HAROLD, RUSSELL S  September 21, 2012
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
I oppose this rule change.

LANIER, KEVIN C  September 21, 2012
BURIEN, WA  
Comments:
I support this rule change

LANTZ, BRADLEY G  September 24, 2012
VAUGHN, WA  
Comments:
Leave as it is so they have more time to mature and become breaders.

DURBIN, JOSH D  September 24, 2012
BELFAIR, WA  
Comments:
I think this is a bad idea, if anything I would like to see it raised.

LUCE, KEN A  October 01, 2012
OLYMPIA, WA  
Comments:
keep it the way it is

STUDZINSKI, TOM   October 05, 2012
MARYSVILLE, WA  
Comments:
#68 Reduce MA 4B Lingcod size to 22"-no-22" is to small of a fish with no meat. This is counter productive to bring down the catch size. By keeping it at 26" it keeps the sizes bigger. No shortage of lingcod in this area.

HARRIS, MILES   October 05, 2012
FEDERAL WAY, WA  
Comments:
No. 22" is too small for harvest. No shortage of lingcod in this area.

SAVIDGE, MATT C  October 05, 2012
BREMERTON, WA  
Comments:
no-22" is to small of a fish with no meat. This is counter productive to bring down the catch size. By keeping it at 26" it keeps the sizes bigger. No shortage of lingcod in this area.

PERKINS, STEVEN L  October 05, 2012
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
I disagree with this rule. There is no reason to keep a 22 inch ling cod as there is not enough meat on a ling of that size. Additionally, this would reduce the average size of the fish. let them grow to a larger size before allowing them to be retained.

OWEN, THOMAS A  October 05, 2012
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
There is no meat on a 22" lingcod! This is counter productive to bring down the catch size. By keeping it at 26" it keeps the sizes bigger. No shortage of lingcod in this area.

WILSON, GEOFF   October 05, 2012
ARLINGTON, WA  
Comments:
I don't agree with this the current size of 24" should remain. There is not enough meat on them at that size and it is to easy to catch a 24" anyway. I usually don't keep anything under 26" because of the amount of meat you get off a 24". lingcod in this area are very abundant and with the 120' rule in effect most of the time anyway the bycatch I don't believe is an issue.

GAUTHIER, CHARLES   October 05, 2012
BREMERTON, WA  
Comments:
Lingcod populations are in good order in area 4, reduction of size is unnessary to maintain present population. Proper sized fishing gear eliminates most bycatch.

KINTZELE, JAMES   October 07, 2012
MOUNT VERNON, WA  
Comments:
Reducing the size limit for lingcod is not healthy for their population in general. We would rather see an increased daily limit of larger fish than reducing the size limit for any fish.

ABEL, GREG A  October 07, 2012
BREMERTON, WA  
Comments:
Absolutely NO! There are plenty of 26" inch Ling Cod in this area. You should be considering RAISING the size limit in areas 1-3 to increase the mature breeding size females to increase the population in the other areas. Leave the size limit alone in area 4.

JAMBORETZ, MICHAEL A  October 07, 2012
DUVALL, WA  
Comments:
I do not support lowering the minimum size for Ling Cod. Ling Cod are healthy off the north coast. A 22 " Ling Cod is too small to harvest.

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

COLLINS, EDWARD W  October 08, 2012
BELLINGHAM, WA  
Comments:
NO...22" is to small. If anything, increase season length and the minimum to 28" to go after the rock fish eating larger Lings

CARTER, RAYAN C  October 08, 2012
MUKILTEO, WA  
Comments:
Keep the original siz limit. 22 inches is just to small, there isn't enough meat on a fish of that size for a real meal.

TACHELL, JONATHAN T  October 08, 2012
GIG HARBOR, WA  
Comments:
I am in favor of this rule change and also believe that the ling cod population is very healthy in marine area 4.

TACHELL, ART J  October 09, 2012
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
this rule change makes sense.

LANDRUM, LEANDER W  October 22, 2012
BONNEY LAKE, WA  
Comments:
I recommend keeping the current 24 inch limit. If there are healthy populations, then increase the daily limit. Marine area 4A: Increase daily bag limit of Lingcod from 2 to 3. Minimum size 24 inches.

PAUL, DARIN   November 09, 2012
SHELTON, WA  
Comments:
i like the rule change, as long as it will not effect the lingcod population/spawning rates.

RISSER, JOHN D  November 26, 2012
STANWOOD, WA  
Comments:
I Support this.

MOONEY, DON   November 27, 2012
EDGEWOOD, WA  
Comments:
WHat does the science say? Are there abundant fish available for the change. I think 24" is fine. 22" is an awefully smalll fish.

BUMGARNER, ROGER E  November 27, 2012
KENMORE, WA  
Comments:
I oppose this rule since: 1) there is no evidence that bottom fishing in area 4 is driven in large measure by ling cod fishing. Ling cod fishing (especially in area 4B and in area 4 within 5-10 miles of Tatoosh) is so poor, that most bottom fishing is done to target rockfish. Hence I believe this proposed rule will have little impact on rock fish mortality. 2) My experience is that the vast majority of lings within 20 miles of the Neah Bay docks are undersized with the current regulations with many being just 1" or less short. This suggests that recreational harvest is already having big impact on preventing lings from reaching high fecundity spawning size. A further reduction in the retention size will just exacerbate this problem. A better approach would be a reduction in total harvest coupled with a slot limit to keep large sized spawners in the ecosystem.

LANIER, KEVIN C  November 29, 2012
BURIEN, WA  
Comments:
No

CARVER SR., RUSSELL L  November 29, 2012
LAKETAPPS, WA  
Comments:
Please pass rule 68 it will decrease the impact on larger lings also.

BOBKO, KEN E  December 04, 2012
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
I support this ruling. If it allows some one to catch the targeted species (lingcod) sooner so there is less by-catch better for the overall fisheries.

RAPACZ, KEVIN   December 04, 2012
OLYMPIA , WA  
Comments:
Kind of makes sense. I do not have enough knowledge to know if this can have a positive or negative impact. What I do know is I've caught alot of 22 inch fish and thrown them back. I may or not catch a legal size lingcod. What I do know is a few other species of bottom fish are caught and maybe harmed while trying to catch a legal lingcod. The bottomfish caught usually go into the daily limit I'm fishing for. What I do know is the total number of lingcod kept by fisherman will go up and ocean stocks will go down. So is it better to leave more fish in the ocean or harvest larger more mature fish? You need a fish biologist to answer that one. Please don't use the size reduction as a trade off to offset other rule changes to the lingcod and bottom fish seasons. It is not a feel good approach for rule making. Or if we give them this maybe they would mind having a reduced season were they may or maynot even get a chance to get the boat in the water. And the weather in May and Ju

THEILER, HUGH   December 08, 2012
EAST WENATCHEE, WA  
Comments:
I support this rule change proposal. There are very few lingcod in the 24-inch or greater range.

BENTLER, GORDON A  December 16, 2012
NEAH BAY, WA  
Comments:
I support this proposal for the reasons stated in the explanation.

RAMEY, DAVID A  January 28, 2013
LAKE STEVENS, WA  
Comments:
no-22" is to small of a fish with no meat. This is counter productive to bring down the catch size. By keeping it at 26" it keeps the sizes bigger. We broke MA4B off from the ocean a long time ago for bottomfishing and it is managed with the ocean fishery MA4. By changing the length to 22" it would conflict with MA4. It needs to keep the same guidelines for MA4. If a person catches a 22" ling cod then goes out to the ocean, technically that fish is illegal to take out in the MA4 ocean area where the law is 26". Creates an enforcement problem.

KEIZER, JOHN   January 28, 2013
UNIVERSITY PLACE , WA  
Comments:
Reduce MA 4B Lingcod size to 22"-no-22" is to small of a fish with no meat. This is counter productive to bring down the catch size. By keeping it at 26" it keeps the sizes bigger. We broke MA4B off from the ocean a long time ago for bottomfishing and it is managed with the ocean fishery MA4

GRAHN, MICHAEL   January 28, 2013
MOUNT VERNON, WA  
Comments:
Reduce MA 4B Lingcod size to 22"-no-22" is to small of a fish with no meat. This is counter productive to bring down the catch size. By keeping it at 26" it keeps the sizes bigger. We broke MA4B off from the ocean a long time ago for bottomfishing and it is managed with the ocean fishery MA4.

PELLETIER, RICK   January 28, 2013
EVERETT, WA  
Comments:
22" is to small of a fish with no meat. This is counter productive to bring down the catch size. By keeping it at 26" it keeps the sizes bigger. We broke MA4B off from the ocean a long time ago for bottomfishing and it is managed with the ocean fishery MA4.

ROSS, ROGER G  January 28, 2013
PORT ANGELES, WA  
Comments:
NO MA 4B Lingcod size to 22"-no-22" is too small of a fish with no meat. This is counter productive to bring down the catch size. By keeping it at 26" it keeps the sizes bigger. We broke MA4B off from the ocean a long time ago for bottomfishing and it is managed with the ocean fishery MA4.

HANZELKA, DALE   January 28, 2013
CLINTON, WA  
Comments:
No. Please leave the existing rule of 26" the way it is. Smaller Ling Cod don't really have enough meat on them to worry about.

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. #68 Reduce MA 4B Lingcod size to 22"-no-22" is to small of a fish with no meat. This is counter productive to bring down the catch size. By keeping it at 26" it keeps the sizes bigger. We broke MA4B off from the ocean a long time ago for bottomfishing and it is managed with the ocean fishery MA4.

LEEVER, DON   January 28, 2013
KENT, WA  
Comments:
22" is too small for the size limit on ling cod. There is not enough meat on this smaller size.

LEWIS, PHILIP J  January 28, 2013
RAYMOND, WA  
Comments:
No, this change incourages retaining fish with little yeild - a waste of the resource

KAMINSKI, LARRY   January 28, 2013
POULSBO, WA  
Comments:
NO...keep the minimum size 26"...smaller fish have little meat and this will allow them to be come bigger and a stronger resource.

HILL, JENNIFER   January 28, 2013
POULSBO, WA  
Comments:
Lingcod size to 22"-no-22" is to small of a fish with no meat. This is counter productive to bring down the catch size. By keeping it at 26" it keeps the sizes bigger. We broke MA4B off from the ocean a long time ago for bottomfishing and it is managed with the ocean fishery MA4.

MARTIN, DAVID B  January 28, 2013
FREELAND, WA  
Comments:
I recommend NOT using this proposal!! 22" is to small of a fish with no meat. This is counter productive to bring down the catch size. By keeping it at 26" it keeps the sizes bigger. We broke MA4B off from the ocean a long time ago for bottomfishing and it is managed with the ocean fishery MA4.

FRENCH, RICHARD E  January 28, 2013
SEQUIM, WA  
Comments:
NO. Broken off from ocean a long time ago. 22 " is too small.

PHILLIPS, RICHARD V  January 28, 2013
ENUMCLAW, WA  
Comments:
I have always been bothered by such a restriction on ling cod. A 22" fish is no slouch of a fish and to have to toss such a wonderful fish back of this size is ridiculous. Try telling that to an 8 year old kid who is just getting into fishing that this beautiful 22" fish is too small to put in the box. Thank you.

FRIEND, STEPHEN   January 28, 2013
SHORELINE, WA  
Comments:
I disagree with this proposal. A 22" lingcod is too small to eat.

WISNER, LEEROY   January 28, 2013
CHEHALIS, WA  
Comments:
-Yes- Keep the regs same for as any areas as possible to avoid confusion

TOBECK, ROBERT   January 28, 2013
RENTON, WA  
Comments:
Reduce MA 4B Lingcod size to 22"-no-22" is to small of a fish with no meat. This is counter productive to bring down the catch size. By keeping it at 26" it keeps the sizes bigger. We broke MA4B off from the ocean a long time ago for bottomfishing and it is managed with the ocean fishery MA4.

LOFTEN, CRAIG A  January 28, 2013
OLYMPIA, WA  
Comments:
Reduce MA 4B Lingcod size to 22": No, 22" is to small of a fish with no meat. This is counter productive to bring down the catch size. By keeping it at 26" it keeps the sizes bigger. We broke MA4B off from the ocean a long time ago for bottom fishing and it is managed with the ocean fishery MA4.

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

BODINE, GARY A  January 28, 2013
BUCKLEY, WA  
Comments:
I would rather see the size limit increased in areas 1-3 to maintain consistency. There is very little meat on a 22' fish. Most fishermen will just throw the small ones back and keep fishing for bigger fish anyway. If these new changes proposed are all about reducing mortallity on rockfish, then require and educate fishers on how to return a rockfish back to the water successfully to a proper depth. We consistently use the Shelton Fish Descender and it is extremely effective. If a release such as this is used regularly, it would have a huge reduction on rockfish mortality.

NAMES, THOMAS E  January 28, 2013
RENTOBN, WA  
Comments:
#68 Reduce MA 4B Lingcod size to 22"-no-22" is to small of a fish with no meat. This is counter productive to bring down the catch size. By keeping it at 26" it keeps the sizes bigger. We broke MA4B off from the ocean a long time ago for bottomfishing and it is managed with the ocean fishery MA4.

SILVERS, MIKE G  January 28, 2013
LACEY, WA  
Comments:
no-22" is to small of a fish with no meat. This is counter productive to bring down the catch size. By keeping it at 26" it keeps the sizes bigger. We broke MA4B off from the ocean a long time ago for bottomfishing and it is managed with the ocean fishery MA4.

ELLIOTT, TOM J  January 28, 2013
MARYSVILLE , WA  
Comments:
No- your kidding right? you want to recover a fish by allowing younger members to be taken? must be a side effect of the new pot laws. fish this small do not have enough meat to be usefull.

CHAPMAN, PAUL E  January 28, 2013
EDMONDS, WA  
Comments:
Keep the minimum size like it is. Even a 26" fish has minimum meat. They live a long time, let them grow up!

SCHMITT, JOSEPH L  January 28, 2013
JOYCE, WA  
Comments:
No do not support. Let them grow a bit bigger

AUMAN, DAVID W  January 28, 2013
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
no-22" is to small of a fish with no meat. This is counter productive to bring down the catch size. By keeping it at 26" it keeps the sizes bigger. We broke MA4B off from the ocean a long time ago for bottomfishing and it is managed with the ocean fishery MA4.

BROWN, TOM C  January 28, 2013
FRIDAY HARBOR, WA  
Comments:
Reducing the size limit on Ling Cod would be a mistake as the smaller fish have little meat and we should keep the size of the fish larger for survival as well. Once these fish reach a larger size their chance to reach sexual maturity increases and will keep the overall population more stable.

TENNEY, APRIL   January 28, 2013
GRANITE FALLS, WA  
Comments:
no-22" is to small of a fish with no meat. This is counter productive to bring down the catch size. By keeping it at 26" it keeps the sizes bigger. We broke MA4B off from the ocean a long time ago for bottomfishing and it is managed with the ocean fishery MA4.

PETERSON, ERIC   January 28, 2013
LAKE STEVENS, WA  
Comments:
22 inches it too small to harvest. does not provide enough meat to justify keeping it.

HOWARD, JAMES D  January 28, 2013
LYNNWOOD, WA  
Comments:
"reduce bycatch of non-target species." -but non-target species are doing just fine in Marine Area 4. Why adopt a rule when it isn't needed? Keep the size limit where it is. The rock fish and cabezon are doing just fine as we have been successful every year. Thank you! Jim Howard

HASHIMOTO, MARK M  January 28, 2013
EDMONDS, WA  
Comments:
NO! I already see too many people with small, barely legal fish with hardly any meat at the cleaning table! Keep the fish larger so that they have more of a chance to mature, breed and enhance the current stocks before being plucked out of the water before they get that chance! It also makes for a more satisfying fillet on the BBQ!

OPSTAD, DAVID   January 28, 2013
MILL CREEK, WA  
Comments:
I do NOT agree with this rule change. I do not believe this will reduce bycatch, I think it will increase bycatch.

FUGERE, TIM J  January 28, 2013
PUYALLUP, WA  
Comments:
There is no need to reduce the size limit on these fish. A 22" lingcod is too small of a fish with no meat. This is counter productive to bring down the catch size. By keeping it at 26" it keeps the sizes bigger.

CURTIS, ERIC M  January 28, 2013
KIRKLAND, WA  
Comments:
NO, this size is too small in order to keep for eating. Understanding that you are trying to protect larger females for population. Instead of changing the seasons and sizes- why dont you put a cap on how many a fisherman can keep total on the punch card. Only allowed so many a season - a Quota.

FINNEY, WILLIAM   January 28, 2013
BELLEVUE, WA  
Comments:
Leave the size at 26 inches. The bigger lings eat all the rock fish and a 22 inch ling is not worth the trip to go that far.

GETTER, DALE E  January 28, 2013
BOTHELL, WA  
Comments:
#68 Reduce MA 4B Lingcod size to 22"-no-22" is to small of a fish with no meat. This is counter productive to bring down the catch size. By keeping it at 26" it keeps the sizes bigger. We broke MA4B off from the ocean a long time ago for bottomfishing and it is managed with the ocean fishery MA4.

MITCHELL, DAVID   January 28, 2013
SILVERDALE, WA  
Comments:
YES-This will reduce the LingCod population and thereby increase the Rock fish population.24" is probably better though since 22" has very little meat.

REESE, DAVID M  January 28, 2013
WOODINVILLE, WA  
Comments:
No-22" is to small of a fish with no meat. This is counter productive to bring down the catch size. By keeping it at 26" it keeps the sizes bigger. We broke MA4B off from the ocean a long time ago for bottomfishing and it is managed with the ocean fishery MA4.

HAGLER, STEVE L  January 28, 2013
SEQUIM, WA  
Comments:
I do not agree with rule the smaller size has very little meat on them you need to let them mature more and the current size limit may explain why the lincod are healthy

DELINSKY, MICHAEL   January 28, 2013
EVERETT, WA  
Comments:
#68 Reduce MA 4B Lingcod size to 22"-no-22" is to small of a fish with no meat. This is counter productive to bring down the catch size. By keeping it at 26" it keeps the sizes bigger. We broke MA4B off from the ocean a long time ago for bottomfishing and it is managed with the ocean fishery MA4.

CHILDS, JEFF   January 28, 2013
QUILCENE,, WA  
Comments:
No! Why? Keep the length at 26. All head anyhow. Less meat at 22, and seems counter productive for protection.

TOWNLEY, BRYAN   January 28, 2013
NORTH BEND, WA  
Comments:
MA 4B Lingcod size to 22"-no-22" is to small of a fish with no meat. This is counter productive to bring down the catch size. By keeping it at 26" it keeps the sizes bigger. We broke MA4B off from the ocean a long time ago for bottomfishing and it is managed with the ocean fishery MA4.

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

FANTZ, TERESA L  January 29, 2013
MAPLE VALLEY, WA  
Comments:
Reduce MA 4B Lingcod size to 22"-no -22" is too small of a fish with no meat. This is counter productive to bring down the catch size. By keeping it at 26" it keeps the sizes bigger. We broke MA4B off from the ocean a long time ago for bottomfishing and it is managed with the ocean fishery MA4.

SIVRET, DAVE   January 29, 2013
NORMANDY PARK, WA  
Comments:
No need for this , 22 inch fish are too small to keep and this will keep larger breeding fish in the habitat.

MURPHY, BRIAN T  January 29, 2013
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
Needlessly regulating an healthy fishery. Leave legal size at 26" in Area 4. If you decrease the size limit you will have the situation you have in Area 2 where the fish are uniformly smaller. With no increase in the rockfish population.

WILLIAMS, RON   January 29, 2013
KINGSTON, WA  
Comments:
Too low..will endanger breeder quantity

ROSS, CHRISTOPHER G  January 29, 2013
BOTHELL, WA  
Comments:
22" is too small of a fish with no meat. This is counter productive to bring down the catch size. By keeping it at 26" it keeps the sizes bigger. We broke MA4B off from the ocean a long time ago for bottomfishing and it is managed with the ocean fishery MA4.

BUCKLIN, LAURENCE A  January 29, 2013
UNIVERSITY PLACE, WA  
Comments:
I recommend a No on this proposal. First, if the ling population is healthy there should be sufficient numbers of larger ling available for harvest and which provide far more edible meat per fish harvested. This is a wastage issue! As far as bycatch fishing in MA 4 is already restricted to waters less than 120 feet except during limited halibut seasons. Bycatch should only be a concern if we are considering yelloweye and canary rockfish. Given the 120 foot limit just how many of those are impacted by ling fishermen? It should also be noted that several local fishing groups are initiating educational programs to improve identification of rockfish caught and to reduce release mortality. These efforts should be taken into consideration as they are anticipated to substantially reduce improper identification of rockfish as well as release mortality of yelloweye and canary as well as any other rockfish fishermen decide to release.

THOMSON, WILLIAM G  January 29, 2013
ANACORTES, WA  
Comments:
No, 22" is too small.

BURLINGAME, TOM AND DORA   January 29, 2013
MONROE, WA  
Comments:
We oppose changing the legal keeper Ling Cod size to 22 inches. A 22 inch Ling Cod is too small to keep and would have very small filets. In our experience as a charter boat operator, when you lower the size of fish you can keep, that is the size you tend to catch. Let's keep our Ling Cod fishery a quality one. Reducing the size limit will have a negative effect on a quality fishery.

CARTER, MICHAEL   January 29, 2013
POULSBO, WA  
Comments:
No on #68 reducing the size of lingcod for retention is ridiculous especially 22 inches

CARTER, MICHAEL   January 29, 2013
POULSBO, WA  
Comments:
No on #68 reducing the size of lingcod for retention is ridiculous especially 22 inches

DAWSON, DENNIS   January 29, 2013
ALLYN, `W  
Comments:
There are or will be sufficient ling cod in the current size limit and I would encourage a consistent 24" limit in zones 1-4. After a couple of years of the new size limit there will be equivalent numbers or 24" keepers and when you catch one you will have a reasonable amount of filet.

REINHARDT, NORM   January 29, 2013
PORT ORCHARD, WA  
Comments:
A 22" lingcod is to small of a fish with no meat. It is counter productive to bring down the catch size. By keeping it at 26" it keeps the sizes bigger. We broke MA4B off from the ocean a long time ago for bottomfishing and it is managed with the ocean fishery MA4.

BRACKMANN, KARL H  January 29, 2013
WOODINVILLE, WA  
Comments:
In order to protect rock fish, especially those on the protected/endangered list, removal of more, larger lingcod is warranted rather that reducing the minimum size limit. Separating the ocean fishery management in area 4B with a different size limit that in the straits is consistent with previous action (Area 1-3).

PARKER, PETE   January 29, 2013
BREMERTON, WA  
Comments:
No value or reason to lower the size limit It is counter productive to sport fishing to catch a fish the size of a guppy .

ROPER, MAURY   January 29, 2013
SPANAWAY, WA  
Comments:
22" is too small of a fish with no meat. This is counter productive to bring down the catch size. By keeping it at 26" it keeps the sizes bigger.

MOSER, MICHAEL V  January 29, 2013
EVERETT, WA  
Comments:
I think the size limit should stay the same, just for the fact that a 22in lingcod does not have much meat compared to 26in lingcod. I know that the coast has a great population of lingcod, but by keeping the 26in size it will also help our population of stay strong for years to come. I personally would not keep a 22in, but i know a lot of other fisherman would, don't think that is a good idea to change to 22in.

SHEEHAN, JOHN   January 29, 2013
SEATTE, WA  
Comments:
No- Leave the legal size at 22"

BYKONEN, DON   January 29, 2013
SUMNER, WA  
Comments:
Make it 26 inches