COATNEY, DON C  September 21, 2012
OAK HARBOR, WA  
Comments:
We have a huge abundance of rock fish up and down the coast and now you want to limit what type we can keep again. NO we already got our 1 fish pulled from inside the puget sound in which if you ever dove you would see that there is more rock fish down there than ever but yet we can not fish them. Come on use some math and science on this and do not hold the public to only 3 spicies of rock fish in our fruitfull waters.

GIRTZ, TODD   September 21, 2012
SUMNER, WA  
Comments:
no need to close all other rock fish. Only close the fish with low stocks there is no shortage of baccaccio off the washingtion cost.

WARDLOW, DONALD D  September 22, 2012
WOODINVILLE, WA  
Comments:
Don't like this one. Doesn't make sense. Rockfish don't seem like migratory fish to me.

MARTIN, DAVID B  September 24, 2012
FREELAND, WA  
Comments:
I am against this proposal. You would be better served to reduce the size requirement and increase the daily catch limit for Lingcod. Natural predidation has a far greater impact on these species than the limited time anglers are fishing for them.

DURBIN, JOSH D  September 24, 2012
BELFAIR, WA  
Comments:
I think this is a bad idea for many reasons, but the main reason is because by supplementing our harvest with multiple species we are not overfishing the bass population.

GARNER, RON G  September 28, 2012
MONROE, WA  
Comments:
This should be printed East of the line. There are very many different types of bottom fish to catch in this area. We have been shout out of the 120' line and now want us to not catch any other fish. If you know how to fish this area and what tide it can be very healthy fishing. It is a small boaters fishery and needs to be left alone for them.

HIBBARD, KEN L  October 02, 2012
EVERETT, WA  
Comments:
This is bad I do not agree with this proposal, Stop the comercial fishing and this won't be a probelm.

PENEV, KAMEN   October 02, 2012
SAMMAMISH, WA  
Comments:
I oppose this proposal. The endangered canary and yellow eye are already illegal to retain. Non-endangered species should remain legal to harvest.

STUDZINSKI, TOM   October 05, 2012
MARYSVILLE, WA  
Comments:
#66 4B Fish protection-No-85% is already under closure and protection. This is a closure on the small boat fishery.

HARRIS, MILES   October 05, 2012
FEDERAL WAY, WA  
Comments:
No. I do not support this rule proposal. 85% is already under closure and protection. This is unfair to the small recreational boaters and also to the economy of Neah Bay.

SAVIDGE, MATT C  October 05, 2012
BREMERTON, WA  
Comments:
No-85% is already under closure and protection. This is a closure on the small boat fishery.

PERKINS, STEVEN L  October 05, 2012
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
I strongly disagree with this closure. 85% of MA4-A is already under closure and protection. This would in effect be a closure on the small boat fishery at Neah Bay. Do not approve this proposal.

OWEN, THOMAS A  October 05, 2012
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
No-85% is already under closure and protection. This is a closure on the small boat fishery

ABEL, GREG A  October 07, 2012
BREMERTON, WA  
Comments:
No. This fishery is already protected.

JAMBORETZ, MICHAEL A  October 07, 2012
DUVALL, WA  
Comments:
I appose this change.There are sufficient numbers of other rock fish available for harvest

YOUNG, SETH A  October 08, 2012
MT VERNON , WA  
Comments:
no

COLLINS, EDWARD W  October 08, 2012
B, WA  
Comments:
No. Missing the bigger picture, the ling cod predator. Do not close more rock fish spots, not enough already

TACHELL, JONATHAN T  October 08, 2012
GIG HARBOR , WA  
Comments:
I am not in favor of this regulation change as there is a healthy population of other rock fish species. If anything commercial fishing non tribal and tribal should be restricted to protect these species for better puget sound recruitment.

TACHELL, ART J  October 09, 2012
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
close all comercial fishing first if you are serious about bringing back any stocks.time to give sports guys a break.

LANDRUM, LEANDER W  October 23, 2012
BONNEY LAKE, WA  
Comments:
I find it very disturbing that the department is considering this rule, after conducting a study that showed so many rockfish being caught when attempting to target lingcod in 4b. If you're pulling up so many rockfish when targeting lingcod, then maybe they aren't in such short supply in the first place.

LANDRUM, LEANDER W  October 30, 2012
BONNEY LAKE, WA  
Comments:
Section 2.8 of the Puget Sound Rockfish Conservation Plan clearly states that research has shown that rockfish in the Neah Bay area (Area 4) have little to no effect on Puget Sound rockfish stocks. This proposal is completely baseless and has no scientific evidence to show it would have any benefit to Puget Sound Rockfish stocks at all.

SAVIDGE, MATT C  November 26, 2012
BREMERTON, WA  
Comments:
Marine area 4 has a very healthy supply of all kinds of rockfish and should not be managed as a Puget Sound Rock fishery and should be left to the people that work with WDFW to manage our ocean fisheries. This was already overturned a couple of years ago. It should be removed as an option. About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing through the 120’ line depth closure most of the year.

JOHNSON, CHRIS W  November 26, 2012
BONNEY LAKE, WA  
Comments:
I strongly do not support this proposal due the fact marine area 4 ocean bottomfish populations are healthy. This proposal would have a negative affect the already depressed economy of neah bay. If this were to occur my fishing dollars for neah bay would go cananda and alaska. Please these consquenses in the your proposal and please do not pass this ruling.

STUDZINSKI, TOM   November 26, 2012
MARYSVILLE, WA  
Comments:
Please do not pass WDFW Proposal #66: Marine area 4 has a very healthy supply of all kinds of rockfish and should not be managed as a Puget Sound Rock fishery and should be left to the people that work with WDFW to manage our ocean fisheries. This was already overturned a couple of years ago. It should removed as an option. About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing through the 120’ line depth closure most of the year. I am attaching a picture of MA 4A and B to show how one tiny sliver of 4B is trying to manage the ocean MA4 gigantic underwater mountain ranges and canyons. They are full of fish and many areas that are unreachable to us.

VOIGHT, RYAN   November 26, 2012
ENUMCLAW, WA  
Comments:
This should not be up for public comment as the research and back up seems incorrect. It also restricts fishing based off fish populations for a small section of marine area 4. THis rule should not be changed

JOHNSON, DAVE   November 26, 2012
PORT ORCHARD , WA  
Comments:
We need to be able to fish for ling cod in this area also to help save the Rockfish and Sea Bass. There have been days I have cought 30plus sm ling cod to catch my limit of Ling cod and they have to be having a huge affect on the little rock cod and sea bass population. Thank You Dave

OBERG, TROY   November 26, 2012
GIG HARBOR, WA  
Comments:
Marine area 4 has a very healthy supply of all kinds of rockfish and should not be managed as a Puget Sound Rock fishery and should be left to the people that work with WDFW to manage our ocean fisheries. This was already overturned a couple of years ago. It should removed as an option. About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing through the 120’ line depth closure most of the year.

KRAABEL, TERRENCE A  November 26, 2012
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
This area should not be managed as a Puget Sound Rock Fishery. It is out in the ocean and should be managed as such. West of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line has always been the ocean and needs to be managed that way. Thanks, Terry

JACKSON, LEIF   November 26, 2012
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
Marine area 4 has a very healthy supply of all kinds of rockfish and should not be managed as a Puget Sound Rock fishery and should be left to the people that work with WDFW to manage our ocean fisheries. This was already overturned a couple of years ago. It should removed as an option. About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing through the 120’ line depth closure most of the year. I am attaching a picture of MA 4A and B to show how one tiny sliver of 4B is trying to manage the ocean MA4 gigantic underwater mountain ranges and canyons. They are full of fish and many areas that are unreachable to us.

WILSON, GEOFF   November 26, 2012
ARLINGTON, WA  
Comments:
I DO NOT support this proposal. I fish this area quite a bit and the rock fish population west of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line is not in jeopardy. My experience with rock fish in this area is that the current population of China, Black, Blue, Brown And yellow tail is very high and in no danger, also the current by-catch of species that are currently closed Yellow Eye and Vermilion is very low. I have personally only released two Vermilion in the last 5 years and have caught no yellow eye (mostly due to the 120' rule).

MARX, AARON C  November 26, 2012
ENUMCLAW, WA  
Comments:
Where is the un-skewed scientic data supporting this proposal? Marine area 4 has a very healthy supply of all kinds of rockfish and should not be managed as a Puget Sound Rock fishery and should be left to the people that work with WDFW to manage our ocean fisheries. This was already overturned a couple of years ago. It should removed as an option. About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing through the 120’ line depth closure most of the year. The canyons seaward of the 120' depth line are full of fish and are unreachable to sport fisherman for all but halibut days. Proposals like this without supporting scientific data create a lack of confidence in managament.

REDBURN, JEFF P  November 26, 2012
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
NO to PROPOSAL #66 Marine area 4 has a very healthy supply of all kinds of rockfish and should not be managed as a Puget Sound Rock fishery and should be left to the people that work with WDFW to manage our ocean fisheries. This was already overturned a couple of years ago. It should removed as an option. About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing through the 120’ line depth closure most of the year.

REDBURN, JEFF P  November 26, 2012
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
Marine area 4 has a very healthy supply of all kinds of rockfish and should not be managed as a Puget Sound Rock fishery and should be left to the people that work with WDFW to manage our ocean fisheries. This was already overturned a couple of years ago. It should removed as an option. About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing through the 120’ line depth closure most of the year. NO MORE CLOSURES

HANEY, MICHAEL   November 26, 2012
PUYALLUP, WA  
Comments:
Do not pass this proposal. About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing through the 120’ line depth closure most of the year. What does "INTENDED increase the number of these rockfish available for recruitment into the Puget Sound" mean? How would that happen? The justification is vague. Is there any scientific data to back up the explanation?

GIRTZ, TODD   November 26, 2012
SUMNER, WA  
Comments:
There are good numbers of rock fish in this area,there is no reason to close this area for rock fish.

ALLEVATO, FREDERICO   November 26, 2012
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
Marine area 4 has a very healthy supply of all kinds of rockfish and should not be managed as a Puget Sound Rock fishery and should be left to the people that work with WDFW to manage our ocean fisheries. This was already overturned a couple of years ago. It should removed as an option. About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing through the 120’ line depth closure most of the year. I am attaching a picture of MA 4A and B to show how one tiny sliver of 4B is trying to manage the ocean MA4 gigantic underwater mountain ranges and canyons. They are full of fish and many areas that are unreachable to us.

VITCOVICH, DANO   November 26, 2012
GRAHAM, WA  
Comments:
This is all about conservationists looking for something to do and has nothing to do about the amount the fish that are actually available. They need to provide some very good and proven data to let this pass.

OWEN, THOMAS A  November 26, 2012
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
Marine area 4 has a very healthy supply of all kinds of rockfish and should not be managed as a Puget Sound Rock fishery and should be left to the people that work with WDFW to manage our ocean fisheries. This was already overturned a couple of years ago. It should removed as an option. About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing through the 120’ line depth closure most of the year. I am attaching a picture of MA 4A and B to show how one tiny sliver of 4B is trying to manage the ocean MA4 gigantic underwater mountain ranges and canyons. They are full of fish and many areas that are unreachable to us.

LEY, COLIN R  November 26, 2012
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
I do not support this regulation. Marine area 4 has a very healthy supply of all kinds of rockfish and should not be managed as a Puget Sound Rock fishery. It should be left to the people that work with WDFW to manage our ocean fisheries. This was already overturned a couple of years ago. It should removed as an option. About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing through the 120’ line depth closure most of the year.

HEIKKINEN, JUSTIN   November 26, 2012
PORTLAND, OR  
Comments:
I'm all for conservation but I think managing this fishery in a similar manner to the Puget Sound fishery makes zero sense given the abundance of fish in the area.

STRATFORD, PAUL   November 26, 2012
KENT, WA  
Comments:
This comment is in regards to rule proposal #66. This proposed rule is absolutely ridiculous is man facets. I have fished this area for the past five years and have never had any rockfish perish while fishing for lingcod or rockfish. This would cripple the economy for Neah Bay and La Push as well as boat and sporting good stores. This would also ruin family tradition and fun for some many that enjoy fishing for ling cod and rock fish. People will not make the trip to these desolate fishing grounds for only one ling cod and black rock fish. These areas are remote and with the bad weather and 4 days of halibut season and hardly even fished. Please do not impose this terrible rule which will cause Neah Bay and La Push businesses to have to shut down as well as ruing our family tradition of bottom fishing in area 4. Respectfully Submitted Paul Stratford

BISWAS, SHREYA   November 26, 2012
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
I do not support this regulation due to the fact that Marine Area 4 has a very healthy supply of many species of rockfish. It, therefore, should not be managed as a Puget Sound Rock fishery but should be left to the people that work with the WDFW to manage our ocean fisheries. This regulation was already overturned a couple of years ago for a good reason and should be REMOVED as an option. Besides, about 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing through the 120’ line depth closure most of the year and doesn't need further regulation/limitations.

CORNELL, DAVE W  November 26, 2012
PORTLAND, OR  
Comments:
Pleae do NOT pass this proposal, many of us don't support it.

HARRIS, MILES   November 26, 2012
FEDERAL WAY, WA  
Comments:
No on WDFW Proposal #66. Marine area 4 has a very healthy supply of all kinds of rockfish and should not be managed as a Puget Sound Rock fishery and should be left to the people that work with WDFW to manage our ocean fisheries. Please remove this an an option. About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing through the 120’ line depth closure most of the year.

KNOBBS, KENNETH D  November 26, 2012
SILVERDALE, WA  
Comments:
Dear WDFW, I do not support this proposed rule. The promoters of this rule have twisted catch record data to support their goals to restrict access to these areas so they have them for their own uses. Rockfish stocks in these areas are very healthy and are currently already restricted to depths less than 120 feet. Once again, I do not support Rule 66 and hope that the WDFW will follow the science and not the political desires of a few groups.

ALLEN, KERRY W  November 26, 2012
GIG HARBOR, WA  
Comments:
I recomend you do not pass this rule for the following reasons. Marine area 4 has a very healthy supply of all kinds of rockfish and should not be managed as a Puget Sound Rock fishery and should be left to the people that work with WDFW to manage our ocean fisheries. This was already overturned a couple of years ago. It should removed as an option. About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing through the 120’ line depth closure most of the year.

THOM, AARON M  November 26, 2012
KENT , WA  
Comments:
Please do not pass WDFW Proposal #66 Thank you Aaron Thom

BERGERON, DAVID A  November 26, 2012
LAKEWOOD, WA  
Comments:
As an avid recreational fisherman and regular bottom fish angler in marine area 4 I can tell you that the numbers or rockfish bycatch is no where near the numbers that the conservation group is putting forth. Please do not pass this rule proposal as it is was too restrictive to the recreational sport fish community.

RISSER, JOHN D  November 26, 2012
STANWOOD, WA  
Comments:
Please Do Not Pass either #65 or #66! This proposals as written is Flawed. Rockfish are plentiful in the area. I do not keep any Cabizon. I do like to catch and eat Ling Cod though. When I target Lings I head to where I know the Lings hang out I catch my two and then head to where the Rock Fish are schooled up. I catch my ten and then head on in. There is No 35 rock Fish caught for every 1 ling. I might catch a few small Lings while I am targeting Rockfish But not 1 for 35 like the Wild Fish Conservatory Ass. is claiming. The Committee Member of yours David Jennings is a diver and as such he needs to understand that his private Dive Spot needs to be shared with all stake holders. We all spend our leisure money in the local economy. There is room for all at the table. SHARE

NORWOOD, JEFRY N  November 26, 2012
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
I urge you to NOT PASS PROPOSAL #66. I fish this area on a regular basis, and your findings on this are way off and these steps are not based on real science. It's my opinion that this is another attempt by select groups to eliminate my ability to catch and eat fish. Many of us have a lot of money invested in fishing equipment and this is not the answer. I think the main objective of WDFW should be to enhance my fishing opportunities, not to continue to take away my ability to enjoy what I love too do.

KELLOGG, RICK   November 26, 2012
KIRKLAND, WA  
Comments:
Please vote No on thie proposal. There are better ways to manage this fishery.

CUMMINS , JEREMY D  November 26, 2012
EVERETT, WA  
Comments:
Please do not pass proposal 66. Marine area 4 has a very healthy supply of all kinds of rockfish and should not be managed as a Puget Sound Rock fishery and should be left to the people that work with WDFW to manage our ocean fisheries. This was already overturned a couple of years ago. It should be removed as an option. About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing through the 120’ line depth closure most of the year.

BAYER, GLEN   November 26, 2012
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
Marine area 4 has a very healthy supply of all kinds of rockfish and should not be managed as a Puget Sound Rock fishery and should be left to the people that work with WDFW to manage our ocean fisheries. This was already overturned a couple of years ago. It should removed as an option. About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing through the 120’ line depth closure most of the year. I am attaching a picture of MA 4A and B to show how one tiny sliver of 4B is trying to manage the ocean MA4 gigantic underwater mountain ranges and canyons. They are full of fish and many areas that are unreachable to us.

FUGERE, TIM J  November 26, 2012
PUYALLUP, WA  
Comments:
Personally disagree with this propsal. As a responsible sport fisherman I have two charts to identify the rockfish of the Pacific Northwest. We do not boat protected fish and release all. We stay with the fish until it swims away on it's own. The non protected species we retain but select only the ones that are of medium size. To trailer my boat from my house and fish in area 3 and 4 costs a lot of money. It is a great fishery and sustainable. Please reconsider moving foraward with this proposal. Tim

FUGERE, TIM J  November 26, 2012
PUYALLUP, WA  
Comments:
Personally disagree with this propsal. As a responsible sport fisherman I have two charts to identify the rockfish of the Pacific Northwest. We do not boat protected fish and release all. We stay with the fish until it swims away on it's own. The non protected species we retain but select only the ones that are of medium size. To trailer my boat from my house and fish in area 3 and 4 costs a lot of money. It is a great fishery and sustainable. Please reconsider moving foraward with this proposal. Tim

HUME JR, MIKE A  November 26, 2012
MONTESANO, WA  
Comments:
I urge you not to support proposal 66.

EDGE, DENNIS E  November 26, 2012
GIG HARBOR, WA  
Comments:
NO !!!!!!

NUGENT, MATTHEW R  November 26, 2012
BOTHELL, WA  
Comments:
I feel that there is no need to close this area to sport fishing for bottomfish. You have already limited the area with depth restictions to shrink our fishable waters down. Please leave this open to fishing by sportfishermen.

ELWELL, RYAN   November 26, 2012
LAKE TAPPS, WA  
Comments:
I do not recommend moving forward with this change. There is no scientific data to support this change. As an avid fisherman I am always in support of conservation as long as it is based on the reality of science and not anything else. Making changes related to other agendas is not in our best interest. Thanks, Ryan

HARRIS, RONALD E  November 26, 2012
DES MOINES, WA  
Comments:
Please don not enact change #66 and #65 I beleive they are not needed and in fact counterproductive

TAKAYOSHI, JASON   November 26, 2012
AUBURN, WA  
Comments:
Do not pass #66

BALDWIN, TRAVIS   November 26, 2012
MOUNT VERNON, WA  
Comments:
This is not a good idea i say NO. How can this be justified with the bottom dragging and long lines that inhabit that area? Just creating another honey hole for the group that doesnt have to stay out of closures.

SPANI, CHUCK   November 26, 2012
LYNNWOOD, WA  
Comments:
This is nothing more than an attempt by special interest group to protect thier own interest. No way is it or should it be supported. Stop wasting resources to protect a small few please... Thanks

ELLIS, RAYMOND O  November 26, 2012
ELLENSBURG, WA  
Comments:
This is a bad proposal. There are numerous other species than yellowtail, black rock fish and blue rock fish. This proposed rule is too restrictive and will result in too much pressure on the target species. Balance is more appropriate and the proposed rule should be rejective

TUCKER, TIMOTHY J  November 26, 2012
PORT TOWNSEND, WA  
Comments:
Please do not pass this propsal Marine area 4 has a very healthy supply of all kinds of rockfish and should not be managed as a Puget Sound Rock fishery and should be left to the people that work with WDFW to manage our ocean fisheries. This was already overturned a couple of years ago. It should removed as an option. About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing through the 120’ line depth closure most of the year. I am attaching a picture of MA 4A and B to show how one tiny sliver of 4B is trying to manage the ocean MA4 gigantic underwater mountain ranges and canyons. They are full of fish and many areas that are unreachable to us.

MELVIN, CHRIS   November 26, 2012
OREGON CITY , OR  
Comments:
Don't pass this, I do not support it.

SPENCER, MAARTEN   November 26, 2012
LACEY, WA  
Comments:
This is a bad idea, no help to other fish would come from this.

PATRICK, ARTHUR   November 26, 2012
GIG HARBOR, WA  
Comments:
Please do not pass WDFW Proposal #66: Marine area 4 has a very healthy supply of all kinds of rockfish and should not be managed as a Puget Sound Rock fishery and should be left to the people that work with WDFW to manage our ocean fisheries.

PARKER, CRYSTAL   November 26, 2012
DUVALL, WA  
Comments:
Do not pass this change! Marine area 4 has a very healthy supply of all kinds of rockfish and should not be managed as a Puget Sound Rock fishery and should be left to the people that work with WDFW to manage our ocean fisheries. This was already overturned a couple of years ago. It should removed as an option. About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing through the 120’ line depth closure most of the year.

HACKNEY, BRENT S  November 26, 2012
LAKE STEVENS, WA  
Comments:
Marine area 4 has a very healthy supply of all kinds of rockfish and should not be managed as a Puget Sound Rock fishery and should be left to the people that work with WDFW to manage our ocean fisheries. This was already overturned a couple of years ago. It should removed as an option. About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing through the 120’ line depth closure most of the year.

GRAHAM, JAMES   November 27, 2012
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
Do not pass this rule the information that you are basing this on is wrong. I fish in that area and in no way is the by catch that high.

DURBIN, JOSH D  November 27, 2012
BELFAIR , WA  
Comments:
I am against the rule change for many reasons, the two biggest reasons are 1. most of these waters are already closed due to the 120' rule and 2. when fishing the area that is legal there is an abundant amount of mixed species.

LEWIS, DAVID P  November 27, 2012
RAYMOND, WA  
Comments:
I do not support this rule change. It is much too broad, not based in measurable science. The impact on the NW coastal communities will be too great for this severe level of restriction.

MARTIN, DAVID B  November 27, 2012
FREELAND, WA  
Comments:
Please DO NOT pass WDFW Proposal #66. I have fished this area and strongly disagree with the fish population assessments. I have yet to catch one of the species that is being protected. This is not being based on good scientific evidence. This area is not the same as Area 4B and should not be managed the same way. This is the Pacific Ocean, I don't have enought line on my reels to reach most of the areas this proposal is targeting. Again, PLEASE DO NOT PASS WDFW Proposal #66

MARTIN, DAVE   November 27, 2012
CLINTON, WA  
Comments:
I have fished this area and strongly disagree with the fish population assessments. I have yet to catch one of the species that is being protected. This is not being based on good scientific evidence. Please DO NOT pass WDFW Proposal #66. This area is not the same as Area 4B and should not be managed the same way. This is the Pacific Ocean, I don't have enought line on my reels to reach most of the areas this proposal is targeting. PLEASE DO NOT PASS WDFW Proposal #66

MARTIN, KARA K  November 27, 2012
FREELAND, WA  
Comments:
Please DO NOT pass WDFW Proposal #66. It is not based on sound science, but just a bunch of tree huggers trying to make inroads into the WDFW.

MORTIN, DAVE D  November 27, 2012
CLINTON, WA  
Comments:
DO NOT pass WDFW Proposal #66. This is insane to try and use inside Area 4B management restrictions out in the Pacific Ocean. What kind of scientific evidence is being used to support this proposal. I have fished there for years and this area has one of the most stable populations of bottom fish I know of. Please don't pass WDFW Proposal #66, It doesn't make any practical sence.

COATNEY, DON C  November 27, 2012
OAK HARBOR, WA  
Comments:
NO on rule change 66. There is no need to restrict rock fish harvest in the open ocean there is a healthy population of fish there. Stop taking our recreational oppertunities away from the people that pay to keep it open. If anything open it up just like canada they seem to be able to figure out how to manage their fish why can't washinton figure it out.

BENTON, BILL   November 27, 2012
PUYALLUP, WA  
Comments:
not pass WDFW Proposal #66:

MOONEY, DON C  November 27, 2012
EDGEWOOD, WA  
Comments:
Appears to me that there is no science or data to back up this change and that it is being proposed to benefit a few relatively small special interest users at the expense of a much larger user group. Making area 4b match area 4 simply for the sake of consistency is poor reasoning. The areas as well as the users that access the two areas are distinctly different. Is there any science to back up that any of these fish would migrate into Puget Sound? Again they reach for straws in an attempt to divert your attention from their real agenda.

FORRESTOR, BEN J  November 27, 2012
BELLEVUE, WA  
Comments:
I oppose rule 66

KERR, CLIFTON E  November 27, 2012
EDMONDS, WA  
Comments:
Please do not enforce this rule. Please do not close off any more rockfish areas. There are too many closures as it is. The ocean is already very abundant with rockfish.

WESTPHAL, MARK   November 27, 2012
WOODINVILLE, WA  
Comments:
Donot pass WDFW Proposal #66

HARTMAN, MARK   November 27, 2012
BREMERTON, WA  
Comments:
I've seen no hard scientific data that may support this proposal. At this time I recommend denying this change.

JOHNSON, RYAN J  November 27, 2012
COVINGTON, WA  
Comments:
No on #66. yelloweye and canary rockfish are already protected by the 20 fathom rule and other rockfish populations appear very healthy in MA4 by my observations. In fact i have noticed that rockfish are very plentiful throughout the straits and san juans. black rockfish have made a big comeback in the eastern straits and i believe reasonable conservation is the answer rather than overreactions such as rule proposal 66. Exploding Lingcod populations are probably hampering rockfish recovery in my opinion.

SIVRET, DAVE   November 27, 2012
NORMANDY PARK, WA  
Comments:
I urge you to vote not pass WDFW Proposal #66. It is a misguided approach to management.

LAFONTAINE, WADE   November 27, 2012
STANWOOD, WA  
Comments:
Marine area 4 has a very healthy supply of all kinds of rockfish and should not be managed as a Puget Sound Rock fishery and should be left to the people that work with WDFW to manage our ocean fisheries. This was already overturned a couple of years ago. It should removed as an option. About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing through the 120’ line depth closure most of the year. I am attaching a picture of MA 4A and B to show how one tiny sliver of 4B is trying to manage the ocean MA4 gigantic underwater mountain ranges and canyons. They are full of fish and many areas that are unreachable to us.

TUIDER, GEORGE   November 27, 2012
PORT ORCHARD, WA  
Comments:
I am currently a student in the Environmental Sciences program at the University of Washington Tacoma. The verbiage from the sponsor's web site clearly indicates that there is deep bias against fishing this area. It appears that they hope to mislead enough people through disinformation to apply emotion and not science to our fishery. I do not support this rule change.

HANZELKA, DALE   November 27, 2012
CLINTON, WA  
Comments:
Marine area 4 has a very healthy supply of all kinds of rockfish and should not be managed as a Puget Sound Rock fishery and should be left to the people that work with WDFW to manage our ocean fisheries. This was already overturned a couple of years ago. It should removed as an option. About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing through the 120’ line depth closure most of the year. I am attaching a picture of MA 4A and B to show how one tiny sliver of 4B is trying to manage the ocean MA4 gigantic underwater mountain ranges and canyons. They are full of fish and many areas that are unreachable to us.

OVERBY, DON R  November 27, 2012
ROCHESTER, WA  
Comments:
I oppose this proposal.

FLINT, EMILY D  November 27, 2012
PORTLAND, OR  
Comments:
Do not pass this change!

BUMGARNER, ROGER E  November 27, 2012
KENMORE, WA  
Comments:
I opposed this rule because: 1) At present there is good abundance of rockfish in area 4 W of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line. I regularly fish this area (typically by Cape Alava). The species I encounter most often are blacks, blues, quillbacks & china rockfish. When I retain a limit, species other than blacks & blues typically make up more than 50% of my rockfish catch. 2) There is no evidence that restricting the catch to blue, black & yellow tail will actually have the desired impact of protecting other species & increasing recruitment into the Strait of Juan de Fuca. I believe that there may be negative impact on other species & those fishing for a limit will encounter & release multiple quill and china rockfish prior to retaining a limit of blues, blacks & yellowtail. Baratrauma may result in greater mortality than present practice. 3) The argument that current regulations make dockside enforcement difficult is not solved as fish from Canada & area 5 are also landed @ Neah Bay.

BERTO, NICK   November 28, 2012
SNOHOMISH, WA  
Comments:
Do not change current regulations on MA3/4. The dates and limits are ok the way they are. Should not be included or be a part of Puget Sound management. The population of rockfish is healthy and should not be seabass only.

MCGUIRE, GABE   November 28, 2012
BELLINGHAM, WA  
Comments:
This area is already protected by the 120' depth closure. This proposal will limit halibut catch, which is not the purpose of the rule change. This is an unfair and unintended consequence. I wonder how this proposal has even made it this far. Special interests?

NANCARROW, CHAD   November 28, 2012
ISSAQUAH, WA  
Comments:
Marine area 4 has a very healthy supply of all kinds of rockfish and should not be managed as a Puget Sound Rock fishery and should be left to the people that work with WDFW to manage our ocean fisheries. This was already overturned a couple of years ago. It should removed as an option. About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing through the 120’ line depth closure most of the year. I am attaching a picture of MA 4A and B to show how one tiny sliver of 4B is trying to manage the ocean MA4 gigantic underwater mountain ranges and canyons. They are full of fish and many areas that are unreachable to us.

BERNTSEN, GARY D  November 28, 2012
HOBART, WA  
Comments:
Too many bottom fishing closures as it is. don't agree with the plan. thanks, Gary

HIBBARD, KEN L  November 28, 2012
EVERETT, WA  
Comments:
do not pass WDFW Proposal #66, this is misguided and full of untruths.

WILSON, DOUG M  November 28, 2012
MONROE, WA  
Comments:
I have always been a proponent of shallow water rockfishing primarily with leadhead or metal minnow style jigs with barbless hooks. I try to fish surface feeding rockfish like Blacks or Yellowtails. When it was legal to retain rockfish in Puget Sound I targeted CopperRockfish in 15-30 feet of water. I prefer to never fish deeper that 60 feet . Cabezon at best are an incidental catch and would be extremely difficult to target. Lingcod are a different mater. Instead of closures, why not make a regulation requiring all sport fishing boats to carry and use equipment to increase the number of fish survival by using techniques to reduce barotrauma. The most practical seems to be use of a heavy leadhead with a barbless hook used to lower the fish to depth that can be easily dislodged with a jerk on the line. A fish brought to the surface and quickly be released at depth and the fish will survive at a much higher rate than not using this method. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/in

THOMPSON, RICK   November 28, 2012
OLYMPIA, WA  
Comments:
please do not pass #66

GAUTHIER, CHARLES M  November 28, 2012
BREMERTON, WA  
Comments:
The majority of state waters are already closed due to the 120 ft depth restriction that is in effect for most of the year. This closure is unneeded.

WILLIAMS, D.E.   November 28, 2012
PORT LUDLOW, WA  
Comments:
Request you strike or veto this proposal!

PENTONY, MIKE PENTONY J  November 28, 2012
POST FALLS, ID  
Comments:
Opposed to Rule 66 - closure of MA4 To rockfish. There are lots of rockfish in this area, which extends out into deep canyons and ridges that most of us can't even reach in our boats. A significant amount of the area is already closed with the 120' depth limit. Faulty data by a marine conservaton group should not be accepted. Also consider the economic empacts to Neah Bay and LaPush. Thanks for your consideraton. Mike Pentony

PHAN, DYLAN   November 28, 2012
EVERETT, WA  
Comments:
Please do not pass proposal 66 Thank you

SERSHON, ED   November 28, 2012
EDMONDS, WA  
Comments:
Please do not pass WDFW Proposal #66:

HOULE, PAUL   November 29, 2012
OLYMPIA, WA  
Comments:
Please do not pass WDFW Proposal #66. Marine area 4 has a healthy supply of all kinds of rockfish and should not be managed as a Puget Sound Rock fishery - it should be left to WDFW to manage our ocean fisheries. This was already overturned a couple of years ago. please remove it as an option. ~85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing through the 120’ line depth closure most of the year. It looks as though one tiny sliver of 4B is trying to manage the ocean MA4 gigantic underwater mountain ranges and canyons. They are full of fish and many areas that are closed to us. I fish this area with my family often in the summer & would likely elope (my time, resources, & $) to Canada where they seem to, at least in many cases, make less-politically motivated & more scientifically & economically thought out management decisions. I have also been planning a retirement up in that area -in part- based on the availability of a near-shore small-boat bottomfishery that I'll re-thin

LANIER, KEVIN C  November 29, 2012
BURIEN, WA  
Comments:
Do not support this issue. There is enough area already set aside to protect rock fish.

LARSEN, ROBERT   November 29, 2012
BONNEY LAKE, WA  
Comments:
Marine area 4 has a very healthy supply of all kinds of Rockfish and should not be managed as a Puget Sound Rock fishery and should be left to the people that work with WDFW to manage our ocean fisheries. This was already overturned a couple of years ago. It should removed as an option. About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing through the 120’ line depth closure most of the year. This is not neccesary and should not happen

CARVER SR., RUSSELL L  November 29, 2012
LAKETAPPS, WA  
Comments:
Please reject proposal #66.We need to keep areas like this open!There are plenty of bottom fish in these areas.we can't close these areas with out some facts behind the closures.We nee to think about closeing liscenses for draggers and trawlers who have ruined the habbitat. Thank You Russell Carver Sr. LakeTapps

MIGLIACIO, RICK   November 29, 2012
GRAHAM, WA  
Comments:
I am apposed of this it was already overturned a couple of years ago. It should removed as an option. About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing through the 120’ line depth closure most of the year.

MIGLIACIO, SHAWN   November 29, 2012
GRAHAM , WA  
Comments:
I am opposed to this it was already overturned a couple of years ago. It should removed as an option. About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing through the 120’ line depth closure most of the year.

BOYD, LEWIS   November 29, 2012
EVERETT, WA  
Comments:
Regarding rockfish fishing in the sliver of 4B on the straits, it is the only safehaven for small craft and closing it would push us into harms way of the big water. I have never seen a study that states that there is weak stocks to need closure in that area. Thanks,Lewis

THOMAS, RICKY   November 29, 2012
GRAHAM, WA  
Comments:
NO on proposal #66. Marine area 4 has a very healthy supply of all kinds of rockfish. This was already overturned a couple of years ago. It should be removed as an option. About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing through the 120’ line depth closure most of the year. You are making it very tough on the average Recreational Fisherman.

JENNINGS, MIKE   November 30, 2012
BLACK DIAMOND, WA  
Comments:
Please do not pass!

GILCHRIST, MICHAEL   November 30, 2012
FEDERAL WAY, WA  
Comments:
What little scientific information is out there does not justify any regulation change. Not enough evidence that this regulation would increase recruitment into Puget Sound. Would be unjustified reduction of fishing opportunity directly opposing a primary goal of the agency.

HALE, GREG   November 30, 2012
EVERETT, WA  
Comments:
I'm totally against proposal #66 to limit retention of rockfish species west of Bonilla-Tatoosh Line. The fishery is very healthy and should not be managed by the Puget Sound Rock Fishery.

RICHARDSON, BEAU J  November 30, 2012
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
Marine area 4 has a very healthy supply of all kinds of rockfish and should NOT be managed as a Puget Sound Rock fishery and should be left to the people that work with WDFW to manage our ocean fisheries. This was already overturned a couple of years ago. It should be removed as an option. About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing through the 120’ line depth closure most of the year. I am attaching a picture of MA 4A and B to show how one tiny sliver of 4B is trying to manage the ocean MA4 gigantic underwater mountain ranges and canyons. They are full of fish and many areas that are unreachable to us.

MCDOWELL, BRIAN   November 30, 2012
BRIER, WA  
Comments:
This proposal is a joke and not based on facts. go to the sponsors website - really!!!! 35 protected rockfish for one lingcod? drop this I would like to submit my comments that this proposal is dropped.

PERKINS, STEVEN L  November 30, 2012
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
Please do not pass WDFW Proposal #66: Marine area 4 has a very healthy supply of all kinds of rockfish and should not be managed as a Puget Sound Rock fishery and should be left to the people that work with WDFW to manage our ocean fisheries. This was already overturned a couple of years ago. It should removed as an option. About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing through the 120’ line depth closure most of the year.

LUTZ, DAVID   December 01, 2012
WOODINVILLE, WA  
Comments:
I am strongly opposed to Proposal #66. Area 4 is not Puget Sound, and has a strong population of all varieties of rockfish. The 120ft fishing restriction during most of the sportfishing season protects the vast majority of area 4 from rockfishing already. Sensitive stocks like canary and yelloweye are well protected, including a total closure area. I have fished quite a bit in area 4 and have serious questions about the data showing 35 "protected" rockfish caught for each lingcod, and 22 for each cabazon. I have never seen those kind of bycatch numbers in all the years I've fish in those areas. Rockfish populations are strong in Area 4, and the current closures of most of the area already protects vast populations of fish. Please do not adopt Proposal #66.

MCCREA, MATT   December 01, 2012
PORT ORCHARD , WA  
Comments:
Not in favor of this proposal. There are other ways to handle the rock fish issues.

GARNER, RON   December 02, 2012
MONROE, WA  
Comments:
Please remove this proposal as it was written using flawed data that was twisted from rockfish information by WFC. There are only two ESA listed fish in this area. They are considered threatened and not endangered. There is no reason to close this area. The proposal lacks any merit other than to drive fisheres off of the water. This area is managed by our WDFW ocean group and is done using season setting to manage this area. This proposal would need a Neah Bay economic impact statement.

JOHNSON, DAVE W  December 02, 2012
ISSAQUAH, WA  
Comments:
We can't use inaccurate data from the Sierra Club to make decisions on fisheries. It needs to be science that guides decisions. Sierra's arguement that it takes 35 protected rockfish to catch one lingcod is false. It is dockside survey data of catches. But the protected rockfish are not bycatch of ling as different areas and gear are used. They are spinning data to make an inaccurate case. Areas 4 and 4B are already managed carefully by WDFW, and further restrictions need to be based on scientific evidence that futher restrictions are necessary, not by initiated measures from conservation groups' agendas. Thank you.

HALDEMAN, DOUGLAS   December 02, 2012
EDMONDS, WA  
Comments:
I disagree with this proposal as the data does not support your proposal.

LOPEZ, MARCOS   December 02, 2012
BELLEVUE, WA  
Comments:
Please do not support passage of Rule #66. The closure of of the entire MA 4 to bottom fishing is not necessary. Adequate stock with the entire MA 4 area are vastly more sufficient to maintain health populations of all species.

SMITH, DONALD   December 02, 2012
EDMONDS, WA  
Comments:
I do not support increased regulations or reductions in the sportfishing opportunities in any part of Marine Area 4.

RICHARDSON, RANDY L  December 02, 2012
KINGSTON, WA  
Comments:
I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS RULE CHANGE

RICHARDSON, CINDY L  December 02, 2012
KINGSTON, WA  
Comments:
I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS RULE CHANGE

WARDLOW, DONALD D  December 03, 2012
WOODINVILLE, WA  
Comments:
I am not in favor of proposal #66 for the following reasons: 1. There is a 120' depth restriction which leaves a 14 mile wide path north and south across the Strait for rockfish to be recruited into Puget Sound. It's not like sport anglers were using a net 300 fathoms long within the

STAMM, BEN   December 03, 2012
LYNNWOOD , WA  
Comments:
#66 rockfish proposal is a bad idea and should not be passed. These areas have a great rockfish population and should not be regulated. Thank you

WOJCIK, WALTER J  December 03, 2012
BOTHELL, WA  
Comments:
Please reject proposal #66 as it is based on faulty data. The rock fish stock is healthy and is sustainable under the current regulations. Additionaly, there will be a sever financial impact to the Neah Bay community should fishing be curtailed in this area. In this economic climate the WDFW as a state agency should encourge and support fishing activity that benefits the community of Neah Bay. Walter J.Wojcik

NISSELL, STUART   December 03, 2012
EVERETT, WA  
Comments:
I do not support this proposal. There is no impartial science available that indicates a closure is necessary.

OPSTAD, DAVID   December 03, 2012
MILL CREEK, WA  
Comments:
I do not support this rule change. Marine area 4 has a very healthy supply of all kinds of rockfish and should not be managed as a Puget Sound Rock fishery.

FINNEY, BILL   December 03, 2012
BELLEVUE, WA  
Comments:
The 120 rule is already in place we dont't need anymore restrictions on us fishpeople that pay for our licensing. It will just leave more fish for the tribes to take and the rest of us who pay the state to fish get more restrictions on us so we get less areas that we can fish in.

BOBKO, KEN E  December 03, 2012
TACOMA , WA  
Comments:
I do not support this Rule change. I feel that the data has been miss used and does not apply to the reason for the rule change.

DAVIS, CHRIS   December 04, 2012
WOODINVILLE, WA  
Comments:
This is unnecessary restriction on sportsfisherman. Please do not implement proposal #66

BORDEN, GARY   December 04, 2012
GRAHAM , WA  
Comments:
NO

HOWARD, JAMES D  December 04, 2012
LYNNWOOD, WA  
Comments:
The existing steps taken (previous closures in MA5 etc.) have not even had a chance to be successful and the new proposals go to far. Additional regulations are unnecessary at this time. Give the ones you already have on the books a chance to work. Shutting down this important area will have an adverse impacts on the economy of the area and will cost more than it gains. Thank you for your consideration. Jim Howard

BUTLER, DOUGLAS E  December 04, 2012
MUKILTEO, WA  
Comments:
Just closing an area or fishery is never the only solution. Has the WDFW considered requiring bottom fishers to carry a "Device" to return bottom fish to a survivable depth? Sport fishing has been supporting this. How many fish are killed in lost nets, or commercial fishing. Closing areas to sport fishing should be the last option. Doug Butler

GRESHOCK, JAKE A  December 04, 2012
RENTON, WA  
Comments:
This proposal should be rejected. Limiting anglers to keeping only certain types of rockfish in the ocean will only result in more bycatch due to the fact that anglers will be releasing fish while "sorting" to attain legal species. Although there is more widespread understanding among the coastal angling community on rockfish release techniques, there is still substantial risk for post-release mortality among rockfish. Limiting anglers to fishing certain areas, depths, and species will only create situations where it takes anglers a longer time to catch their limit. This will result in more bycatch, more releasing fish, and more post-release mortality. For these reasons, this proposal would be counter-productive an unnecessary in MA 4. A better approach to rockfish conservation in MA 4 is to lift restrictions on fishing areas (depth restrictions) as well as to leave species rules as they are. This will result in a healthier, more diverse ocean.

RAPACZ, KEVIN J  December 04, 2012
OLYMPIA , WA  
Comments:
Why don't you consider a rule to a certain size, daily limit and a seasonal limit per angler. Unless your willing to stop bottom fishing altogether, you will have by-catch. Lets try to stop waste, not stop fishing. Recreational fishing is slowing dying due to over-fishing and waste from commercial fishing. Net fishing and long lining are killing off more fish in one day than a fisherman will do in a lifetime. Lets get real on where the over-sight is really taking place.

UPSON, ANDREW D  January 28, 2013
SEDRO-WOOLLEY, WA  
Comments:
I do NOT support his proposal. There is no scientific evidence that this protection is needed in MA4 west. We already have a area, MA4B serving as a buffer zone intended to increase the recruitment into Puget Sound. In fact, WDFW's Rockfish Conservation Plan states, "Movement of individuals between stocks should be minimal (Hilborn and Walters 1992)". And Puget Sound is defined as far as 4B. Why propose an alternate management plan that is inconsistent with existing management plans, which are already based on sound science?

SATHER, ERIC   December 05, 2012
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
Please DO NOT enact this rule change. This change is unnecessary in large part because there is already a vast area protected by the 120 foot rule. The by-catch numbers stated to claim a single cabezon or ling cod are preposterous, wrong and are not supported by scientific data. Please rely on hard scientific data when considering dramatic rule changes that will impact both the local coastal economy and specific user groups that will be shut out by the rule change. No to this rule change consideration.

CROONQUIST, DAVID   December 06, 2012
SEQUIM, WA  
Comments:
I do not support the proposed regulation to restrict harvest to black, blue, and yellowtail rockfish only. Except for canary and yelloweye, the ocean rockfish populations are doing well. With the 20 fathom restriction in place, I'd estimate that 90% or more of MA 4A and 4B are in essence Marine Protected Areas for rockfish. Such a restriction will have an unwanted economic impact on Clallam County and Makah Reservation businesses that need visiting anglers to purchase fuel, lodging, food, and fishing gear. There is also the impact on businesses between an anglers home and their arrival in Neah Bay. Folks I fish with do not come anywhere close to the 30+ rockfish per Lingcod or cabezon catch rate used for the justification. It appears that the data used was skewed to create a perceived impact. Another problem can be the precedent that would be set by moving Puget Sound regulations beyond the recognized boundary of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line and into the ocean fisher

BURLINGAME, TOM AND DORA   December 06, 2012
MONROE, WA  
Comments:
Hello, Our names are Tom and Dora Burlingame, owners and operators of Excel Fishing Charters, and purchasers of the Kingfisher Inn in Neah Bay, Washington. We are very opposed to rule change #66 that would make Bottomfish regulations the same in areas 4 and 4B. Area 4 and 4B are uniquely different areas and require different management plans. As in many places, throughout our marine waters in Washington state, one rule does not fit all. Because of that, we have divided our marine areas to better manage the fish populations in each specific area. There are many ports throughout Washington, where a person can easily fish two or more areas. From the Port of Everett, for example, you can easily fish areas 8-1, 8-2, 9, and 10. From Neah Bay, you can easily fish areas 3, 4, 4B, or 5. It is not uncommon to see boats from area 3 (LaPush) fishing in area 4. Enforcement for years has dealt with this situation and is accustomed to enforcing different rules for different areas f

HOUGH, JOHN D  December 06, 2012
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA  
Comments:
In many, if not most cases, when we hook a rock fish and bring it to the surface, the fish bloats and founders when released. If there is a procedure for releasing these fish safely, consider making this a focus of the regulation along with an education process. We often see buoys associated with long lines in the area just south of Tatoosh Island along the coast. These non-specific harvest methods will certainly detract from the effort to protect the rock fish. Can the long liners be made part of the effort?

CARTER, RANDOLPH E  December 06, 2012
LAKE TAPPS, WA  
Comments:
Using a punchcard sysmtem, re open b ottom fishing west of bonnilla-tatoosh line to all same spieces legal up to last year. ling cod kelp greenling cabazon black/blue/yellow tail/brown/quillback rock fish. once punchcard is full, no more for year

JONES, PHIL F  December 06, 2012
HOQUIAM, WA  
Comments:
I would disagree. What about copper, brown and quillbacks? Some of those get quite large and the populations are stable. With the huge number of canaries we ran into last year would rather see a better survey done to see how the population is really doing. We caught several canaries in 60 feet of water!

SIMMS, STEVE   December 06, 2012
SPANAWAY, WA  
Comments:
Rockfish species are plentiful on the Pacific coast and making a great return in Puget Sound, so sport fishermen should not have to suffer with reduced opportunities to fish. This regulation is unneccessary.

WILSON, DOUGLAS M  December 06, 2012
MONROE, WA  
Comments:
Since Rockfish taken deeper than two atmospheres (56 feet) usually suffer Barotrauma adjust the depth limit from 120 feet to 60 feet, except for Halibut Days. Allow retainment of Demersal Rockfish caught incidentally to targeted species, Black,Blue and Yellowtail Rockfish with a limit of one or two Demersal Rockfish,except Canary and Yelloweye so these fish when taken during Halibut Days are not wasted. Consider the same regulations for Lingcod and Cabezon seasons if they are changed from current regulations. While doing this to educate sports fishermen to identify Rockfish species by using identification charts such as those in the regulation booklet. Require all sports fishing boats including charter and private boats to have equipment to release Barotrauma effected Rockfish with a significant fine it not so equipped.

NELSON, BLAKE S  December 06, 2012
TUMWATE, WA  
Comments:
I really like this proposal. Given the reproductive biology and life history of other rockfish species it seems like black, blue, and yellowtail rockfish are the only three that you can stucture any kind of sustaining fishery around. Neah Bay already seems to be losing some rockfish diversity; I think this is a good forward-thinking conservation move.

BRODKEY, DAVID   December 09, 2012
PORTLAND, OR  
Comments:
Marine area 4 has a very healthy supply of all kinds of rockfish and should not be managed as a Puget Sound Rock fishery and should be left to the people that work with WDFW to manage our ocean fisheries. This was already overturned a couple of years ago. It should removed as an option. About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing through the 120’ line depth closure most of the year. I am attaching a picture of MA 4A and B to show how one tiny sliver of 4B is trying to manage the ocean MA4 gigantic underwater mountain ranges and canyons. They are full of fish and many areas that are unreachable to us.

OLSEN, KARL P  December 11, 2012
ISSAQUAH, WA  
Comments:
do not pass this.I am totally flabbergasted by your science on this.

NUTTALL, MICK R  December 15, 2012
PORTLAND , OR  
Comments:
Do Not Pass This Folks... Us sport fishermen should not be penalized by a couple samples!!! You guys ride out on a trip,I'll Show you numbers of Red rock fish that would change your mind... Most Of My Friends Release All..All Red Fish, We Have The Set Ups To Send The Fish Back Down To Depth!!! Go After the the Draggers/Gill Netters/Rapers...Ect! Leave Us alone We Don't Take As Much as much as you think! I/We Been Driving Up To Neah Bay From Portland For 10 years now. Raised my kid from that place!!! There Are SOOOOO Many Ling cod,Its Like Crappie Fishing @ the Snake River!!! To Take Us Down to 1 per day WOULD BE A CRIME!!! The Fuel,Food,Camp Spot/Boat Slip,Tackle,Bait,Ect.Ect. It Would Not Be Worth It!!! Don't Make These Harsh Rules... Because The truth Is The Truth.... More Research Please!!! Go Out With Us!!!

BENTLER, GORDON A  December 16, 2012
NEAH BAY, WA  
Comments:
NO SUPPORT 1] The majority of the 2012 rockfish bycatch increase came from Area 3 Halibut fishery. Overall 2A Halibut quotas in 2013 should be substantially lower than 2012 which, when coupled with the 22" lingcod minimum size limit should reduce rockfish bycatch. If not, other options should be looked at other than Area 4. 2] I do not believe that rockfish bycatch savings in Areas 3&4 west of the Tatoosh Bonilla line will migrate into Puget Sound.

RAMEY, DAVID A  January 28, 2013
LAKE STEVENS , WA  
Comments:
I am against this proposal. This would eliminate fishing grounds that small boats are able to access. This could create a dangerous situation forcing anglers with smaller boats to venture into open ocean areas. Data used in this study is flawed.

OCONNOR, RORY L  January 28, 2013
BELLINGHAM, WA  
Comments:
I am a member of NorthWestKayakAnglers.org. The Neah Bay region is an important area for hundreds of kayak anglers as it is the only area in the state that offers an open ocean experience to our community. I do NOT support his proposal. There is no scientific evidence that this protection is needed in MA4 west. We already have a area, MA4B serving as a buffer zone intended to increase the recruitment into Puget Sound. In fact, WDFW's Rockfish Conservation Plan states, "Movement of individuals between stocks should be minimal (Hilborn and Walters 1992)". And Puget Sound is defined as far as 4B. Why propose an alternate management plan that is inconsistent with existing management plans, which are already based on sound science?

WILSON, MATTHEW L  December 31, 2012
EDMONDS, WA  
Comments:
I am against this proposed change. Sports fisherman cannot tell a certain species of fish to bite their lure, so this rule will act like the ruling for yellow-eye, which forces fisherman to release the fish even though they have been bloated by being brought to the surface. If the intention is to increase overall fish stocks, reduce the season with no change to the daily limit. This rule would also put additional pressure on the sea-bass by forcing fisherman to only retain them . . . . .

KEIZER, JOHN A  January 28, 2013
UNIVERSITY PLACE, WA  
Comments:
4A Fish protection-No-85% is already under closure and protection. This is a closure on the small boat fishery. The ocean fishery is still very healthy and the 4B test fishery of 2011 showed a large amount of rockfish caught caught in the straits and there are far more rockfish fish in the ocean than the straits. Rockfish and other types of fish are targetted using different gear and assumptions of catching one fish per 20-30 fish cannot be used. Data showing 20-30 rockfish per Lingcod/Cabezon does not work for this situation.

GAUTHIER, CHARLES   January 19, 2013
BREMERTON, WA  
Comments:
I assume that Ling Cod are rock fish, this reg and two others deal with Ling Cod closures or season reductions and size limits. I say no closure or reduction in season length as they are the supreme predator when it comes to other rock cod. It seems that your purpose is to increase rock cod populations, the 120 ft depth restriction closes most waters now except for a few days during halibut openings. If you want sportsmen off the water, say so, and forget the dive parks, you will go broke.

MICHAEL, ELI R  January 19, 2013
BELLINGHAM, WA  
Comments:
I do not support this proposal. It promotes bi-catch. More rockfish would die as they would have to be discarded while attempting to limit on black rockfish. If anything allow a portion of the limit to be other than black rockfish. I am especially concerned about this proposal for days during which Halibut fishing is allowed. Rockfish caught out of these excessive depths are likely wasted. As a true fisherman I am a strong advocate of conservation but I do not believe this proposal is legitimate or appropriate. Thank You Eli Michael

YOUNG, THOMAS J  January 23, 2013
SEKIU, WA  
Comments:
The WDFW 20 fathom rule is a comprehensive rule that addresses rockfish mortality very effectively in 4A and 4B. Having fished for some time, both commercially (prior to 3 mile rule) and as a sportsman in these areas, I would ask that you consider the following: 1) Instead of citing what one can retain, list what one may not retain. a. The China rockfish stock is healthy. Why not allow the retention of this fish? 2) There are not enough Blue rockfish or Yellowtail rockfish, of reasonable size inside 20 fathoms, to provide for a reasonable sharing of effort between Blacks, Blues and Yellowtails. a. Give futher consideration to the affect of concentrated effort. 3) Retention of a variety of species, in these areas, is an important aspect of this fishery. Thank You for your consideration.

ROSS, ROGER G  January 28, 2013
PORT ANGELES, WA  
Comments:
No-85% is already under closure and protection. This is a closure on the small boat fishery. The ocean fishery is still very healthy and the 4B test fishery of 2011 showed a large amount of rockfish caught in the straits and there are far more rockfish fish in the ocean than the straits. Rockfish and other types of fish are targetted using different gear and assumptions of catching one fish per 20-30 fish cannot be used. Data showing 20-30 rockfish per Lingcod/Cabezon does not work for this situation.

PELLETIER, RICK   January 28, 2013
EVERETT, WA  
Comments:
85% is already under closure and protection. This is a closure on the small boat fishery. The ocean fishery is still very healthy and the 4B test fishery of 2011 showed a large amount of rockfish caught caught in the straits and there are far more rockfish fish in the ocean than the straits

GRAHN, MICHAEL   January 28, 2013
MOUNT VERNON, WA  
Comments:
4A Fish protection-No-85% is already under closure and protection. This is a closure on the small boat fishery. The ocean fishery is still very healthy and the 4B test fishery of 2011 showed a large amount of rockfish caught caught in the straits and there are far more rockfish fish in the ocean than the straits. Rockfish and other types of fish are targetted using different gear and assumptions of catching one fish per 20-30 fish cannot be used. Data showing 20-30 rockfish per Lingcod/Cabezon does not work for this situation.

WALTER JR, RICHARD E  January 28, 2013
FEDERAL WAY , WA  
Comments:
I do NOT support his proposal. There is no scientific evidence that this protection is needed in MA4 west. We already have a area, MA4B serving as a buffer zone intended to increase the recruitment into Puget Sound. In fact, WDFW's Rockfish Conservation Plan states, "Movement of individuals between stocks should be minimal (Hilborn and Walters 1992)". And Puget Sound is defined as far as 4B. Why propose an alternate management plan that is inconsistent with existing management plans, which are already based on sound science?

JOHNSON, GARY L  January 28, 2013
RAYMOND, WA  
Comments:
We know why these and possibly who is probably putting these together for Neah Bay. The MA 4B closure didn't pass and it looks like a way to shut it down piece by piece. This is unfair to the recreational fishers and family and also to the economy of Neah Bay. #66 4A Fish protection-No-85% is already under closure and protection. This is a closure on the small boat fishery. The ocean fishery is still very healthy and the 4B test fishery of 2011 showed a large amount of rockfish caught caught in the straits and there are far more rockfish fish in the ocean than the straits. Rockfish and other types of fish are targetted using different gear and assumptions of catching one fish per 20-30 fish cannot be used. Data showing 20-30 rockfish per Lingcod/Cabezon does not work for this situation.

KAMINSKI, LARRY   January 28, 2013
POULSBO, WA  
Comments:
NO...we already have strict limits in place.

HILL, JENNIFER   January 28, 2013
POULSBO, WA  
Comments:
No-85% is already under closure and protection. This is a closure on the small boat fishery. The ocean fishery is still very healthy and the 4B test fishery of 2011 showed a large amount of rockfish caught caught in the straits and there are far more rockfish fish in the ocean than the straits. Rockfish and other types of fish are targetted using different gear and assumptions of catching one fish per 20-30 fish cannot be used. Data showing 20-30 rockfish per Lingcod/Cabezon does not work for this situation.

MARTIN, DAVID B  January 28, 2013
FREELAND, WA  
Comments:
NO ON THIS PROPOSAL There is already a 85% closure and protection in this area. This is a closure on the small boat fishery. The ocean fishery is still very healthy and the 4B test fishery of 2011 showed a large amount of rockfish caught in the straits and there are far more rockfish fish in the ocean than the straits. Rockfish and other types of fish are targetted using different gear and assumptions of catching one fish per 20-30 fish cannot be used. Data showing 20-30 rockfish per Lingcod/Cabezon does not work for this situation.

PHILLIPS, RICHARD V  January 28, 2013
ENUMCLAW, WA  
Comments:
Again, I have fished Neah Bay "inside" and "outside" for over 20 years as a sport fisherman. There are plenty of rock fish in area 4B. This area is alive with fish, I know because it is to harvest easy limits in 4B, this has not changed in over 20 years of fishing. Thank you.

FRENCH, RICHARD E  January 28, 2013
SEQUIM, W  
Comments:
No. The ocean fishery is still very healthy and the 4B test fishery of 2011 showed a large amount of rockfish caught caught in the straits and there are far more rockfish fish in the ocean than the straits. There are enough restrictions now in area 4 and most other species are already protected.

WISNER, LEEROY   January 28, 2013
CHEHALIS, WA  
Comments:
4A Fish protection - NO - much of this area is already under closure and protection. This is a closure on the small boat fishery. This ocean fishery is still very healthy. Putting a restriction on specie here would result in a number of floaters (dead fish).

FRIEND, STEPHEN   January 28, 2013
SHORELINE, WA  
Comments:
I disagree with this proposal. This will just continue to reduce the fishing opportunities for recreational fishermen.

TOBECK, ROBERT   January 28, 2013
RENTON, WA  
Comments:
Fish protection-No-85% is already under closure and protection. This is a closure on the small boat fishery. The ocean fishery is still very healthy and the 4B test fishery of 2011 showed a large amount of rockfish caught caught in the straits and there are far more rockfish fish in the ocean than the straits. Rockfish and other types of fish are targetted using different gear and assumptions of catching one fish per 20-30 fish cannot be used. Data showing 20-30 rockfish per Lingcod/Cabezon does not work for this situation.

LOFTEN, CRAIG A  January 28, 2013
OLYMPIA, WA  
Comments:
4A Fish protection-No-85% is already under closure and protection. This is a closure on the small boat fishery. The ocean fishery is still very healthy and the 4B test fishery of 2011 showed a large amount of rockfish caught caught in the straits and there are far more rockfish fish in the ocean than the straits. Rockfish and other types of fish are targetted using different gear and assumptions of catching one fish per 20-30 fish cannot be used. Data showing 20-30 rockfish per Lingcod/Cabezon does not work for this situation. Small boat fisheries in Washington State need to be expanded. They can and do lead to the largest license revenue base potential.

SORENSEN, GARY C  January 28, 2013
ARLINGTON, WA  
Comments:
I disagree with this proposal

BODINE, GARY A  January 28, 2013
BUCKLEY, WA  
Comments:
Marine area 4 inside the Straits of Juan de Fuca are already under strict regulation. Ocean stocks for "non-targeted rockfish species" are healthy and do not need further restrictions placed on them. I do not believe there is science to show that these non-targeted rockfish species are on the decline. The ocean portion of Marine Area 4 is a vast area with much natural protection and habitat.

NAMES, THOMAS E  January 28, 2013
RENTON, WA  
Comments:
#66 4A Fish protection-No-85% is already under closure and protection. This is a closure on the small boat fishery. The ocean fishery is still very healthy and the 4B test fishery of 2011 showed a large amount of rockfish caught caught in the straits and there are far more rockfish fish in the ocean than the straits. Rockfish and other types of fish are targetted using different gear and assumptions of catching one fish per 20-30 fish cannot be used. Data showing 20-30 rockfish per Lingcod/Cabezon does not work for this situation.

SILVERS, MIKE G  January 28, 2013
LACEY, WA  
Comments:
No-85% is already under closure and protection. This is a closure on the small boat fishery. The ocean fishery is still very healthy and the 4B test fishery of 2011 showed a large amount of rockfish caught caught in the straits and there are far more rockfish fish in the ocean than the straits. Rockfish and other types of fish are targetted using different gear and assumptions of catching one fish per 20-30 fish cannot be used. Data showing 20-30 rockfish per Lingcod/Cabezon does not work for this situation.

ELLIOTT, TOM J  January 28, 2013
MARYSVILLE , WA  
Comments:
4A Fish protection-No-85% is already under closure and protection. This is a closure on the small boat fishery. The ocean fishery is still very healthy and the 4B test fishery of 2011 showed a large amount of rockfish caught caught in the straits and there are far more rockfish fish in the ocean than the straits. Rockfish and other types of fish are targetted using different gear and assumptions of catching one fish per 20-30 fish cannot be used. Data showing 20-30 rockfish per Lingcod/Cabezon does not work for this situation

CHAPLMAN, PAUL   January 28, 2013
EDMONDS, WA  
Comments:
Few people target rockfish, they are a nuisance fish for most anglers and are returned to the ocean. No need to protect these fish in the straights or ocean.

SCHMITT, JOSEPH L  January 28, 2013
JOYCE, WA  
Comments:
Do not support. Recruitment in to Puget Sound??? Is this new science? Wayne Paulsen wdfw has proven that rock fish are territorial. Plus water exits puget sound to the ocean due to river influx. Lavea wont float against current.

AUMAN, DAVID W  January 28, 2013
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
No-85% is already under closure and protection. This is a closure on the small boat fishery. The ocean fishery is still very healthy and the 4B test fishery of 2011 showed a large amount of rockfish caught caught in the straits and there are far more rockfish fish in the ocean than the straits.

BROWN, TOM C  January 28, 2013
FRIDAY HARBOR, WA  
Comments:
No there is already enough protection on rockfish and the ocean fishery can support the fishing of rockfish

HOWARD, JAMES D  January 28, 2013
LYNNWOOD, WA  
Comments:
Please reconsider this proposal. This is one of the safe small vessel fishing areas for ling cod and cabezon. If this area is restricted it will put even more pressure on other marine areas and also unnecessarily endanger smaller boats, being forced to travel to either La Push, or worse yet, force the crossing over Westport bar to fish. Neah Bay is one of the safer areas (Marine Area 4) to fish from. We have heard of a few folks trying to turn Marine Area 4 in a diving preserve and hope this is not an attempt to restrict recreational fishing based on their personal agenda. We can understand steps taken to increase stocks throughout Puget Sound but you are talking about the one safe ocean access point to harvest Ling Cod and Cabezon. Restrict area 5-13, leave 4 as it is, please. Respectively, Jim Howard

TENNEY, APRIL   January 28, 2013
GRANITE FALLS, WA  
Comments:
No-85% is already under closure and protection. This is a closure on the small boat fishery. The ocean fishery is still very healthy and the 4B test fishery of 2011 showed a large amount of rockfish caught caught in the straits and there are far more rockfish fish in the ocean than the straits. Rockfish and other types of fish are targetted using different gear and assumptions of catching one fish per 20-30 fish cannot be used. Data showing 20-30 rockfish per Lingcod/Cabezon does not work for this situation.

PETERSON, ERIC   January 28, 2013
LAKE STEVENS, WA  
Comments:
No-a significant portion is already under closure and protection. This is a closure on the small boat fishery available to many Washington residents. The ocean fishery is still very healthy and the 4B test fishery of 2011 showed a large amount of rockfish caught caught in the straits and there are far more rockfish fish in the ocean than the straits.

WALKER, PAUL N  January 28, 2013
EUGENE, OR  
Comments:
I am a kayak angler & do NOT support his proposal. There is no scientific evidence that this protection is needed in MA4 west. We already have a area, MA4B serving as a buffer zone intended to increase the recruitment into Puget Sound. In fact, WDFW's Rockfish Conservation Plan states, "Movement of individuals between stocks should be minimal (Hilborn and Walters 1992)". And Puget Sound is defined as far as 4B. Why propose an alternate management plan that is inconsistent with existing management plans, which are already based on sound science?

HASHIMOTO, MARK M  January 28, 2013
EDMONDS, WA  
Comments:
Placing a limit west of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line to just protect other species is unwarranted because: 1.) If you are fishing specifically for Sea Bass, your gear and areas fished are normally ones where protected species are rarely caught. Even if you do have a "by-catch", the shallow water and light gear makes releasing these species unharmed extremely easy. 2.) Limiting this fishery will further reduce the economy of Neah Bay (Which we have seen first hand in the 30+ years we have gone up) for those of us who go up early (First part of April) to just play around and keep a few of the Sea Bass before the "main" bottom fish and salmon season opens. 3.) It is already harder (and more dangerous) to go out due to the Straits limits. Putting even more limits restricts the fishery to the point of... not going!

FUGERE, TIM J  January 28, 2013
PUYALLUP, WA  
Comments:
No as this area is already under closure and protection. This is a closure on the small boat fishery has very low impact on the fishery. The ocean fishery is still very healthy and the 4B test fishery of 2011 showed a large amount of rockfish caught in the straits and there are far more rockfish fish in the ocean than the straits.

NGUYEN, HUNG   January 28, 2013
SAMMAMISH, WA  
Comments:
My fellow kayak anglers and I have discussed this at length at http://www.northwestkayakanglers.com. The Neah Bay region is an important area for hundreds of kayak anglers as it is the only area in the state that offers an open ocean experience to our community. I do NOT support his proposal. There is no scientific evidence that this protection is needed in MA4 west. We already have a area, MA4B serving as a buffer zone intended to increase the recruitment into Puget Sound. In fact, WDFW's Rockfish Conservation Plan states, "Movement of individuals between stocks should be minimal (Hilborn and Walters 1992)". And Puget Sound is defined as far as 4B. Why propose an alternate management plan that is inconsistent with existing management plans, which are already based on sound science?

OPSTAD, DAVE   January 28, 2013
MILL CREEK, WA  
Comments:
I do NOT agree with this rule change

CURTIS, ERIC M  January 28, 2013
KIRKLAND, WA  
Comments:
This seems to be biased and limits fishing for smaller vessels. It should be applied to all waters or none.

FINNEY, WILLIAM   January 28, 2013
BELLEVUE, WA  
Comments:
Keep it open as is for bottom fishing

GETTER, DALE E  January 28, 2013
BOTHELL, WA  
Comments:
66 4A Fish protection-No-85% is already under closure and protection. This is a closure on the small boat fishery. The ocean fishery is still very healthy and the 4B test fishery of 2011 showed a large amount of rockfish caught caught in the straits and there are far more rockfish fish in the ocean than the straits.

MITCHELL, DAVID   January 28, 2013
SILVERDALE, WA  
Comments:
NO-85% is already under closure and protection. This is a closure on the small boat fishery. The ocean fishery is still very healthy and the 4B test fishery of 2011 showed a large amount of rockfish caught caught in the straits and there are far more rockfish fish in the ocean than the straits.

REESE, DAVID M  January 28, 2013
WOODINVILLE, WA  
Comments:
4A Fish protection-No-85% is already under closure and protection. This is a closure on the small boat fishery. The ocean fishery is still very healthy and the 4B test fishery of 2011 showed a large amount of rockfish caught caught in the straits and there are far more rockfish fish in the ocean than the straits.

HIMMELBERGER, TIM F  January 28, 2013
SNOQUALMIE, WA  
Comments:
No-85% is already under closure and protection. This is a closure on the small boat fishery. The ocean fishery is still very healthy and the 4B test fishery of 2011 showed a large amount of rockfish caught caught in the straits and there are far more rockfish fish in the ocean than the straits.

HAGLER, STEVE L  January 28, 2013
SEQUIM, WA  
Comments:
No I do not support this rule change as it is too restrictive of the area for sportfishermen an would have a negative empact on local businesses that rely on people coming to fish there.

DELINSKY, MICHAEL   January 28, 2013
EVERETT, WA  
Comments:
#66 4A Fish protection-No-85% is already under closure and protection. This is a closure on the small boat fishery. The ocean fishery is still very healthy and the 4B test fishery of 2011 showed a large amount of rockfish caught caught in the straits and there are far more rockfish fish in the ocean than the straits.

TOWNLEY, BRYAN   January 28, 2013
NORTH BEND , WA  
Comments:
4A Fish protection-No-85% is already under closure and protection. This is a closure on the small boat fishery. The ocean fishery is still very healthy and the 4B test fishery of 2011 showed a large amount of rockfish caught caught in the straits and there are far more rockfish fish in the ocean than the straits.

HOLT, ERNIE   January 29, 2013
EPHRATA, WA  
Comments:
Disagree

FANTZ, TERESA L  January 29, 2013
MAPLE VALLEY, WA  
Comments:
4A Fish protection-No-85% is already under closure and protection. This is a closure on the small boat fishery. The ocean fishery is still very healthy and the 4B test fishery of 2011 showed a large amount of rockfish caught caught in the straits and there are far more rockfish fish in the ocean than the straits.

MARTINEZ, FILIBERTO   January 29, 2013
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
I do NOT support his proposal. There is no scientific evidence that this protection is needed in MA4 west. We already have a area, MA4B serving as a buffer zone intended to increase the recruitment into Puget Sound. In fact, WDFW's Rockfish Conservation Plan states, "Movement of individuals between stocks should be minimal (Hilborn and Walters 1992)". And Puget Sound is defined as far as 4B. Why propose an alternate management plan that is inconsistent with existing management plans, which are already based on sound science?

MURPHY, BRIAN T  January 29, 2013
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
NO. Needlessly restricts a healthy fishery and increases the bycatch death rate.

ROSS, CHRISTOPHER G  January 29, 2013
BOTHELL, WA  
Comments:
This is a closure on the small boat fishery. The ocean fishery is still very healthy and the 4B test fishery of 2011 showed a large amount of rockfish caught caught in the straits and there are far more rockfish fish in the ocean than the straits. Rockfish and other types of fish are targetted using different gear and assumptions of catching one fish per 20-30 fish cannot be used. Data showing 20-30 rockfish per Lingcod/Cabezon does not work for this situation.

BUCKINGHAM, ROBERT P  January 29, 2013
NEAH BAY, WA  
Comments:
I strongly oppose Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s rule proposal #66 intended restrict rockfish retention in Marine Area 4 west of the Bonilla-Tatoosh Line, as under the circumstances I see no basis for this rule. The original rule proposal DFW179672 was to apply the more restrictive Area 4B bottomfishing regulations to Area 4A for enforcement convenience. Neah Bay is historically the destination of choice for recreational bottomfishing on the Washington Coast; due largely to plentiful stocks and diverse fishing opportunities for anglers ranging from the open Pacific Ocean to the protected Straits of Juan de Fuca. To limit recreational access to these fish in order to ease dockside enforcement is unjust to the recreational fishermen and could be devastating to the Neah Bay community relying on the financial support provided by these fisheries. Marine Area 4 straddles two uniquely different fishing areas that require different management plans. WDFW routinely deals with

BUCKLIN, LAURENCE A  January 29, 2013
UNIVERSITY PLACE, WA  
Comments:
I strongly recommend a NO on this proposal. Proponents official justification does not say that there is a need for further conservation efforts in MA 4B. Rather, they want to expand the protection currently afforded what they describe as sensitive rockfish in 4A by expanding that protection to ocean areas outside the Strait. Why? Because they allege that the current configuration "confounds the public's understanding of the rules and makes dockside enforcement of two different sets of rules impracticable and ineffective." That justification simply does not pass the whiff test! Contrary to prior efforts to establish small areas closed to bottomfishing the current demarcation line between 4A and 4B is readily described and much easier to locate either visually (Tatoosh Island and lighthouse)or by sound via foghorn. Also, WDFW LE regularly has to deal with fishers who travel from one area through another with different sets of rules and its LE efforts are not limit

LUTZ, DAVID   January 29, 2013
WOODINVILLE, WA  
Comments:
I am opposed to implementation if this proposal. Most of the deep water areas are already effectively closed to all rockfish, providing a huge sanctuary. The nearshore areas have healthy populations. Area 4B also shows strong rockfish populations. If conservation is really necessary for particular species, then perhaps a smaller daily limit on those species might be appropriate. There is a real economic impact on the coastal communities if the fishing regulations are so restrictive that people begin to forgo fishing trips because of lack of opportunity. That impact will already be seen this year with the change in the deepwater lincod season. Please look for alternatives to this regulation that would still allow fishing nearshore for most species of rockfish.

THOMSON, WILLIAM G  January 29, 2013
ANACORTES, WA  
Comments:
No

BUCKLIN, LAURENCE A  January 29, 2013
UNIVERSITY PLACE, WA  
Comments:
Continuation of NO recommendation. Proponents continue to pursue this effort despite no documentation to support that there is a biological need either in 4A (or for that matter in 4B). This matter was thoroughly discussed during development of the PSRRP and was deemed unnecessary from a biological standpoint. What has changed that supports this proposal? Nothing! In fact, anecdotal evidence is that many rockfish species are increasing which may be attributed to successful spawns as well as recently enacted regulations to include the 120 foot limit. This proposal would further reduce fishing opportunity and particularly in the one ocean area where one does not need to cross a dangerous harbor/river bar. If one were to believe the proponents website where they cited a WDFW test fishery that had a one ling to 33 non-target rockfish I would opine that the rockfish population is clearly healthy. Please vote NO on this proposal.

CARTER, MICHAEL   January 29, 2013
POULSBO, WA  
Comments:
Yes on #66 additional protection on certain rockfish

DAWSON, DEENNIS   January 29, 2013
ALLYN, WA  
Comments:
Fish protection already exists with 85% of the area under closure and protection. This amounts to a closure on the small boat fishery. The ocean fishery is still very healthy and the 4B test fishery of 2011 showed a large amount of rockfish caught caught in the straits and there are far more rockfish fish in the ocean than the straits.

HERRETT, MERLE E  January 29, 2013
LYNDEN, WA  
Comments:
No. Much of the area is already under closure. Test fisheries have shown that there are plenty of Rockfish in the Straits and many more in the ocean. Need to teach guys how to lower them back down and decompress them if they cannot be kept.

REINHARDT, NORM   January 29, 2013
PORT ORCHARD, WA  
Comments:
This should not be adopted. 85% is already under closure and protection. This is a closure on the small boat fishery. The ocean fishery is still very healthy and the 4B test fishery of 2011 showed a large amount of rockfish being caught in the straits and there are far more rockfish fish in the ocean than the straits. Rockfish and other types of fish are targetted using different gear and assumptions of catching one fish per 20-30 fish cannot be used. There are other abundant species, such as China Rockfish, that are not addressed and would have to be returned.

BRACKMANN, KARL H  January 29, 2013
WOODINVILLE, WA  
Comments:
Closing area west of the Bonilla-Tatoosh Line to most rockfish retention will significantly impact the ocean recreational fishery for people with small boats. Most of the area (85%) is already under closure. The 2011 test fishery in area 4B indicated a large amount of available rockfish. Vote NO.

SHEEHAN, JOHN   January 29, 2013
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
4A Fish protection No-85% of the area is already either closed or under protection.

LOPEZ, MARCOS   January 29, 2013
BELLEVUE, WA  
Comments:
Absolutely against this proposal. Numbers of rock fish are not in decline or indangeres in the MA 4 area West of Bonilla-Tatoosh line.

STEFFENS, ADAM G  January 29, 2013
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
Limiting the type of rockfish that may be retained is shortsighted at best. Studies have shown that 90 percent of all retained fish are black or blue rockfish.

BYKONEN, DON   January 29, 2013
SUMNER, WA  
Comments:
No retention close it for 5 years no Rockfish.

BYKONEN, DON   January 29, 2013
SUMNER, WA  
Comments:
No retention close it for 5 years no Rockfish.