WDFW GPO update: Seacrest Cove 1,2,3 now included in options

General banter about diving and why we love it.
User avatar
nwscubamom
I've Got Gills
Posts: 2308
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:13 am

WDFW GPO update: Seacrest Cove 1,2,3 now included in options

Post by nwscubamom » Tue Apr 23, 2013 5:21 pm

Your comments and input needed! Let WDFW know which option you like (or maybe you don't like any of them, or maybe you like a combination of some of them). No matter what, WRITE them, or attend a public meeting.

Here's where you can give your comments:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/ ... ments.html

First public meeting is TONIGHT in Port Townsend. 6-8pm
Second public meeting is TOMORROW night at the Seattle Aquarium, 6-8pm

WDFW has 4 options on the table for your consideration regarding GPO harvest in Washington State. Options range from:

Option A: Status Quo - no changes to current regulations

Option B: Marine Preserve – no recreational harvest of all species
Redondo Beach (map)
ADDED: Seacrest Park Coves 1, 2 and 3 (excluding fishing pier) (map)

* Option C: Marine Preserves – no recreational harvest of Giant Pacific Octopuses
Redondo Beach (map)
Three Tree Point North (map)
Seacrest Park Coves 1, 2 and 3 (excluding fishing pier) (map)
Les Davis (map)
Alki Beach Junk Yard (map)
Days Island Wall (map)
Deception Pass (map)

Option D: Puget Sound closure to recreational harvest of Giant Pacific Octopuses.

* The beaches listed under Option C were identified by the advisory group as some of the most popular diving beaches in the Puget Sound area. Not included on that list are beaches in Conservation Areas or Marine Preserves, where octopuses are already off-limits to harvest.

Originally Option B did not include Seacrest Park in the mix. However, after recommendations from the advisory group, Option B now includes both Seacrest and Redondo.

Be sure to visit this webpage for more juicy details:
http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/octopus/

- Janna
Janna Nichols
My underwater photo galleries
REEF Citizen Science Program Manager
Seen any cool critters lately?
><((((°>
-----------------------------

User avatar
Seven Seas Scuba
Just Settling In
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 3:35 pm

Re: WDFW GPO update: Seacrest Cove 1,2,3 now included in opt

Post by Seven Seas Scuba » Tue Apr 23, 2013 5:27 pm

Thanks for posting this Janna. We shared this link last week on our Facebook pages and quite a few of our staff and divers have been submitting their input. :D

User avatar
60south
Perma Narc'd
Posts: 748
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 1:24 pm

Re: WDFW GPO update: Seacrest Cove 1,2,3 now included in opt

Post by 60south » Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:21 pm

Just attended the Port Townsend session. Attendance was light, maybe 15 people, mostly with ties to conservation organizations or the marine sciences in some way. Although there were clearly other divers there, I was the only person who self-identified as a local diver.

They gave a brief presentation about GPO life cycles and the history of octopus harvesting in Puget Sound (I learned something!), and explained the motivations for reviewing the hunting rules at this time. Then they opened up the floor for questions. All very succinct. I expect the Seattle meeting may be more lively.
:supz:

elmer fudd
Just Settling In
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 11:10 am

Re: WDFW GPO update: Seacrest Cove 1,2,3 now included in opt

Post by elmer fudd » Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:00 pm

I think that the easiest way to resolve this would be to close the very popular dive sites to any harvest by divers. Never mind the hook and line guys.

I'm guessing that about 90% or more of us can agree that there shouldn't be any hunting going on in places like Redondo, Les Davis or Cove 2. As for the sport fishermen, leave them be. So far as I have seen they don't catch enough GPO's to matter anyway.

And for all practical purposes, we could shut down any hunting in these areas just by shaming, naming and shunning the people that do it.

User avatar
Dusty2
I've Got Gills
Posts: 6388
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 9:04 pm

Re: WDFW GPO update: Seacrest Cove 1,2,3 now included in opt

Post by Dusty2 » Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:23 pm

elmer fudd wrote:I think that the easiest way to resolve this would be to close the very popular dive sites to any harvest by divers. Never mind the hook and line guys.

I'm guessing that about 90% or more of us can agree that there shouldn't be any hunting going on in places like Redondo, Les Davis or Cove 2. As for the sport fishermen, leave them be. So far as I have seen they don't catch enough GPO's to matter anyway.

And for all practical purposes, we could shut down any hunting in these areas just by shaming, naming and shunning the people that do it.
That is really not a bad idea, At least the banning hunting by divers in these dive areas. If it were an official ban on taking Octo's in popular dive sites it would solve the problem without affecting recreational fishermen and not cause unnecessary friction with others that don't understand where we are coming from. That and the taking of females on eggs would satisfy everyone without undue friction. It would have minimum impact and minimal costs as simple signs would make it undesirable to be seen doing it.

User avatar
Grateful Diver
I've Got Gills
Posts: 5321
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 7:52 pm

Re: WDFW GPO update: Seacrest Cove 1,2,3 now included in opt

Post by Grateful Diver » Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:24 am

elmer fudd wrote:I think that the easiest way to resolve this would be to close the very popular dive sites to any harvest by divers. Never mind the hook and line guys.

I think we should stay focused on octopus protection only. We're more likely to achieve our goals that way. Dragging other conservation issues into it dilutes the purpose of the initiative, and produces side arguments that will only distract from what this initiative was intended to achieve. Besides, it'll start us down a slippery slope of pitting diving interests against fishing interests ... and there are far fewer of "us" than "them". I don't think we really want to go there.

elmer fudd wrote:And for all practical purposes, we could shut down any hunting in these areas just by shaming, naming and shunning the people that do it.


After using this method on the octopus hunt that started this process, I'll warn you that you do NOT want to be the person doing the shaming and naming ... there's too many crazy people on the Internet, and once you get your head kicked in, neither side will want anything to do with you.

I can honestly say this is one of those things I will never do again ... nor would I recommend it to anyone I'd consider a friend ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)
Threats and ultimatums are never the best answer. Public humiliation via Photoshop is always better - airsix

Come visit me at http://www.nwgratefuldiver.com/

User avatar
Jaksonbrown
Amphibian
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 12:58 pm

Re: WDFW GPO update: Seacrest Cove 1,2,3 now included in opt

Post by Jaksonbrown » Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:10 am

nwscubamom wrote:Your comments and input needed! Let WDFW know which option you like (or maybe you don't like any of them, or maybe you like a combination of some of them). No matter what, WRITE them, or attend a public meeting.

Here's where you can give your comments:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/ ... ments.html

First public meeting is TONIGHT in Port Townsend. 6-8pm
Second public meeting is TOMORROW night at the Seattle Aquarium, 6-8pm
Option B: Marine Preserve – no recreational harvest of all species
Redondo Beach (map)
ADDED: Seacrest Park Coves 1, 2 and 3 (excluding fishing pier) (map)





Option D: Puget Sound closure to recreational harvest of Giant Pacific Octopuses.

* The beaches listed under Option C were identified by the advisory group as some of the most popular diving beaches in the Puget Sound area. Not included on that list are beaches in Conservation Areas or Marine Preserves, where octopuses are already off-limits to harvest.

Originally Option B did not include Seacrest Park in the mix. However, after recommendations from the advisory group, Option B now includes both Seacrest and Redondo.

Be sure to visit this webpage for more juicy details:
http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/octopus/

- Janna



This is just freaking brilliant! I'm not sure which idiot extremist pushed for the COMPLETE CLOSURE OF ALL FISHING in the areas listed in option B. But let me tell you, the move was F&^King Brilliant!!! :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

Let me tell you what those of you that have pushed for this updated proposed closures listed in option B. Instead of getting the local sport fishermen to work with us and close our selected small dive locations to the hunting of Octos, you have now just confirmed their worst fears. Those fears being that WE AS DIVERS REALLY DO WANT TO CLOSE ALL FISHING!!!!! Despite my repeated attempts and pleas to the fishing community, and the massive amount of abuse I have taken for defending the octo's and to protect our dive sites for the last months..... All of my pleas for them to support and join us in closing Alki and such dive sites, they now are FURIOUS that I have lied to them about our intentions. I have told them again, and again that we did not intend on shutting down fishing. But now thanks to this updated OPTION B, they now do not want to listen anymore.

So, when option A is chosen, and our dive sites are not protected, and every octo is killed..... you have only the likes of the OP of this thread and those who support this option (commissioner Jennings!!!!) to thank for it!

Congratulations!!!!

User avatar
Grateful Diver
I've Got Gills
Posts: 5321
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 7:52 pm

Re: WDFW GPO update: Seacrest Cove 1,2,3 now included in opt

Post by Grateful Diver » Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:51 am

That's a bit of an overreaction Corey, but a good demonstration of why we need to stay focused on octopus protection and not expand this into some kind of conservation movement ... because doing so will cause a lot more people to react like that.

One has only to look at the gun debate that's been going on for the past few months to see how divisive that can become ... and how, ultimately, it ends up not accomplishing anything.

Anybody can propose anything ... but if you want to succeed, you need to consider the interest of all affected parties ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)
Threats and ultimatums are never the best answer. Public humiliation via Photoshop is always better - airsix

Come visit me at http://www.nwgratefuldiver.com/

User avatar
Jaksonbrown
Amphibian
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 12:58 pm

Re: WDFW GPO update: Seacrest Cove 1,2,3 now included in opt

Post by Jaksonbrown » Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:58 am

Grateful Diver wrote:That's a bit of an overreaction Corey, but a good demonstration of why we need to stay focused on octopus protection and not expand this into some kind of conservation movement ... because doing so will cause a lot more people to react like that.

One has only to look at the gun debate that's been going on for the past few months to see how divisive that can become ... and how, ultimately, it ends up not accomplishing anything.

Anybody can propose anything ... but if you want to succeed, you need to consider the interest of all affected parties ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)


Overreaction.. somewhat..... extreme frustration gets the better of me sometimes... but im afraid the damage has been done. Here is a post from a local sportfishing board which has recieved massive agreement.....

"Pretty slick advisory committee!

When it looked like divers would most likely not get their way with option C, they beefed up option B to include Seacrest Cove 1, 2, and 3, to the Redondo area, demanding a total harvest closure.

Option B: Conservation Area – no recreational harvest of all species

Redondo Beach
Seacrest Cove 1, 2, & 3
Like I said before, I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't fish anywhere near here. I just find it hard to swallow that this group has taken it upon themselves to try and close even more grounds to anglers. To try and push anglers to consider option C as the better of the two, they beefed up a total closure to harvest with option B.

Chances are B or C will be the option selected, and in my opinion, they bolstered B to make it more likely that C is ultimately selected by the Commission.


I would have considered a compromise on this issue and even supported divers desire to have an additional area closed to GPO harvest, really not that big of a deal. Unfortunately, this has become much more than that and for that I urge anglers to write a comment in favor of Option A, No Change.

Divers should have reached out to the angling community and worked out an agreeable compromise that could have been submitted with support, rather than sportsman opposition.

Also, the issues surrounding enforcement of a fishing closure in an area that surrounds a fishing pier, will further push the agenda of option C.

But if option B passes, be careful not to cast too far off the pier or set your drag too lose, you could be ticketed for fishing in closed waters".

elmer fudd
Just Settling In
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 11:10 am

Re: WDFW GPO update: Seacrest Cove 1,2,3 now included in opt

Post by elmer fudd » Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:31 am

Grateful Diver wrote:I think we should stay focused on octopus protection only. We're more likely to achieve our goals that way. Dragging other conservation issues into it dilutes the purpose of the initiative, and produces side arguments that will only distract from what this initiative was intended to achieve. Besides, it'll start us down a slippery slope of pitting diving interests against fishing interests ... and there are far fewer of "us" than "them". I don't think we really want to go there.


That's why I said we should just close these areas to harvest by divers. Let the hook and line anglers go on doing what they've been doing. That way they don't have to feel threatened by the closures. Taking an octopus on hook and line is relatively rare anyway.

The advantage to this approach is that it could be easily accomplished. The overwhelming majority of divers already support closing the major dive sites to hunting and since it wouldn't impact anglers I doubt they would be bothered by it either.

User avatar
CaptnJack
I've Got Gills
Posts: 7769
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 2:29 pm

Re: WDFW GPO update: Seacrest Cove 1,2,3 now included in opt

Post by CaptnJack » Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:44 am

The pier betweens Cove 2 and 3 is essentially a salmon and surf perch fishing pier. Its not written in rule exactly like that, but for all practical purposes its not someplace you can catch lings, halibut or cabezon despite those having open season there. All of area 10 is closed to rockfish harvest.

Maybe instead of viewing nefarious intent in the revision to Option B, its pretty easy to see that somebody made a whoops and that Option B left out the Seacrest area from any sort of change at all. And the incident last fall could thus reappear there under Option B. So as originally proposed Option B wasn't accomplishing the Commissions intent of segregating wildlife watchers from consumptive users.

I don't think I have ever seen an angler at Coves 1, 2 , or 3 except people in boats trolling for salmon during the innner Elliott Bay season. And I've been rather shocked to see them with downriggers out in 35ft of water, lead weights bouncing along the mud 200ft behind the boat. So above and beyond the octopus issue, it wouldn't be a bad concept to have a MPA in this area just to seperate classes who are fumbling around in <100ft of water from anglers + hooks in general. I don't know the depth contour of their outer boundary on the map, but it looks like its 120ft or so.
Sounder wrote:Under normal circumstances, I would never tell another man how to shave his balls... but this device should not be kept secret.

User avatar
Grateful Diver
I've Got Gills
Posts: 5321
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 7:52 pm

Re: WDFW GPO update: Seacrest Cove 1,2,3 now included in opt

Post by Grateful Diver » Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:15 pm

I've seen anglers standing on the point on the far end of Cove 2 several times ... nearly every summer when the salmon are running, in fact. Not that many years ago I even said something to a couple guys who were standing on the rocks, where divers enter the water at Cove 2, casting out into where all the divers have swim in order to exit the water.

At Redondo I've seen ... as recently as last summer ... many anglers standing on the north beach casting into the shallows where classes are taught. In one case their lures were splashing within a few feet of a dive flag.

When the salmon are running, there just ain't enough space on the fishing pier at either place ... so they tend to spread out. I don't mind, really ... it's a public beach, and it only happens a few days out of the year. I just think of it as a good time to go somewhere else ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)
Threats and ultimatums are never the best answer. Public humiliation via Photoshop is always better - airsix

Come visit me at http://www.nwgratefuldiver.com/

User avatar
lamont
I've Got Gills
Posts: 1211
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:00 pm

Re: WDFW GPO update: Seacrest Cove 1,2,3 now included in opt

Post by lamont » Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:31 pm

I think both B and C options were written by committee and aren't very well thought out. So far I only know of three areas where photogs and hunters have come into conflict over GPOs - cove 2, les davis, and DIW. I'm not sure why the rest of the areas are included in option C.

And I don't see option B being approved. I know I submitted feedback against it, and I suspect a lot of other posters here did, and certainly every fisherman/angler/hunter who submitted feedback were against it. The fact that the anglers are crying treason over option B seems more of a commentary of how functionally broken we all are at politics, I have no useful suggestions about that one.

User avatar
Dusty2
I've Got Gills
Posts: 6388
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 9:04 pm

Re: WDFW GPO update: Seacrest Cove 1,2,3 now included in opt

Post by Dusty2 » Wed Apr 24, 2013 1:47 pm

Sad that B was even placed there but it's typical bureaucratic thinking. If we have a do nothing option then we have to have a radical option to offset it.

C is ok but a bit overreaching.

The option to just forget it and do nothing was bolstered by the inclusion of B. I would say this is the more likely source of collusion. Give them a totally unacceptable option to drive the non diver into a fury over lost resources.

User avatar
Grateful Diver
I've Got Gills
Posts: 5321
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 7:52 pm

Re: WDFW GPO update: Seacrest Cove 1,2,3 now included in opt

Post by Grateful Diver » Wed Apr 24, 2013 2:20 pm

lamont wrote:I think both B and C options were written by committee and aren't very well thought out. So far I only know of three areas where photogs and hunters have come into conflict over GPOs - cove 2, les davis, and DIW. I'm not sure why the rest of the areas are included in option C.

And I don't see option B being approved. I know I submitted feedback against it, and I suspect a lot of other posters here did, and certainly every fisherman/angler/hunter who submitted feedback were against it. The fact that the anglers are crying treason over option B seems more of a commentary of how functionally broken we all are at politics, I have no useful suggestions about that one.


The C option was suggested by myself and a few other folks who were involved in the initial conflict at Cove 2 and the initial effort with the WDFW, but who were subsequently not invited to participate on the committee. Scott Lundy, Koos and myself put a pamphlet together that recommended some popular dive sites for (specifically) octopus protection. Scott gave it to the commission before the committee was even created. The thought was to prevent another similar incident from occurring not just at Cove 2, but at other popular dive sites in the Sound. The sites we suggested were later modified by the committee, and some were removed because it turned out they were already protected.

I don't know where the B option came from, but it's unfortunate (to my concern) because it's a guaranteed way to create conflict with the fishing people. My understanding is that Seacrest Park and Redondo were both on the initial suggestion but Seacrest Park somehow got left off when the notice went out. In attempting to correct that error they gave an already suspicious fishing community the impression that this was going to turn into a slippery slope ... which I don't believe to be the case at all. I don't see this option getting much serious consideration.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)
Threats and ultimatums are never the best answer. Public humiliation via Photoshop is always better - airsix

Come visit me at http://www.nwgratefuldiver.com/

jerryehrlich
Avid Diver
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 10:34 am

Re: WDFW GPO update: Seacrest Cove 1,2,3 now included in opt

Post by jerryehrlich » Wed Apr 24, 2013 3:26 pm

elmer fudd wrote:I think that the easiest way to resolve this would be to close the very popular dive sites to any harvest by divers. Never mind the hook and line guys.

I'm guessing that about 90% or more of us can agree that there shouldn't be any hunting going on in places like Redondo, Les Davis or Cove 2. As for the sport fishermen, leave them be. So far as I have seen they don't catch enough GPO's to matter anyway.

And for all practical purposes, we could shut down any hunting in these areas just by shaming, naming and shunning the people that do it.


The shaming is not as effective as one would hope. Until it was completely shut down on Hood Canal, lots of harvesting was still going on. The force of law is necessary to minimize poaching.

Any number greater than zero is too many.

Jerry

User avatar
Jaksonbrown
Amphibian
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 12:58 pm

Re: WDFW GPO update: Seacrest Cove 1,2,3 now included in opt

Post by Jaksonbrown » Thu Apr 25, 2013 8:22 am

Dusty2 wrote:Sad that B was even placed there but it's typical bureaucratic thinking. If we have a do nothing option then we have to have a radical option to offset it.

C is ok but a bit overreaching.

The option to just forget it and do nothing was bolstered by the inclusion of B. I would say this is the more likely source of collusion. Give them a totally unacceptable option to drive the non diver into a fury over lost resources.


Exactly..... Well said.

User avatar
Jaksonbrown
Amphibian
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 12:58 pm

Re: WDFW GPO update: Seacrest Cove 1,2,3 now included in opt

Post by Jaksonbrown » Thu Apr 25, 2013 8:28 am

Due to the recent developments mentioned above, the now seriously upset sport fishing community got actively involved in this issue last night and have uncovered and exposed a "loophole" in this process that will most likely kill or postpone any sort of action or rule change until 2015-2016.

User avatar
April
Dive-aholic
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 9:15 am

Re: WDFW GPO update: Seacrest Cove 1,2,3 now included in opt

Post by April » Thu Apr 25, 2013 9:26 am

So.... Trying to think about this without emotions so bear with me......do we really need a new regulation to protect octo? A few things have been going though my head

- the cove 2 incident really pissed me off, I mean, who does that?? Then I realized, almost no one, almost never.
- the community backlash was already effective, even though it went way overboard.
- the regs are already so confusing, I usually spend hours reading through the whole thing, and recheck before every fishing trip. Adding more laws just makes it more likely people will unknowingly violate them and get into huge trouble, for what?
- just focusing on Octos probably won't effect many anglers, but then what happens when a spearfisherman brings up a cabbie from cove 2? The people that just don't like fishing in general will jump all over it, especially once its been successfully done with octo.
- think of it from the other perspective, what if anglers wanted to close a good fishing site off to divers that you rarely dive at because one time a diver cut a fisherman's line (let's assume it was because the diver got stuck and it was not malicious). Wouldn't you feel that was unjustified? Wouldn't you want to avoid setting that precedent, even if you don't dive there?

Just some food for thought,

April
April

Fishstiq
Amphibian
Posts: 827
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 7:58 am

Re: WDFW GPO update: Seacrest Cove 1,2,3 now included in opt

Post by Fishstiq » Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:12 am

elmer fudd wrote:And for all practical purposes, we could shut down any hunting in these areas just by shaming, naming and shunning the people that do it.


This is illegal.


RCW 77.15.210
Obstructing the taking of fish, shellfish, or wildlife — Penalty.

(1) A person is guilty of obstructing the taking of fish[, shellfish,] or wildlife if the person:

(a) Harasses, drives, or disturbs fish, shellfish, or wildlife with the intent of disrupting lawful pursuit or taking thereof; or

(b) Harasses, intimidates, or interferes with an individual engaged in the lawful taking of fish, shellfish, or wildlife or lawful predator control with the intent of disrupting lawful pursuit or taking thereof.

(2) Obstructing the taking of fish, shellfish, or wildlife is a gross misdemeanor.


(3) It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution for obstructing the taking of fish, shellfish, or wildlife that the person charged was:

(a) Interfering with a person engaged in hunting outside the legally established hunting season; or

(b) Preventing or attempting to prevent unauthorized trespass on private property.

(4) The person raising a defense under subsection (3) of this section has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.


[2001 c 253 § 30; 1998 c 190 § 24.]


Jaksonbrown wrote:Due to the recent developments mentioned above, the now seriously upset sport fishing community got actively involved in this issue last night and have uncovered and exposed a "loophole" in this process that will most likely kill or postpone any sort of action or rule change until 2015-2016.


Correction - It's not a "loophloe", it's a standard procedure that has been in place for years. It's a procedure that has been applied to any and all rule changes (immediate emergencies excluded). H&L fishermen, spearos, and all other sportsmen have had to play by this rule every time a change is proposed, whether to reopen or to close or to simply change rules on a given area. This should be no different, unless someone can provide factual scientific proof that there is an immediate threat to GPOs. Let's be honest, facts and science and proof are something that has been woefully absent from this conversation.




I see both sides of this issue. Like Bob said, yes it's legal, but it's bad form. When you boil it down, what is happening here is that people are trying to legislate ethical behavior. The obvious problem is that ethics is a personal choice, is different for everyone, and it's often emotionally driven. Emotions do not make good laws, and they are a horrible way to make rules for managing our resources!

GPOs are not a threatened species. They are not harvested in numbers that warrant protection. IMO, there is no factual reason to enact legal protections of them.

When this incident first occurred, I was just as mad as most of you. Now that time has passed, and everyone has calmed down and had a chance to think about this logically instead of emotionally, I see it a bit differently. Taking the GPO was an @-hole move, for sure. Still, you can't make legislation for people to not be @-holes.

Unless someone can give me a factual reason why the octos should be protected, my vote is for "no change".
Not just front page famous, but above the fold famous...

Waiting for your AIDS test results is no time to be thinking positive.

WaGigKpn
Aquaphile
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:26 pm

Re: WDFW GPO update: Seacrest Cove 1,2,3 now included in opt

Post by WaGigKpn » Thu Apr 25, 2013 11:55 am

I submitted my comment which i will post here:
I am a scuba diver. I do not believe any changes are needed for Octopus harvest. Their life spans are short and well documented. The biggest threat to octopuses is not harvesting but lack there of. Let me explain. Octopus are a food source for Ling cod and other predatory fish. This is why in protected area's there are virtually no octopuses. If the diving community would like to have more octopuses in popular diving area's then they should be supportive of regular harvesting of all species. Another point i would like to make is that Octopus is hardly ever taken in the PNW. It is not legal to commercially harvest it and a search for online material detailing preparation and harvest of PNW octopus is near non existent. This supports that it is not a popular fishery. In closing, Octopuses are in more danger from Large Predatory Fish than they are Divers. A true solution would involve the harvest of predator fish in an octopus conducive environment.

Divers just do not hunt Octopuses at any rate that even remotely resembles the rate at which they die to natural causes. The biggest threat to octopuses is the upper size limit of predatory fish. Why dont we see octopuses in conservation areas??? One octopus that was only a few years old and at the end of its life was taken by a diver to enjoy. I dont dive that area but i imagine another octopus is already back in it place, if not it's probably due to spear fishers staying clear of the area due the the 'incident' thus allowing the fish population to flourish.

User avatar
CaptnJack
I've Got Gills
Posts: 7769
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 2:29 pm

Re: WDFW GPO update: Seacrest Cove 1,2,3 now included in opt

Post by CaptnJack » Thu Apr 25, 2013 3:59 pm

I see octopus in MPAs all the time. If there's suitable den structures + prey there's octopus or recent evidence of them.
Sunrise and Z's reef are 2 MPAs with suitable habitat and prey and they have ample octopus. Titlow and Tolmie are MPAs with terrible octopus structure, hence no octopus (until you get to the wall SW of the restaurant at Titlow and whala octopus).

I doubt enacting option B or C will change overall octopus numbers at all. At those specific sites or sound-wide. It will codify community norms and general ethics that taking octopus from popular shore dives is in poor taste. So people don't feel compelled to "name and shame" and other such things. The argument that we have lots of fishing rules already so we should just make this an unwritten community rule (not taking Octopus at Seacrest) is exactly what created the conflicts last fall in the first place.
Sounder wrote:Under normal circumstances, I would never tell another man how to shave his balls... but this device should not be kept secret.

User avatar
lamont
I've Got Gills
Posts: 1211
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:00 pm

Re: WDFW GPO update: Seacrest Cove 1,2,3 now included in opt

Post by lamont » Thu Apr 25, 2013 5:20 pm

Fishstiq wrote:Correction - It's not a "loophloe", it's a standard procedure that has been in place for years. It's a procedure that has been applied to any and all rule changes (immediate emergencies excluded). H&L fishermen, spearos, and all other sportsmen have had to play by this rule every time a change is proposed, whether to reopen or to close or to simply change rules on a given area. This should be no different, unless someone can provide factual scientific proof that there is an immediate threat to GPOs. Let's be honest, facts and science and proof are something that has been woefully absent from this conversation.


The entire conversation is really about human interaction and facebook. This fundamentally isn't a scientific debate its a social one. There aren't a lot of facts to point to other than the huge facebook and media meltdown that resulted in blogs around the world reposting the pictures and wanting to lynch-mob dylan.

There probably won't be another incident soon because this one is too seared into everyone's minds, but the turnover in diving is huge, and most divers will drop out after 5 years or less, and eventually you'll get someone new to scuba hunting taking an octo in front of a group of divers who weren't certified when this last incident happened, and they'll take pics and splatter it all over facebook again...

So what in this whole mess really warrants scientific study and analysis?

User avatar
April
Dive-aholic
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 9:15 am

Re: WDFW GPO update: Seacrest Cove 1,2,3 now included in opt

Post by April » Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:00 pm

lamont wrote:
So what in this whole mess really warrants scientific study and analysis?


I don't want to speak for Joe, but in my mind, that's exactly the point. WDFW is supposed to manage resources for everyone, not define regulations based on the feelings of a select few. If that's what you want, be careful what you wish for, anglers outnumber divers 10 to 1 ( a least ).

And to Richard, I absolutely do not think some committee should have the authority "codify" our ethics. We do still like to believe we are free in this country. We have legislatures to make laws, and they already do a terrible enough job.

WDFW is over stepping its bounds. They should only be able to make regulations to better protect a species that needs protection. And that should be based on science.
April

elmer fudd
Just Settling In
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 11:10 am

Re: WDFW GPO update: Seacrest Cove 1,2,3 now included in opt

Post by elmer fudd » Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:10 pm

Fishstiq wrote:This is illegal.


No it's not. Expressing your disapproval or taking pictures of something is not the same as harassment or interfering with a harvest.

Post Reply