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.˛, 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
Previous Topic
Index
