I heard from three different guys who were at this morning's Commission meeting that Phil Anderson, during his Director's Report, announced WDFW will extend the comment period until January. Thanks to those of you who attended the meetings and responded in other ways.

Thanks for the report Bushbear

The comment period may be extended, but that will then shorten the timeline for the final action. The current proposal was to have the final EIS in place in January, 2010. I think they want the protocols in place to validate the proposed fishing regulation changes.

Remember that the regulation changes are going to be in place for two years before any changes can be made.

One thing at a time.

Comments on the DEIS by November 19 would be my recommendation. If they extend the deadline, you can always send in additional comments. Our plates are pretty full right now.

At the Oly meeting Mr. Palsson was specifically asked about the underlying data pertaining to the annual "encounter" figure of 35,000 for the years 2004-2007. Concern was expressed that these were numbers driving the restrictions on sport fishing yet without knowing which species were being encountered or released and the specific species and depth. This information is critical! If the majority of these fish were encountered in shallow water in the western part of the Strait then there would have been little impact.

Mr. Palsson was also asked to have the data updated for years 08/09 and to include projections on what, if any, impact on these numbers would result from the several anticipated rockfish/bottomfish rule changes (i.e. no fish limit; can't fish deeper than 120 feet). Again, if we have already reduced levels to the lowest in recent (as in 40 or more years) the observation is that you can't go less than zero!

I was very surprised that Mr. Palsson was not prepared for these questions nor for the questions regarding seal predation especially since he had been put on notice at the Mill Creek meeting that seals were an issue. He couldn't or wouldn't clarify if the rockfish in seal scat figure (yea, a job I don't like to think about) of 12% represented occurrence in 12% of the scats sampled, 12% of the fish identified in the scats, or 12% of the weight. Their damage control was to say that the seals' rockfish diet was probably made up mostly of Puget Sound Rockfish (the species) which is small and in great numbers. How convenient! Just show me the data! It was also pointed out that the total food consumption cited at para 2.7.7 of 5MM pounds in P.S. should have been more like 28.6 million (calculations shown to his boss after the meeting). It doesn't take much of a percentage to equal a significant number of those species of concern (1% = 286,000# =143,000 fish at 2#).

I am still waiting for answers to the questions.

Could be a cage match brewing

I might as well c and p my post to the other thread as well.... Yes, Bushbear....good to see you.


Well all I have to say, is you guys/gals who are interested at all with this topic had better get busy. I went to the P.T. meeting tonight. Not many folks there, and it sure looks like the Dept's version of what is needed is going to be significant.
I'll tell you all, I'm not geared for those meetings......at all. My hat's off to those who go to battle for us sportsmen.
I felt like the whole presentation was geared for 8th graders, complete with the monotone, passionless, narration. I was ready to jump out of my skin after an hour.
I have dealt with other presentations where the whole idea is to pile the crap as high as you can, knowing that at least some of it will stick......and it will, too. I'll deal with most of the stuff in a letter, where I can pick my words. All I could handle at the meeting was something like, "If you're going to reduce limits to one fish......close the damn thing instead. Makes no sense to injure fish for a one fish limit."

If you expect sport-friendly results concerning this issue.....you are going to have to take the time to make your concerns heard.....or I can guarantee you won't like the outcome.

That's it from me......where's my.....never mind.

All, thanks for attending the meetings, representing sport fishing interests, the reports, and sharing information. I really appreciate everyones comments and getting to meet some of the good people concerned with this issue, working together to make positive changes.

A lot of data and information available to get into those letters for WDFW. I could use more time, holidays coming and life continues.

I really appreciate WDFW presentation by Greg Bargmann and Wayne Palsson. It is good to know that these incredibly knowledgeable folks are wrestling this issue. An amazing amount of work done by those gentlemen for the Washington state fisheries. They put out extraordinary efforts to get the meetings done on short timetable and deserve a lot of credit for their professionalism. No doubt they could use a weekend off to get a break from the job.

THANK YOU !

Open questions...

If you were going to ask for changes to the plan, what are the top three changes you would recommend?

What are the top three things you can’t live with?

Some of us will continue to challenge the numbers, math and assumptions with help from some folks who know more than most of us, but at some point the rubber needs to meet the road. Simply objecting to the plan because you don’t like it, won’t cut it. Whatever the final form of the plan looks like, the bottom line is that it will be designed to protect rockfish and it will likely have significant rule changes.

Food for thought…

MPA’s don’t have to be total no fishing zones. Perhaps there should be some limited rockfish/bottomfish MPA’s but those don’t necessarily have to be no salmon fishing zones. Having a no bottom fishing MPA next to a Rockfish Recovery Area (RRA) may make some sense in that you can treat the MPA as a nursery for the RRA and eventually fish the RRA in a sustainable manner and VERY LONG TERM possibly fish the MPA in a sustainable manner.

There is a group of us trying to bring the seal predation issue to the front of the line. It is significant and largely being ignored as something to deal with. Regardless of whether the Department intends to deal with the issue, it still needs to be acknowledged as a high stressor. The argument that seals are a “natural” stressor is moot; rockfish are at an unnatural low and seals are at a disproportionately high level because of man. As previously mentioned, the possibility exists that MPA's, RRA's and artificial reefs could end up being buffet zones for seals and sea lions.

Another idea (that will come as no surprise to those who know me) is the use of artificial reefs to aid in rockfish recovery. If artificial reefs, through scientific method, are proven to produce fish (hotly contested issue among scientists) then a series of them could be placed around the Sound to be used (eventually) for recreational fishing and other purposes. If they prove effective, that could help the natural reefs recover and still offer recreational fishing opportunities. Even if they don’t “produce” fish they still could prove to be a valuable tool in rockfish management.

Additionally, we need to have a set of rules requiring commercial nets to be permanently marked with the owner’s name and mandatory reporting when they are lost. Something like if you lose your net and report it, you get it back. If you lose it and don’t report it, you pay a fine and pay to have it removed and don’t get it back.

And finally, zero rockfish retention in MA’s 5-13 will mean no recreational targeting of rockfish and will result in significantly less “recreational encounters” and any incidental encounters would be insignificant. This should be given equal weight when compared to the other stressors.

Rockfish recovery will not happen overnight so I would tell you that we should be prepared for a series of long term solutions; some of which will work and some won’t make any difference and we won’t like most of them.

What you got?

I was curious about the claim that recreational harvest is responsible for demise of rockfish in Puget Sound.

The attached graph shows;
harbor seal .vs. (recreational + commercial) harvest of rockfish. The data includes Puget Sound seal populations from NOAA reports, seal diet from WDFW reports, recreational harvest and commercial harvest from WDFW reports.

I think the green strategy is to blame recreational fishermen for damage caused by overabundance of seal in Puget Sound. Declining herring, salmon, rockfish, and orcas population.

Same information that I presented at the Friday Harbor meeting, albeit a graph rather than percentages.

Interesting to note, NOAA recommended managing harbor seal population to 7,000. This would have leveled harbor seals rockfish consumption to 1,700,000 pounds.

Regarding artificial reefs,

I now understand a bit more about the proposal to use material from Alaska Way viaduct. Apparently, their properties have been studied and found to be premium material for building artificial reefs and will not pose environmental hazard to Puget Sound. Of course, I leave this determination up to the experts, just reporting the news. And this is really good news.

Too bad we sold those ferries for scrap. Can you imagine the "tunnels" those car decks would create?

My understanding is that much of Puget Sound is pretty flat/soft. What we think of as classic rockfish structure is not a large percentage of the sea floor.

The glacier(s) that covered the basin 15,000 years ago pushed a lot of material ahead and as they retreated, probably dropped a lot of rocks/boulders which are now probably buried under inches/feet of sediment. Run-off from the rivers and the subsequent increase in sediment due to logging, site construction, road work, etc has probably exacerbated the coverage of smaller "rock piles" which may have increased the population declines. Add in the damage done in the 70s and 80s when WDF opened up the Sound for the trawl fisheries and continuing problems with some trawl fisheries (shrimp), purse seines set in shallow water, gill nets that drag, many of the remaining small rock piles are probably also affected.

What techniques and "deposit material" do we use to replace what has been lost?

If you try to take the same amount of baitfish, crab, shrimp etc. from Puget Sound and avoid the MPA's and RPA's, you will quickly deplete the remaining areas.


AM Are you talking about the same amount of harvest in a smaller area?


Would they reduce seasons in open areas to protect against overharvest?

I saw large diameter pipe, like sewer pipe that is being used in other locations. It would cost less and be more portable. Anti seal protection.

What you got?


All good ideas, except that any MPA is just a ground floor position for expansion in the mind of MPA lovers.

Its cheaper and more effective to print on every salt water license that rock fish retension in any areas is strictly prohibited.

Since I dont fish the salt, someone needs to look at rockfish bycatch while fishing for lingcod or halibut.

The depart is going to have to get more hands on experience with testing various rockfish sinker devices. I wondered if a single barbless egg hook with 4pound test line with a ball sinker/alternate (pet rock holder) to sink the fish.

The dept should test a couple fish by catching them and then putting them in a trap- like lobster trap and submerge the trap and find out if the fish will recover. Electronic release, cameras , food whatever they want to do. Hang it on a bouy for an extended test.

i am familiar with the air bladder problem. Large and Smallmouth bass can be affected the same way, when caught in deep water.

Release boxes aren't that easy on the fish. Abrasion of the eyes and scales, plus it is awkward to work with. "Fizzing" (using a hypodermic needle is not good for the fish, either. Takes an expert to insert needle and hopefully not get a nerve/heart/liver etc. Have to handle the fish and probably keep them out of the water too long. The lip hook with weight seems to hold the most promise. One should keep a stout rod rigged with a 3# or 4# weight and send the fish back down to 50'-60' or more as quickly as possible. Still a potential for internal injuries (ruptured swim bladder, air embolism in the eyes/brain etc and success may be dependent on what depth the fish was brought up from.

Here's a link to the Shelton Products "fish descender".

http://sheltonproducts.com/SFD.html

BB

I didnt know what had been tried. Thought about the rod, retrieving a larger weight. I think part of the air bladder problem is the fish dont have ample opportunity to release the air from their system. I dont know how bass do it, or how long it takes. Probably longer than a guy pumping a rod 6:1 ratio reel.

Bargmann was not commital on any specific remedy at this point.

Aunty -
I agree the "tropic collapse" discussions in the DEIS and the assessment report indicate that all may not be well in some of the MPAs for the local rockfish.

BTW -
I find it interesting that most of us in issues such this rockfish plan end up focusing on our "pet" interest or priorities . In this case that focus ranges from reducing seal populations, man-made reefs, food web questions, underwater viewing parks or in my case focusing on using the latest and best information to make management decisions and providing that information to us so that we can make informed decisions.

In that regard I post more detailed thoughts of mine on how the WDFW could move forward with my pet interest/priority. For any that might be interested I refer you to the "Rockfish management thought" thread.

Tight lines
Curt

I feel like the WDFW has been Harvesting at MSY to long.

I remember the times, fishing blackmouth, I'd see the herring boats putting them away. From the Brisco Point to Devil's Head, community is key to respond to a situation.