You forgot about his letter that was not published that he said he spoke on behalf of CCA and PSA-WITHOUT our permission. My take on Norm is "We need to work together on a common goal, as long as its my goal."

Sorry Norm-We the people on the water disagree with your citizen based science.

Got some popcorn?

This is SO typical of the methodology of the pro MR/MPA folks as to be laughable if not so serious.

First, lets set forth some indisputable facts albeit old news to most here. Prior to becoming a Commissioner Mr. Jennings is on record as wanting half of Puget Sound in a no-take zone which is, per Mr. Baker, a Marine Reserve (MR). NO fishingI! NO crabbing! NO NOTHING!!!! (well, a MR does not preclude diving does it???)

Furthermore, Mr. Jennings, knowing he was to be appointed as a Commissioner, submitted a number of rule change proposals just before the cutoff in June 2009 to include one to create a "world class dive site" by putting much of this same area off limits to fishermen effectively making it a Marine Reserve. (sound familiar??) For reasons not officially documented, that proposal was pulled by Staff and did not receive review/comment by interested parties prior nor was it included in the proposed rules made public and subject to four public meetings. However, during this period Commissioner Jennings unabashedly promoted his proposal on several diver oriented web sites requesting that readers write the Commission in support of that proposed rule change BEFORE IT BECAME PUBLIC! This was all accomplished under the alias Biodiversity Guy and without acknowledgment that he was a Commissioner. Talk about devious! Why would we trust him now and why would we trust those who makes excuses for him and his behavior?

Sorry Mr. Baker, no excuses for Commissioner Jennings. He is a perfect example of the type of zealot who needs to be contained.

As to the need for any further closures keep in mind that all areas deeper than 120 feet are off limits to bottom fishing and are effectively an MPA which will allow rock fish to grow old and big and reach maximum fecundity with dispersal of larvae to adjacent near shore waters. Also, let us not forget the huge MPA just off the NW coast presumably having the same effect. At the last public meeting which was held in Olympia WDFW Staff had NO data on the current or future effectiveness of those areas as sources of rock fish replenishment to near shore areas. I know because I asked the question.

Finally, as for this specific proposal the supporting information from WDFW cites improvements to non-consumptive users' experiences rather than to any biological need. Yup, just Jennings' initial proposal reconstituted.

I can hardly wait for the upcoming October meeting. It should be a great set of meetings.

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.

:golf clap:

Bear:

Thank you for your point by point response to Mr. Baker especially since you have been and are currently very active on the PSRAG representing the interests of the resource as well as recreational fishermen and women (AuntyM sensitivity training in effect). It is absolutely critical to respond in this manner as misinformation/disinformation can become the "truth" if spouted enough times without valid counterpoints being presented to the same audience.

Norm Baker -
First thank you for taking the time to post your insights and thoughts on these issues as well as providing some additional information.

However I do think that some here are more informed about mariner protection areas (MPAs) than you give us credit for. I have read some of the subject and am very interested in the heatlh and well being of the rockfish resource of the State and would love to see the management of that resource be based on the latest science.

I agree with you that from the reading I have done that in areas like Puget Sound that those advocating MPAs suggest that 15 to 20% of the habitat be set aside as MPAs. The DEIS on Puget Sound stated that there is something like a little more than 2,400 acres of high relieve rocky habitat used by rockfish in what they called south Puget Sound. IN reviewing the existing MPAs in the area I found that there is a number of them that include rocky habitats used by rockfish. In fact there were more than 500 acres of such MPAs. In short more than 20% of the key rockfish habitat in South Sound has set aside as MPAs for some time. In addition with the situation in Hood Canal as well as the recent regulation changes much of the region is more rockfish conservation areas.

Based on the available science one would have thought that south Puget Sound rockfish would be on the way to recovery when one couples the MPAs in place with the management changes that have taken over the last 15 years. Again with the available science one would have predicted that it would take 10 to 20 years to see significant chagnes in the abundance and age structure of the rockfish populations and further one would have expected to see those kinds of changes in the more prodcutivity species with a shorter generation time; that is with species such as the copper and quilback rockfish.

I believe that any objective review of the information available since 2003 (primarily creel information) shows that the souther Puget Sound rockfish are responding exactly as predicted above. I too took the time to sit in as an observer at a couple of the Rockfish meetings (don't know if that makes active in the process) and heard a number of folks common on seeing more juvenile rockfish in a number of areas as well as some larger fish. The recent creel information on for exampel copper rockfish also indicates that the length frequency of larger fish is increase. In other words a stock status review using the latest information potentially would show that recovery has all ready begun.

I do agree whole heartly with your statement -

"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."


The current proposal is not using the best science; in fact as I posted here earlier the attempt to apply "science" concerning the status Puget Sound Rockfish is not valid. Virtually all would agree that the rockfish populations at the western end of the Straits is much more closely aligned with the ocean populations than the Puget Sound fish. I further agree that the best chance of success would be for the commission to table this whole discussion until a more reasoned and science base approach can be developed. Such an approach must be included in the context of the larger picture including the needs of a broad spectrum of rockfish species (across a larger geographic area) as well as the needs of potential users of that resource.

Tight lines
Curt

Jesus Christ. Why did someone have to go and use logic and intelligence in this conversation?

Per today's PDN, Norm is going to be the speaker for the Port Townsend/Jefferson Cty PSA meeting next Tuesday, and the Subject is going to be MPA/MR's. Might be worthwhile to attend and "Ask" the counterpoint questions.

wolf in sheeps clothing.

Thanks for chiming in Curt, I always appreciate your perspective.

Bear

What misinformation? If you are aware of something 4b or rockfish related that we are not, we're all ears.

WOW! talk about a little knowledge being dangerous. So this guy takes a little knowledge about the Rock fish advisory group and what they are trying to accomplish and hijacks some of their intent and goes on a letter writing campaign and lecture circuit and now he is "The expert".

And here I thought you had to put your time in and really do the work like Bear has done. Bye the way Bear great job.

People like this are very dangerous because so many other people are complacent enough to take their words as gospel.

Good on you guys for calling this phony out!


Fishy

Actually, Norm has more than a little knowledge… he has a couple of advanced degrees including a PhD and I don’t consider him a phony. But I wonder why such an educated man with more credentials than most of us will ever have occasionally works hard to convince folks he is something he is not.

This is an excerpt from a letter he wrote to Ecology regarding spatial planning:

“…the Washington Department of Fish and wildlife has almost completed its revised Puget Sound Rockfish Conservation Plan (PSRCP). It is available online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/sepa/10014deis.pdf I was an active participant in producing this plan and attended all of the Advisory Group meetings. I was also the designated speaker for marine reserves to this advisory group. I was also the Action Item leader asking 15,000 Sierra Club members throughout the state to support this plan.”

He was in-fact at every meeting but as an observer he was not recognized by the Advisory Group as an “active participant” in producing the plan.

He did in fact make a presentation on Marine Reserves. However, he was not “designated” by the Group or the Department. The truth is he was allowed to speak after Advisory Group member Doug Myer of People for Puget Sound requested permission to invite a guest speaker to make a presentation on MPA’s; I would not classify this as being “the designated speaker”. By the way, Norm also describes himself as an active member of People for Puget Sound.

I don’t know Norm’s exact background other than he owned a large nursery and he is recognized as somewhat of an expert on Daylilies. He also describes himself as a “lifelong environmentalist”. He is very knowledgeable on Marine Reserves and a host of other science based issues. I feel he is qualified to speak on their behalf but he is almost militant about them being the end all solution for rockfish recovery or at least preaches recovery will not happen without Marine Reserves. The fact is, there is no one single thing that will recover rockfish; it will take many things.

Norm, what part of a bottom fish fishing closure beyond 120 ft don't you understand. Seems to me that has made a rockfish conservation closure area of maybe 60 or more percent of Puget Sound and the Straits. You seem to just want to have your way on this. You and WDFG also seem to have ignored scientific studies about releasing bottom fish safley, one study where they marked fish and went back some years later and caught many previously marked fish. I'm aware of you being a CCA member and since you are maybe you should look up the CCA's stand on MPA's and such.

Bump.
Thank you, knowledgeable guys, for posting. I think we are all a little smarter for reading this thread.

Must be a lot of fire control needed on these issues from many groups. Individuals join a group and then list that membership as authority to advocate for an agenda. I wonder if the Sierra Club even knows what Mr Baker is doing? I am pretty sure that the CCA and PSA do not support his words and actions.

I do respect his posting of his viewpoints in detail, and feel his passion, but think he has missed his chance to respond to the knowledgeable points raised in this thread. Smacks of "advanced trolling."

FWIW I am an active CCA member but do not claim to represent CCA in any personal opinions such as those above. I am also a member of NW Steelheaders, Wild Steelhead Coalition, Rotary International, and too many to count medical groups, but I do not claim to represent any of them.

Bear where I am from they call that being a phony and trying to pull a "Con".

Anytime there is a falsification of information or credentials to gain advantage toward an end favoring your position that is being a phony and a con. There are a lot of educated phony con men in the world and they would leave us all their wake to meet their own goals.

I am glad this one was called on his actions, and now he seems to have lost credibility and that's not such a bad thing.

Fishy

Don’t get me wrong Fishy… I’m not defending his honor; I’m just pointing out that he has enough genuine credentials without exaggerating.