Very good points. I will bring into question these "non-consumptive users" and ask just how much do they pay?

I'm with Plus 1 on this.

I cannot see any lack of compatibility with fishing, kayaking, diving, bird watching in this area.

There is no reason that all of these activities cannot occur in harmony with each other.

It is stupid to restrict recreational opportunities in this area unless there is scientific
data that it is harmful.

i agree that closing areas of 4B is a bad idea, but i am cautious about trusting wdfw science. we have seen their "science" lead us into the diminished fisheries we now have.

i did testify against closures in 4B, but the hair raises on the back of my neck when i hear wdfw declare a fishery "healthy." i actually changed my original testimony after hearing wdfw's presentation and that "healthy" word used too often.

By "maximizing" I would suggest that it means not having to share with others (especially fisherpersons). Some birders want to see the maximum number of birds (undisturbed), some divers (Jennings etc) want to see the maximum number of fish that a habitat can sustain. Equate "maximize" with "selfish."

Got to meet Larry B, but there was a dismal turnout of 9 folks, including commissioner Jennings. 5 folks spoke for status quo, a number of folks stated the need for a sunset provision if anything other than status quo was approved. One diver who works for an aquarium/zoo spoke for option 3.

You want to guess where I stood?

I felt sorry for the WDFW staff who were made to present tonight because they really had nothing to present. There was no scientific data. NONE!

It is a shame that Jennings is forcing his pet project on us once again. Please, we have until December to submit public testimony, so write your emails and letters. The commissioners do read them. Make you comments at every commission meeting. I will be back to remind you of the next commission meeting.

I, too, was disappointed in the turnout and more so in the absolute lack of data from Staff showing a biological need for any further closures and/or restrictions.

The recently enacted closures (120 foot rule) and reduction of daily catch limits and limiting rockfish catch and keep to black and blues have not had a chance to provide the anticipated population enhancements before this new attempt at further restrictions. That is just nuts!

In a post meeting discussion with Dave the diver who works for Point Defiance Aquarium he suggested that area closures would allow for the full range of fish populations and sizes and, therefore, an unaffected (by humans) full range of interactions among species. (Hope I got that right) Guess that would be the non-consumptive user's maximized goal.

If a diver can see 70 (for instance) mixed species of fish on a dive in an area being fished is that a bad dive? If he saw 100 would that be a great dive? And, if so, would achieving that additional pleasure be worth depriving sport fishermen the opportunity to pursue their sport in that same area? Apparently some people think so.

And while the lack of any sunset clause is a valid criticism any such clause would have to be based upon a reasonable goal and valid current stock assessment indicating a significant shortfall. That kind of data simply does not exist.

So, if you want to continue to have full access to this area I strongly recommend that you submit your comments to the Commission. Be assured that there are folks that would like to usurp your use of some or all of that area and once gone there would be little chance of getting it back.

So what is it that keeps some divers from going to the area and what is it about the area that make divers want to dive there?

There isn't anything that keeps divers from going there, and they like going there because there are lots of fish.

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

Great points Curt.

Not all conspiracy theories are just theories. Again, remember that Commissioner Jennings is on record as having opined that half of Puget Sound should be set aside as non-consumptive areas. And I don't think he meant the shipping lanes.

The intent of this is clear, and I quote from the WDFW 4B Draft Management Objectives and Alternatives for Public Comment:

Alternate 2: "would provide additional protection for bottomfish and increased non consumptive recreational opportunities..." (emphasis added)

Alternate 3: "would provide protection for all marine resources and maximize non-consumptive recreational opportunities....." (emphasis added)

This is NOT about conservation nor is it really about recreational opportunity as nothing currently precludes diving or other non-consumptive users from these areas. It is all about taking away areas where we fishers (consumptive users) can enjoy our various activities so that others may have an enhanced experience.

Also, let us not forget that the 120 foot rule (and daily catch limit reductions and non-take species specific limitations) was imposed in this area despite the relative abundance both as a precautionary effort and to have an area where the large breeders (particularly rockfish) can do their thing producing disbursed eggs/larvae that float with the currents. Staff indicated they had no data on the impact of the 120 foot plus areas nor the off-shore canary rockfish closed zone on the populations of these near shore area fish populations. Again, no data!

For those who support closures without a biological basis (last resort) and without a sunset clause and who consider themselves environmentalists let me opine that most consumptive users are at heart environmentalists. What they are not is preservationists at the expense of others.

I got the impression the staff just wanted to leave asap. As stated they had and brought nothing scientific or otherwise to go on to increase closures in the area. All three said they were just there to get the public input. To their credit they did do well at answering most of the questions.

Dogfish's knife is razor sharp and injects salt as it cuts.

I showed Larry B where room 175 was. Staff must not know which room is which. But we found where the meeting had been moved to before it started. Sorry Larry. :-)

I don't know if I'll go to the commission meeting or just write a letter. I need to quit going to this crap. But either way I'll say this whole thing needs to be dismissed until someone comes up with something tangible to support a change. And that Commissioner Jennings needs to be dismissed as well.

Larry B -
A small point neither Alternative 2 nor Alternative 3 would increase non-consumptive recreational opportunties. Either may increase the quality of those opportunties but since the dive community current has full access they would not increase the overall opportunties.

Tight lines
Curt

Yes, Donno and I hung out at the wrong door for awhile chatting. Nice to meet you.

Smalma, agree with you totally. I think I made that same point after quoting what the propaganda had in it in support of the several alternatives.

As you wrote, "the advancement of an agenda for personal desires based in the name of "conservation" has always rubbed me wrong." That's it in a nutshell. Thanks for the sharp pen.

Larry

conservation has almost always been based on personal desires.

while i agree that closing large portions of 4B is a bad idea, it's not because i trust wdfw science. it's based on a personal desire to continue fishing with the hope that reduced bag limits can hopefully improve populations that wdfw states are declining (like blue rockfish, which can currently be kept) and to increase the populations of more abundant stocks as well.

fish management, especially wdfw, rarely pushes conservative regulations until they are necessary. if it weren't for personal desires, the hoh would probably still be at a 30 fish yearly wild fish kill while still missing escapement most years but shut down to sport fishing.

some fishermen's personal desire is to maximize harvest, and while i disagree that is no different than my personal desire for reduced harvest to hopefully increase abundance while still allowing fisheries... or the personal desires of divers to dive over unmolested populations of fish. we have differences but they are all based on personal desires.

we are also dealing with a common thing in fish management, the shifting baseline. we are not attemting to bring populations back to the numbers 50-100 years ago... but using current populations (or within the last 5-10 years) as a new baseline. ask the guys who fished neah bay in the 50's, 60's and 70's if the rockfish population in the area is diminished.

Nicely said Curt!
Ron

I am sorry I didn't get this posted a while ago so it could have at least been presented. hopefully it can still be propsed as a future alternative.

I don't kow anything abut the area but I can say this. Go to the meetings, email the people involved and make your voice heard. I have been part of the process for a long time now and my voice has been heard many times. One a couple occassions I was the only one who made a comment or proposal and it made a huge difference. My opinions and observations made those who were considering the changes to think about the topic and they did or didn't make the changes because of it.

One voice of reason and thought out deductions can be just as if not more powerful than an army of people with nothing but gripes.

If they need a refuge for divers let the divers make one. Take a small section, place habitat there in the form of reef balls and other artficial reefs and leave it at that. The divers get their haven, the fish have better habitat to replace dwindling stocks and fisherman don't lose but a small place instead of an entire region. Don't take away good fishing spots just for diving, make new ones in places where fishing needs a habitat boost and everyone wins.

If they need to get educated on reef balls, here is the site.
http://www.reefball.org/index.html

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.², 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

Typical lecture from Norm, you silly fisherman don't know what you are talking about, now go over there, sit down, and we'll tell you when and where you can fish. Norm was not a member of the Rockfish Advisory Group, even though he constantly refers to himself that way, other than doing a Marine reserve presentation that was full of holes and mis-information and a few comments at the end of the meetings he had nothing to contribute.