so much for fishing.

S

starcrafttom

Active member
Robbi,

Thanks for posting the link to the report here. I read through that report a week or two ago when I saw various claims of gloom and doom being posted on various fishing web sites. For the life of me, I cannot connect the wide ranging negative comments on the report to anything I've read in the report. To me, much of the railing against the report seems like it was put out be people who read a different report. E.g. I can't see how reasonable people can read the task force's report and extrapolate that to large scale shut down's of recreational fishing.

What's more concerning to me is how the diatribe against the government's efforts get amplified by posting and re-posting by various people on fishing web sites and elsewhere. I'm not certain, but much of what I've read about this issue seems to have been prepared and re-posted by people who apparently never read the government task force report.

I'm not a big one on conspiracy theories, but in some cases it's appears that some external group is preparing false claims and then promulgating them various "viral" methods. It wouldn't surprise me if the claims about the task force report's potential negative impact on recreational fishing were actually made up by commercial fishing interests and promulgated through posts to recreational fishing web sites. It's the commercial guys who have the most to lose should the U.S. ever adopt rational, science based fisheries and ocean management policies.
 
Fisherman,
Here on the east coast the gumint (feds)totally shut down the black seabass fishery from North Carolina north for six months a few weeks ago. This is pretty much a meat fishery and an understudied fish. These fish migrate quickly offshore past the states three mile limit into the federal zone. It's a wintertime fishery for the northern offshore party boats especially in the winter months. What I thought was strange is they shut it down to zero fish from what was a 25 fish limit. It just happened no warning. I'm all for protecting the resource but this kind of management with a sledgehammer approach didn't give much warning to those that had there lives effected. Don't be surprised if it happens in a town near you. Shimano might have a better idea of what is going on in the backround as they have a large stake in what happens to the recreational fisheries. As for the politics, oh that's right we aren't supposed talk about that here.
D.D.
 
Ca management of its coast vs feds. The federal version could be better, but we in Ca have been facing more and more restrictions. Last year (2008) no salmon fishing, very short bottom fishing season. This year 10 days of salmon fishing when the fish are near the spawning rivers and we have 6 miles limits to stay away from the river mouths. Bottom fishing again closed early. Our forecast for fishing with the mpla's is looking from very bleak to no fishing at all.

Another area of concerns is the blanket statement of controlling human activities. I surf and should not be worried but most of these management decisions restrict our access and opportunities. Lets see how successful they are about limiting access to beaches. I know of a whole community (surfers) that would disregard any restrictions to beach access to areas we use everyday.It would be a enforcers night mare unleashed on them. Who knows, we surfers could be held responsible for the acidity levels in the ocean. Just to set the record straight, I do not pee in my wetsuit.

Maybe a federal plan that keeps us on equal opportunities would be better. I can go 30 miles north for more fishing opportunities in another state. The people who live near state borders can give examples of the inequalities. They may benefit from a federal plan.

Many are being disregarded by this administration. Look at the chamber of commerce, and fox news for example and the lack of ammo being driven by fear.

How can you trust the politicians. The govinator in our state lost his spine and has reversed direction for shooters. I personally am being affected on many fronts, and am considering moving to another state.
 
The problem as I see it is the request to bring US standards in line with a UN treaty that the US never ratified- in essence, doing an end run around the ratification process.

It is one more case of "the federal government can take care of you better than you, or your local officials can."

And they are going to solve all of the challanges of this complex issue in 90 days. Bypassing efforts locally that have been going on for 20 years.

I've seen what federal involvment has done to sportfishing on the Columbia River / Pacific Ocean area. I used to fish the ocean with my father in the 1970's, and the marina we kept the boat in had long waiting lists, and you paid for the slip year round to be able to have it for three months.

In July, all of the marina was full of boats. The last time I was in Warrenton in July, only about 25% of the slips had boats in them, the marina office / bait store was closed and the businesses that supported the boating / fishing were gone.

While regulation is important, I don't beleive that people in Washington DC have any idea what the people in Washington State need. Nor do they care.

Government regulation is driving marina and boat repair facilities out of business. Current plans are to require upgrades in the near future that could cost a business like ours $50,000 to $100,000 or more- and none of it is based on any science. Just an attitude of "we should do this to make things better".

My morning is off to a great start now... :thdown
 
Matt Gurnsey":1cycnuwc said:
...It is one more case of "the federal government can take care of you better than you, or your local officials can."

...and none of it is based on any science. Just an attitude of "we should do this to make things better".
Click to expand...

It's what I call the "Kum-Ba-Ya" philosophy. :mrgreen:
 
Our sport fishing opportunities have been harmed to a much greater degree by the lack of applied science based regulation. We are the small player in the allocation debate and without regulation the remaining fish runs would just be eliminated by overfishing.

Further, with all of the governments involved, we would get nowhere without active involvement by our states our federal government and yes, the tribal governments. I believe protecting the resource for future generations should be the number one goal and the longer we delay getting on the right track, the more painful it will be when the correction comes.

In the early 1990's our state passed a salmon marking bill into law and at the time it was strongly resisted by commercial fishers, sport fishing groups and even the tribes. Today this program is the reason half of our local sport fishing opportunities exist at all.

If I have a point, it is that we should all be concerned and vocal but capitalism and international competition are the threat and only good regulation can save sport fishing.
 
Capital Sea":dxyx6rd1 said:
Further, with all of the governments involved, we would get nowhere without active involvement by our states our federal government and yes, the tribal governments. I believe protecting the resource for future generations should be the number one goal and the longer we delay getting on the right track, the more painful it will be when the correction comes.
Click to expand...

One problem as I see it up here are the tribes. They have many advantages and don't have to play by the rules the rest of the fishermen do (limits, closed seasons and areas etc). I been told this is due to treaty agreements. I've been out on Lake Sammamish in the KCSO Marine unit boat when the run was entereing the river two yrs ago. I lost count @ 30 nets draped across the entrance, each at least 100' wide and staggered across the bay. When we landed at the State Park, there were numerous tribal boats, large commercial plastic tubs and flat bed trucks/fork lifts etc and their owners/tribal members waiting. IMO, amateur as it is, the salmon stood NO chance of getting up stream to spawn. To make the river they had to swim a gaunlet of nets which in essence created a maze. Yet when we socially contacted the tribal fisherman, they seemed to have no issue with decimating the run...all in the name of the mighty dollar. To say that rec fishermen WITH a limit is the root of the issue is, again, IMO ridiculous.
 
localboy":3ckqgqmz said:
Capital Sea":3ckqgqmz said:
Further, with all of the governments involved, we would get nowhere without active involvement by our states our federal government and yes, the tribal governments. I believe protecting the resource for future generations should be the number one goal and the longer we delay getting on the right track, the more painful it will be when the correction comes.
Click to expand...

<stuff clipped> To say that rec fishermen WITH a limit is the root of the issue is, again, IMO ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody said that rec. fishing is the root of the issue. Commercial fishing (and native fishers are for the most part a special group of commercials) are a big problem (along with habitat destruction - mostly caused by us non-natives). The real question is do we continue with the status quo of multiple regulations in individual states, tribes etc. continue or do we do something that acknowledges the connectivity of the ecosystems (which often cross various boundaries)? IMHO, the latter will probably not happen with many individual locales each protecting their own local groups (it hasn't happened yet). I personally don't think the status quo has done a lot for recreational fishing and see the legislature in my own state often more closely aligned with commercial interests than recreational fishing (even though recreational fishing generates more $'s/# of fish caught than commercial fishing).
 
Au Kai, your encounter on Lake Sammamish was understandably upsetting.

The facts will, I expect interest you. Each year the salmon return to Issaquah creek is estimated accurately based upon the species numbers counted at the Chiteinden locks ladder. The Issaquah creek fish are all but entirely hatchery fish and in years where the return is much larger than what is needed at the hatchery, the Muckleshoot Tribe has the exclusive right by federal law to execute what is known as a terminal area fish harvest. In recent years, the tribe has frequently given the state the right to open the lake to sport fishing and they have done that almost every year since the late 90's.

This is actually a desirable place for the tribe to realize its treaty rights as a very limited number of non hatchery fish are effected. Contrast this with gill nets in the San Juan Islands, or anywhere in the ocean, where all species both wild and hatchery are caught indiscriminately.
 
^^^Capital Sea, thanks for putting some perspective/facts on this issue for me. Like I said, my knowledge is amateur at best. :sad Obviously, not being from the PNW I am still learning what the intricacies/nuances are.

It's obviously a complex issue with mulitple interests, all fighting for their piece of the pie and pulling in multiple directions as a result. I'd like my granddaughter (and her grandkids etc...) to experience a healthy Mother Earth and all that it encompasses. Figuring how to do this will be the difficult part. I'm hoping ALL interests will have a say/input and anything decided with be FAIR and based on SCIENCE & FACTS...not politics, undue influence or any particular strong lobby, no matter the source..
 
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.
 
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.

Subject: [Members] Rockfish Conservation Plan

Rockfish the new Spotted Owl?
If the just released WDFW Rockfish Conservation Plan is adopted as proposed, rockfish have a very real possibility of being the new Spotted Owl. The “Plan” calls for a series of (yet to be defined) permanent Marine Protection Areas for Puget Sound which would likely be no fishing zones for all species (yes, including salmon). For the purpose of the Plan, Puget Sound is defined as all of Marine Areas 5-13 (Sekiu to Olympia) including the Straits, the San Juan Islands and Hood Canal. Some of the areas mentioned as prime rockfish habitat and therefore likely to be considered as MPA’s are Camano Head, Possession Bar, Mukilteo, Jefferson Head, Point Edwards, Point Monroe, Skiff Point, Restoration Point, Blake Island, Southworth, Dalco Point, Tacoma Narrows, Fox Island, Ketron Island and the steep walls of Hood Canal. The Plan also calls for a 120’ maximum fishing depth throughout the Sound and zero rockfish retention.
If WDFW is successful in getting MPA's started in Puget Sound, it is not a stretch to imagine other environmental groups joining the fun.
The Plan http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/management/rockfish/ is difficult to read and hard to comprehend but I would still advise you to read it.
My somewhat slanted Reader’s Digest Version of the Plan:
1) Rockfish are in trouble
2) It’s the recreational fisher’s fault
3) Let’s close recreational fishing
Our first goal is to get the public review and comment period extend from 30 to 90 days. We need as many folks as possible to send emails SEPAdesk2@dfw.wa.gov to the Department requesting an extension and as many bodies as possible at the public meetings especially the first one in Mill Creek.
If you have any direct contact in WDFW I would appreciate you asking them to consider a time extension and Voter Voice support to the Puget Sound chapters would be greatly appreciated.
Attached is my first run at a CCA response to WDFW. I’m not sure why I am having so much trouble getting people fired up over the potential of losing significant recreational fishing opportunities, but I would welcome the support of the GRC.
Thanks,
Bear
Meeting dates:
Oct. 29 – From 7-9 p.m. in Mill Creek at WDFW’s Mill Creek office, 16018 Mill Creek Blvd.
• Nov. 2 – From noon-2 p.m. in Friday Harbor in the Commons Room at the University of Washington’s Friday Harbor laboratory, 620 University Road.
• Nov. 4 – From 7-9 p.m. in Olympia in room 172 of the Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington St. S.E.
• Nov. 6 – From 4-6 p.m. in Port Townsend in the Raven Room at Skookum Inc., 385 Benedict St.
Click to expand...
 
here is the proposed responce to the fishing ban.

Puget Sound Rockfish Conservation Plan
CCA CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS

Coastal Conservation Association (CCA), is the largest non-profit marine conservation organization in the country. For over thirty years, through its 100,000 members in 17 states, CCA has worked tirelessly to conserve, promote and enhance marine resources. In a little over two years over 5,000 conservation-minded anglers have formed a dozen local CCA chapters in Washington including several chapters in south, central and north Puget Sound.

CCA believes the conservation and recovery of any marine species should be based in science and the conservation burden shared by all groups. Before any user group is asked to shoulder the responsibility for the recovery of a species, there should be demonstrable scientific research with verifiable data to indicate that the responsibility is accurately placed, and that the proposed measure will, in fact, be effective.

CCA Washington recognizes and supports the need to preserve and restore rockfish in Puget Sound and in, general terms, supports the Puget Sound Rockfish Conservation Plan. However, CCA Washington has several questions and concerns with the proposed plan.

Concerns:

1) The proposed 30 day review and comment period is not adequate for organizations like CCA to mobilize their all volunteer network in order to bring the issues to their membership CCA needs time to prepare a well thought-out response and then have the response reviewed and approved by the appropriate volunteer committees. CCA requests a minimum of a 90 day review period.

2) There seems to be a lack of scientific evidence presented in the materials indicating that creation of MPA’s would provide greater benefit than less severe conservation measures such as the proposed Rockfish Recovery Areas, habitat restoration and creation, and marine enhancement. No quantifiable and measurable criteria for periodic review have been proposed by WDFW for which the closed areas could be reopened, if ever.

3) Recreational fishers would be uniquely impacted by the proposed regulations. While there is evidence indicating that over fishing significantly contributed to the overall decline in certain rockfish populations, there should be more studies to determine the current overall impact of seal and sea lion populations, environmental changes, pollution and derelict fishing gear to name a few. There is no clear indication or scientific research presented indicating that the current sports fishing limits of one to two rockfish are a major factor contributing to a further decline in rockfish stocks. The current proposal unfairly focuses on only one group -- recreational anglers -- while seemingly ignoring other factors.

4) Puget Sound, as defined by the plan, includes all of Marine Areas 5-13 including Hood Canal, the Straits and San Juan islands. The one size fits all approach of comparing Hood Canal with the Straits and the San Juan Islands with southern Puget Sound does not seem to make sense. CCA would like to see the plan recognize the difference in the wide variety of habitat, population density, environmental concerns, water quality, armored shorelines and other issues specific to each Marine Area. CCA suggests using the existing Marine Areas and tailoring a specific plan to each area.

5) Barotrauma is a significant limiting factor in establishing successful rockfish release methods. CCA finds fault with the concept of deferring the review of existing barotrauma studies until after the proposed draconian measures have been established. There are legitimate scientific studies indicating a strong survival rate associated with rapid recompression. CCA would like to see those studies evaluated and, if appropriate, new release procedures included in the fishing regulations coupled with an intense public education program in the requirement for the proper use of descending devices. Having those procedures in place could allow the use of slot limits and result in a much higher by-catch survival rate.

6) CCA would like to see more consideration given to the current habitat restoration programs already in place. The Northwest Straits Commission ghost net removal program, which was not even funded when the Biology and Assessment of Puget Sound Rockfishes was being developed, is estimated to restore 600 acres of habitat much of which is complex high relief structure considered premium rockfish habitat. We believe many of these areas could be prime candidates for RRA’s and possibly considered for hatchery supplementation.

Questions:
1) Please provide clarification on the exact locations of the proposed MPA’s including a list of precise reasons for each location including the defined goal of the MPA and how those goals were established and how progress will be monitored.

2) Please provide the exact locations for each of the proposed Rockfish Recovery Areas (RRA) including the science used to determine the location and boundaries of the proposed RRA, the exact criteria and schedule that will be used to evaluate each RRA and define the goals for each area.
Click to expand...
 
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
 
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.
 
Back
Top