WDFW news re: octopuses

[spatman]

And part of that is not knowing how many octopus are even taken since there are no catch cards, nor how many people drive up here from Oregon and leave us all their disposable income.

ORdiver and I average at least 20 trips a year up to WA to dive. Between car and boat gas, food, ramp fees, occasional fills and other diving bits and pieces we pick up at WA shops, we probably spend $150-200 a month in WA just for diving. Over the years I've also spent quite a few thousand dollars on gear, charters, and classes from WA vendors.

But if WA decides that I have to pay an additional fee to spend that money in your state, there will be a lot more Oregon diving booked on my calendar.

[Gdog]

Spatty, might end up many of us taking our dive dollars outside the state as well. Some would possibly find other recreation instead. Local dive shops would suffer with declining sales. Local businesses that support divers in a mirad of ways would suffer the same. Sure some would pay and dive. Others wouldnt. Poor idea all around.

[nwscubamom]

Just to clarify, the man giving the briefing to WDFW commissioners was Craig Burley, not "Bargman". I would assume you were talking about Greg Bargmann, who retired from WDFW a few years ago.

I was impressed that there seemed to be much discussion and comments from the commissioners about dive tourism and wanting to maintain OR IMPROVE the attractiveness of diving in Washington to out-of-staters. (they spoke of national and international travel here to view GPOs). It was the first time that I'd heard the commission really recognize divers as a strong user group.

One of the commissioners said we were 4th in the nation for attracting dive tourism already. I hadn't heard that before. I would guess Florida and California being ahead of us, but what would be the third?

[lamont]

Good point Cap'n Jack, but I don't hunt in popular areas. Most folks don't for the reasons stated. I just see it as yet another incremental attack on our ability to put food on the table in a manner we see fit. There is no best available science to support it.

You say this, yet later you are cool with everything as long as we pay a fee or tax? If divers were paying $200/year in taxes would you be okay with a ban on all GPO harvest across the sound? I suspect you don't really want to go down the road of having policy set by the largest pocketbooks -- that only sounds good when it looks like you can frame the argument so that you're economically winning, its not going to look so good if you wind up in conflict with someone bigger than you. You also might get surprised if some billionnaire liberal decides to save the GPOs, while it turns out not many billionnaires like to hunt them.

You should really be either against hunting bans or not.

Post a sign, or signs, make it an honor system. Based upon my experience with other divers, and seeing the honesty amongst folks here finding lost gear and getting it back to the rightful owner, if you post it, 99.9% will abide by it. Fairly honorable group, wouldn't you agree?

That's what we had going into this mess. It took one diver. 99.9% of divers do not catch GPOs at Cove 2 already.

Going about it as it is sets the stage for future MPA's and junk science.

That is vastly overreaching. The problem here was that you had two groups of divers with two immediately conflicting concerns -- taking pics and vid of a particular octo den in cove 2 vs eating that octo. It didn't have much to do with economics and bring up junk science is a red herring that has nothing to bear on this issue. It wasn't about science, it was about the utilization of a common resource -- good old human conflict. Lots of laws and regulations have no science behind them and are about regulating social conflict.

And there is 1,332 miles of shoreline in puget sound. These regulations affect less than 1% of that. The other >99% of it are open to harvest. If anyone takes a GPO anywhere else its legal now. If anyone takes a GPO at cove 2 in the future, then enforcement is simple and there's no need for any more regulations. You got into the situation that you are most worried about where people who want to ban *all* hunting are showing up and complaining to the government precisely because there were no regulations. With regulations, in the future, this becomes largely a non-issue. If shop owners or other hunters hear divers planning to take octos from cove 2 they can point the divers at the written regulations which will head off conflict, and they can redirect the divers to other sites. If a diver still takes a GPO from cove 2 then they get ticketed by WDFW and is not like you can put cove 2 on a secret double-probation ban, its already banned.

[nwscubamom]

Just found this in my inbox:

Fish and Wildlife Commission extends octopus protections
and sets hunting seasons for migratory waterfowl

OLYMPIA - The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission extended protections for giant Pacific octopuses in Puget Sound today by prohibiting the recreational harvest of the species at seven popular scuba diving sites from Whidbey Island to Tacoma.

The commission, a nine-member citizen panel appointed by the Governor to set policy for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), also adopted 2013-14 hunting seasons for migratory waterfowl and approved several land acquisitions designed to conserve fish and wildlife habitat during the first day of its Aug. 2-3 meeting in Olympia.
The commission considered several options for managing the recreational harvest of giant Pacific octopuses before unanimously deciding to prohibit their harvest at Redondo Beach in Des Moines; Three Tree Point in Burien; Seacrest Park Coves 1, 2 and 3 near Alki Point in West Seattle; an area adjacent to the Les Davis Fishing Pier in Tacoma; the Alki Beach Junk Yard in West Seattle; the Days Island Wall in Tacoma; and Deception Pass north of Oak Harbor. The new rules will take effect this fall.

The commission called for a review of state rules governing the recreational harvest of octopuses in January, following the legal - but controversial - taking of an octopus at Seacrest Cove 2 in late October 2012.

Working with a 12-member citizen advisory committee that included members of the sportfishing and diving communities, WDFW developed options that ranged from making no rule changes to banning the recreational harvest of the octopuses throughout Puget Sound. The department received hundreds of comments on the management options during and after a pair of public workshops in the spring in Port Townsend and Seattle.

Craig Burley, WDFW Fish Management Program Manager, said many sportfishers preferred the status quo, while many divers favored a Puget Sound-wide ban. Burley said the octopus population in the Sound appears to be healthy and that the current recreational harvest is very small.

Several commission members said they favored some additional protections in recognition of the broad appeal of the species to recreational divers around the world, and the potential economic benefits of enhancing the reputation of Puget Sound as a premier diving location.

"Washington is an important dive location, and protection of the octopus is important both to the dive community and to the economy of the state," said Commissioner Conrad Mahnken of Bainbridge Island. He said Washington state is the fourth most popular dive location in the U.S. and the only northern state in the top 10.

[non-GPO portions snipped]

[BillZ]

One of the commissioners said we were 4th in the nation for attracting dive tourism already. I hadn't heard that before. I would guess Florida and California being ahead of us, but what would be the third?

Hawaii?

[nwscubamom]

One of the commissioners said we were 4th in the nation for attracting dive tourism already. I hadn't heard that before. I would guess Florida and California being ahead of us, but what would be the third?

Hawaii?

<smacks head> YES! Of course! Duh....
- Janna

[Dusty2]

One of the commissioners said we were 4th in the nation for attracting dive tourism already. I hadn't heard that before. I would guess Florida and California being ahead of us, but what would be the third?

Hawaii

[SeaDNA]

Just to clarify, the man giving the briefing to WDFW commissioners was Craig Burley, not "Bargman". I would assume you were talking about Greg Bargmann, who retired from WDFW a few years ago.

You are correct on Burley, my apologies.

We drop thousands of dollars fishing compare to our diving exploits. I might dive three times a year and spend $100. I probably fish 30-50 days per year. If divers as whole paid their fair share, you might see more development of dive sites. I just don't want to see additional sites added to the list. If people want to freeload on a resource, fine, but then you really should have nothing to complain about either.

Best of luck to all.

[H20doctor]

I don't agree with this statement " while many divers favored a Puget Sound-wide ban " untrue... many of my dive friends want the right to spear and do what the fishing people do.50/50 . the wdfw have no clue on octopus counts and how many there are out in puget sound..??? And they have no data on gpo counts, none..theres too much water in the ocean to say , Hey we know everything behind puget sound , and we will make these rules based on our feelings, and what the counsel agrees and votes on..
i think option c was a good call , for the people who travel here and want to see one ... but for the people who want to eat octos they have rights to also... but then again you can never stop a poacher from poaching.. and yes there out there..[sarcasm]sorry to break the news[/sarcasm]
I have seen big gpo's at other places not listed on the protected list, so they are out there.. and doing just fine
I am pro equal for all of us in this big fish bowl... but if none of us talk to the fish and wild life board as a whole , they will never know what we see underwater , because they are not divers like us

On another note there are too many fees.. yes

[BillZ]

Just to clarify, the man giving the briefing to WDFW commissioners was Craig Burley, not "Bargman". I would assume you were talking about Greg Bargmann, who retired from WDFW a few years ago.

You are correct on Burley, my apologies.

We drop thousands of dollars fishing compare to our diving exploits. I might dive three times a year and spend $100. I probably fish 30-50 days per year. If divers as whole paid their fair share, you might see more development of dive sites. I just don't want to see additional sites added to the list. If people want to freeload on a resource, fine, but then you really should have nothing to complain about either.

Best of luck to all.

Dude - so you pay $50 for a fishing license and think that you own a state resource?

So, if you'd like to compare the numbers.....
The cost manage the fisheries is more than it collects in license revenue- about $95m spent on fisheries and $50m collected in licenses per year

The cost to the state to manage diving activities is equal to what it spends - Zero dollars collected and zero dollars spent

So before you start calling divers "freeloaders" you should get you facts straight on who's actually freeloading.

[Grateful Diver]

We drop thousands of dollars fishing compare to our diving exploits. I might dive three times a year and spend $100. I probably fish 30-50 days per year. If divers as whole paid their fair share, you might see more development of dive sites. I just don't want to see additional sites added to the list. If people want to freeload on a resource, fine, but then you really should have nothing to complain about either.

Best of luck to all.

... and I spend $12-15 thousand a year on scuba diving, on average ... almost all of it here in Washington state.

So what? I don't see your point. You just said you fish 10-15 times more per year than you scuba ... it stands to reason it costs you more.

Freeloading? Sounds like divisive rhetoric to me.

Nobody's threatening your right to fish ... that's a complete non-argument.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

[nwscubamom]

I don't understand the whole thing about divers paying fees. What resources are they using/taking? What are they taking from the environment?

It makes perfect sense to have fees for those who harvest, because of the costs of managing the resources by WDFW. (determining seasons, monitoring and estimating populations, printing pamphlets, enforcing rules, etc.) License fees paid by the users don't equal these costs involved and even fall considerably short from what I understand.

Divers who harvest (spearfish, crabbing) also pay those fees, just like anyone else, because they are using/taking the resource. Divers who use boats pay launch fees, just like anyone else, because they are using that resource (boat ramps).

Divers who just go to do a regular dive DO take up a parking space, but that's no different than someone who goes to walk on the beach, or kayak, or swim (brr!), but what are they taking from the environment that needs managing?

So why do I keep hearing fishermen say that divers need to pay their fair share? Fair share of what exactly?

Maybe I'm missing something (quite possible!) but I just don't get it.

- Janna

[Dusty2]

I don't understand the whole thing about divers paying fees. What resources are they using/taking? What are they taking from the environment?

It makes perfect sense to have fees for those who harvest, because of the costs of managing the resources by WDFW. (determining seasons, monitoring and estimating populations, printing pamphlets, enforcing rules, etc.) License fees paid by the users don't equal these costs involved and even fall considerably short from what I understand.

Divers who harvest (spearfish, crabbing) also pay those fees, just like anyone else, because they are using/taking the resource. Divers who use boats pay launch fees, just like anyone else, because they are using that resource (boat ramps).

Divers who just go to do a regular dive DO take up a parking space, but that's no different than someone who goes to walk on the beach, or kayak, or swim (brr!), but what are they taking from the environment that needs managing?

So why do I keep hearing fishermen say that divers need to pay their fair share? Fair share of what exactly?

Maybe I'm missing something (quite possible!) but I just don't get it.

- Janna

well said!

[Dusty2]

Plus 1 to Billz and GD

So you spend allot on fishing and very little on diving... So what?

A lot of the diving community buy fishing licenses each year and hunting too, So what? Most of us buy discover passes, so what? You choose to spend thousands on fishing and almost nothing on diving... SW?

I just dropped $3000 on dive gear and that's just a minimal investment for most. I do on average 125 dives a year and no longer choose to fish.... so???? Almost all of my diving is done away from home where I spend a lot on the local economy as well as at the state parks for camping and such.

As far as how much the state spends on diving... Almost nothing! There is only one site that I know of where the state spent money to create a dive site. Most dive sites are either natural or incidental to other activities or created and maintained by the diving communities or local governments to attract $$$.

The diving community asks almost nothing from the state and is more than willing to spend our own money and time to create and maintain our dive sites. We are self policing and require little from our government agencies. There are no scuba police patrols, no scuba wardens, no state agencies created to support us and we ask almost nothing from the state.

Can the fishermen or hunters say that? I think not.

So who is freeloading?

[Norris]

its pretty obvious that this thread is going nowhere fast. I shall lock this dead horse so rather than continuing to kick it, put those feet in some fins and go diving. I have removed the offending posts.