Norm:

You questioned my expectations that WDFW would have data on the benefits of the off-shore and 120 foot closures due to lack of time for those improvements to occur. Clearly you missed my point which was that without such data how can anyone (that means you personally as well as all other organizations supporting ADDITIONAL closures) justify such further closures? Follow?? Especially in the face of anecdotal reports that indicate some rockfish populations are already experiencing a population improvement within inner Puget Sound.

By the way, it would be very beneficial if you would avoid mixing habitat protection/improvement with issues of fishing related closures unless you can explicitly correlate recreational fishing with significant habitat degradation in a particular area.

Oh, and your attributing the condition of our fisheries to WDFW (and, therefore, the Commission) is substantially off base. Most of this occurred under the auspices of the Washington Dept. of Fisheries and its commercial supporters both in the legislature and on the commercial boats. Even when WDFW was created out of the DoF and DoG the Commission initially retained significant commercial leanings. Many of us perceive that we are only now seeing a paradigm shift to serious conservation-based management.