Seacrest underwater harvest protection

General banter about diving and why we love it.
User avatar
cardiver
I've Got Gills
Posts: 3860
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 10:43 am

Re: Seacrest underwater harvest protection

Postby cardiver » Fri Nov 09, 2012 9:46 pm

Crashed my computer when I tried to watch the video via the link posted above........
-Ron T.
"When I'm 80 I'll take up real diving, which is done in a pub..." Ray Ives.
253-227-0856
My Dive Pics...
https://www.facebook.com/RETOPPPHOTOGRAPHY

User avatar
coach_izzy
Avid Diver
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 5:12 am

Re: Seacrest underwater harvest protection

Postby coach_izzy » Fri Nov 09, 2012 4:01 pm

Wow, nice interview, Bob! I love the way you emphasized the spirit of the diving community. Kudos!

Octoloco
Extreme Diving Machine
Posts: 404
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 10:11 am

Re: Seacrest underwater harvest protection

Postby Octoloco » Fri Nov 09, 2012 1:42 pm

Good interview Bob!
Dive by Shooting!!

Kathy

User avatar
Grateful Diver
I've Got Gills
Posts: 5058
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 7:52 pm

Re: Seacrest underwater harvest protection

Postby Grateful Diver » Fri Nov 09, 2012 8:45 am

Follow-up story from KOMO ... http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Afte ... =video&c=y

... 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
John Rawlings
I've Got Gills
Posts: 5755
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 9:00 am

Re: Seacrest underwater harvest protection

Postby John Rawlings » Fri Nov 09, 2012 5:45 am

Nalu wrote:I think pensacoladiver's perspective is absolutely dead on.

Support will abound for picking specific dive-centric sites to limit harvest due to desire of the stakeholders that wish to see, touch, take pictures and leave bubbles.
Opposition will be massive from both the spearfishing, and regular fishing community should the idea be to limit the harvest of a healthy resource due to the desire of a group that has no basis other than emotions.


I agree!
“Don’t pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he’ll just kill you.”

Image

http://www.advanceddivermagazine.com
http://johnrawlings.smugmug.com/

User avatar
Grateful Diver
I've Got Gills
Posts: 5058
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 7:52 pm

Re: Seacrest underwater harvest protection

Postby Grateful Diver » Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:52 pm

My impression from today's meeting was that there's little support at WDFW to implement a statewide ban. It's one of the options that was stated ... but so was "do nothing". It's nothing more, to my concern, than a data point on the continuum of possible actions ... with little chance of being seriously considered.

PD - if that's a direct quote, I suspect it was taken out of context. At our meeting the other night ... which was pretty representative of divers from a pretty broad spectrum of interest groups ... we started with the assumption that hunters have a right to hunt. The question isn't "whether" ... it's "where".

When the topic of spearfishing at popular dive sites was brought up one of the commissioners said something to the effect of "considering our typical low visibility, isn't a little dangerous to mix hunting and recreational divers at the same site?"

... 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
Desert Diver
Compulsive Diver
Posts: 318
Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 9:20 pm

Re: Seacrest underwater harvest protection

Postby Desert Diver » Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:49 pm

+1

User avatar
Nalu
Getting To Know Folks
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 1:54 pm

Re: Seacrest underwater harvest protection

Postby Nalu » Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:27 pm

I think pensacoladiver's perspective is absolutely dead on.

Support will abound for picking specific dive-centric sites to limit harvest due to desire of the stakeholders that wish to see, touch, take pictures and leave bubbles.
Opposition will be massive from both the spearfishing, and regular fishing community should the idea be to limit the harvest of a healthy resource due to the desire of a group that has no basis other than emotions.

User avatar
pensacoladiver
I've Got Gills
Posts: 1345
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 5:00 pm

Re: Seacrest underwater harvest protection

Postby pensacoladiver » Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:39 pm

LowDrag wrote: It might also be a good idea to express that we are not against people that spear fish just not in a place like Cove II.


While that may be true for a good portion of people on this board, I do not personally feel it applies to everyone. I believe there are some that would like to see it banned completely.

I hope you don't take offense, but I see you have 9 dives, 8 posts and have been a member here for about 3 days. I could be wrong, you may know a majority of the people here, but it certainly does not appear so to me.

I am (at least I think I am) a moderately centered spearo.

I can't speak for the folks on other dive boards, but you can bet there are hunters watching the threads posted here as this is the center of the universe right now.

I don't have time to go back and find exact quotes, so I will paraphrase a few lines that tend to get the hunters up in arms....

"We have to start slow, lets get Cove 2 protected, get our foot in the door and then we can look at other sites and maybe even a statewide ban". Again, that is not an exact quote.

If the intent of the movement is to protect the GPO at Cove 2 for people to look at and pet, why would anyone care about somebody taking their boat out and harvesting one in 80 feet of water at a dive site that is unknown to the massess and certainly not accessible from shore?

There are fringes in all trains of thought...

User avatar
Mtnsunlite
Hi, I'm New To NWDC!
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: Seacrest underwater harvest protection

Postby Mtnsunlite » Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:01 pm

I want to recognize the maturity that Dylan showed today by attending the Fish and Wildlife meeting. Dylan stood up to speak for closure of the site to hunting octopus and for better signage. I really think we should react to his actions by "taking the high road" at this point and even offer to mentor him in diving. He has stated that he will no longer be able to pursue his Rescue Diver certification because he has been shunned by the dive community. I am an Assistant Instructor and cannot teach it but I would like to see if any Instructors would be willing to OFFER to teach him Rescue Diving. I think it would go a long way in diffusing the potential lawsuit against some of the divers in our community. Time to leave negative feelings behind and turn this into a educational opportunity

I also think we have a real opportunity to use this incident to draw attention to the existing pollution in Cove 2 (high fecal coliform levels, heavy metals, PCBs, etc.). The public is now paying attention to this area and we should organize our dive community to communicate to our public agencies that we want cleanup. Clean up of pipeline outfalls, clean up of storm water pollution from watersheds into our creeks (where salmon live) and other point sources that build up high levels of pollution in Cove 2. Eating seafood from that area is a bad idea.

User avatar
Nalu
Getting To Know Folks
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 1:54 pm

Re: Seacrest underwater harvest protection

Postby Nalu » Mon Nov 05, 2012 10:09 pm

lundysd wrote:Hey everyone,

I just wanted to provide a quick update on our efforts regarding this matter. As it stands right now, our mission is to...

1. Petition the WDFW to establish a ban on GPO harvest in the vicinity of Alki Cove 2 in the short term. This will be discussed at the WDFW meeting next Thursday (and if you're interested or planning on attending to speak on this matter, please contact me and we can coordinate efforts)

2. In the long term, begin investigating the ramifications of changing the statewide GPO harvest rules and regulations. This could take the form of designating several key dive sites as no-take locations, limiting harvesting to a particular season or to males only, or a number of other potential strategies.

We are exploring several other alternatives as well, including establishing a conservation area at Cove 2, and if you have strong opinions, a desire to help, or experience with these types of situations, please contact me.

Scott


I certainly applaud the efforts to provide protection to the GPO in the vicinity of Alki Cove 2. Your approach by starting to work with WDFW for a specific location that has social merit as the rationale should prove viable.

As for #2. I think the ramifications involving changing wholesale regulation of the harvest of a species that is not threatened will be more difficult. I have been heavily involved the last 8 or 9 years with the PFMC, and NPFMC with regard to saltwater harvest, biomass, and recovery levels of fisheries. When you start talking about reducing harvest limits, or changing harvest regulations, then the councils and the management offices that make these decisions rely heavily on data based rationale. Decisions for fishery regulations tend to go through 2 year or 3 year legislative change cycles, significant stakeholder input and community meetings, and then need based criteria. In this instance, unless I am mistaken, the call for a regulation change appears to be on the emotional response to the harvest.

A byproduct of this is that you may not have seen it yet, but any call to change regulation will be strongly opposed by the fishing community. Due to the rise of MPA's and MRA's, the sport fishing community has become much stronger in the political arena in the last 5 years and anything that will reduce opportunity to harvest something with out a need based rationale will be heavily opposed both at the Washington Fisheries Management level, as well as at the legislative level. You can bet that divers that spearfish will call for support from the fishing community, and they will get it. Any change to harvest regulations for a Washington Management Zone I think in the end will have to be definitive impact based with a clear rationale why there is a need.

I do my best to educate people on the reason NOT to kill GPO's. I have pictures and stories that I tell anglers when we catch them incidentally on the boat, and I've probably released at least 20 over the last 10 years, with not a single one retained. But there is a significant difference in asking for certain locations to be designated no-take zones, which most harvesting anglers will support, and trying to change harvest regulations wholesale that would reduce harvest opportunities everywhere, and anglers will vehemently oppose. Harvest restrictions are a huge hot button issue in the NW.

User avatar
LowDrag
Extreme Diving Machine
Posts: 436
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 8:52 am

Re: Seacrest underwater harvest protection

Postby LowDrag » Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:43 pm

Thank you Gdog.

User avatar
Gdog
I've Got Gills
Posts: 1038
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 7:41 pm

Re: Seacrest underwater harvest protection

Postby Gdog » Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:26 pm

Dont appologize for posting. As they say, its the thought that counts....

User avatar
LowDrag
Extreme Diving Machine
Posts: 436
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 8:52 am

Re: Seacrest underwater harvest protection

Postby LowDrag » Mon Nov 05, 2012 8:11 pm

It was just a thought. I will let it go. Sorry for posting. :pale:

User avatar
spatman
NWDC Administrator
NWDC Administrator
Posts: 10554
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:06 am

Re: Seacrest underwater harvest protection

Postby spatman » Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:59 pm

We also don't need any more drama focusing on NWDC. Asking members to head over to Spearboard to fight the good fight will only result in more headaches for us. We've been fending off plenty of criticisms and trolls/sockpuppets since this Octopalypse started.

Lets keep this thread on topic and move on.
Wikipedia DIR and drysuit spokesmodel

Image

User avatar
Joshua Smith
NWDC Moderator
NWDC Moderator
Posts: 10217
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 9:32 pm

Re: Seacrest underwater harvest protection

Postby Joshua Smith » Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:56 pm

LowDrag wrote:I was reading a thread on spearboard today - no I am not a member - and a lot of the divers over there are slamming divers here and on Scubaboard really hard. There are a few "spearos" there that have an understanding of what is going and why everyone here is so upset about this situation. If anyone here is a member of spearboard may be you could stop in at the California - Offtopic thread "Drama" and explain why it is such bad form for someone to do what these guys did. Preferably in a manner that would show that we are not a bunch of "kelp huggers" and "bubbleblowing tree huggers" but a group of people concerned about keeping Cove II a place where anyone can dive and enjoy the animals to see there. It might also be a good idea to express that we are not against people that spear fish just not in a place like Cove II. There are a couple of members there trying to make that point but they are hugely outnumbered, they could use some help.

Thanks.


"kelp huggers" and "bubbleblowing tree huggers" = Their words not mine...FYI.


I hate to admit it, but I've been trying to have a rational conversation in their PNW sub forum, and I'm giving up. They don't want to hear much from us, about anything.
Maritime Documentation Society

"To venture into the terrible loneliness, one must have something greater than greed. Love. One needs love for life, for intrigue, for mystery."

User avatar
spatman
NWDC Administrator
NWDC Administrator
Posts: 10554
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:06 am

Re: Seacrest underwater harvest protection

Postby spatman » Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:53 pm

IMVHO, it's not worth the energy to try and discuss these matters online with people who have strong differing opinions. What's really to gain? Do you think you'll actually change their collective minds regarding this issue?

Is it possible they could make you change your opinion?
Wikipedia DIR and drysuit spokesmodel

Image

User avatar
LowDrag
Extreme Diving Machine
Posts: 436
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 8:52 am

Re: Seacrest underwater harvest protection

Postby LowDrag » Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:30 pm

I was reading a thread on spearboard today - no I am not a member - and a lot of the divers over there are slamming divers here and on Scubaboard really hard. There are a few "spearos" there that have an understanding of what is going and why everyone here is so upset about this situation. If anyone here is a member of spearboard may be you could stop in at the California - Offtopic thread "Drama" and explain why it is such bad form for someone to do what these guys did. Preferably in a manner that would show that we are not a bunch of "kelp huggers" and "bubbleblowing tree huggers" but a group of people concerned about keeping Cove II a place where anyone can dive and enjoy the animals to see there. It might also be a good idea to express that we are not against people that spear fish just not in a place like Cove II. There are a couple of members there trying to make that point but they are hugely outnumbered, they could use some help.

Thanks.


"kelp huggers" and "bubbleblowing tree huggers" = Their words not mine...FYI.

User avatar
deep diver
Perma Narc'd
Posts: 766
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 7:49 am

Re: Seacrest underwater harvest protection

Postby deep diver » Sun Nov 04, 2012 7:08 pm

found this on a dive site
OGD has contacted the Seattle Aquarium and found out they are working on a plan to protect the Giant Pacific Octopus. Details are not out yet, but we have every faith they will find a way to help these beautiful and intelligent creatures. They stepped in years ago to protect the Sixgill when they were being fished out of Cove2. Now let's all go diving and marvel at how wonderous all underwater creatures are!
It's a good day.... nobody died!

User avatar
lundysd
Extreme Diving Machine
Posts: 421
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:28 pm

Re: Seacrest underwater harvest protection

Postby lundysd » Sun Nov 04, 2012 6:56 pm

I also quickly wanted to add that we now have a dedicated subforum to discuss these efforts -- I have invited the participants in this thread to join and discuss these efforts, and if anyone else is interested in helping, just PM me :)

User avatar
lundysd
Extreme Diving Machine
Posts: 421
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:28 pm

Re: Seacrest underwater harvest protection

Postby lundysd » Sun Nov 04, 2012 1:08 am

Hey everyone,

I just wanted to provide a quick update on our efforts regarding this matter. As it stands right now, our mission is to...

1. Petition the WDFW to establish a ban on GPO harvest in the vicinity of Alki Cove 2 in the short term. This will be discussed at the WDFW meeting next Thursday (and if you're interested or planning on attending to speak on this matter, please contact me and we can coordinate efforts)

2. In the long term, begin investigating the ramifications of changing the statewide GPO harvest rules and regulations. This could take the form of designating several key dive sites as no-take locations, limiting harvesting to a particular season or to males only, or a number of other potential strategies.

We are exploring several other alternatives as well, including establishing a conservation area at Cove 2, and if you have strong opinions, a desire to help, or experience with these types of situations, please contact me.

Scott

User avatar
CaptnJack
I've Got Gills
Posts: 7233
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 2:29 pm

Re: Seacrest underwater harvest protection

Postby CaptnJack » Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:43 am

renoun wrote:
CaptnJack wrote:Washington absolutely has Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) sometimes for all species, sometimes for selected species, and sometimes just limiting gear types. So a "no harvesting GPOs by scuba or snorkeling/free diving" in some defined area has plenty of precedent. As would "no harvest of GPOs statewide", 6 gill and wolf eels are examples of statewide closed fisheries.

I think in the case of the Seacreast Park Coves the obvious solution would be to define a MPA with a "doughnut hole" around the fishing pier that corresponds to the existing diver exclusion area around the fishing/ferry pier. I assume the either a distance from shore or a depth contour would define the seaward extent of the MPA. The MPA description could even state that hook and line fishing is permitted from the pier. I assume a similar approach could work at other sites of interest to the dive community.

The problem with this approach is that it would affect the recreational salmon fishery which does troll along the shoreline at certain times of the year typically following depth contours, tide rips, or signs of bait fish congregations. Our cause would not be well served by generating conflict with the salmon fishermen, they are well versed in the politics of regulating sports fisheries. It would be nice to try to boats and dives at popular sites though so if it only had a very limited impact on trolling for salmon perhaps a limited number of sites could become full MPAs.


Its much more simple than that.
E.g.
"No octopus may be taken from an area extending 100yards from shore beginning at Salty's and ending at Duwamish Head"
or
"Only angling may be used from an area extending 100yards from shore beginning at Salty's and ending at Duwamish Head"

This doesn't have to affect the fishing pier or salmon trollers at all. Although there really needs to be a minimum 130ft depth limit for trolling near Cove 2. I have seen downrigger balls go dancing by at 70ft before and getting hooked out there in salmon season is a real threat.
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
Sea Goat
Frequent Bubbler
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:35 am

Re: Seacrest underwater harvest protection

Postby Sea Goat » Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:07 am

renoun wrote:The problem with this approach is that it would affect the recreational salmon fishery which does troll along the shoreline at certain times of the year typically following depth contours, tide rips, or signs of bait fish congregations. Our cause would not be well served by generating conflict with the salmon fishermen, they are well versed in the politics of regulating sports fisheries. It would be nice to try to boats and dives at popular sites though so if it only had a very limited impact on trolling for salmon perhaps a limited number of sites could become full MPAs.


Thus, solutions are being sought where boats and pier fishing are not affected. "No underwater harvesting (such as, on scuba) in this area" sounds like a good rule to me but I'm not an expert.

Maggie
NWUE Founding Member
GUE Seattle
http://www.GUE-Seattle.org

User avatar
renoun
I've Got Gills
Posts: 1478
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 3:43 pm

Re: Seacrest underwater harvest protection

Postby renoun » Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:31 am

CaptnJack wrote:Washington absolutely has Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) sometimes for all species, sometimes for selected species, and sometimes just limiting gear types. So a "no harvesting GPOs by scuba or snorkeling/free diving" in some defined area has plenty of precedent. As would "no harvest of GPOs statewide", 6 gill and wolf eels are examples of statewide closed fisheries.

I think in the case of the Seacreast Park Coves the obvious solution would be to define a MPA with a "doughnut hole" around the fishing pier that corresponds to the existing diver exclusion area around the fishing/ferry pier. I assume the either a distance from shore or a depth contour would define the seaward extent of the MPA. The MPA description could even state that hook and line fishing is permitted from the pier. I assume a similar approach could work at other sites of interest to the dive community.

The problem with this approach is that it would affect the recreational salmon fishery which does troll along the shoreline at certain times of the year typically following depth contours, tide rips, or signs of bait fish congregations. Our cause would not be well served by generating conflict with the salmon fishermen, they are well versed in the politics of regulating sports fisheries. It would be nice to try to seperate boats and dives at popular sites though so if it only had a very limited impact on trolling for salmon perhaps a limited number of sites could become full MPAs.
Last edited by renoun on Sun Nov 04, 2012 7:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Just to be clear, doing the Diamond Knot requires at the minimum double IPAs to be DIR." - MattleyCrue
"Mmmm....... Oreos!
They didn't look too good when I was spitting in my mask for dive #2!" - cardiver

User avatar
pensacoladiver
I've Got Gills
Posts: 1345
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 5:00 pm

Re: Seacrest underwater harvest protection

Postby pensacoladiver » Sat Nov 03, 2012 2:33 am

CaptnJack wrote:Washington absolutely has Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) sometimes for all species, sometimes for selected species, and sometimes just limiting gear types. So a "no harvesting GPOs by scuba or snorkeling/free diving" in some defined area has plenty of precedent. As would "no harvest of GPOs statewide", 6 gill and wolf eels are examples of statewide closed fisheries.



Richard, I knew I could count on you to place a response into terms I could understand. I don't recall ever seeing any gear restriction on SCUBA when I was there, but it has been 2 years. Having a precedent already set makes the job quite abit easier IMO.


Return to “General SCUBA Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests