WDFW LogoWashington Department of Fish & Wildlife
  HELP | EMPLOYMENT | NEWS | CONTACT  
WDFW LogoFishing & Shellfishing


Report a Poacher or Other Violation

Fishing Hotline
360-902-2500

Shellfish Rule
Change Hotline

1-866-880-5431

More Hotline Information...

For more information on
fishing, please contact the
WDFW Fish Program.
360-902-2700
Fish Program District Biologists

For fishing regulation
questions, e-mail us at:
fishregs@dfw.wa.gov

For all other questions and comments, e-mail us at:
fishpgm@dfw.wa.gov

 

 

Live Review of Public Comments: Giant Pacific Octopus Rulemaking

Online Public Comments   (418 Comments)

EGGERS, JOHN R   June 1, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
I like many others in my circle of friends and business partners were outraged by the incident at Alki. The callous attitude and completely selfish act of that diver walking in and slaughtering a local resident, albeit a "legal harvest" was if anything, a call to action. I feel its a huge loss to Alki diving schools and the current community to lose such a precious creature. The future is uncertain for Puget Sound and we as concientious shareholders should take measures to disallow harvesting in parks and potentially "park adjacent" areas. There is no need for the killing of octopus. It should be protected in areas that promote awareness and experiential opportunity to the masses. I support further calls to action to promote education and prevent heinous acts like the Alki Octopus murder. Kind Regards, John
MIDGETT, SHELDON   June 1, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
I support Option B Marine Preserve
SABEL, ELIZABETH   May 31, 2013
OAKLAND, CA
Comments:
I am writing to urge the Washing Department of Fish & Wildlife to protect the Giant Pacific Octopus by stopping the recreational harvesting of these creatures in the Puget Sound. Thank you.
BEHLAND , KARIN   May 31, 2013
REDMOND, WA
Comments:
I would like to lend my support to Option C. I don't think there should be hunting in any areas where GPO's are accustomed to divers. It is the equivalent to hunting in a petting zoo.
WILLIAMS, MIKIKO   May 31, 2013
FEDERAL WAY, WA
Comments:
I like to combine B and C. However, if I have to chose only one, I chose option B, and I hope to see increasing more marine preserve through central to south Puget Sound in future. I see more fishing boat coming in north side of Highline Community College Marine Science and Technology Center recently. It would be a potential hazard for divers. Option B would solve the problem. I think octopuses don't need be over protected as far as the population is healthy, though I like that creature a lot. It is more important to protect entire habitat to give some break among this stressed environment where octopus lives.
WAKELEY, DAVID P   May 31, 2013
KENMORE, WA
Comments:
I like Option C. There should be no octopus harvesting at popular dive sites. The divers go to see the critters and the critters get used to the divers. Octopus harvesting should be done at other areas in Puget Sound.
POOL, CHRIS J   May 30, 2013
LAKE STEVENS, WA
Comments:
I believe we should stick with option A. If the animals are not endangered and have been doing fine with the current harvest rates then we should leave it be. The last thing we need is more rights taken away for no good reason. Unless the species is threatened we should not even be haveing this discussion. Thank you
TURCO, CAROLYN L   May 30, 2013
TACOMA, WA
Comments:
Apparently there are those who get pleasure from killing such a amazing,shy and gentle creatures. It really is quite hard to imagine! Please...they should be protected!...and a big fat fine if you kill one...like $10,000!!
GREEN, RHODA H   May 30, 2013
RENTON, WA
Comments:
Key dive sites needing protection should be closed for all species harvest are,exemplary Natural Reefs with large diversity and abundance, and major training dive areas. These 5 sites are:Days Island,extend the complete length of the island. Blakely Rock,completely around the rock pentacle. Rosario Beach state park extending around Northwest Island, Urchin rock and Sharp Cove. Salt Creek recreational area, extending from the shore the whole length of Salt Creek County Park. Seacrest Park, Cove 1,2,3; except for fishing pier. The outer boundaries of cove 1 include pilings on the southern boundary. In cove 3, boundary includes piling ruins in the north. The majority of the dives are conducted around the piling for viewing the marine life. And option D, no hunting of GPOs in Washington. We don't need it.
GREEN, RHODA H   May 30, 2013
RENTON, WA
Comments:
Key dive sites that need protection
MORRISON, KAROLINE   May 30, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
I have lived near Puget Sound most of my life and I respect all the denizens who enjoy life in this special venue of water. I was horrified and disgusted to see in the Seattle Times a story and pictures of a young male skin diver with a giant octupus he had lured from his cave so he could kill him, throw him into the back of his pick-up to be barbequed in his backyard. In a visit to the Seattle Aquarium a few mnths ago I enjoyed seeing "Rain" and "Squirt" two beautiful giant octopuses on display. A docent told me that the octopus is the only non-mammal that they name-since they are so intellegent. Now "Rain" and "Squirt" have been released back into the wild (as the docent phrased it), I hope and pray neither of them end up on someone's backyard barbeque. Please help us protect these wonderful creatures.
PALUMBO, EDWARD J   May 30, 2013
TUALATIN, OR
Comments:
Option C. I favor greater protect protection for the GPO. As a diver, seeing one is a rare treat and they pose no threat to their environment. I hope for better opportunities to study their behaviors.
BURKE, AARON   May 29, 2013
EVERETT, WA
Comments:
I support Option D -- protect the Giant Pacific Octopus in all environments!
DAX, SHAHEENA   May 29, 2013
LONDON, UK
Comments:
Dear Sir/Madam, Please protect this wonderful creature from human greed with the appropriate laws. Shaheena Dax
MARDESICH, NIKOLAS A   May 29, 2013
ANACORTES, WA
Comments:
What research suggests that O. dofleini are in need of further protection in Puget Sound? They are short lived and very versatile in terms of depth and habitat requirements,and have a high fecundity. There prey is also quite abundant and varied. I have seen there dens scattered around most rocky shorelines I have scouted on extreme minus tides. In addition, I can't remember the last time someone I know in the scuba diving or sportfishing community even harvested one. However, if there is any concern about their populations, I believe option D is best. Otherwise I believe WDFW should be focusing their efforts on more serious issues.
GWIRTZ, ZACHARY E   May 29, 2013
TACOMA, WA
Comments:
Option B or C. There is no use in completely banning the hunting of octos in the Puget Sound. They are great in numbers and show no decline. As divers we need to remember it is not us who pays for these "Dive Sites", it is the fisherman/underwater hunters paying for licences.
SHILMAN, GLENN P   May 29, 2013
KENT, WA
Comments:
As a diver and a fisherman, I support establishment of marine preserves at the more popular Puget Sound dive sites such as the Seacrest coves, Three tree North, Les Davis, Redondo Beach. That is a good compromise to satisfy both fisherman and non-fishing dive community. I do not support the overall closure of harvesting GPO's. That only satisfies the special interests of the non-hunting dive community. People who like to fish and purchase a fishing license have a right to fish GPO's as long as there is harvestable numbers and that they fish within the fishing regulations defined by WDFW. Puget sound wide closures of all beach access areas are unacceptable. Many dive fisherman do not have access to boats to get out to other dive sites and reefs that are only accessable by boat. When setting rules for GPO harvest, please consider all impacted by this and not just the special interest few.
SILVER, RANDOLPH J   May 28, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
As an avid diver since I was 15, I value our unique, precious and fragile puget sound ecosystem. I am in favor of option D, elimination of recreational fishing of giant pacific octopi. If option D isn't feasible, option C seems completely reasonable (at a minimum). Harvesting GPOs in places that are frequented by divers isn't really fair: we all know where the GPOs live and breed. They are acquainted with divers and aren't really much of a challenge to find or remove. Basically they're trusting and tame. Spend some time with a GPO and you'll understand. Thank you for considering my modest opinion. Randy.
ELLEFSON, JOHN A   May 28, 2013
SEATTLE , WA
Comments:
I am a recreational Scuba diver who takes great pleasure in seeing Giant Pacific Octopi living in their native habitat. I am also an advocate generally for greater protections for wild animals from human intervention and disruption. I would like to see option D adopted. Thank you very much, John Ellefson
CLAIBORNE, BRUCE W   May 28, 2013
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA
Comments:
I am in favor of making additional preserve areas at the popular dive sites listed in Option C. However, the very large area taken in at the Deception Pass area seems extreme. It seems like some portions of this area should still be open to the taking of GPO's. As a former Divemaster working for our local dive shop, it was a privilege to share a sighting of these wonderful animals with clients. It was always a dive highlight to observe one. Never did anyone want to harvest one, but rather photographed or simply enjoyed them for a few minutes. Additionally, however, I do feel strongly that Puget Sound should generally be open to the harvest of GPO's by licensed individuals using legal means as described in the DFW's regulations. We don't need to take away everyone's privileges when there is no reason to think this animal's population is threatened. Thank you for your work on behalf of the citizens and wildlife in Washington. Sincerely, Bruce Claiborne
HOLLIS, EVA F   May 28, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
Hello, I've been scuba diving in Puget Sound for two years now. I really value the new connection with nature that this has given me. I'm also really impressed by witnessing this change in people who learn to dive here. The giant pacific octopus really represents the capstone this experience. The chance to submerge and to find yourself face to face with an intelligent but clearly alien creature is truly amazing. You observe, and are observed in turn. So often, this is the exact moment that a novice diver falls in love with the sport and with Puget Sound. The fact that this is available on the shores of West Seattle and Tacoma is part of what makes our region so wonderful. Due to this, I fully support the banning of recreational octopus harvesting at all popular dive sites. It's important for the population to have a chance to interact with these creatures. I'm undecided on the total banning on recreational harvesting in Puget Sound.
ALAR, MOLLY A   May 28, 2013
SEDRO WOOLLEY, WA
Comments:
Option C. The octopus is important in regards to recreational diving tourism. With protection in the areas listed under option C, the public will be pleased while still allowing an option for harvest. Another consideration point should be to consider alternate licenses for octopus harvest, as well as restricting the number allowed (one octopus per one state fishing license).
GREEN, RHODA H   May 28, 2013
RENTON, WA
Comments:
The Giant Pacific Octopus I believe should be closed for harvest in Washington waters. Even if accidently caught it should be released. It is a smart and inquisitive creature. It is not an endangered species and has its natural predators to keep the balance. This creature is valued more alive than hunted. It is one of the best experiences and education about marine life and its environment. Key dive sites that need protection
BARRON, GEORGE   May 27, 2013
LYNNWOOD, WA
Comments:
I prefer option D. Complete closure of the entire sound to the taking of any octopus, except for maybe the Seattle Aquarium, for educational purposes. I am a diver and know several of these animals, in the same way you would know a dog or a cat. These are intellegent gentel animals and we have no business killing them. They are much more valuable alive and bringing in tourist dallors and local dallors to local shops than dead on somebodies plate.
MORGAN, CHRISTOPHER W   May 27, 2013
VANCOUVER, WA
Comments:
I would like to voice my support for Option B, closing harvest at Redondo Beach and Seacrest Park COves 1,2, and 3, in regards to the Giant Pacific Octopus Rulemaking process. The outcry was in response to an individual who took the time to follow all of the guidelines set by the Department of Fish and Wildlife. To close the recreational harvest of octopus outright would be an overreaction. Option B provides a compromise to both those looking for octopus protection, and those who would like to continue the recreational harvest of octopus in the Puget Sound.
BETHKE, RICHARD A   May 26, 2013
SEDRO WOOLLEY, WA
Comments:
This whole topic was brought about by the well publicized harvest of one animal. Or in other words this is one big knee jerk reaction, and not something based on science(which is what we hire biologist for). Our game laws should include more input from our fisheries biologist, and less from from those who don't even have a fishing license. I am a diver, and I fish. I like seeing octopus, and I don't harvest them. I have sympathy for those who were traumatized by the harvest of a wild animal that they had made into a "pet". But I don't think there should be wholesale change as a result. I like Option B. More underwater parks, that are accessible to divers who don't have boats, where the take of everything is forbidden, would be beneficial. Edmonds underwater park is full of very large fish that undoubtedly produce many young to populate the surrounding area. So in other words this may benefit fishermen in the area as well.
SPOHN, JEAN   May 25, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
I support the complete closure of Giant Pacific Octopus harvesting in Puget Sound. The octopus is such an important predator in the Puget Sound food chain. It keeps it's prey species from overabundance. And it provides food for endangered species, the 6 gilled shark and Orca as well as other species. Preserving and improving the biological balance in Puget Sound is essential to the future health of this inland sea.
LEWIS, EDDIE R   May 24, 2013
OLYMPIA, WA
Comments:
there are few who pursue or are physicly able to nor afford to dive for octopus.I would hate to see them limited for no reason other than to appease some cry baby in seattle who witnessed one being caught. The kid on the news was enjoying the outdoors and hurt no one. He could be watching killer video games or something even less productive. It is a natural process of the food chain to harvest wild food..
KULL, KRISTINA J   May 23, 2013
FRIDAY HARBOR, WA
Comments:
I have degrees in Marine Biology and Ecology, and work in these fields. In light of the fact that GPOs are not a threatened species in Puget Sound, and are capable of consuming large quantities of commercially-valuable shellfish, I think that Option C would be the most prudent choice for protecting the species here.
RHOADES, ALISON   May 22, 2013
LAKE STEVENS, WA
Comments:
I strongly feel Option D should be enforced. I think all harvest of the Giant Pacific Octopus should be closed. This is a beautiful creature, and they are rarely sighted in the Puget Sound. CLOSE THE HARVEST!!!!!
ROCK, MEGHAN O   May 22, 2013
OAK PARK, IL
Comments:
After living in the San Juans for over two years I really came to appreciate these magnificent animals. I believe that the current octopus population in the Puget Sound (giant pacific octopuses and all other octopus species) deserve to be protected. They are extremely important ecologically because they are one of the top predators in the food chain. Frankly the current harvest rate of one per day is obscene given their population numbers. Please protect these animals from all kinds of fishing at Alki.
ROBINSON, AMANDA   May 22, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
Option D would be the best.
KELLY, KATE   May 22, 2013
BELLEVUE, WA
Comments:
I highly support option D. Giant Pacific Octopuses are one of the most beautiful and intelligent creatures I have encountered. They are the creature we hope to see on every dive and do not see nearly often enough. Given that there are days to go out and survey the population I was extremely surprised to discover that GPOs could be harvested. It seems that there is concern the population is declining, so I'm not sure why harvesting is even allowed. Thank you!
KELLY, TOD M   May 22, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
I think that it would be good to extend the marine conservation areas of known nesting sites. It would allow for population conservation and that those that were legally collecting could do so. It would not allow just anyone to take the adult breeding populations who would just do so for sport. Especially from areas that Giant Pacific Octopuses come in contact with divers on a regular basis
BLEWETT, TINA   May 22, 2013
SPOKANE, WA
Comments:
I applaud WDFW for this revision of the octopus harvest. I strongly support option C, as these popular dive sites will give the PGO more safe havens from harvest, but especially to allow opportunities by many people for enjoyment of these fantastic creatures. Given that much is still unknown about the population dynamics of the PGO in Puget Sound, it is always prudent, if we must err, to err on the side of caution regarding harvest of this species. This issue today is more of a public perception and non-consumptive user issue, but even so, the fact that there is legal harvest of a female on eggs may not be a sound approach to this species' management. More protection for this amazing, intelligent, and important species is certainly worth it. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerelt, Tina Blewett Diver and biologist
SHULL, SUZANNE   May 22, 2013
BELLINGHAM, WA
Comments:
I strongly support Option D - please protect from harvest these incredibly intellligent creatures! There is so much more to be gained from observing them in the Sound than to be gained from reserving the rights of the public to punch one to death per day as is permissable today. Thank you for your work and serious intention to do what is right for this species.
MAUPIN, DONNA J   May 22, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
To whom it may concern, I did a study on the Giant Pacific Octopus last year as a part of my training for the Snohomish Beach Watchers. It was through my study that I came to realize the life cycle of these wonderful creatures. My findings showed that a female will lay and protect hundreds of eggs and generally after the egg release to the time that the GP Octopus settles to begin it's life on the ocean floor on an average only one or two of those original eggs will survive to that stage. That tells me that the GP Octopus is able to produce just one octopus in it's lifetime. I ask that we protect the areas pre-mentioned and define a season as a way to let their population grow and let generations after us enjoy them.
KENT, ADAM   May 21, 2013
LAKE STEVENS, WA
Comments:
Hi, my name is Adam and I would like either option C or option D. I would prefer to have option D but option C is ok also. I have diving for about 10 years now and have always found the GPO a very fascinating and intelligent creature. I never knew about the fact that you could actually hunt the Octopus. From the information that you have on your website with different options that there is enough information that the octopus is not threatened. They are very intelligent creatures and should be treated with respect. Adam
WEST, SUZANNE   May 21, 2013
EDMONDS, WA
Comments:
I urge WDFW to choose Option D and close the Puget Sound to the hunting or GPO's. We do not know enough about this magnificent creatures of the deep to allow this activity to continue. It is cruel and unnecessary. Leave them there for the dive community to enjoy and don't risk altering the delicate eco-systems where they reside. Thank you
STRAMPHER, GEORGE A   May 21, 2013
HUNTERS, WA
Comments:
I have never eaten an octopus so I can't comment on them as a food source. However I feel they need some protection from over fishing and harvesting. At least give them some chance at prospering somewhere in Puget Sound.
PERKINS, LELA   May 21, 2013
EVERETT, WA
Comments:
I am strongly in support of Option D - no harvesting of the Giant Pacific Octopus in the entire Puget Sound. The overall health of the sound is more important than the cruel practice of killing these gentle, intelligent creatures. thank you
BRICKER, JACQUELINE S   May 21, 2013
WOODINVILLE, WA
Comments:
I am in favor of Option D. My SECOND choice would be option C, and my third choice is option B. I am STRONGLY AGAINST keeping the status quo. On the contrary, I believe that all recreational diving spots should be closed to most species for harvest. In the absence of that, I am most in favor of eliminating harvest of GPO throughout Puget Sound (Option D). If that is not possible, then I would like to see Option C enacted.
BERG, RYAN E   May 21, 2013
GRANITE FALLS , WA
Comments:
I would love to see restrictions on Octupus harvest. Especially from any beaches. At the very least a size limit. Once they get "big" its not like they are good eating anyway. I know there would have to be some discussion on what is "big" but this whole subject definately needs a lot more discussion.
KINDERIS, VIKTOR E   May 21, 2013
LYNNWOOD, WA
Comments:
It seems very apparent that a limit of one giant Pacific octopus per day all year long would likely lead to a precipitous decline in their populations. I say this because people are only now beginning to view them as a common food source. People like to fish, people need to eat and if this option remains they will choose the easy meal. The listed beaches in Option C seem to protect a decent population at this time. Please revisit this as data becomes available. The rest of Puget Sound should probably have some sort of limit as these animals do not restrict their movements to these beaches alone. A limited season based on octopus reproductive cycles would seem a reasonable place to start. I am not against harvesting, I simply believe that there need to be better regulations. A limited season in areas outside of the proposed Option C would be easiest to enforce. Regards, Viktor Kinderis 20+ Years Certified PADI Diver
WALTARI, SCOTT L   May 21, 2013
AUBURN, WA
Comments:
I strongly support Option D. The GPO population in the Puget Sound is one of the reasons divers come to explore the sound. As an avid spear-fisher, crabber, and shrimper, I support responsible harvesting, but the low population of these intelligent creatures does not warrant the current legal harvest rate. They should be protected.
ORSI, CATHERINE   May 20, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
thanks for the extended opportunity to comment, I was not able to attend the public meeting I am in favor of option C I am wondering why Fox Island and the San Juan islands were not included? Are they already protected? I am a long time certified scuba diver and assistant dive instructor I also volunteered as a diver at the aquarium for 20 years I have done dives at all of the locations in option C, as well as the additional locations I proposed. protection of the giant octopus is very important
BROWN, GRETCHEN J   May 20, 2013
YOUNGSTOWN, OH
Comments:
I believe option D - total ban on harvesting - is the only way to go, given that we really know so little about these creatures. It is much easier to ease regulations than to tighten them, so I would urge regulating on the side of caution!
WEST, ALANA   May 20, 2013
ANNANDALE, NS
Comments:
The current quota for GPO harvest is incredibly high and dangerous to the ecosystem of the area. If a single person is able to harvest one GPO every day that is 365 GPOs a year. If 10 people take up that offer that is 3650 a year. If 100 people take up that offer that is 36500 a year and so on. Considering the human population of the area it is not impossible that even as small a number as 100 people could begin harvesting GPOs on a daily basis. If this were to happen it would be absolutely devastating to the local marine ecosystem and to the tourism industry which profits substantially from divers travelling to the area to see a GPO. On a more moral note no one should have the right to take away the life of another being. There should be a total ban on harvesting of GPOs.
ROSE, CORY   May 20, 2013
SNOHOMISH, WA
Comments:
I would have liked to see the commission just do what was asked of them and protect this one place on Alki beach, that being Cove 2, from Octopus harvest. However, with your new overreaching plans and options in this proposal, I must vote for Option A.
PIERCE, HOWARD K   May 20, 2013
BREMERTON, WA
Comments:
Recommend option 3. I have never witnessed octopus being intenionally targeted in marine areas 9, 10, or 12 where I normally fish. I have heard stories of them being caught incidentally in shrimp/crab pots, but I never have and I believe the occurence is rare. Given the apparent low sport fishing pressure, a reasonable approach is to provide protection where non-fishing divers frequent and leave the catch requirements the same outside of those areas for those fishers/divers who might be targeting them.
SARIN, RAMAN K   May 20, 2013
REDMOND, WA
Comments:
I'd vote for Option D. Ban on recreation harvesting of giant pacific octopus.
WILLIAMS, SCOTT   May 20, 2013
RAPID CITY, SD
Comments:
As a former resident of the PNW I believe that taking of game, including octopus should not be permitted in public beach/swimming/scuba areas. As a dive instructor many times the animals in these areas are the same as the pets at home. As a spearfisherman myself it's quite easy to hunt in a less public manner so as not to upset everyone. Not being a current resident I understand my beliefs are easily dismissed, but you get my 2 cents worth anyway.
J, ELDON   May 19, 2013
EDMONDS, WA
Comments:
I vote for option D. We don't know how important this species might be to the local ecosystem. They bring in money from tourists. They are important to the diving community. And honestly the current permit laws are a joke. Protect them!
WEST, ELORA M   May 19, 2013
EDMONDS, WA
Comments:
We don
TRIBOLET, JOHN   May 19, 2013
VENETA, OR
Comments:
Though a GPO isn't soft and cuddly, I strongly believe that humans have destroyed or severely damaged quite enough species on this earth. Please protect them.
EDWARDS, DAN   May 19, 2013
OAK HARBOR, WA
Comments:
I am logging in to voice my desire to see "option C" enacted to better protect the GPO population in the Puget Sound waters. An avide diver myself I find the GPO's a great attracion, and more importantly for the state I have friends who have traveled great distances (one from as far away as Denmark) to dive these waters specifically to see a live GPO in it's natural habitat.
MCDEVITT, DAWN   May 19, 2013
SAN DIEGO, CA
Comments:
Please protect the GPO and its habitat. Option C would help to ensure that the GPO remain an important part of the marine environment and continue to be a draw for tourists who generate economic activity across many industries in coming to dive/see/learn about them.
GUNN, PETER D   May 19, 2013
REDMONE, WA
Comments:
OPtion D
DUNBAR, ROBERT   May 19, 2013
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA
Comments:
Option D is the only one that makes any sense. It protects the species and is easier to understand, no hunting within Puget Sound
BREZICHA, ALBERT W   May 18, 2013
KIRKLAND, WA
Comments:
I prefer option D. The current rules would decimate the current populations in a matter of days if acted upon. Diver come from all over the world to see them. So the state benefits more from the sales tax earned from visitors then they ever would receive from fees from "hunters". It is an asset and a resource that it truly better off for the state if preserved rather than allowed to be destroyed.
PERILLO, JOHNNIE   May 18, 2013
UBATUBA, SP
Comments:
The E.U.A. can
PERERA, SRIYANTHA   May 18, 2013
ALPHARETTA, GE
Comments:
I'm concerned about the lack of proctection for Giant Pacific octopus. I support any option (option B, C or D) that gives these endangered species appropriate protection and enforcement.
THRIFT, ANDREW C   May 18, 2013
LARGS BAY, SA
Comments:
Please do whatever you can to protect the GPO. Not enough is known about it to allow it to be harvested. I would like to see Marine Parks in it's known habitat where harvesting is not allowed, or make the animal completely protected till we have a more realistic assesment of their numbers and other factors. Divers love this animal, I would personaly love to see one of it's dens. Not enough is being done to protect the oceans generally either and we don't know what the added stress of temerature change and other factors might affect. Thank you, Andrew Thrift.
EGE, LESLIE   May 18, 2013
FRONT ROYAL, VA
Comments:
I guess out of the options posted, I would hope for a marine preserve and a ban on recreational harvesting. There is not enough known about GPO's and doesn't the commercial fishing industry destroy and overfish enough of our world's Oceans as it is? As a born Washingtonian I am glad the state is taking the countries opinions seriously. Sincerely, Leslie Ege
DOMIZIO, SANDRA   May 18, 2013
GUILDFORD, NO
Comments:
I vote for option 4. These beautiful majestic creatures must be protected from these idiots!
BEER, SUZANNE   May 18, 2013
AUCKLAND, SE
Comments:
I think that the human race has to be very careful of what we kill and destroy. In the end it will be ourselves that suffer from the murder of other species. I believe that "what goes around comes around" We need to enjoy the other beings that share this planet with us and appreciate their worth on another level other than financial or to satisfy our endless greed.
BOUSE, VIRGINIA   May 18, 2013
ROSEVILLE, CA
Comments:
Aside from hoping that all commercial fishing be outlawed completely; I would like to see ALL fishing outlawed in those areas, and only seasonal recreational fishing allowed with a very small total size and limit of overpopulated fish in other areas. As to this: Please choose Option B. Thank you for allowing my input.
ROUNTREE, REBECCA   May 18, 2013
MELBOURNE AUSTRALIA, V
Comments:
To whine it may concern, My name is Rebecca, I am writing from Melbourne,Australia. Word of distuction of yet another precious Eco system has reached me even this far away. This is your chance to be part of the turning point in humanity. Take action. Preserve these beautiful octopus. Preserve the tourist trade! Just like the whales these octopus are worth more alive than dead . Don't follow Oregon , Japan or Iceland in being one of the famous destructors of this beautiful planet. Think of the money if that's what it takes. These octopus are fantastic for tourism. Please. Make the change. Thankyou for your time. Rebecca.
THOMAS, ELIZABETH   May 18, 2013
NR READING, BERKSHIRE
Comments:
Please do whatever you think best ( in your heart, I mean) to protect the Giant Octopi. I will never see one, as they are none of my business, but I like to know they are there.
VELEBIT, JOHNATHAN R   May 18, 2013
BREMERTON, WA
Comments:
I am an avid subadiver here in peugot sound since 2001 and have a great appreciation for the unusuall creatures we have here in the NW waters. I also believe that the fishes of the ocean are for eating and have come to know what the difference between a majestic creature and a food fish is. Giant pacific octopus are a majestic creature and should be preserved for our futures to come.I do not see an abundance of them in the inland waters and it is a treat when I do. I don't think there is a real need to include this creature in the food fishes category. In my opinion ,the GPO's need more time to repopulate the waters as they are scarce enough as is. I would vote mostly for option "D".but could settle on option"C"
BARRANCO ESCRIBANO, ELENA   May 18, 2013
MADRID, ES
Comments:
Every animal has a role. If you take out one, another will suffer
SIMPSON, DEBI   May 18, 2013
TONBRIDGE, KE
Comments:
Not enough is known about GPO for this to continue without looking at the impact. I'd lie to see either option b,c or d but with a constant review in place.
SUGDEN, BRADLEY A   May 18, 2013
KELLER, TX
Comments:
I would like to see the Giant Pacific Octopus to be protected and to make it illegal for any Giant Pacific Octopuses to be killed by human hands. All creatures,including the Giant Pacific Octopus,have every right to live on his planet. It is unfair to the Giant Pacific Octopus when we act like its life doesn't matter to any of us but it actually does matter. Humans have no right to decide which creature lives and which creature dies. All life on this planet is connected to each other and should be protected forever. That is my opinion on the subject, deal with it. "He who does not value life does not deserve it." -Leonardo da Vinci.
MCREYNOLDS, HEATHER   May 18, 2013
MARSHALL, MO
Comments:
It should not be legal to kill these animals at all. Option A is not an option. Something must be changed. I visited the area for the first time last year and now I would like to live around the sound. I am a diver and want to see wildlife while diving, not an empty ocean! Please change something and make these animals protected somehow. We can't change how Japan destroys the worlds dolphins; let's show them how we protect our wildlife. Be an example.
OST, JANNA   May 18, 2013
FIRCREST, WA
Comments:
I vote for a combination of of options B and D. I strongly believe that the entire Puget Sound should be a marine preserve, and that all species be protected, and that NO recreational harvest be allowed for the giant octopus, as well as all other marine animals, in the entire Puget Sound.
GRAVES, STEVE   May 18, 2013
HARROGATE, UK
Comments:
As a species we always seem bent on self destruction. We are responsible for the desecration of the rain forests, giving a total disregard for the many species who's habitats are destroyed. We hunt for pleasure, we hunt for trophies, we hunt to extinction. The cruelty and pain we cause to fellow creatures of this planet brings tears to my eyes. Rhinos, Tigers, Elephants, Dolphins, Sharks, Primates.. The list is endless. Most will not listen, will not show compassion. You have a choice. To choose wether a species should live or die. Allow these beautiful Octopus to thrive and they will repay you with opportunities to thrive also. They will encourage tourism to the area for many years to come rather then being an income for a few years for some. They are an important link in the ecosystem and should be protected and cherished. Please make the right choice, allow life, allow a species to live!
OST, JANNA   May 18, 2013
FIRCREST, WA
Comments:
The Puget Sound is an unique worldly treasure. People come from around the world to experience it. The sound has a diverse ecosystem of marine life. It is in desperate need of help. Besides all the incredible pollutants pouring into the sound, the pollution from the runoff, pesticides, shipping, boating, which has actually created circumstances where there is a total lack of oxygen in certain areas of the sound which threatens and kills many species in a season. The Giant Octopus is one of the rarest and most treasured species. They deserve full protection in the entire world, but especially in the Puget Sound. They are incredibly intelligent, beautiful, charming, but most importantly, an integral part of the ecosystem, if not a cornerstone species. Issuing hunting permits for them as to be stopped asap. It is horrific that it is allowed to the degree that has been the status quo. It is 2013, and it is way beyond time to do what is right, and to protect all that is possible, NOW.
ELIZAGA, ANDREW M   May 18, 2013
TACOMA, WA
Comments:
I am strongly in favor of Option D: Puget Sound closure to recreational harvest of all Giant Pacific Octopuses. The protection of Puget Sound and preservation of habitat is extremely important to me. I believe too little is known about this magnificent and highly intelligent species to subject it to unrestricted harvesting.
JORDANMAREE, KERSTEN   May 18, 2013
VENTURA, CA
Comments:
Please use your powers to make the GPO home a marine park. Tourists and divers like myself want to see these amazing intelligent creatures alive. Please help save the human race by saving with what is left of the oceans' ecosystem by beginning with your backyard!
DUNLAP, JOHN M   May 18, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
Please enact option C. That at least gives these incredible animals a chance. Thank you for your consideration.
D'ANDREA, MICHAEL   May 18, 2013
AUSTRALIND, WA
Comments:
Hello, I am writing with regard to the rules being proposed for the recreational harvesting of Giant Pacific Octopus in Puget Sound. Being a keen recreational diver, I have had the opportunity to see this species close up only once. It was a very memorable experience. They are a very interesting and intelligent animal worthy of note for any diver. Of the options listed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for coastal preservation areas, I would like to see option C implemented with a no-take rule made for the GPO. I don't think that setting a bag limit is a responsible course of action when so little is known about them, their importance to the local ecosystem or a good understanding of populations within Puget Sound. Kind Regards, Michael D'Andrea
SHEPPARD, CHELSEA M   May 18, 2013
TOMBALL, TX
Comments:
Option D.
WINSTON, AMANDA   May 18, 2013
BANBURY, UK
Comments:
As a diver I spend far more money watching these amazing creatures and it would seem that by choosing Option D and therefore protecting GPO the financial benefit to the tourist related industry is not only considerable but sustainable too. An octopus on a plate is a very short lived gain to a few, rather than that same octopus being viewed hundreds of times, with the accompanying income lasting and considerable.
MILLER, LA VONNE   May 18, 2013
LONG BEACH, CA
Comments:
I urge the most stringent protection of the Giant Pacific Octopus, whichever plan that might be. These are magnificent, intellegent creatures. Thank you.
ARTHUR, LEIGH   May 18, 2013
MIDDLESBROUGH, UK
Comments:
Option B: Marine Preserve
MICHELETTI, TERESA   May 18, 2013
LA MESA, CA
Comments:
Option D: Puget Sound closure to recreational harvest of Giant Pacific Octopuses.
OLSON, JOE   May 18, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
Until much more is known about the abundance and life history of the Giant Pacific Octopus in Puget Sound, the species should be off limits to any recreational harvesting. Without such important biological information and without clear conservation measures in place, we could lose lose this icon species. That is, while the population might appear to be healthy based on the annual Seattle count, the actual population in Puget Sound is not well known and the relatively unlimited take allowance has the potential to decimate the population. The importance of stewardship for the entire Puget Sound ecosystem cannot be under emphasized. Again, please close the recreational harvest of Giant Pacific Octopus. Then, once thorough studies have been completed, any recreational harvest should require a special license so that the take can be monitored. This will also generate additional funds for WDFW.
VAUGHN, GINA   May 18, 2013
ACWORTH, GA
Comments:
I have read the brief report about the hunting of GPOs. All creatures, great and small, are valuable to the survival and balance of nature. Please protect them from all hunting. The brief period of reproduction for one of these beautiful creatures makes it all the more important to protect them. I sincerely ask that all hunting cease and that those caught hunting will be prosecuted.
GRINER, BEN E   May 17, 2013
KENMORE, WA
Comments:
Option C - thank you for considering the sporting and nature watching uses of the Sound in addition to harvesting.
CONNER, DAVE   May 17, 2013
PORTLAND, OR
Comments:
Living in Portland, Oregon, I have travelled to Hoodsport, Washington for certification dives only so far. My wife and I have not had the opportunity to dive any site where I can see a GPO. This is one of the things my wife and I look forward to seeing when talking about diving in the Sound. We have a weekend of diving coming up next month and very much want to see the GPO in their natural environment. Now
MOORE, ERIC   May 17, 2013
KENT, WA
Comments:
I would like to see Option D enacted, eliminating all recreational harvesting of Giant Pacific Octpi. Thank You, Eric Moore
VINEYARD, AKASH   May 17, 2013
WOODINVILLE, WA
Comments:
Option B: Marine Preserve
SODERBERG, ROBIN J   May 17, 2013
BELLEVUE, WA
Comments:
Puget Sound closure to recreational harvest of Giant Pacific Octopuses is the only option
MASON, NELS S   May 17, 2013
ISSAQUAH, WA
Comments:
I like options B and C or a combination of both. I dive at Seacrest park on a regular basis. Seeing the octopus is one of the greatest highlights for diving in this location. I would not like to see any harvesting of octopus at this location. It is one of the primary reasons a lot of people dive at Seacrest park. I believe there could be similar reactions of outcry at other popular diving sites. I would prefer that any harvesting of octopus take place at secluded locations.
ARDUSSI, SEAN   May 17, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
I would support option D. There is no real tradition in hunting this species, and they appear to offer little if any sport hunting value. Preserving them creates the opportunity for scuba divers to view them in the wild where more people have the opportunity to enjoy this resource compared to the one person who would enjoy the resource if it is hunted.
OLSEN, LINCOLN C   May 17, 2013
EDGEWOOD, WA
Comments:
I propose that we let Science determine if there is a healthy enough population to support a harvest. If the population is healthy, there should be no restrictions placed on harvest. Washington has an entire bureaucracy dedicated to management of wildlife resources payed for of course by taxpayers. If wildlife management decisions are based on emotion, we could manage our resources through the initiative process and would have absolutely no need for the WDFW. Please make all game management decisions based on scientific data and not the emotions of a relatively small user group in Seattle as the resources belong to the citizens of Washington, not just the residents of Seattle!
STAROSCIK, MATT   May 17, 2013
WOODINVILLE, WA
Comments:
I vote for Proposal C. I think that offering some degree of protection for the GPO is important in popular dive sites, lest a few people choose to legally behave inconsiderately and decimate the easily visible populations of these popular animals. People come from all over the region to dive in this area. While I would like to protect all animals at popular public dive sites, there has yet to be a major problem with other species.
MYERS, DATHAN D   May 17, 2013
PORT ANGELES, WA
Comments:
Hello, I have been diving in Puget sound since 1994. I have dove at least 50 times every year since. I am also a avid outdoors man, I hunt fish, crab and so on. I am in favor of option B or C. I think closing the areas that are underwater parkways that diver frequent will satisfy all parties. In these areas the hunter might also have a ethically hunting issue with a unfair advantage as the Octos there are some what use to interaction with divers. I have never harvested an octo myself (nor do I plan to) but for those that do and want to I don't want them to have their ability to do so completely taken away (as a Hunter I understand being regulated out of the hunt) Please put me down for "voting" for Option "C" first and Option "B" second. Thank you for taking the time to address this very important issue in both the dive and hunting communities. Best, Dathan Myers
HUGHES, CHERYL A   May 17, 2013
INDIANOLA, WA
Comments:
I am in favor of Option D. There is no reason for anyone to harvest a Giant Pacific Octopus "recreationally." I understand that to some they are food, but killing because one "is allowed to" has no justification at all.
KRUSE, JEFF   May 17, 2013
AGUADILLA, PR
Comments:
I am a former resident who returns every year to dive in Puget Sound. Seeing a GPO was and is a great thrill that keeps me comming back. I support option B now. I also hope that elements of option C can also be implemented with this process in the future.
MESSINGER, BEN   May 16, 2013
KENNEWICK, WA
Comments:
I support options B or C. My preference would be option C. I believe protecting this limited list of sites is a reasonable compromise which protects the rights of sportsmen while insuring octopus are not taken from what are highly trafficked wildlife viewing areas.
LOUZAO, LOREN   May 16, 2013
ARLINGTON, WA
Comments:
Option D is my vote. I don't think this majestic creature should be harvested.
HEATON, NICK D   May 16, 2013
KIRKLAND, WA
Comments:
I would strongly support option C.
WORTHEN, BILL D   May 16, 2013
DES MOINES, WA
Comments:
(Option D) I'm an avid diver and love to see the GPO's. I also enjoy spearfishing for lingcod. I see no reason at this time to create more preserves as it will cause the already crowded fishing holes to get much worse. I have been diving PS for 8 plus years and have seen two GPO's taken so I don't think it's a big deal or close to being over harvested by the rec diver. However these fine creatures already have a short life span, let them live in peace. Close PS to rec harvest and commercial for that matter. Thanks for letting us be heard!
ADOLFI, ALEX   May 16, 2013
SEATTLE , WA
Comments:
I see no purpose in the harvesting of these animals and support a full ban on harvesting of the Giant Pacific Octopus
WARD, KATRINA J   May 16, 2013
YUKON, MO
Comments:
As a frequent diver, I see the populations of marine life more often than most people. I see it first hand, up close. Having been to the west coast, I can honestly say that the hunting of large species of octopus should be made illegal, since there are so few of these majestic creatures left. If left unregulated, the species will become extinct. Please consider adding new laws to prevent this disaster in the future. Not just for the sake of divers, but for all people who may never get to experience seeing one up close because of our negligence.
DELOS SANTOS, TASHA   May 16, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
I think option D is the best. No one relies on octopus for food and they are a unique and interesting animal here in the Pacific NW.
BROSWELL, JASON   May 16, 2013
NORTHRIDGE, CA
Comments:
I belive the Giant pacific octopus should be protected as just the same way a lot of california fish are protected for example the california gerabaldi. i dont know what the Washington state fish is, from my visits there should be the sea jelly lol. but i remember the story about the guy that harvested a GPO and it upset me as a fisherman and a diver. it also upset a lot of my close dive associates and staff at all my local dive shops. Please please please protect the giant Pacific Octopus before they become endangered and are no longer found in the coastal waters. its amazing to see them while diving, and i would hope they will still be around when my kids are old enough to dive and experience their wonder.
LAYMAN, LORIE S   May 16, 2013
KENMORE, WA
Comments:
Proposal C seems to best represent the interests of both local divers who dive to view wildlife and those who wish to hunt and gather fish and shellfish for food.
DU PREEZ, KOOS   May 16, 2013
SNOQUALMIE, WA
Comments:
I would give my vote and support for a complete banning of Giant Pacific Octopus. There is now commercial value and even a smaller recreational taking of GPO's and the public outcry certainly out weigh the one or two individuals who take an octopus from public beaches and dive sites. These are amazing wachable wild life and a HUGE attraction to local dive sites for local and international visitors alike. Wolf Eel and Six Gill Shark harvesting is illegal for the same reasons.. GPO's should enjoy the same protection!!
BEARDA, MIKE   May 16, 2013
SHORELINE, WA
Comments:
Of the options listed, I support option C. Thank You
SHAY, KATHI   May 16, 2013
BLACK DIAMOND, WA
Comments:
I'm in favor option D. Let them live under the sound.
OKUMURA, TOSHIKO   May 16, 2013
COVINGTON, WA
Comments:
I'd like to make all these beaches Marine Preserve
BAIRD, CARL E   May 16, 2013
ARLINGTON,, WA
Comments:
I support Option D for extending greater protection to giant Pacific octopuses in Puget Sound. In British Columbia, a study (Chris Harvey Clark) determined that the economic value of the Six Gill Shark as a tourism asset was far greater than the economic value of the Six Gill Shark as catch fishery. It is highly probable that the economic value of the giant Pacific octopus as a tourism asset is far greater than the economic value as a catch fishery.
BLANKENSHIP, HALLIE J   May 16, 2013
PUYALLUP, WA
Comments:
I would vote for option C myself. Although I am an avid diver and love seeing GPO's underwater. I believe that there should be some harvest for people who wish to, just not in protected areas and popular dive sites. Thank you so much for addressing this issue, it is long over due.
HILL, ELIZABETH   May 16, 2013
WOODINVILLE, WA
Comments:
Please implement option C. Our local dive sites are so beautiful; protect the sea life that makes these beaches and sites their home. Thank you for considering this support for the local dive community. Thank you, Elizabeth Hill
CORNWALL, JAMES F   May 16, 2013
GIG HARBOR, WA
Comments:
I strongly support your Option C, closure of specific areas to the recreational harvesting of GPOs. There is little or no evidence that the GPO population is in trouble in the Puget Sound region, and the Sport diving community does not have any desire to restrict harvesting except in limited locations. The diving community would like to have limited restrictions, Option C, only because of ethical & economic reasons. The ethical arguments are the same as you would present about the concept of shooting a deer in a city park. It's just not a nice thing to do in front of the general public users of that space. We consider taking a GPO from a popular dive site to be the equivalent action. The GPOs are often friendly to divers, show curiousity, and interact with divers. Harvesting them in such conditions is not a nice thing to do.... Economic reasons would be the money spent in the region by divers coming specifically to see our healthy GPO population. Thank you for listening.
DANCEY, RYAN S   May 16, 2013
RENTON, WA
Comments:
I would like to voice my support for Option D. No giant pacific octopus should be harvested by free, snorkle or scuba divers in Puget Sound.
MONTANA , KENNY E   May 16, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
I would like to see option D to pass. My second choice would be option C, with understanding that more dive site can be added in the future.
COATNEY, DON C   May 16, 2013
OAK HARBOR, WA
Comments:
Option A There is no need to close fishing on octopus, there is no decline in stocks. there has been no studies done that fisherman are taking to many and wiping out the Octopus. I for 1 eat them when I do catch them and would like to continue to do so.
KING, TAMMARA   May 16, 2013
SNOHOMISH, WA
Comments:
I would prefer option D, we could review from time to time and make changes if the population gets too high so that it causes a problem for the Octopus or people. If we got to that point we could fall back to option C. Thank you for requesting input before making an arbitrary decision.
HOGAN, GEORGINA   May 16, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
As a diver I am urging the adoption of Option D. I did not realize that it was not the rule now. I am astounded to know that killing octopuses in Puget Sound is allowed at all, much less within areas that are essentially marine parks. I believe the vast majority of recreational divers would prefer to not witness the killing of an octopus as they enjoy the vibrant marine life of Puget Sound. Thank you.
GIBSON, REBECCA   May 16, 2013
INDIANAPOLIS, IN
Comments:
As a visiting scuba diver who will never forget seeing a GPO in it's natural habitat, I support Option D. We should protect all of the GPO's, not just those which happen to live in proximity to the popular dive sites. Option C would be my second choice. GPO's are a key attribute for divers to travel great lengths to visit the Puget Sound area for dive vacations.
DOWNING, JOHN E   May 16, 2013
NORTH BEND, WA
Comments:
I submitted my comments before selecting Option C. I would like to add the following: The new rules you come up with should affect ONLY SCUBA divers (of which I am one). If you try to enact rules that affect any group more that SCUBA divers, you will, I fear, complicate this issue. As I see it, the threat is not from line fisherman (of which I am NOT one). The threat is from SCUBA divers. A single SCUBA diver can simply go down and pluck a GPO out of the water at a rate of one/day. A single diver could wipe out an entire dive site in one week. Please consider limiting the scope of your work to just SCUBA divers (to include CCR, OCR, and snorkel divers). Thanks John
HILL, ROBERT D   May 16, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
I support Option C
HOCRAFFER, HENRY   May 16, 2013
ROCHESTER, MN
Comments:
I am a long-time diver and am also a hunter in my home state of Minnesota. I will always remember the excitement of seeing Giant Pacific Octopus at Alki and Redondo Beach. From the perspective of both diver and hunter, the 2 must be allowed to co-exist. I would recommend option C, protecting the Giant Pacific Octopus at popular dive locations while still allowing the hunting at other locations in Puget Sound. Thank you for your consideration.
RICKETTS, AMANDA   May 16, 2013
KENT, WA
Comments:
Option D
CASSADY, RICH   May 16, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
I like Option D best! Option A is not acceptable!
CASSADY, RICH   May 16, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
Please ban the taking of octos in the Alki Coves! Actually, I think there should be ban of taking anything from the Coves, but at the very least, please start with octos. It's not fishing in the Coves, as practically everyone knows where the octos are in the Coves, so it is more like going to a fish market. Thank you!
SALLEE, RON   May 16, 2013
SNOHOMISH, WA
Comments:
I think it would be reasonable to approve Option C but would also add Mulikteo City park and the NOAA pier: Marine Preserves
CLARK, GRACIE   May 16, 2013
JAMAICA PLAIN, MA
Comments:
Its just wrong, pain and simple. These people need to do more research as to how amazing this creature is.
NEWMAN, GERARD K   May 16, 2013
KAILUA KONA, HI
Comments:
I am in favor of option C. I have recently returned from my first trip to the area to dive in the Puget Sound. I did 23 dives over the course of two weeks, and was privileged to see a giant Pacific octopus on one dive. Where I live (the big island of Hawaii) we have a conflict between tropical fish collectors and recreational scuba diving. The local Department of Land and Natural Resources has designated some areas of the coastline here as off-limits to tropical fish collection; these areas correspond closely with popular recreational diving areas. The arrangement works pretty well (enforcement is an issue, but community and peer pressure works reasonably well). A similar arrangement for the Puget Sound around popular recreational diving areas seems logical. Best regards -
HOWELL, WILLIAM D   May 16, 2013
ARLINGTON, WA
Comments:
Option D
MCKENZIE, JOHN T   May 16, 2013
KINGSTON, WA
Comments:
I would prefer Option D. However, I would like to an alternative plan to naming specific sites for protection from taking marine life. This would set a rule that no recreational harvest of all species at any "dive site" that is recognized by the Washington Scuba Alliance (or similar agency) and are dived by by X number of divers per year. This would allow for site that are not currently on the list to be added or sites to be dropped if they are used.
SMITH, DAVID J   May 16, 2013
DES MOINES, WA
Comments:
This isn't a matter of conservation of a resource for preserving food or sport fishing. The allure of enjoying a complex creature in the wild is almost solely that of the sportsman who dons life support equipment and braves the cold depths of Puget Sound. This creature is unique in it's appearance and nature, a large intelligent creature that usually exhibits curiosity upon encountering a diver. There is no sport in harvesting an octopus that is usually OK with your observations and willingly interacts with you. The largest group of citizens that enjoy these encounters is the group of scuba divers that are interested and drawn to these animals alive and in their natural environment and certainly not the rare diver that pulls a cooperative, curious creature out of its environment and into the back of a pickup truck as a trophy of false machismo. Harvesting this creature in these locations is NOT good. Option C appears correct and should be approved.
FLENNER, JANET   May 16, 2013
RENO, NV
Comments:
I would like to see option 3 installed. I don't think the whole Puget Sound should be a marine preserve, but I think all on this list should be a marine preserve. I occasionally visit this area and the GPO is one of the reasons. Thank you.
FLENNER, JANET   May 16, 2013
RENO, NV
Comments:
I would like to see option 3 installed. I don't think the whole Puget Sound should be a marine preserve, but I think all on this list should be a marine preserve. Thank you.
NICODEMUS, THOMAS   May 16, 2013
LAKEWOOD, WA
Comments:
**Option B & C provide for protection of GPO's from harvest in specific areas where they can be enjoyed recreationally by photographers, divers, free divers, and even snorkelers. These options also will lessen potential conflicts between user groups, while not restricting the rights of harvest in an onerous way. **Option D makes no sense at all as they are not endangered at this point, and would be the equivalent of using a shotgun to kill a fly. **Option A would be unfortunate as no good would come out of this current proposal.
ANDERSON, MARK E   May 16, 2013
RAVENSDALE, WA
Comments:
Option D Puget Sound closure to recreational harvest of Giant Pacific Octopuses.
FITZPATRICK, KELLE   May 16, 2013
BURIEN, WA
Comments:
I would prefer the acceptance of Proposal C, but Proposal B would be better than nothing. Proposal A isn't acceptable at all.
YAFFE, B   May 16, 2013
SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Comments:
I support Option D. Octopuses are a special and unique resource and should be protected locally.
MARCOUX, DOUGLAS   May 16, 2013
SNOQUALMIE, WA
Comments:
In my opinion, the GPO is of much greater value as a protected species than it is in the fishery. My first choice of the 4 options listed is "Option D," closure of the GPO fishery entirely. My second choice, and the only other option as I see it, is "Option C," closure of the fishery on all popular dive sites. My concern with leaving it open outside of the dive sites is that fishers will be confused by the areas allowed and not allowed. Those dive sites are effectively the places where the majority of the GPOs are accessible, so closing them is akin to closing the fishery entirely. To make things very clear, leaving no room for where is and is not allowed, closing the whole fishery is a much easier way to protect them. It would make it easy - "no GPO fishery, period" versus "here is ok, but not there." Last, GPOs are virtually impossible to hunt without penetrating objects or irritants, so allowing the fishery to continue encourages illegal fishing practices needed for success.
SPIRO, MATTHEW   May 16, 2013
PORTLAND, OR
Comments:
I believe Option C is the best choice. It allows for divers to enjoy popular dive sites and a safe place for GPOs to den and breed. It also provides plenty of other areas for those wishing to harvest GPOs to do so.
TURNER, RYAN   May 16, 2013
BERKELEY, CA
Comments:
As a diver and conservationist I hope you will protect these amazing creatures. There isn't a good reason to kill them and raising their protection status is an opportunity to educate the public, not only about GPOs but about the marine environment in general. I hope you will choose option C or D to provide strong protection for GPOs.
TREGRE, JACQUELINE   May 16, 2013
SIERRA VISTA, AZ
Comments:
I travel to your lovely State two to four times a year, and always pins some personal days onto the trip to dive because of your unique marine life there in the Sound. I like your Option B, but wish there were more sites. Marine Park preserves do a double duty by allowing your marine life to have a place to breed, feed, and reproduce so that those species may also stray outside the preserve. Please implement Option B. Thank you!
LECLAIR, GINNIFER   May 16, 2013
NAVARRE, FL
Comments:
Option C and option D
MARCOUX, DOUGLAS   May 16, 2013
SNOQUALMIE, WA
Comments:
In my opinion, the GPO is of much greater value as a protected species than it is in the fishery. My first choice of the 4 options listed is "Option D," closure of the GPO fishery entirely. My second choice, and the only other option as I see it, is "Option C," closure of the fishery on all popular dive sites. My concern with leaving it open outside of the dive sites is that fishers will be confused by the areas allowed and not allowed. Those dive sites are effectively the places where the majority of the GPOs are accessible, so closing them is akin to closing the fishery entirely. To make things very clear, leaving no room for where is and is not allowed, closing the whole fishery is a much easier way to protect them. It would make it easy - "no GPO fishery, period" versus "here is ok, but not there." Last, GPOs are virtually impossible to hunt without penetrating objects or irritants, so allowing the fishery to continue encourages illegal fishing practices needed for success.
BROWN, BRUCE   May 16, 2013
SNOHOMISH, WA
Comments:
I would prefer option no octopus harvesting in Puget Sound at all but would OK with: Option C: Marine Preserves
SIMONNET, GUILLAUME   May 16, 2013
BELLEVUE, WA
Comments:
I support option C as a balanced approach that will help maintain the GPO population in areas where the diving public can most enjoy them.
FLAHERTY, LYNNE   May 16, 2013
WOODINVILLE, WA
Comments:
I believe it's clear that there is no scientific basis for closing the fishery of GPOs entirely. But the "B" option, closing it for well-recognized and frequently visited dive sites, seems to meet both the needs of those who would like to hunt them, and the desires of both local and visiting divers, who would like to see them.
NYENHUIS, BRIAN   May 16, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
I support the "c" proposal. There are not too many places where divers can go and expect to see a giant pacific octopus. It even seems to be seasonal in some areas with long draughts in between. I remember in my early days of diving the Pacific NW, everyone wanted to see a live octopus. It would be a shame if GPO were open season at these familiar and heavily used dive sites.
NAYLOR, PETE   May 15, 2013
SEDRO WOOLLEY, WA
Comments:
Minimal harvest and healthy resource mean tell us that Option D makes no sense. Option A would likely be fine for some time - but present regulations are so lax that a surge in recreational harvest interest could over-tax the resource too quickly for management reaction. Reality is that both extractive use of GPOs and watchable wildlife interests should be respected - new regulations should be aimed at reducing potential clashes. We need a (geographically distributed) set of sites for divers to view GPOs, but we also need shore access for divers who hunt/collect GPOs (among other species). I believe that Option C includes far too many shore dive sites (leaving few open for GPO harvest). Option B fills geographic gaps and stops clashes over other species (speared Lingcod etc). I think that Option B will have minimal negative impact but will suit the needs of all quite well - it is the best compromise.
COOK, KIRBY   May 15, 2013
ISSAQUAH , WA
Comments:
Option C
BOON, JIM   May 15, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
Best of all worlds, I would support option D. It leaves fishing alone and provides a very large area of the ocean to protect Octos. Option C is my second choice. Again, it protects the Octo.
AYLESWORTH, EARL   May 15, 2013
REDMOND, WA
Comments:
option c
HARRINGTON, CARL C   May 15, 2013
EDMONDS, WA
Comments:
I prefer Option C at a minimum. We know too little about the biology of the Giant Pacific Octopus. It would not take long to clean out all the know octopus dens in Puget Sound, if the limit remains at one per day. Thank you for your consideration.
DIDIO, JOHN K   May 15, 2013
BREMERTON, WA
Comments:
I wholeheartedly support option D. Please safeguard this world known creature that inhabits our stressed Puget Sound. I am a lifelong resident of Puget Sound and have witnessed the needless over harvesting and disappearance of previously ignored sealife.
LODGE, STEVEN D   May 15, 2013
SHORELINE, WA
Comments:
I am a diver and enjoys viewing Octopus while diving. I have never harvested an Octopus but I believe harvesting should be allowed but not at certain highly used dive site such as those identified in options B and C.
FLETCHER, KARIN   May 15, 2013
PORT ORCHARD, WA
Comments:
I think Option C provides the most protection for GPOs in areas most frequented by divers yet leaves other areas open for recreational harvesting. However, it would be a win for the environment (which includes humans) if Puget Sound were closed to GPO harvesting completely.
WILSON, MARK   May 15, 2013
SNOHOMISH, WA
Comments:
Option c is my preferred solution.
RAUPE, JOHANNA M   May 15, 2013
GRANITE FALLS, WA
Comments:
I would like to see Puget Sound closed to GPO harvest. Otherwise I think it would be difficult to enforce harvest restrictions. Currently harvest is suppose to be without weapons, but in the last event, there was no way to confirm the harvest was with or without knives, which were later found at the den of the harvested octopus.
HORCH, BRIAN   May 15, 2013
PORT ORCHARD , WA
Comments:
Option C is the best in my opinion. There should be limited harvesting of "GPO" in Puget Sound. They don't taste that good and are usually just a trophy for a photo and then wasted.
MINTON, BILL   May 15, 2013
TACOMA, WA
Comments:
There appears to be no need for much action on this issue, octopus are quite common and the populations appear stable. Based on your own data not many people harvest octopus so this is not a overharvest or conservation issue. With shoreline access points already limited it would be unfair to disenfranchise the sportsman who might periodically take an octopus or spearfish some of these sites simply because they do not own a boat. While I personally do not harvest octopus I believe that if someone chooses to their right to do so is no less valid than the person who simply observes. Several of the proposed sites were originally created as artificial fishing reefs for fisheries enhancement. With the reef structure & support facilities paid for and maintained with sportsman's user fees. Rule changes should be based on facts, not based on emotions, what if's and speculation. I support Option A as the best choice, Option B as a second, Options C & D are to expansive & restrictive.
MERKEL, JOYCE   May 15, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
I would like to see both B and C implemented. Option B works because the existing fishing from piers has been left in place. This works for everyone. The fishers would hopefully benefit because of the increased production of the protected areas. The divers would with luck see even more life and it would be safer for them with no one allowed to hunt in the area they are diving. At the very least Option C in my option needs to happen. It would ensure that GPO's remain for divers to observe and enjoy in the areas most dived. Yet it leaves may other places for those that wish to hunt GPO. With the growing human population pressures in the region these measures can only become more important over time. I've been actively diving in the NW for over 17 years. Its still a thrill every time I observe one of these fascinating animals. Thank you all for your hard work on this issue.
MERKEL, FRITZ   May 15, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
The recent uproar throughout both the dive community and the world at large over the removal of a GPO at Seacrest Cove 2 indicated the community at large is willing to embrace protection of the GPO. My minimal recommendation is Option C. These are all frequently used dive sites where GPO removal is not appropriate and should preferably not be used for any sort of hunting or take at all. My personal preference is Option D. I've been diving for 18 years, have over 1000+ dives, have volunteered at the Seattle Aquarium for 5+ years. I pay attention to the state of fisheries. There is not a single fishery of any sort anywhere in the world that I know of that is not in danger. Dozens of fisheries have already collapsed under fishing pressure. The only thing keeping them open is political and economic pressure. I acknowledged this as a difficult issue and suspect the reaction from the fishing community would be prohibitive. Fritz Merkel President - Marker Buoy Dive Club
CAREY, KATHLEEN   May 15, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
I prefer option D, closing recreational taking of Giant Pacific Octopi. They are not an essential food group; don't see the reason to kill them. The case last summer (in which a young diver killed GPOs) was a guy just doing a casual project. He didn't need the octopus, and was reported to have (eventually) regretted killing it. Prefer to let the octopi live, as unique local fauna. People can observe them while diving.
KAUFMAN, ALEXANDRA   May 14, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
I would like to be on record as favoring option D. Thank you.
WEITKAMP, ERICK   May 14, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
I support options C, no recreational harvest of GPOs at all popular dive sites, but I would include Norranders Reef, Hudson Point, Salt Creek, Bell island, Mukilteo and Seahurst. My second choice would be Option D, to close Puget Sound to the recreational harvest of GPOs.
BROWN, ELIZABETH   May 14, 2013
WOODINVILLE, WA
Comments:
I support Option C - I'm a scuba diver, and am in awe of the intelligent, curious octopuses frequently encountered in our popular dive spots. They are a treasure to see in their native habitat. That said, I also appreciate the interests and enthusiasm of those who fish recreationally. Option C seems to be a balance of protecting the species in areas where they are easily found and approached, while still allowing those who choose to fish in those areas to do so. Thank you for taking the time to give this issue such public consideration.
SPECK, CAMILLEF A   May 14, 2013
PORT TOWNSEND , WA
Comments:
I would like to see the Giant Pacific Octopus protected throughout all of Puget Sound. Although I know the species is not in danger of depletion, I believe that they should be protected as part of our natural heritage. Puget Sound offers plenty of other consumptive resource interaction opportunities without the need to harvest GPOs. Go clamming & oystering instead!
MCQUARRIE, ANGUS   May 14, 2013
BELLEVUE, WA
Comments:
I would advocate for Option D. Finding GPOs is a delight and one of the main things that makes diving in the PNW worthwhile. They aren't exactly littering the seafloor, and it's pretty traumatic to see these creatures that we love to see in the wild being dragged out of the water in popular dive spots where nobody else can subsequently enjoy them.
FOLEY, WAYNE T   May 14, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
I am an avid diver in the Seattle area. I am also a Dive Master and work with a local dive shop. From this point of view, and I strongly recommend "Option D" or at a very minimum "Option C". It is a very special occasion when students, or any diver, gets to see a GPO. I feel that it is rare enough to see one of these amazing creatures that we should not jeopardize their future by allowing them to be harvested in or around popular dive sites, or the Puget sound in general. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. --Wayne Foley
GREEN, PHIL   May 14, 2013
DEER HARBOR, WA
Comments:
I support option D, no harvest of giant Pacific octopus. Besides being magnificent creatures in their own right, GPO den sites are the hub of mini food webs: GPOs eat crabs, shrimp come in to clean up the small bits and pieces, and fish from sculpins to rockfish come in to eat the shrimp. Where I dive regularly, a copper rockfish shares the den with the GPO. Watching all the interactions is often a highlight of my dives. Please consider giving the most intelligent invertebrate in the world the protection it deserves. Phil Green
DICKMAN, JEFF   May 14, 2013
BOTHELL, WA
Comments:
It seems to me that the GPO population is healthy, so this is really about ensuring that the majority of recreational scuba divers can continue to view them in the greater Seattle area from easily-accessible dive sites. My vote is for option C. It reflects how most people are currently using these sites. It also provides a clear legal option for those who wish to hunt GPO's to do so in places where a misunderstanding is less likely. Option A means an active diver could ruin some popular dive sites for the rest of us in pretty short order. Option B would have prevented the most recent ugliness at Seacrest, but really just pushes the problem to nearby dive sites. Option D goes too far and imposes the hunting distaste of some upon all.
WILLEMSEN, CRAIG   May 14, 2013
ISSAQUAH, WA
Comments:
As a long time NW diver (originally certified to dive in 1972), and as owner of a Scuba diving store/school/travel business in the Bellevue area since 1989, I'm very interested in the outcome to the proposed legislation to protect the GPO's in Puget Sound. I support Option C, as it would protect GPO's at the most visited dive sites in the Sound, while still leaving the option to collect GPO's open to those who want to continue the harvest. We in the Sport Diving Business community are very interested in seeing some type of protection status for areas we have treated as unofficial marine parks (Seacrest, Redondo Beach, etc.), and I believe Option C will offer protection to these areas and still give collectors access.
DORSETT, JOHN E   May 14, 2013
BELLEVUE, WA
Comments:
Thanks to WDFW for facilitaing this discussion and community input. My leaning would be toward Option C, in that the areas listed are frequented by divers who are largely not interested in harvesting any species let alone a GPO. These areas should be considered parks. I also think the Seacrest fihsing pier should be included, as there are ususally several residents under the pier, and there would be no way to determine if a diver captured an animal under the pier or not.
FUCHS, NATE T   May 14, 2013
SNOHOMISH , WA
Comments:
I think options B and C are more than fair to allow divers to see the beauty and majesty of a GPO and still allow harvesters several areas to harvest if they wish.
SMITH, BARRY L   May 13, 2013
KIRKLAND, WA
Comments:
As a recreational scuba diver I treasure the opportunity to see these amazing creatures in their habitat. I strongly support either Option C or D of the proposal before the WDFW. Option C would provide good protection for the octopus and ensure they could be appreciated by most marine visitors. Option D would offer even greater protection, and might be easier to communicate and enforce. Either way, please protect our octopi! Thank you, Barry L Smith
CAMPBELL, HOWARD J   May 13, 2013
RENTON, WA
Comments:
We have an opportunity to preserve a precious resource by protecting the GPO's in Puget Sound. People come from all over the world to dive and see them up close, and what is even more amazing is that they are so close to a major metropolitan area. It make sense economically and environmentally to protect them in Puget Sound. What could we gain as a community if we allowed the harvest of the Giant Pacific Octopus so close to the city? We already protect song birds and wildflowers, why not this unique creature? Sincerely, J. Campbell
MORRIS, ELLIOTT   May 13, 2013
REDMOND, WA
Comments:
I will admit that I don't know what the demand is for giant pacific octopus harvesting in the Puget Sound. Personally, I think these creatures deserve protection throughout the entire Puget Sound and harvesting them should be prohibited. At a minimum, Option C, offering protection at the most popular dive sites, should be enacted. Scuba diving is a very popular pastime for many in the Seattle area, myself included, and draws people in from outside our region to dive here. The GPO needs to be protected so that they remain a resource that attracts scuba enthusiasts, and the money that scuba generates for our local economy, while also protecting their numbers.
BLACK, FRASER F   May 13, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
As a recreational diver and fisherman I would like to see the Giant Pacific Octopus protected throughout Puget Sound. They are an intelligent animal that is unique to our region and I don't see a good reason harvest them for consumption when so many people enjoy seeing them in the wild. Please protect the Giant Pacific Octopus from any harvesting. Thanks, Fraser Black
YAHNIG, PAUL   May 13, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
The option D should be the option that is put into effect. There is no reason why the harvest of an octopus should be allowed from Puget Sound.
LAMONT, JAMES J   May 13, 2013
PORT ANGELES, WA
Comments:
I would vote for Option C. Sometimes if you ask for too much you end up with nothing. I'm not aware there's much harvest of GPOs in Puget Sound and if there's a sustainable population I don't have a problem with the few people who might want to harvest one. Although I'm an avid hunter and fisherman I have no interest in harvesting a GPO. If the harvest gets to be a problem then it might be time to have stricter regulations. Those decisions should be based on sound biology, not politics. Having said that, I think the bag limit of one a day all year long is ridiculous. I think that should be severely reduced immediately.
TAYLOR, RICHARD   May 13, 2013
OLYMPIA, WA
Comments:
Should just keep it option A . They are not endangered. If the state allows commercial fishing for them Dont take the rights away from recreational fisherman. Rule should be the same for EVERYONE.
SMITH, ERICA S   May 13, 2013
SAMMAMISH, WA
Comments:
Option D should be passed. While it is great to protect all of the popular diving sites there is no need to allow the hunting of octopus in the protected area of the Puget Sound. We dive in a large range of sites and it truly is the thrill of diving in the Northwest.
CARR, APRIL J   May 13, 2013
BURIEN , WA
Comments:
Option D would be my first choice and option C a far behind 2nd. I grew up in Bremerton. One of the reason's why I have not left is because of the Puget Sound (Salish Sea). I am a volunteer at the Seattle Aquarium and a Beach Captain for the beach naturalist program. I see people come to the aquarium who are mesmerized by them, including myself. I don't dive but it is a real thrill to see one. I have encountered two on two different occasions at low tide. I saw one at Seahurst at a low tide night beach walk hiding under a piece of driftwood. The other was at Des Moines in the middle of the day. It had been hiding in an old tire but got disturbed. The naturalist did a bit of octo rescue. Sea creatures don't stay in one place or abide by man's marine preserve boundaries. I had heard that the populatoin is difficult to count and with climate change &/or pollution, they are maturing sooner and not getting as large. We don't need to eat every animal in ocean just because we can.
SMITH, CARLOS P   May 13, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
As a local Seattle and Salish Sea / Puget Sound waterman I feel strongly that option D, a Puget Sound wide closure to recreational harvest of Giant Pacific Octopuses be implemented. Protecting the Giant Pacific Octopus is in line with other legislation protecting these waters, including controls on biocides and other harmful substances entering Puget Sound from the bottom of vessels and run off from maritime work yards. If legislation such as this passed, which impacts the economic viability of our maritime industries, then a ban on recreational fishing of octopus should be even easier to accept and pass as there is no economic impact of enacting such legislation protecting this important species.
SPRAGUE, STEVE R   May 13, 2013
ARLINGTON, WA
Comments:
I favor option D. We are past the time when any harvest of GPO is an acceptable activity.
GOODMAN, ALICE   May 13, 2013
BURIEN, WA
Comments:
Please add Seahurst Park as a protected Marine Area. There is so much diverse marinelife in the area and it is a Marine Biology Education Center. It is totally fitting and appropriate.
COWLES, BRIAN   May 13, 2013
SEATTLE , WA
Comments:
Option C
PATTON, JOHN R   May 13, 2013
KIRKLAND, WA
Comments:
Octopus is not a commercial fishery in Puget Sound. No body needs to be harvesting octopuses in Puget Sound. I would support Option D or at the very least Option C
SANDUSKY, SHEILA   May 13, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
I would like to see option D implemented. However, I am not an expert and realize the potential for over population and the need to control that in some way. I also understand.the enjoyment that some derive from the experience of hunting. Providing that it does not diminish the viable population of the GPO in Puget Sound, Option C is an acceptable compromise. At the very least I strongly urge that if option D is not adopted, then Option C be implemented.
HENSEL, ROB   May 13, 2013
DUVALL, WA
Comments:
I am an avid hunter, fisherman and diver. I am in favor of protecting the GPO, providing it needs protection. Do we have enough information to make this decission? How much habitat is needed for a GPO to live a healthy life? What is the annual sport fishing harvest of GPO's Based on how many GPO's I see while diving, I think there is room for more and would love to see more but we need to understand the enviromental impact before such a decission is made. Please ensure proper dillegence is is taken on before any decission is reached.
LARSON, DAVID   May 13, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
My preferences are in priority order: D, C, B, A.
BOLSON, ADELE   May 13, 2013
REDMOND, WA
Comments:
I favor creation of the two marine preserves in Puget Sound protecting all species in those two preserves (option B) and IN ADDITION forbidding all harvesting of Giant Pacific Octopus in all of Puget Sound (option D).
KNELLER, HEIDI J   May 13, 2013
LYNNWOOD, WA
Comments:
Option D provides the best protection to a hallmark of our ecosystem. GPOs shouldn't just be protected in certain areas. Like most animals they do travel. There should be no need to harvest any of them around here. Ever. As a diver GPOs are one of the most special creatures of our locale and are integral to the fragile balance of Puget Sound. Let's start protecting them as such.
KENNEDY, C   May 13, 2013
BURIEN, WA
Comments:
I'm advocating for Option C of the regulatory options re: Giant Octopus Rule-making. With this intelligent creature being especially acclimated to our specific waters, we need to protect them here. A crucial part of the food chain, feeding even whales, the octopus has a fitting place here. Beyond that, the opportunity for study, to better understand them, as well as to draw tourists to scuba dive here, is also of importance. Thank you for this chance to comment.
REITER, ANDREA L   May 13, 2013
BELLINGHAM, WA
Comments:
I support a combination of option B and option D. The Puget Sound is always in need of more marine preserves and adding these two popular dive sites would be great not only to increase critter watching but also a refuge for marine species. Placing two marine preserves in the lower Puget Sound would help increase fish in the areas. I would also like to see option D take effect as well. We know very little about Giant Pacific Octopuses and it would be a shame to continue allowing harvest of these animals only to later find out how important they were to the Salish Sea ecosystem. As a state we have allowed harvest of many of our species right up to the point where they have become endangered then do too little too late to help the species. We need to change our ways of thinking about the Salish Sea as a resource and start protecting it to ensure its health far into the future.
GROVER, WHITNEY   May 13, 2013
COVINGTON, WA
Comments:
I am in agreement with Option C. The reason being harvesting should not occur in marine preserves in the first place except for scientific research and education. GPO sightings are not super common in our waters and by discontinuing their harvest in the most popular dive sites our state has to offer we can keep tourists and local divers educated and up to date on the importance of the species.
SHAW, LEO J   May 13, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
Favor Option D - Sport diving for pleasure without the take of marine species is a much larger part of the dive community. In my 28 years as a marine educator at the Seattle Aquarium I have seen the advantage of marine reserves from an educational standpoint. Giant Pacific Octopus is one species that always creates awe and wonder. It makes sense to protect this species as a special case.
LAMONT, JANET L   May 13, 2013
PORT ANGELES, WA
Comments:
I support Option B - no recreational harvest of all species - although I would like to see additional sites such as Three Tree Point North, Les Davis, Day Island Wall, Salt Creek, and Mukilteo added to the list.
OLSEN, TODD C   May 12, 2013
MAPLE VALLEY, WA
Comments:
If only one option is allowed, I believe option D is the best option for protecting the GPOs. However, I believe a combination of options B and D would provide protection not only to GPOs but other marine species that are starting to make a comeback to Puget Sound waters.
MURREN, CAROL A   May 12, 2013
SHORELINE, WA
Comments:
I would like to see all of Puget Sound closed to octopus harvest. They are kind of like puppy dogs to us divers. If not full closure then I suggest Option C at the minimum. Be sure to include the Edmunds Underwater Park, too.
MARDESICH, NIKOLAS A   May 12, 2013
ANACORTES, WA
Comments:
I believe very few octopus are harvested by recreational anglers, and most scuba divers have a hard time getting them out of their dens or do not attempt to, as they are primarily nocturnal and also very elusive. As long as shrimp and crab biomass is strong, I see no reason why octopus populations wouldn't be as well. I have found very limited research documents concerning inshore/offshore seasonal migrations, breeding, or abundance levels of Octopus dofleini in Puget Sound by WDFW. The University of Alaska Sea Grant report No. 88-03 provided the most informative data I could find. I believe more research is needed to understand this species in Puget Sound.
HILL, JOSHUA   May 11, 2013
TACOMA, WA
Comments:
Public outcry on this issue was not based on law. It was based on emotion. Although I am a SCUBA Diver and enjoy seeing Giant Pacific Octopus in the wild, I do not think WDFW should undertake any sort of closure or restriction without the benefit of scientific research, or popular vote.
BRITTEN, JEREMY S   May 10, 2013
BOTHELL, WA
Comments:
As a scuba diver I would like to see GPOs protected from harvest in the popular scuba diving sites listed in Option C at minimum.
WILSON, STEVEN   May 10, 2013
REDMOND, WA
Comments:
These creatures are the most intelligent animals I have ever encountered, and there is no reason they should be harvested.
SCHWICKER, VIRGINIA   May 10, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
AS a diver in Puget Sound I believe the GPO should be protected throughout Puget Sound. This is a species that is known to be intelligent and there is no need to hunt them for any purpose. With the little information we know about this species all the more reason to protect them in order to get a better understanding of their nature. I support total protection for GPO.
MCKAY, PAUL   May 10, 2013
SAMMAMISH, WA
Comments:
While I personally do not feel that any GPO's should be harvested in Puget Sound, I would be supportive of Option C - which would provide the most protection to the general diving public and the most frequently accessed diving sites.
SIMPSON, SUSAN   May 10, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
I am in favor of at least option c if not D. What makes more sense is to have no-take reserves Plus size limits every where else. If you take an octo sitting on eggs those eggs are likely to be eaten by the fish once they lose protection. The octopus is pretty much a sitting duck anyway because they stay there in the same place for months while tending eggs. Due to word of mouth they can be easily found. Not very sporting. Ling cod have a limited season of just a few weeks. Sturgeon over a certain size cannot be taken because they are breeders. Why not have season and size limits on octopus to protect the species?
LAFRENIERE, MICHAEL   May 10, 2013
BURIEN, WA
Comments:
I would like to suggest that Seahurst Park should be added to both Option B and Option C. The park has already been designated a Marine Reserve Area by the Burien City Council due to its environmentally sensitive character. The City and other agencies have been working for many years to restore the beach habitat and these efforts have received ongoing study by the University of Washington School of Marine and Environmental Affairs. The park is also the home of the Environmental Science Center, a nonprofit that does environmental educations for the public and students. It is also home to the Marine Science Center operated by the Puget Sound Skills Center and Highline School District. There is an underwater life sciences monitoring station located just 200 feet offshore from the Marine Science Center. Perhaps this could be used to help study the Giant Pacific Octopus, and the park and its assets used for environmental education about GPO habitat.
PLUNKETT, MARK D   May 10, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
On behalf of the Seattle Aquarium, we are pleased to have worked closely with WDFW and WDNR to identify the best management options for the giant Pacific octopus. I commend WDFW for the careful, deliberate and transparent process of the past six months. We believe the best alternative to maximize "watchable wildlife" encounters with the GPO is Option C - Marine Preserves with no recreational harvest of GPO at the seven sites WDFW has identified. Following the Commission's decision this summer, we look forward to working closely with you, the SCUBA community and other intersted parties to develop an ambitious and collaborate plan for educational outreach on GPO conservation. Thank you.
ELTRICH, RICHARD   May 10, 2013
GIG HARBOR, WA
Comments:
I support option D as my first choice and option C as my second. I urge the Department to protect Octopus as fully as possible and provide the fastest potential for recovery and sustainability of the species through careful management. I applaud the Agencies desire to tackle this unpopular position with many divers and having the guts to take action before the populations decline further.
EVENSON, MARILYN   May 9, 2013
TACOMA, WA
Comments:
1. Giant Pacific octopus. Thank you for reconsidering rules & laws for the harvesting of this sea animal after the public outrage last November at Alki Point of the cruel killing of a Giant Pacific octopus. Please protect them & choose option D, no killing. 2. Cougars. I do not think they should be hunted at all. Man keeps "managing" wildlife by slaughter. Our job should be to preserve them. Do not extend the hunting season nor use dogs or bait in hunting. 3. Black bear. There are many black bear conflicts as we are encroaching on their territory. Killing is not the answer. Relocation helps but is not always feasible. Educational programs can help so people do not unwittingly entice the bears to their property. 4. Stellar sea lions. There is a long standing conflict about the sea lions eating salmon, endangered also. Even tho the sea lions are protected by the ESA, they are still being harassed & killed. The truth is...the sea lions are not totally responsible for the salmon decline. Man is responsible because of overfishing with the public's demand for fish consumption. Please keep them on the endangered list. Thank you for considering my comments. Marilyn Evenson Tacoma, WA 98445
HOWE, EMILY R   May 9, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
I would support options C or D. I think protections should be in place for more areas within Puget Sound, especially those that are especially good habitats for the octopus. We do, however, allow recreational harvest of many other species (clams, mussels, fish, deer, birds, etc.), so a complete ban seems unnecessary, and perhaps reactionary, unless octopus populations are threatened. I would think it odd that we would place a ban on collecting this organism, while still allowing the harvest of endangered salmon. I am not, however, aware of the octopus' population status. It may be prudent to ban collection in the sound, but allow it elsewhere.
SMALL, YANCY E   May 9, 2013
GRAND RAPIDS, MI
Comments:
I would strongly like to see Option D adopted and would support a ban world wide of the killing of these amazing creatures.
SNAPP, KRISTIN   May 9, 2013
PORT TOWNSEND, WA
Comments:
Option D
GOFF, MAUREEN   May 9, 2013
PORT TOWNSEND, WA
Comments:
The recreational fishery for these amazing creatures seems to be primarily for sport and trophy, not subsistence or meat. I don't agree with the need to harvest. I think 1 per day per license could eventually have a negative impact on the population and thus an economic impact - many people travel to our region just to SEE these beautiful animals. That revenue simply won't last if we create a sport of octopus wrestling to the death. My vote is for Option D: Puget Sound closure to recreational harvest of Giant Pacific Octopuses.
KADLEC, MEREDITH   May 9, 2013
NORTH HOLLYWOOD, CA
Comments:
Option D is my preference. Thanks.
EVENSON, MARILYN   May 9, 2013
TACOMA, WA
Comments:
Thank you for reconsidering options for the Pacific octopus after public outrage last November at Alki Point of the cruel killing of one of these octopi. Harvesting should be stopped. There isn't any sound reason to brutally kill these marine animals. Option D should be the choice. Thank you.
GRONDIN, AMANDA J   May 9, 2013
PORT TOWNSEND, WA
Comments:
Please choose Option D and shut down the recreational Pacific Giant Octopus fishery. This fishery is not about feeding people. Prior to the unfortunate actions of one person punching an octopus for an art project, diver tour opperators had no idea that harvest was an option. Tourist were happy just to dive and see the octopus. Keep these creatures alive and tourists will come to see them.
GRONDIN, AMANDA J   May 9, 2013
PORT TOWNSEND, WA
Comments:
Please choose Option D and shut down the recreational Pacific Giant Octopus fishery. This fishery is not about feeding people. Prior to the unfortunate actions of one person punching an octopus for an art project, diver tour opperators had no idea that harvest was an option. Tourist were happy just to dive and see the octopus. Keep these creatures alive and tourists will come to see them.
CHAMBERS, CHRISTOPHER J   May 8, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
After MUCH thought, I vote for option D. There is nothing beneficial in harvesting the GPO in the Puget Sound. It is neither sport (because they are SO docile, albeit curious, to humans) nor quality seafood. Not only are they a unique species to our local biodiversity but extremely limited in numbers as well. I can state, first hand, that (and I quote), "cuz of this news, you dumb-fuck divers didn't realize that NOW we know where they are so we're comin huntin. It ain't illegal so there's nothin you hippie fuckers can do." Don't know many dive hippies, only people that understand the diversity and how the ecosystem works.
WIELAND, KURT F   May 8, 2013
NORTH BEND , WA
Comments:
I support the no-take alternative for Pacific giant octopus. It is time to leave these gentle giants alone. They are far more valuable as the highlight of a dive or the occasional lucky find in a tide pool than as a pointless dinner item. Harvesting of these animals serves no point, and there is no one in our state whose survival in any way depends on killing octopus. We have also lost a significant population to reduced oxygen levels in Hood Canal over various years-- we do not need to add to these stresses on the octopus populations in our inland seas. People were rightly outraged last year by the taking of an octopus from a popular dive site and it opened people's eyes to an incredibly wasteful and pointless "sport." Leave our giant octopuses alone. Thank you.
MUNTEAN, ELIZABETH   May 7, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
Please do everything you can to protect the Giant Pacific Octopus. The only way we will ever stop decimating the environment is through individual choices to make a stand and protect the wilderness that every human being has a responsibility to protect. We take so much from this planet and give nothing back, this is a one way street and we are getting close to the dead end. Every inch of land and ocean counts, every species is essential to the function of the global ecosystem. If we don't start making the choices to conserve now, we will reach the point of no return. Though it may seem small, this decision is crucial, so please do everything in your power to save the octopus.
REISER, EMILY F   May 7, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
Option D should be implemented. Recreational harvesting of these octopuses should cease in all of the Puget Sound. The Puget Sound is well known for an abundance of these beautiful creatures, and there should be nothing that threatens this. Many people scuba dive in the Puget Sound just to see these octopuses, and recreational harvesting is only causing a decrease in their numbers. Octopuses reproduce once and then die, therefore any disturbances in their population size would take a while to recover. Plus, their offspring only have about a 1% survival chance from hatching to 10 millimeters. It also takes a good amount of time for an octopus to get to a "giant" size. All of this being said, the giant pacific octopuses of the Puget Sound need to be protected without the disturbance of recreational harvesting. There are plenty of other things that already cause disturbances to all the creatures of the ocean, recreational harvesting shouldn't be another.
TEKOLA, SARRA Z   May 7, 2013
MAPLE VALLEY, WA
Comments:
I believe Option D would be best. The Puget Sound is treasured to have the largest octopuses around. As a diver, I personally know people who have come from the East Coast to dive in the Puget Sound just to see these spectacular creatures. They are as symbolic as the salmon to Puget Sound and deserve protection. Octopuses only mate once in their lifetime, so their population takes awhile to recover from a disturbance. On top of that with Puget Sound having the most acidic waters already due to ocean acidification, upwelling and poor circulation and since Giant Pacific Octopuses eat crabs, which are endangered by ocean acidification the octopuses are in turn also endangered.
FORSNESS, JAMES   May 7, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
I prefer to see Option D enacted and would be proud of WA State protecting this fascinating species.
HANSEN, JOSH   May 6, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
I strongly oppose a recreational and commercial season for Giant Pacific Octopus. I am first and foremost an advocate of recreational fishing. These creatures offer little if any "sport" to catch and since they are slow growing and intelligent, I think they should be left alone.
BACHMEIER, DANIEL   May 6, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
Please ensure that the GPO cannot be harvested in the designated dive sites including but not limited to Alki-Coves 1,2 and 3. These are prime habitat for mating, mature GPOs and very often the females are on eggs. Thousands of divers come and spend their dollars to dive these sites and most hope to catch a glimpse of one of these beautiful animals. Thanks you, Dan Bachmeier
TURNER, KEVIN R   May 6, 2013
FRIDAY HARBOR, WA
Comments:
I support Option D - full closure of GPO harvest in Puget Sound. As an alternative, I would support Option C, but with an added seasonal component closing harvest in all of Puget Sound during the nest-guarding season. In addition, I would support language prohibiting the removal of octopus from their dens for any reason, including non-consumptive purposes (i.e. removal by divers for recreational observation).
STILWELL, ANGELA   May 5, 2013
PORTLAND, OR
Comments:
I vote for option d, NO harvesting, or a limit of 1 per season.
RENZ, TIM   May 3, 2013
AUBURN, WA
Comments:
I would support option B or C. Option D is not appropriate, as there is a legitimate need for some to legally harvest the GPO as a food source. Option A does not meet the needs of a public outcry for action to be taken on this issue. Option C is the better of the two options that I support. The ability for divers, especially new divers to encounter this amazing critter is critical to the continued protection of the biodiversity of the Puget Sound. One of the things that got me interested in Biology and diving were the rumors in the late 80's of a GPO that lived at Redondo. I was not satisfied as a new diver until I saw my first GPO. As a dive instructor, it was with great pleasure that I showed my students their first GPO.
ALBESO, LARRY G   May 3, 2013
PUYALLUP, WA
Comments:
I feel as long as dfwl allows to harvast and angler is eatting them why not let them, I think the comercial scuba outfiters is only out to look for them selfs to make MONEY.
AKESON, RON   May 3, 2013
BELLINGHAM, WA
Comments:
Option D. Octopus are too short lived for an active recreational harvest. If fisherman and divers starting collecting 1 per day it would not take long at all to destroy the current population.
RACINE, MICHAEL D   May 3, 2013
SNOQUALMIE, WA
Comments:
I support Option B - the creation of Marine Preserves at Redondo Beach and Seacrest Park Coves 1, 2, 3 for the following reasons: 1. It is limited in scope and preserves the right to fish Giant Pacific Octopus in many locations. 2. It recognizes that Redondo Beach and Seacrest Park are the two most popular shore dives in the state that are not currently protected. These two sites are utilized almost exclusively for dive training and watchable wildlife. 3. The protection offered in Option B to these two sites is comprehensive and extends beyond just the Giant Pacific Octopus. Regardless of which option is chosen, the commission is strongly encouraged to adopt more reasonable fishing regulations that apply sensible limits on the amount and species of octopuses that may be harvested. In general, current regulations allow for one animal per day, 365 days per year.
BONNEMA, LUCAS   May 2, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
I am in support of option 4, the closure of Puget Sound to recreational octopus harvesting.
BUSTAD, DAGGON T   May 2, 2013
TACOMA, WA
Comments:
This isn't an issue about conservation. This is an issue that is how one group of divers views dive sites and specific animals. Many of the sites were built and or maintained by money collected through (the ever increasing) licensing fees. To close them off to fishing or collecting to one group because another doesn't like to see it would be like a bicyclist stopping people from driving I-5 because they enjoy riding their bikes down the freeway. It just doesn't make sense. Appropriate harvest limits and seasons based on scientific data is what needs to happen. Many people don't like watching ducks get shot but it is still allowed. This is no different. To close off many of the sites that have been proposed would cut off access to gathering gamefish etc to those that do not own boats, nor can afford to charter a vessel. I think that with the cost of our instate licenses at or exceeding most other states non-resident fees to add the additional cost of a boat is wrong.
METCALF, CHRIS   May 2, 2013
OLYMPIA, WA
Comments:
Option A is my opinion to be the best option for the harvest and protection of the Giant Octopus. As a fisherman who fishes the Les Davis Pier and Point Defiance Boat House, I have seem many different species of invertebrates and fish caught at both locations. In the last five years, I have only seen one octopus caught by the rod and reel. It was less than 3 inches in size. There is no need for new regulations.
PITTMAN, DAVID W   May 1, 2013
RENTON, WA
Comments:
I choose option D; closure of Octo. Harvest in puget sound. Also I would choose no commercial harvest as well. I have dove for 37 years and have seen octo. hundreds of times and have even seen the same octo many times. Divers spend huge money on dive equipment and travel and many dive charters are supported by the octo, eels and fish the divers are able to see on dives in the Puget Sound. Octo are a key dive attraction for divers, but could easily be overharvested and depleted if harvest and/or sale were allowed into domestic and export markets. Even personal use could easily destroy the octo. population. Octo. have huge value as photgraphic subjects and attractions for divers, but are of limited to no value to food markets, due to cheap imports from other contries. We can not control the harvest of octo. in others contries, but I suggest we guard this unique feature of the Puget Sound marine environment. protection for the Octo. makes Puget Sound a better place for all to enjoy.
TYLOR, RONAYE T   April 30, 2013
FERNDALE, WA
Comments:
I think these intelligent animals should be totally protected from hunting, and vote for Option D. Thank you for your consideration.
JACK, RICHARD A   April 29, 2013
PORT ORCHARD, WA
Comments:
I support both option B and C being adopted. Redondo and Seacrest are both prime training areas for scuba divers. The interactions entry level divers have at these locations can influence their long-term interest in scuba diving and thus subsequent economic decisions supporting local scuba businesses. If there are few of no fish and octopus at these locations, new divers are less likely to continue in the sport and contribute to the local scuba industry. Option C lists a number of more advanced sites where octopus are occasionally to frequently found. These are considered "prime" diving locations and developing them as watchable wildlife scuba tourist locations is in the State's and WDFW long term financial interest. Thus I would prefer the commission adopt both, a broad MPA at both Seacrest and Redondo, and a more limited octopus no-take-on-scuba rule for the option C locations listed.
B, A   April 28, 2013
DES MOINES, WA
Comments:
I am in favor of either Option A: Status Quo - no changes to current regulations or Option B: Marine Preserve
LINDSTROM VOGEL, TINA M   April 28, 2013
SEQUIM, WA
Comments:
Already submitted that I preferred option C and did NOT support option D. Wanted to add that if you choose option C that those dive sites should be posted (if not already posted) with Discover Pass Required access. That way just like hunters and fishermen support wildlife with their licenses, the wildlife watchers can support financially also.
BOHNHOFF-HLAVACEK, GAIL   April 28, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
Hello, I read your West Seattle Herald article with interest, and thank you for giving the community the opportunity to comment on the Giant Pacific Octopus. Of the four options listed, I would prefer Option D which would specifically and clearly close recreational harvest of Giant Pacific Octopuses in Puget Sound. In addition to that, I would like to see the designation of Marine Preserve/Waterfront Conservation Area for ALL species in ALL Puget Sound public parks and state parks with waterfront property, including (but not limited to) Redondo Beach, Lincoln Park, Three Tree Point North, Seacrest Park Coves, and Alki Beaches. Thank you, Gail Bohnhoff-Hlavacek
BLAYNEY, CAROLYN   April 28, 2013
SAMMAMISH, WA
Comments:
Option D
SOULE, DOUGLAS   April 27, 2013
OLALLA, WA
Comments:
I see no justifiable reason to harvest any octopus in the Puget Sound. The natural predators including 6 gill sharks will keep the normal balance nature intended. I am in favor of Option D. I sincerely hope that this is the option selected.
WHETNALL, LYNN   April 26, 2013
LYNDEN, WA
Comments:
Please protect the octupuses. Leave them alone and let them be. Thank you!
DOWNING, JOHN E   April 26, 2013
NORTH BEND, WA
Comments:
I ask that the commission adopt Option C, No recreational harvest of GPOs at the seven sites listed. Statement FOR Option C: This option focuses on the initial issue: Taking GPOs from popular sites. Everything else is too great in scope. Statements Against the Other Options: Option A: Do not do nothing. SCUBA equipment and existing laws allows someone to wipe out a site in a week. Harvesting GPOs with SCUBA equipment isn't hunting, it's gathering. It's just too easy to clean out GPO dens with SCUBA (or closed circuit or semi-closed circuit). Option B: This started as a GPO issue, and this decision should remain a GPO issue. Understanding all the issues surrounding conservation of multiple species is beyond the scope of any one decision. Option D: This option is too severe. This issue revolves around protecting GPOs at sites where divers frequently visit. Sensible conservation involves compromise, something that is lacking with Option D.
   April 26, 2013
NEBRASKA, LUXEMBOURG
Comments:
In addition to being surprisingly lightweight, no doubt due to their cement construction, from day one these shoes were super comfortable, and now, after three weeks of nearly continuous use, they are even more so. Most are dangerous lower-paying jobs. Clearcutting results in even-aged forests that are more susceptible to big fires. cheap timberland shoes Best Brand To Comfort Your Feet Nevertheless, the firm also produces boots for kids besides male and female boots. According to its proposal, the company will gradually built the children boots market in the following few years. It will increase its market share in the near future so that it is able to lay a rock-hard foundation in the fierce competition. Along with the improvement of internet, the online shops are also the goals of the company, so someday fathers and mothers can choose several children boots for their kids at home or office. timberland shoes uk Champ Beanie97. "It's a distinct honor to be recognized for our growth for the 5th straight year," stated Troy Augustine, President and CEO of iNET Interactive. "Thank you to our customers, our partners and our employees for making it possible." A mysterious expression appears on the priest's face and he turns all lights on. In the shining room, each person finds that there has a wire netting beneath the bridge. Then one of the three gets up the courage and walk through the bridge. www.timberlandshoes-canada.com/ Omã. Paquistão. It is the largest owner of private timberland in western Canada with 796,000 acres, mainly in and around Vancouver and it is estimated TWF owns approximately 11% of the island of Vancouver. Of this acreage, approx 134,000 acres are designated as higher use and, over time, should be for sale as development land. The company estimates it could provide upwards of 25% of the real estate needed for Vancouver Island future economic development. The vast majority of TWF harvestable timber is higher quality Douglas Fir.
VAN HOY , CHRIS N   April 26, 2013
LAKE STEVENS , WA
Comments:
I am an avid diver , and avid spear fisherman... I think you need to get more involved with divers and not Janna nichols and Reef... Why ? Because Janna nichols Is anti fishing, and spear fishing... I see thousands of rockfish diving in puget sound, I have HD video of Blacks, coppers, and every kind of rockfish that are indangered, and i can fish them ... Im telling you there are plenty of rockfish !!!... This octopuss thing is really dumb, and I vote option A .. the DOFW Needs to get underwater and see what is going on in puget sound.. and not listen to Janna nichols.. listen to the fishing people and those of us divers that see what is really under the water, in all of these locations.. thank you Chris Van hoy
CURTISS, DARCY   April 26, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
I support the most restrictive ban on recreational harvesting of octopus, particularly the giant pacific octopus. Darcy Curtiss
GOULD, DAVID A   April 26, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
I support Option D: Puget Sound closure to recreational harvest of Giant Pacific Octopuses.
YOUNG, ALEX   April 26, 2013
WOODINVILLE, WA
Comments:
I favor option A. I fully support the harvest of octopus as long as the population can sustain it. In the history of Washington state how many complaints have been made about this type of problem? I am tired of knee jerk legislation. One young kid made a bad choice about harvest location, he was publicly reprimanded, and I am willing to bet he won
ANDERSON, TONY N   April 25, 2013
BELLINGHAM, WA
Comments:
as a SCUBA diver it is SO awsome to see these great creatures, I don't want to stiffle others so I suggest/feel option C as the best all arround option,
KIRK, HEIDI   April 25, 2013
TUMWATER , WA
Comments:
I suppor option D.
WILKEY, CLIFF   April 25, 2013
SEATAC, WA
Comments:
Thank you for reviewing the rules regarding the GPOs. I believe Option C would provide the best balance for all groups involved on the matter.
STAWITZ, CHRISTINE C   April 25, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
As a Washington citizen, diver, fisheries scientist, and Seattle Aquarium volunteer, I support limiting recreational catch of Giant Pacific Octopus in Puget Sound. GPO's are one of the characteristic megafauna of our region and one of the reason divers enjoy exploring our area to begin with. Watching one be taken out of its habitat and killed in a common dive location would be upsetting to many who seek out this animal while diving. Additionally, I am not against recreational GPO harvest, but our knowledge of their abundance is limited such that the impacts of this recreational fishery is not known. If GPO recreational fishing continues in Puget Sound, we should institute a more comprehensive assessment program. The GPO is one of the animals which visitors to the aquarium and divers in the area are most excited to observe, and as such its value as wildlife to observe in these dive sites exceeds its value as a commercial food item. Thanks, Christine
   April 25, 2013
PENNSYLVANIA, BURMA
Comments:
En effet, il en existe de toutes sortes : crampons moul viss etc. Le choix d de la surface sur laquelle jouera l'enfant.. chaussures nike free run 3 Atlas de Dermatologie du Prof Heenen Ici, dès que l'on va dans la montaña (qui désigne en fait tout ce qui ressemble à de la jungle), on utilise les fameuses bottes Colibri. Ce sont des bottes en caoutchouc avec de très gros crampons, il suffit de porter des chaussettes hautes pour que cela soit confortable. nike air yezzy 2 Exécutant, sous la direction d'Anne Fontaine, l'exercice qui lui coûte le plus: ne rien faire. Afin de tester cette hypothèse, une quinzaine de jeunes âgés d'environ 23 ans et une douzaine de personnes âgées de 73 ans en moyenne ont été recrutés. Les volontaires ont accepté de porter des semelles normales ou à base d'un gel contenant trois éléments vibrants à une fréquence aléatoire, deux à l'avant du pied et un sous le talon, lesquelles constituent un système de stimulation de basse fréquence, indétectable par les sujets. Leur mission consistait ensuite à rester debout 10 minutes les bras le long du corps et les yeux bandés. read more L'important est que la chaussure soit montante, étanche, antidérapante puisse sécher rapidement et surtout que vous vous sentiez bien dedans. Une chaussure de rando peut parfois tenir trop chaud, à voir si vous trouvez quelque chose d'intermédiaire. Dans les parcs parfois on vous prète des bottes lorsque le terrain est trop boueux. Et pourquoi pas des lunettes de soleil au bureau ? Le faux ne?glige?, qui finit surtout par faire touriste, est interdit, sauf pour des raisons physiologiques. Et encore.
   April 25, 2013
KANSAS, TUNISIA
Comments:
There are several ways one can advertise his or her products however, calendars and postcard cards are the be . Willis | Apr 16th 2013 - Magazine printing is something thats been happening since the previous century. It is definitely what you could call a tradition among journalists. cheapraybanssunglassesuk If you like accessorizing, this plain denim shirt from Topshop is long enough to be worn as a dress. Pair with a chocolate brown belt, some braided sandals, and the latest trend of boho beaded necklaces. Try turqoise, brown, and gold colored ones to add some extra color to your outfit. Some well-known styles of shades with this summer season are gone sized - observed about Rome Hilton a great deal! Delicious Couture, and also Prada help to make stylish over-sized frameworked sun shades, in addition to Ben Ford, DIOR, as well as Gucci. cheap rayban sunglasses uk woman who seen the film fancies Ray he is so alpha, the sort of man that makes a girl go weak at the knees as he slings her over his shoulder and carries her out of danger. I really do think that in 2012 we need the return of real men, so that everybody knows where they stand. Prada is also comes in one of the biggest brand which are manufacturers of the sunglasses or eyeglasses. Here we are going to show you bes selling sunglasses which are manufactured by Prada. The Sunglasses which is looking in the above photo has some important specification which tells its quality. Frame is totally pure plastic and plastic lens are providing you with it. Non-polarized and its lens width is 55 millimters, Bridge is 22 millimetres and Arm is 135 mm. Specially for girl that seek fashioned outlook. The quality is fantastic and high power no worries about breaking the material due to its quality. Price is just $168.99 which is not to much expensive because there are many other brands glasses which are in the style but there prices are expensive then it. If you want to buy unique sunglasses then this one is perfect and awesome for you. google site One Stop Destination For Branded Sunglasses
   April 25, 2013
MARYLAND, BURMA
Comments:
Nike Air Max Pas Cher. zapatillas nike 2013 mujer Venezolanos en Miami reclaman reapertura del consulado Sin embargo, en un movimiento que confunde, la Cancillería filtró que tiene previsto encontrarse con los representantes diplomáticos de la dictadura iraní para buscar una solución a la causa judicial que investiga el atentando a la AMIA. Cristina estudio política internacional y sabe que la estrategia del apaciguamiento de Chamberlain con Hitler no sirvió para nada. zapatosnikeairmax2013.com/ Cr son m influyentes que usted o que su jefe. Marquistas y conscientes de la moda, con acceso a un incre poder econ sobre ellos recae el peso de un mercado que se cifra en billones de pesetas. no tienen m de 13 a He aqu los poderosos preadolescentes. Sudáfrica 2010 parece ser el puntapié inicial del marketing, salvo que los técnicos copien a Sir Alex Ferguson, entrenador de Manchester United, quien obligó a los juveniles a utilizar botines donde predominen el negro. La idea del entrenador es desterrar el mundo fashion del deporte, pensamiento que no condice con estos tiempos en que las marcas apuestan fuerte por los jugadores. click here Hay varias. Por un lado, se ve un creciente número de compaías Nike, Starbucks, Unilever o Google, por ejemplo que están cambiando su mentalidad sobre la importancia de la sustentabilidad.
MESOJEDNIK, ANDREW   April 25, 2013
MCCLEARY, WA
Comments:
There is no scientific research that supports the closure of this fishery. An average of 5-10 are harvested each year, total, and this appears to be solely an emotional issue. Manage fisheries based on facts and science, not emotion.
FULLINGTON, JOSH   April 25, 2013
GIG HARBOR, WA
Comments:
I am a scuba diver. I do not believe any changes are needed for Octopus harvest. Their life spans are short and well documented. The biggest threat to octopuses is not harvesting but lack there of. Let me explain. Octopus are a food source for Ling cod and other predatory fish. This is why in protected area's there are virtually no octopuses. If the diving community would like to have more octopuses in popular diving area's then they should be supportive of regular harvesting of all species. Another point i would like to make is that Octopus is hardly ever taken in the PNW. It is not legal to commercially harvest it and a search for online material detailing preparation and harvest of PNW octopus is near non existent. This supports that it is not a popular fishery. In closing, Octopuses are in more danger from Large Predatory Fish than they are Divers. A true solution would involve the harvest of predator fish in an octopus conducive environment.
KEITHLY, JAMES   April 25, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
I would like to voice my support for option C. Thanks for your consideration.
FARACI, RICARDO   April 25, 2013
PORT TOWNSEND, WA
Comments:
I am in favor of option "D" - complete protection of and no harvesting of the octopuses.
SHUMAKER, SALLY C   April 25, 2013
PORT TOWNSEND, WA
Comments:
I am in favor of option D - "Puget Sound closure to recreational harvest of giant Pacific Octopuses".
GRANT, GLENN   April 25, 2013
PORT TOWNSEND, WA
Comments:
* Option C seems best - popular dive sites need some protection. * Consider adding a few more popular dive sites such as: (*) Keystone jetty, whidbey Island (*) Point Hudson, Port Townsend (*) Norrander's Reef (Rockaway Park), Bainbridge
KAVRUCK, BART J   April 25, 2013
PORT TOWNSEND, WA
Comments:
Despite the viable numbers of the Giant Pacific Octopus I would like to see the state vote for a total ban on any harvest of these animals. The octopus, with nine brains, has an extremely high degree of intelligence. The octopus at the P.T. Marine Science Center has solved a problem of retrieving food from a closed lid jar. Others have solved multiple problems of different entry on acrylic cubes with live food inside the cube.
HUVE, BRIAN   April 25, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
I prefer option C - with a limited number of sites where no octopus may be procured. There is a great positive impact to those species through this approach, and it balances the rights of fishers to take animals legally. Humans have a huge capacity to quickly alter species populations. My concern is not about promoting regulation as a reaction to "one" incident, but provide for (1) enough of the species in the future, and (2) promoting the minority emerging market of people coming to our area to dive and see these species. I also support more efforts to procure "sustainability" data upon which to base these recommendations. This seems necessary.
NELSON, VICTORIA   April 25, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
I would like to recommend Option C be adopted. Thank you
TULIN, KIP   April 25, 2013
SEQUIM, WA
Comments:
Option D: the sentience of these creatures is very high on the evolutionary scale. Hunting for sport seems no less than murder. Or, if we want to be consistent, we should have open season on dogs, baby seals, and orcas. Please protect them. They are a NW treasure. kip
LINDSTROM VOGEL, TINA M   April 24, 2013
SEQUIM, WA
Comments:
I would like to urge WDFW to choose option "C" establishing marine preserves for the GPO. In the 1970's I and a dive partner went to the Day Island Cliffs specifically to see a GPO. On arrival all that was in the caves was an empty bleach bottle. That was extremely disheartening. I believe this state has great potential in tourism dollars from its natural resources, and the establishment of preserves where these creatures may be observed and appreciated is beneficial to residents as well as people beyond the borders of our state. I do not support option "D" closure of GPO fishery. Finally, it makes more sense to me to transfer management of GPO to the shellfish management division.
TOOTILL, AN   April 24, 2013
MERCER ISLAND, WA
Comments:
I THINK OPTION C, Marine Preserves
POWERS, KAREN M   April 24, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
Regarding the harvesting of Giant Pacific Octopuses in the Puget Sound area, I believe that all harvest should be eliminated. This short-lived species cannot be well surveyed as it lives deeper than scuba divers can census. Since the young are food for other native species, they add diversity to the food web. Adult Giant Pacific Octopus are also of value to scuba divers wishing to see them in their native habitat. Thank you for considering closing the harvest of the Giant Pacific Octopus. Karen Powers
PENTLAND, MATTHEW   April 24, 2013
SNOQUALMIE , WA
Comments:
I am concerned that this is not the proper way to handle this is bring up and the fact that this is bypassing the WDFW proposal process and therefore should not be allowed. This rule making should not bypass the established due process. This was not part of the 2013-2014 proposals put out and will have to wait until the 2015-2016 Rule making proposal package like any other fishery we have done. We have a framework that we have to work within to manage our fisheries. This is not a conservation concern so should not be allowed under emergency rule making. I would ask WDFW to provide the data showing conservation concerns before this can move forward outside of normal rule making process.
CARDIFF, DIANA L   April 24, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
I vote for Option D: Puget Sound closure to recreational harvest of Giant Pacific Octopuses.
BRADBURY, JAYNE   April 24, 2013
PORT HADLOCK, WA
Comments:
option D, no harvest of octopus in Puget Sound.
OCONNOR, RORY   April 24, 2013
BELLINGHAM, WA
Comments:
I say status quo, or even INCREASE of the octopus sport harvest. This is a fishery that is underutilized. Octopus are not endangered. And your own data show that only 25 octopus were harvested between 2007 and 2011. That's 5 a year. Regulation should be based on science and data, not emotion.
MARLOW, SCOTT W   April 24, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
I support Option D or Option C to help protect Giant Pacific octopuses. I am a recreational diver, and former PADI SCUBA assistant instructor with over 20 years of diving experience. Octopuses are almost as smart as crows. I love to find and watch them in their natural habitat. It is VERY uncommon that you can ever find more than 1 octopus on a local dive. In fact, out of my 200+ PNW dives, the only place I can recall seeing multiple octopuses is on Whidbey Island. Please help protect these smart, beautiful creatures.
MUESEGADES, PAUL   April 24, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
I don't see any reason for harvesting Giant Octopus in the Puget Sound. I vote for Option D. Option C as a bare minimum in my opinion. Thanks, Paul Muesegades
RHYS-JONES, DAFYDD D   April 24, 2013
TACOMA, WA
Comments:
Les Davis (map) Should be: Les Davis(excluding fishing pier) (map) I think this should not be an all encompassing rule. I think fishermen should be allowed to fish for Octo's. Divers have an unfair advantage of knowing where they are right off the bat. Preventing divers from harvesting Octo's in Recreational diving areas will reduce a lot of stress on the population local to that area. Thanks, Dafydd
HOBAN, THOMAS P   April 24, 2013
TULALIP, WA
Comments:
OPTION D It isn't necessary to kill this animal. Stop all permits to divers and require that any accidental catch be released.
VEARY, MARK N   April 24, 2013
HILLSBORO, OR
Comments:
I support Option A (Maintaining the status quo) Though I'm from out of state, I regularly fish Washington waters and would be impacted by harvest reductions. It's my opinion that additional restrictions are not waranted for Octopus in Puget Sound. While beautiful and intelligent, these animals have a short life span and are not threatened or endangered. Per WDFW data only 25 of these animals were harvested by recreational anglers between 2007 and 2011. This change is being driven by a group that wants to monopolize a resource for their benefit only. Restricting consumptive access based on thinking a food source is too pretty and intersting to harvest is just bad policy making.
CARTER, RAYAN C   April 24, 2013
MUKILTEO, WA
Comments:
As a recreational diver, speargun hunter and diehard angler I would like to voice my opinion that option c is the best choice for all interested groups and the octopus population in puget sound. Option c protects the animals in dive sites know around the world that people come to visit and protects the areas where local dive groups have spent years trying to protect. This option also allows anglers to catch the animals in places where there is less likely to be another controversy like the one that occurred at Alki beach. For those of you that are not divers or anglers there is a very healthy population of these animals in puget sound and there is no reason to protect them in the areas not covered in option c since anglers very rarely catch these animals and even more rare decide to keep them. To keep all parties happy and for the sake of the animals option c should be chosen.
JOHNSON, DEVON L   April 24, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
In regards to your (WDFW) 4 options on the table for consideration regarding GPO harvest in Washington State. My preferences are: Option C: Marine Preserves
HERMSEN, DEREK   April 24, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
Options B&C look most appropriate and realistic for potential enforcement. Creating protected dive areas like Edmonds should be the ultimate goal. I think the list of dive sites listed in these two options is a good start. There should be a specific process identified for adding future sites. It is important to define the areas as a specific distance out from the hightide line, and that it would include not only the sea floor, but also the water column and at the surface. All species should be protected and not harvested at these specific sites. I am not opposed to full protection of GPOs throughout Puget Sound, but I feel this is unrealistic in terms of enforcement. Recreational or commercial harvesting of GPOs would be ideal, but that is my personal perspective.
JENSEN, GREGORY C   April 24, 2013
BREMERTON, WA
Comments:
Option C seems like the most reasonable one to me. Although difficult to enforce, I'd also make it illegal to harvest an octopus that is guarding eggs.
TENNEY, APRIL   April 24, 2013
GRANITE FALLS, WA
Comments:
As a marine biologist, avid diver and fisherwoman, this comment is in support of option A, Take No Action. While I was extremely angered about the event that took place in Cove 2, and the divers that saw the incident are friends of mine, I don't think the event justifies new regulations. The giant pacific octopus is in good status, and in no danger of declining in population. The event was so rare it sparked huge outrage, and given the attention, it will probably not happen again for a very long time. As such, any regulations put in place will probably have no good impact except to make some divers feel safer. It will potentially have negative impact in the unknown future, the demands on the budget, and plenty of other unknown side effects just to put a new regulation in place. With a probable negative net impact, as someone who WOULD benefit from any positive impact (of which there are none) I have to not support any action in the regulation of harvesting octopuses.
APEL, GARY   April 24, 2013
BELLINGHAM, WA
Comments:
Of the options proposed, I prefer option D. I see no need for harvest of these beautiful, intelligent creatures anywhere within the Salish Sea.
FEASEL, COLLEEN E   April 24, 2013
HOUSTON, TX
Comments:
I am in favor of Option #3. As an avid scuba diver with over 11 years experience diving Puget Sound, I have had many encounters with these amazing animals. They play a vital roll in the Eco system of Puget Sound. With so few that survive to maturity we need to protect as many as possible. Please consider closing popular dive sites to Octopus harvesting. As a diver one is able to easily locate the dens.
PIERCE, DON C   April 23, 2013
FEDERAL WAY, WA
Comments:
Please support making the entire puget sound a no harvest zone for giant pacific octopus.
HAKKARAINEN, TIMO   April 23, 2013
BOTHELL, WA
Comments:
I support proposal C. If the goal is to reach a resolution whereby the harvesting of GPO's is protected at the most popular dive sites in order to preserve the ability of divers to observe these beautiful creatures, then option C goes the furthest towards this goal. While I could support option B, I believe that limiting the protection to just Redondo and Seacrest park would simply encourage harvesting at other easily accessible dive sites. I do not support the closing of the entire Puget Sound to harvesting of GPO's. They are, in reality, a robust species that is not in danger. I want to tread very carefully and not lightly restrict the recreational or dietary activities of others. I also strongly support the moves in option C to keep the current fishing sites open at Seacrest, Redondo and other sites. It is very important to respect the rights of game fishermen. I think we can definitely work together to respect one another's activities, while ensuring enjoyment in each.
PALMER, LIBBY   April 23, 2013
PORT TOWNSEND, WA
Comments:
I support Proposal D - simplest, easiest to track, satisfies major reasons for protecting octopus for public viewing, applies to many dive sites not on your list (e.g, Ft. Worden, San Juan Islands). Thanks for having a meeting in PT.
NEUBERGER, MICHAEL W   April 23, 2013
MAPLE VALLEY, WA
Comments:
Why are we talking about this? Are GPO's endangered? Are they being over-harvested? Or is this a knee-jerk reaction to someone's hurt feelings. I've been diving Puget Sound since 1978. I enjoy seeing octopus, and I enjoy eating them too. I have not noticed a decline in their population. Please do not impose harvest restrictions based on emotion. Use science, facts, and data. Thanks for listening.
BARRETT, DAVID C   April 23, 2013
PORTLAND, OR
Comments:
Please consider implementing option C. I would prefer to see all these sites as no take of any species (option B expanded). Fisherman have the entire rest of Puget Sound. It would be nice to have some protected spots. As a country we are overdue as far as creating marine protected areas. I have made hundreds of trips to Washington to shore dive at all the spots listed in option C. I learned to dive at those sites and one of the main reasons people go to them is to see GPO's and other marine life. If an unscrupulous person wanted to they could wipe out the population of GPO's at a single site in a matter of days. Lets make these no take zones.
SCHICK, JUSTIN M   April 23, 2013
BONNEY LAKE , WA
Comments:
I like Option D as my choice. Thanks
ARNOLD, RACHEL   April 23, 2013
EVERETT, WA
Comments:
No change in regulation without areas to be closed being closed to all take, and those areas not to have received any enhancement funds contributed by other parties, e.g. the fishing community. ->GPO's are wonderful animals, but so are the rest of the members making up the ecological community. There is no reason, other than our own irrational emotional attachment, to ban harvest of the GPO in particular in any area.
MORTER, MAX   April 23, 2013
GRESHAM, OR
Comments:
i believe there should be harvest allowed even though i love seeing them while diving. i think a great way to mitigate this would be to have wdfw issue a small number of tags for the area and you must have tags to harvest. they can do a drawing to ensure everyone has an equal chance at getting the tag (if they dont get a pugeot tag sound they will be able to buy a different area tag) this way the harvest can be regulated I am also a student going to school for fish hatchery work so i have thoughts on this from many sides
WALLACE, JOHN   April 23, 2013
VANCOUVER, WA
Comments:
Dear Sirs, Creating fishing rules based on public opinion and not on science is not only a slippery slope, but contrary to any established fish and wildlife system in the country. If the fish are endangered, protect them. If they are abundant, make the resource available to the public. It's called the North America Game Management Model. The group PETA refers to all fish as "Sea Kittens". They would have us stop all fishing. What is the difference here? Have we come to a point in this state where we no longer need biologists, and fishery managers, but instead will be satisfied with being bullied into non-scientific management practices by special interest groups? Do not adopt this plan unless it is necessary to protect a dwindling population. Thanks.
SCHILDT, DEVIN   April 23, 2013
LAKE STEVENS, WA
Comments:
I support option B. Limited closure in areas that the local dive community would all agree that are more dive park than recreational fishing or diving area. As a hunter, fisher, diver, and all around sportsman I do not support the closure of the entire puget sound to the legal and ethical harvest of GPO.
COFFELL, SHANE   April 22, 2013
HANSVILLE, WA
Comments:
Although Im opposed to hunting any species in marine sanctuaries, I certainly don't think that they should be put on the do not touch list simply because some divers had a personal relationships with this octopus. If there not over fished, then they should be harvestable in all non marine sanctuaries. It seems like the environmentalists should be paying closer attention to species that are in fact declining but might not be so loveable in the water, rock fish, lingcod, sea cucumbers, sea urchin and gooey duck which repeatedly get pillaged in commercial and tribal fisheries. Just a thought. 20 year commercial diver (non harvester)
LYNNE, SHELDON   April 22, 2013
NORTH BEND, WA
Comments:
I disagree with the inclusion of seacrest in Option B. this is discriminatory against the diver who spearfishes. Especially if the fishing pier is allowed to continue as as open area for fishing for all species. The fishing pier area is off limits to divers. Please manage the species properly as that is the Department's and Commission's duties. If there is a reason to close the area to the take of all species by divers then you should also close the pier as it is surrounded by the seacrest cove 1, 2, and 3 areas.
MORIN, MARK   April 22, 2013
ISSAQUAH, WA
Comments:
Dear Department of Fish & Game, Our state has a massive population of people who will never learn all the different names of areas, zones, bouy markers, etc. You know why? Because there are way too many similar names, I have been here 15 years, had my 100 ton USCG Masters Captains license, college graduate, etc. and I find the maps of the different areas to be basically impossible to learn UNLESS you grew up here your whole life, living in the same small area. The point being = It's time to establish clear, easy to understand, STATE WIDE LAWS with the 1st being NOBODY gets to kill Giant Pacific Octopus, NOBODY needs to in 2013. Don't even start with Native American substance harvest, they can take the money out of the billions in profit from the casinos and buy food like the rest of society.
GILBREATH, JANN   April 22, 2013
NEWPORT, OR
Comments:
Please ban the harvesting of the giant Pacific octopus'. They are very intelligent animals with a short life span. We don't need to see them go the way of so much other sea life, especially to satisfy the palates of those who want to eat them.
HARVER, REBECCA R   April 22, 2013
TOLEDO , OR
Comments:
I am writing to share my support of Option D. These charismatic, intelligent animals are an important part of the marine food web and have a low reproductive rate. Additionally, they are just plain amazing! I have had the pleasure of working closely with these animals over the past six years at the Hatfield Marine Science Center in Newport, Oregon. We display Giant Pacific Octopuses (GPOs) to educate the public about octopus natural history, keeping them 6 to 9 months before releasing them back to the wild. Each individual we've kept has had a unique "personality," most being very sociable, curious, and engaging. Having worked with these animals it makes me ill imagining someone being able to harvest them daily from the Puget Sound. GPOs are much more enjoyable alive than dead. They have immense scientific, intrinsic, and aesthetic value. I greatly appreciate this opportunity to share my thoughts and am hoping tighter regulation on GPO harvest in the Puget Sound is approved.
FUGERE, TIMOTHY J   April 22, 2013
PUYALLUP, WA
Comments:
In response to an e-mail I have received today pointing out option B - I still stand by my opinion of option A. There is not a problem with following the law as it currently is written. Some folks made an issue about another person following the law and utilizing the resources. The same people in the dive community then went to an almost criminal witch hunt after the diver that harvested the octopus that started the whole issue. Let folks legally utilize the resources that are there. Some folks see the diver as just doing his thing, while others see him a "how can he do that?". Please quit reacting to something that is not an issue! Do not "cave in" to the few that think it is only their resource. Tim
GRANQUIST, LAMONT C   April 22, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
With regard to the updated proposal B, I have not seen recreational harvest of any other species be a concern at these sites, so I don't support proposal B, or any proposal involving eliminating all recreational harvest of species. The issue is solely GPOs.
COATNEY, DON C   April 22, 2013
OAK HARBOR, WA
Comments:
I vote on Option A. There is no reason at all to stop the harvest of octopus in the puget sound. Some people may have made a bad decision but the population is stable. There is no reason to beat up law abiding people of the taking of octopus. If you deem in necesarry to close it in some places only do it at dive locations. Deception pass is a popular fishing hole for many people that one would be a bad call to close that for octopus.
BURGESS, IVAN E   April 22, 2013
TACOMA, WA
Comments:
Option D I believe this creature is already overhavested, in the Puget Sound region
HISKEY, STEVE L   April 22, 2013
MONROE, WA
Comments:
This is a vote for your option C (stop GPO harvesting at selected sites). * This animals are a tourist draw. We have had out of state friends visit just to see them on a dive. * Limiting the law to stopping just GPO harvesting doesn't get in the way of Crab harvesting or fishing. * Limiting GPO harvesting doesn't block cultural or sport catch of these animals, but it does block harvesting in specific areas. This reducing the push-back. Please consider the proposal. thanks, Steve
BAXLEY, SANDRA A   April 22, 2013
SPRINGFIELD, OR
Comments:
I think option B, is the best.
BOON, JIM A   April 21, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
Addition to Option 'C': Mukilteo Dive Site. Area would be from the North side of the Washington State Ferry Dock to a point 75 yards beyond the North side of the Oil Dock. The restriction would be for Octopus harvesting only.
SHERIN, JOHN A   April 21, 2013
PUYALLUP, WA
Comments:
i'am countinuing my letter by saying you allow native overharvest by turning a blind eye. sealion population are not controlled by thier preditor (killer whale) so they impact the salmon run's comercial harvesters pay an unfare fee to harvest the amount of fish and shell fish that they are allowed to profit from and the very people who pay the bulk of the fees to suport your jobs yes your jobs you are going to screw with by imposing more rules an restrictions this is BS
SHERIN, JOHN A   April 21, 2013
PUYALLUP, WA
Comments:
once again you see the dept. of f&w wasting time and money on an a non issue to appease a minorty group of elitist who think they own the rights of everyone else to utilize the resources and recreation of the state of washington to my knowlege the harvest of octopus by sportsmen and women is not to common this is the first i've seen or heard of not saying it dosn't occure but i don't think anyone is going down to alki anytime soon to take another octo to give you some background i have been an active hunter and fisherman in this state for over 49 of my 50 years i have seen alot i have been a outdoorsman in washington longer than most of your dept has been alive or a resident of this fine state and have seen envasive species commercial and native fishing do more damadge to wildlife than one stupid kid who killed an octo leagaly but made a poor choice of time and place why don't you the dept utilize your recsources protecting the crab fisherie from the indian fisherman who over fish
TARABOCHIA, RICHARD   April 20, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
Option A is the only requirement as far as octopus regulations in Puget Sound are concerned. There is absolutely no need to change anything. Just because a few divers get upset seeing an octopus brought ashore is NOT a reason for the commission to get involved in something that is not necessary to change. If recreational octopus harvest was a problem in the past it would have surfaced years ago. The only reason it is before the commissioners is because of the publicity involved on this one occasion. No need to change the current regulations for octopus in Puget Sound.....not now, not ever.
KRASNOVID, MARINA   April 20, 2013
AUBURN, WA
Comments:
I am a new diver myself and I am in favor for option C. "Option C: Marine Preserves
NYSTROM, RICK L   April 20, 2013
KIRKLAND, WA
Comments:
We should do everything possible to protect our wildlife. One octopus a year with a tag should suffice.
VELASQUEZ, GLENN   April 20, 2013
EVERETT, WA
Comments:
I think that the regulation should stay how it is currently. I believe not enough ppl actually hunt octupuss on a regular basis to impact its population. Some of the most popular dive sites just happen to have large populations of them so it is bound to see a few taken from those sites but we shouldnt change a law because a few ppl got their emotions hurt. If we were to change any regulation, it should be how many are taken a year per angler and recorded with a catch card, the purchase of seperate license to help study and regulate puget sounds giant pacific octupusses in the range of three to ten dollars. In my opinion the octupuss population is doing fine here but they are elusive creatures able to camoflouge and squeeze through tight crevices so they are gonna be harder to see for most divers without a trained eye.
GULLEKSON, ED D   April 19, 2013
RENTON, WA
Comments:
I recommend option c.
ALBRECHT, DAN   April 19, 2013
NORMANDY PARK, WA
Comments:
I do not support changing the rules because a group of people witnessed something they didn't like. If the octopus population is found to be struggling, then it would make sense to cut back harvest opportunity. Will we outlaw hunting if a group of hikers witness the legal taking of an animal? If you are so worried about image, then make it illegal to harvest the animals in public view. This is a knee-jerk reaction that will help nobody.
BEAN, JOHN   April 19, 2013
VANCOUVER, WA
Comments:
We need to keep the regulations the same. We do not need a knee jerk reaction which limits citizens rights. This is a citizens rights issue! If the octopus population can support the harvest of healthy specimens then we should allow it. Do not infringe upon citizens rights to appease a queasy public who has already FORGOTTEN this issue.
BAILEY, ROBERT V   April 19, 2013
ARLINGTON, WA
Comments:
Do not close GPO harvesting down completely. That is ridiculous. Just make it illegal in the most popular of dive sites. (I am a sportsman/fisherman and a scuba diver).
CLELAND, MATT D   April 19, 2013
KINGSTON, WA
Comments:
If their populations are not hurting I say don't change the regulations. If they are on a decline then you should limit then number a person can take in a year and also close it at any marine sancuaury. I think it should be cloased, if it's not alreay at any place you can't fish for anything else.
WARM, WALLY A   April 19, 2013
ANACORTES, WA
Comments:
just leave it alone. i don't know how many get harvest per year but i bet it's pretty low.just because people had a cow don't mean that it should be illegal. maybe just educate them on ethical harvesting. like don't put it on the hood of your truck.
CAUDILL, NEIL   April 18, 2013
OLYMPIA, WA
Comments:
As a recreational diver in Puget Sound, I support Option D: Puget Sound closure to recreational harvest of Giant Pacific Octopuses. I also support closure (recreational, commercial, and otherwise) of harvest of all species (including GPOs) in Puget Sound. Thank you for considering my comments. Neil Caudill
MICHAELS, LAWRENCE E   April 18, 2013
OLYMPIA, WA
Comments:
Close to all of the sound! I'm a diver and love to see these guys. Also being a dive master, I have taken people out on tours looking for them to show them off and not able to find them. It's a good resource for us divers and photographers. Please protect them.
LYNNE, SHELDON   April 18, 2013
NORTH BEND, WA
Comments:
Option C is fine to protect the giant pacific octopus so long as other activities such as spear fishing are allowed in these areas in accordance with the regulations for species and limits as appropriate.
TANZI, JENNIE   April 18, 2013
PORTLAND, OR
Comments:
I support option C or D. I grew up in Seattle and have always been proud of Washingtons conservation efforts. There are so many species out there that need to be protected so they are around for generations to come.
MILLER, TODD   April 18, 2013
VANCOUVER, WA
Comments:
It seems I have witnessed GPO eggs left alone even in estuary areas. Which makes me scratch my head. I cannot think of what type of natural predator would be able to coax out or muscle out a parent GPO. I am for Option C. This would make the harvesting of GPO more cumbersome to the collector. It would eliminate easy pickings, and give a chance to GPO populations.
MUNSON, LYNETTE   April 18, 2013
FERNDALE, WA
Comments:
I think its a shame when people treat animals cruelly simply because there is no law prohibiting it. Make it illegal to hurt sea animals needlessly,please!
BEANER, STEVEN J   April 18, 2013
STANWOOD, WA
Comments:
It would seem this is a response to an emotional/political concern more so than a resource conservation need. Does the resource need added protection from all user groups or do users need more education?
WILLIAMS, RUTH   April 18, 2013
FERNDALE, WA
Comments:
I would fully appreciate option D on this matter. We really shouldn't want to have an endangered species on our hands. This is just as bad as killing off our Orcas and needs to stop.
WILLESEN, INGE   April 17, 2013
WEST VANCOUVER, BC
Comments:
To whom it may concern,it shocks me to hear that this wonderful and graceful giant species is in danger.How many different animals,mammels,birds ect have we lost due to human greed and selfishness.To see one of these creatures glide through the water and perform what is the most beautiful dance leaves one awestruck.They need our protection as do all living creatures great and small.Please do not put these gental giants in harms way.
BORDEAU, BRIAN   April 17, 2013
WOODINVILLE, WA
Comments:
To the reader: Given that there is no scientific evidence to show anything but a thriving Octopus population in Puget Sound, I support Option A which is to keep all regulations regarding the harvest of the species unchanged. As enforcement of any new regulation will undoubtedly incur unforeseen costs, any change to the current regulation is unwarranted. Finally, given the general lack of interest in harvest of these animals, it is not anticipated that they will be under threat any time soon. Thanks Brian
KNOWLES, PAUL   April 17, 2013
SPOKANE, WA
Comments:
Option C appears to be the best option available to strike a balance between recreation/conservation and fishing/harvesting. Options A-B don't go far enough and Option D is over the top. Ideally, I'd prefer to see something more expansive than Option C, but less extreme than Option D.
KALILIMOKU, STEPHEN   April 17, 2013
BELLEVUE, WA
Comments:
I believe Option "C" to be the best choice. I have no problem with legal harvesting of the Octo's, but those dive sites listed should be excluded from harvesting. Steve Kalilimoku
CHRISTENSEN, STEVE   April 17, 2013
DUVALL, WA
Comments:
The Giant Pacific Octopus are abundant in Puget Sound. There is no scientific evidence that proves otherwise. The WDFW should not be spending time and resources on a matter like this only to protect a few individuals from getting their feelings hurt. The Giant Pacific Octopus has a very short life span of 3-5 years. Would the WDFW even take public comments if the sport fishing community asked for an area to be closed down so only sport fishing could take place there?
TREAT, NATE S   April 17, 2013
LYNNWOON, WA
Comments:
I am a fishing guide. Regulations shouldn't be reactionary and dictated by folks that don't understand how the fisheries work. I think that eliminating octopus harvest because of one incident with bad PR is overreaching and irresponsible management. If octopus are numerous enough to have a sustainable harvest, than that should be the only thing that dictates whether or not we have a fishery. It is not in the best interest of the state's wildlife to set precedent for setting rules simply because someone saw another person harvest a fish. We have more pressing concerns, and this sort of rule making only trivializes the reasons why we have regulations protecting ESA wild steelhead and salmon populations, scheduled razor clam digs, and other serious rules. If people see that we're willing to disregard science and biology in favor of popular opinion, than why should they believe that we have legitimate reasons to limit the harvest of anything else?
SNOOK, BILLY J   April 17, 2013
VANCOUVER, WA
Comments:
I am voting for proposal D. All marine species in the worlds Oceans are at historic LOWS! we need as much conservation as possible!
GRANQUIST, LAMONT   April 17, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
I've been a diver in puget sound since 2003, and I've gone diving with the diver involved in the incident. I'd like to support option C. I don't support option D, and do think we need a little more regulation than option A. We've seen this kind of incident happen before at Les Davis but that was in a pre-facebook / pre-cameraphone era. I think the recreational divers and the hunters simply need a little bit of regulated space in between them, and the vast majority of puget sound should still be available for hunting. Option B makes no sense to me since it doesn't address a site with many GPOs or where this has been an issue. Option C even seems slightly overly-broad and the Alki Junkyard and Deception Pass could likely be dropped (the Junkyard has few Octos and Deception pass would be pretty sport to try to pull an Octo out, so I doubt either site will get hunted at all). Les Davis + Cove 1/2/3 are the sites that have had issues.
CHASE, RON M   April 17, 2013
GRANITE FALLS, WA
Comments:
I support option #1 of no change.
PENTLAND, MATTHEW R   April 17, 2013
SNOQUALMIE , WA
Comments:
It is my understanding that Giant Pacific Octopus are abundant in Puget Sound at this time. Unless there is unbiased scientific evidence that points to the contrary, I see no reason to change any current rules regarding thier harvest or restrict the harvest in any way. Additionally, if an octopus or two is harvested from a location that provides excellent habitat for these animals, others will move into that habitat and replace the harvested animals. I strongly urge you to make no changes to the current harvest rules regarding Giant Pacific Octopus.
FUGERE, TIM J   April 17, 2013
PUYALLUP, WA
Comments:
Please stop reacting to a guy that has followed the rules and now a certain diving community has assumed that it is their beach and has portrayed the spear fisherman as a villain . It is a public beach and harvesting of the few octopuses will not infringe upon the natural beauty of the area or the quality of quantity of the fishery. We as citizens must face the fact that there is a dive sport and a recreational fishing sport that will need to share the same resources. If this was an overharvest issue or an issue of public safety then I believe we should act. At this point a few folks and the media have over-reacted to nothing! Tim
TRAUTMAN, MARSHALL R   April 17, 2013
WEST LINN, OR
Comments:
I think option D is the best for the situation. The GPO is a cornerstone to a tourist industry in Washington. If the Puget Sound is protected for octopus, this will mean more octopus abundance at dive sites, and that the populations may be replenished by other populations of octopus living outside of the dive sites. Hunters who wish to catch GPO will be able to still catch Octopus, but they will be doing it away from popular dive sites, and will not interfere with a vital icon and and attraction to the Northwest.
PERKINS, STEVEN L   April 17, 2013
TACOMA, WA
Comments:
It is my understanding that Giant Pacific Octopus are abundant in Puget Sound at this time. Unless there is unbiased scientific evidence that points to the contrary, I see no reason to change any current rules regarding thier harvest. Additionally, if an octopus or two is harvested from a location that provides excellent habitat for these animals, others will move into that habitat and replace the harvested animals. I strongly urge you to make no changes to the current harvest rules regarding Giant Pacific Octopus. Regards, Steve Perkins
DONALDSON, ANDREA   April 17, 2013
EVERETT, WA
Comments:
We have taken so much from our planet as it is and I believe we are over due to give back. We must preserve what is left so we do not lose all marine life in its entirety. I choose Option D, to eradicate harvesting of the giant octopus in the Puget Sound completely. Realistically, I believe eliminating all harvesting of marine life period in Puget Sound would be best. We have been blessed with the beauty of Earth and it is our job to keep it beautiful and preserve the life on it. If we kill its creatures and eliminate an entire species then we have committed genocide and our murderers of the worst kind. We are a people full of love and beauty and it is time we spread it to the world around us.
ELWELL, RYAN   April 17, 2013
LAKE TAPPS, WA
Comments:
To whom this may concern, No changes should be approved regarding the harvest of the giant pacific octopus. Fisherman rarely catch the GPO but on the rare occasion most are released. This proposal is not aimed at aligning our conservation efforts and is fueled by special interest groups. Please do not consider this change. Best Regards, Ryan
EUCKER, KENNETH   April 17, 2013
PORTLAND, OR
Comments:
I dive the Puget Sound regularly and have only been blessed to see one GPO. Please don't let people just walk in and take them away, they are wonderful creatures for us to enjoy in our waters. I'm advocating option D.
HARRIS, MILES   April 17, 2013
FEDERAL WAY, WA
Comments:
I support Option A: Status Quo - no changes to current regulations. There is no need to set new regulations for Octopus. These animals are not targeted for harvest by hook and line sport fisherman and the population is healthy and not threatened. One legal harvest by a single diver does not constitute the need for new regulation.
SAVIDGE, MATT C   April 17, 2013
BREMERTON, WA
Comments:
There is no need to make any special rules. There is no data to suggest that this species needs protection. Further more there is very, very little effort in actually harvesting GPO by the recreational fishery. Bottom line, no need to make regulations where clearly there is no need. This all stems from one action that a group of special interest folks got upset about. That action was legal and verified by WDFW. My choice since one has been made available: Option A: Status Quo - no changes to current regulations Lets get back to the real issues please and not waste any more time or finances for this issue. R/ Matt Savidge
ROWE, DALE   April 17, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
Option D. NO harvesting of Giant Pacific Octopus in Puget Sound. Seems obvious.
BRAY, RAMONA   April 17, 2013
ENUMCLAW, WA
Comments:
Option c please
MASSIE, MARCUS P   April 17, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
I believe all recreational harvesting of GPOs should be banned in Puget Sound. Thank you.
BRAY, BRUCE   April 17, 2013
ENUMCLAW, WA
Comments:
Option C please.
BRAY, BRUCE   April 17, 2013
ENUMCLAW, WA
Comments:
Option C please.
OLBRICH, RANDALL   April 17, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
Please go with option D.
SNOW, MICHAEL P   April 17, 2013
BELLINGHAM, WA
Comments:
I'm writing as an active diver in Puget Sound to strongly endorse Option C and oppose Option A. While it seems heavy-handed for the state to completely shut down octopus hunting, the value of these animals as a fishery is clearly minimal compared to their value as an attraction to divers. Regardless of economic value, I strongly believe octopi have an intrinsic value as a key component of our local marine wildlife and underwater ecosystems. I purchase a Discover Pass annually and have an EW license plate: if there were a similar option aimed at preserving octopus habitat and enforcing this preservation I would almost certainly help fund this.
NORTHCRAFT, JULIE   April 16, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
Please vote for Option D: Puget Sound closure to recreational harvest of Giant Pacific Octopuses. Thank you!
BARRILE, JENNIFER F   April 16, 2013
LAKE STEVENS, WA
Comments:
I vote for at least option C on the issue of the GPO. People come from all over the word to dive with our GPO. It is not just an emotional issue for myself as a diver, but it is also a financial iss use for the community. Tourists would surely be mortified to see a defenseless GPO struggling for it's life while being torn out of the ocean. I know I was horrified by the images of the one recently taken from Alki. I would love to see the GPO protected in all the Sound; but if that can't be reached, at least protect them at all our local popular dive sites. We dive there for the purpose of a possible GPO encounter, as do the tourist divers who visit our waters. Thank you for considering my vote. Sincerely, Jennifer Barrile
LANI, LISA   April 16, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
I vote for Option D! These beautiful, shy creatures should not be harvested at all! I cannot believe the law allows for one per person PER DAY. That is insane and CRUEL!!!
DEAN, CHRISTOPHER   April 16, 2013
SEATTLE , WA
Comments:
Please go with option D. There are no good reasons why these creatures should be intentially killed by humans.
KITCHEN, RYAN L   April 16, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
As an avid diver, conservationist, spear fisherman, scuba instructor, I was angry and ashamed by the behavior exhibited by the young men who went to a popular local dive spot and blatantly killed a well known octopus and then flaunted this activity and behaved disrespectfully to others. I would like to think people were raised to behave better/act smarter than this. But banning octopus collection in several of the key underwater attractions in our state will at least provide an avenue to reward the special kind of stupid that the above two young men possess with some stiff fines and shame.
HOLLAND, STEVEN C   April 16, 2013
SNOHOMISH, WA
Comments:
I would like to see all of Wa. state closed to any harvesting of giant pacific octopus. These animals are intelligent and need to be protected from divers like the one at cove 2. I am a diver and a spear gun hunter. I do not kill extremely smart animals. Option D is my choice. Steve.
GRAHAM, APRIL   April 16, 2013
KENMORE, WA
Comments:
I am for Option D: Puget Sound closure to recreational harvest of Giant Pacific Octopuses. I do not believe Octopuses should be recreationally harvested due to their rarity, beauty and sentience. They are truly a treasure in the Pacific Northwest, and I would like them to continue to thrive here. I have been scuba diving in the Puget Sound 25 and have only seen one Giant Pacific Octopus. They are sentient creatures that deserve our respect, and are not needed at this time for food.
SCHOLZ, STACIE   April 16, 2013
EDMONDS, WA
Comments:
Regarding new rulings on giant Pacific octopus harvesting, I believe that Option C - no harvesting in certain areas - would be the best venture. I believe this will create a safe environment for the octopus and other animals to tolerate divers and give the divers some up-close interactions unavailable with scared creatures.
RICH, LYLE P   April 16, 2013
KENT, WA
Comments:
Option C sounds like the one that makes the most sense.
SHERMAN, DANIEL J   April 16, 2013
EDMONDS, WA
Comments:
I think D is the best option. Giant pacific octopuses are a local icon. I've traveled around the world to scuba dive and when people hear I'm a diver from Seattle they always ask about our giant octopus. I always hear things like "Isn't that the biggest octopus in the world". The GPO is our local celebrity! We owe it to the giant octopus to protect it thereby protecting part of the pacific northwest. Thank you.
BOZE, JIM   April 16, 2013
SEDRO WOOLLEY, WA
Comments:
Unless GPO are being over harvested or are becoming threatened species there is absolutely no reason to add protections to octopi just because reactionary people who have no concept of what it takes to harvest an animal feel obliged to voice their opinion. Option A Many people feel the need to end certain types of harvests and harvesting curtain creatures but we really need to be more concerned about sustainability and human harvesting. Its baffling how people will go into a restaurant or store and buy a piece of meat without knowing where it came from or how it was killed and handled yet bark when an individual harvests a sustainable delicacy legally.
HUFF, JUSTIN   April 16, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
Thanks for opening up this process! I'd prefer option D, with option C as a fallback.
PETERSON, JAMES   April 16, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
GPO's are awesome, and right up there with Orca and Bald Eagles as a cool indicator species for a virtal environment. Put me down as in favor of Option C as a minimum - more sites would be better, and Option D as my favorite. Option E closure of all recreational and commercial harvest would be my top favorite.
REID, RON   April 16, 2013
LEBANON , OR
Comments:
These are magnificent creatures , option D , no harvest in all of puget sound is my opinion , thanks for your time
CUNNINGHAM, JASON A   April 16, 2013
EVERETT, WA
Comments:
Option A: Status Quo - no changes to current regulations. If we start down this path, eventually every "popular" dive location will have this restriction.
MACNABB, MIKE   April 16, 2013
MISSION, BC
Comments:
Please select option C, these are wonderful creatures that many of us scuba divers love to come visit from Canada as well as many US cities.
BODINE, GARY A   April 16, 2013
BUCKLEY, WA
Comments:
I support option D, in which Puget Sound is closed to recreational harvest of Giant Pacific Octopuses.
BERRY, PETER   April 16, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
I strongly urge the adoption of Option D ~ which would ban the recreational taking of Giant Pacific Octopus from anywhere in Puget Sound. These magnificent and unique creatures are found nowhere else in the world outside of the Pacific NW, and aside from deserving protection and respect in their own right, serve as an attraction to divers coming to this region on vacation and therefore are part of the local environmental assetts that contribute to the local economy. Recreational killing of these beautiful beings should be outlawed and monitored with appropriately rigorous consequences established and consistently put into action.
TUFTE , JANICE   April 16, 2013
SEATTLE , WA
Comments:
Option C , some persons eat octopus, though harvesting sites should be limited, and if then giant octopus is considered endangered then no harvesting or Option D should be implemented.
REN, PAMELA A   April 16, 2013
EVERETT, WA
Comments:
I am strongly in favor of "Option D: Puget Sound closure to recreational harvest of Giant Pacific Octopuses." being put in to place. The mairne life in our waters face enough challenges caused by humans; I see no reason what so ever for there to be any reason to kill these beautiful creatures. Thank you
SMITH, RON   April 16, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
I strongly support Option D - complete protection of the GPO. However, Option C would be acceptable lacking sufficient support for Option D. Thank you
PRATT, NICOLLE   April 16, 2013
VANCOUVER, WA
Comments:
I resoundingly support Option D!
TOUSLEY, BRETT E   April 16, 2013
PUYALLUP, WA
Comments:
Option A: Status Quo - no changes to current regulations This exercise is a waste of time, money and expertise fueled by a single news story. As I recall, the WDFW did not get involved in the I-655 debate which was another foolish exercise fueled by slick commercials on TV aimed at the non hunting public. Why don't you have a series of meetings proposing repeal of I-655 based upon your scientific findings of it's impact? Where do you think the mountain goats went in the cascades?
CHEVALIER, JEREMY   April 16, 2013
AUBURN, WA
Comments:
I support option C, setting up specific preserves where GPOs cannot be collected in order to preserve destination locations for divers where they can be assured of a sighting. However, I do not support banning the collection of the species for the entire sound as it is a sport fishing activity for some. Giant Pacific Octopus are not uncommon while diving and appear to be plentiful even without any current regulation. there either isn't much diver interest in harvesting them or they are sufficiently prolific to sustain the current level of harvest. I am the creator of ThePerfectDive.com, a website which describes each of the local popular dive sites. As such, I have been exposed to the majority of dive sites in the northwest. There are very few good locations for harvesting certain species of fish and other wildlife and I would not like to see the ability eliminated for divers to hunt and fish. It is a popular and exciting sport which brought many people to dive in the first place.
ALLEN, SKIPPER   April 16, 2013
MONROE, WA
Comments:
SCUBA diving is a social sport and as such divers financially support the local communities by patronizing the local businesses before/after a dive. As a diver, one of the biggest attractions to the listed sights is the opportunity to observe a GPO. If the GPOs are allowed to be harvested at the local shore dive locations, then divers will have less reason to dive and support the listed communities. I will never forget my first sighting at Titlow Beach Park in Tacoma. I was a new diver and checking off the list of Moss Bay Dive Club
AMENDOLIA, JEAN   April 16, 2013
ST. THOMAS, VI
Comments:
I would like to see Option D implemented.
DANIELS, SHEILA D   April 16, 2013
FEDERAL WAY, WA
Comments:
The Giant Octupus should not be hunted and diplayed in the manner that Mayer did it. I believe that a person who could hunt, and kill such a defenseless and beautiful creature would not be far from killing a child or any other human being. The animal should be protected species, because there are other people out there doing the same thing and we do not even know what the statisics are for the Puget Sound. We need a study done to see how many there are, before they become endangered.
SMITH, KELLY L   April 16, 2013
WINNEMUCCA, NV
Comments:
KATKANSKY, BRANT   April 15, 2013
BATTLE GROUND, WA
Comments:
As a diver and Washington resident, I am in favor of option D - no recreational harvest of octopus within Puget Sound.
POWELL, ASHLEY D   April 15, 2013
PUYALLUP, WA
Comments:
I vote for Option C: Marine Preserves
SULLIVAN, NATHAN C   April 15, 2013
DAYTONA BEACH SHORES, FL
Comments:
The giant pacific octopus is a non-dangerous, rare, beautiful animal with no harvest value - it is not good for eating, or for any other common fish-harvesting practice (stuffing, etc.) As a dive instructor, I have always believed, and taught, that fishing responsibly is good for our ocean environment, but that regulation is necessary to ensure responsible fishing. In my research of environmental impacts based on fishing, I have found, as many environmentally conscious fisherman have before me, that fish should only be harvested in a way that does not severely reduce their populations, and only if the fish can be used for food or another good usage, or causes danger to either the diver/fisherman or the environment. The octopus is neither a threat to the environment or to people, and does not provide any use harvested; there is therefor no pressing reason why harvest must be allowed. Because they also play an important part of the ocean, we should protect the giant pacific octopus.
TROBAUGH, JULIA M   April 15, 2013
OAK HARBOR, WA
Comments:
GPOs are one of the most sought after photography targets for underwater photographers. With a very short life span already, and high "fatality" rate for their eggs and off spring, I believe the unchecked harvesting through out Puget Sound waters will eventually lead to the end of the GPO population here. I'd love to vote for option D, but I think, given the fisherman population, option C is more realistic. I would also like to see a tag option, much like hunting dear or fishing for salmon. I think there should be a restricted season, as with other types of fishing and harvesting, as well as an annual limit. Thank you for your time and effort to protect this great species.
GUTHRIE, PAT   April 15, 2013
CAMAS, WA
Comments:
Option D: Puget Sound closure to recreational harvest of Giant Pacific Octopuses. I would add also the Hood Canal but perhaps harvest there is already limited. Thank you for taking my input as an avid diver and dive shop owner in the great Northwest. These beautiful creatures are a high point for any diver and taste like an innertube. I don't even like eating them in sushi places. If I can be of any more assistance in helping make this happen, please contact me. Thanks Pat
BLEIWEIS, KELLY   April 15, 2013
ISSAQUAH, WA
Comments:
Please protect these beautiful icons of the North West! Banned all hunting/killing, or at least minimize legal harvesting as much as possible.
WOLTER, PABLO   April 15, 2013
KIRKLAND, WA
Comments:
Option D.
MCMILLAN, STEVE R   April 15, 2013
PENDLETON, OR
Comments:
Regarding GPO Rulemaking process. I would like to comment that option C is prudent in that these areas are actively used by divers that pump money into the community to actively dive these sites and others wanting to see GPO and other inverts and verts. If after research it comes to light in the future that due to acidification/pollution/over harvest etc puts GPO's in peril, then option D. Thank you Steve McMillan * Option C: Marine Preserves
KNIGHT, MISTY   April 15, 2013
KIRKLAND, WA
Comments:
I vote in favor of closing all areas to recreational harvest of the Giant Pacific Octopus (option D). This species is always amazing to see in the wild and draws in many divers to our region from around the world. We also do not have sufficient population data to suggest that the GPO could maintain its population if people began harvesting them as currently allowed. In addition to that concern, I do believe that bioaccumulation should be a major concern for consumption of this species. We know that they consume a large number of shellfish and harvest is usually closed to shellfish due to toxin levels. Allowing harvest of GPO makes no sense in this regard. Also, the current methods of allowable harvest are difficult to monitor and enforce, many speculate most are not harvested as allowed. Let's simplify things and guarantee the future of the GPO in the Puget Sound by disallowing future harvest.
YOUNGSTROM, BRIAN   April 15, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
Hello, I am an avid recreational diver with a fair amount of time at both Cove 2 and Three Tree Point. I fully support Option C and Option D. I would also encourage the Commission to review the rules of GPO harvesting. In particular, do the current rules of 1 GPO/day every day make sense? Why do we not protect females that are on eggs? Thank you for your time and considerations.
SEARLE, KATHARIN L   April 15, 2013
LANGLEY, WA
Comments:
Option C. I don't think harvesting should be closed in the Puget Sound as a whole, but protect specific areas.
STOKES, DAVID   April 15, 2013
PORT ORCHARD, WA
Comments:
I would recommend option D. I would argue that most of the harvesting done is for sport and most if not all the meat is wasted. Octopus really isn't that good and when they are big the meat is tuff
GORCHELS, ELISE M   April 15, 2013
MADISON, WI
Comments:
I'm not sure if my opinion "counts" since I no longer live in the area - but I did truly love the diving out there, and will be back to visit as much as I possibly can! I don't think the GPO population seemed very much in threat when I was diving there, and I like to harvest other things such as crab. But I do agree that taking octos from very public sites, where divers frequently visit these animals, is problematic. I am therefore in support of Option C.
PLEISS, RICHARD   April 15, 2013
REDMOND, WA
Comments:
Option d No rec harvesting
MORIN, MARK   April 15, 2013
ISSAQUAH, WA
Comments:
It's time that we start putting the wildlife survival above the never ending demands from human. Guess what? As a certified diver I can say for a FACT that Giant Pacific Octopus are NOT common to see in WA waters...if I ever saw somebody trying to kill one I would not just stand there...I would do everything I can to stop them...there is a certain part of our society that only cares about themselves...everything is here for them to use...they don't care about the future...the days of indulging this mind set are over...we need actual easy to understand structure and some easy to follow rules...not the usual "Marine area A to buoy 9" BS that you write these impossible to memorize rules for the general public.
KELLEY, MATT A   April 15, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
If the science is good for a harvestable species, then there is no reason to change regulations because you are offending non hunters and gatherers. If the fishing and hunting regulations were governed as to not offend these people than there would be no need for you as there would be no taking of wildlife. This is reactionary to the bad press of legal harvesting of an octopus. Discussion of off limit areas should be discussed and how the people that use them can pay to support those areas. A ban on harvest not due to science and management of the species should not be considered.
MULLINS, MIKE   April 15, 2013
GRESHAM, OR
Comments:
Let me start out by saying I
POOLE, FRANK   April 15, 2013
KENT, WA
Comments:
Please put my vote towards C or D. They are an attraction to locale divers and a great instrument in helping "Non-divers" appreciate the Under Sea Environment. * Option C: Marine Preserves
FREDRICKSON, MONICA L   April 15, 2013
RENTON, WA
Comments:
Option D: Puget Sound closure to recreational harvest of Giant Pacific Octopuses is what I would prefer. The Giant Pacific Octopus is rare and beautiful. There is little reason to hunt them as they are not good eating. While I don't hunt myself, I can understand desiring to hunt ling cod, dungeness crab, or one of our other faster reproducing, thriving species. The Giant Pacific Octopus, however, isn't in that category. We protect our treasures like the 6 gill shark, the wolf eel and the orca. Our octopus are also treasures. People come from around the world to see them. Let's protect them, just like we do our other regional treasured species.
BAILEY, ROBERT J   April 15, 2013
FEDERAL WAY, WA
Comments:
I would prefer Option C. Options A & B are, to my concern, too limiting. And my biggest concern with Option D would be a backlash from hunter/gatherers ... who we don't really need to alienate. Targeted protection at specific dive sites seems an appropriate response. Thanks ... ... Bob
SENSEL, JONI   April 15, 2013
ENUMCLAW, WA
Comments:
Hi, DFW folks -- thanks for your work on the GPO issue and for taking public comment. I'm a local diver in favor of, ideally, Option D, but at minimum, Option C of your rule change options. I've been diving in the Sound for about a decade and I've seen 3 or 4 GPOs in that time. IMO, they are hardly so plentiful that we can afford to let whatever "sport" that the taking of one might afford to a single diver eliminate the opportunity for many, many more divers, including tourists, to have the thrill of spotting that octo (and probably its offspring) over its natural lifetime. In addition, at common dive sites, these smart creatures are too accustomed to diver contact for hunting them to be anything but a betrayal of painstakingly built trust. Please close Puget Sound to recreational harvest.
CALDWELL, PAUL L   April 15, 2013
OLYMPIA, WA
Comments:
Option C. All the popular dive sites have been named. Now, leave the remaining areas of Puget Sound available to those who legally harvest.
TANTIHKARNCHANA, PITCHAYAPORN   April 15, 2013
PULLMAN, WA
Comments:
I choose option B. I'm not sure of how many people have valid fishing license, but if there are many and each catch one, it would lessen and put the octopus in endanger. Also, if we won't protect other species too, it might ruin the food circle of octopus. Moreover, the regulation should tell which month of the year that can harvest, since if this allow for all year long it might kill all the new born octopus.
GAUF, JASON J   April 15, 2013
LOON LAKE, WA
Comments:
Option A! And I still want to know why this jackass divemaster wasn't charged with hunter haressment! All he was doing was trying to protect his tourist operation
UFFELMAN, KAREN   April 15, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
I vote for option D. Please protect giant Pacific octopuses. Sincerely, Karen Uffelman
NORRIS, RICHARD D   April 15, 2013
LAKE STEVENS, WA
Comments:
Please do not shut down Octopus harvesting throughout the sound. Being a diver I would just appreciate seeing Alki Point and other listed dive sites included as no-take zones. Richard Norris
BEAM, ROBERT   April 15, 2013
ARLINGTON, WA
Comments:
Option A status quo. If the Octopus are at stable levels and not threatened people should be able to catch and eat them. If they are threatened then appropriate measures should be taken to protect them. Fish and Game regulations seem to work better when d
WINSKILL, DON   April 15, 2013
TACOMA, WA
Comments:
I was dismayed to read that you are even considering the closing of octopus fishing because a small number of individuals were offended by seeing the harvesting of octopus by some divers. Actually, I was astounded that such would be a legitimate basis for
RICHFORD, RICK   April 15, 2013
LEAVENWORTH, WA
Comments:
I like option D
STALLER, BONNIE L   April 15, 2013
ELMA, WA
Comments:
I would go with Option C
SISSONS, SCOTT R   April 15, 2013
GIG HARBOR, WA
Comments:
As a concerned citizen and fisherman....I vote for Option C.....
BUNCH, WENDELL   April 15, 2013
OAK HARBOR, WA
Comments:
I would support options A, B, or C. I do no not support D. Octopus are short lived and die after spawning, we continue to harvest salmon who have a similar life history. I would also support an annual limit.
LUEDKE, BABETTE   April 15, 2013
MONROE, WA
Comments:
I endorse Option D: Puget Sound closure to recreational harvest of Giant Pacific Octopuses. I can see no viable reason for hunting this special creature of the northwest.