so much for fishing.

chromer · Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:29 pm Post subject:

In simple terms, they get more salmon back to Issaquah than they can handle. If the salmon aren't scooped up in the lake, they will stink up Issaquah creek for months.

The whole run is artificial anyway, since the locks connected the lakes to Puget Sound.

starcrafttom · Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:16 pm Post subject:

well so much for fishing in the sound and san jauns. looks like noaa is not going to wait for the feds and their over reaching plan, they have one of thier own. here a letter from the state chapter of the CCA.

starcrafttom · Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:19 pm Post subject:

here is the proposed responce to the fishing ban.

starcrafttom · Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:27 pm Post subject:

The locks may now connect the lakes and the sound but at one time there was a out flow at the south end of the lake that ran to the sound. This out let vanished when the lake level was lowered to divert all out flow to the locks. So the runs are not artificial. They are however anything but wild. All these fish, and in my belief all salmon on the west coast, are the off spring of hatchery fish several generations removed. So do not believe the b.s that the genetics can tell hatchery from wild after three or four generation, let along 50 years of unmarked hatchery fish breeding in the rivers. Smoke and mirrors: wink

starcrafttom · Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:11 pm Post subject:

Just a update. I attended the meeting in Mill creek office of WDFG last night. After a presentation by the WDFG members who are working on this proposed band there was a short Q and A period, followed by a open commit period for the public. I not only asked a question but also made a public statement on behalf of myself and other angler. About 20 people total made commits for the record. We are supposed to get replies to all formal commits by the public. If you are not able to attend a meeting, they only gave 30 day for commits (to short) by the public; you can do so online at email address sepadesk2@dfw.wa.gov

In short I believe that the CCA official response, which was recorded into the record last night, covers most areas of concern. That being said I will give just a short list of my own concerns and why I believe that this plan will fundamentally change the way we fish in the sound if we get to fish at all.

It was stated several times that ALL fishing seasons, limits, areas, and rules will be constructed with the impact of rockfish as the Major factor. In short this means that the current by catch of recreational salmon fishing on rockfish populations will result in the closer of most salmon hot spots in the sound, if not all salmon fishing , this will be most evident with winter black mouth. Please note that when the state says the sound they mean from Tatush east. That’s the straits, SJ’s , and the whole sound.

There was no consideration given to the current impact of ghost nets or the future benefit of removal of ghost nets. For those of you that do not know several groups including the CCA and PSA help secure funding for the removal of 3000 ghost nets in the sound. Many of which are already removed with more to come. Some estimates are as high as 400,000 rock fish killed in these nets each year.

There was no consideration give to the known over population of harbor seals in the sound. Before you go all peta on me, I have been reading a report called “trends and status of harbor seals in Washington state: 1978-1999. Journal of wildlife management. 67 (1): 208-219. After reading it I think it come to the same conclusion that many fisherman have over the years. There are too many seals for the system to sustain. The report states that the maximum net productive level ( number of seal we want for best management ) is around 7,000 and the current number of seals is 14,000 just in the sound , not including the coast. My only concern is that if something is not done about it then the increasing seal population could crash and prior to doing so crash rockfish population along with it. It was stated last night that seal take 800,000 rock fish of different species. Well removal of half the seals would lead to a increase of 400,000 rock fish each year and I think at least some consideration of this should given when constructing a management plan. This is far higher than the number of rock fish taken by anglers. With the exception of Roger and his mandatory 10 rock fish a day pilgrimage to the coast every year.

Not enough weight was given in the plan to the rebuilding of habitat followed by stocking of fish with hatchery output. It seems that there is a lot of science supporting this approach. But the plan by the state only suggests bringing levels on artificial reefs up to levels that would not allow fishing??? And not use these reefs as a means of increasing fishing opportunities. Now I am myself torn on this. I am not behind the notation of doubling fishing stocks just for higher limits, but I do support and believe that the state should look at maintaining opportunities for fishing.

There was no discussion on how this would affect halibut fishing other then rock fish population being the major consideration for all fishing seasons.
Now this is all being rammed thru on short notice. 30 days to commit? Just as the no-go zone on the west side of the SJ’s was being pushed for the benefit of one group at the cost of all others I believe that this new conservation plan is just a ruse to stop fishing in the sound as a whole. Its just one step. Yes we need to rebuild the rockfish stock, but at what cost and why is the major burden being placed on the recreational angler? Lets start with the banning of gill net ( replaced with other less destructive methods ), removal of ghost nets and the control of seal populations. Any one of these factors accounts for far more rockfish than the anglers take, legal or by catch. To read more you can go to the CCA web site or the state web site. There will be more meetings and hopefully at least one more added. If you care about this then please attend.

localboy · Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:49 pm Post subject:

starcrafttom · Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:20 am Post subject:

Well I would agree with you on most of what you said but , there is always a but, the CCA is changing that equation. The CCa is made up of people from both parties, or at least parts of both parties. The biggest point that cca is trying to get across to the politicians is that we, anglers, spend more money per pound than any other user in the equation. And we vote. There are only several thousand people involved in the commercial take of fish in Washington, but there are 104,000 angler licenses sold every year. We spend far more money on gas, food, lodging, gear, etc then the commercials. And we vote. In the past the commercial have paid their cronies a lot of money to control the WDFG. But in recent year the commercial industry has became a smaller part of the total local economy. Last year the cca ,psa and all anglers defeated Sen ken Jacobson-D attempt to control the commission. He is and has been in the pocket of the commercial fleet for years. Stopping him and the two bills he was trying to push thru was a huge victory for angler and a even bigger surprise to ken. Many other politicians took notice.

A member of my cca chapter spends all his time talking to different politicians in the area. The most amazing thing I learned from him was how these people vote. If they don’t know the subject of a bill or care, they just ask the guy next to them how they are voting and go with that, Amazing. Well if we, anglers, can get in front of these guys and tell them why we need them to vote and how many votes it will cost if they don’t? Then maybe we can get some changes made. Please take the time to write to the commit email that I provided and then write your representative.
And for all of you that don’t care because you don’t fish, what make's you think you’re not next , it’s not like they won’t shut down boat in areas to protect whales, not wait they tried that.

DaveS · Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 2:13 am Post subject:

Tom as you know I'm not a fisherman, however I have been to Olympia many times with a group I am a member of and we've descended in mass on a designated day with appointments with legislators secured in advance to discuss concerns and future legislation. We have been extremely successful in educating our elected officials with our concerns. My wife has now become involved in similar activities with her group and is now seeing the power of her involvement. Now when I see local legislators on the street, I not only recognize and speak with them, they recognize me by name and we are able to have productive dialog. Additionally, even though Carol and I go to Olympia at different times, some of the legislators even ask me "how is Carol" and visa versa.

I suspect that your fishing groups have lobbyists involved but there is nothing like having yourself down there knocking on the legislators doors and getting to know them personally. Often times the votes that they make are based on erroneous information supplied to them and we pointedly ask them if they have any questions or concerns of what we propose, so we can share with them the "straight scoop".

Often times it makes absolutely no difference what their party affiliation is, because when you get to know them as individuals, it is possible to convince them of "your side of the story". I'll speak to both "sides of the aisle" at any time and have done so with considerable success. I'll guarantee you that Rep, Dem, and Liberal are standing shoulder to shoulder on the river bank of the Stilly when the fishing is hot!

localboy · Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 9:22 am Post subject:

I don't disagree with either you or Dave. Votes, especially large organized voting blocks, can effect/influence the outcome in one way or another. Think of the NRA or the AARP etc. It sounds like the CCA is organized and politically active. Hopefully, your voices will be heard and headed. I'm just a realist (some say a cynic Laughing

) when it comes to politics.

And, like Dave, I don't even fish! Wink

But I do believe in the "slippery slope" concept when it comes to big gov't controlling OUR lives and I unfortuneatly see our country moving in THAT direction more and more. Evil or Very Mad

Robbi · Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:43 pm Post subject:

The most important thing in this debate, as in all debates, is that all involved be as well informed as possible. I don't think anyone would disagree with this. For this to work in any kind of meaningful way, I feel that attacks on persons or groups that you do not agree with, needs to end. We need to be able to entertain legitimate differences in opinion rather than judging one another. We need to be able to listen, be open minded, and we need to gather as much information as we can, and that information has to come from all sides, not just our own self interests.

If you do have an interest in this particular fisheries issue, read the PSRCP. Read it all. It is not too bad of a slog to get through, and it has much information. Information that I think is necessary for you to be able to make an informed comment to WDFW if you chose to do so. If you are like me, the reading will lead you to other areas of information that add a larger knowledge base to resource management. A good thing I think.

Two of the things that surprised me in my reading (among many) are;

1. The number of species of rockfish found from Sekiu to Olympia

2. The number of "Marine Protected Areas" in same area

Take a guess.

Robbi