Thanks for that. Certainty is a big increase in the survival rate. I wonder if they can swallow their stomach back in.

It's pretty amazing that any of them survive that ordeal. You and I would NOT fare so well if subjected to the same baro-stress.

As an eye surgeon, I worry a lot about the pop-eye syndrome. Besides the obvious mechanical stress of stretching the optic nerve, there's the release of dissolved gas causing intra ocular bubbles and corneal edema. If a human was subjected to same, there would also be rapid progression to cataract over the next few months from the lens coming into contact with the gas bubbles.

Makes me wonder if the survivors don't all end up permanently blind?

Thanks Doc, that is a hoot! And certainly makes the message more fun!!

As for Ray Troll, I've been in his shop in Ketchikan a couple of times and almost went to a recent band performance in Gig Harbor. Almost.

Edit: Rather convoluted explanations recently from WDFW seem to indicate that descenders may yet become required on the coast. Stand by.

Also, the video made a point (pun intended) to not vent rockfish. The milk crate method has been criticized for possible eye abrasion. The PSA choice of descenders was limited to the SeaQualizer (expensive) which is pressure activated with variable depth settings and the Shelton (inexpensive) which is pinned to the fish's lip. The regs do not specify a type, just that you have one ready to deploy so one can be made at home. I was in Sportco last week and was told they have the SeaQualizers in stock at about $50.

The survival rate would certainly indicate that the stomach goes back into place and they are able to continue to feed. Sorta speaks for itself.

Researchers have located a previously tagged rockfish (yelloweye?) in Hood Canal using an underwater robot. As I recall that fish was pregnant so apparently it was able to feed and reproduce successfully after release. A positive sign of long term survival. Admittedly a sample size of one but indicative of success.

I had an extended email conversation with WDFW LE staff and Michele Culver about the descender rule for the ocean fisheries. Larry B raised the issue of why it was stricken from the regular WAC process as that would have been much cleaner for all concerned.

The following is from part of the email thread with Ms. Culver:

"The PFMC is not going to impose the descender device rule on the ocean sport fleet as you suggest. As I explained in my e-mail on February 21st (below), the descender device rule was not included in WDFW’s recent rulemaking, but will be part of a subsequent rulemaking that will be filed closer to the implementation date (July 1st)."

"At the March PFMC meeting, we will be informing PFMC of our recent changes to the bottomfish regulations (i.e., reductions in bag limits for bottomfish and rockfish and removal of the 22” minimum size limit for lingcod), and our intent to have a subsequent rulemaking regarding the descender device requirement."

This is the reply from Deputy Chief Cenci as to how the state will now implement the rule for the ocean fisheries:

" because the rule is necessary to support federal fisheries management, we can do this outside of the Commission process. Rule making authority of this nature has been delegated to the Director. I don’t see any reason why it can’t be in the rec pamphlet as well. An emergency rule will be executed to get it into place for July 1. Thanks – Mike."

Melanie and I went to the Seattle Aquarium two weeks ago to see Ray Troll, picked up a decender, some t-shirts and some c.d.'s. Rockfish Biotrauma was a hoot performed live. Now we have two decenders, although not the pricey one. Bob R

BB - Thanks for the additional information.

Ms. Culver's response begs the question of why Staff significantly altered the original stakeholder (PSA - Ron Garner) submitted rule change proposal which was (1) for all marine waters and (2) when fishing specifically for ling, cabezon, halibut and rockfish?

What came out was (1) for just Puget Sound and (2) whenever bottomfishing meaning even when fishing shallow waters (as in, no barotrauma even if one were to hook a rockfish) for perch, flounder, sole etc.

And now WDFW is going through some additional administrative processes to add back coastal coverage. Why this convoluted and confusing sequence of events?

Maybe under the concept of cooperation and transparency WDFW should engage with the original author of a rule change proposal which Staff "accepts" to move forward in that process but also decides to alter significantly.