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.
