While the rockfish and other bottom fish are being over-fished to virtual extinction in our area, there seems to be people willing to fish them to extinction before effectively protecting them. The problem with rockfish and other groundfish is their reproductive cycle is much longer than salmon. While I understand the tribe’s concern of their maintaining their livlihood, is there going to be a livlihood when the fish are gone, as they are elsewhere in the Sound? This seems very familiar. We heard similar arguements just prior to the collapse of the logging industry on the Peninsula in the late 70s. Once the big trees were gone, most of which happened due to the change to the laws to allow unlimited shipments of raw logs to Asia, not the Spotted Owl controversy, we then had jobs totally vanish. We are still recovering from that fiasco. This seems very similar. When the fish are gone, it will be a half century or more of no fishing at all to restore the stocks. Better to cut back now. As to Jennings support of a dive park, heck, we all have our personal goals. I’m sure the other members of the commission have theirs.
12/29 Peninsula Daily News
Controversial plan to keep sport fishers from Cape Flattery area might be put on hold
By Tom Callis
Peninsula Daily News
NEAH BAY — A member of the state Fish and Wildlife Commission behind a controversial proposal to close a six-square-mile area off Cape Flattery to sport fishing to protect groundfish and rockfish now says he expects the issue to be tabled for about a year.
His fellow commissioners need more time to review whether a closure is needed to protect the area’s groundfish population, said David Jennings of Olympia.
Jennings’ proposal remains in the agency’s draft 2010-2012 sport fishing rules document, which will be considered for a vote during the commission’s Feb. 4-6 meetings