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.