WDFW news re: octopuses

[Jason Wettstein]

Members may be interested in the following, re: octopuses.

Jason Wettstein
Community Relations and Public Affairs
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

=====================

NEWS RELEASE
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
July 30, 2013
Contact: Commission Office, (360) 902-2267

Commission to consider waterfowl
seasons, protections for octopuses

OLYMPIA — The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission will consider adopting 2013-14 hunting seasons for migratory waterfowl and additional protective measures for giant Pacific octopuses in Puget Sound during a public meeting Aug. 2-3 in Olympia.

A public hearing is also scheduled to discuss several proposals to amend state wildlife interaction rules to incorporate measures from Washington’s Wolf Conservation and Management Plan and implement 2013 legislation.

The commission, a citizen panel appointed by the governor to set policy for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), will convene in Room 172 of the Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington St. S.E. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 8 a.m. Aug. 2 and 8:30 a.m. Aug. 3.

An agenda for the meeting is available at http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/. On Friday, TVW (http://www.tvw.org/) is scheduled to provide a live webcast of the meeting.

State waterfowl seasons proposed by WDFW are similar to those adopted last year. The general duck season would be open for 107 days – from Oct. 12-16 and from Oct. 19-Jan. 26. A special youth hunting weekend is also proposed for Sept. 21-22.

As in previous years, goose hunting seasons will vary by management areas across the state, but most would open in mid-October and run through late January.

In other action, the commission will consider several options for providing additional protection for Puget Sound’s Pacific octopus population. The options, available on WDFW’s website at http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/octopus/, were developed by WDFW in consultation with a 12-member citizen advisory group.

Under current rules, a person with a valid state fishing license can harvest one giant Pacific octopus per day in most areas of Puget Sound. Options under consideration by the commission range from no change in current rules to a ban on harvesting octopuses anywhere in Puget Sound.

The commission called for a review of those rules after the legal harvest of a giant Pacific octopus near Alki Point in Seattle sparked a public outcry last October.

In other business, the commission will receive a briefing and take public comment on proposed amendments to wildlife interaction rules. The amendments are available on WDFW’s website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/development.html.

Those amendments include a proposal that would make permanent an emergency rule that permits ranchers, farmers, and other pet and livestock owners in the eastern third of the state to kill a wolf that is attacking their animals.

Also during the August meeting, the commission will consider several land transactions and receive briefings on a variety of topics including the status of Washington’s sockeye salmon populations, WDFW’s legislative proposals for 2014 and the department’s 2013-15 capital budget.

[SeaDNA]

Thanks for the heads up!

Submitted my comments the the WDFW to keep the staus quo. Primary reason, nobody has given any scientific reason for a change in the policy. Harvest is minimal and generally incidental, there is no active and directed commercial fishery for them, and there is no imminent threat to the population of GPO's by the continued limited harvest as it stands.

The primary reason I don't actively mingle with most non-consumptive divers is the scorn that I was treated with over the years when I mentioned I liked to bring somenthing back home with me other than pictures, so yes, I do dive, I do fish, and I do hunt (on land and sea), but I don't choose to target GPO's. Just because I don't target them doesn't mean that I wish to prevent others from doing so in a lawful manner.

This whole proposal to limit GPO harvest is born out of emotion, in my opinion.

[Desert Diver]

All true and I agree entirely that scientifically there is no reason to limit harvest. I too am a hunter and remember years ago the scorn that I received when others on the boat saw my speargun, but harvest still should be closed in places that have hundreds of divers a week going to look at the octopuses.

[CaptnJack]

You two are entitled to your opinions.

But other people think hunting at exceptionally popular urban dive sites which get 1,000s of divers per year, including many out-of-town tourists specifically looking for octopus, should be prohibited. Not because octopus are rare or threatened Sound-wide. Because the one or at most two Octopus at Cove2 are far more valuable as dive tourist magnets for a 1,000 than as dinner for 1.

[SeaDNA]

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

Maybe requiring divers to pay for an annual dive license, say $200/year, along the lines of charging access for watchable wildlife would be in order. Heck, I had to get a "boater's license" this year. ATV folks pay an additional license for accessing State land. Snowmobilers as well pay for access. What do non-consumptive divers pay? Nothing.

Between my boys and I we paid roughly $700 in license and permit fees, and tags to the WDFW this year, and we do this every year. Charging non-consumptive divers for access to State waters would give non-consumptive divers a little more skin in the game as far as contributing directly to the agnecy that supports the resource they want to go look at. I think recreation fishermen in Washington State alone contribute over $420 million in economic benefit to the state. (WDFW study) What is the economic benefit provided by divers? If you are going to state economic benefit, it would be great if someone could quantify it.

Great discussion and points made by you guys.

[CaptnJack]

Paying to dive in public waters from a public beach with no entry fees. That's a novel concept. If I don't look at the fish, invertebates, birds, or marine mammals, do I still have to pay?

[SeaDNA]

Folks pay a Discover Pass fee to go onto State land. This is for any DNR or State park land. That is public land, is it not? Why should it be free? It is $35 with the vendor fee for a year. Chaps my hide that I pay that without a discount after already paying heaviliy to the WDFW of licenses and tags, but I do it because I receive a benefit from being able to access the land. Plenty of precedence.

Hunters and fishermen pay a 10%-11% excise tax on most of the gear they use (paid at the mfg level, but still passed on to us) for our activities. This money goes to conservation, primarily the Wildlife Restoration Fund, but also funds Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust. In 2009 this amounted to $484 million dollars for archery, firearms and ammunition related taxes. Taxes, not total purchases. Taxes on fishing related equipment were $123 million. Couldn't find information on additional excise tax on diving gear that went to support fish & widlife.

Paying into the system would give divers more credibility when it comes to tracking economic return from their activities, would it not? Why should it be free? If you want changes, and say that you have an economic impact, then support it with facts and numbers. Everybody should have to pay to play.

[BillZ]

Maybe requiring divers to pay for an annual dive license, say $200/year, along the lines of charging access for watchable wildlife would be in order. Heck, I had to get a "boater's license" this year. ATV folks pay an additional license for accessing State land. Snowmobilers as well pay for access. What do non-consumptive divers pay? Nothing.

This isn't really a valid argument.

When I pay for my fishing license, I'm paying for the WDFW to maintain the resource that I consume.

Snowmobilers and ATV users are paying to maintain the trails that they use.

The boaters education card was put in place because the state decided that there were too many idiots on the water and that there should be a basic level of education in order to operate a boat - The fee I paid was to administer the program.

In diving, your not consuming anything and the state of Washington doesn't have a "Scuba Diving" budget- Therefore divers shouldn't need to pay an additional fee to access a resource.

BTW - I'd gladly pay a use fee or license charge if the state would provide things like mooring buoys, artificial reefs, shore access, dive parks etc.

[CaptnJack]

BTW - I'd gladly pay a use fee or license charge if the state would provide things like mooring buoys, artificial reefs, shore access, dive parks etc.

Agree, although I hate user fees in general, for some things they are a necessary evil. I would prefer a tiered income tax and fewer fees however. And I would support a portion of those income taxes being collected go towards recreational ammenities such as moorings, state parks, trails, boat ramps, artificial reefs etc. That would include octopus monitoring - since nobody even knows how many there are and if their numbers are going up or down, or if things like ocean acidification might impact them. But that isn't going to happen.

[Desert Diver]

You two are entitled to your opinions.

But other people think hunting at exceptionally popular urban dive sites which get 1,000s of divers per year, including many out-of-town tourists specifically looking for octopus, should be prohibited. Not because octopus are rare or threatened Sound-wide. Because the one or at most two Octopus at Cove2 are far more valuable as dive tourist magnets for a 1,000 than as dinner for 1.

You misread my post. I agree with you.

[Tom Nic]

BTW - I'd gladly pay a use fee or license charge if the state would provide things like mooring buoys, artificial reefs, shore access, dive parks etc.

This.

Also, I know that British Columbia provides extensive support for artificial reefs and more because of the tourism it promotes and the $$ it brings into the State.

[Joshua Smith]

BTW - I'd gladly pay a use fee or license charge if the state would provide things like mooring buoys, artificial reefs, shore access, dive parks etc.

This.

Also, I know that British Columbia provides extensive support for artificial reefs and more because of the tourism it promotes and the $$ it brings into the State.

Me and some friends just dropped about a thousand bucks (collectively) on a quick trip up to Nanaimo to dive the Cape Breton. We had a blast. We do it once or twice a year. Washington has so many opportunities to mimic what they have going on in British Columbia.....but we don't. I don't know much about it, politics wise, but it seems like a huge potential revenue stream for our money hungry state.

[Dusty2]

I sooooo want to jump into this but arguing within different special interest groups NEVER solves anything and ALWAYS causes heartburn and animosity between the various groups involved. We all love our sport , whatever it may be and we all are passionate about it. We all spend tons of money on equipment which generates tax dollars for our state. Not to mention boat licenses, state park passes, camp sites and a hell of a lot of us also buy fishing and hunting licenses to boot.

So everyone shake hands and go back to there corner and lets all be friends.

What ever the outcome of this mess I am sure not much is going to change and no ones rights are going to suffer.

[McGlencoe]

arguing within different special interest groups NEVER solves anything and ALWAYS causes heartburn and animosity between the various groups involved. We all love our sport , whatever it may be and we all are passionate about it.

Wise words.... infighting will always be a groups biggest enemy.

[CaptnJack]

Me and some friends just dropped about a thousand bucks (collectively) on a quick trip up to Nanaimo to dive the Cape Breton. We had a blast. We do it once or twice a year. Washington has so many opportunities to mimic what they have going on in British Columbia.....but we don't. I don't know much about it, politics wise, but it seems like a huge potential revenue stream for our money hungry state.

I wouldn't mind funding these types of things somehow, and having the charters and shops reap some extra tourism out of it. But alas it seems like anything worth travelling for is a non-starter here (large historically interesting ships). Absent a big military ship at recreational depths, So. Cal kelp forests, or a sudden influx of seriously balmy clear water, octopus are really about the only tourist magnet we have diving-wise.

[SeaDNA]

I'm not trying to be devisive. My apologies if I came off in that manner. What I am trying to say is that if you can show the economic impact you have to the powers that be, they will take you more seriously. If you have no data that supports your claim that divers represent an economic opportunity, how can you prove it? If you don't contribute to the sustainability of a resource by paying fees and taxes directly to the agencies that manage them, why would you expect the WDFW or other entities to respond to your requests?

Similarly, if you have no facts that supports a rule change, why would you expect anyone to go along with it? Just saying something enough times doesn't make it a fact. You gotta have the data.

The water is a resource, and you wouldn't be diving there if there was nothing to see, so it is a bit disingenuous, in my opinion, to say that because you don't take anything from the water that there is no need to pay for monitoring, enforcement, and other activities. You are part of a user group. Other user groups pay huge amounts on an annual basis. If you want to be taken seriously, maybe divers should take a note from hunters who started a system that paid for conservation back in 1937 through excise taxes on firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment.

Best of luck to all. I hope the decision is something we can all live with.

[CaptnJack]

Whoathunk that prohibiting the take of octopus at the most popular dive site in WA, something which even most adamant spearos thought was in poor ethical form last fall, would continue to be so controversial.

[Dusty2]

Did anyone attend last night? How about a heads up?

[enchantmentdivi]

Looks like Option C just passed.

[CaptnJack]

Looks like Option C just passed.

where did you see that?

[enchantmentdivi]

I watched the vote online.

[CaptnJack]

I watched the vote online.

Oh roger doger. Weird to me how they didn't update the actual Octopus page. Maybe Jason will or have someone else do that soon.

[SeaDNA]

TVW is great. I liked the fact that they covered all sides of the issue, and Miranda specifically got Bargman on record that there was no conservation issue as to the closures. What I didn't like was that fact that this sets a dangerous precedence for future closures where no facts are stated as to why a closure are needed. Mankhin alluded to some major economic impact by the attractiveness of the areas to divers from out of state, and the country, but again, provided no facts as to what the economic impact was. Miranda pressed Bargman on that issue, which was good.

It is what it is.

[CaptnJack]

Maybe when WDFW or the legislature pony up some money to implement octopus catch cards, or actually study the amount of money dive tourism brings or could bring (esp. in the case of reefing ships) to WA then you'd get some facts SeaDNA. Until then, people have to act on imperfect information. 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.

[SeaDNA]

Fishmen actually pay for those tracking methods on fish and crab through license fees. Puget Sound crab enhancement being one of them. Some would suggest no need for divers to pay anything, yet two major groups have to do the heavy lifting for other groups who pay nothing for conservation. We all use the resource, and we should all pay.

I'm sure that if the WDFW were to change a regulation on access for us divers without any facts or figures, you would be up in arms. I hate to see any incremental ersosion in anyone's fishing opportunity, even commercial, when no facts are presented supporting any closure. That is what just happened.