Point taken Bear, and I agree with those credentials why embellish?


Fishy

Interesting comments to say the least. I will respond to them in the order given. I had no idea there would be so many comments. My apologies for a series of postings.

Salmon Hawk – Never said I was a member. Said I participated and gave a talk. Salmon hawk, Rob Tobeck, never heard my presentation on marine reserves. Frankly he has doe limited reading. Also, I had two PhD fisheries biologists and a former fisheries state fish and game Dept manager review that talk to be sure it was accurate and on-point. All said it was and offered a few additional suggestions and citations which I took seriously.

Fishinnut – Our letter that was not published was rebuttal to an article published in The Reel News by Rob Tobeck . That article was full of slanderous half truths and outright misrepresentations. Perhaps I should publish that rebuttal here. Perhaps I’ll put it on every fishing blog in the state. Perhaps I’ll send it to the Seattle Times. On the case of misrepresentation, I made a simple mistake in the introductions at our 4b focus group meeting and took steps to correct it as soon as it was pointed out. There was no misrepresentation intended. My goal is to use the best available science for fisheries restoration. From all that I have seen and read, the best available science is a network of marine reserves and marine protected areas, covering 15-20% of Puget Sound that protects critical habitat and game fish populations. Those protected populations and marine reserves become our Puget Sound ecosystems fish hatcheries. I could not care less if you disagree with me. That’s why I decided to post on PP. If you disagree with the Marine reserve science, tell me how I would love to discuss it openly, honestly and directly.

AuntyM – I was not authorized to speak on behalf of CCA and I have apologized to everyone concerned. It was a simple mistake that will not happen again. CCA’s position on marine reserves is quite conservative, and it should be. However, CCA’s national position is out dated. From the language that I have read in it, it appears to be composed about the year 2000. There is a ton of new information available on marine reserves since that position paper was composed.

Larry B – You are correct in statements and positions made by Dave Jennings. He made a mistake in my opinion. He meant well but he was wrong. The 120 foot closure was put in to protect some endangered species. At the last Rockfish advisory group meeting, I recommended that if WDFW were to begin a serious program implementing marine reserves and Rockfish conservation areas, that the 120 foot rule should be rescinded immediately. I still believe that to be an appropriate management action. While I agree a Marine reserve is a closure, a closure is not a Marine reserve, because it is not based on biological scientific facts about the fish species it is supposed to protect. The huge MPA, just off the coast is probably why some of the rock fish populations in 4B are still healthy. You state “WDFW had no data on the current or future effectiveness of these areas as sources of Rockfish replenishment to nearshore areas. “ How can they have such data without those areas in place for at least one or two generations of rock reproduction?

Slowleak- Bear’s comments are right on concerning my participation. As an observer, I was the official representative for Sierra Club. My comments about “no one knowing anything about Marine reserves” means the science of marine reserves is growing so fast that very very few people are aware of the full depth and breadth of information available. The whole area of scientific research on marine reserves is currently producing one significant peer reviewed scientific publication per day. This is an enormous most amount of information that has not made it into the public’s knowledge yet. But with worldwide fisheries being depressed, and so many species being endangered, many governmental leaders and politicians are catching on to the fact that marine reserves do restore depressed fisheries. I would not want Bear Holmes to surrender and get out of the way of any political action concerning marine reserves. I would want him to make the kind of contributions to a marine reserve network that I saw him make in the Rockfish advisory group. “Speaking as a scientist” I do not expect anyone to bow down. What I do expect is an open honest, direct discussion of any point pertinent to marine reserves. I have never treated Bear with disrespect or dishonored his contribution in the Rockfish advisory group. In fact, he and Rob Tobeck suggested some regulations for commercial appeal letters that should be immediately adopted by the WA fish and game commission. Yes, Bear is right that Marine reserves are one tool in the toolbox. They are the big tool in the toolbox for ecosystem-based management currently being adopted by WDFW. Yes I am a recreational fisherman. I have purchased a fishing license and hunting license every year of my entire adult life. I own three different fishing vessels – an old bass boat, and old one man pontoon boat, and a kayak. WDFW is trying to protect our fish stocks from everyone who fishes – tribes, commercials and recreational. They have inherited a terribly mismanaged Puget Sound fisheries. Commercials totally abused our fish stocks and so do the tribes to some extent. And now, modern technology allows both recreationals and commercials to find and catch almost any fish that swims. The Rockfish advisory group recommended a team of fisheries biologists and scientists as an advisory board to create a network of marine reserves and rock fish conservation areas. There was not a single person on the Rockfish advisory group or any organization represented that wants to exclude sportfishermen or stop recreational fishing. Bear and Rob insist on making the statement and it is profoundly not true. I challenge both of these men to produce their documentation for this statement. The science of marine reserves, is the best available science for the restoration of depressed fisheries and the restoration of endangered species. Unfortunately, the closures proposed in the area 4B have no scientific or biological basis and I do not support these proposed closures. I do support closing commercial long lining in 4B. Whether or not, a Marine reserve is needed in the area of 4B, should be left up to the scientific advisory group for a Marine reserve network.

Norm

Larry B – You are absolutely right about misinformation/disinformation becoming the truth if spouted often enough. Again, There was not a single person on the Rockfish advisory group or any organization represented that wants to exclude sportfishermen or stop recreational fishing. Bear and Rob insist on making the statement and it is profoundly not true. I challenge both of these men to produce the documentation for this statement.

Smalma – Thank you for an open honest discussion and a respectful opinion. Many people assume high relief rocky habitat is all that needs protection to protect the rockfish. Unfortunately this is only part of the solution. Rockfish have four stages to the lifecycle. Each stage is in a different part of the Puget Sound ecosystem. Protection of the larval and juvenile stages is critical to restoration of Rockfish. Larval and juvenile stages use eelgrass beds, Kelp beds, and floating debris, as well as the open ocean waters. Consequently, it seems like a Marine reserve or rockfish conservation area is always much much larger than is ever really needed. Evolutionary biologists and geneticists now think that at least 5000 pairs, (males and females), are the minimum number of a species that are needed to keep a species going. This is not to suggest each Marine reserve needs 5000 rockfish. It does suggest that a network of marine reserves needs a minimum of 5000 fish. Each Marine reserve in a network must be large enough to support a population large enough to preserve the genetic diversity of the species and a complete age and size structure. More and more publications are coming out daily suggesting a 20% of the entire management area is appropriate for a network of marine reserves. Their borders provide a trophy fishery and the Marine reserve houses the ecosystem’s fish hatcheries.
You are absolutely right that recovery seems to have begun in some areas of Puget Sound. Cod, hake and some rock fish species are improving. I have talked to several divers who say they are seeing more and more larval rockfish and adult rockfish. I too have talked with a few fisheries biologist who say the Neah Bay stocks are more closely aligned with the oceanic stocks. Since there is less fishing for Rockfish outside 4B, there is probably considerable spillover into Neah Bay from the ocean stocks. I cannot agree with your final conclusion more. This whole discussion should be tabled until there is a scientific advisory group assembled for a marine reserve network.

Jaydee – The misinformation is all in my original posting.

Somethingsmellsf – I am not an expert or a know-it-all on this subject or a spreader of the gospel. Just an interested fisherman who coincidently has degrees in Zoology, Ecology, Evolutionary Biology and Entomology. I spent ten years in the Dept of Entomology, Fisheries and Wildlife and became interested in conservation issues and environmental issues while there. After retiring to WA, I became interested in the subject after a presentation to PSA about Aquatic Reserves. I thought the guys presenting the Aquatic Reserve info missed the chance to give a talk about restoration of ecosystems in Puget Sound. I started reading about marine reserves and aquatic reserves.
Frankly when I retired to Sequim, I expected a fishing paradise out here. Instead, I find two things which totally appalled me. Instead of a fishing paradise, I find the longest list of endangered species of any state in the US, and according to the American Fisheries Society, the most depressed fisheries in North America. Talk about historical mismanagement by WDFW! It clearly took many years of mismanagement and abuse by overfishing to get to this point. I really believe, WDFW is trying to restore our fisheries but they have inherited a really nasty mess. This message is also complicated by the tribes.

Slowleak – Thank you Bear for a little support. I am not trying to convince anyone of something I am not. I am a recreational fisherman and hunter. I am also a conservationist and a real pain-in-the-butt environmental activist. Environmentalists attack problems in the environment that need solutions. Our fisheries problems need solutions. WDFW has allowed observers to the PSRCP to make comments and contributions. As an observer, I submitted spoken testimony and written testimony, and I know for a fact it is part of the final package that will go to the Washington Fish and Game commission. Just so you know, Doug Myers did not tell me he was going to ask the advisory group for my presentation before that meeting. Maybe you recall, Doug had to leave early from that meeting and came directly to me and said “You you realize I was speaking about your presentation?”. I did catch on to what was happening, but I had no foreknowledge that it was about to happen. I am an active member Puget Sound Anglers and an active member in Coastal Conservation Association. Bear, I apologize for appearing to be militant. Simply put, I seem to have an ability to put together a really good talk on a specific issue, whether it is daylilies or marine reserves or any of a number of other topics. You are absolutely right that marine reserves are one tool in the toolbox necessary for effective fisheries management. Reserves are also necessary for defective restoration and ecosystem-based management. Reserves are based on the fact that we cannot protect vulnerable species without protecting some of their habitat. Fisheries biologist think 20% is about the right amount of habitat protection.

NWPanhandler – Again, I recommended to WDFW that when they start a serious Marine reserve network, they immediately rescind the 120 foot rule. I was the only person on the Rockfish advisory group to recommend that. A Marine reserve is a closure. But a closure is not a Marine reserve. The fact is fisheries management in the oceans for all state and national fisheries management groups, has been absolutely terrible. There is a publication by the National Research Council in 1999 that says fisheries management decisions are typically as much as 50% off the mark. Good Grief! a weatherman has a better track record than oceanic (and WDFW) fisheries managers. In short, traditional fisheries management practices (which includes closures)have not protected our marine fish stocks. Consequently, we have the most endangered marine species in the nation and the most depressed fisheries in North America. The difference between a closure and a Marine reserve, is that the Marine reserve takes into account the biology of the entire lifecycle of all of the species we are trying to protect. A simple closure often misses important parts of the lifecycle. In contrast, freshwater fisheries managers have an outstanding track record because it’s a simpler more contained ecosystem. You are right about the techniques for releasing bottom fish safely. I do not understand why WDFW does not acknowledge the secret research that Rob Tobeck presented at the Rockfish advisory group.

DR Rick- Of course Sierra Club knows what I am doing. I am on the Exe Comm for the North Olympic group of the Sierra Club. I am also on the Water and Salmon Committee for the state of Washington Sierra Club. And my activities have been cleared with national Sierra Club. I have written action alerts for our members to support the creation of a network of marine reserves. The issue of representation is complex. I am not the official representative for CCA or PSA. But as a member of those organizations I subscribe to their mission statements and to their plans of actions contributing to fisheries restoration. Whether you recognize it or not, you do represent all of the organizations you belong to in some limited sense. If you make comments on any issues, you are only representing personal viewpoints, but you are representing the organizations in which you have membership. Whether or not you are the official representative for an organization is hardly significant. If you have some expertise that can help improve or restore our fisheries, you should feel free to make it. That is what I have done and I’ve upset a few official representatives. My apologies yet again.

SomethingsmellsF – Baloney!


Norm

No it's not. Lots of talk about MPAs/MRs and other tangents. Again, what misinformation regarding Rockish and/or specifically Marine Area 4B?

Question. Do you really think that pelagic Rockfish stocks in 4B are effected by the YRCA?



"Probably" doesn't sound like a science based statement. Probably sounds like grasping for straws. I think I know what the straw is.

Norm wrote (Post #5):

"I was the only person on the Rockfish advisory group to recommend that."

Still having an identity crisis???? Were you REALLY on the Rockfish advisory group????? Well, you apparently did agree that if misinformation is repeated enough times it can become a perceived "fact."

Another truism is that perception is reality and I am getting really bad vibes.

The sad thing about all of this is that no matter what information you have and what you could have contributed will be tainted by what has occurred here.

Fishy

Norm -
Thanks for taking the time to expand on some of these issues. I would like to discuss a couple of these in a little more detail.

There is little doubt that worldwide many of the fisheries have over exploitated the fish stocks. In addition MPAs have one of the tools used to address that issue. Further there is little question that Puget Sound rockfish were over fished. However it is equally clear that overfishing happened 3 decades ago. Since that time and especially in the last decade or so there has been substantial changes in the management of that resource and we both agree that are encouraging signs that those changes are resulting in positive changes in our rockfish populations.

And as you pointed out with the rockfish's complex and extended life histories much more tha just high relief habitat is needed for successful rockfish populations - productive open waters, eel grass and kelp beds, floating debris, tranisition habitat, etc. One should also keep in mind that WDFW can only regulate the fishing those key habitat pieces fall under the control of other agencies. As pointed out there has been sustantial changes in the fishing piece that clearly has had some benefit (we can argue about how much) but it remains the case that nearly as much has been done for the other pieces. Because of the complex nature of those other pieces and the equally complex interactions of those features with a number of other man's activities MPAs may not be enough to provide the protection and restoration needed - just one example would be water quality.

This constant focus on the fishing piece allows those that are impacting those other features to continue to duck taking action - protection of those features will cost be expensive and require changes in society's behave. What is clearly needed is update evaluation of the status of the Puget Sound rockfish populations and a more precise determination of actual production bottlenecks. Without that backgroud work the managers and those hoping to protect the resource will only be guessing on the best course of action maybe and what benefits may result from such action. In short my concern is that not enough attention is being paid to the non-fishing piece.

You mentioned that 5,000 pairs of rockfish is needed assure the protectin of the "species". Of coures Puget Sound rockfish population is much more than a single species; if I recall correctly there are what the State considered to be 28 stocks in the Puget Sound unit. You comment read as if 5,000 pairs were needed for each of those. There has been a lot of discussion in the last 15 years or so in the conservation biology world about what sort of minimum population size is needed to assure future generations of a particular fish "species". After a lot of discussion it seems that minimal population size seems to center around an effective population size of 500 adults. It would actually take more than 500 breeders to assure that 500 adults would be "effecitive". In the case of the rockfish it the effective population size may be nearer the actual population than say salmon. In this case complex age structure and longevity of our rockfish play in their favor. Unlike salmon which have only one shot at successful spawning and relatively little generation overlap the rockfish get a number of opportunities to successfully breed with several generations present in the breeding population and over the course of the multiple breeding seasons there will likely be different mates for each female. In short I would think that while there may need to be 10,000 adult rockfish in the Puget Sound population that figure would be a composite for all the various species with each species needing an effective population size of 500.

It continues to be my concern that this whole rockfish issue has been put on the "fast track" by some to advance agendas that have little to do with the rockfish themselves. Potentially if too much time passes and rockfish are indeed rebounding that lever will be lost to those hoping to use the conservation of rockfish as that lever. As I stated in an earlier post I find advancing a social agendas by miss using conservation to be distasteful.

Tight lines
Curt

Norm:

You questioned my expectations that WDFW would have data on the benefits of the off-shore and 120 foot closures due to lack of time for those improvements to occur. Clearly you missed my point which was that without such data how can anyone (that means you personally as well as all other organizations supporting ADDITIONAL closures) justify such further closures? Follow?? Especially in the face of anecdotal reports that indicate some rockfish populations are already experiencing a population improvement within inner Puget Sound.

By the way, it would be very beneficial if you would avoid mixing habitat protection/improvement with issues of fishing related closures unless you can explicitly correlate recreational fishing with significant habitat degradation in a particular area.

Oh, and your attributing the condition of our fisheries to WDFW (and, therefore, the Commission) is substantially off base. Most of this occurred under the auspices of the Washington Dept. of Fisheries and its commercial supporters both in the legislature and on the commercial boats. Even when WDFW was created out of the DoF and DoG the Commission initially retained significant commercial leanings. Many of us perceive that we are only now seeing a paradigm shift to serious conservation-based management.

Thankfully the WDFW staff kept the discussion on task last night during the area 4B focus meeting. Apparently Norm tried to speak on MPA's every chance he got, but they were able to contain him.

Again folks, do not be fooled by this wolf in sheeps clothing. You have outed yourself Norman.

The reason the rockfish are so healthy is that this area is healthy. This is one area of a gigantic Mountain range that has lots of fish, period no matter how much you want us to believe that this C closure is saving the rockfish. This area is why Oregon and California were able to keep fishing through the Magnusson Stevens Fishery Managment Act as it is still loaded with fish.

Slow leak: Bear, the more I thought about it the more amused I became at your statement that I was almost militant in presenting marine reserves. I agree I am a pain in the butt activist, and I work hard to fully develop the whole concept of marine reserves. I suppose that could be construed to be militant.
I remember in the PSRAG there was a time when you pursued a particular point with the WDFW representatives. The answers you got were politically correct. Again, you pushed the point (and frankly I don’t remember what the point was) and again, you got the politically correct answer. Again you pushed the point in different words. Again you got a politically correct answer. You weren’t giving an inch and neither was WDFW. You summarize the quick discussion with “I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on that point”. Now that was militant! Frankly, I loved it. I also love working with people who know what they’re talking about and are proactive about the issues. Proactivists get into the issue, get it on, get it over with, and get on with it. Frankly that is the best way to make some progress.
Larry B: I did question your expectations that the offshore closure and 120 foot rule had not produced improvements in rockfish restoration because of their long lifecycle and slow reproductive ability. You are correct, that there is no data for that area to show benefits. I do not support the proposed closures in marine area 4B. I am supporting the status quo. I also support stopping all commercial long lining and 4B. However, if there were marine reserves proposed by a fisheries scientific advisory panel in 4B, I would support the recommendations. Still, there is no data in 4B to show a marine reserve necessary. This is the point in the discussion where you have to rely on the experience and professional judgment derived from a lifetime of being involved in the science of marine reserves. We would be relying on the fisheries scientific advisory panel. I do not have scientific expertise of sufficient depth in that area. However, there is an enormous body of scientific publications that all say marine reserves, properly designed, protect and restore fisheries. Where there have been marine reserve failures it is due to a lack of enforcement, and what scientists call” irreducible scientific uncertainty in trying to manage marine ecosystems”. Simply put, we need strong enforcement in all marine reserves because they are mother nature’s fish hatcheries, and the size and complexity of marine ecosystems are simply beyond fisheries managers understanding, much less control, at this point.
Anecdotal evidence is just that – anecdotal, from a few too many observations with no scientific comparisons for control. Most of the time anecdotal evidence is gathered when somebody becomes aware of an issue and starts looking for any evidence and compares it to their past experience which is usually minimal. This may or may not be a valid comparison, or even a valid observation, because it does not identify trends going up or down. Some rock fish populations are improving and some are getting worse. Unfortunately the only source of real scientific data comes from WDFW and we have no choice but to accept or deny and contest that data.
It is not possible to avoid mixing habitat/protection issues with fishing related closures, and then do a correlation between recreational fishing and habitat degradation. Nothing in a fully functioning ecosystem is that simple with a one on one relationship. In fact, the total opposite of that thinking is the basis for the ecosystem-based management that WDFW is currently undertaking. Every living thing is connected in one way or another to every other living thing and to the activities of mankind.
Your historical assessment of WDFW is absolutely right on target. The current WDFW has inherited a really nasty situation trying to restore protect and manage our fisheries especially when every game fish species (except halibut) is also listed as an endangered species and we have the most depressed fisheries in North America.
Recreational fishermen will not be arbitrarily excluded from a marine reserve. All fishermen, commercial and tribal, will be excluded. Hopefully the tribes will observe that exclusion.
“The blanket access closure in the area surrounding Cape Canaveral was implemented for NASA security. There is some thought that the exceptional recreational fishing in adjacent areas to the closure is directly attributable to this no-fishing zone.” Every fisheries scientist who has looked at this example has agreed that the exceptional fishing is due to the no fishing zone and the spillover of trophy of adults and enormous numbers of larvae and juveniles. “But with a state gill net ban and increased state regulatory measures to conserve coastal resources (which were both spearheaded by the interests and efforts of recreational fishermen), it is impossible to link the security closure to improved fishing.” CCA deserves credit for the gill net ban and increased state regulatory measures. However, there is no reputable fisheries scientist alive that will agree with “it is impossible to link the security closure to improved fishing.” That is a profound overstatement not supported by any scientific facts.
You are absolutely correct about the historical effects of overfishing and over exploitation of our fishery stocks. Commercial fisherman, especially corporate industrial fishermen have succeeded in nearly wiping out so many fishery stocks, it is pathetic. However, we have a fisheries situation to deal with here and now. And we must use the best available science. When the abuses occurred, most of the time, fisheries managers did not know any better. The current crop of fisheries managers have inherited a nasty and complicated situation.
There is an ever repeating story always associated with the demise of commercial fisheries. As the commercial industry wipes out fish stocks, the recreationals see the demise and try to start restoration efforts through state fish and game departments. This is the same situation we see in Washington today. MPA proponents do not try to punish the recreational fishermen. MPA proponents want to restrict all fishing so that fish stocks can be restored – for all fishermen.
I do not think CCA’s reasoning is in error. They are often absolutely correct. When they sponsor a lawsuit, often as part of a coalition with other sports fishing organizations and environmental organizations, all of the science is reviewed in a court and usually a far better fisheries management is the result.
Here is the data to support marine reserves;
1. Sobel, Jack and Craig Dahlgren. 2004. Marine Reserves. A Guide to Science, Design, and Use. Island Press, Washington. 383pp
2. Norse, Elliot and Larry B. Crowder. 2005. Marine Conservation Biology. The Science of Maintaining the Sea’s Biodiversity. Marine Conservation Biology Institute. Island Press, Washington. 470pp.
3. Lubchenco, J. et al 2007. The Science of Marine Reserves. Partnership for the Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans. PISCO. 22pp. http://www.piscoweb.org/files/images/pdf/SMR_US_HighRes.pdf or http://www.piscoweb.org/files/images/pdf/SMR_US_LowRes.pdf
4. Grafton, R., et al. 2009. Handbook of Marine Fisheries Conservation and Management. Oxford University Press. USA. 784pp.

None of this data says CCA is wrong. All of it says Marine reserves protect habitat and restore depressed fisheries. All of it is based on the science of many thousands of fisheries biologists and researchers. All of it is a reaction by current fisheries managers because of a lack of prior action regarding management and habitat abuses.

Dogfish: Baloney! If I had had something to say, I would’ve said it. You are right, I have outed myself. I want to restore our fish stocks, reduce the list of endangered species, and gives the state of Florida the distinction of being the most depressed fisheries in North America. You and I are actually on the same page about fisheries restoration. But after closing 15 to 20% for marine reserves, 80 to 85% of Puget Sound is more than enough water for you and me to fish. Especially after fish stocks increase 300 to 500% after the recovery period. We simply must put restoration and conservation of our fish stocks as our primary goal before we start insisting on abolute recreational access to all marine water. To do otherwise is not mark of a conservationist.

Fishinnut: You are absolutely right that area is healthy. Unfortunately only some of the rock fish stocks there are healthy. If the fishery biologists did not believe the “C” closure was necessary to preserve a healthy stock it would not have been created.

Norm

A graduated system of limits is already in place beginning in area 4 with a 10 rockfish limit, 4b with 6, area 5 with 3 west of Slip point and 1 east. then area 6 with zero take. If anything, close off all of area 5 for rockfish. I am for status quo and we need to give the changes put into place a chance to work.

There has essentially already been a large area created as a reserve, everything deeper than 120 feet. Add to that all of areas 6, 7, 8-1, 8-2, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 which have been closed to rockfish. There are some 45 day lingcod seasons in some of those areas, but it would be quite disingenuous to say that there were not some severe restrictions put in place for rockfish restoration already. So when you say 15%-20 percent has been closed, I call bull$hit. All of the Sound and waters from the San Juans and PA have been closed to rockfish. Your 15-20% figure is way off when you look at what rockfish closures have been put in place already.

I've seen environmentalists make overtures to try and make themselves seem like they are not the enemy before, Norman. This one quacks like a duck, so until proven otherwise I will keep on hunting ducks.

I have also lived here all of my life and get a bit tired of new transplants coming here to tell me how I need to live, and change, and become like them. Go back and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Clear enough?

Wow, I still have an account on PP...

Norman Baker wrote in his response to fishnut:


I was one of a small group of people who pushed to implement the "C" closure. The coastal sport fishery was allocated a portion of the allowable by-catch of yelloweye rockfish and the sport halibut fishery looked likely to be shut down due to exceeding that by-catch limit. The location of the closure was based upon charter boat log book entries showing where they had encountered yelloweye while halibut fishing. The charter boat captains had the knowledge and expertise to avoid these areas, but at the time, the rapidly increasing private boat participation was unlikely to have that skill.

The "C" closure was about, and only about allocation management. Any conservation benefit was a consequence and I am not aware of any monitoring done that would indicate to what degree the closure has or has not helped rockfish.

For many years now I have wondered if I was wrong to support that closure. The goal was correct. If the closure resulted in saving the halibut fishery or if other factors were more significant will never be conclusively known. However, my biggest fear has been realized. The area is now known as a rockfish conservation zone when it should really be a rockfish management zone. Now, either due to ignorance (hopefully) or malice (hopefully not), it is being spun as something it is not.

Well said Mike. I was in on this C-Closure too. It used to be the center of the C was open and then about 10 -12 years ago it was changed to the C and the center opened up. We are the ones in these meetings and have been for many years as recreational bottomfishers that help decide our future.

This yelloweye/Canary rockfish C-closure was implemented indeed for the sake of keeping the YE/Canary kill quota down on the recreational side. Yes we have a kill quota that lets us fish. If we did not, we would not be able to bottom fish at all. The tribal and non-tribal still have a yelloweye and canary quota that they can fill. The recreational side was decided to make it a "no take" quota so that we did not target them.

It was thought that the commercials knew where these fish were and would stay away from them or only take their quota as they believed that they had a better idea where what kind of fish are.

Had we not implemented some sort of tool to keep from killing too many YE/Canaries we would continually lose more and more halibut/ling seasons. When the feds continually lower that quota each year, we have to come up with ways to be able to still fish. So next came the 120' closure line that goes into effect May 21, where no bottomfishing is deeper than 120' allowed after that date for the year. (Next year we are getting a little reprieve and it might go a little later date wise.) FYI Marine areas 2/3/4 has the biggest yelloweye populations on the western U.S. Coastal states.

Norm, We have been involved in most of the decisions on our bottomfish fisheries for years. Thats because we care. I have had to plot areas on my charts with WDFW and we have helped either keep an area closed or look at possibly moving halibut fishing to other areas to keep our YE kill quota down, in years past. As recreational fishermen we are true conservationists as we want to see our fisheries thrive so we can harvest them and keep them healthy. We get new data and have to figure out how to attain our fisheries while doing the least impact on certain stocks. We are always crunching data and rolling with changes when needed.

So you can see how you rub people the wrong way with your assumptions, propositions, and home made power point program. Not sure how you put all of this together with any sort of inner background being that you were in Minnesota. You can read other peoples data and make assumptions, but not all data is correct that people use to pound home a closure. I am usually a little skeptical of people at first until I find out how much they truly know and where they got their data. You have to admit you came into our arena and tried to tell us we were wrong, while we are seeing recovery, you are telling us the sky is falling. Some of your data you refer reference to are people that I do not trust, that have an agenda to close fisheries. Lubchenko was put in as director of NOAA by Mr Obama and they are not using the NOAA Scientists that are in place. What does that tell you? Not using proper science but junk science to shut us down. This is not my first rodeo.

Norm,
While I can agree with you that the A4 closures are without merit and an abuse of the citizen advisory board,
Your theories on closures are of equal standing.

Norm your baloney is beginning to smell!


Like I said, if you had anything to contribute it will be forever tainted by your own actions.


Fishy

I will definately come.

game fishing lures

New info out on the 4B project. Comment accepted through Dec. 4. Commission presentation at the December Commission meeting.



The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is seeking public comment on a range of alternatives for managing marine fish in Marine Area 4B which encompasses the waters in the western Strait of Juan de Fuca from the Sekiu River west to the Bonilla-Tatoosh line near Cape Flattery at Neah Bay.


WDFW worked with an ad hoc focus group that provided input and advice to the Department during the development of draft objectives and alternatives that were presented to the public at meetings held in Port Angeles, Seattle, and Olympia in August.


Additional information has been added and revisions to the alternatives have been made in response to input received during the public meetings. The updated information includes revised management alternatives, clarified area boundaries, information on the ad hoc focus group and descriptions of marine habitat and fish distribution in the area.


WDFW is accepting comments on the proposals through Dec. 4. Comments can be submitted by email to Ami.Hollingsworth@dfw.wa.gov or by U.S. Mail to: Ami Hollingsworth, 600 Capitol Way N. Olympia, WA 98501-1091.


WDFW staff is scheduled to brief the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission – a nine-member citizen panel that sets policy for department – on the revised alternatives and management objectives during the commission’s December meeting in Olympia. A public hearing on the draft proposals also is scheduled for the December commission meeting.


Fisheries Management



UPDATED
Marine Area 4B Marine Fish Management Draft Management Objectives and Alternatives for Public Comment


http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisherie...lternatives.pdf

Attachments:

Figure 1 (revised)

http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/marinearea4/fig1_rev.pdf

Figure 2 (revised)

http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/marinearea4/fig2_rev.pdf

New Information:

Area 4B Focus Group

http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/marinearea4/area4B_focus_group.pdf

Area 4B Drop Camera Survey

http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/marinearea4/drop_camera_surveys_area4B.pdf

Here's a press release that came out today.

WDFW updates proposed alternatives for
marine fish fisheries in the western Strait
OLYMPIA - Updates and additional information on draft management alternatives for marine fish fisheries in the western Strait of Juan de Fuca have been posted on the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (WDFW) website.
The updated webpage, available on the department’s website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/marinearea4/ , includes revised management alternatives, information on the ad hoc focus group that worked with WDFW earlier this year during the development of the original proposals, updated maps and descriptions of marine habitat in the area.
"The additional information and revisions are based on input we received during three public meetings last month," said Craig Burley, fish management division manager for WDFW. "I encourage people to review the updated information and provide us comments on the draft proposals."
WDFW is accepting comments on the proposals through Dec. 4. Comments can be submitted by email to Ami.Hollingsworth@dfw.wa.gov or by U.S. Mail to: Ami Hollingsworth, 600 Capitol Way N. Olympia, WA 98501-1091.
The proposals address management of recreational and commercial fisheries for marine fish in waters stretching from the mouth of the Sekiu River west to the Bonilla-Tatoosh line in Marine Area 4 (Neah Bay).
WDFW staff is scheduled to brief the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission - a nine-member citizen panel that sets policy for department - on the revised alternatives and management objectives during the commission’s December meeting in Olympia. A public hearing on the draft proposals also is scheduled for the December commission meeting.
The commission is expected to take final action on the proposals during its February 2011 meeting.