Revised Puget Sound Rockfish Plan 3
As many of you who are regular listeners the show or readers of the website already know, I have been heavily invested in the fight to try and recover our rockfish populations so that hopefully someday, we can have sustainable fishing for rockfish in Puget Sound. This past fall, the WDFW released it's first version of the Puget Sound Rockfish Conservation Plan and a draft Environmental Impact Statement. These plans were required by NOAA as they wanted to know what WDFW was going to do to protect soon to be listed rockfish species.
What surprised WDFW and NOAA was the amount of comment and concern from the sportfishing community as well as other stakeholder groups. There was passion on this issue coming from all groups and sides of the issue so WDFW Director Phil Anderson decided to step in and extended what was to be a 30 day comment period and also mandated a Citizen Advisory Group be formed. WDW staffers Greg Bargmann, Craig Burley, and Wayne Palsson were tasked with putting together a balanced group of stakeholders and holding a series of meetings with the advisory group over the next few months. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the department for going through this process and giving it the time that it deserves.
On April 6, 2010 the department released the revised plan that is now open for comment thru May 21st. I have read this revised plan and, while not perfect, I think that it is an accurate reflection of the comments that were made during the meetings with the advisory group. I for one would still like to see some changes and still have some questions. Fortunately for me, I will get that chance at a follow-up advisors meeting. You can and should make your comments heard pro or con because there are groups out there that will be commenting and they don't care about the future of sportfishing in Puget Sound.
As I mentioned earlier, I do have some changes that I would like to see and some questions that I would like answered. First of all, I still do not know what success looks like. How will we know that we have been successful and when rockfish have been recovered to a sustainable level to allow for fishing? I also don't like the idea that this plan does nothing to stop the tribes from catching rockfish. We still have a tribal trawler in the closed area, what if some of the other tribes decided to start harvesting these fish as well? Are we recovering so that someone else can harvest? The recreational take is still small relative to all the problems we have with regards to rockfish populations and if we can't fish then no one should fish. I also noticed in the revised plan that there was some updated infromation used in regards to recreational harvest. That's all well and good but why wasn't the most recent and up to date information on rockfish populations used? I know for a fact that recent studies have shown good spawning recruitment and some increased populations but that is not used. There is also quite a bit of anecdotal evidence as many of these fish are showing as by-catch in recent years. Why is this evidence not provided? Could it possibly show that we aren't as bad off as we thought? I think it is misleading to not include it.
There are a few other issues that others have reaised as well. Many think that the idea of using MPA's, Rockfish Recovery Areas, or Rockfish Conservation Areas has already been established with the new 120ft bottomfishing depth restriction now in effect and zero retention in Marine Areas 6-13. I agree, I would like to see these rules stricken if we have any additional MPA or recovery areas added in Puget Sound. Others get a little uncomfortable knowing that all other fisheries can be managed and or closed to ensure rockfish populations. Although not intended, this has the potential to be abused.
One of the things that I do like about this plan and the reason that I got involved in the first place is that it opens the door for the possibility to use artificial reefs and hatchery supplementation to aid in recovery. I don't want to wait up to 85 years to recover some of these species as some estimates have it. I believe that artificial reefs with varied high relief and vertical structure will be the most effective way to provide spawning and life stage habitat for these fish. Even though they aren't mentioned in the plan, there are many studies that show just that. When you combine artificial reefs and hatchery supplementation until recovery, you have a combination that will get us on the road to recovery now and get us there faster.
PS. In addition to making comments via email at the links above, the department will be having a public meeting April 21st at the Port Angeles Main Library 2210 South Peabody St. The meeting begins at 6pm.
Rob, you need to take credit for both representing the positions supported by CCA and also bringing a great deal of knowledge via the many hours of research you have done. The reason there is a plan to review, and an extended time period for review is directly attributed to people like you and Bear Holmes. I don't expect you to blow your own horn, but credit is due and your personal efforts have created a huge win for both the fish and people of Puget Sound. Without your involvement, the door would be slammed shut on both artificial reefs and hatchery supplementation. As a result of Rob's work, NOAA has issued an invitation for Rob to accompany NOAA and WDFW staff to benchmark with artificial reef efforts in the far west Pacific and to bring back the benefit of their experiences over many years of artificial reef construction and operation. Another key point is that the Puget Sound Rockfish plan is also an element of the Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Management plan, and these plans will impact fishing opportunity for Puget Sound anglers for years to come. Dissecting plans, reading pages on pages of biologic data and showing up at meetings is the least glamorous part of fishing, yet without people like you and Bear, those of us who like to fish might be sitting on the bank wishing instead of fishing. You have my sincere thanks and great respect. Thank you for your efforts.
Along with harvest restrictions and derelict gear removal we must address the marine mammal predation issue as well. If we can truly reduce these major components of rockfish mortality and move forward with habitat enhancement in the form of artificial reef construction, I believe we will see recovery in our lifetimes.
Robbie, I am also concerned that as the number increase (start of recovery) the tribes will see it as a golden egg and harvest it right back out of recovery. I think any plan must have a limitation to all user groups until true recovery is achieved.