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.