Comment period extended, meetings added on Puget Sound rockfish conservation plan

[fishnazzi]

My story came from the political fellow at the CCA meeting in Everett. They tell me he is CCA's Puget sound litigation rep or something along those lines.

[Plus1]

WDFW presentation discussed the linkage of Chinook harvest management plan to the Rockfish Conservation plan (would be good to have a copy of that).



As I recall, WDFW said they are pressed for time to get the Environmental Impact Statement "EIS" (Rockfish conservation plan) to NOAA for these reasons;

• Existing Puget Sound groundfish management plan (1998) is viewed as out-of-date
• State conservation efforts are given consideration during NOAA review for listing of rockfish as endangered (bocaccio) or threatened (yelow eye and canary)
• Environmental Impact Statement (Rockfish conservation plan) needs to be in place to support NOAA rockfish review and determination
• Without the EIS (Rockfish conservation plan) in place, NOAA restrictions to protect rockfish could (or will) have impact to next years Chinook fishery
• Consequently, WDFW view Chinook Harvest management and Rockfish Conservation plans go hand in hand for submittal to NOAA (January or Feb 2010?)...

Comments from public on the DEIS (draft rockfish conservation plan) will be reviewed and responded to in the Final EIS (FEIS), expected to be completed in 2010. FEIS will have information necessary for Director of WDFW to decide which policies will be adopted for Puget Sound Rockfish Conservation. Directors approval will provide updated policies to guide WDFW management of rockfish in Puget Sound.


**********************************************
There are 2 WDFW groups involved in this fiasco; WDFW and the WDFW Commission.

The WDFW Commission primary role is to establish policy and direction for fish and wildlife species and their habitats in Washington. The Commission consists of nine members serving six-year terms. Members are appointed by the governor and (are supposed to be) confirmed by the senate.

The WDFW Rockfish Conservation Plan will apply to all inland waters east of Sekiu River, referred to as 'Puget Sound'.

Commissioner Jennings (not approved by Senate) proposed changes to 2010-2012 sportfishing regulations that will make areas west of Sekiu river (MA4) off limits to recreational fishing to provide exclusive access to divers. This was done under the auspices of extending rockfish protections west into the Pacific Ocean (beyond the Bonilla-Tatoosh line).

At Nov 6, 2009 WDFW Commission meeting, Jennings also initiated discussions to extend 'rockfish' protections along coastal waters of Washington.

[Slowleak]

Originally Posted by Pipe Dream

Hmmm, during the post-Olympia meeting conversation Plus1 and I had with Jim Scott he expressed WDFW's concern that if NOAA were to declare Bocaccio as Endangered and the other two as Threatened before there is a rockfish plan then there could be problems related to the Chinook harvest plan.

He definitely did not say that NOAA had required a rockfish plan before the Chinook harvest plan. Of course, the fact he did not come out and say it doesn't mean your version isn't correct.

But we asked for an explanation of the linkage and what I wrote in the first paragraph, above, is essentially what we were told.

Phil Anderson announced it on The Outdoor Line radio show October 31st
click here The Outdoor Line | 710AM ESPN Seattle | Podcasts and scroll down to Phil Anderson part 1 and listen he makes it quite clear it is a NOAA requirement.

[fishnazzi]

So will CCA make a statement at the rockfish meeting or again like the NOAA whale closure be silent. Members making statements is not what is needed(although they can't hurt) making no statement in my opinion is the same as saying "We don't have time for anything north of Columbia".

[Pipe Dream]

So today (17 Nov) I received a WDFW News Release that they want to create a Rock Fish Advisory Group and are seeking 12 volunteers with nominations to be received not later than 2 December. Here we go again, two weeks for folks to find out about this and make a decision. Makes one wonder who they might have waiting in the wings to pounce on this.

Tasking for this group: "The advisory group is responsible for providing guidance on the development of the final Puget Sound Rockfish Conservation Plan, as well as current sportfishing rule proposals designed to protect rockfish."

Guess I am confused about the draft plan and draft EIS currently being hotly debated. Will those documents simply become a point of beginning for the group with the group coming up with a new draft plan and DEIS for public input or, as I suspect, a final plan and EIS with limited opportunity for public review and input?

Please note the language that "the advisory group is responsible for providing guidance on the development of....." (emphasis added). Is this group simply going to be cover for whatever WDFW wants to put forth out of the mess of the current draft plan?

Can a Commissioner become a member of an advisory group (sorry, just had to say that)?

[Plus1]

ok

[Plus1]

ok

[fishnazzi]

Do you think we can 50 guys from this board to show.............................Lets see.

































I'm wondering what what the under/over is cause well......................Golf takes money.

[Plus1]

Looks like the circus is coming to town.

Unbelievable...(scary part is many people will read the newspaper article and believe every word as truth. Read the "Points to be Made Supporting this Plan". It is big on emotion and lacking science, facts, and data.

Fighting to save the rockfish

__________________________________________________ _____________

In case you were wondering about special interest groups creating and using rockfish crisis to hijack the State resources, consider the MPA committee in California. Purposefully understated in this article ;

"Sometimes people take issue with political appointments to committees charged with overseeing the state's conservation management. The Department of Fish and Game provided this list of committee members who will implement the Marine Life Protection Act for the Northern California coast:"

Catherine Reheis-Boyd, chief operating officer and chief of staff, Western States Petroleum Association;

Gregory Schem, president and chief executive office, Harbor Real Estate Group;

Jimmy Smith, chair, Humboldt County Board of Supervisors (political);

Virginia Strom-Martin, advocate, Los Angeles Unified School District (enviro political);

William Anderson, president, Westrec Marina Management (management services);

Meg Caldwell, director and senior lecturer on law, Stanford Law School Environment and Natural Resources Law and Policy Program (enviro political);

Roberta Cordero, lawyer, co-founder Chumash Maritime Association (tribes);

Cindy Gustafson, district general manager, Tahoe City Public Utility District (power industry).

Why aren't any 'user' groups represented; what about sport fishing, commercial fishing, fishing and boating business, divers, etc... What the hell do these people know about marine and fish biology, fishing, ocean and resource conditions, social and economic impact, etc... ? Crap, this is the biggest land grab of our time.

If, you guys are OK with similar "blue ribbon committee" representation to oversee Puget Sound MPAs (rockfish closures) - sit at home this week.

If you care about your fishing rights, get to the meetings, speak up, get involved.

[fishnazzi]

Golf anyone????

[Plus1]

Ill give ya 50 points, but you will have to take 2 minutes over the 3 minutes you will be given at the aquarium.

[fishnazzi]

If someone slaps me around before I speak I could rant for hours over the 3 mins.