Those are great questions. I am trying to get answers by petitioning WDFW. They do have a mandate to provide information that is requested by the public (RCW 42.56.520 if you want to get technical), but they have been known to drag their feet. I am also trying to get in touch with Director Phil Anderson. I do not want to subject him to a rant, I just want to know more about how this happened, and see if there's any potential recourse.

I took a little time this afternoon to trace the development of this cabezon rule change.


In regards to the cabezon rule change additional measures (catch limit and season shortening), the only mentions I can find PRIOR to the Mar 1 commission meeting are by public commenters:

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/rule_proposals/comments/proposal.php?id=143

Five people suggest both a catch limit restriction and a season that matches lingcod. Two of those five are "boilerplate" comments, meaning they were cut-and-pasted from another source. What source? You guessed it:

http://wildfishconservancy.org/about/pre...ed201d-rockfish

The usual suspects.

But, those are just public comments, NOT officially proposed rule changes! As I mentioned before, I was at the feb 8 public testimony in olympia and #65 was discussed by many people. But they only addressed the size restriction. NOBODY addressed any catch limit or season restrictions...BECAUSE THEY HADN'T BEEN PROPOSED. Additionally, the vast majority of public comments were AGAINST rule change #65. 5 for, 74 against, from my calculations.

The document that WDFW prepared prior to the Feb 8 Commission meeting summarizes the public comments received from the web and does mention "suggestion to reduce daily limit to one fish" (i.e. suggestion from public commenter). This document, which WDFW prepared themselves, doesn't relay ANYTHING about a season restriction for cabezon. See page 35:

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/r...ment_020713.pdf

Now, somwhere between the Feb 8 and Mar 1 meetings, rule #65 proposal was officially expanded to include the catch limit (1) and season change (May 1-June 15). They were mentioned in Craig Burley's proposal to the Commission. See page 15.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2013/03/mar0113_04_presentation.pdf

As you can see, it shows the size restriction language as having been filed previously. But not the other restrictions. Shockingly, "Closed to fishing" was being considered. Again, there was no prior mention that options 2-4 were even on the table. The public did not know about them and therefore did not have a voice. To me, this is shady as hell.

Sadly, the Commission decided to adopt 3 of those 4 options. And now, they are law.

I am still trying to find out how they ended up on the table at this meeting. But we pretty much know who is behind it: the WFC and their cooperating commissioner.

My feelings are thus....

That a special interest group can actually craft rule language, get proposals considered that haven't been run by the public, and gernerally have such clout with the WDFW (especially in the face of a huge majority public opposition to the rule change)...it makes me question the integrity of the commissioners themselves. We know there's one rogue zealot, but the fact that the other commissioners went along with this is even more worrisome. Also worrisome that Phil Anderson, the supposedly "Pro-Sportfishing" WDFW Director let it happen.

Where is the scientific basis for these "surprise" restrictions? I guarantee you, there is none. Science doesn't come into it. No scientist would support employing three restrictions at one time for a specific species. There is no way to evaluate which had an impact! As one person described it, it's "blunt".

If indeed cabezon stocks are "low but stable" (language from the original WDFW proposal - I have not yet seen the data to support this) then as responsible sportfisherman we have to agree that something needs to be done. To me, an 18" minimum size is agreeable. You try it out for a period of time (at least a year!), then evaluate whether it is having a beneficial enough impact. If no improvement, try something else. A catch limit of one perhaps. Hurts a little, but again we need to be responsible here, and it's important that we still have the opportunity to fish. Make the change, and after a period of time, evaluate. Common sense dictates that something described as "stable" DOES NOT MERIT THREE RESTRICTIONS AT ONCE. This is not an emergency situation.

The larger picture here is that the conservationist lobby (including the WFC and their lackey commissioner) are, bit-by-bit, pushing for a 45-day-a-year lingcod season in ALL Marine areas. They have obviously had alot of success here. Secondly, they are pushing for complete closure for Rockfish AND Cabezon in all marine areas. They have had success with Rockfish, and are gaining ground with Cabezon. They have also been suggesting COMPLETE closure (including even salmon) for certain marine areas. They tried for this in 2010 for MA4B. Not successful yet...but they are diligent, cunning, diabolical, FUNDED, and most certainly not bothered that science does not back them up.

More Marine Protected Areas are on the way, gents, if we do not fight this tooth and nail.

I drew up this letter to the commissioners. I'd encourage you guys to either write something similar, or if you don't have time, then cut and paste this in an email to commission@dfw.wa.gov

WDFW Commissioners,

I am formally requesting that the catch limit and the season restriction connected with rule change #65 be immediately reversed, on the grounds that the public was not allowed their due process for these additional restrictions.

Proposal #65 mentions only a size restriction of 18" on Cabezon. For unknown reasons, between the Feb 8 public testimony meeting and the Mar 1 Commissioners meeting, the proposal expanded to include a catch limit and a season restriction. Those additional restrictions were nowhere to be found in the language of rule change #65.

How did these additional restrictions get added to the proposal? And why was the public not allowed to give their voice? It is unethical that these restrictions were added to the proposal *after* the public comment period. The public comment process is designed so that we can participate in the rule-making. We were cut out of this one.

There would have been aggressive public commenting against these additional restrictions both online and at the Feb 8 hearing, if they had been part of the language.

The season change effectively means the entire Puget Sound is closed to bottomfishing after June 15 (because lings are the same 45 days and rockfish are completely closed). It's a more than 75% reduction in fishing opportunity for those of us who like to bounce jigs around our local reefs on sunny summer afternoons. We used to be able to do this all the way to Nov. 30th.

Additionally, because you have employed three restrictions at one time, you've left no way to effectively measure the beneficial impact of any one of those restrictions. It's a blunt and heavy-handed rather than a scientific approach.

I would like to request the data and/or information you used to merit a season closure on top of the other two restrictions. I would also like to know how you plan to evaluate the effectiveness of each of these restrictions individually. How will you know which one(s) to lift when the stocks improve?

If indeed cabezon stocks are "low but stable" (WDFW language from proposal #65) then as responsible sportfishermen we have to agree that something needs to be done. An 18" minimum size is a good start. You try it out for a period of time (at least a year I would think), then evaluate whether it is having a beneficial enough impact. If no improvement, try something else. A catch limit of one perhaps. Hurts a little, but again we need to be responsible anglers. Make the second change, and after a period of time, evaluate.

This approach would be far more palatable to sport anglers, would allow proper research to be done on stock improvement, and would still allow the same fishing opportunity - which is *the most important* factor.

Additionally, common sense dictates that something that WDFW describes as "stable" does not merit *three* restrictions at once.

People don't generally target Cabezon. They are usually by-catch for Lingcod fisherman during the 45 days that the ling season is open in the sound. You are just not going to find many boats out there specifically targeting cabs after ling season is over (which again begs the question...why is the season reduction even necessary, especially since there are two other new changes designed to protect cabezon?). But it sure was nice to have the option. And it seems to me that a size limit, and then maybe even a catch limit will accomplish the stated objective without having to limit fishing opportunity.

Awaiting your reply,

...

I have no concern with the Cab’s since I don’t fish for them.

My interest is solely the process, or lack of it, concerning the less than transparent approach allegedly used by Craig in the department.

The department must have 2 ways of dealing with the public. Commercials get full disclosure and the recreational sector doesn’t.

Why would the department worry about a decision if the chances of a court injunction isn’t probable by the recreational sector. The commercials on the other hand are notorious in going to court.

Until there is a shot across the bow of the department with court action by the recreational group--- I don’t see anything changing real quick.

A lawsuit against Craig B personally and an injunction against the department decision seems in order. They might consider appropriate protocol next go around instead of sleight of hand. I would hold the department to the same standard, to their decision making process, that would affect a commercial fishery.

Any fishing attorneys out there that want to pick low hanging fruit?

Craig B and Jennings working in concert.

Another aspect for consideration is that a number of proposed rule changes pertaining to the Strait and MA 4 were given a preliminary thumbs down by Staff (that is, not recommended for further review) because there was inadequate data available. Staff comments also referenced ongoing studies to determine effectiveness of existing protections.

So, how is there insufficient data to support some proposed rule changes but apparently sufficient data (but not provided by Staff) to not only recommend other rule changes for further consideration but for the Commission to actually implement them?

Arbitrary and capricious?

Apparently the default is NOT "do nothing without data".

best available ................

nope, not gonna say it

Baitman, copied & pasted & sent, suggest everybody also do so.

i disagree with this decision, but let's not get to crazy with the "we must have all the info" to make any kind of decision.

too often, we continue to fish as stocks collapse and say there is not "sufficient" data to make more conservative harvest rules.

it is likely that in 20-30 years we won't be fishing much inside 4B for bottomfish regardless of whether or not it gets closed as a marine preserve.

We might disagree on this, topwater...but I believe we have a fundamental right to fish and hunt. The burden of proof should lie the people that want to place limits on that. And I am not saying that limits are never warranted because they obviously are, just that there needs to be sufficient evidence. If stocks are truly in danger then that should be easy to prove. Prove it.

I've been looking more into this and...it is in fact against policy - not ot mention unethical - to enact rule changes (that are not emergency rule changes) without submitting them for public comment. And we should not tolerate it, even if we don't fish for Cabezon. I am filing a petition for this rule change to be reversed. If it's truly a priority then it needs to follow protocol.

I certainly don't see anyone here "getting crazy with the "we must have all the info" to make any kind of decision."

What I do see are people with a vested interest in both the fishery and the process by which that fishery as well as others are managed being concerned about how this particular rule change morphed from what was published for public comment to what was ultimately enacted.

This is not the first time this has occurred and just the appearance of impropriety has an adverse effect on the public's confidence in the process and, therefore, the final product.

I do not expect the decision makers to have whatever "all the data" might be but I do expect that those who make these decisions will do so based upon sufficient data and in a fully tranparent manner and be able to connect the dots for us.

You'll never achieve "Larry the Lover" with that attitude.
Where's the trust?


Beat up, but not beat down, yet?
Good on you!!

Not yet!! It is unfortunate when 95%+ of what is done at the Commission level seems to meet the whiff test and then something like this pops up which smacks of nefarious dealings behind the scenes.

As far as your question about where is the trust? Well, to quote Ronald Reagan "Trust but verify."

The lack of due process does have negative effects on communities and sporting good stores.

This rule change should be conducted like any other decision, like for instance, when commercial fishers are involved.

The owner of Hook Line and Sinker sporting goods store publicly stated that the last nail in the coffin before he went out of business was the Puget Sound sturgeon decision. Which in affect was treating PS different from the other areas in the state by an arbitrary and capricious ruling that didn’t include science or an impact statement.


Communities and sporting good stores are suffering by a slow death of a thousand cuts from the toll of each ruling. Many sporting good stores have already gone out of business. This Cab ruling will have an adverse outcome for the communities in that area and again no impact statement.

I'm all for using science behind decision making instead of nefarious behavior --leading to poor judgement/decisions-- leading to the demise of communities, businesses, and fishing opportunity.


It is hard to fathom communities, storeowners, and the fishing public sitting around idly as these callous, nefarious, arbitrary and capricious acts have unfolded without due process and the proper science documentation behind the reasoning.

The court system is just another tool in the toolbox that sometimes needs to be used.

Agree'd

Seems like we have enough protection with all the waters below 120 feet closed except during halibut openings. If sporties use the decenders on rockfish we could do even more, so how about one more law and require that one be on every sportboat.

Here is the agenda for the next Commission meeting which is a telephone conference call. Item A: Has the Commission seen the need to reconsider the cabezon rule or have the rockfish protection folks, presumably unhappy with not getting more out of this major rule making cycle, caught their attention? We shall see.......

(bolding added for attention - LB)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Fish and Wildlife Commission

MEETING via CONFERENCE CALL
Agenda
WHEN: Friday, March 15, 2013 – 10:30 A.M.
WHAT:

A. Sportfishing Rules Reconsideration – Decision

Commissioners may continue discussions with staff and possibly reconsider decisions made at the March 1, 2013 meeting regarding Sportfishing Proposals.
Staff Report: Craig Burley, Fish Program

B. Triploid Trout Stocking Plan - Decision

Department staff will present the proposed 2013 triploid trout stocking plan for the Commission consideration and final adoption.
Staff Report: Chris Donley, Fish Program

C. WDFW Downtown Olympia Property Sales – Decision

Department staff will request approval from the Commission on the sale of WDFW properties in downtown Olympia.
Staff Report: Tim Burns

D. Legislative Update - Briefing

Department staff will provide an update on current legislative activities.
Staff Report: Ann Larson, Legislative Liaison
E. General Discussion


Commissioners and the Director will discuss recent activities and items of interest.
• Teanaway property update

*WHERE:
This meeting will take place by telephone conference call. The public may listen to the discussion on speakerphone by coming to the Commission Office at the Department of Fish and Wildlife headquarters, Natural Resources Building, 5th Floor, 1111 Washington Street SE, Olympia. If you plan to attend to listen to the conference call please contact Commission staff at (360) 902-2267 so we can ensure adequate space is available.

It is strange that the commissioners don't need to be there in person. But the public does. It's a conference call. That the public can't speak at.

I can't imagine technology is an issue. I set up teleconferences all the time. It's not hard to add a specific access code for non-speaking participants. Gotomeeting.com is one that is often used.

What is the reason that the public must be there in person for a conference call?

Not sure about the technology to make that work for an unlimited number of listeners but they certainly should be able to make the conference call available at various WDFW facilities around the State - at a minimum.

That said, when it somes to final votes on rules I would prefer that it be accomplished in an open meeting. In this round there are a couple of proposed rules that may have a big impact on fishing opportunity. I certainly hope that all of the Commissioners have a full understanding of the facts and would be able to articulate a sound basis for whatever their individual votes might be.

Surprise Surprise Surprise, . . . . . from WDFW

NEWS RELEASE
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/

March 15, 2013

Contact: Commission Office, (360) 902-2267

Fish and Wildlife Commission
amends four sportfishing rules

OLYMPIA - The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission modified the annual catch limit for white sturgeon and amended three other recently-adopted rules during a conference call today.


The fishing season for cabezon in Marine Area 4 will be open year-round, while the season in marine areas 5-11 and 13 will be open May 1-Nov. 30. The previously adopted rule would have reduced the fishing season for cabezon in all those areas to May 1 through June 15. The commission also directed the department to initiate a separate rule process to seek public comments and allow for further commission discussion on restricting the cabezon season to May 1 through June 15 in those areas.
The commission did, however, keep a new rule that will reduce the daily catch limit of cabezon to one fish in those marine areas and prohibit the retention of cabezon measuring less than 18 inches in length.
Anglers can retain all rockfish except canary and yelloweye as part of their daily rockfish limit in Marine Area 4 west of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line. The previously adopted rule would have only allowed the retention of black, blue and yellowtail rockfish in that area.
Most of the rule changes adopted by the commission take effect May 1. Summaries of the rule changes, as adopted, will be available on WDFW’s website later this month.

Good Work Baitman!!!!!!

From a conservation perspective for cabs I am not sure what the "right" decision should have been in large part because of the lack of any data having been presented. However, it is critical that any organization follow its own established procedures and what we see here is an acknowledgement of that fact.

Now, the other big issue is the turnaround on MA 4A. Did the Commission finally realize that the data which was provided by the folks who submitted the proposed rule change was grossly twisted? I suspect that the MA 4A battle is not over.

Larry
4A closure is now dead. Neah Bay was saved again. Public testimony and comment
ended at the last commission meeting in Olympia. We gave our last shot there. I really appreciate the commission doing the right thing on MA 4A.