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