I'm refering to the language to close recreational chinook, ling cod, and halibut areas to protect rockfishes.
The whole coverage shifts opportunity from sports side.

The ESA Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management Plan is cover to allow impacts.
IMHO it is not likely to see anything other than a redistribution of allowable take.

Guess where these recreational impacts will go?

Just wait intill as soon as the stern leaves one MPA the bow's already five feet into the next one.

Who the tribe's, why should they show up and complain ? This is just for the white folks aunty. Check out the story on Yahoo about how Obama's going to start undoing all the past wrongs against the tribe's. The white seafood processers will still get plenty of fish and could care less who catches it for them, the non indian commercials will just continue to fade away, as whats already happening with Washington coastal crab.

I asked for clarification on how the two plans are tied together last night.

Yes, NMFS has to approve this and all other conservation/managment plans for Puget Sound. I personally don't think NMFS has their oar very deep in the water on this particular plan and I don't think they are the driver per se for this set of MPA's. If you read Sam Wright's stuff I think you will find the seed and you will find it was planted many years ago. In regards to Sam; don't hate the player, hate the game.

In the end it doesn't matter; an MPA is an MPA regardless of who's idea it is. And yes, regardless of who is at the helm, if this tactic works look for other organizations to follow in the wake.

The damage was done in Hood Canal 20 plus years ago. Habitat and Harvest Management are highlighted as the preferred options. Yet, the limiting factor here is policy of Status Quo Ecosystem inaction.

Conduct opportunistic activities... Like putting a band-aid on a victim of a thousand cuts???

Well googling Sam Wright tells me he's a retired WDFW biologist, so he might have some legit concerns. Still after hearing the presentation in Newport that was well attended by sports and commercials and then reading were she was the new head at NMFS ,my first thought was here comes MPA's. I think your just looking at the tip of the iceburg.

TJN -
The Puget Sound rockfish is one of the 28 species of rockfish found in PUget Sound. It is a small rockfish that reaches maturity in just a couple years, maximum size is something like 7 inches. They are abundant in North Sound and provide forage for a number of fish - I have seen them in the stomachs of Chinook and ling cod and the literature claims they are also important forage for the larger species of rockfish.

Earlier in this discussion a couple of us speculated that the seals may be eating instead of herring. The fact that there are old and larger otoliths in the seals scats argue that they eating at some rockfish other than Puget Sound rockfish.

Sorry about the confusion; I was headed out the door for some waterfowl hunting.

Tight lines
Curt

Living right on the beach, I used to go for years in the S Sound without seeing a single seal in the 1960's. And the fishing pressure in many areas I still fish was greater then than now, yet we still managed to catch a fair number of rockfish right in close to the marinas and the most heavily fished water. Same areas now are thick with seals, and for some reason the rockfish are gone (along with noticeable declines of greenling, flounder, Irish Lord, convict sculpiun, stugeon poacher, Sailfin Sculpin, and a variety of other non-target species).

Hmmm. Must be the sport harvest and lack of habitat causing all of that.

milt, Thanks for chiming in to this discusion.

I contend the Tacoma sludge used by timber "farms" to produce fiber in Mason and Jefferson Counties is behind the reduced carrying capacity. Sure, the Bremerton waste is a contributing factor. Most of the watershed drainage is undeveloped.

The image projected by Staff only favors the Status Quo; no recovery given the competition for food, no goals, no exit stratagy?

Read this 1999 article; I don't have the time right now to search more, but during that same period of time he proposed MPA's for 20% of Puget Sound. http://www.seattleweekly.com/1999-08-18/news/scraping-the-bottom.php/1

By the way, he was at last night's meeting.

I'm not arguing with you are saying you are wrong, I'm simply pointing out this was in the works 10 years before the current adminstration was in power.

Not argueing either, Jane Lubchenco and the gang at Pew has been pushing MPA's for years too.. Other plans have failed so now these folks get there chance. The RCA's (Rockfish Conservation Area's) have worked with the commercial catches offshore with stocks first stabilizing then slowly begining to rebuild. I do think whats going on in the nearshore fisherys is more related to predation from the broken food chains, primarily salmon, with the illtimed plan to protect the SeaLions and Seals and at the same time reduce hatchery output to try and let natural stocks make a comeback. Just ain't going to work with all the salmon habitat loss and half a million hungry furbags out there.

I'm sick of this. I'm a veteran. Life's to short to weigh the sins of the past on anything but the mindset inside.

Think about how harvest will never change. The [censored] at Harvest Management will never change.

They make believe there is nothing wrong in the ecosystem. Harvest injusice doesn't take into account multi species.

It's just always been my therapy to outlast the MSY mindset. Not sure how the current guys and gals serving overseas will view this same old mindset at WDFW.

Feels like we are all alone to change this world. It seems to me the commercial mindset at WDFW is in need of reform.

MIA CULPA !!!

The WDFW data show extraordinary superfish grow in protected areas compared to decimated 'fished' areas.

Problem is.... they don't tell what areas were surveyed and which fisher species are predominant in the surveyed areas.

Hmmm..
Yep, no rockfish found at the bottom of Elliot Bay,
Lots of rockfish found in a secluded harbor on the Washington Coast.

What more evidence do you need ?

Feed fishermen to the seals, no more fish in the ocean.

Don't know if this is the correct place to dig and maybe someone else has experience with State law: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=34.05.325

I do know that Boeing won its protest against the AF tanker award to Airbus because the AF did not follow its own rules. Seems the case here as well.

By the way it is not inherently wrong or bad to have more/bigger specimens in a protected area than adjacent waters open for fishing. Frankly, I would be surprised if that were not the case. What should be of concern is the extent of that disparity and especially when the populations outside are not sustainable whether by fishing, predators, pollution or a combination. Then identify the constraints, rate their relative impacts, and focus on the bigger constraints first.

Federal govt indicates they already have 26 MPAs in the bag for Washington state.

Washington State - lost forever
this is just the beginning....


This map shows entire Washington Coast is nominated to be a Federal MPA
It is all over, we are dead

Anyone want to buy a fishing boat & gear ?

Ring Ring
Jane L speaking

Sam...Hi Jane Sam W here

Jane...Hey Sam How's it going

Sam...Well not to good Jane remember that plan I was telling you about at the last foundation meeting. There fighting me tooth and nail every step of the way.

Jane...Oh Really what can I do to help.

Sam....Anything Jane that pesky new Director keeps trying to give the fisherman something to catch.

Jane...Well I just happen to have his salmon plan on my desk as we speak, and since I have his family jewells in my hands. I'll just apply alittle pressure to help you out.

Sam...I knew I could count on you as always Jane your the greatest.

Jane...See you at the annual meeting Sam be looking forward to your next project.


Click

Sorry just couln't help myself

Give yourself a atta boy guy as that is the best job of putting forth a position I have seen in awhile here.

Riverguy,

Are you inferring that the folks working to decode and analyse 255 pages of bio speak have not uttered a word about their concerns?

Any particular organization like the one most involved on a local level and on this website, already has stated positions. All you have to do is go to the state and national website.

It should be noted, that organization does not speak for this website or the bulk of its members, and should not be held accountable as such.

There are more users of the resources than just fisherman. There are people who propose to limit everyones access to that resource. You can assume, there will be an opponent to every sport position, regardless of the conservation mindset, we already have.

Any reports from the PT meeting ?

An interesting session. Lots of things to think about. WDFW is concerned about NOAA stepping in with some heavy rules to protect certain rockfishes and the state wants to have something showing that they are doing something. Might mitigate some federal stuff. Mentioned in passing that the Chinook agreement expires next year and the rockfish recovery plan might help mitigate possible problems for the Chinook plan. Pretty convulouted.

Some good comments provided to Palsson and Bargman about concerns over the plan and the timeline that we're working under. Issues with the proposed regulation (#10) and the DEIS and which should come first. Looks like they want the DEIS approved before the final regulation action. But, there was an indication that the deadline for comments on the DEIS might be extended.

Some interesting proposals on gear restrictions that might protect rockfish to some extent and get away from the depth restriction were offered up. Problem is that there is a perception that sport fishers are a big part of the problem with our harvest of about 13K rockfish/year and an encounter rate (and subsequent hooking mortality) of upwards of 24K fish. It looks like they think salmon fishers encounter fair numbers of rockfish. Probably local, but it adds up.

Doesn't look like much thought is given to the economic impacts of closures on local businesses.

Key species the state has listed for the project are Yelloweye, Canary, Copper, Quillback, Bocaccio, and Puget Sound Rockfish. Possible that Black/Yellowtail might be added to the key species list.

Discussed impact of state plan against tribal discussions (on-going but nothing concrete); NOAA plans; Marine Protected Areas (NOAA or state designated); USFWS (national wildlife refuges around the coastline); National Park Service; Dept of Natural Resources, Dept of Ecology, Puget Sound Partnership; and other governmental agencies plus NGOs. It's a hell of pot of stew with lots of chef's adding ingredients and stirring things around.

To me, it doesn't look like a cohesive plan is going to come together easily.

I'm hoping we get some more time for comments, but will be sending my concerns in by November 19 in case we don't.