering 15-20% of Puget Sound that protects critical habitat and game fish populations. Those protected populations and marine reserves become our Puget Sound ecosystems fish hatcheries. I could not care less if you disagree with me. That’s why I decided to post on PP. If you disagree with the Marine reserve science, tell me how I would love to discuss it openly, honestly and directly.

AuntyM – I was not authorized to speak on behalf of CCA and I have apologized to everyone concerned. It was a simple mistake that will not happen again. CCA’s position on marine reserves is quite conservative, and it should be. However, CCA’s national position is out dated. From the language that I have read in it, it appears to be composed about the year 2000. There is a ton of new information available on marine reserves since that position paper was composed.

Larry B – You are correct in statements and positions made by Dave Jennings. He made a mistake in my opinion. He meant well but he was wrong. The 120 foot closure was put in to protect some endangered species. At the last Rockfish advisory group meeting, I recommended that if WDFW were to begin a serious program implementing marine reserves and Rockfish conservation areas, that the 120 foot rule should be rescinded immediately. I still believe that to be an appropriate management action. While I agree a Marine reserve is a closure, a closure is not a Marine reserve, because it is not based on biological scientific facts about the fish species it is supposed to protect. The huge MPA, just off the coast is probably why some of the rock fish populations in 4B are still healthy. You state “WDFW had no data on the current or future effectiveness of these areas as sources of Rockfish replenishment to nearshore areas. “ How can they have such data without those areas in place for at least one or two generations of rock reproduction?

Slowleak- Bear’s comments are right on concerning my participation. As an observer, I was the official representative for Sierra Club. My comments about “no one knowing anything about Marine reserves” means the science of marine reserves is growing so fast that very very few people are aware of the full depth and breadth of information available. The whole area of scientific research on marine reserves is currently producing one significant peer reviewed scientific publication per day. This is an enormous most amount of information that has not made it into the public’s knowledge yet. But with worldwide fisheries being depressed, and so many species being endangered, many governmental leaders and politicians are catching on to the fact that marine reserves do restore depressed fisheries. I would not want Bear Holmes to surrender and get out of the way of any political action concerning marine reserves. I would want him to make the kind of contributions to a marine reserve network that I saw him make in the Rockfish advisory group. “Speaking as a scientist” I do not expect anyone to bow down. What I do expect is an open honest, direct discussion of any point pertinent to marine reserves. I have never treated Bear with disrespect or dishonored his contribution in the Rockfish advisory group. In fact, he and Rob Tobeck suggested some regulations for commercial appeal letters that should be immediately adopted by the WA fish and game commission. Yes, Bear is right that Marine reserves are one tool in the toolbox. They are the big tool in the toolbox for ecosystem-based management currently being adopted by WDFW. Yes I am a recreational fisherman. I have purchased a fishing license and hunting license every year of my entire adult life. I own three different fishing vessels – an old bass boat, and old one man pontoon boat, and a kayak. WDFW is trying to protect our fish stocks from everyone who fishes – tribes, commercials and recreational. They have inherited a terribly mismanaged Puget Sound fisheries. Commercials totally abused our fish stocks and so do the tribes to some extent. And now, modern technology allows both recreationals and commercials to find and catch almost any fish that swims. The Rockfish advisory group recommended a team of fisheries biologists and scientists as an advisory board to create a network of marine reserves and rock fish conservation areas. There was not a single person on the Rockfish advisory group or any organization represented that wants to exclude sportfishermen or stop recreational fishing. Bear and Rob insist on making the statement and it is profoundly not true. I challenge both of these men to produce their documentation for this statement. The science of marine reserves, is the best available science for the restoration of depressed fisheries and the restoration of endangered species. Unfortunately, the closures proposed in the area 4B have no scientific or biological basis and I do not support these proposed closures. I do support closing commercial long lining in 4B. Whether or not, a Marine reserve is needed in the area of 4B, should be left up to the scientific advisory group for a Marine reserve network.

Norm