Just when you thought things were heading our way from a management perspective, here comes the PSRCP (Puget Sound Rockfish Recovery Plan).

Last nights Mill Creek public input meeting was not very well attended but the list of speakers was interesting....

The final "public" speaker of the night was none other than F&W COMMISSIONER, David Jennings.

Since when do Wildlife Commissioners testify as private citizens?

Are the Commissioners not part of an impartial governing body that heavily influences decisions by the WDFW Director???

It was an evening of public testimony calling many facets of the rockfish plan into question. Suddenly, here comes a "Commish" who not only supports restrictions on the recreational fishery and the creation of MPA's or "Marine Protected Areas" (no fishing zones) but Jennings went so far as to belittle others who testified before him!

Hey Salmon anglers!!!!
We are looking at gear restrictions, depth restrictions and with the MPA's, area restrictions as well...
Not to protect salmon, but to reduce the impact on rockfish!

I sincerely want to see the return of healthy numbers of rockfish but when you consider pollution, bottom dragging, derilict gear, underwater dredging, cables, pipelines and marine mammal predation, the recreational inpact numbers are a very small portion of the total mortality.

Yet again, recreational fishing is seen as "low hanging fruit" that must be eliminated to simply "Do something" about a problem that the sportfishing fleet did not cause.

Check out Robbie Tobecks blog Time to Act is NOW!!!

If we do not get involved with this rockfish issue, all of us salmon anglers will pay a very dear price...our opportunity!

They are coming after our access from all directions. Jenings comments scared me. He is a man with an agenda that you guys are not going to like. Listen in the morning 710 ESPN 6-8:30

It was an evening of public testimony calling many facets of the rockfish plan into question. Suddenly, here comes a "Commish" who not only supports restrictions on the recreational fishery and the creation of MPA's or "Marine Protected Areas" (no fishing zones) but Jennings went so far as to belittle others who testified before him! END QUOTE


Id like to modify that, since I was there.

1. He disagreed with the opinion of those in the audience, that we dont have enough science to make a decision on MPA I would not call it belittle. We may be on opposite sides, but Im not organizing a mob.
Its simple, we have to bring up science based criteria, not in the plan. There are 150 pages of other documents, many of us have not seen. Cant win the fight alone, on the lack of science.

I would like to know, if chinook eat rockfish. Catch 22.

2. He modified the need for MPA for bottom fish, not the upper column of water. So as long as, we can still fish deep for kings. Its not a direct restriction on salmon fishing.

3. Id like to hear his opinion of downrigger balls, catching rock fish.

It remains to be seen, if the other commissioners feel the science is adequate.

He also made comments about the seal population and some comments which are on the record.

I did not testify, but I think its worth while to put up signs at the launches to reinforce catch restrictions on various species of fish, so people get out of the habit of going to the rock pile after the fishing has died off. People simply dont know the problem exists.

People need to heed TJs warning and go to the meetings and express their concerns with the plan and the time we have to review it.
If they have the same people tesitifying at four or five meetings, it will be the rest of you, who are letting our fishing rights go away.
There was a lot of repetition in the testimony. It makes no difference. Have something to say and go to a meeting. You only need a minute or so at the MIKE. You dont have to be a broadcast professional to tell them, you havent caught any rockfish in years or while you were salmon fishing. etc etc etc.


Do I need a body guard TJ?

I have a question for those who were able to make the meeting, and heard the presentation. Would salmon mooching and/or jigging in 120 plus ft of water be prohibited under the current proposal? It seems that the WDFW's preferred method of enforcement would lend itself to only allow only trolling with downriggers in water deeper than 120ft. If I understand things correctly.

I dont know, but I bet its on the short list.

I took the rest of the day off to do a little reading and research... Interesting reading material although I could use a shot or two off coffee now.

1) If you don't know by now, I spend a lot of time of the water in MA's 11 and 13- moreso 13. In the last 25-years I have yet to catch a single rockfish while fishing (downriggers or meatline) for salmon. True cod yes, but not one single rockfish in the proposed MPA areas i.e., Fox and Ketron Islands, Dalco, etc. So I am a little skeptical of the numbers when if comes to incidental catch by anglers.

2) Even the PSRCP mentions the impact of ghost nets to by 61,000 rockfish. Yet WDFW continues to allow the use of nets and then points the finger at us!

3) Pinniped (seal) population is out of control. Interesting facts and figures the plan presents. Here's one I am going to throw at them.
Gertrude Island is a matting ground for over 600 pennipeds located inside or just outside their estimated 10 square kilometer (2471 acres)prime rockfish habit (no secrets here-. Toliva Shoal, northern tip of Ketron Island, Point Gibson, Balch Passage). A little simple math and I came up with one seal for a smidgen over every 4-acres. MPA's will do nothing to keep pennipeds from fishing eh?

4) No one has asked the question of which user groups will be restricted from fishing if MPAs are in place.

Still researching...

Dolphin -
Folks need to remember that there are two process going here and while we need to pay attention to both and comment on both they are different.

The first and larger/long term one is the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the PSRCP. It is this document that will shape the future rockfish decision and where MPAs are on the list of potential (and desirable?) actions. This is under SEPA and we have until November 19 to provide comments (unless as requested by many there is an extension).

The other is the 2 specific fishing regulation proposals being considered for the 2010 as part of the "normal" WDFW fishing regulation develop. Those proposals obviously have a link to the PSRCP but are being propsed prior to adoption of the PSRCP. Nothing unusual there. Those propsals are for a zero rockfish limit in the Sound and to ban fishing for bottom fish below a depth of 120 feet. It is important to note that both halibut and salmon are not considered to be bottomfish and thus the fishing for them would not be affected by this regulation change. These proposals have been out since mid-September and we have until December 1st to submit written comments.

BTW -
I agree with Lead Bouoncer that commissioner Jennings is obviously very informed on these issues and has a passion about the resource. IN the long run this a good thing. However it does mean that if folks hope to be effective in presenting their views they will need to do their homework. Unfortunately that means reviewing and understanding the science surrounding these issues. Most of that information is found in the 2009 "The Biology and Assessment of Rockfishes in Puget Sound". While this document is somewhat length (about 150 pages) there is some interesting information to be found there.

If you go to one of the meetngs be sure to pick up a hard copy - a much easier format to read than scrolling through an electronic one.

Tight lines
Curt

Smalma and LB,

Thanks for the information and clarification on process.

As far as the short term 120ft "rule proposal," if I have that correct, I'm trying to figure out how I could convince the WDFW law enforcement tied up to my boat, off of say.... Blakely Rock in the Central Sound. That I'm not targeting rockfish with my whole herring or 3 1/2 oz Pt Wilson dart. It seems infinitely likely that one of the next rule proposals will include making anything that isn't obvious trolling gear off limits. Eventually, this could affect every Pt in the Sound, then any waters deeper than 120ft.

Thanks for the input guys and LB, you don't need a body guard as far as I'm concerned but you probably want to watch your blind side around Tobeck...
You've made my point with your responses and that is: There too much uncertainty in this proposal for us to dismiss it out of hand.

We need to watch this one closely...

It's much easier to PREVENT loss of opportunity than to attempt to REGAIN our ability to fish...

Would anyone else like to hear WDFW weigh in on this seal issue ? The number of seals and sea lions has increased significantly since this report was written.

More info from NOAA, available at this web-site;
http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/publications/techmemos/tm45/risk.htm

The WDFW fishing regulations have reduced human exploitation rates to low levels, however, pinniped exploitation of herring may have increased. Herring-survey biologists have observed increased nocturnal occurrences of harbor seals near schools of herring and concurrent changes in herring schooling behavior (West 1997).

Two species of pinnipeds, California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) and Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), that are common in Puget Sound and British Columbia exploit herring. Schmitt et al. (1995) estimated that herring comprised 6% of the diet of California sea lions in Puget Sound during the 1986-1994 period. Total fish consumption by California sea lions in Puget Sound was estimated to be 830 mt per year (NMFS 1997). Thus about 50 mt (0.06 X 830) of herring were consumed by California sea lions per year in Puget Sound during the 1986-1994 period. Large aggregations of California sea lions were not reported in Puget Sound until 1979 (Schmitt et al. 1995), numbers increased through 1986, and then fluctuated without trend (Schmitt et al. 1995, and J. Laake6). California sea lions also occur in British Columbia waters but estimates of their consumption of herring were not available.

More data are available on Pacific harbor seals in British Columbia waters than for Puget Sound. Olesiuk et al. (1990) estimated that harbor seals consumed 3,206 mt of herring in the Canadian Strait of Georgia (CSG) during 1988, which represented 9.6% of the herring spawning biomass (Table 5). They estimated that herring comprised 32.4% of harbor seal diet in 1988. NMFS (1997) estimated that harbor seals consumed 14,997 mt of prey in Washington inland waters during 1993. If herring comprised 32.4% of the diet of Washington harbor seals, they would have consumed 4,859 mt (5,356 tons) of herring in Washington�s inland waters in 1993, which represented 34.9% of estimates of spawning biomass of herring for 1993 (Table 6). While herring biomass was not estimated for all areas and harbor seals consume immature as well as mature herring, it appears that harbor seals could be a significant source of mortality for Washington populations of herring and could account for some of the increases estimated for non-fishing mortality (Bargmann 1998). NMFS (1997) estimated that harbor seals in Washington waters increased at 7.7% annually between 1978 and 1993. They did not provide rate of increase for inland waters alone. Herring are also reported to be an important prey item for harbor porpoises in the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Gearin et al. 1994).

A lot of good information in all of these posts:

http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/forum...html#Post549277

http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/forum...html#Post550736

http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/forum...html#Post550636

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-SPECIES/2009/April/Day-23/e9354.htm

The impacts of the seals on the rockfish was brought up at the Mill Creek meeting several times and one of the gentlemen testifying questioned the math used by the State in the biology and assessment report (sorry I didn't catch his name but if he is a reader here- thank you).

Anyway I visited that report and found the relevant section (7.9.1) where the situation in the San Juan is discussed. When I did the math as reported at the Mill Creek meeting I got a different number than what is in the report (though in the past I have been accused of using fuzzy math!). There it is reported that there are 7,000 harbor seals in the Islands. Further that the average weight of those animals is 140 pounds. It was estimated that their daily ration (amount they eat each day) is 4% of their body weight. That means each seal can be expected to eat 5.6#/day (140 X 0.04 = 5.6). Since there are 7,000 animals that would mean the population is eating 39,200#s (7,000 x 5.6 = 39,200) of food/day or 14,308,000# of food/year; a figure that is somewhat larger than the 5 million pounds annually reported in the report.

In the report the authors reported that based on a recent study (Lance and Jefferies 2007) rockfish comprise 12% of the San Juan seal's annual diet. 12% of 14,308,000 equates to 1,716,960 pounds of rockfish. No matter how you slice it that has to be a lot of rockfish. While there is no mention of which rockfish are being eaten if I had to guess I would expect that a big portion would be Puget Sound rockfish.

One has to wonder if this consumption of rockfish represents a diet shift related to the crash of north Sound herring stocks (specificially the Cherry Point stock). If so it would be another example of the inter-connections in the ecosystem pointing out the need for a comprehensive holostic approach to recovery efforts.

Tight lines
Curt

There have been a number of papers and books recently that discuss the whole issue of shifts in diets/predators. One example is the removal of wolves, which led to a lot more coyotes, and the problems they cause. When the absolute top carnivore (wolf, bear, Orca, Great White) is removed, what replaces them are more generalist in their feeding, which means that, ultimately, they can do more damage to prey because they switch among prey items.

Ultimately, the problem may not be too many seals, but too few seal predators. Or, as has been postulated for Orca and sea lion, the primary food source has been removed and they have shifted to less desireable ones.

U.S. Sport Fishing Guide Fined for Rockfish Violations October 7, 2009

Duncan, B.C. – An American sport fishing guide, with Canadian landed immigrant status, pleaded guilty to six charges of illegal fishing under the Fisheries Act and the British Columbia Sport Fishing Regulations, and was fined $3,000 in Duncan provincial court September 8, 2009.

As a result of a joint undercover operation by fishery officers from Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and Washington fish and game officers, Ben Trainer was charged and convicted of killing and wasting numerous rockfish caught by himself and his clients, of retaining fish caught above the daily quota, and of releasing live rockfish back into the water in a manner harmful to the fish.

Mr. Trainer was ordered by the British Columbia (B.C.) provincial court to pay a $500 fine, plus a further penalty of $2,500. Judge Adrian Brooks directed that the monies go to the Canadian Groundfish Research and Conservation Society, and that Mr. Trainer’s boat, rods and other fishing equipment, seized at the time of his arrest, be returned to him.

DFO and American fishery officers worked together in an undercover operation to investigate Mr. Trainer, the operator of Step Outside Guide Services in Blaine, Washington. Recreational fishing for rockfish is limited to one fish per day to help preserve and rebuild stocks; it is estimated that between 60 and 80 fish were caught over the two-day undercover operation.

Recent monitoring and research programs have indicated that inshore rockfish stocks, especially in the Strait of Georgia, are at low levels. Sedentary, with slow growth rates, rockfish can live to be well over 100 years old and many will not reproduce until they are 10 to 15 years old. Rockfish reproduce slowly. The fish also cannot adjust to sudden changes in barometric pressure, they rarely survive after being caught and released. As a conservation measure, DFO has established 164 Rockfish Conservation Areas (RCA) along the B.C. coast where fishing for rockfish is prohibited. Many of these RCAs are located in the Strait of Georgia.

DFO acts to end illegal fishing activity. As part of this work, the Department asks the general public for information on activities of this nature or any contravention of the Fisheries Act and Regulations. Anyone with information can call the toll-free violation reporting line at 1-800-465-4336.

This is the kind of thing that rams MPA's right through

It was great to get an unsolicited phone call from Phil Anderson this morning on the Outdoor Line to perhaps put to rest some of our questions. Here are the podcasts from todays show:

October 31 Outdoor Line Podcasts

The astounding number Curt just posted in regards to the rockfish consumption by harbor seals makes me wonder why they aren't being dealt with. Tobeck quoted a 2000 NOAA study on the show today stating that the Puget Sound harbor seal population needed to be "managed" at that time and that was 9 years ago. In the meantime the seal population has increased to a conservative 14,000 animals.

If a WDFW employee were to suggest harvest of harbor seals it might be job suicide, but perhaps a third party needs to chat with the tribes to get the ball rolling

Welcome to the Dark Side Gary; about time you showed up over here.

Good info...So I guess what Phil was trying to say was yes MPA's are coming but that doesn't mean they have to stay there forever..Oooooooooook

Hate to break the news but MPAs are all ready here; just not on the scale that some would like to see.

see -
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/mpa/puget_sound/index.htm

In a quick and dirty look at the above site I found that there are 539 acres of MPAs in south Sound that have rockfish use and 1,152 acres in north Sound.

Some of the information presented in WDFW's "The Biology and Assessment of Rockfishes in Puget Sound" seems to indicate that so far the MPAs have had a mixed track record as far as the rockfish go. Can't really say more until I get a chance to do some reference checking (maybe later next week).

Tight lines
Curt

Smalma:

I have been rolling around with the "math" at 2.7.7 of the draft plan and not only is the 5MM pound figure wrong they mix the San Juans with all of Puget Sound so a very close read is necessary.

First, the 5 MM pounds simply does not correspond to the discrete pieces of information they provide - SJ or PS.

14,000 seals (actually read another report that it is near 15K) in P.S.
X 140 # Seal in P.S.
= 1,960,000 pounds of seal
x .04 Percentage of body wt of fish each day
= 78,400 of fish consumed each day
x 365 days per year
= 28,616,000 pounds of fish consumed per year
x .12 percentage consumed that are rockfish by#
= 3,433,920 total poundage that is rockfish
div by 2 my guesstimate of avg rockfish wt.
= 1,716,960 number of rockfish consumed per year in P.S.

Note that the 12 % is a figure from studies in the S.J.s that I applied to the entire P.S. and that the 2# per rockfish is purely my figure as it makes the math easier and certainly does not understate the weight (lower wt. per fish = more fish taken by seals)

Doubling your 14,308,000 total food poundage for 7,000 seals to 28,616,000 for 14,000 works out the same as mine. Then apply the 12% being rockfish and convert to number of fish to have total fish numbers as that is how WDFW cites the Stressors. I have seen another tech pub that said Puget Sound seal population is nearing 15,000 (still growing).

In Trends and Status of Harbor Seals in Washington State: 1978-99 Harriet Huber and Jess Laake divided WA seal population into Coastal and Inland with the geographic area for Inland being the same as for Puget Sound as described in the draft Plan with 5 separate breakouts within the Inland group. While their monitoring began in 1975 and ran through 1999 they only had counts for all five sub-groups for years 1991-1993 and 1996-1999. The high count was 1996 with 11,933 and decreasing each year to 1999 with 8949. Among their conclusions was that "For both stocks, the observed population size for 1999 is very close to the predicted carrying capacity (K)." Also, that "estimated abundance has increased seven to tenfold since 1970." (Keep in mind this is referring to 1999 levels) In this report they also wrote "It is evident that harbor seal stocks in Washington could decline by 20% and still be above MNPL (maximum net productivity level). A direct comparison is that the count in 1999 for the San Juans was 3,588 and they now say 7,000 which I take as being a 2007 figure as the 14,000 total is from (PSAT 2007); a 95% increase in eight years or 12% per year.

The draft plan acknowledges that the seal population is now 14,000 (2007) (and may be nearing 15,000 today). I think the 1999 report grossly underestimated the carrying capacity and that there may have been another explanation for the drop from 1996 to 1999. Bad surveys or Orca transient predation? Anyway, the draft plan cites Jeffries et al 2003 as saying that "the growth rate of the seal population is decreasing, and that the population may be reaching its maximum carrying capacity in Puget Sound." Well, the experts seemed to have again underestimated the carrying capacity. Don't have to wonder where the low reproducing rockfish are REALLY going?

Another thing to be aware of is that the NOAA findings established that rockfish stocks east of a line starting just east of Pt. Angeles and running to Victoria (an uplift) separates Puget Sound stocks from coastal stocks because NOAA basically concluded that there is no movement from healthier coastal stocks to areas east of that line. That makes the adverse impact of those seals even more critical as affects rockfish reductions and, clearly, any attempt to recover rockfish stocks.

Oh, and so far we haven't even discussed the Steller sea lions that visit the S.J.s fall and winter estimated at 800-1000 animals. I played with some rough assumptions and came to an annual impact of 16,162,200 pounds of food (using the seal % of body wt.). Using .083 (% of scat rockfish) and arrived at 1,341,463 pounds of rockfish or 670,730 rockfish at the 2#/rockfish guesstimate.

O'k, we are now at 2,387,690 rockfish consumed per year by seals and Steller sea lions. I would add a number for California sea lions but there is not enough info provided but they have to have some effect.

So how does that compare to the 11,500 C&K as reported in the draft Plan? Or the 61,000 (probably higher) killed per year by derelict gear (hopefully going away due to current removal efforts)?

Our impact is like one raindrop in the rain barrel!

Sorry this has been so long but the more I look at this the failure by WDFW to have provided truly comparative numbers between their various Stressor factors is deceit by omission. Deceit is a pretty strong accusation.

They need to withdraw this draft. If, after considering all of the input to date, they decide to move forward they should re-accomplish the draft recognizing and fully addressing all of the Stressors, their comparative impacts, and recommendations addressing each of those Stressors tied directly to each one's relative significance to the problem. They should then go through the public process again with adequate time for the public to review, attend meetings and have pertinent and knowledgeable input. This rush to judgment is not acceptable.

Larry B

Well done and well stated. Thank you.