Originally Posted By: eyeFISH
I think the last half dozen posts missed this part...

.... the area between the blue line (current rec boundary) and the black line (new demarcation between Leadbetter and Marker 11) shall be CLOSED to rec fishing to protect depressed non-local and/or ESA-listed stocks which have been found to be impacted in appreciable numbers within this zone. The control zone shall be re-opened in-season when it is determined that these non-local stocks have moved thru and the overwhelming majority of salmon encounters in this zone are local WB-origin fish.

It was an eleventh hour surprise that was dropped on the committee just prior to the final PFMC week.

Original discussion was about simply re-drawing the boundary between the ocean (MA 2) and WB( MA2-1)..... essentially expanding the recreational ocean area and shrinking the bay. Options were to draw demarcation lines from Leadbetter Point north to:

1) the jetty (existing comm boundary)
2) marker 11
3) marker 13
4) marker 15
5) Toke Point

In the end, WDFW chose to preserve the existing rec boundary, but also create a small "control zone" with a second demarcation thru marker 11 as pictured.

Said control zone could be turned on when non-local depressed/ESA stocks are present in significant numbers, and turned off when they are not. The idea here is to ensure that the WB fishery remains directed at local (WB-origin) stock.

NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS....

...

In that sense, this is a UNIQUE rationale for creating a control zone. Typically these CZ's have been created to prevent the ocean from taking depressed local stocks as they make their way into the estuary.... as in the GH control zone for chinook. In this case, the WB control zone is being invoked to minimize the bay fishery's encounters with non-local ESA-listed CR stock which was NOT previously being accounted for.


Sounds like good reasoning, but following the same reasoning, shouldn't the entire Pacific coast be "controlled" in a similar fashion? If we can't fish the Washaway area due to impacts on migrating stocks, how do we justify the free for all those same fish are subjected to, all along the coast, before they reach the Willapa Control Zone? I'll bet you a dollar more of the ESA damage is done outside that zone than within.

If we want to effectively protect endangered runs, we must do so all along the migratory paths those runs follow. I suppose this change will save a few of the endangered fish, but it'll only be a small percentage of whatever's left after the same stocks have made their way down the Alaska and BC coastlines (not to mention swimming past Neah Bay, LaPush, and Grays Harbor).

Put another way, this looks like yet another misguided punishment of recrearional anglers in the name of doing too little, too late. Yet another way to say it would be "Par for the course."