You've got to be kidding

First, I don't see fishing as recreational or commercial. I see dead fish. Dead fish, by definition, don't spawn. Somehow, being killed by an angler is not somehow nobler than being killed in gillnet or seine or taken in the aquarium trade.

My understanding of the literature is that, on a worldwide basis, MPAs have been and are successful in putting more fish in the water.

When one considers rockfish, I think that their life history needs to be understood. A fish that lives 100-200 years, spawning every year or so after maturity, likely is not often successful. Maybe once a decade, once every 20 years are the environmental conditions conducive to a "good spawn". It's like the folks who want to see salmon fishing closed for a year or 4 and expect that would bring recovery. Or, the folks who see one good return and "Eureka, recovery".

We have dug a hole in our natural resources for over a century. Looking at a couple of years for solutions is not, to my mind, logical.

Let us agree that life histories need to be understood and that "one size does not fit all" applies here.

It is my understanding that even those rockfish with the potential for living long lives (just how many would make 100? let alone 200?? w/o a human fisher's involvement???) become sexually mature much earlier; as in teens for fish like yelloweye and become more productive as they grow.

And, yes, repopulation isn't instantaneous. It will take time. I never said that it wouldn't. What I did say is that an MPA established for recovery of a species or several species using the same habitat and with similar life cycles should have a recovery plan and a Sunset provision that will dissolve the MPA (1) when the goal is met (e.g. delisting), periodic stock assessment in the MPA as well as similar adjacent habitats indicate lack of progress, or the responsible agency abandons it periodic assessment responsibility.

Failure to accept inclusion of a Sunset provision is, in my assessment, an indication of little confidence in the plan and/or that the plan is in reality a Trojan horse with the primary but unstated goal being the establishment of a permanent MPA.

So if they recover in the MPA, but not outside, we delist? Or, if we are seeing recovery in the MPA but not outside do we expand the MPA?

A sunset clause is a good idea. But, as anybody here even remotely familiar with how WDFW has operated in the past, they won't have the money to do the evaluation/monitoring. Snyder Creek steelhead come to mind? Some GH netpen coho that were CWT'd to track straying? No monitoring, so we can stop the program.

Keep in mind that within Puget Sound all waters deeper than 120 feet are off limits to bottomfishing to include rockfish (exception being the very limited halibut fishery). If an MPA put in place for rockfish recovery cannot recover and also recover populations in adjoining quality habitat then it has not achieved its reason for existing and there is no reason to expect that expanding that MPA would have an improved effect.

Secondly, I would suggest that if we are talking recovery of ESA listed rockfish then it would be the Feds responsibility rather than WDFW.

So WDFW can stop doing all the steelhead monitoring, and salmon monitoring? That would save a whole lot of money, so they could use it elsewhere.

I would agree about the greater than 120' if the rockfish did not need the shallower water as key habitat. Or, if the rockfish need some resource from the <120 to provide some key element like food.

We tend to take very narrow looks at species needs instead of dealing with the ecosystem they live in.

Personally, if humans did not harvest a resource 500 years ago it should be left alone. That would probably do wonders for any number of top of the food chain resources we would still harvest.

Since rockfish cannot be retained and there is minimal barotrauma mortality above 120 feet AND with the emphasis on the use of descender devices any impact related to incidental hooking should be within any established impact.

Your 500 year ago exemption seems to be giving tribes a free pass to continue harvest of ESA listed fish.

I am not limiting it to Tribes, I am limiting it to species and location. Salmon harvested in the bays and rivers, for example. Subtidal clams left alone. Deepwater fish left alone, pelagic fish left alone until they come close to shore, and so on.

People seem to believe, and little actual evidence, that the harvest restrictions in place will lead to recovery. If the resource is not recovering, too many are being killed. Just because a number is small does not mean it is not excessive.

I also really don't give a rat's heinie if 'the model" says that the current management plan will work. The proof is in the fish actually increasing. If they are not increasing then we are not doing enough to recover them. Whether it is harvest restrictions, habitat restoration, or whatever.

I'm sure I don't understand this if it was in response to my last post. Are you saying that tribes should not be excluded from MPAs?

MPAs should apply to all. I was talking about the holistic change in harvest where resources not harvested, due to inaccessibility, 500 ybp should be left alone.