Sounding the Alarm Once Again 5
Sometimes I feel like a broken record. I talk and write all the time about people trying to take away our access as recreational anglers. Well, once again we need to get involved and become pro-active to save our access to the most precious and productive fishing grounds in the State of Washington. Hopefully someday, as we become more involved and organized as recreational anglers the state will finally start considering us when it comes to making decisions. Politicians will start recognizing what an important voting block we are and maybe the WDFW will remember who it was that has fought for them and their budget. If you remember, this last legislative session it was proposed that WDFW to be absorbed by DNR, we were the ones that went to bat for WDFW. That's what makes this one so frustrating.
Last year, newly appointed commissioner David Jennings proposed setting aside Neah Bay as a marine reserve for non-consumptive use. Commissioner Jennings is a diver and was appointed by Governor Gregoire to represent the wildlife viewing community. While I certainly do not have issue with recreational divers and people that love to view wildlife in it's natural habitat, I do have issue with people like this that want to take away access to my pastime. Recreational divers and fisherman have been getting along just fine out at Neah Bay forever and there is no reason for that to change. Commissioner Jennings proposal to make this area a dive park and use the excuse of threatened rockfish populations to do so is disingenuous at best. The worst part of all of this is that after this proposal was struck down during the rule making process, WDFW went ahead and formed an ad hoc committee and give this ridiculous idea even more attention. In a year where the WDFW budget has been cut for the second time in as many years, the department is spending taxpayer money to hold these ridiculous meetings and then put on three public meetings to discuss what options we have. This is a terrible waste of resources and it is all being done to appease commissioner Jennings.
The other side of this whole idea of refusing access to the recreational angler that frustrates and angers so many is that the area just saw a reduced bag limit, a limit placed on the number of species that can be retained, and a depth restriction limit that essentially creates an enormous MPA for all waters deeper than 120ft. These changes to area 4b were just enacted this spring and have not been given time to be evaluated. That is of course if there really is a need to evaluate this area. To hear the environmentalist community talk, we are in a major crises and about to loose all populations of fish if we don't do something. This kind of talk is another tool in the tool box of the environmental community to create an immediate crises that we have to do something about today. Unfortunately, many people just here some extrapolated facts and buy in without doing any backround or research. By working the public into a frenzy, these groups derive their funding and moving from one so called "crises" to the next becomes their mission.
Unfortunately, these groups just keep coming at us and we have to stay diligent. We have to answer the call when called upon. The goal of many of these organizations is to have 20% of our waters shut off to fishing through a series of MPA's. The problem is that this proposed closure is not being proposed as a proposed series of anything but a grab of one of the recreational anglers favorite and most productive areas.
Don't get me wrong, I do believe in conservation and being a responsible steward of our planet. Nothing makes me more angry than when I see abuses of our natural environment. That being said, I also believe that our natural resources are here for consumptive uses but if those uses become abusive and limits are in order then so be it. I can and do support many management methods aimed at recovery. What I have a hard time with is arbitrary restrictions that are not based on sound science. These types of management decisions do very little in the way of recovery. I believe that recovery should be scientifically based and have a scientifically measurable outcome. I do not believe in doing things for the sake of doing things and hoping it turns out alright.
I do not believe that there has been shown to be a need for a closure in Area 4b.
As mentioned earlier, we have recently seen restrictions added in that area even though it has remained very productive. The departments evidence is anything but complete or conclusive and more evidence is coming out daily that throws into question any science that is offered. One recent study shows that in closed areas where lingcod are present, rockfish recovery does not happen due to predation from lingcod. This is something that has been speculated on with regards to Marine mammals as well. We also keep hearing about china and tiger rockfish but NOAA just denied a petition by one activists stating that the "petition does not present substantial scientific information". Another example of incomplete science is the REEF study that is going on in Neah Bay right now. The department cites information provided by REEF all the time and while I applaud many of the volunteers associated with REEF they are only diving down to 60ft to make population assessments of rockfish in area 4b. Although valuable to some degree, this does not represent complete science. It will be interesting to see how this information is used in the future.
We have four options when it comes to Neah Bay Area 4b. Status Quo and alternatives 1-3. Status-quo still leaves in place the restrictions that were added in the rules proposals this past spring but does nothing else. Alternative 1 further reduces the bag limit of bottomfish but at least it does close the commercial long line bottomfish fishery. Alternatives 2 and 3 both include closures throughout Area 4b and severely limit access for recreational anglers.
What I am asking is that you take the time to email Ami Hollingsworth of WDFW and give written comments on which proposal you would like to see enacted. I will be requesting that status-quo remain with maybe an add-in from alternative 1 to close the long line fishery. Ami can be reached at Ami.Hollingsworth@dfw.wa.gov and as always be respectful.
A point I think needs to be made and remade is if folks are sitting around waiting for CCA, PSA, or some other organization to represent their views on these fisheries issues, they are dropping the ball. During the rockfish plan meetings, I asked WDFW if they favored mass responses from individual members of organizations over a letter from the leadership of a large organization. They said individual responses, especially original responses, (as opposed to cut and paste form letters) carry significantly more weight than a single letter from the leadership of an organization. In other words, large numbers of individual responses have a bigger impact than a letter from leadership. The organizations definitely have an impact but we also need individual letters. One organization asked their members to each send in an email; most of them simply cut and pasted a form letter but the Department recognized these as individual responses and, in the end, the analysis acknowledged that “many” opposed or supported particular points and the organization letter was acknowledged as a single response. You don’t have to be a great or even good writer, simply expressing your opinion is all they want and, quite frankly, I don’t think they want to read a thesis. And make the response personal. Talk about the impact the issue has on your family, your culture, your quality of life. I generally start mine “As a fourth generation Washingtonian…” or “As a lifelong resident of the Greater Puget Sound area…” And if you don’t think one or two people can make a difference, you are wrong. Most of the issues we are fighting were started by one or two people.
Marc, Not only are they trying it hear but nationwide as well. These groups do not want us enjoying our favorite pastime and they will use every angle they can think of. Below is some additional info and how we can help stop this as well. Oppose the Proposed Federal Ban on Lead in Fishing Tackle Submit your comments to the Environmental Protection Agency opposing the proposed ban on lead in fishing tackle The Situation On August 23, 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was petitioned by the Center for Biological Diversity and four other organizations to ban all lead in fishing tackle under the Toxic Substances Control Act. This includes sinkers, jigs, weighted fly line, and components that contain lead such as brass and ballast in a wide variety of lures, including spinners, stick baits and more. It is important that anglers send your comments now! Let your voice be heard! On August 27, 2010, the EPA denied the petition for ammunition but maintained the petition to ban lead fishing tackle. Supporters of hunting and the shooting sports have been successful in having ammunition excluded from this ban. The petition was presented with the aim of reducing bird deaths caused by the ingestion of lead sinkers and jigheads; however, a study conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that less than one percent of all waterfowl and other birds such as eagles are killed by lead sinker ingestion. The reasons for opposing the ban are: • The data does not support a federal ban on lead sinkers used for fishing. In general, bird populations, including loons and other waterfowl species, are subject to much more substantial threats such as habitat loss through shoreline development. Any lead restrictions need to be based on sound science that supports the appropriate action for a particular water body or species. • Depending on the alternative metal and current prevailing raw material costs, non-lead fishing tackle products can cost from six to 15 times more than lead products. Non-lead products may not be as available and most do not perform as well. Mandatory transitioning to non-lead fishing tackle would require significant changes from both the industry and anglers. • A federal ban of the use of lead in fishing tackle will have a significant negative impact on recreational anglers and fisheries resources, but a negligible impact on waterfowl populations. • America's 60 million anglers generate over $45 billion in retail sales with a $125 billion impact on the nation’s economy creating employment for over one million people. Anglers are encouraged to support voluntary angler education programs for the use of lead sinkers and should urge state and federal fish and wildlife agencies to do the same. How You Can Help The EPA has opened the petition for public comments. Click here to submit your comments to the EPA and your members of Congress. Thank you for doing your part to KeepAmericaFishing! If you no longer wish to receive e-mail from us, please click here.
Great blog Rob and timely too. Nelly, I hear you on the anger deal; it's tough to maintain composure and in fact I don't always manage... just ask Rob about the "bite me" incident.
Being polite in disagreement with this obvious perversion of the Commission process proved to be a challenge for me at the Seattle meeting. I found myself rolling down the hill toward anger as my three minutes came to an end. Here is an obvious case of a sitting Commissioner's personal agenda driving a series of meetings that amount to a waste of precious State dollars and we're asked to take it at face value. What a joke.
I agree Rob; the exact same issue is still occurring with the WDFW considering a lead tackle ban. When you write to Amy and recommend the "status quo" option, be sure to also include a paragraph to recommend the "status quo" instead of the proposed lead tackle ban on 13 lakes where loon breeding has been observed.