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...