Northwest Dive Club

Spread the word, tell your dive buddies, clubs, etc!
It's now time for public input on the GPO issue. Your comments are wanted by WDFW for options A, B, C and D. You can attend one of the two public input meetings, or send in your written comments if you'd rather.
http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/octopus/
- Janna

Ya wanna do something productive to help the GPO's at our dive sites??. Try reaching out to the sport fishermen (Our largest opponent in passing these regulations) and Spearfishing community. Inform them that your, our, intention is to close ONLY our precious dive sites to the taking of GPO's. Tell them that we have no intention of trying to close ANY areas to sport fishing of ANY other species. They all believe that it is our intent to make massive "marine parks" that prevent any and all fishing. They look at us as the enemy.

What you really, really don't want to do is appear before the WDFW spewing data about thousands and thousands of hours of diver observations about the supposed decline of a certain species, say, Cabezon, for example, in an attempt (a successfull attempt), to shut down, or extremely limit fishing for Hook and line guys and spear fishermen. It makes the Sport fishing guys hate us. It makes them hate divers. They become illogical and will oppose any and all new proposals to limit fishing whatsoever.

Sport fishermen like divers, both love the oceans, and the marine life. We need to be working together to solve our problems, not fighting with one another.

Option B seems like its out of left field and is truly bizarre to me. That doesn't even cover Alki, where this whole drama started...

Anyone from the advisory board want to comment on where that came from?

A, C, and D have some rational relationship to the Commission's concerns.

Option D seems like it's too broad and will likely flounder due to the commercial crabbers wanting GPO kept in check.

My only concern with option C is enforcement. If a diver goes in form the beach and claims to harvest a GPO from beneath the pier, will that be a loop-hole?

Should be an interesting discussion.

GPO's should be protected in popular dive sites, but not elsewhere. They're not uncommon, they lay a lot of eggs, they have a short lifespan and very few people actually hunt them. That all adds up to a sustainable fishery and there's no rational reason for cracking down on it.

On the other hand, hunting GPO's in places like Cove 2 or Les Davis is pretty pathetic and inconsiderate. Divers go to these sites daily and the main reason why is to see some sea life. It's not like there aren't 100's of other locations that we can go hunting in Puget Sound.

Why not protect all the wildlife at the popular dive sites and allow hunting elsewhere? And while they're at it, they should probably allow the killing of the octopus while in the water. Having to wrestle an octo to the surface without penetrating it's skin is a very strange requirement. Imagine if the same were true for ling cod.

Well I think the idea they had in mind with Option C minus the fishing pier was so that they could still fish from the pier. i dont think the intent was to have anything to do with Octo harvesting under the pier. The other thing i noticed was that SUNRISE was not on the Option C list.

sitkadiver wrote:Option D seems like it's too broad and will likely flounder due to the commercial crabbers wanting GPO kept in check.

My only concern with option C is enforcement. If a diver goes in form the beach and claims to harvest a GPO from beneath the pier, will that be a loop-hole?

Should be an interesting discussion.

Diving with 150ft and underneath beneath the pier is prohibited by city ordinance. That's why there's a boundary line.

pogiguy05 wrote:Well I think the idea they had in mind with Option C minus the fishing pier was so that they could still fish from the pier. i dont think the intent was to have anything to do with Octo harvesting under the pier. The other thing i noticed was that SUNRISE was not on the Option C list.

Sunrise is already an MPA, known as "Colvos Passage"
Take of everything but salmon by trolling is already prohibited.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/mpa/colvos_passage.html

does the junkyard really need to be in option C? not a lot of GPOs there.

I'm going to put out something unpopular, but what I really think needs to be brought up. It seems as if we are giving fisherman a pass. We set up areas were divers have showers, picnic tables, easy shore entries and other conveniences and allow topside fishing; but require spear fisherman to dive off boats or frequent remote areas.

As most people said in a previous thread, it was the 'attitude' of a spear fisherman that has caused this... Does anyone really think that attitude will change if more areas are made off limits to spearos?

I am all for rules that prohibit taking females on eggs and regulates the catch a little more; but lets not take away more sites from fellow divers who enjoy a different aspect of the sport than you do.

fishb0y wrote:I'm going to put out something unpopular, but what I really think needs to be brought up. It seems as if we are giving fisherman a pass. We set up areas were divers have showers, picnic tables, easy shore entries and other conveniences and allow topside fishing; but require spear fisherman to dive off boats or frequent remote areas.

As most people said in a previous thread, it was the 'attitude' of a spear fisherman that has caused this... Does anyone really think that attitude will change if more areas are made off limits to spearos?

I am all for rules that prohibit taking females on eggs and regulates the catch a little more; but lets not take away more sites from fellow divers who enjoy a different aspect of the sport than you do.

I completely disagree. As a spearo, and an avid diver, we dont need to be spearing in the few spots where shore divers have easy access to dive sites. Particularly where other divers have done great things by placing habitat to draw life in to these spots. To go and spear at these spots is a slap in the face IMO, and totally disrespectfully to other divers. Octos are very plentiful. If you wanna go kill one, do it somewhere other than at a dive site where divers specifically go to look at them.

Jaksonbrown wrote:
I completely disagree. As a spearo, and an avid diver, we dont need to be spearing in the few spots where shore divers have easy access to dive sites. Particularly where other divers have done great things by placing habitat to draw life in to these spots. To go and spear at these spots is a slap in the face IMO, and totally disrespectfully to other divers. Octos are very plentiful. If you wanna go kill one, do it somewhere other than at a dive site where divers specifically go to look at them.

Spearing in a popular site is not only bad karma it's unsafe. Weapons have no place where so many people are.

Jaksonbrown wrote:

fishb0y wrote:I'm going to put out something unpopular, but what I really think needs to be brought up. It seems as if we are giving fisherman a pass. We set up areas were divers have showers, picnic tables, easy shore entries and other conveniences and allow topside fishing; but require spear fisherman to dive off boats or frequent remote areas.

As most people said in a previous thread, it was the 'attitude' of a spear fisherman that has caused this... Does anyone really think that attitude will change if more areas are made off limits to spearos?

I am all for rules that prohibit taking females on eggs and regulates the catch a little more; but lets not take away more sites from fellow divers who enjoy a different aspect of the sport than you do.

I completely disagree. As a spearo, and an avid diver, we dont need to be spearing in the few spots where shore divers have easy access to dive sites. Particularly where other divers have done great things by placing habitat to draw life in to these spots. To go and spear at these spots is a slap in the face IMO, and totally disrespectfully to other divers. Octos are very plentiful. If you wanna go kill one, do it somewhere other than at a dive site where divers specifically go to look at them.

^^^^ +1 ^^^^
OMG I agree with Cory

I was gonna respond, but Cory nailed it.

CaptnJack wrote: OMG I agree with Cory

There's hope for you yet!

CaptnJack wrote:

Jaksonbrown wrote:

fishb0y wrote:I'm going to put out something unpopular, but what I really think needs to be brought up. It seems as if we are giving fisherman a pass. We set up areas were divers have showers, picnic tables, easy shore entries and other conveniences and allow topside fishing; but require spear fisherman to dive off boats or frequent remote areas.

As most people said in a previous thread, it was the 'attitude' of a spear fisherman that has caused this... Does anyone really think that attitude will change if more areas are made off limits to spearos?

I am all for rules that prohibit taking females on eggs and regulates the catch a little more; but lets not take away more sites from fellow divers who enjoy a different aspect of the sport than you do.

I completely disagree. As a spearo, and an avid diver, we dont need to be spearing in the few spots where shore divers have easy access to dive sites. Particularly where other divers have done great things by placing habitat to draw life in to these spots. To go and spear at these spots is a slap in the face IMO, and totally disrespectfully to other divers. Octos are very plentiful. If you wanna go kill one, do it somewhere other than at a dive site where divers specifically go to look at them.

^^^^ +1 ^^^^
OMG I agree with Cory

Wow Richard... that must have really hurt!

I do not spearfish, but I did live in an area where the large fishing lobby did a pretty good job of limiting what and where you could dive (NE/Maine). We are losing dive spots here due to creosol cleanups, I would hate to start losing them because fisherman are feeling that their spots are being threatened.

fishb0y wrote:I do not spearfish, but I did live in an area where the large fishing lobby did a pretty good job of limiting what and where you could dive (NE/Maine). We are losing dive spots here due to creosol cleanups, I would hate to start losing them because fisherman are feeling that their spots are being threatened.

Ohhhh, make no mistake. Fisherman DO believe that their fishing rights are being taken from them. And in MANY cases they are.
We are currently asking the local Sport fishing community to let us shut down certain dive spots to harvesting of GPO's.. which is a good thing. IMO.. but then we have certain divers going before the WDFW and asking to shut down Sportfishing opportunites in the unfounded name of "conservation" which translates into more of a political agenda rather than facts.

How reseptive do you think they are going to be? Hard for them to belive us when we tell them that we "Just" want to protect the GPO's in our dive spots huh?? Why should they?

Sport fisherman are a massive group, like our local dive population. We should be working together to better our ocean and sealife instead of trying to impose our own personal political agendas on the local resouces.

I agree 100%...

Jaksonbrown wrote:

fishb0y wrote:I do not spearfish, but I did live in an area where the large fishing lobby did a pretty good job of limiting what and where you could dive (NE/Maine). We are losing dive spots here due to creosol cleanups, I would hate to start losing them because fisherman are feeling that their spots are being threatened.

Ohhhh, make no mistake. Fisherman DO believe that their fishing rights are being taken from them. And in MANY cases they are.
We are currently asking the local Sport fishing community to let us shut down certain dive spots to harvesting of GPO's.. which is a good thing. IMO.. but then we have certain divers going before the WDFW and asking to shut down Sportfishing opportunites in the unfounded name of "conservation" which translates into more of a political agenda rather than facts.

How reseptive do you think they are going to be? Hard for them to belive us when we tell them that we "Just" want to protect the GPO's in our dive spots huh?? Why should they?

Sport fisherman are a massive group, like our local dive population. We should be working together to better our ocean and sealife instead of trying to impose our own personal political agendas on the local resouces.

That's why alternative B is so odd. How does making Redondo an MPA for all species resolve the issues around octopus harvest at popular dive spots where photography is clearly the most prominent "use" of octopus?

I though Bob was on the advisory panel so I'm hoping he or one of the other members is able to chime in on how Alt B got into this mix of alternatives in the first place.

CaptnJack wrote:

Jaksonbrown wrote:

fishb0y wrote:I do not spearfish, but I did live in an area where the large fishing lobby did a pretty good job of limiting what and where you could dive (NE/Maine). We are losing dive spots here due to creosol cleanups, I would hate to start losing them because fisherman are feeling that their spots are being threatened.

Ohhhh, make no mistake. Fisherman DO believe that their fishing rights are being taken from them. And in MANY cases they are.
We are currently asking the local Sport fishing community to let us shut down certain dive spots to harvesting of GPO's.. which is a good thing. IMO.. but then we have certain divers going before the WDFW and asking to shut down Sportfishing opportunites in the unfounded name of "conservation" which translates into more of a political agenda rather than facts.

How reseptive do you think they are going to be? Hard for them to belive us when we tell them that we "Just" want to protect the GPO's in our dive spots huh?? Why should they?

Sport fisherman are a massive group, like our local dive population. We should be working together to better our ocean and sealife instead of trying to impose our own personal political agendas on the local resouces.

That's why alternative B is so odd. How does making Redondo an MPA for all species resolve the issues around octopus harvest at popular dive spots where photography is clearly the most prominent "use" of octopus?

I though Bob was on the advisory panel so I'm hoping he or one of the other members is able to chime in on how Alt B got into this mix of alternatives in the first place.

I have listened to all the minutes of the meetings, all of the petitions presented... no one suggested an all out ban on all fishing at Redondo. I think that this was added to the options up for voting for political reasons by some of the members of the advisory panel. It has had the desired effect among the sport fishing community.

Isn't the Redondo pier out past the marine science center a "fishing pier"? I have to admit I don't think I have been west of the diver shower there. And the shower is basically right next to the street sidewalk.

I am on the advisory group and I agree the option B came out of left field compared to what was discussed. Hopefully some of the wording and sites can be amended. There is a workshop on the 24th at the Seattle Aquarium that I would encourage people to attend. The sites that are already listed as MPA's were not included. The sport fishing community tends to distrust the word "closure" and "MPA" with some justification and this will need some support from them. I also think that everyone should remember that the spear fishing divers that only have shoreline access available to them deserve places to hunt during the 3 week season available to them (everyone else has them for the rest of the year). A fair amount of these dive sites were created as artificial reefs for fisheries enhancement and as such the sport fishing/spearfishing groups actually contributed through license fees for most of the improvements these sites. It would be just as unfair to take these locations away from these groups as it would be to completely close them off to the diving communty in general because diving interferes with the fishing activity at these fishing locations.

Thanks for confirming option B being a bit wacky relative to the advisory group's discussions...

sitkadiver wrote:Option D seems like it's too broad and will likely flounder due to the commercial crabbers wanting GPO kept in check.

My only concern with option C is enforcement. If a diver goes in form the beach and claims to harvest a GPO from beneath the pier, will that be a loop-hole?

Should be an interesting discussion.

The pier is off-limits to divers. At Cove 2, at least, you don't want to admit to hunting under the pier since you can then be subjected to a hefty fine.

I've submitted my comments to WDFW, favoring option C.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Jaksonbrown wrote:

fishb0y wrote:I'm going to put out something unpopular, but what I really think needs to be brought up. It seems as if we are giving fisherman a pass. We set up areas were divers have showers, picnic tables, easy shore entries and other conveniences and allow topside fishing; but require spear fisherman to dive off boats or frequent remote areas.

As most people said in a previous thread, it was the 'attitude' of a spear fisherman that has caused this... Does anyone really think that attitude will change if more areas are made off limits to spearos?

I am all for rules that prohibit taking females on eggs and regulates the catch a little more; but lets not take away more sites from fellow divers who enjoy a different aspect of the sport than you do.

I completely disagree. As a spearo, and an avid diver, we dont need to be spearing in the few spots where shore divers have easy access to dive sites. Particularly where other divers have done great things by placing habitat to draw life in to these spots. To go and spear at these spots is a slap in the face IMO, and totally disrespectfully to other divers. Octos are very plentiful. If you wanna go kill one, do it somewhere other than at a dive site where divers specifically go to look at them.

Thank you ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

fishb0y wrote:I do not spearfish, but I did live in an area where the large fishing lobby did a pretty good job of limiting what and where you could dive (NE/Maine). We are losing dive spots here due to creosol cleanups, I would hate to start losing them because fisherman are feeling that their spots are being threatened.

This is why I oppose Options B & D ... what we don't need is to create a backlash among other park users. Option C is very limited and specifically targeted, and of the four options best accommodates the widest range of users. Some protection is clearly needed ... specifically because the "well, it's legal" argument was used in the Cove 2 kill, which makes it necessary to make it not legal.

Had the bit of common sense and courtesy described by Corey been used, none of this would be needed.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)