WDFW Conservation Plan - Split from Duncan Rock

[Biodiversity_Guy]

What a fun video. We tried to dive Duncan last August, but got delayed and missed slack by a few minutes so we ended up going over near the west side of Tatoosh. We did it as a twilight/night dive. Quite fun and a bit of a "pucker factor" as you stand ready to make the giant stride, realizing that if something goes wrong, one can go floating out into the wild pacific ocean pretty easily.

BTW, the WA Dept of Fish and Wildlife is considering designating Duncan Rock and some of the area around Tatoosh (slant rock/mushroom rock area) as a bottomfish protection area (rare rockfish) and to help promote it as a world class diving destination. They are looking at doing this under the sportsfishing reg updates they are doing.

WDFW will accept written comments on the proposals through Dec. 1. If you like the idea, or if you don't, you should consider sending in your comments.

This proposal would close fishing for bottomfish and halibut off the northwestern tip of the Olympic Peninsula. The proposed closure would stretch about 4 miles from Cape Flattery east towards Neah Bay and would provide protection for rockfish such as tigers, chinas and canaries, and bottomfish such as cabezon in the area while helping promote Neah Bay as a world-class destination for divers.

That new proposed rule is available on the department’s website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/regs/rule_proposals/index.htm . Printed copies of the proposals are available by contacting WDFW’s Fish Program at (360) 902-2700.

Comments can be submitted by mail to WDFW Rules Coordinator Lori Preuss at Lori.Preuss@dfw.wa.gov or 600 Capitol Way N., Olympia, WA, 98501.

In addition, the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission is scheduled to conduct a public hearing on the proposals at its Dec. 4-5 meeting in Olympia. Written testimony can also be submitted during that meeting.

[elmo]

Awesome video. Been at Duncan Rock when the main motor on my Seaswirl gave up the ghost. Luckily I was with a buddy boat.

Saw that proposal for the reserve in the area in the rules proposal. It was only 26 words long, with a map. Pretty scant on information, and no reference to a study on that area or why it is needed. That area is used by fishermen from March to August, as it is protected by the land mass from the prevailing winds and wave action and makes a great area to fish, even in bad weather. I wonder if there was any consideration given to that fact. It also get almost no fishing pressure 6 months of the year, so there is some down time for the proposed reserve area where it gets limited, if any fishing pressure. The area opens up into the Pacific OCean, as others have stated. Doesn't that immense body of water already provide enough hidey holes for these fish? Why this specific area?

I also thought that the WDFW had to use the best and available science when considering a proposal, and I didn't see anything science specific to this area on either the written rules proposal, or in the presentation made by that WDFW commissioner, (Jennings was his name) who talked on the subject. TVW is great!

Looks like an attempt at a personal diving playground, in my opinion, by that commissioner Jennings. It would be nice to see some actual science rather than feelings presented to substantiate a need for this reserve. The same commissioner also "guessed" that cabezon numbers were down because divers he knew hadn't seen many. Wow. I guess that based on that logic, when folks drive the logging roads and don't see deer or elk, there must not be any, so we should shut down those seasons as well to protect them.

If the WDFW allows that proposal, things are on pretty shakey ground in Olympia.

[Now That's Funny!]

I also thought that the WDFW had to use the best and available science when considering a proposal, and I didn't see anything science specific to this area on either the written rules proposal, or in the presentation made by that WDFW commissioner, (Jennings was his name) who talked on the subject. TVW is great!

Looks like an attempt at a personal diving playground, in my opinion, by that commissioner Jennings. It would be nice to see some actual science rather than feelings presented to substantiate a need for this reserve. The same commissioner also "guessed" that cabezon numbers were down because divers he knew hadn't seen many. Wow. I guess that based on that logic, when folks drive the logging roads and don't see deer or elk, there must not be any, so we should shut down those seasons as well to protect them.

If the WDFW allows that proposal, things are on pretty shakey ground in Olympia.

elmo, I think your points are very cogent...and just to give you a good chuckle today...

Meet Mr. Jennings...that's him, "biodiversity guy"...no need to talk about him, you can talk directly to him right here on this very thread, and on the other dive boards where he's pushing this unnecessary private dive park for about .2% of Washington citizens...only he's doing it on these boards without disclosing that he is the very same Commissioner Jennings who gave that dog and pony show at the Commission meeting.

Enjoy.

[John Rawlings]

Meet Mr. Jennings...that's him, "biodiversity guy"...no need to talk about him, you can talk directly to him right here on this very thread, and on the other dive boards where he's pushing this unnecessary private dive park for about .2% of Washington citizens...only he's doing it on these boards without disclosing that he is the very same Commissioner Jennings who gave that dog and pony show at the Commission meeting.

I just love it when anonymous posters come on here and in their very first post complain about someone else being an anonymous poster.....

I don't like it when anyone hides behind a made up name, no matter what side of the issue they are on. How about growing a pair and identifying yourself? Clearly you know enough about "Mr. Jennings" to say that you think that he is "biodiversity guy"....now who are you?

FWIW, I am not supporting either position here....I have not yet been privy to the necessary information by which I can make an intelligent decision as to which side I would support. If you disagree with his stance, how about if you cordially debate it with him here and tell us why his proposal would not be a good thing?

- John

[Pipe Dream]

Mr. Rawlings:

I am a third generation Washingtonian and an active outdoorsman and while I do not dive I have friends who do participate in that great sport. I will say that my most recent trip to Neah Bay was in April 2009 specifically to fish for ling and rockfish as no other fisheries were open at that time of year. Due to water conditions "outside" our three boats stayed in the very area having been proposed for closure to all bottom fishing (fishermen and divers).

As you are probably aware the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has begun an effort to develop a Puget Sound Rockfish Conservation Plan. That Plan is for all of Puget Sound east of the Sekiu River. It does not include the area between the Sekiu River and Cape Flattery because bottom fish species in those areas are healthy enough for a very limited recreational harvest.

The rule change proposal to close the area between Neah Bay to outside of Tatoosh Island was submitted by WDFW Commissioner Dave Jennings sometime after the cutoff date for proposals which was 1 June 2009. It did not become public until 16 October 2009 when it was posted to the WDFW website which was well after all proposals were vetted by the various advisory groups and after all regional public meetings had been held. Many of us are incensed by the apparent special treatment afforded Mr. Jennings and his personal interest proposal.

It is now becoming clear that Biodiversity Guy posted several emails to dive oriented websites pleading for support for this proposed area closure and that these were posted on 4 October 2009. That was 12 days before the proposal became public knowledge via posting on the WDFW website and before the last of the public hearings. There has been a great deal of speculation regarding the identity of Biodiversity Guy but when reading his personal bio on http://www.reef.com it is pretty clear based upon home town and other personal data that he is, in fact, David Jennings. I have also noted in a thread in this site that Biodiversity Guy was referred to as "Dave" which would be a huge coincidence if he is not David Jennings.

While I am in disagreement with the proposed closure I am angry with the unethical antics of a public official. Not only has he used his position to advocate a very self-serving proposal he apparently has not followed the established procedures required of all us "regular" citizens. Furthermore, he advocated for his proposal to his own special interest group prior to his proposal having been made public.

You may want to take a look at one of those postings at http://www.reef.org/node/3751 and you will note that on 17 November I asked Biodiversity Guy if he is or is not David Jennings. To date no response to that posting.

So I will make the same inquiry here. Biodiversity Guy, are you WDFW Commissioner David Jennings? Yes or No?

And, yes, I am a first poster here because I feel it is important that you and the other members on this site and the dive community in general have an understanding of why so many of us are unhappy with the unethical behavior exhibited by Biodiversity Guy/Mr. Jennings. If they are not one and the same how did Biodiversity Guy know about the closure proposal so as to make postings in support of it on 4 October almost two weeks before it was made public?

And, yes, I too am withholding my name as I am not a public official pushing my own agenda under an alias and I expect that I will be testifying before the Commission in the future.

Add another link for a 4 October 2009 posting by Biodiversity Guy. http://hot.iflove.com/Scuba_Diving/2009 ... ies:_Oh_My!

[Nwbrewer]

[spatman]

i've split this discussion off from the Duncan Rock thread into a separate dicussion, since it has nothing to do with photography or video.

[cardiver]

i've split this discussion off from the Duncan Rock thread into a separate dicussion, since it has nothing to do with photography or video.

Thank you!

[Now That's Funny!]

Meet Mr. Jennings...that's him, "biodiversity guy"...no need to talk about him, you can talk directly to him right here on this very thread, and on the other dive boards where he's pushing this unnecessary private dive park for about .2% of Washington citizens...only he's doing it on these boards without disclosing that he is the very same Commissioner Jennings who gave that dog and pony show at the Commission meeting.

I just love it when anonymous posters come on here and in their very first post complain about someone else being an anonymous poster.....

I don't like it when anyone hides behind a made up name, no matter what side of the issue they are on. How about growing a pair and identifying yourself? Clearly you know enough about "Mr. Jennings" to say that you think that he is "biodiversity guy"....now who are you?

FWIW, I am not supporting either position here....I have not yet been privy to the necessary information by which I can make an intelligent decision as to which side I would support. If you disagree with his stance, how about if you cordially debate it with him here and tell us why his proposal would not be a good thing?

- John

John, I'm glad you responded the way you did, and I apologize for not "outing" myself on my first post...so here goes.

My name is Todd Ripley, and I am a conservationist and sportfisher. I'm on the Board of Directors of two fish-related non-profits, and I spend a lot of volunteered time and energy working for them, and a lot of my work involves preparing information for and testifying before both the Oregon and Washington Fish and Wildlife Commissions.

I also am part owner of a fishing tackle design and sales company.

I do very little saltwater fishing, and none of the tackle I design or sell is designed for saltwater use, it's intended to be used in rivers, mainly for salmon and steelhead, though we sell stuff to trout fishermen around the country, too, who use the smaller and more "trout sized" products we offer.

That's me.

Since I don't saltwater fish, have never even been to Tatoosh Island, why I am I interested in this subject?

I'm interested in this subject because I think it's reprehensible that a Fish and Wildlife Commissioner would be pushing his personal agenda for a private dive park on the citizens of our state...the citizens he is supposed to be working FOR on the Commission, not against.

The creation or not of this private dive park for Jennings and his friends doesn't affect me personally, but the actions of a Commissioner in this regard affect me quite a bit...it might be something that I and others are more interested in next time that gets steamrolled by a single Commissioner with a personal agenda, one who himself hides behind a computer moniker and is actively pushing this on several dive boards. There are lots of sportfishing boards, too, and "biodiversity guy" hasn't bothered to show up on any of those to share his agenda.

I'm willing to debate with "biodiversity guy" all he'd like about how I think some of his contentions that he's shared in other forums...that this will somehow protect rockfish habitat, that it will be an "economic boom" for the region, that it will help rockfish populations, and any other self-serving, and in my opinion, inaccurate statements that do not reflect reality, but instead reflect his personal desire to exclude the 99.5% of the State of Washington's citizens from this public area in order to create a private dive park for the very, very few who would use it as such.

However, I won't do it until he comes here and "outs" himself, and explains why he feels the need to hide who he is on all of these dive boards where he is pushing his agenda, and also explains why he was able to circumvent the very public process of proposing this dive park...his proposal was ill-timed, post-deadline for proposals, and seeing the meeting where he gave his presentation it was unclear whether he was a member of the public pushing his agenda, the proper way to do it, or was a Commissioner who used his position to circumvent the rules to push his agenda.

"Biodiversity guy"...you're up.

Fish on...

Todd

[Sounder]

There are many members of our community who are involved with various groups and companies, and we make it very clear who we are associated with. John Rawlings writes for ADM and sells Weezle undergarments, Curt & Mel sell Shearwater computers and several rebreathers, Amy owns A2Z Scuba, Matt owns NWSD, Laura sells She-P, Janna is with REEF, Wally owns Tacoma Scuba, Ray and Ben are with Dive Xtras, Brian & Jeanna teach for UTD, I work for Liquivision and Santi Drysuits, and the list goes on and on... There is no problem with promoting your "stuff" as long as it is made clear where that message is coming from.

Use of social media such as online dive forums to promote an agenda is perfectly fine, but it requires full disclosure, honesty, and ethics.

[spatman]

There is no problem with promoting your "stuff" as long as it is made clear where that message is coming from.

to be clear, there are limits as to what kinds of "stuff" you can promote on NWDC in the general public forums.

read the TOS for more details.

[Sounder]

There is no problem with promoting your "stuff" as long as it is made clear where that message is coming from.

to be clear, there are limits as to what kinds of "stuff" you can promote on NWDC in the general public forums.

read the TOS for more details.

True. My point was more that it needs to be made clear from what angle you're talking about stuff. Even if it's not blatant advertising, it would be inappropriate for me to just show up and say "the Liquivision X1 is the best computer ever" without making it clear that I have an interest in the company's sales and success. Solicitation for support on a policy or law that divers would benefit from is fine, but if your involvement in that process is more than, say, someone like me who is just "a citizen who happens to be a diver but is otherwise uninvolved in the effort," that needs to be made explicitly clear in the beginning and throughout the participation of the "involved" parties.

[John Rawlings]

John, I'm glad you responded the way you did, and I apologize for not "outing" myself on my first post...so here goes.

My name is Todd Ripley, and I am a conservationist and sportfisher. I'm on the Board of Directors of two fish-related non-profits, and I spend a lot of volunteered time and energy working for them, and a lot of my work involves preparing information for and testifying before both the Oregon and Washington Fish and Wildlife Commissions.

I also am part owner of a fishing tackle design and sales company.

I do very little saltwater fishing, and none of the tackle I design or sell is designed for saltwater use, it's intended to be used in rivers, mainly for salmon and steelhead, though we sell stuff to trout fishermen around the country, too, who use the smaller and more "trout sized" products we offer.

That's me.

Since I don't saltwater fish, have never even been to Tatoosh Island, why I am I interested in this subject?

I'm interested in this subject because I think it's reprehensible that a Fish and Wildlife Commissioner would be pushing his personal agenda for a private dive park on the citizens of our state...the citizens he is supposed to be working FOR on the Commission, not against.

The creation or not of this private dive park for Jennings and his friends doesn't affect me personally, but the actions of a Commissioner in this regard affect me quite a bit...it might be something that I and others are more interested in next time that gets steamrolled by a single Commissioner with a personal agenda, one who himself hides behind a computer moniker and is actively pushing this on several dive boards. There are lots of sportfishing boards, too, and "biodiversity guy" hasn't bothered to show up on any of those to share his agenda.

I'm willing to debate with "biodiversity guy" all he'd like about how I think some of his contentions that he's shared in other forums...that this will somehow protect rockfish habitat, that it will be an "economic boom" for the region, that it will help rockfish populations, and any other self-serving, and in my opinion, inaccurate statements that do not reflect reality, but instead reflect his personal desire to exclude the 99.5% of the State of Washington's citizens from this public area in order to create a private dive park for the very, very few who would use it as such.

However, I won't do it until he comes here and "outs" himself, and explains why he feels the need to hide who he is on all of these dive boards where he is pushing his agenda, and also explains why he was able to circumvent the very public process of proposing this dive park...his proposal was ill-timed, post-deadline for proposals, and seeing the meeting where he gave his presentation it was unclear whether he was a member of the public pushing his agenda, the proper way to do it, or was a Commissioner who used his position to circumvent the rules to push his agenda.

"Biodiversity guy"...you're up.

Fish on...

Todd

Pardon any "loopy" comments in this ppst - I just returned from oral surgery and kinda feel like I'm "floating" a bit as I tyoe this...

Thank you for your response, Todd. Now that we have begun this dialog I think that it is an opportunity for each of us to better understand the proposal itself and what will, and will not, be impacted.

You may be surprised to discover that you may have more support here amongst divers than you would imagine. There are many members here that enjoy both diving and fishing and do not find the two sports incompatible.

From my brief reading on the proposed restrictions, I understand that fishing will still be allowed in the Tatoosh area, but not below a certain depth - a restriction designed to prevent further damage to Yelloweye Rockfish populations and enhancing their recovery. Is that something that sportsfishermen and divers can both support? If you believe not, why not?

What specific aspects of the proposed restrictions are meeting resistance from sports fishermen, and what are the reasons for that resistance? I understand resistance to ANY restrictions from the Makahs, as they might negatively impact their already struggling local economy.

- John

[Now That's Funny!]

John, thanks for the considerate reply.

I would say that I personally have three separate issues with how Jennings has handled this.

First, the supposedly "public" process through which these types of decisions are supposed to be made has been perverted by Commissioner Jennings in this case almost beyond recognition.

Second, the statements Commissioner Jennings has made in support of his proposal range from conjecture to straight up laughable.

Third is the actual merits of the proposal.

In the main, I'm concerned about them in order of importance in the order I just listed them.

The process...not only did Commissioner Jennings use his position as a Commissioner to submit his proposal long after the deadline that the rest of us operate under had passed, but he was able to use far more resources and time at the public meetings to give his proposal. There are rules for who gives testimony on proposals, when the proposals must be submitted by, and how much time a person has to speak publicly at a Commission meeting to support their proposal. Commissioner Jennings proposal flat out violated all of those rules.

Not only that, but before his proposal was made public, he had released it here and on several other dive boards, trying to drum up support for it before anyone else even knew it was coming. The rest of the world, of course, had no idea it was coming because the deadline for new proposals had, as I mentioned, already passed.

As an additional concern with Commissioner Jennings releasing his late proposal on dive sites before anyone else knew of it, he without exception has failed to disclose, on any of the dive sites or elsewhere, that he is a WDFW Commissioner. In fact, he continually has said that "WDFW is considering..." and "they are proposing...", when in fact, he is the one proposing it; not WDFW, and not the Commission, but Commissioner Jennings. What looked on the outside like a concerned citizen stakeholder reporting on the activities of a state agency on a proposal in which he was concerned was in fact a member of that agency's Commission who made the proposal himself and made it available privately to those he thought might support him...again, without even disclosing that he is the one proposing it to himself as a member of the Commission.

Secondly, Commissioner Jennings has made statements regarding this proposal both at the meeting and on various dive sites, some of which don't even pass a straight face test. Stating that excluding fishing would "protect rockfish habitat"...is he actually implying that sportfishermen around Tatoosh Island are destroying rockfish habitat by fishing there? Really?

Commissioner Jennings has also said that it would be an "economic boom" for the region, which also can't even pass a straight face test. There's no question whatsoever that the many thousands of sporties who fish out of Neah Bay for bottomfish spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for the privilege, perhaps much more. Trading that for a handful of dollars spent by a handful of divers, even if the number of divers there increased significantly, would cost the region economically, and not in an insignificant way...and not in a good way, either.

He also threw out some numbers at the meeting about sportfishermen leaving fishing lead lying all over the bottom, numbers that he had no data to support at all, much less specific to this area and what the effects of this might be.

The final issue, that of the merits of the proposal, are frankly of the least importance to me. As I said above, it would not effect my business, and wouldn't likely effect my recreation, either. There are significant issues regarding what effect this proposal would have on rockfish populations, either by adopting or not adopting it, and there is little agreement on those effects at this point. That being said, by bypassing the rules for making proposals the public was virtually cut out from even commenting on those issues, much less having time to investigate the proposal and weigh the pros and cons of it. I will say this, at least, that the Commission has at least tacitly affirmed the serious irregularity of this proposal's timing by extending the comment period for it, though not until the public demanded it, repeatedly.

You mentioned the Makah Nation, who has a very significant economic interest in this proposal...and I sincerely doubt that they will support it as it will cost them dearly financially. Commissioner Jennings may have ignored the public in his drive for this proposal, but he won't be able to ignore the Makahs, and I look forward to hearing their comments on this issue.

I supported Commissioner Jenning's appointment to the F&W Commission because I think he has a conservation ethic that fits well with the more conservation-minded direction that the Commission has been going over the past several years. The backhanded and disingenuous way that Commissioner Jennings has handled this situation will make it very unlikely that I will support either his confirmation or a future reappointment, and frankly, he won't get it from the sportfishing community, either...and that's many hundreds of thousands of people.

I sincerely hope he can find his way to ending this crusade and trying it in a more ethical, public, and open process, one that follows the rules of the Commission and the State of Washington, but he's gone even farther incognito since this has all come out, and is hurting his chances for both his proposal and his future as a Commissioner by doing so.

Todd Ripley

[nwscubamom]

I just got done plowing through the proposals and writing up my comments to send in. You can read the proposals for yourself here:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/regs/rule_proposals/

Bear in mind that there are SEVERAL proposals - none of them is a done deal until adequate testimony and written comments are submitted. Comments need to be submitted TODAY (they must be RECEIVED by tomorrow).

The idea of designating part of Marine Area 4 as a no-take zone is just one of the ideas that's being submitted. If you don't like it, simply write your opposing views and submit them. Or go to the meeting this week and let them know. It's that simple.

- Janna

[Pipe Dream]

For clarification purposes:

The proposed rule change generated by Commissioner Jennings is for the area between Neah Bay and just outside of Tatoosh Island/Cape Flattery and extending approximately 1.5 miles off the beach. This entire area would become a no take zone for bottom fish and invertebrates. This is the proposed rule change for which Biodiversity Guy/Commissioner Jennings sought support from the dive community via postings on several websites on 4 October which was twelve days before the proposed change was publicly posted to the WDFW website. This area is NOT included in the 120 foot depth restriction so the depths involved could be much deeper. Having fished this area in April I can attest that conditions near shore were much safer than where the proposed rule change would have required I fish. Frankly, I would not have done it under the conditions we encountered on that trip. Also, the area included in this proposed change is prime fishing habitat and if enacted the change would effectively push recreational bottom fishing into the open ocean. Great on the few nice days but would you want your diving to be limited to that area?

The 120 foot proposed rule change would make it illegal to fish for bottom fish in Puget Sound at depths beyond 120 feet. For the purposes of this change Puget Sound is east of the Sekiu River. This proposal is intended to reduce encounters with rockfish but WDFW staff have been unable or unwilling to provide specifics related to the 35,000 rockfish encounters (per year for 2004-2007) of which 13,000 were reported as catch and keep. This data was included in the Puget Sound Rockfish Conservation Plan. I asked for the more detailed information during the Olympia PSRCP meeting and was told the information was available and would be provided by e-mail. I am still waiting for that information in order to evaluate the validity of their stated "facts" and whether the depth restrictions would reasonably have any impact on rock fish encounters. Also, a review of the most recent annual harvest report for the year 2002 (issued 2008) indicates that documented rockfish catch and keep in Puget Sound was just over 6,000 fish and on a downward trend. How did they arrive at 35,00 encounters per year and 13,000 harvested?

Another proposed rule change is to reduce the one rockfish limit in Puget Sound to zero. Again, an effort to minimize rockfish mortality given the anticipated ESA listings of three rockfish species.

Hope this provides some clarification on these marine-related proposed changes.

[Sounder]

Part of the harm with rockfish is that there is not really a "catch and release" option with them. Their swim bladder expands and can either rupture or damage other internal organs. Generally, it's my understanding that a caught & released rockfish may likely die despite not being harvested/kept. So despite the harvest numbers being reasonable, the actual impact might be much larger.

There's my semi-ignorant two cents.

[boater]

Bear in mind that there are SEVERAL proposals

thats true but they had to be to the WDFW by june 1st

[Joshua Smith]

Bear in mind that there are SEVERAL proposals

thats true but they had to be to the WDFW by june 1st

Hi. How's it going? Welcome to our forum. My name's Josh. Me and some friends of mine run this website. It's a website for divers. Anyone's welcome, but I can't see what a non-diver would get out of it, unless they like bad jokes and constant quotes from "The Office."

I've seen all kinds of ways that people introduce themselves to this site (which is usually, but not always, in the "introductions" secion, btw. Anyway,

thats true but they had to be to the WDFW by june 1st

is kind of a new one on me, as far as introductions go.

Maybe someone can explain to me why this topic is drawing a whole bunch of new people onto the site all of a sudden? And since this topic is only just barely about diving in the first place, maybe someone could explain to me why we're even obligated to host it here?

[Grateful Diver]

Does this thread seem to anyone else like a sock-puppet convention?

For all you new members who've apparently just joined to participate in this thread ... first off, welcome to NWDC. We are a friendly, and fairly open-minded community of divers. We are happy to engage in conversations that will affect us as divers.

It is customary when people join this forum to introduce themselves and tell us a little bit about themselves.

But please do be aware that this is a diving community. While I would be happy to hear both sides of the issue under discussion, what we DON'T WANT this board to become is a platform for people pushing political agendas.

Thanks ...

(edit ... ah, I see someone else HAS noticed) ...

... Bob (Grateful DIver)

[Tom Nic]

And you thought splits vs paddles brought out the passions...

I wonder what the equivalent is in the fishing community? Fly fishing = DIR, Bait fishing = tire gas and an Al80?

Common denominator = people loose their minds behind a keyboard.

[Sounder]

Bear in mind that there are SEVERAL proposals

thats true but they had to be to the WDFW by june 1st

Hi. How's it going? Welcome to our forum. My name's Josh. Me and some friends of mine run this website. It's a website for divers. Anyone's welcome, but I can't see what a non-diver would get out of it, unless they like bad jokes and constant quotes from "The Office."

I've seen all kinds of ways that people introduce themselves to this site (which is usually, but not always, in the "introductions" secion, btw. Anyway,

thats true but they had to be to the WDFW by june 1st

is kind of a new one on me, as far as introductions go.

Maybe someone can explain to me why this topic is drawing a whole bunch of new people onto the site all of a sudden? And since this topic is only just barely about diving in the first place, maybe someone could explain to me why we're even obligated to host it here?

I'm not sure why you're obligated to host ANY thread on here... this isn't a democracy. Hosting of material is purely a subjective judgement call by the mods.

[Now That's Funny!]

I don't think you're obligated to host anything here whatsoever besides what you'd like to see.

That being said, Biodiversity Guy's deceptions are affecting a lot of other users of our public waterways, and he hasn't stepped out beyond the dive boards, so we came to him.

I'll say this...if you value having a diver on the F&W Commission, you should be very happy about this discussion, and even participate in getting him to start telling the truth...because without that, the "truth" is that you won't have David Jennings on the Commission long.

Todd

[Grateful Diver]

I don't think you're obligated to host anything here whatsoever besides what you'd like to see.

That being said, Biodiversity Guy's deceptions are affecting a lot of other users of our public waterways, and he hasn't stepped out beyond the dive boards, so we came to him.

I'll say this...if you value having a diver on the F&W Commission, you should be very happy about this discussion, and even participate in getting him to start telling the truth...because without that, the "truth" is that you won't have David Jennings on the Commission long.

Todd

Now That's not very Funny!



... Bob (Grateful Diver)

[Now That's Funny!]

Not supposed to be funny, just the truth.

Remember that there are hundreds of thousands of sportsfishers who vote in this state, and only a handful of divers...and the divers finally have someone on the Commission. If you value that, then you should value David Jennings being straightforward and honest and staying there...rather than the alternative route he's chosen, which will lead to him not being there long.

Todd

[Joshua Smith]

Not supposed to be funny, just the truth.

Remember that there are hundreds of thousands of sportsfishers who vote in this state, and only a handful of divers...and the divers finally have someone on the Commission. If you value that, then you should value David Jennings being straightforward and honest and staying there...rather than the alternative route he's chosen, which will lead to him not being there long.

Todd

I don't know the man. Sounds like he's been pissing a lot of people off, though. I have no idea if "Biodiversity Guy" is him, or not. And I don't care very much, to be honest.

If your beef with Mr. Jennings is legitimate, I suggest that you organize the "hundreds of thousands" of sportfishermen out there, and take some action. When the city of Mukilteo closed a dive site down, a relatively small number of us (Only a handful)showed up at a city council meeting and pled our case- and it worked.

But I'm starting to think that "Biodiversity Guy" has chosen not to respond to your posts, which is his right. You all are welcome here, as long as you play by the rules. Just be aware that constant goading of any particular member would be a violation of those rules. You've thrown out your challenge a couple of times, already. If Biodiversity guy chooses to respond, that's fine. But if he doesn't respond- you are not welcome to keep banging this particular drum.

[nwscubamom]

Hey guys,

There are many of us who dive and are also concerned with the state of our rockfish populations. We see firsthand what’s going on underwater, whereas fishermen don’t see the same things from the surface. Many divers can't help but get involved in protecting what they see underwater and in helping to gather scientific data on marine life populations or getting involved in policy-making or what have you.

I’ve been loosely following your discussions and attacks on bloodydecks.com and piscatorialpursuits.com, and am afraid that David has gotten a bum rap here. Maybe I can share some info with you that might help. David has stayed out of it, but I'd really like to help clear up some misconceptions and vouch for David's good character.

As many have said already, NWDC is a good community of divers – most of us know each other personally and dive together. David and I have both done a lot of diving out at Neah Bay conducting volunteer fish assessment surveys there. It’s a beautiful area – anyone on this board who has been diving there knows this is an amazing place with species no longer seen in other Washington waters. Over a year ago, back in 2008, David went and testified before the Commission about how the rockfish species in that area needed protection.

David then came to me and several others back in May to bounce some specific ideas about the upcoming sportfishing proposal that he’d had rolling around in his head regarding this area. He did a lot of research and gave a lot of thought to his proposal. Bear in mind this was BEFORE HE WAS APPOINTED WDFW COMMISSIONER. He did this in the same way you or I could do it as a regular citizen of Washington State. This was no secret deal. There was no under the table covert operation. He put together a proposal of his ideas, he wrote it up, and he submitted it by the June 1st deadline. Period.

After he had submitted his ideas, he then was appointed commissioner. When the draft proposals came out in early September, for some reason his proposals were not included. Something got botched up somewhere along the line. The department said it was an oversight, and said they’d include his proposals in the Sept 24th release of the 2010-2012 sportfishing rule proposals. Which they did. And there you have it.

That’s pretty much it.

Everyone is, of course, encouraged to submit their opinions about the proposals, either for or against. I got my thoughts written up today and sent them in. And there is a meeting in Olympia on Saturday where you can also submit your opinions, either in written or oral form.

Thanks for listening.

- Janna

[spatman]

Remember that there are hundreds of thousands of sportsfishers who vote in this state, and only a handful of divers...and the divers finally have someone on the Commission. If you value that, then you should value David Jennings being straightforward and honest and staying there...rather than the alternative route he's chosen, which will lead to him not being there long.

Todd

Hello, and thank you for posting to NWDC. To add to what my colleague Josh mentioned:

If you have new facts or information pertaining to this discussion, feel free to post them to this thread. If your intent is just to continue to express your opinion of Mr. Jennings, your attitude has been made quite clear.

Please reserve the remainder of this discussion to addressing concerns about the WDFW proposal, and leave the personal attacks for some other medium, like email or one of your sportfishing forums.

Thanks.

[Pinkpadigal]

He also threw out some numbers at the meeting about sportfishermen leaving fishing lead lying all over the bottom, numbers that he had no data to support at all, much less specific to this area and what the effects of this might be.

Todd,

I am not aware of all the details of this issue, but I will speak of what I have witnessed.

I have not dove this site, but I have dove several popular fishing sites in Puget Sound. There is fishing lead littered all over the bottom, as well as tangled fishing line and lures. I have participated in several underwater cleanup operations and have pulled up lots fishing debris, as well as bottles, cans, etc; many left by boaters and anglers alike.

I have been a diver in Puget Sound for 10 years and I have witnessed the effects of fishing, boating and diving in our waters. Humans pollute and destroy the fragile underwater world. Conservation and awareness DOES make a difference. Figuring out the right balance is the responsibility of both sides, not whoever is loudest or has the most votes.

my humble 2psi...

[Grateful Diver]

Not supposed to be funny, just the truth.

Remember that there are hundreds of thousands of sportsfishers who vote in this state, and only a handful of divers...and the divers finally have someone on the Commission. If you value that, then you should value David Jennings being straightforward and honest and staying there...rather than the alternative route he's chosen, which will lead to him not being there long.

Todd

Todd ... I really think it's bad form to come into somebody else's house with such an "us vs them" attitude.

We could work together ... but it appears you are more into tossing out ultimatums and telling us how badly outnumbered we are and how it's gonna be.

I don't mind discussing this issue at all, but I truly detest the way you have chosen to present your side of it ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)