Marine Area 4B proposals. Need your help!

The public comment period starts next week. I have documents in PDF format that I need converted so they can be viewed here. Help would be appreciated. I can send them via email.

The documents I am referring to are a set of PDF’s that discuss the proposed changes to fishing in Marine Area 4B. They state they wish to take the “’socio-economic impacts to local communities” into account. We'll see how that goes, but I did alert the Clallam County EDC as well as the Makah Tribe.

There is an opportunity to speak coming up on:

August 23rd 5:30-7:30 University Branch of the Seattle Public Library
5009 Roosevelt Way NE Seattle.

August 24th, 7:00-9:00pm at the DSHS office on 201 W First Street in Port Angeles

August 26th 7-9pm Room 175, Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington Street in Olympia

I would implore you to consider attending and speaking up on the various proposals. You don't have to be articulate, because I certainly am not.

There are lots of references made towards “non-consumptive users”, (Divers), and to date nobody has shown the economic impact of these non-consumptive groups. My guess is that commissioner Jennings has been hard at work, trying to get his dive park put in place, again.

Proposals include closing the long line fishery, select closures from the Sekui River to Tatoosh, and even a proposal for the closure of the area all around Tatoosh into area 4A east to Koilah Point with a small opening around the entrance of Neah Bay, and then 5 miles of shoreline east of Waddah.

Status quo would keep things where they are at today. Anything else would be a take-away. Also, there is no “Sunset Clause”, meaning that there is no mandatory time set to review any closures that would be put into place.

The proposed changes could essentially end the small boat fishery in Marine Area 4B. The last thing any community needs in this economic climate is a threat to their financial well being.

Hopefully you find this useful. I will be at the August 26th meeting in Olympia. This has the stink of "Jennings" all over it.

Andy

I can't help with the posting of the PDF's but will attend the mtg on the 23rd down the road.

Will be at the meeting in PA.

Still need help with the PDFs? If you send them to me I'll convert to jpgs that can be posted here.

Dan
danssmrat@hotmail.com

I've spent a ton of time with my kids over the past 10 years fishing that area in a 14' aluminum boat with a 25 hp outboard. Lots of time as a kid in my dad's 16 footer. Certainly don't want to see that fishery lost!

I'll get them to you tomorrow am.

Its past time to ask the commission or maybe the senate to remove Jennings if they can. Also, sierra club and others like them are part of the advisory committe, and they all like marine preserves with no options to reopen. There are voices of reason on the advisory committee but likley are drowned out.........

Andy,

Please send me the PDF's as well. I'll see what I can do to convert them for postings and submission to regional sport fishing newsletters in addition to what Ocean Sun does with the JPG files from the PDF's.

dm56@aol.com

I don't get up to Area 4 much anymore, but spent many days in 19 foot rental Lunds and in my 14 foot Olympian years ago.

While sport diving might provide some tourism, it could never produce the same level as sport fishermen.

Unfortunately, Neah Bay is not the friendliest place for any tourist, but that is another matter.

This would be awful. 90% of my salt water fishing is in MA4. Yeah, lets cram more people in Sekiu where there is not enough room for them and oh, yeah, the fishing is worse. I can't make the meeting but I could send a few letters. Who can I write to?

Send your e-mails here: Ami.Hollingsworth@dfw.wa.gov and here COMMISSION@dfw.wa.gov .

I have sent copyies of the data and the PDF's to those who wanted them. Here is the text of what is out there. I would like to post the maps so you can see just how far reaching the worst proposal is. Notice that all along the way they insert "non consumptive recreation".

As others involved have stated, there is already a 120 foot rule, which is essentially an MPA, so there is no need for yet another MPA. There would be NO FISHING in these closure areas, even for salmon, if anything other than the status quo option was approved.

Marine Area 4B Marine Fish Management
Draft Management Objectives and Alternatives for Public Comment
Marine Area 4B encompasses the waters in the western Strait of Juan de Fuca from the Sekiu River west to the Bonilla-Tatoosh line near Cape Flattery at Neah Bay.
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is in the process of developing specific management objectives and a range of alternatives for managing marine fish in this area. The process has been structured to include wide spread public input and began with the formation of an ad hoc focus group of interested citizens that provided input and advice to the department during the development of draft objectives and a range of alternatives that will be presented to the public at a series of meetings throughout the region.
The public is invited to comment on the draft management objectives and range of alternatives by either attending public meetings scheduled throughout the region or by providing comments in writing.
Public meeting schedule:
 August 23 – 5:30-7:30 p.m. University Branch of the Seattle Public Library, 5009 Rooselvelt Way NE, Seattle, WA
 August 24- 7:00-9:00 p.m. Department of Social and Health Services Office, 201 West First Street, Port Angeles, WA
 August 26- 7:00-9:00 p.m. Room 175 of the Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington Street SE, Olympia, WA
Send written comments by U.S. Mail or email through December 4, 2010 to:
Ami Hollingsworth
600 Capitol Way North
Olympia, WA 98501-1091
Ami.Hollingsworth@dfw.wa.gov
The department will brief the Fish and Wildlife Commission on the draft objectives and range of alternatives and the input received at the public meetings at their meeting December 2-4 in Olympia where there will be the opportunity for public testimony.

Draft Management Objectives
Management objectives for state managed recreational and commercial fisheries in Marine Area 4B will be defined using existing RCW’s, Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission Policies, the Puget Sound Groundfish Management Plan, and the Puget Sound Rockfish Conservation Plan. Marine Area 4B management objectives can be added provided that they are consistent with existing policies and objectives.
The following set of draft objectives were developed considering input from the Marine Area 4B Focus Group
 Conserve bottomfish resources and where data are limited apply a precautionary approach
 Use best available science emphasizing site specific data for managing bottomfish resources in Marine Area 4B
 Alternatives for bottomfish management will consider socio-economic impacts to local communities
 Management alternatives will provide fishing opportunity on healthy stocks of bottomfish, halibut and salmon and recreational opportunities for non-consumptive users
 Adopt regulations that are enforceable
Draft Alternatives
Management alternatives were developed to consider a broad range of options

Status Quo-Current Regulations
A status quo alternative would maintain existing regulations for bottomfish in Marine Area 4B necessary for the long term sustainability of bottomfish populations while providing for a variety of uses including non-consumptive recreational opportunities.
Sport Fishing Regulations:
Management Area: Bonilla-Tatoosh line east to the Sekiu River.
Retention of rockfish other than black or blue prohibited.
Bottomfish season: Open year-round.
Fishing for bottomfish prohibited in waters deeper than 20 fathoms year-round.
Bag limit: Aggregate bottomfish limit of 15 per day; no more than 6 rockfish (black or blue only), 2 lingcod and 2 cabezon.
Lingcod season: Open mid-April through mid-October, minimum size 24 inches.
Halibut season: Halibut fisheries are based on quotas determined by the International Pacific Halibut Commission and season structures described in the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s Catch Sharing Plan. Typically the season opens in mid May, two days per week until the quota is obtained. Bag limit: one fish per day.
Salmon season: salmon seasons are set during the North of Falcon process through the Pacific Fishery Management Council.
Commercial Fishing Regulations:
Management area: western boundary Bonilla-Tatoosh line.
Long line fishery landing limits:
Sablefish: 300 pounds per landing, no more than 600 pounds per month
Rockfish/lingcod: No more than 30 pounds per landing
Lingcod slot limit: 26-40 inches
Bottomfish pot fishery allowed with special permit issued by the Director

Alternative 1
The intent of this alternative is to enhance the quality of consumptive and non-consumptive recreational opportunities by taking a more conservative management approach intended to increase the abundance of bottomfish. Management measures under this alternative would include more restrictive regulations that would limit seasons, area or daily limits. The following proposal was developed considering input from the Area 4B Focus Group.
Sport Fishing Regulation Proposals:
A) Reduce the aggregate bottomfish limit from 15 to 12 per day maintaining current sub limits for rockfish (6 black or blue), lingcod (2), and cabezon (2); or
B) Reduce the aggregate bottomfish limit from 15 to 10 per day maintaining current sub limits for rockfish (6 black or blue), lingcod (2), and cabezon (2).
Commercial Fishing Regulation Proposals:
Close long line bottomfish fishery.
Retain the permit only bottomfish pot fishery.


Alternative 2
This alternative considers closed nearshore areas to bottomfishing that would provide additional protection for bottomfish and increased non consumptive recreational opportunities in Marine Area 4B.
Figure 1 depicts six potential areas developed based on input from the Area 4B Focus Group to consider and comment on as potential areas that would be closed to bottomfishing from 0-20 fathoms.
Although there are six areas presented for public comment it is not necessarily intended that all of them would be closed under this alternative. Comments should reflect pros and cons for each of the areas and which area(s) should be considered under this alternative.

Alternative 3
Alternative three would provide protection for all marine resources and maximize non-consumptive recreational opportunities by establishing near shore no-fishing zone(s) for all fish, shellfish and other invertebrates in the western Strait of Juan de Fuca.
Figure 2 depicts an area extending east of Tatoosh Island to the entrance of Neah Bay in addition to the six areas depicted in Alternative 2 for discussion. Although there are multiple areas presented for public comment it is not necessarily intended that all of them would be closed under this alternative. Comments should reflect pros and cons for each of the areas and which area(s) should be considered under this alternative.

Here are the maps they refer to as figure 1 and figure 2.



The Tatoosh to Koitlah closure zone is eerily similar to the dive park closure area Jenning proposed last year.

There are already restrictions from 120 feet and out, making that an MPA. We don't need another MPA.

Option 2 & 3 indicate non- consumptive use, I believe they have non-consumptive use now.

Hey, isn't it open to bottomfishing wherever the diving isn't so good?

I'm not a diver, so I wouldn't know. Are you saying that the areas set for closures are areas of particular interest to divers?

For clarification, it appears that Alternative 2 provides for closure of bottom fishing whereas Alternative 3 provides for closure to ALL comsumptive use (in those discrete areas identified on the respective maps).

Note that one of the management objectives is to have regulations that are enforceable. Frankly, any regulation is "enforceable." The real issue is whether the regulations are reasonably understood and that the public can reasonably comply. Chopping up that coastline into multiple sections does not seem to meet my criteria of reasonability. Fog, wind, tides, fog, fog.....

And I am particularly peeved by the implication that there is a need for less fishing opportunity in order to provide for non-consumptive recreation. That is a form of elitism. Nothing currently prevents non-consumptive recreation but what those non-consumptive users want is their own private aquarium. Nuts to that! If the bottom fish resource/fishery is properly managed for a healthy, sustainable population then that should be good enough for the dive community.

Re: Alternate 1, is there really a viable non-tribal long line fishery in this area? Or is this simply a red herring to get the sport fishing community to buy into this alternative?

The long line fishery in that area typically takes place in waters deeper than 200 feet. The bulk of the fishermen who long line fish in that area are tribal fishermen. There are likely some non-tribal long liners up there, but I don't think the impact would be as hard felt (except if you are one of those few) as essentially making Neah Bay a "salmon only" destination fishery.

Dogfish,

I don't know how interesting the proposed closed areas are to divers; I was being a bit of a smart ass. But it seems like the proposed closed areas are the preferred bottom fishing areas. Does the plan describe anywhere the ecological need for closing any of these areas to bottomfishing in order to conserve bottomfish? That would seem to be the tripwire criterian for closure. Otherwise, why? For Jennings?

Complete closures are one way to increase conservation if it's necessary. Another is reduced limits. Another is reduced seasons. Complete closures are typical management actions when less restrictive measures won't achieve the necessary conservation objective.

Sg

DF: Your input generally supports my perception that there is little non-tribal long lining in that area so the closure of that type of commercial fishing will have little impact on the near shore resource as tribal interests will continue their activities (re: Alternative 1).

Sg - If only it were so....review of the history of this monster clearly shows a genesis in a desire by Commissioner Jennings for a "world class dive site" at the expense of recreational fishermen.

what the heck is a "non-consumptive" user ??

must be REALLY special since it/they/da corporation get to have exclusive rights.

just wondering....

would BP energy be given exclusive rights to this area ?

What do the tribes and citizens get in return for handing over these rights, periwinkle ?

Your honorable Chris G
your boy is giving away tribes, states, and citizens rights to corporations in a time of runaway government corruption....
should we continue this discussion ?

For those on this board who are not familiar with the area 4B, here are a few photos from the area.

The fish photos were made prior to the current regulation, but just for fun, do you know which is which and which is legal?

Pardon my misspelling of Waadah, I've seen it spelled at least different ways since I first fished it in 1964.

I'm currently requesting some information from WDFW before sending comments, but among my thoughts are that leaving it as it is is the best option.

Not all of the area is prime bottom fishing and some species are migratory to some extent, Pelagic rockfish such as Blacks, Blues, Widows, Yellowtail.

I am a bit puzzled that Widows and Yellowtail rockfish are not part of the legal rockfish limit as they are pelagics and move sometimes in vast schools. A simple fish identification poster placed at boat ramps could quickly educate fishermen new to the fishery.

As beautiful as it is, when the weather isn't kicking your behind, I don't see how non-comsumptive use could provide economic benefit nearly equal to sport fishing to the area.

Changing the bottomfish limit doesn't make sense to me either, as long as limits have been set for rockfish, lings and cabezone that should take care of it.

I doubt that many sport fishermen fishing Marine area 4B are going there to limit out on sand dabs, sole and Irish Lords.

The bottom fish regs were just changed to eliminate bottom fishing in depths greater than 120 feet and rockfish retention to just the two pelagic species. Now the goal to chop it up further. This is simply unacceptable!

Guess if you are going after lings and want live bait (greenling, flatfish, rockfish) the changes to daily catch limit(s) proposed under Alternative 1 would have an impact. Again, the question is why? What is the biological basis for this?

Of course, the answer is not to be found in the biology. It is the "will" of those other folks on the advisory group. Glad that we have some strong representation on that group or we would be looking at most at only two alternatives (#3 for sure; #2 a maybe).

Oh, and I have to wonder what Government to Government communication has been accomplished since last year between WDFW and the Makahs regarding this whole concept. They were not just a little bit unhappy and expressed their feelings at Commissioner Jennings' confirmation hearing which was painful to watch. I even felt sort of sorry for the guy (glad I wasn't in his shoes at that moment).

Sebastes. Black, Yellowtail, Vermillion, and Blue.

By the WDFWs admission of their own available science, Black, blue, and yellow tail rockfish are considered healthy in 4b. Also, Kelp Greenling, Lingcod, and Cabezon also fall into the "health" catagory in 4b. WDFW wants to take a conservative approach, which they did last year with the 6 black/blues, 20fathom restriction, etc. They reason I think they want to take more is there is individual members within WDFW that want to create these world class non-consumptive zones, other than Jennings, ONE. And TWO, citizen enviormentalist push for this (along with the push for MRs/MPAs) is strong and DFW is listening.

Hypothetically, if you were and pro-MPA self-proclaimed enviromentalist, and you wanted to hang your hat on an MPA that you helped create, wouldn't the Western straits be the ultimate prize? Getting a MPA/MR smack dab in the middle of the heatltiest and most diverse bottomfish populations within WDFW groundfish management area (PFMC manages groundfish in the ocean west of the bonilla/tatoosh line) would be a big prize indeed. Especially since you as an pro MPA enviro would ultimately like to eventually see up to 50% of the straits and puget sound restricted to non-consumptive use, it would be a monumental building block for your agenda right? If you can manipulate science to propose/introduce closures in the heathiest areas, than it would be easy to propose/introduce closures at less healthy areas to the east.

That's what ia happening in my opinion.

Larry B. You asked about the Makahs and how they feel. This as much effects the community of Sekiu/Clallam Bay. It seems like the majority of anglers out of MA5 partake in MA4s bottomfish regs. If a big chunk of water inside of 20fathoms west of the Sekiu River is closed to bottomfish, than there wouldn't be as much incentive to selectively fish salmon that far away from puget sound. If I were the owner of Olsens/VanRipers/Curleys/Coho/Spring Tavern/PBs/Clallam Texico, etc, I'd be all over this as well.

We are already in the process of contacting the Sekiu/Clallam Bay Chamber, Clallam County EDC, Makah tribe, sporting goods stores in PA, and just about everybody we can think of.

Any ideas of who else needs to be contacted would be appreciated.

JD - No slight meant to all of the other users of that resource; myself included. However, we seem to be just a little squeek whereas the tribal interests (Gov't to Gov't) seems to be a roar. I would much rather have the roar on our side in this instance.

Also, this is certainly a case where legislative interest could be helpful. After all, one can have diving AND fishing.

Trust me, the Makah Nation is involved.

No slight taken at all here. And you're right. As Andy said, the Makah are aware of the situation. The Director and the Tribe have recently discussed this and that discussion would be an interesting one to over hear. The tribe has had an ear in the 4b meetings leading up to the upcomming public comment period.

What what really erks me, as it should others that fish finfish in the straits/san juans/puget sound/hood canal is that this proposal seems to be a stepping stone towards non-science based mass restrictions in recreational fishing in all marine waters from 4b to 13. Some of those that are pushing these 4b closures have also suggested no fishing zones such as one that extends from Possesion Point to Point No Point in MA9. Whether one fishes MA4b or not, the puget sound recreational fishing community should not stand by while these entities try and close entire sections of our marine waters to recreational fishing.

Those who are pushing this are being led by commissioner David Jennings.

This is a battle and it has started. We are the last of the continental 48 coastal states and it is coming. The east coast got slaughtered as did California, Oregon is in the works, and we are at the end of the road of the continental 48, Better step up and help. MA4B/5 is only one area. DNR is looking at trying to take Smith and Protection Island. Some PEWS affilitates have been out looking at Westport.


Keep in mind that the three WDFW groundfish staff chose only one person to be on both of the rockfish advisory groups. Jamie Glasgow of Wild Fish Conservancy. From what I understand WFC has 22 full time paid staff members. PSA had our own Ken Pinnel from the PS Rockfish group offer but was not selected for both. Only one person (environmentalist) was selected and not a sportfish advocate.
How do you feel about this?


Take a look at the RFA Letter. What is your fishing worth to you? Most goups use junk or citizen based science taylored to shut off fisheries.


NY FISHING INDUSTRY MEETS FEDERAL OFFICIALS ON LONG ISLAND
NOAA Meets With RFA & Allies At Request of Sen. Charles Schumer



Forest Hills, NY - On Thursday, August 12, the Long Island fishing community was granted it first opportunity to meet personally with the woman in charge of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Dr. Jane Lubchenco. About two dozen representatives of the New York fishing industry including representatives from the recreational fishing sector were invited by Sen. Charles Schumer to participate in the meeting with Dr. Lubchenco at Oakland's Restaurant overlooking Shinnecock Inlet in Hampton Bays.

"It was an appropriate location seeing as how the docks were loaded with boats which used to be out on the water fishing in previous summers," said Jim Hutchinson, Jr., Managing Director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance. "Then when you look out on the jetty which used to be lined with fluke fishermen this time of year and see only about five or six anglers, you know things are way off."

Sen. Schumer told the crowd gathered that the current summer flounder regulations in New York had "put the industry on death's door," and urged the NOAA Administrator to work to secure the best available science for the entire recreational industry. "Nobody wants to see overfishing, but they want to see the science done in a rational way," the senator said in his opening remarks. He went on to support the Mid Atlantic Marine Fishery Council's (Council) Science and Statistical Committee (SSC) and Monitoring Committee (MC) newly recommended acceptable biological catch recommendations of between 32 and 34 million pounds of fluke which are being presented before the Council this week.

"We need more quota for 2011," Sen. Schumer told Dr. Lubchenco, who pledged to do what she could to support the senator's request. The SSC and MC also issued recommendations for increasing the allowable catch of porgy in 2011 from anywhere between 15 percent to nearly 200 percent.

In Dr. Lubchenco's opening remarks, she said her administration was "guided by scientific information....guided by the rule of law, Magnuson Stevens." Hutchinson was then asked to follow-up and open the session by addressing some of the immediate needs of New York's recreational sector. "First, we stressed to Dr. Lubchenco the need to see maximum total allowable landings for 2011 as Sen. Schumer requested, which can provide assistance to our fishing community by allowing us highest overall quota recommended at the Council meeting," Hutchinson said. "That will certainly provide some much-need relief for our New York anglers in 2011."

On the topic of science and data collection, Dr. Lubchenco announced the release of a new memo of understanding by NOAA Fisheries recognizing that New York's angler registry information from the new saltwater license would be synched up with the federal government database later in the fall, a point that Hutchinson added wasn't exactly good news, but rather an admission of failure by NOAA. "Dr. Lubchenco claimed to be guided by Magnuson Stevens, yet that federal law required this angler contact information be made available to federal fisheries surveyors as of 2009, not this coming fall," he said.

"By Dr. Lubchenco's own account, we're not going to see any improvement to our recreational harvest data for at least another year, which means NOAA Fisheries is in violation of federal law," Hutchinson said. From a biological perspective, RFA believes there's no reason not to allow for substantial increase in quotas in 2011 for summer flounder and scup.

"In light of what we just heard from NOAA's chief regarding another season of missing angler data, getting maximum allowable catch is the fairest approach considering the noted lack of improved science," Hutchinson said. "We're bound by a fatally flawed system once again," he said.

Recreational fishing representatives at the Hamptons bay included Capt. Joe McBride of the Montauk Boatmen's and Captains Association, Chris Squeri of the Marine Trades Association and United Boatmen representatives Capt. Paul Forsberg of the Viking Fleet, Capt. Desi O'Sullivan from the Celtic Quest and Kathy Risi of the Trade Winds Sportfishing and Captree Boatmen's Association. "We're not asking for handouts, we're just looking for a helping hand," said John Mantione of the New York Fishing Tackle Trades Association (NYFTTA). Mantione who owns J&J Sports of Patchogue was one of a handful of business leaders unable to miss a day of business to attend the forum, but said he was thankful for Sen. Schumer for putting this together on behalf of the beleaguered recreational fishing industry in New York.

Schumer pledged to continue working with NOAA Fisheries to get help for the recreational sector, which includes looking at a new regional approach to fisheries management in the state. Hutchinson explained that one blanket season for the entire marine district was hurting business opportunities in New York by restricting access to healthy fisheries. "We'd like Dr. Lubchenco to ask the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and the federal statistical folks to work with New York State to look at split seasons, particularly with regard to fluke," Hutchinson said. "It would be helpful if we could open the fluke season earlier in the spring for East End and North Fork anglers, while extending the season later into the fall for our South Shore, Brooklyn and Staten Island fleets to the west." Hutchinson said such an approach could be well-replicated in other states where coastal catches vary region to region.

As spokesman for the national RFA, President of the New York Sportfishing Federation and governmental affairs representative for NYFTTA, Hutchinson stressed that one of the most critical items for NOAA scientists to look at moving forward is the methodology used for tabulating recreational harvest. "The way our recreational fishery is managed is wrong in terms of pounds of fish," Hutchinson said, adding "it's unfair to manage recreational fishermen the same way as commercial."

For the past 10 years, the recreational industry has asked for fishery management plans to be changed to recognize the number of fish caught in the recreational sector as opposed to pounds. The RFA charges that such a plan leads to an inflated quota due to the way recreational fisheries are managed by statistical modeling. "Every time we increase the size limit to curb overall harvest when setting a fishing season, we actually increase the size of each harvested fish and the release mortality, and in turn the weight of the fish caught in pounds increases. It's the quintessential Catch 22 and it's destroying the recreational fishing community's ability to properly manage fisheries," Hutchinson explained.

"Amendments to the management plans take years, but we have an emergency here, and this is a way to fix it," Hutchinson added. "If NOAA is truly committed to being open and to helping our recreational sector, this is something that the administration can fast track on our behalf, and on behalf of better science," he said.

MAFMC meets at the Holiday Inn at 400 Arch Street in Philadelphia, PA today (August 16) through Thursday, with members set to finalize management measures for 2011 and adopt recommendations for next season's commercial and recreational harvest levels for sea bass, scup and summer flounder on Wednesday (August 18) starting at 8 a.m. For full agenda, look for the latest news at www.mafmc.org.


Keep in mind that if PSA thought this area was in jeopardy, we would surely step forward, but having a long history of this area and my fishing backyard. I do not agree with a closure of any kind as of right now.

I wrote letters to the commission and got back the standard reply that they will take my comments into consideration.

The alternatives description states that "non-consumptive" recreational practices are maximized by establishing near shore no fishing zones.

I am calling [censored] on this. Establishing no fishing zones only eliminates fishing opportunity and has no bearing on other "recreational practices" in this area.

Well, it may be true if you believe 'recreational practice' includes some whack-o getting a hard one thinking about fishing closures.... maybe the wack-o's next step is the activity referred to as "non-consumptive" recreational practice ?

As for sportsmen being on one of these kangaroo court advisory groups, seems to me it is a lot like being a car parked under the light post at the beach.

Jaydee,

Spot on on the ID, I thought the Vermillion might puzzle some.

I'm really concerned that some individuals think closing areas is the answer to saving the resource.

There definitely can be reasons to close or place a moratorium on some species to aid recovery, but the MPA concept is ill-founded in my opinion.

The moratorium on Puget Sound Lingcod many years ago is an example of successful fisheries management.

As far as Rockfish are concerned, I don't think the 120 depth restriction is practical, if I were writing the regs it would be no deeper than 60 feet since any rockfish brought up from more than two atmosphere's will blow it's air bladder and likely die if released unless release methods to offset decompression are used.

I can hear the howls about that suggestion!

Certainly fish without swim bladders such as Lingcod can be taken and released at much greater depths.

As sport fisher folks we need to step up and inform the WDFW, the WDFW Commission and our legislative representatives our concern about proper management of our fish and game resources.

If we don't get our point out loud and clear, other special interest groups with different agenda's will likely become successful.

Who on this site is a diver and fisherman that dives this area? I need some divers to get with so we can write letters stating that fishing has not harmed this area and that they see no reason whatsoever to make a non fishing dive park.

I am putting letters together against this closure on behalf of PSA. We need a big support to stop this. This is just the beginning of closures.

Please email me at rgarner755@aol.com if you dive this area.
Thanks
Ron Garner

Washington State Marine Area 4B

Comments by Doug Wilson, Monroe, WA.

As a Washington resident who has fished Marine Area 4 and 4B, both as a sport fisherman and as a licensed commercial hand-line jigger at times over the past 45 years, I would like to make some observations about the fishery, the economic impact of the fishery and tourism to the area.

Much of the concern about Marine area 4B is related to bottomfish, primarily Rockfish, Lingcod, and Cabezone.
Concerns about Rockfish populations appear to be the major issue.

Gone are the days when Rockfish were considered scrap fish. They have become an integral part of the fishery at the western end of the Strait of Juan DeFuca where populations are still healthy according to WDFW.

Reductions of bag limits instituted in 2010 in Marine Area 4 are a wise, if somewhat conservative move to protect this valuable resource.

I recall the early days of my fishing there when rockfish limits were 25 fish per day and many people didn’t even realize that there were set limits. Being a salmon oriented culture very few sport anglers’ targeted rockfish in the 1960’s, considering them a nusience fish.

Salmon anglers were warned; “stay away from Duncan Rocks, those blankety-blank sea bass will drive you nuts and run you out of bait”.

As our salmon fisheries became more restricted in the 1980’s, rockfish became a more targeted fish, particularly in Puget Sound.

Since Demersal Rockfish were the primary species in Puget Sound, intensive fishing resulted in vastly reducing the population, resulting in out present day condition of rockfish no longer being legal to retain in Puget Sound, the San Juan Islands and the eastern Strait of Juan DeFuca.

There is no doubt in my mind that we closed the barn door too late in regard to fisheries management of rockfish populations in Puget Sound and the San Juan Islands.

However, current management of rockfish in Marine Area 4B provides a
viable fishery with reasonable retention limits. We should be able to have a sustainable resource fishery without further restrictions or closed areas in 4B.

I propose that there are three factors to be considered in area 4B.

Under current regulations on pelagic rockfish Sebastes melonops and Sebastes mystinus, commonly known, as Black and Blue rockfish are the only rockfish legal to retain.

These pelagic rockfish are migratory and unlikely to be over-fished due to the fact that they, unlike Demersal rockfish move throughout the year at times great distances.
In future regulation settings, I would recommend that Yellowtail and Widow RF which are also pelagic be included in the sport fishing limit in open Washington waters.

A second factor in area 4B is the weather. Weather conditions in the western Strait of Juan DeFuca limit the number of days of effectively fishing the area.

Reasonable retention limits currently in effect should provide a sustained sport fishery without closing sections of Marine area 4B.
There currently are proposals to close sections of 4B and make it non-consumptive areas.

It is my understanding that these areas would hopefully attract tourism in the form of scuba diving activities. Since there is ample opportunity for divers to visit these areas already, closure to fishing does not seem justified, particularly when the economic impact of lost revenue to the communities and businesses on the Olympic Peninsula from Port Angeles to Neah Bay may occur. In fact the economic impact may indeed effect a greater portion of Washington State.

How much revenue would the Washington State Ferry System suffer if fishermen stopped going to area 4B or area 4?

The money that I and others spend in the Seattle area where I live, then on the WSF, then in Port Angeles, Sekui and Neah Bay could be lost if portions of Marine area 4B were no longer available and I and other anglers said, it isn’t worth going.

The groceries I buy in Port Angeles, the meals in Clallam Bay and Neah Bay won’t happen if I don’t go, nor will the resorts and charter boats see any money that I might spend.

Restricting fishing areas in 4B will only result in economic suffering for businesses in the region. It is unlikely that it will increase other tourism to offset these losses.

The area in 4B offers safer fishing conditions for small boats at times when the open ocean is dangerous, which can be frequently. Eliminating areas from Tatoosh Island and eastbound will negatively effect safe areas for small boaters that cannot safely fish the open ocean of area 4 during difficult weather.

For these reasons, I urge the WDFW Commission and WDFW to stay with the current regulations and designations for Marine area 4B.

Respectfully,

Doug Wilson

Doug Wilson is a Monroe, Washington freelance outdoor writer who has fished rockfish from northern California to the Gulf of Alaska. He is the co-author of New Techniques for Catching Bottom Fish, published in 1977 and an advocate of shallow water fishing for rockfish.

Hey gang,

If this was posted earlier I apologize but...

The meeting is tomorrow Monday, August 23 5:30 At the Seattle Public Library 5009 Roosevelt Way NE

I hope to see many of you there!

Thanks for the reminder TJN. Missed the show yesterday because I was fishing at Westport with Go Harley (Rick).

Did you happen to cover the topic? It would have been nice to get a WDFW commissioner or even Phil on the radio. Phil Anderson couldn't though, because he was taking a boat load of friends out for a "fun fish".

Oh, yeah.

Tobeck is on the warpath again.

We covered it in the first and third hour. I will post a link to the podcast as soon as it's available.

Well I'll be at the Oly meeting Thursday. If anybody is there, say hi.

Seattle turnout was fairly light, maybe 20 people with about a dozen making recorded comments.

All were sport fishermen speaking in favor of the status quo.

It was a rather polite meeting.

I felt that the WDFW staff came up short on scientific data for any further restrictions on the area, but that is only my opinion.

This is just the beginning of discussion. We as sport fishermen need to be actively involved.

The current proposals came from an ad hoc focus group. I can't help but wonder if there was a lack of sport fishing interest involved?

Thanks for going Doug. We appreciate the report.

From the data I've got from those behind the scenes, there has been an exceptional amount of effort that folks have not seen. I would hope that there is a fairly lively discussion in PA tomorrow, as I and others have worked with official governments to make sure all who may be affected in Sekiu and Neah Bay were informed an encouraged to show up. One day last week filled my in-box pretty full.

For those of you in Clallam County, please make the trip to PA and speak your piece. This is our chance to use our voice, or lose the fishery.

Great to meet you last night Doug! I even got to meet Jerry Garcia!!
I too was surprised at the light turnout but pleasantly surprised that 100% of the public comment was in favor of "Status Quo".

By the way, here is the link to the Neah Bay discussion podcast.

We have until Dec 4 to submit written comments so you have plenty of time. The Commission will rule on this matter in Feb 2011.

Send written comments by U.S. Mail or email through December 4, 2010 to:
Ami Hollingsworth
600 Capitol Way North
Olympia, WA 98501-1091
Ami.Hollingsworth@dfw.wa.gov
The department will brief the Fish and Wildlife Commission on the draft objectives and range of alternatives and the input received at the public meetings at their meeting December 2-4 in Olympia where there will be the opportunity for public testimony.

The meeting was interesting, I was surprised that there wasn't one diver in attendance. I was not surprised by the lack of attendance by sportfishers. It was the usual cast of characters carrying the water for thousands. Two commissioners were in attendance to hear the public testimony, Conrad Mahnken and I believe the other one was Bradley Smith.

Commissioner Rollie Schmitten (sp) was there.

I am wondering who were on the ad hoc focus groups that came up with the suggestions.

If there were any experienced Marine Area 4B fishermen on this group I would really like to hear there reasoning for the input that recommended proposals for greater restrictions.

It was good to see and meet Jerry Garcia, Tom Nelson and Ron Garner from this board at the meeting, and Bear Holmes who is heavily involved in Puget Sound rockfish issues.

I was pleased that everyone who made public comment was from the sport fishing community.

I was unconvinced by some of the data and answers by the WDFW staff, but am certainly interested in receiving more data.

I am not a trained fisheries person, but I have thousands of hours on the water experience in pursuit of rockfish from northern California to the Gulf of Alaska.

Nice to see the other board members in attendance and I thought all did a good job of making their points.

I had a short but pleasant conversation with Rollie Schmitten and (I assume) his wife after the meeting. Rollie, like me, started going to Neah Bay in the mid 50’s with his grandfather and father so he is connected with the area and familiar with the fishery. He will also be at tonight’s meeting in PA. Rollie is a sports fisher; he and his wife were telling me how much fun they were having this year limiting out on Lake Wenatchee sockeye. Seemed like a pretty nice couple and he is genuinely interested in this particular topic.

Connie Mahnken, (another nice guy) told us there would be at least one Commissioner at each of the public meetings. I encourage you all (especially Andy) to introduce yourself to any of the Commissioners present and also to the Department staff if you have the opportunity and please thank the Commissioners for attending. Remember, it's the Commission that we have to convince.

I agree with Doug in that the science is lacking and I would also add that I felt the Department was not well prepared for the meeting; they were not able to answer some of the questions, seemed a bit unfamiliar with the proposed restricted areas and in-fact could not identify all the boundaries. When asked if they would be better prepared for subsequent meetings, the answer was “not likely”. Kind of makes you wonder who came up with the “plan”.

In any case, I suspect the PA meeting will be better attended, more vocal, less polite and more emotional. I would love to be at all the meetings but I have conflicts for tonight and Thursday.

Bear

The staff said that ling cod numbers had been steadily improving as rockfish numbers dipped. I brought up the thought that I would expect rockfish numbers to plateau or dip if apex predator(ling cod) numbers were increasing. Also brought up was the idea that the new reductions in the limits has been in effect for 3 months which is not enough time to see if it helps.

Hi Bear,

I'm pretty sure they know who I am, but I will make certain to introduce myself.

I wonder if they'll postpone the meeting for 30 minutes while they consult with legal counsel like they at a commission meeting earlier this year when I brought up an ethics topic.

Not sure which direction I'll take just yet.

I know you will do us proud Andy and I certainly appreciate all your “behind the scenes” work on this. I think you are spot-on getting the MTC, Chambers of Commerce and small businesses involved. Yes it is critically important for sportsmen to voice their concerns, but the harsh reality is that if many more fishing restrictions happen in that area families are going to suffer financially; that message needs to be delivered to the Commission... with passion.

So how was PA's meeting last night?

it was exactly as slowleak described
"In any case, I suspect the PA meeting will be better attended, more vocal, less polite and more emotional."

good meeting with no comments in support of closing areas, although it certainly drifted off topic with rants about tribal fishing, offshore factory ships, salmon closures, and numerous other off-topic subjects.

good turnout in PA. kudos to WDFW for having a meeting close to those effected.

Any support from the Makah at the meeting? I would expect them to show up because they have another avaneue available to them, but it would be interesting to know if someone from the Tribe spoke publicly. Also, was the Peninsula Daily News there?

I don't know if PDN was there or not. There was no one I recognized as a Makah Tribal Member there, and no testimony was given from that standpoint.

Any divers there?

No. At least no one gave testimony from a scuba diver's standpoint. At least one non-consumptive user in attendance for sure. Actually best described as a pro MPA/MR non-user, and this person did not give testimony. There was a Kayaker there that expressed concern about closing the kayak friendly areas in the eastern part of 4b, and to no suprise he's a consumptive user. I counted 22 members of the public in attendence, about 2/3s gave testimony. None in favor of Alt 2 or 3. DFW said that there was only 14 in seattle, likewise, none spoke in favor of Alt 2 or 3 there either. (I didn't clarify if 14 in seattle gave public testimony, or there was 14 total in attendance)

Thanks for the break-down Jaydee, and for heading to the meeting. I owe you a beer sometime.

After getting some information elsewhere, apparently there were folks from the Makah Tribe there, but they chose to speak as individuals. I wish there would have been representation from local businesses, but maybe they were too busy taking care of business to attend. I would hope so.

Just putting the finishing touches on my statement for tomorrow's meeting. Are they doing the standard 3 minute time allowance at the meetings?

They did for us, but because of the lack of attendance/speakers, they let a few of the emotional rants carry beyond 3 minutes. One in particular was quite entertaining.

Jambo was the only NB business owner there I recognized and gave testimony as a business owner. Maybe some of the CQ/Clallam biz owners were there whom I'm not familiar with? No public commennt was given as such.

I'll have to say it was a "Lively Discussion" at the PA meeting last night. I think I'll "Sneak" behind Safeway and get one of those plastic milk crates for entertainment value. What DipWad PHD came up with that idiotic idea and actually published it in a Goobermint publication? Yep, everybody favored status quo, the department (in my estimation) left with a fair amount of "Not Doing Their Analysis Jobs" egg on faces. What I don't understand is why the rest of the F&W Commission members don't require Jennings to recluse himself due to a obivious conflict of interest.

My question still stands, alternatives other than status quo are in fact a "Change", and anybody with half of an active brain cell knows that with any "Change" there is additional costs. Who's going to pay????? I made it quite clear last night that "Not US Sportfishers" anymore, and it ought to be the Divers, i.e., a Scuba Tank Fee Catch Record Card. When are the managers in the department going to actually speak out about "More Responsibilities" with less money, instead of always bitching for higher fees/licenses. The message was quite clear last night that we want less of the Goobermint crap and more fishing opportunities.

When I brought of the ethics and conflict of interest issues with Jennings at a commission meeting earlier this year they actually had to put the meeting on hold for 30 minutes while they conferred over a page in the commission ethics handbook that I had handed out as part of my presentation.

Page 5 of the “Ethics Handbook for Washington Board and Commission Members gives an overview on objectivity. In that handbook it states:

•A conflict of interest occurs when you have a private interest that may benefit from your actions, or when a private interest could interfere with official duties.
•An interest need not be financial to create a conflict of interest.
•Most conflicts result from the exercise of discretionary authority.

They chose to ignore ethics for some reason, which is something I will bring up again.

It's no longer about "a world class diving destination", it's about non consumptive use, i.e. birdwatchers, divers and kayakers etc.

A point I will make includes that verbiage.

The alternatives description states that "non-consumptive" recreational practices are maximized by establishing near shore no fishing zones.

Did the department provide any explanation or data to show that this statement is legitimate ?

"bird-watching" recreational practices are maximized by establishing near shore no fishing zones - this is absurd, there is no maximum/minimum relationship between the two activities.

"diving" recreational practices are maximized by establishing near shore no fishing zones - this is absurd, there is no maximum/minimum relationship between the two activities.

"kayaking" recreational practices are maximized by establishing near shore no fishing zones - this is absurd, there is no maximum/minimum relationship between the two activities.

None of these examples pass the stink test. If the claims are not legitimate - then the proposals are not legitimate and should not be up for consideration by our government representatives..

just my 2 cents.
back to sleep for awhile...

Very good points. I will bring into question these "non-consumptive users" and ask just how much do they pay?

I'm with Plus 1 on this.

I cannot see any lack of compatibility with fishing, kayaking, diving, bird watching in this area.

There is no reason that all of these activities cannot occur in harmony with each other.

It is stupid to restrict recreational opportunities in this area unless there is scientific
data that it is harmful.

i agree that closing areas of 4B is a bad idea, but i am cautious about trusting wdfw science. we have seen their "science" lead us into the diminished fisheries we now have.

i did testify against closures in 4B, but the hair raises on the back of my neck when i hear wdfw declare a fishery "healthy." i actually changed my original testimony after hearing wdfw's presentation and that "healthy" word used too often.

By "maximizing" I would suggest that it means not having to share with others (especially fisherpersons). Some birders want to see the maximum number of birds (undisturbed), some divers (Jennings etc) want to see the maximum number of fish that a habitat can sustain. Equate "maximize" with "selfish."

Got to meet Larry B, but there was a dismal turnout of 9 folks, including commissioner Jennings. 5 folks spoke for status quo, a number of folks stated the need for a sunset provision if anything other than status quo was approved. One diver who works for an aquarium/zoo spoke for option 3.

You want to guess where I stood?

I felt sorry for the WDFW staff who were made to present tonight because they really had nothing to present. There was no scientific data. NONE!

It is a shame that Jennings is forcing his pet project on us once again. Please, we have until December to submit public testimony, so write your emails and letters. The commissioners do read them. Make you comments at every commission meeting. I will be back to remind you of the next commission meeting.

I, too, was disappointed in the turnout and more so in the absolute lack of data from Staff showing a biological need for any further closures and/or restrictions.

The recently enacted closures (120 foot rule) and reduction of daily catch limits and limiting rockfish catch and keep to black and blues have not had a chance to provide the anticipated population enhancements before this new attempt at further restrictions. That is just nuts!

In a post meeting discussion with Dave the diver who works for Point Defiance Aquarium he suggested that area closures would allow for the full range of fish populations and sizes and, therefore, an unaffected (by humans) full range of interactions among species. (Hope I got that right) Guess that would be the non-consumptive user's maximized goal.

If a diver can see 70 (for instance) mixed species of fish on a dive in an area being fished is that a bad dive? If he saw 100 would that be a great dive? And, if so, would achieving that additional pleasure be worth depriving sport fishermen the opportunity to pursue their sport in that same area? Apparently some people think so.

And while the lack of any sunset clause is a valid criticism any such clause would have to be based upon a reasonable goal and valid current stock assessment indicating a significant shortfall. That kind of data simply does not exist.

So, if you want to continue to have full access to this area I strongly recommend that you submit your comments to the Commission. Be assured that there are folks that would like to usurp your use of some or all of that area and once gone there would be little chance of getting it back.

So what is it that keeps some divers from going to the area and what is it about the area that make divers want to dive there?

There isn't anything that keeps divers from going there, and they like going there because there are lots of fish.

I have attempted to stay out of this discussion as I don't fish Neah Bay however the advancement of an agenda for personal desires based in the name of "conservation" has always rubbed me wrong.

The major support documents that supposely support the need for management changes in 4-B are the Puget Sound rockfish conservastion plan and the Puget Sound groudn fish managment plan. Let's be clear here both documents have virtually nothing to do with the fish populations at Neah Bay. Until the last DEIS draft of the PS Rockfish plan Neah Bay was specifically excluded (western boundary the Sekiu River) and even in the latest draft the available data used in determing the status of Puget Sound Rockfish includes little information from Neah Bay. For those prone to fear black helicopters and generally wear tin foil hats it isn't much of a reach to think that expanding the Puget Sound Rockfish plan to include Neah Bay was laying the ground work for this proposal.

It has long been accepted that the rockfish populations are more ocean dependent than Puget Sound dependent for recruitment - in shor those populations are part of the ocean populations. The State and Commission has long recognized that Neah Bay fish populations are more similar to the ocean than Puget Sound. Just look at the current regulations. A couple examples

Ling Cod - Puget Sound has a 6 week season with a conservative slot limit. Neah Bay has 6 month season with a 24 inch size limit (ocean management).

Pacific Cod, Pollock, Hake - All the of Puget Sound is closed to the retention of these species (and have been for some time) while at Neah Bay one keep up to 15 Pacific Cod, Pollock or Hake - again ocean limits.

Heck west of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line up to 10 Bocaccio can be kept while in Puget Sound east of the Victoria Sill they are ESA listed.

In short folks are pushing for changes based on a social desire under the guise of conservation. I would urge the Commission to make their decision based on the social input rather than buying into dubious science and the conservation hysteria.

BTW -
There is some irony here that some folks objecting to these proposals based where conservation concrens are being used to advance a social desire were more than willing to use the same appoach to advance CnR opportunties for wild steelhead. In both cases I feel strongly that such approachs set dangerous precedents and feel it is more than disgenuous to go down that road when it only fits one's agenda and object when it doesn't.

Tight lines
Curt

Great points Curt.

Not all conspiracy theories are just theories. Again, remember that Commissioner Jennings is on record as having opined that half of Puget Sound should be set aside as non-consumptive areas. And I don't think he meant the shipping lanes.

The intent of this is clear, and I quote from the WDFW 4B Draft Management Objectives and Alternatives for Public Comment:

Alternate 2: "would provide additional protection for bottomfish and increased non consumptive recreational opportunities..." (emphasis added)

Alternate 3: "would provide protection for all marine resources and maximize non-consumptive recreational opportunities....." (emphasis added)

This is NOT about conservation nor is it really about recreational opportunity as nothing currently precludes diving or other non-consumptive users from these areas. It is all about taking away areas where we fishers (consumptive users) can enjoy our various activities so that others may have an enhanced experience.

Also, let us not forget that the 120 foot rule (and daily catch limit reductions and non-take species specific limitations) was imposed in this area despite the relative abundance both as a precautionary effort and to have an area where the large breeders (particularly rockfish) can do their thing producing disbursed eggs/larvae that float with the currents. Staff indicated they had no data on the impact of the 120 foot plus areas nor the off-shore canary rockfish closed zone on the populations of these near shore area fish populations. Again, no data!

For those who support closures without a biological basis (last resort) and without a sunset clause and who consider themselves environmentalists let me opine that most consumptive users are at heart environmentalists. What they are not is preservationists at the expense of others.

I got the impression the staff just wanted to leave asap. As stated they had and brought nothing scientific or otherwise to go on to increase closures in the area. All three said they were just there to get the public input. To their credit they did do well at answering most of the questions.

Dogfish's knife is razor sharp and injects salt as it cuts.

I showed Larry B where room 175 was. Staff must not know which room is which. But we found where the meeting had been moved to before it started. Sorry Larry. :-)

I don't know if I'll go to the commission meeting or just write a letter. I need to quit going to this crap. But either way I'll say this whole thing needs to be dismissed until someone comes up with something tangible to support a change. And that Commissioner Jennings needs to be dismissed as well.

Larry B -
A small point neither Alternative 2 nor Alternative 3 would increase non-consumptive recreational opportunties. Either may increase the quality of those opportunties but since the dive community current has full access they would not increase the overall opportunties.

Tight lines
Curt

Yes, Donno and I hung out at the wrong door for awhile chatting. Nice to meet you.

Smalma, agree with you totally. I think I made that same point after quoting what the propaganda had in it in support of the several alternatives.

As you wrote, "the advancement of an agenda for personal desires based in the name of "conservation" has always rubbed me wrong." That's it in a nutshell. Thanks for the sharp pen.

Larry

conservation has almost always been based on personal desires.

while i agree that closing large portions of 4B is a bad idea, it's not because i trust wdfw science. it's based on a personal desire to continue fishing with the hope that reduced bag limits can hopefully improve populations that wdfw states are declining (like blue rockfish, which can currently be kept) and to increase the populations of more abundant stocks as well.

fish management, especially wdfw, rarely pushes conservative regulations until they are necessary. if it weren't for personal desires, the hoh would probably still be at a 30 fish yearly wild fish kill while still missing escapement most years but shut down to sport fishing.

some fishermen's personal desire is to maximize harvest, and while i disagree that is no different than my personal desire for reduced harvest to hopefully increase abundance while still allowing fisheries... or the personal desires of divers to dive over unmolested populations of fish. we have differences but they are all based on personal desires.

we are also dealing with a common thing in fish management, the shifting baseline. we are not attemting to bring populations back to the numbers 50-100 years ago... but using current populations (or within the last 5-10 years) as a new baseline. ask the guys who fished neah bay in the 50's, 60's and 70's if the rockfish population in the area is diminished.

Nicely said Curt!
Ron

I am sorry I didn't get this posted a while ago so it could have at least been presented. hopefully it can still be propsed as a future alternative.

I don't kow anything abut the area but I can say this. Go to the meetings, email the people involved and make your voice heard. I have been part of the process for a long time now and my voice has been heard many times. One a couple occassions I was the only one who made a comment or proposal and it made a huge difference. My opinions and observations made those who were considering the changes to think about the topic and they did or didn't make the changes because of it.

One voice of reason and thought out deductions can be just as if not more powerful than an army of people with nothing but gripes.

If they need a refuge for divers let the divers make one. Take a small section, place habitat there in the form of reef balls and other artficial reefs and leave it at that. The divers get their haven, the fish have better habitat to replace dwindling stocks and fisherman don't lose but a small place instead of an entire region. Don't take away good fishing spots just for diving, make new ones in places where fishing needs a habitat boost and everyone wins.

If they need to get educated on reef balls, here is the site.
http://www.reefball.org/index.html

Guys;
I have not posted to PP but I have read the blog from time to time and used the resources here and learned a lot. Very knowledgeable group.

First let me introduce myself. I am Norm Baker, the fellow who was active in the Rockfish Advisory Group. I was the guy who presented the Marine Reserves talk at the Rockfish Advisory Group and to several fishing groups and environmental groups around the state. I am also one of the focus group on Marine Area 4B focus Group and am an active member of CCA and PSA here in Sequim.

There is some real misinformation floating around about this Marine Area 4B possible closures.

First, no one seems to know anything about marine reserves (or Marine protected area or Rockfish Conservation Area) and how they restore depressed fisheries. All of these areas are closed areas with severe restrictions on fishing. A marine reserve allows zero fishing. Marine protected areas and rockfish conservation areas usually allow salmon trolling. Inside these areas, game fish are not fished and consequently they grow quite large. Large fish produce enormously greater numbers of eggs and sperm compared to smaller fish in fished areas. After a recovery long enough to allow game fish to grow quite large, two things happened. First is old, large fish start exporting large numbers of larvae and juveniles from inside the reserve to outside the reserve. This is the principal mechanism for restoring our fisheries. The second thing that happens is these old large fish start to compete with one another for the best sites inside that reserve, and a trophy fishery to develop along the edges of the reserve. Every properly and scientifically designed reserve does not close off an entire area from fishing. If fishing hotspot area is for example, 2 mi.², scientists usually recommend. 1/3 to 1/2 of the area be set aside as a reserve.

Some people are saying the closures proposed in Marine Area 4B are “foot in the door” to many additional closures throughout Puget Sound. The foot is not in the door. Both feet are about to kick the door off the hinges. There is a big nation-wide and state-wide political movement underway to create marine reserves because they have been spectacularly successful at restoring depressed fisheries. According to the website for WDFW, the state of Washington as the most endangered species in the entire United States. According to the American fisheries Society Puget Sound is the most depressed fisheries in North America. As a Washingtonian, this is a distinction I am not proud of. Again Marine reserves have been spectacular early successful for restoring fisheries.Marine reserves (MR), marine protected areas (MPA) and rockfish conservation areas (RCA) are coming and it is just a matter of time before they are here. I can just about guarantee it. A Marine Reserve prohibits all fishing – a permanently closed area. Marine Protected Areas and Rockfish Conservation Areas usually allow some fishing – especially salmon trolling. My gut tells me that we will have a few real Marine Reserves and several Rockfish Conservation Areas eventually established in Puget Sound.

Some people are also saying this movement to marine reserves will also close 50% of all of Puget Sound, including Neah Bay, to all fishing. This is profoundly not true. 50% of the management area is the scientifically recommended amount for pelagic open ocean species – like Blue Fin Tuna. Areas with high tidal currents like Puget Sound generally have 15-20% set aside as marine reserves. British Columbia has set aside 30% of it’s off shore waters as marine reserves and 20% of its’ inshore waters as rock fish conservation areas. Speaking as a scientist, there is absolutely no question that rock fish conservation areas, and Marine reserves are the key to restoring our Puget Sound fisheries. Of course other issues, like habitat restoration and pollution clean-up and derelict gear removal, etc. are also important. But the most important factor for restoring fisheries and vulnerable game fish is to protect some of the available habitat. Truth is that we recreational fishermen have the worlds best technology to find the fish in our GPS and Depth Sounders. We have reached the point where if we do not think proactively as conservationists and protect some of the available habitat in marine reserves, we are going to see more and more closures and shorter seasons and limits while WDFW is trying to protect our fish stocks.

Some people are saying closures are already happening around Smith Island Minor island and Protection Island. That is profoundly not true. Those areas around these three islands are destined to be aquatic reserves, not marine reserves. Aquatic reserves are put in place to protect critical habitat (which are usually our fish nurseries) on the sea bottom from any kind of development. Aquatic reserves do not restrict fishing.

The proposals foreclosures in the Area 4B have some problems. I cannot in good conscience as a scientist support the closures proposed here, because there is inadequate biological data to support the areas chosen. I think, perhpoas hope Dave jenni9bngs meant well when he proposed a dive park in 4B because I know for a fact he is aware of the benefits of marine reserves. But to do it without adequate science to back the creation of marine reserves is not right. Those of you who have heard me speak know I am a huge promoter of marine reserves, but let’s do it right. The Puget Sound Rockfish advisory group recommended to WDFW that we create a scientific advisory team to recommend specific areas of Puget Sound for a network of marine reserves and rockfish conservation areas. I am sticking to that recommendation, because I know it is the best available science, and will use accomplished professionals to help us restore our fisheries.

Norm

Typical lecture from Norm, you silly fisherman don't know what you are talking about, now go over there, sit down, and we'll tell you when and where you can fish. Norm was not a member of the Rockfish Advisory Group, even though he constantly refers to himself that way, other than doing a Marine reserve presentation that was full of holes and mis-information and a few comments at the end of the meetings he had nothing to contribute.

You forgot about his letter that was not published that he said he spoke on behalf of CCA and PSA-WITHOUT our permission. My take on Norm is "We need to work together on a common goal, as long as its my goal."

Sorry Norm-We the people on the water disagree with your citizen based science.

Got some popcorn?

This is SO typical of the methodology of the pro MR/MPA folks as to be laughable if not so serious.

First, lets set forth some indisputable facts albeit old news to most here. Prior to becoming a Commissioner Mr. Jennings is on record as wanting half of Puget Sound in a no-take zone which is, per Mr. Baker, a Marine Reserve (MR). NO fishingI! NO crabbing! NO NOTHING!!!! (well, a MR does not preclude diving does it???)

Furthermore, Mr. Jennings, knowing he was to be appointed as a Commissioner, submitted a number of rule change proposals just before the cutoff in June 2009 to include one to create a "world class dive site" by putting much of this same area off limits to fishermen effectively making it a Marine Reserve. (sound familiar??) For reasons not officially documented, that proposal was pulled by Staff and did not receive review/comment by interested parties prior nor was it included in the proposed rules made public and subject to four public meetings. However, during this period Commissioner Jennings unabashedly promoted his proposal on several diver oriented web sites requesting that readers write the Commission in support of that proposed rule change BEFORE IT BECAME PUBLIC! This was all accomplished under the alias Biodiversity Guy and without acknowledgment that he was a Commissioner. Talk about devious! Why would we trust him now and why would we trust those who makes excuses for him and his behavior?

Sorry Mr. Baker, no excuses for Commissioner Jennings. He is a perfect example of the type of zealot who needs to be contained.

As to the need for any further closures keep in mind that all areas deeper than 120 feet are off limits to bottom fishing and are effectively an MPA which will allow rock fish to grow old and big and reach maximum fecundity with dispersal of larvae to adjacent near shore waters. Also, let us not forget the huge MPA just off the NW coast presumably having the same effect. At the last public meeting which was held in Olympia WDFW Staff had NO data on the current or future effectiveness of those areas as sources of rock fish replenishment to near shore areas. I know because I asked the question.

Finally, as for this specific proposal the supporting information from WDFW cites improvements to non-consumptive users' experiences rather than to any biological need. Yup, just Jennings' initial proposal reconstituted.

I can hardly wait for the upcoming October meeting. It should be a great set of meetings.

Better pop some more corn Aunty...

Norm Baker (NB) wrote: First let me introduce myself. I am Norm Baker, the fellow who was active in the Rockfish Advisory Group.

Slowleak wrote: Norm’s official capacity was “observer”. Let me introduce myself. I’m Bear Holmes, actual member of the Puget Sound Rockfish Advisory Group.

NB wrote: I was the guy who presented the Marine Reserves talk at the Rockfish Advisory Group and to several fishing groups and environmental groups around the state. I am also one of the focus group on Marine Area 4B focus Group and am an active member of CCA and PSA here in Sequim.

Slowleak wrote: Don't forget Sierra Club member too.

NB wrote: There is some real misinformation floating around about this Marine Area 4B possible closures.

Slowleak wrote: True.

NB wrote: First, no one seems to know anything about marine reserves (or Marine protected area or Rockfish Conservation Area) and how they restore depressed fisheries.

Slowleak wrote: By “no one” he means recreational fishermen or anyone that disagrees with him.

NB wrote: All of these areas are closed areas with severe restrictions on fishing. A marine reserve allows zero fishing. Marine protected areas and rockfish conservation areas usually allow salmon trolling.

Slowleak wrote: But probably not halibut or anything else and there will likely be depth and gear restrictions on salmon trolling if allowed at all. By the way, that would include closing down clamming, crabbing, etc

NB wrote: Some people are saying the closures proposed in Marine Area 4B are “foot in the door” to many additional closures throughout Puget Sound. The foot is not in the door. Both feet are about to kick the door off the hinges.

Slowleak wrote: So it’s just a waste of energy to fight; surrender now and get out of the way.

NB wrote: There is a big nation-wide and state-wide political movement underway to create marine reserves because they have been spectacularly successful at restoring depressed fisheries.

Slowleak wrote: That statement is not “profoundly true”.

NB wrote: As a Washingtonian,…

Slowleak wrote: For 6 years

NB wrote: Some people are also saying this movement to marine reserves will also close 50% of all of Puget Sound

Slowleak wrote: What people are really saying is that David Jennings suggested closing 50% of Puget Sound and he did so in writing as has been documented on this site several times.

NB wrote: Speaking as a scientist,…

Slowleak wrote: Should we bow down now?

NB wrote: …there is absolutely no question that rock fish conservation areas, and Marine reserves are the key to restoring our Puget Sound fisheries.

Slowleak wrote: Not true, there are plenty of questions; I know I even have one or two myself. MR’s and RCA’s may be a couple of the tools for the tool box but they are not the end all, do all, one size fits all “key” solution you would lead us to believe. Just because you can hammer a nail with a crescent wrench doesn’t mean it's a good idea.

NB wrote: Truth is that we recreational fishermen…

Slowleak wrote: Now he’s speaking as a recreational fisherman.

NB wrote: … while WDFW is trying to protect our fish stocks.

Slowleak wrote: Protect our stocks from the evil recreational fisherman so they can save them for whom? See mandatory recreational no fishing restriction in the “C” closure compared to the voluntary commercial recommendation.

NB wrote: The proposals foreclosures in the Area 4B have some problems.

Slowleak wrote: Yep

NB wrote: The Puget Sound Rockfish advisory group recommended to WDFW that we create a scientific advisory team to recommend specific areas of Puget Sound for a network of marine reserves and rockfish conservation areas.

Slowleak wrote: The scientists in the Puget Sound Rockfish Advisory Group recommended forming a scientific advisory group which would specifically and purposely exclude all of the sports fishers in the group. As an actual member of the PSRAG, I recall the Group agreed that a scientific advisory group should be formed to look into several of the group’s recommendations including artificial reefs, marine enhancement, ell grass restoration, pollution and many other issues. In any case I do not recall the advisory group recommending a task of identifying specific areas for MR’s and RCA’s.

NB wrote: I am sticking to that recommendation, because I know it is the best available science, and will use accomplished professionals to help us restore our fisheries.

Slowleak wrote: Although Norm is not/was not a member of the PSRAG he supports that recommendation because he hopes it will eliminate those who oppose his point of view. I wonder how many of those same “accomplished professionals” are responsible for our current state of affairs. As my dearly departed father was fond of saying “Sear’s Best is none too good”. I’m fond of saying “The best available science is none too good.” And Neah Bay isn’t the only place where the science doesn’t support the proposed actions.

:golf clap:

Bear:

Thank you for your point by point response to Mr. Baker especially since you have been and are currently very active on the PSRAG representing the interests of the resource as well as recreational fishermen and women (AuntyM sensitivity training in effect). It is absolutely critical to respond in this manner as misinformation/disinformation can become the "truth" if spouted enough times without valid counterpoints being presented to the same audience.

Norm Baker -
First thank you for taking the time to post your insights and thoughts on these issues as well as providing some additional information.

However I do think that some here are more informed about mariner protection areas (MPAs) than you give us credit for. I have read some of the subject and am very interested in the heatlh and well being of the rockfish resource of the State and would love to see the management of that resource be based on the latest science.

I agree with you that from the reading I have done that in areas like Puget Sound that those advocating MPAs suggest that 15 to 20% of the habitat be set aside as MPAs. The DEIS on Puget Sound stated that there is something like a little more than 2,400 acres of high relieve rocky habitat used by rockfish in what they called south Puget Sound. IN reviewing the existing MPAs in the area I found that there is a number of them that include rocky habitats used by rockfish. In fact there were more than 500 acres of such MPAs. In short more than 20% of the key rockfish habitat in South Sound has set aside as MPAs for some time. In addition with the situation in Hood Canal as well as the recent regulation changes much of the region is more rockfish conservation areas.

Based on the available science one would have thought that south Puget Sound rockfish would be on the way to recovery when one couples the MPAs in place with the management changes that have taken over the last 15 years. Again with the available science one would have predicted that it would take 10 to 20 years to see significant chagnes in the abundance and age structure of the rockfish populations and further one would have expected to see those kinds of changes in the more prodcutivity species with a shorter generation time; that is with species such as the copper and quilback rockfish.

I believe that any objective review of the information available since 2003 (primarily creel information) shows that the souther Puget Sound rockfish are responding exactly as predicted above. I too took the time to sit in as an observer at a couple of the Rockfish meetings (don't know if that makes active in the process) and heard a number of folks common on seeing more juvenile rockfish in a number of areas as well as some larger fish. The recent creel information on for exampel copper rockfish also indicates that the length frequency of larger fish is increase. In other words a stock status review using the latest information potentially would show that recovery has all ready begun.

I do agree whole heartly with your statement -

"The proposals foreclosures in the Area 4B have some problems. I cannot in good conscience as a scientist support the closures proposed here, because there is inadequate biological data to support the areas chosen. I think, perhpoas hope Dave jenni9bngs meant well when he proposed a dive park in 4B because I know for a fact he is aware of the benefits of marine reserves. But to do it without adequate science to back the creation of marine reserves is not right."


The current proposal is not using the best science; in fact as I posted here earlier the attempt to apply "science" concerning the status Puget Sound Rockfish is not valid. Virtually all would agree that the rockfish populations at the western end of the Straits is much more closely aligned with the ocean populations than the Puget Sound fish. I further agree that the best chance of success would be for the commission to table this whole discussion until a more reasoned and science base approach can be developed. Such an approach must be included in the context of the larger picture including the needs of a broad spectrum of rockfish species (across a larger geographic area) as well as the needs of potential users of that resource.

Tight lines
Curt

Jesus Christ. Why did someone have to go and use logic and intelligence in this conversation?

Per today's PDN, Norm is going to be the speaker for the Port Townsend/Jefferson Cty PSA meeting next Tuesday, and the Subject is going to be MPA/MR's. Might be worthwhile to attend and "Ask" the counterpoint questions.

wolf in sheeps clothing.

Thanks for chiming in Curt, I always appreciate your perspective.

Bear

What misinformation? If you are aware of something 4b or rockfish related that we are not, we're all ears.

WOW! talk about a little knowledge being dangerous. So this guy takes a little knowledge about the Rock fish advisory group and what they are trying to accomplish and hijacks some of their intent and goes on a letter writing campaign and lecture circuit and now he is "The expert".

And here I thought you had to put your time in and really do the work like Bear has done. Bye the way Bear great job.

People like this are very dangerous because so many other people are complacent enough to take their words as gospel.

Good on you guys for calling this phony out!


Fishy

Actually, Norm has more than a little knowledge… he has a couple of advanced degrees including a PhD and I don’t consider him a phony. But I wonder why such an educated man with more credentials than most of us will ever have occasionally works hard to convince folks he is something he is not.

This is an excerpt from a letter he wrote to Ecology regarding spatial planning:

“…the Washington Department of Fish and wildlife has almost completed its revised Puget Sound Rockfish Conservation Plan (PSRCP). It is available online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/sepa/10014deis.pdf I was an active participant in producing this plan and attended all of the Advisory Group meetings. I was also the designated speaker for marine reserves to this advisory group. I was also the Action Item leader asking 15,000 Sierra Club members throughout the state to support this plan.”

He was in-fact at every meeting but as an observer he was not recognized by the Advisory Group as an “active participant” in producing the plan.

He did in fact make a presentation on Marine Reserves. However, he was not “designated” by the Group or the Department. The truth is he was allowed to speak after Advisory Group member Doug Myer of People for Puget Sound requested permission to invite a guest speaker to make a presentation on MPA’s; I would not classify this as being “the designated speaker”. By the way, Norm also describes himself as an active member of People for Puget Sound.

I don’t know Norm’s exact background other than he owned a large nursery and he is recognized as somewhat of an expert on Daylilies. He also describes himself as a “lifelong environmentalist”. He is very knowledgeable on Marine Reserves and a host of other science based issues. I feel he is qualified to speak on their behalf but he is almost militant about them being the end all solution for rockfish recovery or at least preaches recovery will not happen without Marine Reserves. The fact is, there is no one single thing that will recover rockfish; it will take many things.

Norm, what part of a bottom fish fishing closure beyond 120 ft don't you understand. Seems to me that has made a rockfish conservation closure area of maybe 60 or more percent of Puget Sound and the Straits. You seem to just want to have your way on this. You and WDFG also seem to have ignored scientific studies about releasing bottom fish safley, one study where they marked fish and went back some years later and caught many previously marked fish. I'm aware of you being a CCA member and since you are maybe you should look up the CCA's stand on MPA's and such.

Bump.
Thank you, knowledgeable guys, for posting. I think we are all a little smarter for reading this thread.

Must be a lot of fire control needed on these issues from many groups. Individuals join a group and then list that membership as authority to advocate for an agenda. I wonder if the Sierra Club even knows what Mr Baker is doing? I am pretty sure that the CCA and PSA do not support his words and actions.

I do respect his posting of his viewpoints in detail, and feel his passion, but think he has missed his chance to respond to the knowledgeable points raised in this thread. Smacks of "advanced trolling."

FWIW I am an active CCA member but do not claim to represent CCA in any personal opinions such as those above. I am also a member of NW Steelheaders, Wild Steelhead Coalition, Rotary International, and too many to count medical groups, but I do not claim to represent any of them.

Bear where I am from they call that being a phony and trying to pull a "Con".

Anytime there is a falsification of information or credentials to gain advantage toward an end favoring your position that is being a phony and a con. There are a lot of educated phony con men in the world and they would leave us all their wake to meet their own goals.

I am glad this one was called on his actions, and now he seems to have lost credibility and that's not such a bad thing.

Fishy

Don’t get me wrong Fishy… I’m not defending his honor; I’m just pointing out that he has enough genuine credentials without exaggerating.

Point taken Bear, and I agree with those credentials why embellish?


Fishy

Interesting comments to say the least. I will respond to them in the order given. I had no idea there would be so many comments. My apologies for a series of postings.

Salmon Hawk – Never said I was a member. Said I participated and gave a talk. Salmon hawk, Rob Tobeck, never heard my presentation on marine reserves. Frankly he has doe limited reading. Also, I had two PhD fisheries biologists and a former fisheries state fish and game Dept manager review that talk to be sure it was accurate and on-point. All said it was and offered a few additional suggestions and citations which I took seriously.

Fishinnut – Our letter that was not published was rebuttal to an article published in The Reel News by Rob Tobeck . That article was full of slanderous half truths and outright misrepresentations. Perhaps I should publish that rebuttal here. Perhaps I’ll put it on every fishing blog in the state. Perhaps I’ll send it to the Seattle Times. On the case of misrepresentation, I made a simple mistake in the introductions at our 4b focus group meeting and took steps to correct it as soon as it was pointed out. There was no misrepresentation intended. My goal is to use the best available science for fisheries restoration. From all that I have seen and read, the best available science is a network of marine reserves and marine protected areas, covering 15-20% of Puget Sound that protects critical habitat and game fish populations. Those protected populations and marine reserves become our Puget Sound ecosystems fish hatcheries. I could not care less if you disagree with me. That’s why I decided to post on PP. If you disagree with the Marine reserve science, tell me how I would love to discuss it openly, honestly and directly.

AuntyM – I was not authorized to speak on behalf of CCA and I have apologized to everyone concerned. It was a simple mistake that will not happen again. CCA’s position on marine reserves is quite conservative, and it should be. However, CCA’s national position is out dated. From the language that I have read in it, it appears to be composed about the year 2000. There is a ton of new information available on marine reserves since that position paper was composed.

Larry B – You are correct in statements and positions made by Dave Jennings. He made a mistake in my opinion. He meant well but he was wrong. The 120 foot closure was put in to protect some endangered species. At the last Rockfish advisory group meeting, I recommended that if WDFW were to begin a serious program implementing marine reserves and Rockfish conservation areas, that the 120 foot rule should be rescinded immediately. I still believe that to be an appropriate management action. While I agree a Marine reserve is a closure, a closure is not a Marine reserve, because it is not based on biological scientific facts about the fish species it is supposed to protect. The huge MPA, just off the coast is probably why some of the rock fish populations in 4B are still healthy. You state “WDFW had no data on the current or future effectiveness of these areas as sources of Rockfish replenishment to nearshore areas. “ How can they have such data without those areas in place for at least one or two generations of rock reproduction?

Slowleak- Bear’s comments are right on concerning my participation. As an observer, I was the official representative for Sierra Club. My comments about “no one knowing anything about Marine reserves” means the science of marine reserves is growing so fast that very very few people are aware of the full depth and breadth of information available. The whole area of scientific research on marine reserves is currently producing one significant peer reviewed scientific publication per day. This is an enormous most amount of information that has not made it into the public’s knowledge yet. But with worldwide fisheries being depressed, and so many species being endangered, many governmental leaders and politicians are catching on to the fact that marine reserves do restore depressed fisheries. I would not want Bear Holmes to surrender and get out of the way of any political action concerning marine reserves. I would want him to make the kind of contributions to a marine reserve network that I saw him make in the Rockfish advisory group. “Speaking as a scientist” I do not expect anyone to bow down. What I do expect is an open honest, direct discussion of any point pertinent to marine reserves. I have never treated Bear with disrespect or dishonored his contribution in the Rockfish advisory group. In fact, he and Rob Tobeck suggested some regulations for commercial appeal letters that should be immediately adopted by the WA fish and game commission. Yes, Bear is right that Marine reserves are one tool in the toolbox. They are the big tool in the toolbox for ecosystem-based management currently being adopted by WDFW. Yes I am a recreational fisherman. I have purchased a fishing license and hunting license every year of my entire adult life. I own three different fishing vessels – an old bass boat, and old one man pontoon boat, and a kayak. WDFW is trying to protect our fish stocks from everyone who fishes – tribes, commercials and recreational. They have inherited a terribly mismanaged Puget Sound fisheries. Commercials totally abused our fish stocks and so do the tribes to some extent. And now, modern technology allows both recreationals and commercials to find and catch almost any fish that swims. The Rockfish advisory group recommended a team of fisheries biologists and scientists as an advisory board to create a network of marine reserves and rock fish conservation areas. There was not a single person on the Rockfish advisory group or any organization represented that wants to exclude sportfishermen or stop recreational fishing. Bear and Rob insist on making the statement and it is profoundly not true. I challenge both of these men to produce their documentation for this statement. The science of marine reserves, is the best available science for the restoration of depressed fisheries and the restoration of endangered species. Unfortunately, the closures proposed in the area 4B have no scientific or biological basis and I do not support these proposed closures. I do support closing commercial long lining in 4B. Whether or not, a Marine reserve is needed in the area of 4B, should be left up to the scientific advisory group for a Marine reserve network.

Norm

Larry B – You are absolutely right about misinformation/disinformation becoming the truth if spouted often enough. Again, There was not a single person on the Rockfish advisory group or any organization represented that wants to exclude sportfishermen or stop recreational fishing. Bear and Rob insist on making the statement and it is profoundly not true. I challenge both of these men to produce the documentation for this statement.

Smalma – Thank you for an open honest discussion and a respectful opinion. Many people assume high relief rocky habitat is all that needs protection to protect the rockfish. Unfortunately this is only part of the solution. Rockfish have four stages to the lifecycle. Each stage is in a different part of the Puget Sound ecosystem. Protection of the larval and juvenile stages is critical to restoration of Rockfish. Larval and juvenile stages use eelgrass beds, Kelp beds, and floating debris, as well as the open ocean waters. Consequently, it seems like a Marine reserve or rockfish conservation area is always much much larger than is ever really needed. Evolutionary biologists and geneticists now think that at least 5000 pairs, (males and females), are the minimum number of a species that are needed to keep a species going. This is not to suggest each Marine reserve needs 5000 rockfish. It does suggest that a network of marine reserves needs a minimum of 5000 fish. Each Marine reserve in a network must be large enough to support a population large enough to preserve the genetic diversity of the species and a complete age and size structure. More and more publications are coming out daily suggesting a 20% of the entire management area is appropriate for a network of marine reserves. Their borders provide a trophy fishery and the Marine reserve houses the ecosystem’s fish hatcheries.
You are absolutely right that recovery seems to have begun in some areas of Puget Sound. Cod, hake and some rock fish species are improving. I have talked to several divers who say they are seeing more and more larval rockfish and adult rockfish. I too have talked with a few fisheries biologist who say the Neah Bay stocks are more closely aligned with the oceanic stocks. Since there is less fishing for Rockfish outside 4B, there is probably considerable spillover into Neah Bay from the ocean stocks. I cannot agree with your final conclusion more. This whole discussion should be tabled until there is a scientific advisory group assembled for a marine reserve network.

Jaydee – The misinformation is all in my original posting.

Somethingsmellsf – I am not an expert or a know-it-all on this subject or a spreader of the gospel. Just an interested fisherman who coincidently has degrees in Zoology, Ecology, Evolutionary Biology and Entomology. I spent ten years in the Dept of Entomology, Fisheries and Wildlife and became interested in conservation issues and environmental issues while there. After retiring to WA, I became interested in the subject after a presentation to PSA about Aquatic Reserves. I thought the guys presenting the Aquatic Reserve info missed the chance to give a talk about restoration of ecosystems in Puget Sound. I started reading about marine reserves and aquatic reserves.
Frankly when I retired to Sequim, I expected a fishing paradise out here. Instead, I find two things which totally appalled me. Instead of a fishing paradise, I find the longest list of endangered species of any state in the US, and according to the American Fisheries Society, the most depressed fisheries in North America. Talk about historical mismanagement by WDFW! It clearly took many years of mismanagement and abuse by overfishing to get to this point. I really believe, WDFW is trying to restore our fisheries but they have inherited a really nasty mess. This message is also complicated by the tribes.

Slowleak – Thank you Bear for a little support. I am not trying to convince anyone of something I am not. I am a recreational fisherman and hunter. I am also a conservationist and a real pain-in-the-butt environmental activist. Environmentalists attack problems in the environment that need solutions. Our fisheries problems need solutions. WDFW has allowed observers to the PSRCP to make comments and contributions. As an observer, I submitted spoken testimony and written testimony, and I know for a fact it is part of the final package that will go to the Washington Fish and Game commission. Just so you know, Doug Myers did not tell me he was going to ask the advisory group for my presentation before that meeting. Maybe you recall, Doug had to leave early from that meeting and came directly to me and said “You you realize I was speaking about your presentation?”. I did catch on to what was happening, but I had no foreknowledge that it was about to happen. I am an active member Puget Sound Anglers and an active member in Coastal Conservation Association. Bear, I apologize for appearing to be militant. Simply put, I seem to have an ability to put together a really good talk on a specific issue, whether it is daylilies or marine reserves or any of a number of other topics. You are absolutely right that marine reserves are one tool in the toolbox necessary for effective fisheries management. Reserves are also necessary for defective restoration and ecosystem-based management. Reserves are based on the fact that we cannot protect vulnerable species without protecting some of their habitat. Fisheries biologist think 20% is about the right amount of habitat protection.

NWPanhandler – Again, I recommended to WDFW that when they start a serious Marine reserve network, they immediately rescind the 120 foot rule. I was the only person on the Rockfish advisory group to recommend that. A Marine reserve is a closure. But a closure is not a Marine reserve. The fact is fisheries management in the oceans for all state and national fisheries management groups, has been absolutely terrible. There is a publication by the National Research Council in 1999 that says fisheries management decisions are typically as much as 50% off the mark. Good Grief! a weatherman has a better track record than oceanic (and WDFW) fisheries managers. In short, traditional fisheries management practices (which includes closures)have not protected our marine fish stocks. Consequently, we have the most endangered marine species in the nation and the most depressed fisheries in North America. The difference between a closure and a Marine reserve, is that the Marine reserve takes into account the biology of the entire lifecycle of all of the species we are trying to protect. A simple closure often misses important parts of the lifecycle. In contrast, freshwater fisheries managers have an outstanding track record because it’s a simpler more contained ecosystem. You are right about the techniques for releasing bottom fish safely. I do not understand why WDFW does not acknowledge the secret research that Rob Tobeck presented at the Rockfish advisory group.

DR Rick- Of course Sierra Club knows what I am doing. I am on the Exe Comm for the North Olympic group of the Sierra Club. I am also on the Water and Salmon Committee for the state of Washington Sierra Club. And my activities have been cleared with national Sierra Club. I have written action alerts for our members to support the creation of a network of marine reserves. The issue of representation is complex. I am not the official representative for CCA or PSA. But as a member of those organizations I subscribe to their mission statements and to their plans of actions contributing to fisheries restoration. Whether you recognize it or not, you do represent all of the organizations you belong to in some limited sense. If you make comments on any issues, you are only representing personal viewpoints, but you are representing the organizations in which you have membership. Whether or not you are the official representative for an organization is hardly significant. If you have some expertise that can help improve or restore our fisheries, you should feel free to make it. That is what I have done and I’ve upset a few official representatives. My apologies yet again.

SomethingsmellsF – Baloney!


Norm

No it's not. Lots of talk about MPAs/MRs and other tangents. Again, what misinformation regarding Rockish and/or specifically Marine Area 4B?

Question. Do you really think that pelagic Rockfish stocks in 4B are effected by the YRCA?



"Probably" doesn't sound like a science based statement. Probably sounds like grasping for straws. I think I know what the straw is.

Norm wrote (Post #5):

"I was the only person on the Rockfish advisory group to recommend that."

Still having an identity crisis???? Were you REALLY on the Rockfish advisory group????? Well, you apparently did agree that if misinformation is repeated enough times it can become a perceived "fact."

Another truism is that perception is reality and I am getting really bad vibes.

The sad thing about all of this is that no matter what information you have and what you could have contributed will be tainted by what has occurred here.

Fishy

Norm -
Thanks for taking the time to expand on some of these issues. I would like to discuss a couple of these in a little more detail.

There is little doubt that worldwide many of the fisheries have over exploitated the fish stocks. In addition MPAs have one of the tools used to address that issue. Further there is little question that Puget Sound rockfish were over fished. However it is equally clear that overfishing happened 3 decades ago. Since that time and especially in the last decade or so there has been substantial changes in the management of that resource and we both agree that are encouraging signs that those changes are resulting in positive changes in our rockfish populations.

And as you pointed out with the rockfish's complex and extended life histories much more tha just high relief habitat is needed for successful rockfish populations - productive open waters, eel grass and kelp beds, floating debris, tranisition habitat, etc. One should also keep in mind that WDFW can only regulate the fishing those key habitat pieces fall under the control of other agencies. As pointed out there has been sustantial changes in the fishing piece that clearly has had some benefit (we can argue about how much) but it remains the case that nearly as much has been done for the other pieces. Because of the complex nature of those other pieces and the equally complex interactions of those features with a number of other man's activities MPAs may not be enough to provide the protection and restoration needed - just one example would be water quality.

This constant focus on the fishing piece allows those that are impacting those other features to continue to duck taking action - protection of those features will cost be expensive and require changes in society's behave. What is clearly needed is update evaluation of the status of the Puget Sound rockfish populations and a more precise determination of actual production bottlenecks. Without that backgroud work the managers and those hoping to protect the resource will only be guessing on the best course of action maybe and what benefits may result from such action. In short my concern is that not enough attention is being paid to the non-fishing piece.

You mentioned that 5,000 pairs of rockfish is needed assure the protectin of the "species". Of coures Puget Sound rockfish population is much more than a single species; if I recall correctly there are what the State considered to be 28 stocks in the Puget Sound unit. You comment read as if 5,000 pairs were needed for each of those. There has been a lot of discussion in the last 15 years or so in the conservation biology world about what sort of minimum population size is needed to assure future generations of a particular fish "species". After a lot of discussion it seems that minimal population size seems to center around an effective population size of 500 adults. It would actually take more than 500 breeders to assure that 500 adults would be "effecitive". In the case of the rockfish it the effective population size may be nearer the actual population than say salmon. In this case complex age structure and longevity of our rockfish play in their favor. Unlike salmon which have only one shot at successful spawning and relatively little generation overlap the rockfish get a number of opportunities to successfully breed with several generations present in the breeding population and over the course of the multiple breeding seasons there will likely be different mates for each female. In short I would think that while there may need to be 10,000 adult rockfish in the Puget Sound population that figure would be a composite for all the various species with each species needing an effective population size of 500.

It continues to be my concern that this whole rockfish issue has been put on the "fast track" by some to advance agendas that have little to do with the rockfish themselves. Potentially if too much time passes and rockfish are indeed rebounding that lever will be lost to those hoping to use the conservation of rockfish as that lever. As I stated in an earlier post I find advancing a social agendas by miss using conservation to be distasteful.

Tight lines
Curt

Norm:

You questioned my expectations that WDFW would have data on the benefits of the off-shore and 120 foot closures due to lack of time for those improvements to occur. Clearly you missed my point which was that without such data how can anyone (that means you personally as well as all other organizations supporting ADDITIONAL closures) justify such further closures? Follow?? Especially in the face of anecdotal reports that indicate some rockfish populations are already experiencing a population improvement within inner Puget Sound.

By the way, it would be very beneficial if you would avoid mixing habitat protection/improvement with issues of fishing related closures unless you can explicitly correlate recreational fishing with significant habitat degradation in a particular area.

Oh, and your attributing the condition of our fisheries to WDFW (and, therefore, the Commission) is substantially off base. Most of this occurred under the auspices of the Washington Dept. of Fisheries and its commercial supporters both in the legislature and on the commercial boats. Even when WDFW was created out of the DoF and DoG the Commission initially retained significant commercial leanings. Many of us perceive that we are only now seeing a paradigm shift to serious conservation-based management.

Thankfully the WDFW staff kept the discussion on task last night during the area 4B focus meeting. Apparently Norm tried to speak on MPA's every chance he got, but they were able to contain him.

Again folks, do not be fooled by this wolf in sheeps clothing. You have outed yourself Norman.

The reason the rockfish are so healthy is that this area is healthy. This is one area of a gigantic Mountain range that has lots of fish, period no matter how much you want us to believe that this C closure is saving the rockfish. This area is why Oregon and California were able to keep fishing through the Magnusson Stevens Fishery Managment Act as it is still loaded with fish.

Slow leak: Bear, the more I thought about it the more amused I became at your statement that I was almost militant in presenting marine reserves. I agree I am a pain in the butt activist, and I work hard to fully develop the whole concept of marine reserves. I suppose that could be construed to be militant.
I remember in the PSRAG there was a time when you pursued a particular point with the WDFW representatives. The answers you got were politically correct. Again, you pushed the point (and frankly I don’t remember what the point was) and again, you got the politically correct answer. Again you pushed the point in different words. Again you got a politically correct answer. You weren’t giving an inch and neither was WDFW. You summarize the quick discussion with “I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on that point”. Now that was militant! Frankly, I loved it. I also love working with people who know what they’re talking about and are proactive about the issues. Proactivists get into the issue, get it on, get it over with, and get on with it. Frankly that is the best way to make some progress.
Larry B: I did question your expectations that the offshore closure and 120 foot rule had not produced improvements in rockfish restoration because of their long lifecycle and slow reproductive ability. You are correct, that there is no data for that area to show benefits. I do not support the proposed closures in marine area 4B. I am supporting the status quo. I also support stopping all commercial long lining and 4B. However, if there were marine reserves proposed by a fisheries scientific advisory panel in 4B, I would support the recommendations. Still, there is no data in 4B to show a marine reserve necessary. This is the point in the discussion where you have to rely on the experience and professional judgment derived from a lifetime of being involved in the science of marine reserves. We would be relying on the fisheries scientific advisory panel. I do not have scientific expertise of sufficient depth in that area. However, there is an enormous body of scientific publications that all say marine reserves, properly designed, protect and restore fisheries. Where there have been marine reserve failures it is due to a lack of enforcement, and what scientists call” irreducible scientific uncertainty in trying to manage marine ecosystems”. Simply put, we need strong enforcement in all marine reserves because they are mother nature’s fish hatcheries, and the size and complexity of marine ecosystems are simply beyond fisheries managers understanding, much less control, at this point.
Anecdotal evidence is just that – anecdotal, from a few too many observations with no scientific comparisons for control. Most of the time anecdotal evidence is gathered when somebody becomes aware of an issue and starts looking for any evidence and compares it to their past experience which is usually minimal. This may or may not be a valid comparison, or even a valid observation, because it does not identify trends going up or down. Some rock fish populations are improving and some are getting worse. Unfortunately the only source of real scientific data comes from WDFW and we have no choice but to accept or deny and contest that data.
It is not possible to avoid mixing habitat/protection issues with fishing related closures, and then do a correlation between recreational fishing and habitat degradation. Nothing in a fully functioning ecosystem is that simple with a one on one relationship. In fact, the total opposite of that thinking is the basis for the ecosystem-based management that WDFW is currently undertaking. Every living thing is connected in one way or another to every other living thing and to the activities of mankind.
Your historical assessment of WDFW is absolutely right on target. The current WDFW has inherited a really nasty situation trying to restore protect and manage our fisheries especially when every game fish species (except halibut) is also listed as an endangered species and we have the most depressed fisheries in North America.
Recreational fishermen will not be arbitrarily excluded from a marine reserve. All fishermen, commercial and tribal, will be excluded. Hopefully the tribes will observe that exclusion.
“The blanket access closure in the area surrounding Cape Canaveral was implemented for NASA security. There is some thought that the exceptional recreational fishing in adjacent areas to the closure is directly attributable to this no-fishing zone.” Every fisheries scientist who has looked at this example has agreed that the exceptional fishing is due to the no fishing zone and the spillover of trophy of adults and enormous numbers of larvae and juveniles. “But with a state gill net ban and increased state regulatory measures to conserve coastal resources (which were both spearheaded by the interests and efforts of recreational fishermen), it is impossible to link the security closure to improved fishing.” CCA deserves credit for the gill net ban and increased state regulatory measures. However, there is no reputable fisheries scientist alive that will agree with “it is impossible to link the security closure to improved fishing.” That is a profound overstatement not supported by any scientific facts.
You are absolutely correct about the historical effects of overfishing and over exploitation of our fishery stocks. Commercial fisherman, especially corporate industrial fishermen have succeeded in nearly wiping out so many fishery stocks, it is pathetic. However, we have a fisheries situation to deal with here and now. And we must use the best available science. When the abuses occurred, most of the time, fisheries managers did not know any better. The current crop of fisheries managers have inherited a nasty and complicated situation.
There is an ever repeating story always associated with the demise of commercial fisheries. As the commercial industry wipes out fish stocks, the recreationals see the demise and try to start restoration efforts through state fish and game departments. This is the same situation we see in Washington today. MPA proponents do not try to punish the recreational fishermen. MPA proponents want to restrict all fishing so that fish stocks can be restored – for all fishermen.
I do not think CCA’s reasoning is in error. They are often absolutely correct. When they sponsor a lawsuit, often as part of a coalition with other sports fishing organizations and environmental organizations, all of the science is reviewed in a court and usually a far better fisheries management is the result.
Here is the data to support marine reserves;
1. Sobel, Jack and Craig Dahlgren. 2004. Marine Reserves. A Guide to Science, Design, and Use. Island Press, Washington. 383pp
2. Norse, Elliot and Larry B. Crowder. 2005. Marine Conservation Biology. The Science of Maintaining the Sea’s Biodiversity. Marine Conservation Biology Institute. Island Press, Washington. 470pp.
3. Lubchenco, J. et al 2007. The Science of Marine Reserves. Partnership for the Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans. PISCO. 22pp. http://www.piscoweb.org/files/images/pdf/SMR_US_HighRes.pdf or http://www.piscoweb.org/files/images/pdf/SMR_US_LowRes.pdf
4. Grafton, R., et al. 2009. Handbook of Marine Fisheries Conservation and Management. Oxford University Press. USA. 784pp.

None of this data says CCA is wrong. All of it says Marine reserves protect habitat and restore depressed fisheries. All of it is based on the science of many thousands of fisheries biologists and researchers. All of it is a reaction by current fisheries managers because of a lack of prior action regarding management and habitat abuses.

Dogfish: Baloney! If I had had something to say, I would’ve said it. You are right, I have outed myself. I want to restore our fish stocks, reduce the list of endangered species, and gives the state of Florida the distinction of being the most depressed fisheries in North America. You and I are actually on the same page about fisheries restoration. But after closing 15 to 20% for marine reserves, 80 to 85% of Puget Sound is more than enough water for you and me to fish. Especially after fish stocks increase 300 to 500% after the recovery period. We simply must put restoration and conservation of our fish stocks as our primary goal before we start insisting on abolute recreational access to all marine water. To do otherwise is not mark of a conservationist.

Fishinnut: You are absolutely right that area is healthy. Unfortunately only some of the rock fish stocks there are healthy. If the fishery biologists did not believe the “C” closure was necessary to preserve a healthy stock it would not have been created.

Norm

A graduated system of limits is already in place beginning in area 4 with a 10 rockfish limit, 4b with 6, area 5 with 3 west of Slip point and 1 east. then area 6 with zero take. If anything, close off all of area 5 for rockfish. I am for status quo and we need to give the changes put into place a chance to work.

There has essentially already been a large area created as a reserve, everything deeper than 120 feet. Add to that all of areas 6, 7, 8-1, 8-2, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 which have been closed to rockfish. There are some 45 day lingcod seasons in some of those areas, but it would be quite disingenuous to say that there were not some severe restrictions put in place for rockfish restoration already. So when you say 15%-20 percent has been closed, I call bull$hit. All of the Sound and waters from the San Juans and PA have been closed to rockfish. Your 15-20% figure is way off when you look at what rockfish closures have been put in place already.

I've seen environmentalists make overtures to try and make themselves seem like they are not the enemy before, Norman. This one quacks like a duck, so until proven otherwise I will keep on hunting ducks.

I have also lived here all of my life and get a bit tired of new transplants coming here to tell me how I need to live, and change, and become like them. Go back and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Clear enough?

Wow, I still have an account on PP...

Norman Baker wrote in his response to fishnut:


I was one of a small group of people who pushed to implement the "C" closure. The coastal sport fishery was allocated a portion of the allowable by-catch of yelloweye rockfish and the sport halibut fishery looked likely to be shut down due to exceeding that by-catch limit. The location of the closure was based upon charter boat log book entries showing where they had encountered yelloweye while halibut fishing. The charter boat captains had the knowledge and expertise to avoid these areas, but at the time, the rapidly increasing private boat participation was unlikely to have that skill.

The "C" closure was about, and only about allocation management. Any conservation benefit was a consequence and I am not aware of any monitoring done that would indicate to what degree the closure has or has not helped rockfish.

For many years now I have wondered if I was wrong to support that closure. The goal was correct. If the closure resulted in saving the halibut fishery or if other factors were more significant will never be conclusively known. However, my biggest fear has been realized. The area is now known as a rockfish conservation zone when it should really be a rockfish management zone. Now, either due to ignorance (hopefully) or malice (hopefully not), it is being spun as something it is not.

Well said Mike. I was in on this C-Closure too. It used to be the center of the C was open and then about 10 -12 years ago it was changed to the C and the center opened up. We are the ones in these meetings and have been for many years as recreational bottomfishers that help decide our future.

This yelloweye/Canary rockfish C-closure was implemented indeed for the sake of keeping the YE/Canary kill quota down on the recreational side. Yes we have a kill quota that lets us fish. If we did not, we would not be able to bottom fish at all. The tribal and non-tribal still have a yelloweye and canary quota that they can fill. The recreational side was decided to make it a "no take" quota so that we did not target them.

It was thought that the commercials knew where these fish were and would stay away from them or only take their quota as they believed that they had a better idea where what kind of fish are.

Had we not implemented some sort of tool to keep from killing too many YE/Canaries we would continually lose more and more halibut/ling seasons. When the feds continually lower that quota each year, we have to come up with ways to be able to still fish. So next came the 120' closure line that goes into effect May 21, where no bottomfishing is deeper than 120' allowed after that date for the year. (Next year we are getting a little reprieve and it might go a little later date wise.) FYI Marine areas 2/3/4 has the biggest yelloweye populations on the western U.S. Coastal states.

Norm, We have been involved in most of the decisions on our bottomfish fisheries for years. Thats because we care. I have had to plot areas on my charts with WDFW and we have helped either keep an area closed or look at possibly moving halibut fishing to other areas to keep our YE kill quota down, in years past. As recreational fishermen we are true conservationists as we want to see our fisheries thrive so we can harvest them and keep them healthy. We get new data and have to figure out how to attain our fisheries while doing the least impact on certain stocks. We are always crunching data and rolling with changes when needed.

So you can see how you rub people the wrong way with your assumptions, propositions, and home made power point program. Not sure how you put all of this together with any sort of inner background being that you were in Minnesota. You can read other peoples data and make assumptions, but not all data is correct that people use to pound home a closure. I am usually a little skeptical of people at first until I find out how much they truly know and where they got their data. You have to admit you came into our arena and tried to tell us we were wrong, while we are seeing recovery, you are telling us the sky is falling. Some of your data you refer reference to are people that I do not trust, that have an agenda to close fisheries. Lubchenko was put in as director of NOAA by Mr Obama and they are not using the NOAA Scientists that are in place. What does that tell you? Not using proper science but junk science to shut us down. This is not my first rodeo.

Norm,
While I can agree with you that the A4 closures are without merit and an abuse of the citizen advisory board,
Your theories on closures are of equal standing.

Norm your baloney is beginning to smell!


Like I said, if you had anything to contribute it will be forever tainted by your own actions.


Fishy

I will definately come.

game fishing lures

New info out on the 4B project. Comment accepted through Dec. 4. Commission presentation at the December Commission meeting.



The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is seeking public comment on a range of alternatives for managing marine fish in Marine Area 4B which encompasses the waters in the western Strait of Juan de Fuca from the Sekiu River west to the Bonilla-Tatoosh line near Cape Flattery at Neah Bay.


WDFW worked with an ad hoc focus group that provided input and advice to the Department during the development of draft objectives and alternatives that were presented to the public at meetings held in Port Angeles, Seattle, and Olympia in August.


Additional information has been added and revisions to the alternatives have been made in response to input received during the public meetings. The updated information includes revised management alternatives, clarified area boundaries, information on the ad hoc focus group and descriptions of marine habitat and fish distribution in the area.


WDFW is accepting comments on the proposals through Dec. 4. Comments can be submitted by email to Ami.Hollingsworth@dfw.wa.gov or by U.S. Mail to: Ami Hollingsworth, 600 Capitol Way N. Olympia, WA 98501-1091.


WDFW staff is scheduled to brief the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission – a nine-member citizen panel that sets policy for department – on the revised alternatives and management objectives during the commission’s December meeting in Olympia. A public hearing on the draft proposals also is scheduled for the December commission meeting.


Fisheries Management



UPDATED
Marine Area 4B Marine Fish Management Draft Management Objectives and Alternatives for Public Comment


http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisherie...lternatives.pdf

Attachments:

Figure 1 (revised)

http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/marinearea4/fig1_rev.pdf

Figure 2 (revised)

http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/marinearea4/fig2_rev.pdf

New Information:

Area 4B Focus Group

http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/marinearea4/area4B_focus_group.pdf

Area 4B Drop Camera Survey

http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/marinearea4/drop_camera_surveys_area4B.pdf

Here's a press release that came out today.

WDFW updates proposed alternatives for
marine fish fisheries in the western Strait
OLYMPIA - Updates and additional information on draft management alternatives for marine fish fisheries in the western Strait of Juan de Fuca have been posted on the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (WDFW) website.
The updated webpage, available on the department’s website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/marinearea4/ , includes revised management alternatives, information on the ad hoc focus group that worked with WDFW earlier this year during the development of the original proposals, updated maps and descriptions of marine habitat in the area.
"The additional information and revisions are based on input we received during three public meetings last month," said Craig Burley, fish management division manager for WDFW. "I encourage people to review the updated information and provide us comments on the draft proposals."
WDFW is accepting comments on the proposals through Dec. 4. Comments can be submitted by email to Ami.Hollingsworth@dfw.wa.gov or by U.S. Mail to: Ami Hollingsworth, 600 Capitol Way N. Olympia, WA 98501-1091.
The proposals address management of recreational and commercial fisheries for marine fish in waters stretching from the mouth of the Sekiu River west to the Bonilla-Tatoosh line in Marine Area 4 (Neah Bay).
WDFW staff is scheduled to brief the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission - a nine-member citizen panel that sets policy for department - on the revised alternatives and management objectives during the commission’s December meeting in Olympia. A public hearing on the draft proposals also is scheduled for the December commission meeting.
The commission is expected to take final action on the proposals during its February 2011 meeting.

Dogfish: I too am for the status quote on area 4B and for stopping all commercial long lining in 4B. right now with 120 foot rule, 60 to 70% of Puget Sound is closed. I really think that when WDFW creates a network of real marine reserves, and rockfish conservation areas, WDFW will rescind the 120 foot rule. The 15 to 20% closure is what is proposed by the Puget Sound rockfish conservation plan. It is only a proposal at this point. It has to go through the WA FishCommission first. If we institute a real network of marine reserves the best available science says only 15 to 20% ofPuget Sopund is necessary for fisheries restoration. Yes I am an environmentalist. But I’m also a fisherman and have been involved in conservation work most of my life. Environmentalists are not the enemy. Environmentalists and recreational sports fishermen need to join together to promote habitat protection and use the best available science to do it. please understand I’m not trying to tell you how to live your life. I just want to restore our fisheries.

Mike Gilchrist and Fishinut: I really like your comments onthe C closure being a rockfish management zone. I learned something about the “C” closure that I did not know. People like you need to be involved to keep our fishery stocks healthy and to retain a recreational fishery. Thank you for your efforts. I do understand how people can be rubbed the wrong way when anyone starts talking about Marine reserves. Marine reserves are a closure and fishermen do not like closures. In fact, there is a long history of recreational and commercial fishermen fighting every Marine reserve proposed. Ten after a rtecovery period, we all wonder why we did not do it sooner. All of my information comes from the texts listed earlier and a lot of additional reading on specifics of the state of Washington. It also comes from six years of experience in Puget Sound anglers, attending meetings and listening and learning. It also calls from being an observer and participant in Puget Sound Rockfish conservation plan. I am also willing to adjust and change any opinion based on any new scientific facts. I am not trying to tell anybody they are wrong. I’m only trying to present the best available science to restore the most depressed fisheries in North America. In terms of having the most endangered marine species of any state in the US, the sky has fallen. Every game species in the state of Washington, is listed as an endangered species. Only halibut, sanddabs and rat fish are not listed. Lubchenko was put in place by Obama to head NOAA because of her expertise on marine reserves. NOAA now has marine spatial planning tools (aka Marine reserves) on its website. The Pacific Marine fisheries management Council has also added Marine special planning tools to its website. The state has also passed a law directing all the agencies to cooperate in Marine special planning. The Department of ecology has the responsibility to coordinate all the agencies into marine spatial planning. Part of the agenda for marine spatial planning for WDFW is to implement ecosystem-based management of our fisheries. Ecosystem-based management means marine reserves and rockfish conservation areas. The goal is NOT to shut down recreational fishing. This is the stance adopted by CCA , and it is grossly overstated. Their position statement on marine reserves and marine protected areas is properly conservative. But some people have overinterpreted that mission statement to mean all the environmentalists are anti-fishing. Nothing is further from the truth. Since that position statement was written in 2001, thereis ahuge mount of data and science that has developed to jstify the creation of marine reseves. The goal is to provide protected areas of high quality habitat so that our fisheries are restored by old large very fertile fish within those reserves. It is the old large fish that produced the huge numbers of eggs smolts and larvae. They are the key to fisheries restoration.

With the experience and involvement in fisheries and their management that both of you have, I really recommend you start reading the texts I gave earlier. They will be an eye-opener for you as much as they were for me. This is also not my first rodeo either but please understand my agenda is quite simple. I want to use the best available science to restore our fisheries. Most of you are probably involved in some kind of fishing organization like Puget Sound anglers or Coastal Conservation Association. If you want to see an overview of the facts concerning marine reserves, and why so many nations and states have instituted a marine reserves, feel free to ask me to come do a presentation to your group. Also, I can just about guarantee Marine reserves are coming to the state of Washington. The more all recreational, tribal and commercial fishermen understand about them, especially their benefits, the sooner we will be on the road to restoring our fisheries.

Plus1: Not theories. Just the facts and the science.

Somethingsmellsf: I made one mistake and corrected it immediately. I never claimed to be perfect or to make the perfect judgment calls all the time. How about you?

Norm, I believe you have been Gooosed.

Norm,

Conservation = wise use.

Preservation = non-use.

I believe you to be a "non-use" type of person. Jennings is such a person, and I see you as being joined at the hip with him.

Also, for someone who purports themselves to be in possession of a PHD, learn how to use a damned paragraph.

Gooose is a friend of mine, and is QUITE educated on the management of fisheries within Washington, and seeing how you have annoyed him tells me that you really are full of sh!t, and that my first impressions of you were correct.

What exactly is your PHD in? Surely it isn't anything to do with fisheries management. I have a PHD in being an asshole, but then again, that really isn't germane to the subject, is it.

I do not have a PHD either although some have asserted that I have a demonstrated level of AHPHDedness.

Norm, can you help me identify a term to describe a claim, belief, or practice posing as science, but which does not constitute or adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status.

The term should describe the use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims, over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation, lack of openness to testing by other experts, and a lack of progress in theory development. The term should also be inherently pejorative, because it wil be used to assert that something is being inaccurately or deceptively portrayed as science.

Above all, those labeled as practicing or advocating (the term) will normally dispute the characterization.

there has to be something in the dictionary to describe this phenomena....

Here is some easy listening that I rely on for such times as these.

music to help you thimk

Norman -
Of all the 100s of species of mammals, birds and fish that use Puget Sound I think you will find a dozen or so are actually ESA listed as either threatened or endangered. Those include 3 mammals - South resident orcas, humpback whale, and stellar sea-lions; and with the delisting of bald eagles and brown pelicans one bird species -marble murrelet and 8 fish - Chinook, summer chum, steelhead, bull trout, and bocaccio, yelloweye and canary rockfish. Witht the dynamic nature of the ESA listings it is possible that I have missed a recent change or two in species listing but the point is that relatively few have actually been listed.

However more to the point is that for all of us that concern about the diverse wildlife (including fish) that use Pguet Sound we need to recognize the unique nature of Puget Sound in the development of strategies to protect and recovery that wildlife. I for one am interested in holistic approaches that provide protection for all the species with the most important factor being the habitat that supports the ecosystem those animals rely on. While it could be argued that MPAs may address the harvest issues for rockfish (though even there they are not the only way to provide harvest protection) MPAs are not likely to provide much relieve for the many of the species using the Sound and especially the other ESA listed species.

As AuntyM has ponted out much of the water quality and habitat issues that Puget Sound (and the animals that use its waters) have their origins upland of the Sound. Establishing MPAs will not measurably address those issues. In fact by creating the illusion of providing relief from those habitat and water quality issues by pushing MPAs the focus of needed efforts will be diverted from high priority areas.

Even with rockfish when one considers the whole range of "stressors" limiting the populations it is unlikely that MPAs will be successful. Again water quality, most habitat issues have their sources in areas not likely to be included in MPAs. Further MPAs are not likely to measurably improve such issues and prey/predator interactions - whether that is availability of forage or such things as marine mammal predation. They would provide harvest protection though I think most would agree that the current season/management situation as expressed in the 2010 seasons/management do that job just as well. I'm sure that I'm not the only to think that the 2009 season structure was likley doing the job as well.

If we are to serious address the issues affect Puget Sound and the wildlife diversity that ecosystem supports we need to focus on the key issues. Continue to the effort to remove derelict gear, improve water quality across the landscape, protect current habitats and allow for the restoration/recovery of degraded habitats. That all will require hard and expensive choices by society and that effort should not be allowed to be deflect on those with limited agendas. And should be drive by the best science to address the various issues at their sources.

Tight lines
Curt

Norman espouses using best available science and also links himself heavily to the Sierra Club.

Recent Sierra Club slick multi-color mailing in support of the ESA reads (in part) for the Pacific Northwest's wild salmon that: "All five salmon species that spawn in the Pacific Northwest - chum, Chinook, sockeye, pink and Coho - now face extinction and are protected under the ESA."

In fact, pinks are not listed on the current NMFS website (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/fish.htm).

Furthermore, for sockeye only two ESUs are listed and for chum there are two and for coho there are four. This is not intended to diminish concerns for wild salmon but, rather, to point out that the Sierra Club has implied that all of the five species are listed which is factually incorrect (pinks) and provides misleading information as to the status of the other four species.

Yes, we need best available science but beware of who is defining the term and the validity of the information they are providing.

I really wonder what is different between Jennings actions of promoting his dive park for his REEF organization, the same organization he was voted "volunteer or the year", and the former wildlife biologist who was recently fined for steering projects towards the organization he was a part of.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/105233488.html

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - A former habitat biologist with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has been fined for violating the state's public employee ethics law.

Attorney General Rob McKenna says the Executive Ethics Board has settled its case against William Weiler, fining him $15,000.

McKenna says Weiler was the head of a nonprofit environmental science organization. He says Weiler, who no longer works for the state, acknowledged that he used his state job to promote environmental mitigation projects for his group.

More information from the Washington State Attorney Generls Office.

Former Fish and Wildlife employee held accountable for ethics violations

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 18, 2010
back
Former Fish and Wildlife employee held accountable for ethics violations

OLYMPIA – A former habitat biologist with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has been fined for multiple violations of the Ethics in Public Service Act.

On Oct. 12, the Executive Ethics Board settled its case against William Weiler, imposing a $15,000 penalty for multiple ethics violations regarding Weiler’s work with WDFW and a non-profit organization.

Weiler, who resigned on Aug. 6, 2009, was the founder and president of an environmental science organization that offers K-12 programs and works to restore habitats through grants from state agencies and other organizations.

Through an agreed order, Mr. Weiler admitted that he used his position with WDFW to promote environmental mitigation projects advanced by his non-profit organization and negotiated projects with energy companies that benefitted it, too.

Weiler used his state computer to market a series of educational materials offered by his non-profit business and to compose requests for grants to be administered by the organization. He also produced articles featuring the non-profit for environmental magazines while he was on the job at WDFW.

In addition, a forensic analysis of Weiler’s state computer indicated that he visited 711 social/networking sites, 641 news and sports sites, 118 banking sites and sent 8,060 non-work related e-mails over a five month period. The use of state computers and other equipment for personal use is prohibited by state law.

About the Washington State Executive Ethics Board
The Executive Ethics Board is statutorily mandated to enforce the Ethics in Public Service Act and hold employees and officers of the state’s executive branch accountable for their actions. Housed in the Attorney General’s Office, the Board is comprised of five members appointed by the governor. The board and its staff investigate ethic complaints as well as interpret and enforce the ethics law, imposing monetary sanctions for violations. They develop educational materials, provide free ethics training to state agencies and issue formal advisory opinions.

More specifics:

http://www.whitesalmonenterprise.com/arc...ed-ethics-rules

They are take public comments for only three more weeks (until Dec 4th). Just a reminder since I know that the pro recreational fishing closure folks will be submitting fresh comment leading up to the deadline.

Well,

Looks like all of everone's letters helped out and we have preserved the ability to fish inside Tatoosh at Neah Bay. They brought the total number of fish down from 12 to 10, which is very reasonable. Much more reasonable than cutting off fishing along the entire inside. Thanks folks for your help.

Still don't like Jennings, or his practices.

I was able to have a decent conversation with Commissioner Jennings and some of the environmentalists. I told them we all want the same thing, a rebounded Puget Sound, be we all differ in the way we want to get there and closures we will never back. Maybe some common ground is all that is needed. It would be nice to see some of these groups to fund derelict net removal instead of closures. PSA has given thousands to NW straits but it is not enough. We need more $ as the stimulus money is gone.

By the way bottom dragging was closed in the Puget Sound and Straits at this meeting and per mine and slowleaks request they are moving on with emergency rule making to make commercial nets have mandatory marking and mandatory net loss within 24-48 hours. I gave them some paperwork from the NW Straits commision showing the nets left and amont they are killing per county. It drove the point home and now it is in the making regardless if HB1717 passes or not.

I would like to believe that Commissioner Jennings is finally getting a clue that he and his compatriots are not the only ones concerned about our resources. After all, aren't we all conservationists and environmentalists? Guess I don't like giving them the high ground with lofty titles implying anyone not agreeing with them is somehow not up to snuff!

Keep in mind that Commissioner Jennings is on record as having said (pre-appointment) that he was in favor of putting half of Puget Sound off limits to all harvesting. And, no, I don't think the 120 foot rule counts. Maybe if he went public apologizing for his Biodiversity Guy behavior and retracting his 50% off limits goal I MIGHT start to consider him a legitimate player.

Ron/Bear: Thank you for your efforts on this one!

I don't have an issue with a group trying to close fishing in a specific area to save a fishery, if it saves a fishery. I have an issue with a group trying to close a fishery without science, while they have a person in power abuse their position to try an accomplish it.