Norman -
Of all the 100s of species of mammals, birds and fish that use Puget Sound I think you will find a dozen or so are actually ESA listed as either threatened or endangered. Those include 3 mammals - South resident orcas, humpback whale, and stellar sea-lions; and with the delisting of bald eagles and brown pelicans one bird species -marble murrelet and 8 fish - Chinook, summer chum, steelhead, bull trout, and bocaccio, yelloweye and canary rockfish. Witht the dynamic nature of the ESA listings it is possible that I have missed a recent change or two in species listing but the point is that relatively few have actually been listed.

However more to the point is that for all of us that concern about the diverse wildlife (including fish) that use Pguet Sound we need to recognize the unique nature of Puget Sound in the development of strategies to protect and recovery that wildlife. I for one am interested in holistic approaches that provide protection for all the species with the most important factor being the habitat that supports the ecosystem those animals rely on. While it could be argued that MPAs may address the harvest issues for rockfish (though even there they are not the only way to provide harvest protection) MPAs are not likely to provide much relieve for the many of the species using the Sound and especially the other ESA listed species.

As AuntyM has ponted out much of the water quality and habitat issues that Puget Sound (and the animals that use its waters) have their origins upland of the Sound. Establishing MPAs will not measurably address those issues. In fact by creating the illusion of providing relief from those habitat and water quality issues by pushing MPAs the focus of needed efforts will be diverted from high priority areas.

Even with rockfish when one considers the whole range of "stressors" limiting the populations it is unlikely that MPAs will be successful. Again water quality, most habitat issues have their sources in areas not likely to be included in MPAs. Further MPAs are not likely to measurably improve such issues and prey/predator interactions - whether that is availability of forage or such things as marine mammal predation. They would provide harvest protection though I think most would agree that the current season/management situation as expressed in the 2010 seasons/management do that job just as well. I'm sure that I'm not the only to think that the 2009 season structure was likley doing the job as well.

If we are to serious address the issues affect Puget Sound and the wildlife diversity that ecosystem supports we need to focus on the key issues. Continue to the effort to remove derelict gear, improve water quality across the landscape, protect current habitats and allow for the restoration/recovery of degraded habitats. That all will require hard and expensive choices by society and that effort should not be allowed to be deflect on those with limited agendas. And should be drive by the best science to address the various issues at their sources.

Tight lines
Curt