Dogfish: I too am for the status quote on area 4B and for stopping all commercial long lining in 4B. right now with 120 foot rule, 60 to 70% of Puget Sound is closed. I really think that when WDFW creates a network of real marine reserves, and rockfish conservation areas, WDFW will rescind the 120 foot rule. The 15 to 20% closure is what is proposed by the Puget Sound rockfish conservation plan. It is only a proposal at this point. It has to go through the WA FishCommission first. If we institute a real network of marine reserves the best available science says only 15 to 20% ofPuget Sopund is necessary for fisheries restoration. Yes I am an environmentalist. But I’m also a fisherman and have been involved in conservation work most of my life. Environmentalists are not the enemy. Environmentalists and recreational sports fishermen need to join together to promote habitat protection and use the best available science to do it. please understand I’m not trying to tell you how to live your life. I just want to restore our fisheries.

Mike Gilchrist and Fishinut: I really like your comments onthe C closure being a rockfish management zone. I learned something about the “C” closure that I did not know. People like you need to be involved to keep our fishery stocks healthy and to retain a recreational fishery. Thank you for your efforts. I do understand how people can be rubbed the wrong way when anyone starts talking about Marine reserves. Marine reserves are a closure and fishermen do not like closures. In fact, there is a long history of recreational and commercial fishermen fighting every Marine reserve proposed. Ten after a rtecovery period, we all wonder why we did not do it sooner. All of my information comes from the texts listed earlier and a lot of additional reading on specifics of the state of Washington. It also comes from six years of experience in Puget Sound anglers, attending meetings and listening and learning. It also calls from being an observer and participant in Puget Sound Rockfish conservation plan. I am also willing to adjust and change any opinion based on any new scientific facts. I am not trying to tell anybody they are wrong. I’m only trying to present the best available science to restore the most depressed fisheries in North America. In terms of having the most endangered marine species of any state in the US, the sky has fallen. Every game species in the state of Washington, is listed as an endangered species. Only halibut, sanddabs and rat fish are not listed. Lubchenko was put in place by Obama to head NOAA because of her expertise on marine reserves. NOAA now has marine spatial planning tools (aka Marine reserves) on its website. The Pacific Marine fisheries management Council has also added Marine special planning tools to its website. The state has also passed a law directing all the agencies to cooperate in Marine special planning. The Department of ecology has the responsibility to coordinate all the agencies into marine spatial planning. Part of the agenda for marine spatial planning for WDFW is to implement ecosystem-based management of our fisheries. Ecosystem-based management means marine reserves and rockfish conservation areas. The goal is NOT to shut down recreational fishing. This is the stance adopted by CCA , and it is grossly overstated. Their position statement on marine reserves and marine protected areas is properly conservative. But some people have overinterpreted that mission statement to mean all the environmentalists are anti-fishing. Nothing is further from the truth. Since that position statement was written in 2001, thereis ahuge mount of data and science that has developed to jstify the creation of marine reseves. The goal is to provide protected areas of high quality habitat so that our fisheries are restored by old large very fertile fish within those reserves. It is the old large fish that produced the huge numbers of eggs smolts and larvae. They are the key to fisheries restoration.

With the experience and involvement in fisheries and their management that both of you have, I really recommend you start reading the texts I gave earlier. They will be an eye-opener for you as much as they were for me. This is also not my first rodeo either but please understand my agenda is quite simple. I want to use the best available science to restore our fisheries. Most of you are probably involved in some kind of fishing organization like Puget Sound anglers or Coastal Conservation Association. If you want to see an overview of the facts concerning marine reserves, and why so many nations and states have instituted a marine reserves, feel free to ask me to come do a presentation to your group. Also, I can just about guarantee Marine reserves are coming to the state of Washington. The more all recreational, tribal and commercial fishermen understand about them, especially their benefits, the sooner we will be on the road to restoring our fisheries.

Plus1: Not theories. Just the facts and the science.

Somethingsmellsf: I made one mistake and corrected it immediately. I never claimed to be perfect or to make the perfect judgment calls all the time. How about you?

Norm, I believe you have been Gooosed.

Norm,

Conservation = wise use.

Preservation = non-use.

I believe you to be a "non-use" type of person. Jennings is such a person, and I see you as being joined at the hip with him.

Also, for someone who purports themselves to be in possession of a PHD, learn how to use a damned paragraph.

Gooose is a friend of mine, and is QUITE educated on the management of fisheries within Washington, and seeing how you have annoyed him tells me that you really are full of sh!t, and that my first impressions of you were correct.

What exactly is your PHD in? Surely it isn't anything to do with fisheries management. I have a PHD in being an asshole, but then again, that really isn't germane to the subject, is it.

I do not have a PHD either although some have asserted that I have a demonstrated level of AHPHDedness.

Norm, can you help me identify a term to describe a claim, belief, or practice posing as science, but which does not constitute or adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status.

The term should describe the use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims, over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation, lack of openness to testing by other experts, and a lack of progress in theory development. The term should also be inherently pejorative, because it wil be used to assert that something is being inaccurately or deceptively portrayed as science.

Above all, those labeled as practicing or advocating (the term) will normally dispute the characterization.

there has to be something in the dictionary to describe this phenomena....

Here is some easy listening that I rely on for such times as these.

music to help you thimk

Norman -
Of all the 100s of species of mammals, birds and fish that use Puget Sound I think you will find a dozen or so are actually ESA listed as either threatened or endangered. Those include 3 mammals - South resident orcas, humpback whale, and stellar sea-lions; and with the delisting of bald eagles and brown pelicans one bird species -marble murrelet and 8 fish - Chinook, summer chum, steelhead, bull trout, and bocaccio, yelloweye and canary rockfish. Witht the dynamic nature of the ESA listings it is possible that I have missed a recent change or two in species listing but the point is that relatively few have actually been listed.

However more to the point is that for all of us that concern about the diverse wildlife (including fish) that use Pguet Sound we need to recognize the unique nature of Puget Sound in the development of strategies to protect and recovery that wildlife. I for one am interested in holistic approaches that provide protection for all the species with the most important factor being the habitat that supports the ecosystem those animals rely on. While it could be argued that MPAs may address the harvest issues for rockfish (though even there they are not the only way to provide harvest protection) MPAs are not likely to provide much relieve for the many of the species using the Sound and especially the other ESA listed species.

As AuntyM has ponted out much of the water quality and habitat issues that Puget Sound (and the animals that use its waters) have their origins upland of the Sound. Establishing MPAs will not measurably address those issues. In fact by creating the illusion of providing relief from those habitat and water quality issues by pushing MPAs the focus of needed efforts will be diverted from high priority areas.

Even with rockfish when one considers the whole range of "stressors" limiting the populations it is unlikely that MPAs will be successful. Again water quality, most habitat issues have their sources in areas not likely to be included in MPAs. Further MPAs are not likely to measurably improve such issues and prey/predator interactions - whether that is availability of forage or such things as marine mammal predation. They would provide harvest protection though I think most would agree that the current season/management situation as expressed in the 2010 seasons/management do that job just as well. I'm sure that I'm not the only to think that the 2009 season structure was likley doing the job as well.

If we are to serious address the issues affect Puget Sound and the wildlife diversity that ecosystem supports we need to focus on the key issues. Continue to the effort to remove derelict gear, improve water quality across the landscape, protect current habitats and allow for the restoration/recovery of degraded habitats. That all will require hard and expensive choices by society and that effort should not be allowed to be deflect on those with limited agendas. And should be drive by the best science to address the various issues at their sources.

Tight lines
Curt

Norman espouses using best available science and also links himself heavily to the Sierra Club.

Recent Sierra Club slick multi-color mailing in support of the ESA reads (in part) for the Pacific Northwest's wild salmon that: "All five salmon species that spawn in the Pacific Northwest - chum, Chinook, sockeye, pink and Coho - now face extinction and are protected under the ESA."

In fact, pinks are not listed on the current NMFS website (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/fish.htm).

Furthermore, for sockeye only two ESUs are listed and for chum there are two and for coho there are four. This is not intended to diminish concerns for wild salmon but, rather, to point out that the Sierra Club has implied that all of the five species are listed which is factually incorrect (pinks) and provides misleading information as to the status of the other four species.

Yes, we need best available science but beware of who is defining the term and the validity of the information they are providing.

I really wonder what is different between Jennings actions of promoting his dive park for his REEF organization, the same organization he was voted "volunteer or the year", and the former wildlife biologist who was recently fined for steering projects towards the organization he was a part of.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/105233488.html

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - A former habitat biologist with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has been fined for violating the state's public employee ethics law.

Attorney General Rob McKenna says the Executive Ethics Board has settled its case against William Weiler, fining him $15,000.

McKenna says Weiler was the head of a nonprofit environmental science organization. He says Weiler, who no longer works for the state, acknowledged that he used his state job to promote environmental mitigation projects for his group.

More information from the Washington State Attorney Generls Office.

Former Fish and Wildlife employee held accountable for ethics violations

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 18, 2010
back
Former Fish and Wildlife employee held accountable for ethics violations

OLYMPIA – A former habitat biologist with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has been fined for multiple violations of the Ethics in Public Service Act.

On Oct. 12, the Executive Ethics Board settled its case against William Weiler, imposing a $15,000 penalty for multiple ethics violations regarding Weiler’s work with WDFW and a non-profit organization.

Weiler, who resigned on Aug. 6, 2009, was the founder and president of an environmental science organization that offers K-12 programs and works to restore habitats through grants from state agencies and other organizations.

Through an agreed order, Mr. Weiler admitted that he used his position with WDFW to promote environmental mitigation projects advanced by his non-profit organization and negotiated projects with energy companies that benefitted it, too.

Weiler used his state computer to market a series of educational materials offered by his non-profit business and to compose requests for grants to be administered by the organization. He also produced articles featuring the non-profit for environmental magazines while he was on the job at WDFW.

In addition, a forensic analysis of Weiler’s state computer indicated that he visited 711 social/networking sites, 641 news and sports sites, 118 banking sites and sent 8,060 non-work related e-mails over a five month period. The use of state computers and other equipment for personal use is prohibited by state law.

About the Washington State Executive Ethics Board
The Executive Ethics Board is statutorily mandated to enforce the Ethics in Public Service Act and hold employees and officers of the state’s executive branch accountable for their actions. Housed in the Attorney General’s Office, the Board is comprised of five members appointed by the governor. The board and its staff investigate ethic complaints as well as interpret and enforce the ethics law, imposing monetary sanctions for violations. They develop educational materials, provide free ethics training to state agencies and issue formal advisory opinions.

More specifics:

http://www.whitesalmonenterprise.com/arc...ed-ethics-rules

They are take public comments for only three more weeks (until Dec 4th). Just a reminder since I know that the pro recreational fishing closure folks will be submitting fresh comment leading up to the deadline.

Well,

Looks like all of everone's letters helped out and we have preserved the ability to fish inside Tatoosh at Neah Bay. They brought the total number of fish down from 12 to 10, which is very reasonable. Much more reasonable than cutting off fishing along the entire inside. Thanks folks for your help.

Still don't like Jennings, or his practices.

I was able to have a decent conversation with Commissioner Jennings and some of the environmentalists. I told them we all want the same thing, a rebounded Puget Sound, be we all differ in the way we want to get there and closures we will never back. Maybe some common ground is all that is needed. It would be nice to see some of these groups to fund derelict net removal instead of closures. PSA has given thousands to NW straits but it is not enough. We need more $ as the stimulus money is gone.

By the way bottom dragging was closed in the Puget Sound and Straits at this meeting and per mine and slowleaks request they are moving on with emergency rule making to make commercial nets have mandatory marking and mandatory net loss within 24-48 hours. I gave them some paperwork from the NW Straits commision showing the nets left and amont they are killing per county. It drove the point home and now it is in the making regardless if HB1717 passes or not.

I would like to believe that Commissioner Jennings is finally getting a clue that he and his compatriots are not the only ones concerned about our resources. After all, aren't we all conservationists and environmentalists? Guess I don't like giving them the high ground with lofty titles implying anyone not agreeing with them is somehow not up to snuff!

Keep in mind that Commissioner Jennings is on record as having said (pre-appointment) that he was in favor of putting half of Puget Sound off limits to all harvesting. And, no, I don't think the 120 foot rule counts. Maybe if he went public apologizing for his Biodiversity Guy behavior and retracting his 50% off limits goal I MIGHT start to consider him a legitimate player.

Ron/Bear: Thank you for your efforts on this one!

I don't have an issue with a group trying to close fishing in a specific area to save a fishery, if it saves a fishery. I have an issue with a group trying to close a fishery without science, while they have a person in power abuse their position to try an accomplish it.