Cabezon Season Reduction in WA - here we go again | Northwest Fishing Board | Piscatorial Pursuits' Outdoor Forums - Alaska / Washington Salmon, Steelhead, and Halibut Fishing

You are not logged in. [Log In] Piscatorial Pursuits Homepage » Forums » Open Community Boards » Northwest Fishing Board » Cabezon Season Reduction in WA - here we go again

Page 1 of 2

1

Topic Options

Rate This Topic

#835839 - 04/23/13 01:56 PM Cabezon Season Reduction in WA - here we go again
Chasin' Baitman Returning Adult Registered: 08/15/12 Posts: 253	http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/cabezon/ I was hoping this wasn't going to happen, but Commissioner Jennings is a tenacious fellow. Nevermind the fact that the tide seems to really be turning against him...he's proving to be a real go-getter. Just to re-iterate...this change may seem insignificant but in effect will close all bottomfishing in the sound to just 45 days a year. Right now it's 210 days, because Cabezon is open until Nov. 30th in most marine areas. Please don't say "this change doesn't really affect me because I don't fish for cabezon." This issue is less about cabezon and more about blunt, sweeping, unsubstantiated restriction of fishing opportunity. WDFW itself describes Cabezon numbers with the adjective "stable". Plain and simple, this is part of Jennings' (un-stated but obvious) plan to reduce all bottomfishing in WA to just 45 days a year. Despite the fact that science does not back him up. If we allow them to chip away at opportunity like this, then he will achieve his goal before our very eyes. One thing is for certain, public comment DOES matter. They tally the "for" and "against" comments and it actually is a factor in their decisionmaking. So it will be very important to comment, and to publicize.
Top

#835857 - 04/23/13 03:30 PM Re: Cabezon Season Reduction in WA - here we go again [Re: Chasin' Baitman]
AP a.k.a. Kaiser D Hippie Registered: 01/31/02 Posts: 4533 Loc: B'ham	Comment submitted. I support the limit of 1 and a minimum size restriction but I do not support cutting out the vast majority of the season.
Top

#835861 - 04/23/13 04:00 PM Re: Cabezon Season Reduction in WA - here we go again [Re: AP a.k.a. Kaiser D]
Dogfish Poodle Smolt Registered: 05/03/01 Posts: 10979 Loc: McCleary, WA	Done. By the way, while you are at it, send a message to the Governor and let him know your displeasure with Commissioner Jennings. _________________________ "Give me the anger, fish! Give me the anger!" They call me POODLE SMOLT! The Discover Pass is brought to you by your friends at the CCA.
Top

#835895 - 04/23/13 08:31 PM Re: Cabezon Season Reduction in WA - here we go again [Re: Dogfish]
Fishslayer75 Returning Adult Registered: 11/20/01 Posts: 397 Loc: Auburn	Sent _________________________ You don't catch fish, fishing catches you.
Top

#839125 - 05/17/13 03:30 PM Re: Cabezon Season Reduction in WA - here we go again [Re: Fishslayer75]
Chasin' Baitman Returning Adult Registered: 08/15/12 Posts: 253	This will only be interesting to folks who are up to speed on Commissioner Jennings shenanigans. The cab rule (May 1-June15) is on the table as ya know. If you haven't commented on this, DO IT NOW at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/cabezon/. Jennings is claiming that THERE ARE ONLY 8,000 CABEZON IN MA5-13!!! Unbelievable. Anyway, my job, in addition to trying to get people to comment on this BS, is to be a general sand in the vag for Jennings on this whole cab business. They attempted to make the May 1-June 15 change previously without soliciting public opinion. People cried foul and they reversed it. HOWEVER, one rule they didn't reverse was the change in the bag limit from 2 to 1. This was a surprise change, and it stuck. It stuck because a) the Commission wanted to appease Jennings and b) they know people don't care much about cabs. But this matters to me because procedure was not followed. And the more we let Jennings and the agency do this, the more they WILL do it. I filed a petition that would bind the Commission to review the two surprise rule changes. The petition was denied because the Commission reviewed the May 1-June 15 rule change and reversed it. I responded and said the petition should still be in force because of the surprise bag limit change. They responded saying the bag limit change will be reviewed in the Commission's June 7-8 meeting. I said great, you need to let the public know that so they can comment on it, like they WERE NOT allowed to do the first time. One of the staff actually responded with "Mr. O'Connor, at this time I will see if changing the website is an option. I'm not sure that it is." ...and also long cut-and-pasted copy about procedure that does not answer my question. If you're interested in this craziness, it's below. Quote: Tami, Thank you for spelling out the process. However, I am not asking that the department "advocate my particular interest". I am asking that the public be made aware of all non-emergency rule changes that are being considered. The public was not made aware that the bag limit on Cabezon was to be changed from 2 to 1, and has not been made aware that the bag limit change is to be reviewed. I understand that the Commission is in no way bound to public interests and opinion, nor should they be. But cutting the public out of the process is bad policy for a government institution. Why have a public commenting provision if it is only utilized at the whim of the agency? Why does RCW 34.05.340 even exist? The public needs to be informed of the decisions that are on the table, and the Commission listens to the public to get a broader view of the issue. I understand that I can make comments regarding rule changes at any time. But I am just one person. I only know the the bag limit is being reviewed because you told me (and only me). Once again, the problem is that the public will not comment on proposed rule changes that they are not made aware of. If public comment is not solicited, it will not be received. The Commission will not avail of a broader view on the change that the public could offer. Since Commissioner Jennings has come on board, he has pursued rule changes in a very suspect manner. With very little regard for procedure. Myself and many others have serious questions about how the Commission, the Department and even how the State government can allow this to continue. Rory O'Connor On 5/16/13 3:08 PM, Lininger, Tami L (DFW) wrote: > Hi Mr. O'Connor - sorry for the delay in responding. Here's a little further clarification on the rule-making process. > > In its simplest form, the rule-making process, (RCW 34.05) consists of three steps. First, an agency proposes a new or amended rule; in the Department's case, that consists of a staff recommendation as to what the staff would like to see as a new rule. The proposed rule is published in the Washington Register. At the proposed rule stage, an agency is not required to propose rules addressing all other known citizen interests or points of view. > > The second step is the public commenting provision. The publishing of a proposed rule triggers a public commenting opportunity. Public comments may be provided in writing and the agency must also hold an oral public hearing. The Code Reviser form CR-102 related to the proposed rule provides details about the commenting opportunity including the deadline for written comments, and the date, time, and place of the public hearing. > > The third stage is the rule adoption stage. In the Department's case, for most sports fishing rules, the Fish and Wildlife Commission takes the final rule adoption action. Prior to taking action on a proposed rule, the adopting authority is to review and consider the public comments, either in whole or in summary. In the F&W Commission's case, it usually holds the oral public hearing, so it hears that part of the public comment directly. The F&W Commission receives a number of written public comments directly, and receives a summary, written or oral, of the additional public comments the Department staff have received. > > Having been briefed by staff on their recommendations, and having considered the public comments, the Commission may take action on the proposed rule. The Commission may adopt it in total, may reject it (take no action) or may modify the proposed rule. On many occasions, the Commission makes modifications to a proposed rule based on public testimony. > > As this applies to the rule-making on cabezon, the Department staff have filed a proposed rule consisting of their recommendations. Staff recommendations may not address all of the existing sports fishing regulations on fishing for cabezon and may not include elements you desire. The same is likely true for the major sports fishing rule adoption that concluded a couple of months ago. The staff proposal is not required to contain every interest expressed by a member of the public. However, during the public commenting process, members of the public may express to the F&W Commission their view on the staff proposal, including other elements of the same subject matter. The Commission, after considering all of the information, may take action, adopting a rule that includes modifying the staff proposal or addressing other elements related to the same subject matter. > > In conclusion, the Department, in proposing a rule is not required to advocate your particular interest. You may and should provide your views to the Commission during the public input process, and the Commission will consider all of the provided information when it determines what if any action to take in adopting, amending or rejecting the proposed rule. > > Tami Lininger, Executive Assistant > Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission > 600 Capitol Way N, Olympia WA 98501-1091 > Phone: (360) 902-2267 > Email: commission@dfw.wa.gov or > WEB: http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/commission > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rory O'Connor [mailto:] > Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 9:32 AM > To: Lininger, Tami L (DFW) > Cc: Director (DFW) > Subject: Re: Petition related to Cabezon Rule Change #65 > > Tami, > > I appreciate the response spelling out the process. But my question still remains, how is the public to know that the bag limit is on the table? I haven't see anything in writing (other than this email thread) stating that the bag limit is under review by the commission. The public got short-cutted the first time around on this change and it seems we will be again. Why have there been no press releases about it and why can't this page be updated to reflect the bag limit topic? > http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/cabezon/. You won't get any comments for something the public is not aware of. > > Rory > > On 5/8/13 7:37 AM, Lininger, Tami L (DFW) wrote: >> Mr. O'Connor - >> >> On March 15, 2013 the Fish and Wildlife Commission approved amendments to rules adopted March 1: >> >> 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. >> >> The Commission will be seeking public comments on (WAC 220-56-235) restricting the cabezon season at the June 7-8 Commission meeting in Olympia Washington. The regulation pertaining to the daily limit for cabezon is also in this WAC. While the Commission took action March 15th regarding the daily limit for cabezon in Puget Sound, you can provide comment both in writing at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/cabezon/ and at the June Commission meeting regarding the daily limit for cabezon in Puget Sound. It is within the scope of the current rulemaking to amend the regulation regarding the daily limit for cabezon. >> >> Tami Lininger, Executive Assistant >> Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission >> 600 Capitol Way N, Olympia WA 98501-1091 >> Phone: (360) 902-2267 >> Email: commission@dfw.wa.gov or >> WEB: http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/commission >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Rory O'Connor [mailto:] >> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 10:55 AM >> To: Lininger, Tami L (DFW) >> Cc: Preuss, Lori (DFW) >> Subject: Re: Petition related to Cabezon Rule Change #65 >> >> Shouldn't the fact that the bag limit is being discussed be mentioned to the public on this page? >> http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/cabezon/ The public won't comment on something they don't know is on the table. >> >> On 5/6/13 10:12 AM, Lininger, Tami L (DFW) wrote: >>> Mr. O'Connor, the rule that is open and will come before the Commission during the June 7-8 meeting does also address the bag limit. Whether or not the department recommends the issue to the Commission is beside the point. It is still part of the open rule that will be heard and discussed at the meeting. At this point there is no need to refile your petition. >>> >>> Tami Lininger, Executive Assistant >>> Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission >>> 600 Capitol Way N, Olympia WA 98501-1091 >>> Phone: (360) 902-2267 >>> Email: commission@dfw.wa.gov or >>> WEB: http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/commission >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Rory O'Connor [mailto:] >>> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 9:55 AM >>> To: Preuss, Lori (DFW) >>> Cc: Lininger, Tami L (DFW); Director (DFW) >>> Subject: Re: Petition related to Cabezon Rule Change #65 >>> >>> The bag limit change does not appear to even be on the table at this point. If it is, and the public is invited to comment on it then it should be mentioned on this page: >>> >>> http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/cabezon/ >>> >>> If you like, I can re-submit the petition mentioning only that the bag limit change needs to be reviewed. Please let me know. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Rory >>> >>> On 5/6/13 9:27 AM, Preuss, Lori (DFW) wrote: >>>> Hi, Rory. If the commission decides not to adopt a rule that matches what's in the pamphlet, then we'll supersede the pamphlet info with an emergency rule. The public can submit written comments on the rule through May 31. The public also can comment at the June 7-8 commission meeting. Here's the location of the meeting: >>>> Natural Resources Building, Room 172 >>>> 1111 Washington St., SE >>>> Olympia, WA 98504 >>>> >>>> Lori Preuss, WSBA #33045 >>>> WDFW Criminal Justice Liaison >>>> & Rules Coordinator >>>> 600 Capitol Way North >>>> Olympia, WA 98501-1091 >>>> Phone: (360) 902-2930 >>>> Fax: (360) 902-2155 >>>> >>>> >>>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential information that is legally privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify this office by telephone at (360) 902-2930, and immediately return this message to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Rory O'Connor [mailto:] >>>> Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 9:23 AM >>>> To: Preuss, Lori (DFW) >>>> Cc: Lininger, Tami L (DFW); Director (DFW) >>>> Subject: Re: Petition related to Cabezon Rule Change #65 >>>> >>>> Lori, >>>> >>>> OK, thanks for the link. I see the CR-102 Supplemental. But my point is that the reduction of the bag limit from 2 to 1 has already been enacted (page 3 of the current regulations pamphlet) and the public was never given the opportunity to comment on it. Which is why I am requesting that my original petition be considered. >>>> >>>> Please let me know the next steps. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Rory O'Connor >>>> >>>> On 5/6/13 8:29 AM, Preuss, Lori (DFW) wrote: >>>>> Hi, Rory. Use this link, http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/development.html#12-18-008, and click on "2013 Recreational Fishing Rules." You'll see the link to the CR-102 Supplemental under that item. >>>>> >>>>> Lori Preuss, WSBA #33045 >>>>> WDFW Criminal Justice Liaison >>>>> & Rules Coordinator >>>>> 600 Capitol Way North >>>>> Olympia, WA 98501-1091 >>>>> Phone: (360) 902-2930 >>>>> Fax: (360) 902-2155 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential information that is legally privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify this office by telephone at (360) 902-2930, and immediately return this message to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Rory O'Connor [mailto:] >>>>> Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 10:48 AM >>>>> To: Preuss, Lori (DFW) >>>>> Cc: Lininger, Tami L (DFW); Director (DFW) >>>>> Subject: Re: Petition related to Cabezon Rule Change #65 >>>>> >>>>> Do you have a link the the CR-102 supplemental? >>>>> >>>>> On 4/24/13 1:36 PM, Preuss, Lori (DFW) wrote: >>>>>> Hi, Rory. The department is going to be filing a CR-102 Supplemental to cover the change to the cabezon rule. The commission will have another public hearing on the rule after that. The date, time, and location of the hearing will be listed in the CR-102 Supplemental. I think the goal is to file the CR-102 Supplemental next Wednesday, May 1. >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Rory O'Connor [mailto:] >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 3:45 PM >>>>>> To: Lininger, Tami L (DFW) >>>>>> Cc: Preuss, Lori (DFW); Director (DFW) >>>>>> Subject: Petition related to Cabezon Rule Change #65 >>>>>> >>>>>> Tami, >>>>>> >>>>>> In response to your letter (attached) notifying me of the denial of my petition, I would like to ask that the petition still be considered by the Commission. >>>>>> >>>>>> During the March 1 meeting in Moses Lake, the Commission adopted three restrictions regarding Cabezon: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. 18 inch minimum >>>>>> 2. Reduction of bag limit from two to one 3. Reduction of season to 45 days. >>>>>> >>>>>> #2 and #3 were not included in the CR-102 language presented to the public. >>>>>> >>>>>> During the conference call on March 15th, the Commission voted to overturn #3 (because of the short-cutting of public comment) but left #2 in place. >>>>>> >>>>>> The petition still needs to be considered because one rule (#2 above) was enacted without having been part of the original CR-102 language. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Administrative Procedure Act RCW 34.05.340 specifically addresses this, "Variance between proposed and final rule." >>>>>> >>>>>> Additionally, WDFW and/or the Commission needs to provide clear and concise evidence as to why these additional restrictions (both the bag limit and the season restriction, which is back on the table) are being considered, and how the impact of each restriction is to be measured when three are enacted at once. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have requested documents and found no clear information that supports such vast changes. And in the March 15 meeting Chair Wecker even remarks that the data are conflicting and unclear. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have re-attached a copy of the petition. Please let me know the next steps. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Rory O'Connor >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
Top

#839167 - 05/17/13 06:41 PM Re: Cabezon Season Reduction in WA - here we go again [Re: Chasin' Baitman]
Smalma River Nutrients Registered: 11/25/01 Posts: 2844 Loc: Marysville	Chasin-Baitman - I find the 8,000 cabezon estimate interesting; is there any documentation of where that estimate call from? Does the commission meeting notes have Jennings' comment stating that population estimate? In order to respond to that comment I need to know where it came from. Thanks Curt
Top

#839197 - 05/17/13 09:45 PM Re: Cabezon Season Reduction in WA - here we go again [Re: Smalma]
Ofishal Bizness Smolt Registered: 10/22/12 Posts: 79 Loc: Poulsbo, WA	Comment submitted as well as an email to the Governor. _________________________ If you want to eat wild seafood you should have to catch it and kill it. Member PSA Sno-King Alumaweld Blackhawk 202 - Merc 150 Optimax - Ofishal Bizness
Top

#839261 - 05/18/13 03:00 AM Re: Cabezon Season Reduction in WA - here we go again [Re: Smalma]
Lucky Louie Carcass Registered: 11/30/09 Posts: 2286	Originally Posted By: Smalma Chasin-Baitman - I find the 8,000 cabezon estimate interesting; is there any documentation of where that estimate call from? Does the commission meeting notes have Jennings' comment stating that population estimate? In order to respond to that comment I need to know where it came from. Thanks Curt David Jennings referenced this Jan. 2013 publication. As far as I can tell the boundaries of this study doesn’t include the Neah Bay Area. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01453/wdfw01453.pdf _________________________ The world will not be destroyed by those that are evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.- Albert Einstein No you can’t have my rights---I’m still using them
Top

#839265 - 05/18/13 08:46 AM Re: Cabezon Season Reduction in WA - here we go again [Re: Lucky Louie]
Smalma River Nutrients Registered: 11/25/01 Posts: 2844 Loc: Marysville	Lucky Louie - thanks very much; somehow missed see it. Just gave it a quick read and found it very interesting. Several things immediately jumped out to me. First the cabezon population estimate of 8,008 is just for the San Juan Islands. Obviously cabezons are found in other areas of Puget Sound (central sound and straits). Hard to believe that the total PS cabezon population is not several times that 8,000 estimate. Of the dozen rockfish species (PS rockfish, copper, quillback, black, yelloweye, yellowtail, brown, tiger, bocaccio, carney, widow, green strip) that were population abundances were estimated the ESA listed yelloweye (estiamte of 47,407) was the 5th most abundant. Curt Edited by Smalma (05/18/13 10:51 AM)
Top

#839271 - 05/18/13 10:44 AM Re: Cabezon Season Reduction in WA - here we go again [Re: Smalma]
ParaLeaks WINNER Registered: 01/11/03 Posts: 10513 Loc: Olypen	They certainly managed to come up with a number quickly. Those guys are good! _________________________ Agendas kill truth. If it's a crop, plant it.
Top

#839298 - 05/18/13 01:37 PM Re: Cabezon Season Reduction in WA - here we go again [Re: ParaLeaks]
Chasin' Baitman Returning Adult Registered: 08/15/12 Posts: 253	Sorry I actually mis-quoted him. He is claiming there are only 8,000 cabs in the san juans. Which is still a preposterous claim. It is from a report the department conducted (Lucky Lopuie posted it). Here is Jennings' cabezon tirade at the last conference call: http://www.thewhiteroom.com/samples/jennings_cabezon.mp3
Top

#839314 - 05/18/13 05:55 PM Re: Cabezon Season Reduction in WA - here we go again [Re: Chasin' Baitman]
Lucky Louie Carcass Registered: 11/30/09 Posts: 2286	Commissioner Conrad Mahnken Ph.D seems to oppose Jennings rant,(opinion) particularly about his CPUE assessment. It appears that Jenning is trying to make up his own science as he goes. Edited by Lucky Louie (05/18/13 06:36 PM) _________________________ The world will not be destroyed by those that are evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.- Albert Einstein No you can’t have my rights---I’m still using them
Top

#839343 - 05/18/13 11:00 PM Re: Cabezon Season Reduction in WA - here we go again [Re: Lucky Louie]
Jerry Garcia Registered: 10/13/00 Posts: 9160 Loc: everett	Jennings has a hypothesis, in his case an agenda, and picks and chooses bits and pieces of science to support his vision. _________________________ would the boy you were be proud of the man you are Growing old ain't for wimps Lonnie Gane
Top

#839379 - 05/19/13 12:06 PM Re: Cabezon Season Reduction in WA - here we go again [Re: Jerry Garcia]
bushbear River Nutrients Registered: 08/26/02 Posts: 4709 Loc: Sequim	Here is a link that can be helpful when working with the staff and the Commission on regulation changes: http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/
Top

#840215 - 05/23/13 03:40 PM Re: Cabezon Season Reduction in WA - here we go again [Re: bushbear]
Chasin' Baitman Returning Adult Registered: 08/15/12 Posts: 253	I just got a surprise call from Miranda Wecker, chair of the WDFW commission. She saw all the noise I was making about process and wanted to touch base personally. Probably to tell be to back off, in her polite manner. We talked for over an hour though, and let me tell you...that lady is awesome. She's a very thoughtful pragmatist. Exactly the kind of person we need on the commission and the exact opposite of Jennings. It's a shame she hasn't been re-appointed. I do pray that it will happen. Long story short...there's basically no hope that they will change the Cabezon bag limit back to 2. Which I knew...the idea was to hold Jennings' feet to the fire in terms of process. Send a message that cutting the public out - even for minor changes - will not be tolerated. The big issue is the season change (6 mos down to 45 days), which is on the table and will be discussed in their June 7-8 meeting. Mrs. Wecker was certainly very guarded about her opinion, but she did say that the department has received very little feedback on this rule change. Which is bad, bad, bad. Unless people let WDFW know that they don't want this change, the WDFW is going to make it. Please don't tell me again that you don't care because you don't fish for cabezon. the point is, they are chipping away at our fishing opportunities with unsubstantiated rule changes. If we let it happen, they will get to the fishery you care about soon enough. IF YOU HAVEN'T DONE THIS YET, DO IT NOW. GO TO THE PAGE BELOW AND TELL WDFW THAT YOU DO NOT SUPPORT THE SEASON CHANGE. DO IT NOW. http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/cabezon/comments.html If you need text, you can draw from my comments below. At this point, I am planning on going to Olympia to give public testimony for the June 7-8 commission meeting (if anyone else can go to give testimony, IT REALLY MAKES A DIFFERENCE). I will need to have my ducks in a row because I will only have 3 min to speak. Some possible topics to address: - With the 18" size restriction, the bag limit reduction already in place, and the potential season change reduction how can WDFW expect to measure the impact of any one of the changes? It leaves 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. - Massive (75%) reduction of saltwater fishing opportunity. No more enjoying sunny, calm summer afternoons bouncing jigs around rocks. Or stopping by the reef after salmon fishing to experience the joy of a jig hitting the rocks and the powerful downward lunges of a cabezon on the line. No more peaceful structure fishing when you're tired of the din of trolling for salmon or inhaling exhaust fumes. No more fishing for cabs in the summer/fall for any of the reasons we used to! -There is no convincing evidence to support this vast reduction in fishing opportunity. WDFW itself describes the population as "stable". - The claim that there are only 8,000 cabezon in the san juans does not measure up to reality. There were probably that many caught as by-catch when ling fishing this season. Anyone that bottomfishes in the san juans would laugh at that statistic. The report itself even states "Our abundance estimates should be considered likely minimum estimates and treated as relative indices between any treatment types". - Given all bottomfishing would close June 15 and salmon doesn't open until July 1 on most inside waters, there would be essentially NO saltwater fishing opportunity for ANY anglers during the two weeks of the summer that have the longest days. Are inside waters in that bad a shape that we are not allowed to fish for ANYTHING during the best 2 weeks of the summer? - The claim that this proposal is in response to the public who suggested it (re: rule 65) is preposterous. 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 the WFC site. Though all 5 were likely referred from the WFC site. 74 people were against making any changes to cabezon restrictions. Is it that easy for a tiny minority to introduce proposed rule changes? How does this special interest group have so much clout with the agency? - Why is the season reduction necessary since few people target cabezon, especially in light of the two cabezon restrictions that have already been enacted? Since lingcod and rockfish are closed on inside waters, they are not likely to be encountered as by-catch. Similarly, if you're trying to further protect rockfish by closing cabezon it's not going to be effective given that very few people target cabezon. - What else?
Top

#840222 - 05/23/13 04:10 PM Re: Cabezon Season Reduction in WA - here we go again [Re: ParaLeaks]
steeleywhopper Juvenile at Sea Registered: 03/22/06 Posts: 111 Loc: snohomish county	Comments sent
Top

#840229 - 05/23/13 04:40 PM Re: Cabezon Season Reduction in WA - here we go again [Re: steeleywhopper]
AP a.k.a. Kaiser D Hippie Registered: 01/31/02 Posts: 4533 Loc: B'ham	Only 8000 in the San Juans?
Top

#840286 - 05/23/13 09:03 PM Re: Cabezon Season Reduction in WA - here we go again [Re: AP a.k.a. Kaiser D]
Lucky Louie Carcass Registered: 11/30/09 Posts: 2286	It appears that adjustments to the green sheets happens on a frequent basis, with some out of scope with the original filing and comments not allowed to be given. When you get Craig Burley, Fish Management Division Manager involved in proposed rule changes (which is his job) things can go to hell in a hand basket-- real quick. Example, The rule submitted by Craig to the commission on March 1 to vote on didn’t even resemble the green sheet rule proposal that he originally submitted months earlier. I’d like to know how that happens? Without a comment period on the new additions. Considering all the rules involved, the process of rule making needs to be looked at and corrections made, so this doesn’t happen again. _________________________ The world will not be destroyed by those that are evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.- Albert Einstein No you can’t have my rights---I’m still using them
Top

#840292 - 05/23/13 10:01 PM Re: Cabezon Season Reduction in WA - here we go again [Re: Lucky Louie]
Geoduck Returning Adult Registered: 08/10/02 Posts: 437	This entire process has been a joke. This extended comment period in particular is laughable. They say they want comments but limit you to 250 characters. Pretty tough to say very much in that limited space. This simple post is 295 characters. Maybe I should just write a haiku--that would fit. _________________________ Dig Deep!
Top

#840295 - 05/23/13 10:05 PM Re: Cabezon Season Reduction in WA - here we go again [Re: Geoduck]
Geoduck Returning Adult Registered: 08/10/02 Posts: 437	Cab e zon tast y Now pro hib it ed, oh no Opp or tun it y _________________________ Dig Deep!
Top

Page 1 of 2

1

View All Topics

Moderator: Bob, Jerry Garcia, ReiterRat, Sky-Guy, The Moderator

Search

Site Links

Home
Our Washington Fishing
Our Alaska Fishing
Reports
Rates
Contact Us
About Us
Recipes
Photos / Videos

Visit us on Facebook

Piscatorial Pursuits on Facebook

Today's Birthdays

Dick laxton, Lil Blue Sled, Lil Red Sled, Solash, The Moderator, WeServe

Recent Gallery Pix

hatchery steelhead

Hatchery Releases into the Pacific and Harvest

2 registered (Carcassman, steely slammer), 1328 Guests and 1 Spider online.

Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod

Newest Members

John Boob, Lawrence, I'm Still RichG, feyt, Freezeout
11498 Registered Users

Top Posters

Todd	28170
Dan S.	17149
Sol Duc	16138
The Moderator	14486
Salmo g.	13523
eyeFISH	12767
STRIKE ZONE	12107
Dogfish	10979
ParaLeaks	10513
Jerry Garcia	9160

Forum Stats

11498 Members
16 Forums
63779 Topics
645375 Posts

Max Online: 3001 @ 01/28/20 02:48 PM

Join the PP forums.

It's quick, easy, and always free!

Working for the fish and our future fishing opportunities:

The Wild Steelhead Coalition

The Photo & Video Gallery. Nearly 1200 images from our fishing trips!

Tips, techniques, live weight calculator & more in the Fishing Resource Center.

The time is now to get prime dates for 2018 Olympic Peninsula Winter Steelhead , don't miss out!.

| HOME | ALASKA FISHING | WASHINGTON FISHING | RIVER REPORTS | FORUMS | FISHING RESOURCE CENTER | CHARTER RATES | CONTACT US | WHAT ABOUT BOB? | PHOTO & VIDEO GALLERY | LEARN ABOUT THE FISH | RECIPES | SITE HELP & FAQ |