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

General banter about diving and why we love it.
User avatar
pensacoladiver
I've Got Gills
Posts: 1350
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 5:00 pm

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

Post by pensacoladiver » Thu Apr 25, 2013 8:25 pm

April and Joe, FWIW, I think you both are expressing very good and valid points in an exceptional manner.

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 8:48 pm

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



Are you serious? WDFW, laws and regulations for an entire state, managing a natural resource for all the public to enjoy, protecting a species, thousands of divers and tens of thousands of fishermen, and the legal consequences of breaking any new or old law, and you think we should decide all this with facebook?!?!! Lamont, I know you are an intelligent guy, so a statement like that makes me think you must be just :stir: .

Note* - Actually, I bet the fishermen would LOVE to decide this all with facebook. With their numbers, they could steamroll this issue faster than you could say sushimi.


elmer fudd wrote:
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.


Yes, it is. The law is quite clear, and there is tons of case history to show that it is illegal. It falls in line with hunter harassment laws. Just like PETA was told by a federal judge they could not legally take photos of hunters and use them in "smear and shame" campaigns.
Not just front page famous, but above the fold famous...

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

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 9:25 pm

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



Are you serious? WDFW, laws and regulations for an entire state, managing a natural resource for all the public to enjoy, protecting a species, thousands of divers and tens of thousands of fishermen, and the legal consequences of breaking any new or old law, and you think we should decide all this with facebook?!?!! Lamont, I know you are an intelligent guy, so a statement like that makes me think you must be just :stir: .

Note* - Actually, I bet the fishermen would LOVE to decide this all with facebook. With their numbers, they could steamroll this issue faster than you could say sushimi.


elmer fudd wrote:
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.


Yes, it is. The law is quite clear, and there is tons of case history to show that it is illegal. It falls in line with hunter harassment laws. Just like PETA was told by a federal judge they could not legally take photos of hunters and use them in "smear and shame" campaigns.



So how many people went to jail or got cited with the incident at Alki? Pretty sure it was zero. That's because no laws were violated. There's a thing called free speech and taking photos in public is also protected.

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 10:00 pm

elmer fudd wrote:
So how many people went to jail or got cited with the incident at Alki? Pretty sure it was zero. That's because no laws were violated. There's a thing called free speech and taking photos in public is also protected.



Just because no one was cited or went to jail doesn't mean no law was broken. Your assumption that since no one was cited or went to jail must mean no laws were broken reveals your ignorance. Your sarcasm aside, free speech has limits. You cannot yell fire in a theater (unless there's a fire). Taking photos is fine, the law dictates what you may or may not do with those photos.

Agree with me or don't, I don't care. I am trying to give people some information and have a rational discussion here, not get in some back-and-forth sarcastic pissing match with an armchair lawyer. If you think your idea of "shaming, naming and shunning the people that do it" will be a legal and effective means of dealing with this issue, that's your prerogative.
Not just front page famous, but above the fold famous...

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

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 » Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:07 am

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


Are you serious? WDFW, laws and regulations for an entire state, managing a natural resource for all the public to enjoy, protecting a species, thousands of divers and tens of thousands of fishermen, and the legal consequences of breaking any new or old law, and you think we should decide all this with facebook?!?!! Lamont, I know you are an intelligent guy, so a statement like that makes me think you must be just :stir: .

Note* - Actually, I bet the fishermen would LOVE to decide this all with facebook. With their numbers, they could steamroll this issue faster than you could say sushimi.


I'm not stirring the pot.

The point, which you seem to be acting deliberately obtuse about, is that this argument has and always has had nothing to do with species preservation. There's no evidence that the hunting of GPOs is significant and no evidence that they're under any kind of pressure.

If that is the extent of what the WDFW can regulate, then its nearly a foregone conclusion that all the talking about it was pointless. If, on the other hand, "managing a natural resource for all the public to enjoy" means regulating disputes between two different groups of users that have come into conflict, then WDFW does need to consider acting. If hunters take out all the octos from Cove 2, then we can't very well go photograph them. This is a case of human conflict between two people that want to use the same resource at the same sites in ways that are fundamentally incompatible.

There have been some assertions that WDFW can only regulate fishing within the bounds of scientific evidence to protect a species that needs protection. If someone can back that assertion up, it would end all the debate quickly. I don't know enough about their actual legal mandate. I'd be a little bit surprised if it was that narrowly defined in reality.

And the point that I've been making here (and multiple times, to the point where I don't understand how you can misread me so incredibly badly) is that the WDFW should decide this issue *instead of* having divers and fisherman fighting it out in facebook and the media.

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 » Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:26 am

Fishstiq wrote:Just because no one was cited or went to jail doesn't mean no law was broken. Your assumption that since no one was cited or went to jail must mean no laws were broken reveals your ignorance. Your sarcasm aside, free speech has limits. You cannot yell fire in a theater (unless there's a fire). Taking photos is fine, the law dictates what you may or may not do with those photos.


No law was broken.

This also isn't a free speech issue. Hunting an octo isn't speech.

Agree with me or don't, I don't care. I am trying to give people some information and have a rational discussion here, not get in some back-and-forth sarcastic pissing match with an armchair lawyer. If you think your idea of "shaming, naming and shunning the people that do it" will be a legal and effective means of dealing with this issue, that's your prerogative.


Agreed that "shaming, naming and shunning" is a horrible approach -- which simply /is/ fighting it out on facebook whenever it comes up. That's precisely what I'd like to avoid.

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 » Fri Apr 26, 2013 4:26 am

Having been at the center of the controversy that started this process, I can assure you that no law was broken ... by either side. But I think it was pretty evident that there was a conflict, based on incompatible uses of a resources that the WDFW is tasked to manage.

WDFW is not looking to restrict anyone's "rights" ... they're seeking to manage a resource in a manner that best accommodates both of those users in a way that avoids conflict. A limited approach to offering protection, specifically to octopus, in areas that see heavy use by sightseers doesn't seem an unreasonable restriction on hunting. Joe brings up some reasonable counter arguments. So if we can take the emotion out of it, we will see that both sides have reasonable perspectives ... and this is why we have a committee to discuss and advise WDFW ... who will then consider the points offered by both of those perspectives and make their decision.

It's ironic that the biggest argument I saw at the time from those who supported the hunter was "it's legal, if you don't like it, change the law" ... and now that we're trying to do that they're saying "there's no need to change the law". I don't see the logic in that ... nor do I view it as reasonable.

The purpose of changing the law isn't conservation ... it's resource management, and conflict avoidance. Think back a couple years ago when the Seattle Aquarium removed an octopus from Redondo ... the reaction from the dive community ... and that wasn't a hunter, but an organization that generally gets universal support from the community!

This isn't ... or shouldn't be ... an issue of pitting hunter rights against diver rights ... or spearos against photographers. It's a question of how can we best accommodate the interests of both groups. And let's keep in mind that the advisory committee isn't going to create any changes in the law ... they're going to investigate the options and make a recommendation. It's up to the WDFW commission to then decide what's the best course of action to take.

It's unfortunate that someone on this advisory committe chose to turn this into a broader conservation issue ... by doing so they created a potential conflict that didn't need to be created. Now the committee ... and the WDFW are going to have to deal with it.

... 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
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 » Fri Apr 26, 2013 6:59 am

Thanks, Chad :D
April

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 » Fri Apr 26, 2013 7:13 am

Lamont, their mandate is here:

RCW 77.04.012
Mandate of department and commission.

Wildlife, fish, and shellfish are the property of the state. The commission, director, and the department shall preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish in state waters and offshore waters.

The department shall conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair the resource. In a manner consistent with this goal, the department shall seek to maintain the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry in the state. The department shall promote orderly fisheries and shall enhance and improve recreational and commercial fishing in this state.

The commission may authorize the taking of wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish only at times or places, or in manners or quantities, as in the judgment of the commission does not impair the supply of these resources.

The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile, disabled, and senior citizens.

Recognizing that the management of our state wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources depends heavily on the assistance of volunteers, the department shall work cooperatively with volunteer groups and individuals to achieve the goals of this title to the greatest extent possible.

Nothing in this title shall be construed to infringe on the right of a private property owner to control the owner's private property.


[2000 c 107 § 2; 1983 1st ex.s. c 46 § 5; 1975 1st ex.s. c 183 § 1; 1949 c 112 § 3, part; Rem. Supp. 1949 § 5780-201, part. Formerly RCW 75.08.012, 43.25.020.]

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.04.012

Now, I am far from an expert in reading legal code, so if there is another place that gives them more authority please let me know. Here is another link that defines their powers and duties:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.12
April

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 » Fri Apr 26, 2013 9:41 am

This is about protecting a certain species, in a certain small place for the recreational viewing of the general public. Considering that this certain species is a fish, the WDFW has the authority to make it happen and was the right government agency to address our concerns with. Had everyone gone with this single objective in mind and stuck to it, it would have been fairly easy to push through and would have received wide support with multiple groups involved. However, due to the screwed up personal political agendas of a few, it ruined things for the rest of us... as is usually the case.

This issue is all but dead, at least for now. Not really worth wasting anymore air on it.

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 » Fri Apr 26, 2013 9:50 am

Lamont, and Mr. Fudd, and whoever else I've managed to irritate...

I'm not trying to fight with any of you. I'm trying to show a different perspective. I'm also trying to show some respect for the perspective of a majority of the people here. I don't want a heated, insulting, sarcastic discussion, and if I've come off as insulting or whatever, that was not my intent, and I apologise for my part in that. Moving on....

I understand the views of those who didn't like the octo being harvested from c2. I agree that it was wrong, and I've said so repeatedly. Thousands of divers a year visit this site to see these creatures, not to mention the classes, and I know divers invest a lot of time and effort to maintain and increase safety and cleanliness at this site as well as others. These efforts warrant a certain amount of respect and "say-so" in the management of the area.


Here is the perspective that I don't believe is being represented here...

One diver, one time, took one octo from one site. A lot of people didn't like that, and now a committee has been formed to find a solution for this conflict between two parties. That committee came up with four options. As a sportsman (fisherman, spearo, whatever), here is how those options are laid out.

Option D: Puget Sound closure to recreational harvest of Giant Pacific Octopuses.
So this committee thinks because one octo was harvested and people didn't like it, we should close all harvest to everyone? Based on "I didn't like it"? No science, no facts, no studies, nothing? This option is beyond absurd, and yet WDFW and it's committee put it out there for a vote.

* 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)

Because one diver took one octo, you wanna close 9 sites to hook and line fihsermen? How does this make any sense? Has there been a problem with people taking octos at Deception Pass? Are fishermen casting lines towards shore from the piers at Les Davis or Alki? Pull up your pants, committee, your agenda is showing.

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

Fewer sites but more restrictions than option C. So now, just preventing fishermen from catching octos isn't enough. You want to take away the ability to fish at all, for anything? Again, because one guy, one time, took one octo from one site while scuba diving?

Option A: Status Quo - no changes to current regulations
This one gets my vote. Not because I don't think anything should change, but because you haven't given me, as a sportsman, any other choice.


Do you see now how there is no compromise here? Other than option A, every choice is a loss (read: attack) towards sportsmen's rights and use of resources. None of the options presented (except A) are really "fair" to sportsmen. There's a saying, "A good compromise is one where nobody is happy". If the committee and WDFW wanted a compromise, they would look at how to prevent conflict like this in the future while stepping on as few toes as possible. Honestly, it's not that hard to do. How about this for an option...

Option E: Selective Marine Preserves - No recreational harvest of octo while on scuba
Alki cove 2
Redondo Beach
...?

This way, the most popular sites where classes are held, etc, are protected for divers. Sportsmen can still fish there legally, so no threat (or resistance) there, and no real threat to octo there anyway since no one fishes in those dive sites. No need to restrict harvest at places like Deception Pass or DIW, where it almost never happens anyway. H&L guys are fine with it, it doesn't affect them. Divers are happy, the sites where they can go at anytime to see octos are safe.


I think Bob said it pretty well...

Grateful Diver wrote:This isn't ... or shouldn't be ... an issue of pitting hunter rights against diver rights ... or spearos against photographers. It's a question of how can we best accommodate the interests of both groups.

It's unfortunate that someone on this advisory committe chose to turn this into a broader conservation issue ... by doing so they created a potential conflict that didn't need to be created. Now the committee ... and the WDFW are going to have to deal with it.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)
Not just front page famous, but above the fold famous...

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

User avatar
chokolad
Avid Diver
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 10:36 pm

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

Post by chokolad » Fri Apr 26, 2013 9:55 am

Fishstiq wrote:* 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)

Because one diver took one octo, you wanna close 9 sites to hook and line fihsermen? How does this make any sense? Has there been a problem with people taking octos at Deception Pass? Are fishermen casting lines towards shore from the piers at Les Davis or Alki? Pull up your pants, committee, your agenda is showing.


Are hook & line fishermen actually harvest GPOs using hook & line ???

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 » Fri Apr 26, 2013 10:16 am

chokolad wrote:Are hook & line fishermen actually harvest GPOs using hook & line ???


Yes, although they are rarely targeted and are more often than not bycatch.
Not just front page famous, but above the fold famous...

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

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 » Fri Apr 26, 2013 10:49 am

Couple of things to correct in your comments, Joe ...

Option C only targets octopus ... and AFAIK, the fishing piers ... on those sites where they exist ... are exempted. That, at least, was how it was stipulated in the document that this option was based on. We did recognize that octopus are occasionally caught (mostly as bycatch) by the H&L fishing folks using those piers. Whether or not this was maintained by the committee is unknown to me, since I'm not on the committee. It was, however, the intent of what we proposed ... basically, what you've described as your Option E.

I'm wondering if the committee really changed that much, or simply that they haven't done a good job of communicating what is actually being proposed. There are a lot of people on that committee who list fishing as one of their activities ... and I know that the folks selecting the committee wanted fishing interests represented. What's being discussed here seems to me to be at odds with what I've heard the committee was proposing.

Day Island Wall has been harvested ... not that many years ago. Using the one octo per day limit, virtually every octopus on the wall was removed in about a week. There was a big reaction from the community at the time that, at the extreme end included threats of violence. The intent of changing the law is to preclude such things from occurring again.

There have also been harvests at TTN and Muk that I've been made aware of ... although I was not there to witness them.

... 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 » Fri Apr 26, 2013 11:09 am

Fishstiq wrote:One diver, one time, took one octo from one site.


No, this has happened before at Les Davis and at DIW.

In both cases, we suspect that the hunters were doing their 'hunting' online and when they saw divers posting reports/photo/vid they showed up an took the octo(s). Not exactly 'sporting', which is one issue contained in this problem.

A lot of people didn't like that, and now a committee has been formed to find a solution for this conflict between two parties. That committee came up with four options. As a sportsman (fisherman, spearo, whatever), here is how those options are laid out.


Yes, and if you noticed earlier I said it looked like all of them were "designed by committee" and were poor choices.

The only one that really addresses the issue in a remotely fair manner is option C to close only GPOs at a few sites, and those sites seem overly broad to me. I've said this at least four times now, hoping for someone to correct me, but I don't see this being an issue outside of the coves, Les Davis, DIW. The Junkyard, for example makes little sense because its not very popular and its pretty tough to find a GPO there. Deception pass seems like it'd be pretty 'sporty' to try to pull a GPO out of there, so I doubt it'll happen, and certainly seems like legitimate 'hunting' to me

So apparently we're in violent agreement, then, but you just need to pontificate about how you're the only one addressing "the perspective of the majority."

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 » Fri Apr 26, 2013 11:30 am

Bob, I may have been unclear about my "option E" idea. The main points of my "option E" example were two things.

1, don't include H&L fishermen in any ban, ie, make harvest of octo off limits to divers only, and say so specifically. Don't say"except for fishing from the pier". Instead, say "harvest while on scuba". This would effectively end harvest of GPO at these sites, since no one fishes inside the dive site itself anyway. It would also eliminate 99% of the resistance from sportsmen.

2, minimize the number of sites where the ban will take place, 2 or 3 sites at most. This is where a little logic and some "fairness" comes in to play, and here's why I think this way. Any site that is diveable from shore, and had GPOs, is going to be an active dive site. DIW, TTN, wherever. When WDFW proposes to close "popular" sites, and lists 9 that are relatively easy and accessible shore dives, where does that leave room for sportsmen? Where would your average non-boat-owning octo-eating diver go?


Again, I'm trying to offer another perspective. I know that DIW has been harvested in the past. I was unaware of TTN or Muk, but I'm not surprised.
Not just front page famous, but above the fold famous...

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

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 » Fri Apr 26, 2013 11:43 am

lamont wrote:So apparently we're in violent agreement, then, but you just need to pontificate about how you're the only one addressing "the perspective of the majority."


Violent agreement, I like that.

I never said I was the only one addressing anything. I never said anything about the majorities perspective. I did say there are more sportsmen than divers, and I did say they seem pretty pissed off about all this from what I've seen.
Not just front page famous, but above the fold famous...

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

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 » Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:04 pm

Fishstiq wrote:
lamont wrote:So apparently we're in violent agreement, then, but you just need to pontificate about how you're the only one addressing "the perspective of the majority."


Violent agreement, I like that.

I never said I was the only one addressing anything. I never said anything about the majorities perspective. I did say there are more sportsmen than divers, and I did say they seem pretty pissed off about all this from what I've seen.


You're getting very emotional about people wanting to ban all GPO harvest or ban all fishing at popular dive sites. And I don't see anyone supporting those proposals in this thread. I'm fairly certain that both of those proposals are in there to satisfy a minority that WDFW is addressing all the different communities, but I suspect that they're basically dead-on-arrival since they most definitely conflict with the WDFW mandate posted here earlier.

We're also in violent agreement over simply limiting it to harvest while on scuba gear. And I think a good argument can be made about it not being "sporting" for hunters doing their 'hunting' online, finding where the octo dens are, and then getting a guaranteed catch of an octo. While, if an octo gets pulled up on a line as essentially by-catch when doing other fishing, that's seems more than 'fair' since its such an unlikely occurrence and is certainly more than "sporting". The distinction between scuba and line makes sense to me.

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 » Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:18 pm

Joe ... I hope you've expressed your ideas to the WDFW, either by attending a meeting or online. If not, I'd encourage you to do so. Not so much just choosing an option, but expressing your reasons as you have done here.

It's difficult to encompass all the various thoughts that can go into a decision in four options, each summarized into a few words. You have some legitimate (to my concern) issues, and I think it's important that they be expressed and considered. I do not believe "no change" is the best alternative we can come up with ... but I also believe it's important to listen to all sides before deciding what that best alternative should be.

... 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/

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 » Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:29 pm

Grateful Diver wrote: I do not believe "no change" is the best alternative we can come up with ... but I also believe it's important to listen to all sides before deciding what that best alternative should be.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)


I couldn't agree more.
Not just front page famous, but above the fold famous...

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

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 » Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:38 pm

Fishstiq wrote:1, don't include H&L fishermen in any ban, ie, make harvest of octo off limits to divers only, and say so specifically. Don't say"except for fishing from the pier". Instead, say "harvest while on scuba". This would effectively end harvest of GPO at these sites, since no one fishes inside the dive site itself anyway. It would also eliminate 99% of the resistance from sportsmen.

Fair enough ... I could support that. However, it's not correct to say that no one fishes inside these dive sites. As I've pointed out previously, you will see people H&L fishing inside these dive sites when the salmon are running ... every year, guaranteed. It's probably not smart, and I doubt they'll catch a salmon in there ... but they do it.

Fishstiq wrote:2, minimize the number of sites where the ban will take place, 2 or 3 sites at most. This is where a little logic and some "fairness" comes in to play, and here's why I think this way. Any site that is diveable from shore, and had GPOs, is going to be an active dive site. DIW, TTN, wherever. When WDFW proposes to close "popular" sites, and lists 9 that are relatively easy and accessible shore dives, where does that leave room for sportsmen? Where would your average non-boat-owning octo-eating diver go?

Those dive sites represent only a tiny fraction of places where hunters can go catch octopus, if that's what they want to do. Yes, sure, they'll have to spend some time searching out the habitat ... as opposed to just jumping in the water and swimming to a place where a known den exists. But isn't that what hunters are supposed to do? First off, I wouldn't recommend eating octopus or any other resident species from places like Seacrest Park or Les Davis ... they're close to superfund sites, and areas known for excessive heavy metals. Eating salmon from these areas is OK ... they're just passing through. But it would be informative to test the meat on that octopus Dylan caught and find out how healthy it would be to eat that ... I suspect, not very. But you ask where would your average non-boat-owning octo-eating diver go? Well, off the top of my head I can think of about 150 dive sites in the greater Puget Sound area not target for protection ... and there's a lot of public access to areas that are not specifically dive sites where one could go. You'd just have to put some effort into finding them, and searching out potential dens in those areas ... and again, that's an aspect of hunting. John Rawlings ... who I believe has been hunting his entire life ... wrote an excellent piece to Dylan on that subject back when the incident at Cove 2 occurred. I wish I would've saved it for reference ... since it applies nicely to your question. Let's be honest about it ... going to a dive site and pulling an octopus out of a known den isn't hunting.

Fishstiq wrote:Again, I'm trying to offer another perspective. I know that DIW has been harvested in the past. I was unaware of TTN or Muk, but I'm not surprised.

... and although I don't agree with all of your perspective (I do agree with some of it), I thank you for sharing it ... that's how this process was supposed to work ...

... 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
CaptnJack
I've Got Gills
Posts: 7759
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 2:29 pm

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

Post by CaptnJack » Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:56 pm

"No change" is just voting to continue having conflicts (here, on facebook, at dive sites etc) over a limited resource. Octopus aren't limited sound-wide but they are at popular shore diving spots. I think everyone agrees that taking an octo from underneath the honey bear is just bad form. The whole point of the rulemaking was to spell out that this is "bad form" (unethical, however you want to describe it) and not allowed so that last fall's conflict won't repeat itself.

As far as the scope of the Commission, they recognize that nonconsumptive fish and wildlife uses are a significant source or state revenues. http://wdfw.wa.gov/viewing/tourism/

In the case of octopus there are surely FAR more people coming here hoping to see one than people buying a license to take one. WDFWs latest data, which was old, showed maybe a couple dozen taken per year over the past decade. I got those data via a public disclosure request. So option C really isn't limiting very many existing consumptive users at all relative to the potential conflict minimization by having community norms expressed in rule.

I agree that the whole "except for the pier" language is bad. It should IMO read, "no take of octopus while on scuba" if you happen to catch one in a crab pot, well lucky you (I think).
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
Echo
Compulsive Diver
Posts: 314
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:17 pm

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

Post by Echo » Fri Apr 26, 2013 3:22 pm

Seeing as how the GPO is not considered an endangered or vulnerable species, it seems as though these restrictions that are trying to get put through are more from emotional attachments to the animals, not to conserve the species. If we want to make an impact on the wildlife in our waters, we need to put on our big-kid panties and quit arguing and look at a bigger picture. Sport hunting never has made too much of an impact on an ecosystem... What's really hurting is the poaching & commercial hunting done in our waters (well in all waters, tuna fishing is a great example). Unfortunately it's the Native Americans doing this fishing and, according to an email I received from WDFW a few years back about the issue, "Well... they have their rights to do so"... My dad and I as a kid, on a number of occasions , have witnessed these boats net fish and dump 20-30 huge crab pots all strung up in a line, attached to buoys.. http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/tribal/2012-13agreement.pdf it was a sad sight to see them pulled up and see that there was not much in their nets and pots due to them already stripping the area...
-Erika

User avatar
Norris
I've Got Gills
Posts: 4558
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 2:31 pm

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

Post by Norris » Fri Apr 26, 2013 3:35 pm

I don't see the connection with this conversation and Native American fishing.


Signed,
Proud Native American
**Pinch it, don't stick your finger through. You're just pinching a bigger hole.
CAPTNJACK - 2012**

User avatar
CaptnJack
I've Got Gills
Posts: 7759
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 2:29 pm

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

Post by CaptnJack » Fri Apr 26, 2013 4:46 pm

Echo wrote:Seeing as how the GPO is not considered an endangered or vulnerable species, it seems as though these restrictions that are trying to get put through are more from emotional attachments to the animals, not to conserve the species.


There are lots and lots of rules and laws for all sorts of things which are based on people's emotional attachment to particular types of animals. Certain whales and other marine mammals, furry carnivores, bald eagles (at least nowadays they are common), etc. The term is "charismatic megafauna". The only thing unusual about this particular effort is that it revolves around an invertebrate.
Sounder wrote:Under normal circumstances, I would never tell another man how to shave his balls... but this device should not be kept secret.

Post Reply