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

LANIER, KEVIN C  September 21, 2012
BURIEN, WA  
Comments:
I do NOT support this proposed rule change. Rock fish will not recover in areas that Lingcod inhabit. I think an expansion of Lingcod season should be considered

GIRTZ, TODD   September 21, 2012
SUMNER, WA  
Comments:
the area is already closed to water deeper then 120 feet no need to reduce the ling cod season any more then it already is by closing ling cod you will have more people fishing for rock fish that would have been fishing for lingcod

WARDLOW, DONALD D  September 22, 2012
WOODINVILLE, WA  
Comments:
Don't like this proposal. Lings are caught in shallow and deep water. Putting a fishing depth restriction on bottom fishing in 4b makes sense to avoid barotrauma to rockfish. Other consideration would be to require the use of deep water release gear for rockfish. Closing down a popular fishing season to avoid hooking a rockfish makes little sense. Hooking and releasing rockfish in shallow water doesn't seem to harm them.

LANTZ, BRADLEY G  September 24, 2012
VAUGHN, WA  
Comments:
Leave as it is and keep length the same also.

GARNER, RON G  September 28, 2012
MONROE, WA  
Comments:
There is a huge misunderstanding about Lingcod. They are not as old as originally believed. They grow very fast depending on how much is available for them to eat. If you leave them to move in and go longer unchecked, they will eat more rockfish you are trying to protect. This will be counter productive. Lingcod are voracious feeders. If you would like the studies that show that rockfish cannot repopulate a marine reserve with lingcod present. This is a 6 page study proving it. Please contact me for this information

PENEV, KAMEN   October 02, 2012
SAMMAMISH, WA  
Comments:
I oppose this proposal. It limits the fishing opportunities without a clear proof that it will have the desired effects on endangered rockfish species.

STUDZINSKI, TOM   October 05, 2012
MARYSVILLE, WA  
Comments:
69 Reduce Lingcod season in MA 4B. No- there are plenty of lingcod and if rockfish conservation is a concern then removing more lingcod will be more productive, thus requiring expansion. Studies show that even MPAs/Fishing closures will not let rockfish repopulate if lingcod are present.

HARRIS, MILES   October 05, 2012
FEDERAL WAY, WA  
Comments:
No. There are plenty of Lingcod in this area. If Rockfish conservation is a concern then removing more Lingcod will be more productive. Studies show that even MPAs/Fishing closures will not let rockfish repopulate if lingcod are present.

SAVIDGE, MATT C  October 05, 2012
BREMERTON, WA  
Comments:
No- there are plenty of lingcod and if rockfish conservation is a concern then removing more lingcod will be more productive, thus requiring expansion. Studies show that even MPAs/Fishing closures will not let rockfish repopulate if lingcod are present

PERKINS, STEVEN L  October 05, 2012
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
I strongly disagree with this proposal. If the point of this restriction is to reduce mortality of rockfish species then we should lengthen the Lingcod season and have more liberal limits on them. Lingcod are a natural predator of rockfish and studies have shown that even in MPA's / closure areas that the presence of lingcod will keep the rockfish from recovering. Instead of reducing the bottomfishing opportunities for species like Halibut and Lingcod, the state should impose requirements for fishermen to carry and use devices designed to safely release rockfish at depth and reduce bycatch mortality.

OWEN, THOMAS A  October 05, 2012
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
No- there are plenty of lingcod and if rockfish conservation is a concern then removing more lingcod will be more productive, thus requiring expansion. Studies show that even MPAs/Fishing closures will not let rockfish repopulate if lingcod are present.

ABEL, GREG A  October 07, 2012
BREMERTON, WA  
Comments:
NO! Which rockfish are you trying to protect during ling cod season? I personally do not catch that many rockfish during this season. If you want to protect the yellow eyes that we all see floating away from the rockpile or south-west closure areas during halibut season, make it mandatory to use a venting tool which allows that fish a chance to survive. Current regs prohibit use of these scientifically proven devices which makes no sense to me.

JAMBORETZ, MICHAEL A  October 07, 2012
DUVALL, WA  
Comments:
I appose this change.

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

COLLINS, EDWARD W  October 08, 2012
BELLINGHAM, WA  
Comments:
Should lengthen the Ling season, the whole idea of the closure/limitation was to preserve Rock fish species....Lings eat Rock fish species...less Lings, more Rock fish species...

CARTER, RAYAN C  October 08, 2012
MUKILTEO, WA  
Comments:
Please do not pass this! I am all for keeping the original size limit restriction however changing this season is rather frustrating for anglers whose only shot at Lingcod is outside of the small time frame already used throughout puget sound.

TACHELL, JONATHAN T  October 08, 2012
GIG HARBOR, WA  
Comments:
I do not support this rule change and would like to see the ling cod season stay the same as it currently is in marine area 4B. There is a very healthy population of ling cod in this area and I do not think rockfish by catch is much of a problem especially if you have to release them anyway from waters less than 120 feet deep where lingcod can only be fished.

TACHELL, ART J  October 09, 2012
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
this rule change will just create a targeted fishery just like other ares where lots of fishermen conentrate there efforts on these bottomfish because it is only open for 45 days. from what i have seen it looks like a bigger bycatch problem. I do not like this proposal.

ATWOOD, APRIL   October 17, 2012
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
I support proposed change #69 which reduces the Lingcod season in Area 4B to align with the rest of Puget Sound. This is a necessary step due to the significant protected rockfish bycatch associated with the Area 4B Lingcod season in July, August and September documented in the WDFW 2011 Area 4B test fishery. Data from the test fishery document that for every legal Lingcod caught during the test fishery, thirty-five ‘protected’ rockfish were caught and likely killed or damaged due to barotrauma. To more effectively address the WDFW-documented high rate of protected rockfish bycatch associated with the Lingcod fishery at Neah Bay, I believe you should change daily Lingcod limit there from two (2) to one (1) Lingcod per person per day.

LANDRUM, LEANDER W  October 22, 2012
BONNEY LAKE, WA  
Comments:
This proposal goes too far. There are better ways to do this. Suggestion: When bottomfishing deeper than 60 feet of water in area 4B, minimum bait size should be limited to 10 inches. Additionally, eliminate retention of ALL OTHER BOTTOMFISH during open Halibut seasons.

CRAWFORD, BRYAN   October 23, 2012
PORT ANGELES, WA  
Comments:
First, I would strongly urge you to reconsider this proposal in view of your stated intentions, there is an overabundance of Lingcod in this area at the present. I fish 4b often from my Kayak, typically in 15 to 75' of water, last time out my friend and I hooked more the 2 to 1 Ling cod over Sea Bass, we hooked dozens of legal size Ling that day, I caught 1, count them 1, China rockfish which was released in very good shape. I fish this area 10 to 20 days in the season and very seldom encounter endangered Rock fish, a few coppers and China but very few and 90% are released in good shape. Anyhow, my point is, what is this overabundance of Ling cod going to do to the juvenile rock fish population? These are extreme measures you are proposing but there may be at least a dozen other ways to accomplish your stated goals. 1st, Bring the Depth restriction in even further, there are lots of Ling cod in quite shallow water, say 75' or less. 2nd, Keep the season open but reduc

LINCK, RON   October 25, 2012
EDGEWOOD, WA  
Comments:
I support this action as a way to protect and enhance the rockfish species.

LANDRUM, LEANDER W  October 30, 2012
BONNEY LAKE, WA  
Comments:
It has come to my attention that the 'research study' used to support this proposal, was actually a study that was SPECIFICALLY TARGETTING ROCKFISH. The idea that 'scientists' and 'conservationists' are using faulty data to support this rule proposal is completely backwards. The study indicated that for every 1 legal ling caught, 35 'protected rockfish' were caught. Well, that's because they were TRYING to catch rockfish, and not targetting lingcod at all. This rule proposal should NOT be adopted, as the evidence to support it is completely faulty, and the reasoning behind it is invalid.

JAMES, ART   November 02, 2012
PORT TOWNSEND, WA  
Comments:
If the rockfish mortality issue was addressed with the 20 fathom restriction then does this additional restriction suggest that that hypothesis failed?

ROSE, CORY   January 28, 2013
EVERETT, WA  
Comments:
No- there are plenty of lingcod and if rockfish conservation is a concern then removing more lingcod will be more productive, thus requiring expansion. Studies show that even MPAs/Fishing closures will not let rockfish repopulate if lingcod are present.

PAUL, DARIN   November 09, 2012
SHELTON, WA  
Comments:
NO, Please don't pass this proposal.. the only time my family gets to go lingcod fishing is in the summer.. we go out of sekiu, and fish in area 4b for lings.. this will ruin our fishery..

VANZANT, MICHAEL   January 28, 2013
AURORA, CO  
Comments:
I do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal does not justify the action. Additionally, this rule change would have a huge impact on WA's fishing community and the economy that supports it. And it will create a safety hazard for small boats.

GOULD, PHILLIP   January 28, 2013
ENNS, OB  
Comments:
I do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal does not justify the action. Additionally, this rule change would have a huge impact on WA's fishing community and the economy that supports it. And it will create a safety hazard for small boats. See: http://www.thewhiteroom.com/wdfw_letter.html The 120' depth restriction already sufficiently protects rockfish. Thanks for your consideration and all of your hard work.

RAMEY, DAVID A  January 28, 2013
LAKE STEVENS, WA  
Comments:
No- there are plenty of lingcod and if rockfish conservation is a concern then removing more lingcod will be more productive, thus requiring expansion. Studies show that even MPAs/Fishing closures will not let rockfish repopulate if lingcod are present.

LAPLANT, ADAM   November 26, 2012
NORTH BEND , WA  
Comments:
Marine area 4 has a very healthy supply of all kinds of rockfish and should not be managed as a Puget Sound Rockfishery and should be left to the peaople that work with WDFW to manage our ocean fisheries.

STUDZINSKI, TOM   November 26, 2012
MARYSVILLE, WA  
Comments:
This area gets a strong return of Lingcod from the ocean. Lingcod are a large predator to rockfish and if we are trying to save Rockfish, leaving a voracious predator unchecked would be counterproductive About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing for Lingcod through the 120’ line depth closure.

VOIGHT, RYAN   November 26, 2012
ENUMCLAW, WA  
Comments:
The season for lingcodd should not be shortened as this is a predator fish that feeds on a variety of seabass. By cutting the season for ling cod we will be harming the rockfish population. We need to leave the season how it currently is.

JACKSON, LEIF   November 26, 2012
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
This area gets a strong return of Lingcod from the ocean. Lingcod are a large predator to rockfish and if we are trying to save Rockfish, leaving a voracious predator unchecked would be counterproductive About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing for Lingcod through the 120’ line depth closure. "Statistics" that have been used to support this closure are flawed. Yes, some rockfish are caught while targeting lingcod, but the vast majority are black, blue, and yellowtail rockfish. These species are schooling, migratory fish with healthy ocean populations. Further, they are hardy fish, not having a swim bladder, and they have an excellent survival rate after release.

WILSON, GEOFF   November 26, 2012
ARLINGTON, WA  
Comments:
I DO NOT support this proposal it is in direct conflict with proposal #66 which is trying to shut down retention of any kind of rock fish other than Blue and Black and reduce the limit to one fish which I'm also against. you want to reduce the lingcod catch which will allow more rock fish to be eaten by the lingcod. Due to the 120' rule over 85% of this area is off limits to fishing for bottom fish already for the majority of the year. This makes no sense to me.

GIRTZ, TODD   November 26, 2012
SUMNER, WA  
Comments:
there are lots of ling cod in this area and also lot of rock fish. fishing has already been closes in the water deeper than 120 feet there is no need to lower the limit on lingcod. lingcod eat lots of rock fish by lowering the limit on lingcod the extra lingcod not caught by fishermen would kill alot more rock fish then the few that are caght by fishermen while targeting lingcod

ALLEVATO, FREDERICO   November 26, 2012
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
This area gets a strong return of Lingcod from the ocean. Lingcod are a large predator to rockfish and if we are trying to save Rockfish, leaving a voracious predator unchecked would be counterproductive About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing for Lingcod through the 120’ line depth closure.

SAVIDGE, MATT C  November 26, 2012
BREMERTON, WA  
Comments:
This area gets a strong return of Lingcod from the ocean. Lingcod are a large predator to rockfish and if we are trying to save Rockfish, leaving a voracious predator unchecked would be counterproductive. About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing for Lingcod through the 120’ line depth closure.

NG, STEVE   November 26, 2012
GIG HARBOR, WA  
Comments:
I am appealing the state to bring in the wdfw in the picture and provide some sound science. I am urging a no vote on the lingcod proposal as stated. Steve Ng Member of Puget Sound Anglers and CCA

OWEN, THOMAS A  November 26, 2012
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
This area gets a strong return of Lingcod from the ocean. Lingcod are a large predator to rockfish and if we are trying to save Rockfish, leaving a voracious predator unchecked would be counterproductive About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing for Lingcod through the 120’ line depth closure.

LEY, COLIN R  November 26, 2012
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
I DO NOT support proposed change #69 which reduces the Lingcod season in Area 4B to align with the rest of Puget Sound. This area gets a strong return of Lingcod from the ocean. Lingcod are a large predator to rockfish and if we are trying to save Rockfish, leaving a voracious predator unchecked would be counterproductive About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing for Lingcod through the 120’ line depth closure.

HEIKKINEN, JUSTIN   November 26, 2012
PORTLAND, OR  
Comments:
Lingcod harvest helps rockfish by removing an overabundant and active predator from the ecosystem.

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

CORNELL, DAVID W  November 26, 2012
PORTLAND, OR  
Comments:
This area gets a strong return of Lingcod from the ocean. Lingcod are a large predator to rockfish and if we are trying to save Rockfish, leaving a voracious predator unchecked would be counterproductive About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing for Lingcod through the 120’ line depth closure.

BISWAS, SHREYA   November 26, 2012
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
I DO NOT support proposed change #69 which reduces the Lingcod season in Area 4B to align with the rest of Puget Sound. This area gets a strong return of Lingcod from the ocean. This proposed change makes no sense when viewed in light of proposed change #66. Lingcod are a large predator to rockfish and if we are trying to save Rockfish, leaving a voracious predator unchecked would be counterproductive. Furthermore, about 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing for Lingcod through the 120’ line depth closure.

BISWAS, SHREYA   November 26, 2012
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
I DO NOT support proposed change #69 which reduces the Lingcod season in Area 4B to align with the rest of Puget Sound. This area gets a strong return of Lingcod from the ocean. This proposed change makes no sense when viewed in light of proposed change #66. Lingcod are a large predator to rockfish and if we are trying to save Rockfish, leaving a voracious predator unchecked would be counterproductive. Furthermore, about 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing for Lingcod through the 120’ line depth closure.

HARRIS, MILES   November 26, 2012
FEDERAL WAY, WA  
Comments:
This area gets a strong return of Lingcod from the ocean. Lingcod are a large predator to rockfish and if we are trying to save Rockfish, leaving a voracious predator unchecked would be counterproductive About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing for Lingcod through the 120’ line depth closure.

ALLEN, KERRY W  November 26, 2012
GIG HARBOR, WA  
Comments:
I recomend against this rule change for the following reasons: This area gets a strong return of Lingcod from the ocean. Lingcod are a large predator to rockfish and if we are trying to save Rockfish, leaving a voracious predator unchecked would be counterproductive About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing for Lingcod through the 120’ line depth closure.

KNOBBS, KENNETH D  November 26, 2012
SILVERDALE, WA  
Comments:
Dear WDFW, I do not support this proposed rule change. Lingcod are a large predator of rockfish. If the WDFW wants to promote the rebuilding of Puget Sound rockfish stocks it seems to me that lingcod populations should be kept in check in these areas to help promote rockfish populations. There should be no concerns about Lingcod stocks as they have been proven to be more than healthy and they do recover quickly if stock problems do arise. Once again I hope that the WDFW will not support proposed rule #69. Thank you.

REESE, DAVID M  November 26, 2012
WOODINVILLE, WA  
Comments:
This area gets a strong return of Lingcod from the ocean. Lingcod are a large predator to rockfish and if we are trying to save Rockfish, leaving a voracious predator unchecked would be counterproductive About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing for Lingcod through the 120’ line depth closure. Thank you, David Reese

KEIZER, JOHN A  January 28, 2013
UNIVERSITY PLACE , WA  
Comments:
69 Reduce Lingcod season in MA 4B. No- there are plenty of lingcod and if rockfish conservation is a concern then removing more lingcod will be more productive, thus requiring expansion. Studies show that even MPAs/Fishing closures will not let rockfish repopulate if lingcod are present

NORWOOD, JEFRY N  November 26, 2012
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
I OPPOSE PROPOSAL #69 This area gets a strong return of Lingcod from the ocean. Lingcod are a large predator to rockfish and if we are trying to save Rockfish, leaving a voracious predator unchecked would be counterproductive About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing for Lingcod through the 120’ line depth closure.

CUMMINS , JEREMY D  November 26, 2012
EVERETT, WA  
Comments:
Please do not pass prososal #69. This area gets a strong return of Lingcod from the ocean. Lingcod are a large predator to rockfish and if we are trying to save Rockfish, leaving a voracious predator unchecked would be counterproductive About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing for Lingcod through the 120’ line depth closure.

GRAHAM, GEORGE A  November 26, 2012
LAKEWOOD, WA  
Comments:
Please do not close 4A or 4B to the closing of bottomfish, seabass and especially Lingcod. This small boat fisherie is crutial to the sportsman and the economy. If you want to help the area close it to the divers

BAYER, GLEN   November 26, 2012
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
This area gets a strong return of Lingcod from the ocean. Lingcod are a large predator to rockfish and if we are trying to save Rockfish, leaving a voracious predator unchecked would be counterproductive About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing for Lingcod through the 120’ line depth closure.

GRAHAM, GEORGE A  November 26, 2012
LAKEWOOD, WA  
Comments:
please leave the Lingcod seasons as they are. 120' has already made a big enough impact. Look into restricting the divers if you want to make an impact.

RISSER, JOHN D  November 26, 2012
STANWOOD, WA  
Comments:
I do NOT support the reduced season for area 4B. This is an area for small boats use to begin fishing in. It is protected and when it is blowing out on the ocean this allows another opportunity for all to use. This is a Scam to get fishing to be Shut done and it is plain wrong. All users to include divers need to respect each other. A reduced season will hurt the local economy and the Makah's need the Sports fishing to bring in a influx of cash. A death by a thousand Cuts is still a Death and that is what PETA, Wild Fish Conservatory ASS. and The PEW Foundation are driving towards a total fishing BAN. It is Uncalled for.

MAXFIELD, KEN R  November 26, 2012
OLYMPIA, WA  
Comments:
Pleas do not reduce catch limits in this area.Me and my kids really injoy this fishery

FUGERE, TIM J  November 26, 2012
PUYALLUP, WA  
Comments:
Personally disagree with this propsal. 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.

HUME JR, MIKE A  November 26, 2012
MONTESANO, WA  
Comments:
This area gets a strong return of Lingcod from the ocean. Lingcod are a large predator to rockfish and if we are trying to save Rockfish, leaving a voracious predator unchecked would be counterproductive About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing for Lingcod through the 120’ line depth closure. before the yellow eye closure I caught yellow eye and a big lingcod grabbed it on the way up.

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

NUGENT, MATTHEW R  November 26, 2012
BOTHELL, WA  
Comments:
Please leave the ling cod seasons alone. They are natural predators to the Rock cod. More Ling cod will mean less rock cod. They are being manage properly now and are in good balance.

TAKAYOSHI, JASON   November 26, 2012
AUBURN, WA  
Comments:
Do not pass #65

SPANI, CHUCK   November 26, 2012
LYNNWOOD, WA  
Comments:
There is no data to support this ridiculous ASSumption. Please table this idea entirely.

TUCKER, TIMOTHY J  November 26, 2012
PORT TOWNSEND, WA  
Comments:
This area gets a strong return of Lingcod from the ocean. Lingcod are a large predator to rockfish and if we are trying to save Rockfish, leaving a voracious predator unchecked would be counterproductive About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing for Lingcod through the 120’ line depth closure.

MELVIN, CHRIS   November 26, 2012
OREGON CITY , OR  
Comments:
This area gets a strong return of Lingcod from the ocean. Lingcod are a large predator to rockfish and if we are trying to save Rockfish, leaving a voracious predator unchecked would be counterproductive About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing for Lingcod through the 120’ line depth closure.

PATRICK, ARTHUR   November 26, 2012
GIG HARBOR, WA  
Comments:
This area gets a strong return of Lingcod from the ocean. Lingcod are a large predator to rockfish and if we are trying to save Rockfish, leaving a voracious predator unchecked would be counterproductive About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing for Lingcod through the 120’ line depth closure.

PARKER, CRYSTAL   November 26, 2012
DUVALL, WA  
Comments:
I do not support reducing lingcod season further. The by catch of rockfish is being blown out of proportion, there is no great number of rockfish being killed for every lingcod caught, that is ridiculous. Lingcod eat rockfish, if you really worried about the rockfish you would be happy to see them caught. This painting sport fishermen as killers of protected rockfish is a complete sham when everyone knows that the dredgers are the ones that erased the rockfish habitat and all from our waters.

HACKNEY, BRENT S  November 26, 2012
LAKE STEVENS, WA  
Comments:
This area gets a strong return of Lingcod from the ocean. Lingcod are a large predator to rockfish and if we are trying to save Rockfish, leaving a voracious predator unchecked would be counterproductive About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing for Lingcod through the 120’ line depth closure.

LEE, DONG   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. http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/rule_proposals/comments/proposal.php?id=144

LEE, DONG   November 26, 2012
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
This area gets a strong return of Lingcod from the ocean. Lingcod are a large predator to rockfish and if we are trying to save Rockfish, leaving a voracious predator unchecked would be counterproductive About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing for Lingcod through the 120’ line depth closure. http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/ ... php?id=146

GRAHAM, JAMES   November 27, 2012
SEATTLE , WA  
Comments:
Again dont pass this rule. One one hand you want to save rock fish and on the other you want to restrict fishing for it's largest preditor. That makes no sence.

DURBIN, JOSH D  November 27, 2012
BELFAIR, WA  
Comments:
I am against this rule change, there are lots of ling cod in this area

BERGERON, DAVID A  November 27, 2012
LAKEWOOD, WA  
Comments:
This area gets a strong return of Lingcod from the ocean. Lingcod are a large predator to rockfish and if we are trying to save Rockfish, leaving a voracious predator unchecked would be counterproductive About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing for Lingcod through the 120’ line depth closure.

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 fishery already has significant rockfish protection. Lingcod are a serious predator on young rockfish; removing the bulk of the remaining sportfishing effort will allow their population to grow unchecked to the detriment of rockfish recovery. The impact on the NW coastal communities will be too great for this severe level of restriction.

COATNEY, DON C  November 27, 2012
OAK HARBOR, WA  
Comments:
No on rule change 69. There is plenty of lingcod that migrate in from the ocean and putting a shorter season on this voratious fish that has most of its diet on rockfish would be foolish. Keep the seasons the way they are.

KEMMAN, RANDY T  November 27, 2012
LAKEWOOD, WA  
Comments:
Bad Proposal. Please do not pass it.

TAYLOR, SEAN M  November 27, 2012
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
This area gets a strong return of Lingcod from the ocean. Lingcod are a large predator to rockfish and if we are trying to save Rockfish, leaving a voracious predator unchecked would be counterproductive About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing for Lingcod through the 120’ line depth closure.

MOONEY, DON   November 27, 2012
EDGEWOOD, WA  
Comments:
This is a poorly vailed attempt to exclude certian users for the benefit of a much smaller group. There is no sceince or data to back support this change. It is simply a turf grab by special interest groups. The commisioner that proposed it should be removed.

FORRESTOR, BEN J  November 27, 2012
BELLEVUE, WA  
Comments:
I oppose #69

FORRESTOR, BEN J  November 27, 2012
BELLEVUE, WA  
Comments:
I oppose 69

KERR, CLIFTON E  November 27, 2012
EDMONDS, WA  
Comments:
I am opposed to this rule change. Please do not add any more restrictions to the lingcod fishery. There are already too many lingcod restrictions on the ocean coast as it is. Please do not add any more.

WESTPHAL, MARK   November 27, 2012
WOODINVILLE, WA  
Comments:
This area gets a strong return of Lingcod from the ocean. Lingcod are a large predator to rockfish and if we are trying to save Rockfish, leaving a voracious predator unchecked would be counterproductive About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing for Lingcod through the 120’ line depth closure.

HARTMAN, MARK   November 27, 2012
BREMERTON, WA  
Comments:
With the restrictions already in place in most of this area I see no need for any further restrictions or reductions in season. I recommend a denial of this proposal.

JOHNSON, RYAN J  November 27, 2012
COVINGTON, WA  
Comments:
Based on my observations i would think that exploding or unchecked lingcod populations would hurt rockfish recovery due to predation more than bycatch would, especially considering the 20 fathom rule. I also think that rockfish populations appear very healthy in MA4 and have looked very good in MAs 5, 6 and 7 as well.

SVRET, DAVE   November 27, 2012
NORMANDY PARK, WA  
Comments:
I urge you not to adopt WDFW Proposal #65 . It is a misguided approch to management.

LAFONTAINE, WADE   November 27, 2012
STANWOOD, WA  
Comments:
This area gets a strong return of Lingcod from the ocean. Lingcod are a large predator to rockfish and if we are trying to save Rockfish, leaving a voracious predator unchecked would be counterproductive About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing for Lingcod through the 120’ line depth closure.

TUIDER, GEORGE   November 27, 2012
PORT ORCHARD, WA  
Comments:
Another ridiculous proposal attempting to mislead the public. Lingcod, like Northern Pike, will eat anything that is smaller than themselves. (Sometimes, not smaller.) Rockfish fall into this category of things smaller. Not harvesting the Lingcod that feed on Rockfish to protect the Rockfish makes absolutely no sense. I do not support this rule change.

HANZELKA, DALE   November 27, 2012
CLINTON, WA  
Comments:
This area gets a strong return of Lingcod from the ocean. Lingcod are a large predator to rockfish and if we are trying to save Rockfish, leaving a voracious predator unchecked would be counterproductive About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing for Lingcod through the 120’ line depth closure.

OVERBY, DON R  November 27, 2012
ROCHESTER, WA  
Comments:
This area gets a strong return of Lingcod from the ocean. Lingcod are a large predator to rockfish and if we are trying to save Rockfish, leaving a voracious predator unchecked would be counterproductive About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing for Lingcod through the 120’ line depth closure.

FLINT, EMILY D  November 27, 2012
PORTLAND, OR  
Comments:
This area gets a strong return of Lingcod from the ocean. Lingcod are a large predator to rockfish and if we are trying to save Rockfish, leaving a voracious predator unchecked would be counterproductive About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing for Lingcod through the 120’ line depth closure.

BERTO, NICK   November 28, 2012
SNOHOMISH, WA  
Comments:
DO NOT CHANGE CURRENT DATES!!! SEASON SHOULD BE LEFT AS IS AND NOT REDUCED ANYMORE. PEOPLE NEED TO BE EDUCATED BETTER ON HOW TO HANDLE AND REDUCE MORTALITY ON ROCKFISH, DON'T RESTRICT LINGCOD BECAUSE OF IT.

NANCARROW, CHAD   November 28, 2012
ISSAQUAH, WA  
Comments:
This area gets a strong return of Lingcod from the ocean. Lingcod are a large predator to rockfish and if we are trying to save Rockfish, leaving a voracious predator unchecked would be counterproductive About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing for Lingcod through the 120’ line depth closure.

MARTIN, DAVID B  November 28, 2012
FREELAND, WA  
Comments:
Say No to WDFW Proposal #65. Are you crazy, who do you think is the primary predator on the rockfish in that area? If you guessed the fishermen, WRONG. It is the Lingcod. And as soon as you take one out, three more hurry in from the ocean to fill the slot. Heck they don't even need to come in from the ocean, they just have to swim in from deeper than 120 feet which is also closed. If you want to protect the rockfish, then lengthen the season and increase the daily limit. Again Please VOTE NO on proposal #65

MARTIN, KARA   November 28, 2012
FREELAND, WA  
Comments:
Please don't change the season in area 4B for Lingcod(WDFW Proposal #65). There are already so many there that they eat everything in their path. Vote no on WDFW Prop. #65

MORTIN, DAVE   November 28, 2012
CLINTON, WA  
Comments:
Please Vote No on WDFW Proposal #65 to reduce the lingcod season in area 4B.

GAUTHIER, CHARLES M  November 28, 2012
BREMERTON, WA  
Comments:
The comment by WFC that over 30 rockfish die for each lingcod is ridiculose. If you want to save rockfish then take some of the lingcod as they take a lot more rockfish a year than all the sportsmen combined.

PHAN, DYLAN   November 28, 2012
EVERETT, WA  
Comments:
Please. Do not pass this proposal Thank you

SERSHON, ED   November 28, 2012
EDMONDS, WA  
Comments:
This area gets a strong return of Lingcod from the ocean. Lingcod are a large predator to rockfish and if we are trying to save Rockfish, leaving a voracious predator unchecked would be counterproductive About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing for Lingcod through the 120’ line depth closure.

HOULE, PAUL   November 29, 2012
OLYMPIA, WA  
Comments:
Please reject this rule proposal. Having fished this area often in the spring and summers in recent years I have to wonder about the data-validity of the the assumptions used to develop this recommendation. I'd read an intimation that over #30 protected rockfish killed per kept lingcod was occurring. In the many days I've spent up there & hours at the cleaning station I rarely see more than a couple (protected rock vs ling ratio). Additionally, this area gets a strong return of Lingcod from the ocean. Lingcod are a large predator to rockfish and if we are trying to save Rockfish, leaving a voracious predator unchecked would be counterproductive About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing for Lingcod through the 120’ line depth closure. Thanks for your consideration. Paul

LARSEN, ROBERT C  November 29, 2012
BONNEY LAKE, WA  
Comments:
With the amount of rockfish eaten by lingcod every day this is a very bad idea. When I catch Lingcod they are full of rockfish reducing angler opportunity will only hurt rockfish. In addition anglers continue to loose ground this is a bad Idea. This area gets a strong return of Lingcod from the ocean. Lingcod are a large predator to rockfish and if we are trying to save Rockfish, leaving a voracious predator unchecked would be counterproductive About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing for Lingcod through the 120’ line depth closure.

CARVER SR, RUSSELL L  November 29, 2012
LAKETAPPS, WA  
Comments:
Please reject rule #69

THOMAS, RICKY   November 29, 2012
GRAHAM, WA  
Comments:
NO on #69. This area gets a strong return of Lingcod from the ocean. Lingcod are a large predator to rockfish and if we are trying to save Rockfish, leaving a voracious predator unchecked would be counterproductive About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing for Lingcod through the 120’ line depth closure. This would cause undue hardship on the average Recreational Fishermen who take a small portion of Lingcod from this area to begin with. I don't know may people who target Lingcod and accidentally catch rockfish to begin with. At the depths of this area, rockfish are easily caught and released if accidentally caught to begin with.

JENNINGS, MIKE   November 30, 2012
BLACK DIAMOND, WA  
Comments:
This area gets a strong return of Lingcod from the ocean. Lingcod are a large predator to rockfish and if we are trying to save Rockfish, leaving a voracious predator unchecked would be counterproductive About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing for Lingcod through the 120’ line depth closure.

GILCHRIST, MICHAEL   November 30, 2012
FEDERAL WAY, WA  
Comments:
I Can not conclude that less bycatch of rockfish would be a result of this regulation. Due to access issues and regulation synergy, season is best managed identical to ocean season. Unfairly restricts fishing access by vessel capability, especially considering the time of the year the season would be open. Would be unjustified reduction of fishing opportunity directly opposing a primary goal of the agency.

HALE, GREG   November 30, 2012
EVERETT, WA  
Comments:
I am against reducing lincod season in marine Area 4B This area gets a strong return of Lingcod from the ocean. Lingcod are a large predator to rockfish and if we are trying to save Rockfish, leaving a voracious predator unchecked would be counterproductive About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing for Lingcod through the 120’ line depth closure.

RICHARDSON, BEAU J  November 30, 2012
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
This area gets a strong return of Lingcod from the ocean. Lingcod are a large predator to rockfish and if we are trying to save Rockfish, leaving a voracious predator unchecked would be counterproductive. About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing for Lingcod through the 120’ line depth closure.

MCDOWELL, BRIAN   November 30, 2012
BRIER, WA  
Comments:
I do not agree with this proposal. There are so many lingcod in this area its like shooting fish in a barrel. I think protcted rockfish would have a better chance with less lings in the area. I also have never caught a protected fish running pipe jigs in this area it only happens when I use small baits which I no longer use because of this reason. I am not in support of #69

PERKINS, STEVEN L  November 30, 2012
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
I do not support rule change 69. This area gets a strong return of Lingcod from the ocean. Lingcod are a large predator to rockfish and if we are trying to save Rockfish, leaving a voracious predator unchecked would be counterproductive About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing for Lingcod through the 120’ line depth closure.

LUTZ, DAVID   December 01, 2012
WOODINVILLE, WA  
Comments:
I am writing to oppose Proposal #69. This area has strong lincod populations that have supported longer fishing seasons for many years. The data claiming the significant bycatch of "protected" rockfish is not supported by my own experience or that of any other sport fisherman that I have spoken with. I think WDFW should do considerably more research into the data before making such a drastic change in the season. Rockfish and lingcod are already protected most of the season in waters over 120ft, and that is a huge area of refuge for these fish. If the populations really start to show statistically significant declines, then I would understand further restrictions on season length or catch limits, but until then please leave the regulations as they are.

JOHNSON, DAVE W  December 02, 2012
ISSAQUAH, WA  
Comments:
Please do not pass this measure. Lingcod are predators to the rockfish under protection. Closing ling fishing in 4B would result in an adverse affect from that intended. Ling fishing uses different gear and areas than other rockfish, so does not pose a bycatch threat to protected rockfish. The WFC/Sierra Club proposal uses inaccurate dockside survay data to suggest the bycatch threat. It is not valid. This area is already well managed by WDFW. Please use only science-based data to make decisions on further retrictions. Thank you.

LOPEZ, MARCOS   December 02, 2012
BELLEVUE, WA  
Comments:
The entire MA 4b should not be shut down. This particular area is repopulated in an ongoing basis from ocean ling cod that move in as the fishing grounds are fished each year.

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

OEN, JULIAN H  December 02, 2012
SEQUIM, WA  
Comments:
I have fished MA4B most of the summer for the last 8 years and can count on both hands the number of Canary and Yellow Eye I've cought there. The most common catch are Lings and Black Rock. There is NO good reason to close Lings in this area sooner than the traditional October closure. Please DO NOT adopt this flawed proposal.

WARDLOW, DONALD D  December 03, 2012
WOODINVILLE, WA  
Comments:
I am not in favor of proposal #69. This proposal was probably written by the same people who wrote proposal #66. The problem with this proposal is that it takes away the use of the resource from the sport fishing community without a shred of scientific facts behind it. The 120' depth restriction protects rockfish from barotrauma. What protects rockfish from lingcod predation? This proposal reasons to protect rockfish by reducing the lingcod season. Lingcod eat rockfish. Lingcod follow the food source. The logic of this proposal is flawed. There is already a 120' depth restriction to protect yelloweye and canary rockfish. This proposal is just anti-fishing designed to turn Neah Bay into a diving destination. It already is a diving destination with plenty of fish to see.

STAMM, BEN   December 03, 2012
LYNNWOOD, WA  
Comments:
#65 proposal is yet again a bad idea. This proposal shopuld not be passed as most of this area is allready closed and leaving a unchecked lingcod population around will only harm the rockfish population. Thank you

OPSTAD, DAVID   December 03, 2012
MILL CREEK , WA  
Comments:
I do not support this rule change. This area gets a strong return of Lingcod from the ocean. Lingcod are a large predator to rockfish and if we are trying to save Rockfish, leaving a voracious predator unchecked would be counterproductive About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing for Lingcod through the 120’ line depth closure. The type of gear used also is selective for Lingcod.

BOBKO, KEN E  December 03, 2012
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
I do not support this rule change. After fishing in area 4b for ten years I have never had to catch 35 rock fish of any species let alone catching 35 of an endangered species to catch one lingcod. Truly a classic example of "figures don't lie but liars can figure" If someone catches 35 endangered species on one trip are they truly endangered? By default this is silly.

DAVIS, CHRIS   December 04, 2012
WOODINVILLE, WA  
Comments:
This is an unnecessary restriction on sportsfisherman. Please do not implement proposal #69.

GRESHOCK, JAKE A  December 04, 2012
RENTON, WA  
Comments:
I believe that shortening the lingcod fishery in marine area 4b would be a counterproductive measure both for rockfish conservation efforts and the good of the WDFW. Lingcod are a voracious predator on rockfish and are present in Marine Area 4b in healthy numbers. If lingcod populations are left unchecked by sportfishing, there will certainly be a decline in rockfish populations. Lingcod prey indiscriminately. Anglers can successfully release incidental rockfish catch. Species that prey on rockfish will not be so kind and must be managed. A better approach to rockfish conservation in MA 4b would be to increase the area available to fisherman. Depth restrictions have created shallow water areas that receive greater amounts of fishing pressure than they have in the past. Spreading out the pressure would be beneficial in that it would allow overfished areas to begin to rebuild healthy populations of rockfish.

RAPACZ, KEVIN J  December 04, 2012
OLYMPIA , WA  
Comments:
Lets see if we make enough rule changes, we can see more boats for sale on craigslist. I remember growing up and getting hooked on fishing for life. You could fit in a trip or two each summer. If timimg and weather aligned and you were lucky, you might catch a few. You could bring home some freah fish and have a fresh meal. Sometimes you'ld even get lucky enough to get salmon, bottomfish, maybe a lingcod or two and as a bonus every couple years someone would get a nice halibut. Fast forward. Lets change all the rules, seasons, limits, sizes, days of the week, equipment, depth, areas, and have no over-lapping fisheries and see who still wants to gas up the truck and boat and go fishing. I won't be long and the old timers will be gone, so will passing fishing from one generation to the next. It will be gone, lost and the commercial guys will still strip the ocean bare and then who will you blame. Lets try to use a maximun catch for the season on ling cod. A 10 or 15 limit per per

LOHAFER, JESSICA   January 28, 2013
BELLINGHAM, WA  
Comments:
"I do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal does not justify the action. Additionally, this rule change would have a huge impact on WA's fishing community and the economy that supports it. And it will create a safety hazard for small boats. See: http://www.thewhiteroom.com/wdfw_letter.html The 120' depth restriction already sufficiently protects rockfish. Thanks for your consideration and all of your hard work."

SATHER, ERIC   December 05, 2012
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
Please DO NOT enact this rule change. While it may seem to address a need to protect threatened rock fish species, it will only cause further devastation to threatened fish. Ling Cod are voracious predators that consume threatened rock fish. If anything, we should consider lengthening the ling cod season to give the threatened rock fish species more opportunity to thrive. Ling Cod grow and propagate at a much faster rate than threatened rock fish species. Shortening the Ling Cod season will only allow them the further decimate threatened rock fish. DO NOT enact this rule change.

GREEN, FRED   December 05, 2012
SNOHOMISH, WA  
Comments:
I support proposed change #69 which reduces the Lingcod season in Area 4B to align with the rest of Puget Sound. This is a necessary step due to the significant "protected" rockfish bycatch associated with the Area 4B Lingcod season in July, August and September documented in the WDFW 2011 Area 4B test fishery. Data from the test fishery document that for every legal Lingcod caught during the test fishery, thirty-five ‘protected’ rockfish were caught and likely killed or damaged due to barotrauma. To more effectively address the WDFW-documented high rate of "protected" rockfish bycatch associated with the Lingcod fishery at Neah Bay, I believe you should change daily Lingcod limit there from two (2) to one (1) Lingcod per person per day.

PIERCE, RAND L  December 05, 2012
PORT ANGELES, WA  
Comments:
To WDFW, As a fisherman who has fished for lingcod in Area 4b for over 10 years, I'm very concerned with your proposed closer. First, I've caught ALL of my lingcod in 65' of water or less, so that any incidental rockfish I do catch usually survive when released. Second, I fish for lings with the largest herring I can buy and rockfish tend to just tug at it and not get hooked. Third, The research that states that 35 protected rockfish are caught for every 1 lingcod, has got to be false. I don't catch 35 rockfish the whole summer that I fish for lings. Lastly, I'm concerned that by closing Area 4b to lingcod fishing would harm the very rockfish you are trying to protect. Lingcod have a verocious appitite, and left unchecked they WILL do more harm than the couple dozen fisherman I see fishing Area 4b. Rand Pierce Ran

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 fishing from Neah Bay, Washington and purchasers of the Kingfisher Inn, also located in Neah Bay. We are strongly opposed to the proposed rule change # 69, shortening the Ling Cod season in Area 4B. Ling Cod populations in Area 4B are healthy and shortening the season is unnecessary. The data from the Rockfish survey that was used as reasoning for this rule change has been grossly misinterpreted and twisted. The angling conducted during the Rockfish survey was designed to catch Rockfish, not Ling Cod. Most of the gear used was shrimp flies and small jigs. These are great bait for Rockfish, but not Ling Cod, especially Ling Cod of keeper size. Anglers that have even a basic knowledge of Rockfish and Ling Cod fishing know that different gear is used for targeting Rockfish and Ling Cod. It is not surprising that they caught many more Rockfish than Ling Cod because it was a Rockfish

CARR, JIM   December 06, 2012
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
This is just another attempt by Heather to reduce fishing opportunities by claiming, without any proof, that rockfish species will gain from it.

DREWRY, DAVID   December 06, 2012
PORT TOWNSEND, WA  
Comments:
~ The impact of an additional 2 weeks ( April 16 opener vs. May 1 ) to fish for lingcod in area 4B is negligible on harvest in that area. Few anglers target the fish during these weeks, and most lingcod in that area recruit from the open ocean and closed deep areas just around the corner at Neah Bay. Continuing to allow these additional weeks has a positive local impact especially when there are so few sportfishing options available to saltwater anglers in early spring. The current season as it stands allows additional "early" business in sportfishing dependent areas such as Sekiu and Neah Bay. Lingcod eat many of those threatened rockfish species that are causing management issues. Please keep the 4B lingcod season as it has been for some time !

CRAWFORD, BRYAN   December 07, 2012
PORT ANGELES, WA  
Comments:
Marine area 4b is an area I frequent in my "small boat", it is safe and the last fishery we have access to in WA. I have fished it hard for several years now and never encountered a yelloweye or Canary, and seldom encounter the other species mentioned. I've released a couple Quillbacks, a few China's and a few coppers. The Pacific Fishery Management Council indicated ...for rockfish found in Puget Sound, mortality rates of released rockfish from 120 feet (36 m) or less in depth ranged from 17% to 37%." The total number of "protected" rockfish encountered was on average 4195 rockfish per year. This translates to 712-1552 rockfish that perished. Consider that there were 18,905 black rockfish retained per year on average. Now, if you considered only Yelloweye and Canary, there were 242 Yelloweye and 642 Canary encountered per year on average. The resulting mortality would be 41-90 Yelloweye and 109-238 Canary. These #'s seem accurate. Please don'

BARTELMES, BLAIR M  December 07, 2012
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
Absolutely do not pass this rule change, I am a avid kayaker I have been fishing this area for several years. I have had very limited encounters or exposures with the threatened or endangered rockfish in 4b. Shortening the season is not necessary..

BRODKEY, DAVID   December 09, 2012
PORTLAND, OR  
Comments:
This area gets a strong return of Lingcod from the ocean. Lingcod are a large predator to rockfish and if we are trying to save Rockfish, leaving a voracious predator unchecked would be counterproductive About 85-90% of this region is already closed off to fishing for Lingcod through the 120’ line depth closure.

MINTON, BILL   December 11, 2012
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
I believe this proposal is ill advised for several reasons. Due to the unpredictable weather conditions during that time of year this could lead to reduced angler opportunity and participation in the fishery. This will also force anglers to venture further away from Neah Bay into riskier waters in order to pursue lingcod opportunities which is a public safety hazard. The average angler usually has only the weekends to participate in this fishery and making the trip to Neah Bay represents a significant financial exspense for individuals. Reduced opportunity will also have a negative economic impact on the local community that depends heavily on sportfishing revenues. While the theory behind this proposal is to reduce rockfish bycatch during the lingcod season I believe that an unintended consequence of this proposal will be an increase in anglers targeting rockfish due to a lack of other opportunities throughout the season leading to more overall rockfish harvest than currently occurs.

OLSEN, KARL P  December 11, 2012
ISSAQUAH, WA  
Comments:
Do not pass this

RYAN, GARY L  December 12, 2012
SEKIU, WA  
Comments:
most people fishing ling cod and rockfish during this time are doing so on days the halibut is open in area 4 & 4b on staggered days they can't fish for halibut. there isn't that much impacts during the april lincod season ofr the pressure as when halibut is open in area 4b.so why the closure in april. close commercial fishing in the straights area 4b,5 and maybe the rock fish population might rebound

ELLIS, RAYMOND O  December 13, 2012
ELLENSBURG, WA  
Comments:
I believe this proposed rule does not help the resource. I fished this area for the last 6 years for lingcod and the by catch is probably 12 lingcod to 1 rock fish as I typically fish for lingcod in less than 95' of water. With descent devices it should make little difference with sending down the by catch as their survival is over 97 percent. Where is science to show that lingcod fishing has an impact on rock fish. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. Therefore I am not in favor of the proposed rule as it will severely impact my opportunity to fish lingcod.

BENTLER, GORDON A  December 16, 2012
NEAH BAY, WA  
Comments:
NO SUPPORT for this proposal. 1] The rest of the coastal areas {1-3} open for Lingcod March 12th, while Area 4 opens April 16th. The 2012 bycatch increase was mostly in the Area 3 Halibut fishery. This bycatch should be reduced in 2013 with the expected reduction in 2A Halibut Quotas. {-30%?}. Also, what is the rockfish bycatch in the other coastal ports in the month and few days they open before Area 4 opens? 2] Bycatch of rockfish species was already adressed in Area 4B with the 20F Line, along with the reduction of the Blue/Black limits. The proposed 22" minimum size limit in Area 4 should also aid in savings. Neah Bay and Snow Creek will suffer even more economically with proposal #69.

STAGGS, ERIC A  December 16, 2012
NINE MILE FALLS, WA  
Comments:
In my many trips out to Neah and Lapush, I have not found that when targeting Lingcod that we experience any bycatch of rockfish. We focus on areas that produce lings and that we do not have to fight through other fish, which include the closure area. Also our selectiveness of tackle tends to limit the bycatch, as the gear is big enough and we don't use bait specifically to minimize rockfish bycatch. It makes no sense to make a deep water, open coastline area closure for the sake of a small Strait area rockfish problem, especially when the majority of us fishing the area intentionally avoid bycatch.

QUESSENBERRY, NATHAN P  January 28, 2013
BELLINGHAM, WA  
Comments:
I do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal does not justify the action. Additionally, this rule change would have a huge impact on WA's fishing community and the economy that supports it. And it will create a safety hazard for small boats.

CRAWFORD, BRYAN   January 28, 2013
P, WA  
Comments:
Greetings, I've tried to stay involved in this process, a couple years back I went to public meeting about changing the rules in 4b. I've spent many hours, I'm sure more than average fishing in 4b over the last few years. 1st, I fish near the shore seldom over 100' except during Halibut. To date I've never hooked a Yelloweye or Canary Rockfish, even in the deeper water. I can count on one hand the Quilbacks and China's and 0 of any of the other threatened species. While the Coppers are off limits there is a pretty good abundance of them but I seldom catch them. This Ling Cod fishery is important and seems very healthy to me so much so that I would think protecting them would create it's own threat to the health of the Rockfish population. At the close of last season my buddy & I hooked dozens of sizable Lingcod in 6 hour period, more than even Blacks by almost double. I'm considering staring a Kayak Guide Service and access to this area is critic

MYERS, RYAN   January 28, 2013
PARMA, OH  
Comments:
"I do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal does not justify the action. Additionally, this rule change would have a huge impact on WA's fishing community and the economy that supports it. And it will create a safety hazard for small boats. See: http://www.thewhiteroom.com/wdfw_letter.html The 120' depth restriction already sufficiently protects rockfish. Thanks for your consideration and all of your hard work."

NESS, B   January 28, 2013
BELLINGHAM, WA  
Comments:
I do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal does not justify the action. Additionally, this rule change would have a huge impact on WA's fishing community and the economy that supports it. And it will create a safety hazard for small boats.

SANSANO, ALLEN   January 28, 2013
SAN JOSE, CA  
Comments:
I am the founder and owner of 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. Using clean human powered means of propulsion naturally limits our range and abilities. On bigger weather days we duck inside and utilize area 4B. This is a similar usage pattern to small boat anglers who share the same constraints as kayak anglers. I do NOT support this proposal. The data used by the Wild Fish Conservancy (WFC) is misleading and incorrect. In conversations with WDFW staff, this data should not be used as a justification. Instead please use staff data. The WFC would have you believe 35 'protected' rockfish are caught for every keeper ling. Staff data shows this number to be 23 TIMES TOO LARGE. I cannot support a rule change based on intentionally misleading data. I urge you to investigate the WFC methods and their waste of our combined time.

MORAVEC, ANDREW W  January 11, 2013
SNOQUALMIE, WA  
Comments:
I am against this proposed rule change. Marine area 4B is a great place for small vessels to enjoy lingcod and rockfish fishing. The distance MA4B is from major population centers limits the amount of anglers in itself, and I personally see that folks head out to 4B for both lings and rockfish. Limiting the lingcod season would reduce the amount of people with small vessels willing to go to the area and spend money at local businesses. Reducing options for folks like me with small vessels will discourage recreational fishing, and cause a few to take small vessels out further into dangerous waters of the open ocean. Not everyone can afford a 24' offshore vessel, but many of us enjoy fishing for lingcod and rockfish!

JABLONSKI, MIKE   January 13, 2013
MOUNTLAKE TERRACE, WA  
Comments:
There is lots of talk of MPA in area 4 to protect the yellow eye and other rock cod and this proposal shortens the season on their biggest predator.

JAMES, ART   January 14, 2013
PORT TOWNSEND, WA  
Comments:
Re: proposed rule change #69 which would reduce Lingcod season to May 1 through June 15 in area 4B. I would like to make two points, either of which should influence rule-making per #69: 1) Fishing pressure on both sides of Marine Area 4 follows the salmon. Once the King salmon numbers fall off at the corner and move East - so goes the fishing fleet and the 'by-catch' mortality proposal #69 attempts to mitigate. Proposal #69 would punish an otherwise benign fishery during the best weather of the year (August/Sept). 2) There is a healthy fishery inside the kelp-line which is unavailable to power boats (and does not contribute to the 'bi-catch' mortality addressed in proposal #69). With few exceptions, only ling, kelp-fish and black/blue rockfish are present. Summary: For those of us who are willing to make the long drive to Neah Bay as often as weather permits, and who are willing to spend our own energy/calories to paddle/row to find fish - Area 4B shou

ANDERSON, JEFF J  January 14, 2013
PORTLAND, OR  
Comments:
I feel that adding more restrictions to lingcod fishing in Marine Area 4B is a big mistake. In my experience as a kayak fisherman in this area the rockfish by-catch is not high enough to warrant more restrictions. These restrictions would take away tourism income from the local economy of Neah Bay and other places.

CRAWFORD, BRYAN   January 14, 2013
PORT ANGELES, WA  
Comments:
The 4b fishery is a unique and rare fishery and many of us are upset and angry at the constant attempt to make this less accessible. Nobody is opposed to needed conservation efforts. But most of us smell a rat in this affair, and the rat seems to be growing, (special interest takeovers of resources that belong to all of us), as a taxpayer and license holder I'm frustrated. It seems that while the majority of us want to be able to enjoy our natural resources and consume at least most of what we catch the minority is seeking to run the show. Honestly if the trend continues I will quit fishing again as the opportunities continue to diminish. I used to fish WA rivers a lot, but with nets and more & more restrictions I stopped. In recent years got back into it, but in just the past few years I've seen my opportunities dwindle in the Salt Water I've come to enjoy. Please do not restrict our opportunities here any further! Bryan Crawford concerned citizen.

FORSLOF, RICHARD L  January 15, 2013
LYNDEN, WA  
Comments:
Dear WDFW Commissioners, I am writing to express my deep concern regarding WDFW's "# 69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B" rule change proposal. If this rule went into effect it would have a HUGE impact on Washington's fishing community and the economy that supports it. Additionally, I believe this rule change would create a serious safety issue. Most importantly, the data behind this proposal does not justify the action. I understand that this rule change is being considered in order to reduce the by catch of "protected" rockfish species. We anglers are very interested in conservation, because we know if we are not, we are compromising the future of the sport we love. However, as avid fishermen of area 4B for Lingcod, the by-catch issue just does not correlate for me and my colleagues at the North West Kayak Anglers (NWKA). We know from experience that very few rockfish are caught while targeting Lingcod. Thanks, Richard Forslof

KNOBBS, KENNETH D  January 15, 2013
SILVERDALE, WA  
Comments:
Dear WDFW Commissioners, I am writing to express my deep concern regarding WDFW's "# 69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B" rule change proposal. If this rule went into effect it would have a HUGE impact on Washington's fishing community and the economy that supports it. Additionally, I believe this rule change would create a serious safety issue. Most importantly, the data behind this proposal does not justify the action. I understand that this rule change is being considered in order to reduce the by catch of "protected" rockfish species. We anglers are very interested in conservation, because we know if we are not, we are compromising the future of the sport we love. However, as avid fishermen of area 4B for Lingcod, the by-catch issue just does not correlate for me and my colleagues at the North West Kayak Anglers (NWKA). We know from experience that very few rockfish are caught while targeting Lingcod. And, it is rare to catch Canary or Y

GAUTHIER, CHARLES   January 16, 2013
BREMERTON, WA  
Comments:
"Dear WDFW Commissioners, I am writing to express my deep concern regarding WDFW's "# 69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B" rule change proposal. If this rule went into effect it would have a HUGE impact on Washington's fishing community and the economy that supports it. Additionally, I believe this rule change would create a serious safety issue. Most importantly, the data behind this proposal does not justify the action. I understand that this rule change is being considered in order to reduce the by catch of "protected" rockfish species. We anglers are very interested in conservation, because we know if we are not, we are compromising the future of the sport we love. However, as avid fishermen of area 4B for Lingcod, the by-catch issue just does not correlate for me and my colleagues at the North West Kayak Anglers (NWKA). We know from experience that very few rockfish are caught while targeting Lingcod. And, it is rare to catch Canary or

OCONNOR, RORY L  January 16, 2013
BELLINGHAM, WA  
Comments:
I do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal does not justify the action. A WDFW representative provided data that was from 2010/2011 dockside sampling. This data shows that for each legal Lingcod, 1.6 protected rockfish were caught. WDFW itself estimates that rockfish caught in

TENNIS, MATTHEW J  January 16, 2013
NASELLE, WA  
Comments:
I fully support this conservation measure for protected rockfish. The timing for the open lingcod season (May 1 - June 15) fits in well with the sport salmon seasons in the area and should ensure a smooth transition of angler effort from lingcod to salmon without effecting the local economies. Matthew Tennis

BARON, CHRIS S  January 16, 2013
SHORELINE, WA  
Comments:
I do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal does not justify the action. A WDFW representative provided data that was from 2010/2011 dockside sampling. This data shows that for each legal Lingcod, 1.6 protected rockfish were caught. WDFW itself estimates that rockfish caught in

ROSE, JENNIFER   January 16, 2013
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
I do support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal does justify the action.

PIERCE, JOHN C  January 16, 2013
SHELTON, WA  
Comments:
I do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal does not justify the action. A WDFW representative provided data that was from 2010/2011 dockside sampling. This data shows that for each legal Lingcod, 1.6 protected rockfish were caught. WDFW itself estimates that rockfish caught in

JENNINGS, CAMERON   January 16, 2013
BELLINGHAM, WA  
Comments:
I do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal does not justify the action. A WDFW representative provided data that was from 2010/2011 dockside sampling. This data shows that for each legal Lingcod, 1.6 protected rockfish were caught. WDFW itself estimates that rockfish caught in

HALE, RICHARD M  January 16, 2013
VANCOUVER, WA  
Comments:
I do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal does not justify the action. A WDFW representative provided data that was from 2010/2011 dockside sampling. This data shows that for each legal Lingcod, 1.6 protected rockfish were caught. WDFW itself estimates that rockfish caught in

ABULENCIA, DINO G  January 16, 2013
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
I believe the 120 ft rule already protects the rockfish populations. I am the Coordinator of Heroes on the Water-NWest. Our organization takes Vets and Wounded Soldiers Kayak Fishing. Most of Puget Sound is closed for Rockfish Retention and 4B is just about the only area safe enough to take our soldier and vets kayak fishing. By shortening the season, this will shorten the time period for our events. WA state because of weather make it difficult as it is to have as many events that we would like. Kayak fishing for the vets and soldiers is extremely beneficial to their healing. Please see our website: heroesonthewater.org Also, since we fish for kayaks we rarely ever fish past 80 feet. In all my times of kayak fishing in the saltwater, I have never even caught a canary or yelloweye rockfish. Thank you.

OLSEN, ART   January 17, 2013
SNOHOMISH, WA  
Comments:
I do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal does not justify the action. I spend a lot of time at Neah bay and have for the last 30 years mainly fishing 4A. Most people that fish 4b do so on bad weather days or from smaller boats. The boats for the most part are fishing shallow water. The impact on yellow eye and Canarey in these areas are very low. A WDFW representative provided data that was from 2010/2011 dockside sampling. This data shows that for each legal Lingcod, 1.6 protected rockfish were caught. WDFW itself estimates that rockfish caught in

PAUL, DALTON   January 17, 2013
SHELTON, WA  
Comments:
I fish for lingcod in the summer in area 4b with my dad who is disabled. It's the only place I can take him lingcod fishing that the water isn't to rough for him. I hope you can find a way to keep it open in the summer. Maybe open it on an even/odd day schedule or something like that.

MEYER, DANIEL E  January 17, 2013
SNOHOMISH, WA  
Comments:
I do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal does not justify the action. A WDFW representative provided data that was from 2010/2011 dockside sampling. This data shows that for each legal Lingcod, 1.6 protected rockfish were caught. WDFW itself estimates that rockfish caught in

GRIFFIN, JEFF A  January 17, 2013
BELLEVUE, WA  
Comments:
I do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal does not justify the action. A WDFW representative provided data that was from 2010/2011 dockside sampling. This data shows that for each legal Lingcod, 1.6 protected rockfish were caught. WDFW itself estimates that rockfish caught in

ALSOBROOK, KENNETH M  January 17, 2013
BELLINGHAM, WA  
Comments:
I do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal does not justify the action. A WDFW representative provided data that was from 2010/2011 dockside sampling. This data shows that for each legal Lingcod, 1.6 protected rockfish were caught. WDFW itself estimates that rockfish caught in

BORDEAU, BRIAN   January 17, 2013
WOODINVILLE , WA  
Comments:
I disagree with this proposal.

CARMODY, SHAWN   January 17, 2013
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
I am writing to you to express my lack of support for this new Lingcod proposal in area 4b. Like many I love to make trips out to Neah Bay spending a nice chunk of change to do so. I do not have a large boat and limit myself to staying inside Tatoosh. Your new proposal is too much and will take away most of the summertime opportunity to go bottom fishing. School isn't even out yet by the 15th of June. How are families able to enjoy this ishery if you have it closed down? Nw that we fish shallow I rarely see Yelloweyes anyway. Please do not limit our opportunity out in area 4b. Please understand that we sports fisherman are very sensitive to the WDfW constantly restricting opportuni and yet license rates get more expensive every year. Please consider your constituents when you make decisions. Thank you, Shawn Carmody

RICHTER, JENNIFER   January 17, 2013
BELLINGHAM, WA  
Comments:
I do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal does not justify the action. A WDFW representative provided data that was from 2010/2011 dockside sampling. This data shows that for each legal Lingcod, 1.6 protected rockfish were caught. WDFW itself estimates that rockfish caught in

SAUBER, RON   January 18, 2013
OREGON CITY, OR  
Comments:
I make several trips up from Oregon to this area every year to kayak fish for rockfish and lingcod. I stay multiple days and spend sometimes way to much money at local businesses. If this rule change takes place I will likely not make the trips up from Oregon and probably not buy an out of state license as it would not be worth it for such a short season. I see no reason for such a drastic reduction in season length and see it as a real slap to anglers like kayak fishermen who are tied to locations that support our style of fishing. thanks.. Ron Sauber

HOLE, BRADLEY E  January 18, 2013
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
I am an avid angler and believe in conservation of fisheries in need of help but this amendment to reduce the number of days for bottom fish catch is not right Ina sustainable and healthy fishery.

ROBERTS, WALLACE A  January 18, 2013
CAMAS, WA  
Comments:
I do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal does not justify the action. A WDFW representative provided data that was from 2010/2011 dockside sampling. This data shows that for each legal Lingcod, 1.6 protected rockfish were caught. WDFW itself estimates that rockfish caught in

VEARY, MARK N  January 18, 2013
HILLSBOR0, OR  
Comments:
I do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal does not justify the action. The 120' depth restriction already sufficiently protects rockfish. Please see http://www.thewhiteroom.com/wdfw_letter.html Additionally, this rule change would have a huge impact on WA's fishing community and the economy that supports it. And it will create a safety hazard since smaller boats will inevitably try to fish 4A in weather conditions that they would normally fish the more protected 4B. While I am not a Washington resident, I do fish 4A regularly from my kayak. This rule change would reduce my anual spending on licenses, gear, lodging, food and fuel in your state. Thanks for your consideration and all of your hard work. -Mark Veary-

LANG, DICK   January 18, 2013
ASTORIA, OR  
Comments:
I do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal does not justify the action. A WDFW representative provided data that was from 2010/2011 dockside sampling. This data shows that for each legal Lingcod, 1.6 protected rockfish were caught. WDFW itself estimates that rockfish caught in

TANCA, PAUL M  January 18, 2013
VANCOUVER, WA  
Comments:
I do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal does not justify the action. A WDFW representative provided data that was from 2010/2011 dockside sampling. This data shows that for each legal Lingcod, 1.6 protected rockfish were caught. WDFW itself estimates that rockfish caught in

UPSON, ANDREW D  January 18, 2013
SEDRO WOOLLEY, WA  
Comments:
I do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal does not justify the action. BOTTOM LINE: The 120' depth restriction already sufficiently protects rockfish. A WDFW representative provided data that was from 2010/2011 dockside sampling. This data shows that for each legal Lingcod, 1.6 protected rockfish were caught. WDFW itself estimates that rockfish caught in

COLLETT, MARK S  January 18, 2013
RAYMOND, WA  
Comments:
I do not support proposal #69.The data does not justify this reduction of season.The fishing community will suffer economically and recreationally. Please do not pass this restrictive proposal. Mark Collett

BRENNEMAN, SCOTT A  January 18, 2013
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
I am writing to oppose rule change proposal #69, Reduced lingcod season in Marine Area 4B. The current 120 foot depth restriction is more than adequate in protecting rockfish in that area. Additionally the methodology and data used to support proposal #69 is flawed in my opinion. Data gathered from tackle specific to Rockfish (shrimp flies) in not an accurate way to determine rockfish by-catch while fishing for lingcod. It just artificially inflates the numbers. Please also consider that this is an area where small boats have a safe opportunity to harvest Lingcod when the weather cooperates. But the weather more times than not limits the available fishing days, acting as a natural buffer to rockfish mortality. Because of the weather, limiting the lingcod season to 45 days would offer little if any opportunity to the recreational angler in the future. This would be devastating to the local economy. thank you for considering my comments. Scott Brenneman

SLOAN, ERIC W  January 18, 2013
PORTLAND, OR  
Comments:
I do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal does not justify the action. A WDFW representative provided data that was from 2010/2011 dockside sampling. This data shows that for each legal Lingcod, 1.6 protected rockfish were caught. WDFW itself estimates that rockfish caught in

BREAZILE, RODNEY   January 18, 2013
ROCKAWAY BEACH, OR  
Comments:
I do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal does not justify the action. BOTTOM LINE: The 120' depth restriction already sufficiently protects rockfish. A WDFW representative provided data that was from 2010/2011 dockside sampling. This data shows that for each legal Lingcod, 1.6 protected rockfish were caught. WDFW itself estimates that rockfish caught in

BENNEYY, DEAN   January 18, 2013
VANCOUVER, WA  
Comments:
I do not support change proposal#67.:"reduce lingcod in marine area 4b"

KRAEMER, BRIAN   January 18, 2013
KENT, WA  
Comments:
Existing regulations are sufficient to protect rockfish. This proposal will reduce rockfish bycatch but also reduce harvest of the major predator of young rockfish. If you must reduce the length of the lingcod season, I suggest doubling the bag on lingcod to further benefit rockfish.

QUINN, NICHOLAS J  January 18, 2013
LACEY, WA  
Comments:
I do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal does not justify the action. A WDFW representative provided data that was from 2010/2011 dockside sampling. This data shows that for each legal Lingcod, 1.6 protected rockfish were caught. WDFW itself estimates that rockfish caught in

COOPER, GREG   January 19, 2013
ONALASKA, WA  
Comments:
I do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal does not justify the action. A WDFW representative provided data that was from 2010/2011 dockside sampling. This data shows that for each legal Lingcod, 1.6 protected rockfish were caught. WDFW itself estimates that rockfish caught in

NYGARD, ERIK A  January 19, 2013
PORT TOWNSEND, WA  
Comments:
I do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal do not justify the action. BOTTOM LINE: The 120' depth restriction already sufficiently protects rockfish. A WDFW representative provided data that were from 2010/2011 dockside sampling. This data show that for each legal Lingcod, 1.6 protected rockfish were caught. WDFW itself estimates that rockfish caught in

CAMPBELL, CRAIG   January 19, 2013
FOREST GROVE, OR  
Comments:
I do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal does not justify the action. A WDFW representative provided data that was from 2010/2011 dockside sampling. This data shows that for each legal Lingcod, 1.6 protected rockfish were caught. WDFW itself estimates that rockfish caught in

KRIEL, NOAH   January 19, 2013
PORTLAND, OR  
Comments:
I do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal does not justify the action. A WDFW representative provided data that was from 2010/2011 dockside sampling. This data shows that for each legal Lingcod, 1.6 protected rockfish were caught. WDFW itself estimates that rockfish caught in

WALKER, PAUL N  January 19, 2013
EUGENE, OR  
Comments:
I do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal does not justify the action. A WDFW representative provided data that was from 2010/2011 dockside sampling. This data shows that for each legal Lingcod, 1.6 protected rockfish were caught. WDFW itself estimates that rockfish caught in

GOWANI, IRFAN A  January 19, 2013
CLYDE HILL, WA  
Comments:
Please do not shorten the Lingcod season in MA 4B. For a kayak fisherman like me, there are not too many options to enjoy Lingcod fishing like the Area 4B. Instead of shortening the season, maybe other alternatives need to be considered--like setting limits on the catch. I have invested a great deal in my ocean kayak and equipment, and I continue to invest in this hobby. It would be a shame to see it used only for a short period during the year. Thank you for letting me submit my recommendation. Irfan Gowani

MICHAEL, ELI R  January 19, 2013
BELLINGHAM, WA  
Comments:
I do not support this proposal. i believe that lingcod are a healthy and rebuilding stock that if anything reduce the amount of protected rockfish through predation. Safety is a legitimate concern. I have been going out to Neah Bay for years and often times it is unsafe to fish the outside waters. Many people also choose not to fish the outside waters. This inadvertently keeps more people safe simply by being content to fish the inside. If this rule comes to pass then they will be forced to do so which is often unsafe and puts more pressure on the Area 4 West fishery. This will also have a widespread economical impact not only for the Makah tribe but residents of the Olympic Peninsula. Conservation is a legitimate concern and many fisheries are a shadow of what they once were. This has been due largely to a history of mismanagement and I believe that sports fishermen are having to foot the bill. Thank you for your time and the hard work that is being done. Eli Michael

MICHAEL, ELI R  January 19, 2013
BELLINGHAM, WA  
Comments:
I do not support this proposal. i believe that lingcod are a healthy and rebuilding stock that if anything reduce the amount of protected rockfish through predation. Safety is a legitimate concern. I have been going out to Neah Bay for years and often times it is unsafe to fish the outside waters. Many people also choose not to fish the outside waters. This inadvertently keeps more people safe simply by being content to fish the inside. If this rule comes to pass then they will be forced to do so which is often unsafe and puts more pressure on the Area 4 West fishery. This will also have a widespread economical impact not only for the Makah tribe but residents of the Olympic Peninsula. Conservation is a legitimate concern and many fisheries are a shadow of what they once were. This has been due largely to a history of mismanagement and I believe that sports fishermen are having to foot the bill. Thank you for your time and the hard work that is being done. Eli Michael

CASE, SHERMAN L  January 20, 2013
TIGARD, OR  
Comments:
I am a kayak fisherman, and area 4B is a very important area for me due to ease of access. I believe the shortened season is unnecessary to better protect rockfish, as the 120' depth restriction protects results in low mortality, and lure selection and fishing methods make targeted fishing effective. I almost never take rockfish unless targeting them. I have heard from other fisherman who are more knowledgeable about marine studies that the studies that this restriction are based on have serious flaws. I urge that you reconsider decisions based on those studies. Also, impacts on the communities serving Area 4B will be impacted. I am an out-of-stater who desires to fish that area because of its beauty and the quality of fishing. My dollars spent there are crucial to their economy. Limiting the season limits or even eliminates that money going to those communities. Thank you for considering my input.

FERRIS, RYAN   January 21, 2013
GRESHAM, OR  
Comments:
Hello, Although I am from out of state, I fish in the state regularly. I do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". This rule change would have an impact on WA's fishing community and the economy that supports it. I believe it may create a safety hazard since smaller boats will inevitably try to fish 4A in weather conditions that they would normally fish the more protected 4B. I have also been informed that the data surrounding this rule change is inaccurate. I do not support anything based on false assumptions. Thank you for your time and work. Ryan

MARSTON, MARVIN F  January 21, 2013
BELLINGHAM, WA  
Comments:
I stongly oppose this rule change to reduce the lingcod season in marine area 4B.

CRAWFORD, BRYAN T  January 21, 2013
PORT ANGELES, WA  
Comments:
I do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal does not justify the action. A WDFW representative provided data that was from 2010/2011 dockside sampling. This data shows that for each legal Lingcod, 1.6 protected rockfish were caught. WDFW itself estimates that rockfish caught in

LANDRUM, MARIE R  January 21, 2013
BONNEY LAKE, WA  
Comments:
I do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal does not justify the action. A WDFW representative provided data that was from 2010/2011 dockside sampling. This data shows that for each legal Lingcod, 1.6 protected rockfish were caught. WDFW itself estimates that rockfish caught in

MUELLER, CRAIG   January 21, 2013
TUALATIN, OR  
Comments:
Dear WDFW, I am writing to express my deep concern regarding WDFW's "# 69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B" rule change proposal. If this rule went into effect it most likely would have a large impact on Washington's fishing community and the economy that supports it. Most importantly, the WDFW's own data behind this proposal does not justify the action. A WDFW representative provided data that was from 2010/2011 dockside sampling. This data shows that for each legal Lingcod, 1.6 protected rockfish were caught. WDFW itself estimates that rockfish caught in

MARTINEZ, FILIBERTO   January 22, 2013
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
I do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal does not justify the action. A WDFW representative provided data that was from 2010/2011 dockside sampling. This data shows that for each legal Lingcod, 1.6 protected rockfish were caught. WDFW itself estimates that rockfish caught in

BELLOWS, CHRIS   January 22, 2013
PORT ANGELES, WA  
Comments:
This rule proposal does not pass the smell test. I am in favor of conservative regulations, but the data being used to push this rule is flawed. The data comes from rockfish tagging studies and does not reflect the larger gear used to target lingcod. Larger lures have a much lower rockfish by-catch than the gear size used in the rockfish studies. There is no need to reduce the season length for lingcod to protect rockfish. The 120 foot closure already protects deepwater rockfish stocks and the impact from lingcod fishermen has not been quantified enough to close the fishery. If protecting rockfish is the goal, I would suggest dealing with the limits on rockfish and not lingcod.

GOFORTH, WILLIAM J  January 22, 2013
UNIVERSITY PLACE, WA  
Comments:
I perfer longer seasons with yearly catch limits. I would like to see May 1st through Sept 1st with max 8 to 10 Lingcod per person.

SMITH, BEN   January 22, 2013
PORTLAND, OR  
Comments:
I do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal does not justify the action. A WDFW representative provided data that was from 2010/2011 dockside sampling. This data shows that for each legal Lingcod, 1.6 protected rockfish were caught. WDFW itself estimates that rockfish caught in

MOONEY, DON   January 22, 2013
EDGEWOOD, WA  
Comments:
It is hard to fathom reducing the season to avoid the bycatch of yellow-eye and other protected rockfish when the managers of the fishery have steadfastly refused to require release divices during the May halibut fisheries. In my experience nearly all the interactions with the treatened rockfish happen during these deepwater fisheries. Make changes that matter. This isn't one of them.

POPE, GERALD   January 22, 2013
REDMOND, WA  
Comments:
I do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal does not justify the action. A WDFW representative provided data that was from 2010/2011 dockside sampling. This data shows that for each legal Lingcod, 1.6 protected rockfish were caught. WDFW itself estimates that rockfish caught in

STICKEL, ANTHONY   January 23, 2013
PORTLAND, OR  
Comments:
I am not in favor of proposed rule change #69. Reducing length of season is a not an effective way to limit bycatch. Depth limits which are already in place, and educating anglers on proper tackle for lingcod are far more effective. Further restrictions on this fishery will hurt local businesses and drive fisherman north or south of the border to fish elsewhere.

JENSEN, MICHOLE N  January 24, 2013
PORTLAND, OR  
Comments:
I do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal does not justify the action. A WDFW representative provided data that was from 2010/2011 dockside sampling. This data shows that for each legal Lingcod, 1.6 protected rockfish were caught. WDFW itself estimates that rockfish caught in

SELFA, ANTHONY   January 25, 2013
VANCOUVER, WA  
Comments:
do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal does not justify the action. A WDFW representative provided data that was from 2010/2011 dockside sampling. This data shows that for each legal Lingcod, 1.6 protected rockfish were caught. WDFW itself estimates that rockfish caught in

GRAHN, MICHAEL   January 28, 2013
MOUNT VERNON, WA  
Comments:
Reduce Lingcod season in MA 4B. No- there are plenty of lingcod and if rockfish conservation is a concern then removing more lingcod will be more productive, thus requiring expansion. Studies show that even MPAs/Fishing closures will not let rockfish repopulate if lingcod are present.

PELLETIER, RICK   January 28, 2013
EVERETT, WA  
Comments:
there are plenty of lingcod and if rockfish conservation is a concern then removing more lingcod will be more productive, thus requiring expansion. Studies show that even MPAs/Fishing closures will not let rockfish repopulate if lingcod are present. Data cannot be used to show 20-30 rockfish caught for each lingcod/cabezon. Rockfish are targetted using small shrimp flies and grub, where lingcod lures are much bigger.

ROSS, ROGER G  January 28, 2013
PORT ANGELES, WA  
Comments:
No- there are plenty of lingcod and if rockfish conservation is a concern then removing more lingcod will be more productive, thus requiring expansion. Studies show that even MPAs/Fishing closures will not let rockfish repopulate if lingcod are present.

HANZELKA, DALE   January 28, 2013
CLINTON, WA  
Comments:
No- there are plenty of lingcod and if rockfish conservation is a concern then removing more lingcod will be more productive, thus requiring expansion. Studies show that even MPAs/Fishing closures will not let rockfish repopulate if lingcod are present.

WALTER JR, RICHARD E  January 28, 2013
FEDERAL WAY, WA  
Comments:
I do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal does not justify the action. A WDFW representative provided data that was from 2010/2011 dockside sampling. This data shows that for each legal Lingcod, 1.6 protected rockfish were caught. WDFW itself estimates that rockfish caught in

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. #69 Reduce Lingcod season in MA 4B. No- there are plenty of lingcod and if rockfish conservation is a concern then removing more lingcod will be more productive, thus requiring expansion. Studies show that even MPAs/Fishing closures will not let rockfish repopulate if lingcod are present.

RICHARDSON, ADAM   January 28, 2013
OAKVILLE, WA  
Comments:
No, there are plenty of lingcod and if rockfish conservation is a concern then removing more lingcod will be more productive, thus requiring expansion. Studies show that even MPAs/Fishing closures will not let rockfish repopulate if lingcod are present.

LEEVER, DON   January 28, 2013
KENT, WA  
Comments:
No- there are plenty of lingcod and if rockfish conservation is a concern then removing more lingcod will be more productive, thus requiring expansion. Studies show that even MPAs/Fishing closures will not let rockfish repopulate if lingcod are present.

LEWIS, PHILIP J  January 28, 2013
RAYMOND, WA  
Comments:
No, this change reduces the times when the weather is good enough for small boat anglers to fish for lingcod. In short it encourages people to make dangerous decisions.

KAMINSKI, LARRY   January 28, 2013
POULSBO, WA  
Comments:
You already have shut down lings...give us a break..also Neah Bay tribe would suffer under these regs...enough already because no real science to prove your theory of diminished stocks...

HILL, JENNIFER   January 28, 2013
POULSBO, WA  
Comments:
No- there are plenty of lingcod and if rockfish conservation is a concern then removing more lingcod will be more productive, thus requiring expansion. Studies show that even MPAs/Fishing closures will not let rockfish repopulate if lingcod are present.

MARTIN, DAVID B  January 28, 2013
FREELAND, WA  
Comments:
Please Vote NO on this proposal. There are plenty of lingcod and if rockfish conservation is a concern then removing more lingcod will be more productive, thus requiring expansion. Studies show that even MPAs/Fishing closures will not let rockfish repopulate if lingcod are present.

HUGHES, NORA F  January 28, 2013
BELLINGHAM, WA  
Comments:
"I do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal does not justify the action. Additionally, this rule change would have a huge impact on WA's fishing community and the economy that supports it. And it will create a safety hazard for small boats. See: http://www.thewhiteroom.com/wdfw_letter.html The 120' depth restriction already sufficiently protects rockfish. Thanks for your consideration and all of your hard work."

FRENCH, RICHARD E  January 28, 2013
SEQUIM, WA  
Comments:
No- there are plenty of lingcod and if rockfish conservation is a concern then removing more lingcod will be more productive, thus requiring expansion. Studies show that even MPAs/Fishing closures will not let rockfish repopulate if lingcod are present.

PHILLIPS, RICHARD V  January 28, 2013
ENUMCLAW, WA  
Comments:
There are plenty of lingcod in Area 4B. Again, I have fished this area for over 20 years and lingcod are always present and in great numbers. These are the wolves of the sea and eat anything placed in front of their nose, even species of rock fish the department thinks may be struggling. No, don't reduce any lingcod fishing opportunity in 4B as this would be counter productive. Thank you.

FRIEND, STEPHEN   January 28, 2013
SHORELINE, WA  
Comments:
I disagree with this proposal. Why reduce a season on a species of fish that is healthy? Plus lingcod eat rockfish so more lingcod caught means more rock fish not eaten.

TOBECK, ROBERT   January 28, 2013
RENTON, WA  
Comments:
No- there are plenty of lingcod and if rockfish conservation is a concern then removing more lingcod will be more productive, thus requiring expansion. Studies show that even MPAs/Fishing closures will not let rockfish repopulate if lingcod are present.

WISNER, LEEROY   January 28, 2013
CHEHALIS, WA  
Comments:
No- there are plenty of lingcod, & if rockfish conservation is a concern then removing more lingcod will be more productive, thus requiring expansion. Studies show that even MPAs/Fishing closures will not let rockfish repopulate if lingcod are present.

MONTOURE, SHANNON   January 28, 2013
BELLINGHAM, WA  
Comments:
"I do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal does not justify the action. Additionally, this rule change would have a huge impact on WA's fishing community and the economy that supports it. And it will create a safety hazard for small boats. See: http://www.thewhiteroom.com/wdfw_letter.html The 120' depth restriction already sufficiently protects rockfish. Thanks for your consideration and all of your hard work."

PAULSEN, ALAN R  January 28, 2013
BRINNON, WA  
Comments:
why reduce the season for lingcod? Lingcod eat rockfish. If anything extend the season for lingcod.

FARMER, CHELSEA A  January 28, 2013
BELLINGHAM, WA  
Comments:
"I do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal does not justify the action. Additionally, this rule change would have a huge impact on WA's fishing community and the economy that supports it. And it will create a safety hazard for small boats. See: http://www.thewhiteroom.com/wdfw_letter.html The 120' depth restriction already sufficiently protects rockfish. Thanks for your consideration and all of your hard work."

LOFTEN, CRAIG A  January 28, 2013
OLYMPIA, WA  
Comments:
No- there are plenty of lingcod and if rockfish conservation is a concern then removing more lingcod will be more productive, thus requiring expansion. Studies show that even MPAs/Fishing closures will not let rockfish repopulate if lingcod are present.

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

BODINE, GARY A  January 28, 2013
BUCKLEY, WA  
Comments:
I do not believe that shortening the season is a good idea. Marine area 4B is already limited to blue/black rockfish only anyway. This rockfish are targeted in a completely different manor than lingcod. There is no reason to shorten the lingcod season. There are already so many limitations on this fishery that more restrictions are overkill. At the very least, you need to give some time to see the effects of restrictions you have already put in place in recent years.

VINCENT, MICHAEL L  January 28, 2013
EDMONDS, WA  
Comments:
NO

NAMES, THOMAS E  January 28, 2013
RENTOBN, WA  
Comments:
#69 Reduce Lingcod season in MA 4B. No- there are plenty of lingcod and if rockfish conservation is a concern then removing more lingcod will be more productive, thus requiring expansion. Studies show that even MPAs/Fishing closures will not let rockfish repopulate if lingcod are present.

SILVERS, MIKE G  January 28, 2013
LACEY, WA  
Comments:
No- there are plenty of lingcod and if rockfish conservation is a concern then removing more lingcod will be more productive, thus requiring expansion. Studies show that even MPAs/Fishing closures will not let rockfish repopulate if lingcod are present.

ELLIOTT, TOM J  January 28, 2013
MARYSVILLE , WA  
Comments:
No- reducing the catch at the same time as trying to increase rockfish numbers is a mistake. more lings = less rock fish

CHAPMAN, PAUL   January 28, 2013
EDMONDS, WA  
Comments:
Please leave the season like it is. Closing it further could effect the rockfish and yelloweye populations as they are such aggressive preditors.

SCHMITT, JOSEPH L  January 28, 2013
JOYCE, WA  
Comments:
No i think that a ling caught and included in daily bag serves better to save rockfish. every ling caught is one less rockfish taken that day

AUMAN, DAVID W  January 28, 2013
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
No- there are plenty of lingcod and if rockfish conservation is a concern then removing more lingcod will be more productive, thus requiring expansion. Studies show that even MPAs/Fishing closures will not let rockfish repopulate if lingcod are present. Data cannot be used to show 20-30 rockfish caught for each lingcod/cabezon. Rockfish are targetted using small shrimp flies and grub, where lingcod lures are much bigger.

BROWN, TOM C  January 28, 2013
FRIDAY HARBOR, WA  
Comments:
No the bottom fish population in this area is healthy and if you want more rockfish catching more lingcod is one way to insure higher survival for rockfish. Please do not reduce the lenghth ot this season as it will most sureley increase pressure in other areas as well.

TENNEY, APRIL   January 28, 2013
GRANITE FALLS, WA  
Comments:
No- there are plenty of lingcod and if rockfish conservation is a concern then removing more lingcod will be more productive, thus requiring expansion. Studies show that even MPAs/Fishing closures will not let rockfish repopulate if lingcod are present.

HOWARD, JAMES D  January 28, 2013
LYNNWOOD, WA  
Comments:
We and all of the fishermen that have fished this area for years have not seen any reduction in rock fish in Marine 4B. Why would you restrict or reduce the season? We have known for sometime that there have been a select few that have been lobbying hard to close access to Ling Cod, Cabezon, and rock fish to turn the Marine Area 4 into a diving "Mecca" and wish to eliminate fishing pressure in this area. This has been a traditional fishing destination for generations and we have not seen any decrease of fish taken. If enacted, this will cause severe economic hardship to the small towns and private enterprise that rely on a successful fishing season to lure the sportsmen and their families to the area. If we had been witnessing reduction in catches or size over the years, it could be understood. But the science is not there. Thank you, Jim Howard

WILSON, HANNAH   January 28, 2013
BELLINGHAM, WA  
Comments:
I do not support rule change proposal "#69. Reduce lingcod season in Marine Area 4B". The data behind this proposal does not justify the action. Additionally, this rule change would have a huge impact on WA's fishing community and the economy that supports it. And it will create a safety hazard for small boats. See: http://www.thewhiteroom.com/wdfw_letter.html The 120' depth restriction already sufficiently protects rockfish. Thanks for your consideration and all of your hard work. Hannah Wilson

PETERSON, ERIC   January 28, 2013
LAKE STEVENS, WA  
Comments:
No- there are plenty of lingcod and if rockfish conservation is a concern then removing more lingcod will be more productive, thus requiring expansion. Studies show that even MPAs/Fishing closures will not let rockfish repopulate if lingcod are present. Data cannot be used to show 20-30 rockfish caught for each lingcod/cabezon. Rockfish are targetted using small shrimp flies and grub, where lingcod lures are much bigger.

WALKER, PAUL N  January 28, 2013
EUGENE, OR  
Comments:
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. Using clean human powered means of propulsion naturally limits our range and abilities. On bigger weather days we duck inside and utilize area 4B. This is a similar usage pattern to small boat anglers who share the same constraints as kayak anglers. I do NOT support this proposal. The data used by the Wild Fish Conservancy (WFC) is misleading and incorrect. In conversations with WDFW staff, this data should not be used as a justification. Instead please use staff data. The WFC would have you believe 35 'protected' rockfish are caught for every keeper ling. Staff data shows this number to be 23 TIMES TOO LARGE. I cannot support a rule change based on intentionally misleading data. I urge you to investigate the WFC methods and their waste of our combined time.

NGUYEN, HUNG   January 28, 2013
SAMMAMISH, WA  
Comments:
My fellow kayak anglers and I have discussed this at length at http://www.northwestkayakanglers.com. I do not support rule change proposal #69. The data behind this proposal does not justify the action. A WDFW rep provided data that was from 2010/2011 dockside sampling. This data shows that for each legal Lingcod, 1.6 protected rockfish were caught. WDFW itself estimates that rockfish caught in

OPSTAD, DAVID   January 28, 2013
MILL CREEK , WA  
Comments:
I do NOT agree with this rule change. Tackle used to fish for lingcod especially Large lingcod does not normally target rockfish.

HASHIMOTO, MARK M  January 28, 2013
EDMONDS, WA  
Comments:
How about making it a live bait (Bait needs to be over 1lb!) only fishery instead? I've never caught any Sea Bass while using one for bait (Although Kelp Greenlings seem to work better if they're big enough). Making people keep the first legal fish might also help. Lastly, taking these toothy eating machines out of the equation seems to be a good way of ensuring healthy stocks of other species!

FUGERE, TIM J  January 28, 2013
PYALLUP , WA  
Comments:
No- there are plenty of lingcod and if rockfish conservation is a concern then removing more lingcod will be more productive, thus requiring expansion. Studies show that even MPAs/Fishing closures will not let rockfish repopulate if lingcod are present. Data cannot be used to show 20-30 rockfish caught for each lingcod/cabezon. Rockfish are targetted using small shrimp flies and grub, where lingcod lures are much bigger.

FINNEY, WILLIAM   January 28, 2013
BELLEVUE, WA  
Comments:
This fishery has no effect on by-catch and most fishermen know how to properly release rockfish so they survive.

GETTER, DALE E  January 28, 2013
BOTHELL, WA  
Comments:
#69 Reduce Lingcod season in MA 4. No- there are plenty of lingcod and if rockfish conservation is a concern then removing more lingcod will be more productive, thus requiring expansion. Studies show that even MPAs/Fishing closures will not let rockfish repopulate if lingcod are present. Data cannot be used to show 20-30 rockfish caught for each lingcod/cabezon. Rockfish are targetted using small shrimp flies and grub, where lingcod lures are much bigger.

MITCHELL, DAVID   January 28, 2013
SILVERDALE, WA  
Comments:
NO- there are plenty of lingcod and if rockfish conservation is a concern then removing more lingcod will be more productive. Studies show that even MPAs/Fishing closures will not let rockfish repopulate if lingcod are present. Data cannot be used to show 20-30 rockfish caught for each lingcod/cabezon. Rockfish are targetted using small shrimp flies and grub, where lingcod lures are much bigger.

REESE, DAVID M  January 28, 2013
WOODINVILLE, WA  
Comments:
No- there are plenty of lingcod and if rockfish conservation is a concern then removing more lingcod will be more productive, thus requiring expansion. Studies show that even MPAs/Fishing closures will not let rockfish repopulate if lingcod are present. Data cannot be used to show 20-30 rockfish caught for each lingcod/cabezon. Rockfish are targetted using small shrimp flies and grub, where lingcod lures are much bigger.

HIMMELBERGER, TIM F  January 28, 2013
SNOQUALMIE, WA  
Comments:
there are plenty of lingcod and if rockfish conservation is a concern then removing more lingcod will be more productive, thus requiring expansion. Studies show that even MPAs/Fishing closures will not let rockfish repopulate if lingcod are present. Data cannot be used to show 20-30 rockfish caught for each lingcod/cabezon. Rockfish are targetted using small shrimp flies and grub, where lingcod lures are much bigger.

HAGLER, STEVE L  January 28, 2013
SEQUIM, WA  
Comments:
No do not reduce the lingcod season . The rock fish don't go after the larger lures use for lingcod much anyway , and the lingcod are known to feed on small rockfish. So if you want to help the rockfish "EAT MORE LINGCOD"

DELINSKY, MICHAEL   January 28, 2013
EVERETT, WA  
Comments:
#69 Reduce Lingcod season in MA 4. No- there are plenty of lingcod and if rockfish conservation is a concern then removing more lingcod will be more productive, thus requiring expansion. Studies show that even MPAs/Fishing closures will not let rockfish repopulate if lingcod are present. Data cannot be used to show 20-30 rockfish caught for each lingcod/cabezon. Rockfish are targetted using small shrimp flies and grub, where lingcod lures are much bigger.

CROMIE, TOM J  January 28, 2013
WAUNA, WA  
Comments:
I do not agree with reducing the size, number of fish or season dates for ling cod in 4B. You will taking small boat people out of the loop that includes higher prices for gas and less time to fish.

TOWNLEY, BRYAN   January 28, 2013
NORTH BEND, WA  
Comments:
Reduce Lingcod season in MA 4B. No- there are plenty of lingcod and if rockfish conservation is a concern then removing more lingcod will be more productive, thus requiring expansion. Studies show that even MPAs/Fishing closures will not let rockfish repopulate if lingcod are present. Data cannot be used to show 20-30 rockfish caught for each lingcod/cabezon. Rockfish are targetted using small shrimp flies and grub, where lingcod lures are much bigger.

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

FANTZ, TERESA L  January 29, 2013
MAPLE VALLEY, WA  
Comments:
Reduce Lingcod season in MA 4. No- there are plenty of lingcod and if rockfish conservation is a concern then removing more lingcod will be more productive, thus requiring expansion. Studies show that even MPAs/Fishing closures will not let rockfish repopulate if lingcod are present. Data cannot be used to show 20-30 rockfish caught for each lingcod/cabezon. Rockfish are targetted using small shrimp flies and grub, where lingcod lures are much bigger.

SIVRET, DAVE   January 29, 2013
NORMANDY PARK, WA  
Comments:
This is an unfair penalty on small boat owners who cannot fosh the open ocen. the fishery is healty now.

MURPHY, BRIAN T  January 29, 2013
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
Not reasonable. Small boat owners cannot safely access the coastal waters. They are fishing for rockfish for the most part in these waters anyway. They are lucky to bring up a lingcod as a "bycatch" of the rockfihing. Not the other way around.

FRAWLEY, JOE D  January 29, 2013
OLYMPIA, WA  
Comments:
No- there are plenty of lingcod and if rockfish conservation is a concern then removing more lingcod will be more productive, thus requiring expansion. Studies show that even MPAs/Fishing closures will not let rockfish repopulate if lingcod are present. Data cannot be used to show 20-30 rockfish caught for each lingcod/cabezon. Rockfish are targetted using small shrimp flies and grub, where lingcod lures are much bigger.

ROSS, CHRISTOPHER G  January 29, 2013
BOTHELL, WA  
Comments:
No- there are plenty of lingcod and if rockfish conservation is a concern then removing more lingcod will be more productive, thus requiring expansion. Studies show that even MPAs/Fishing closures will not let rockfish repopulate if lingcod are present.

BUCKINGHAM, ROBERT P  January 29, 2013
NEAH BAY, WA  
Comments:
Hello, I strongly oppose the proposed rule change #69, shortening the Ling Cod season in Area 4B. Shortening the Ling Cod season in Area 4B is unnecessary since it has some of the healthiest Ling Cod and bottomfish populations found in Washington State. The WDFW recently took proactive measures in Area 4B; including limiting rockfish quotas to 6 and prohibiting bottomfishing in waters deeper than 20 fathoms. The implementation of these new rules already provides necessary protection for the rockfish species of concern without completely eliminating a very healthy Ling Cod fishery. Anglers targeting Area 4 Ling Cod, without the ability to retreat to the more protected waters from April 16 to May 1, would be forced to fish in waters that may not be safe. This is a season when weather can deteriorate quickly and fishermen can generally find a protected area to continue fishing in Area 4B. Please reject rule change #69. This closure would have a very negative effect on the alread

LUTZ, DAVID   January 29, 2013
WOODINVILLE, WA  
Comments:
I stronly oppose this proposal to reduce the lingcod season in Area 4B. I have spent a great deal of time fishing for both rockfish and lingcod in that area, and the suggestion that there is a bycatch of 20+ rockfish for each lingcod is either the result of ignorance or really flawed study design/analysis. I have never seen that kind of bycatch, and no one else that I have spoken to has either. Typical ling baits are much larger than rockfish would target, and location and depth are often not optimal for rockfish. I would ask that you look very closely at any studies offered as "proof" and move for more independent research if you believe that there is really a potential threat to rockfish populations in this specific area.

BUCKLIN, LAURENCE A  January 29, 2013
UNIVERSITY PLACE, WA  
Comments:
I recommend a NO on this proposal. This is NOT a conservation effort tied directly to ling for which stocks are described by WDFW as healthy. The stated intent is to reduce bycatch of rockfish during this fishery. The explanation does not indicate exactly which rockfish are of concern. Is it yelloweye and canary? If so, how many are actually impacted during the current ling season inside of 120 feet? This proposal reduces the ling season by 75%! Furthermore, it eliminates 15 days in April and 20 days in Sept/Oct when there is no salmon season to otherwise attract fishermen to that area reducing fishing opportunity and trips to Neah Bay. If the intended reduction of rockfish bycatch is tied to species other than ESA listed then an observation is that ling are highly predatory on rockfish and retaining the current season and increasing daily limit might be a better approach coupled with PSA efforts toward improved ID and release methods to reduce rockfish release mortality

THOMSON, WILLIAM G  January 29, 2013
ANACORTES, WA  
Comments:
No, there are plenty of lingcod in this area.

CARTER, MICHAEL   January 29, 2013
POULSBO, WA  
Comments:
I absolutely say no to this as a working tax payer and supporter of fish and wildlife with my taxes and fees I need more time on the water. I say no to # 69 do not reduce the season on Lingcod in area 4 B

CARTER, MICHAEL   January 29, 2013
POULSBO, WA  
Comments:
I absolutely say no to this as a working tax payer and supporter of fish and wildlife with my taxes and fees I need more time on the water. I say no to # 69 do not reduce the season on Lingcod in area 4 B

DAWSON, DENNIS   January 29, 2013
ALLYN, WA  
Comments:
Do not reduce the lingcod season in MA4B- there are plenty of lingcod and if rockfish conservation is a concern then removing more lingcod will be more productive, thus requiring expansion. Studies show that even MPAs/Fishing closures will not let rockfish repopulate if lingcod are present. Data cannot be used to show 20-30 rockfish caught for each lingcod/cabezon. Rockfish are targetted using small shrimp flies and grub, where lingcod lures are much bigger.

REINHARDT, NORM   January 29, 2013
PORT ORCHARD, WA  
Comments:
Do not reduce the lingcod season- there are plenty of lingcod and if rockfish conservation is a concern then removing more lingcod will be more productive for rockfish populations. Studies show that even MPAs/Fishing closures will not let rockfish repopulate if lingcod are present.

MOSER, MICHAEL V  January 29, 2013
EVERETT, WA  
Comments:
My personal experience fishing 4B, has been when targetting lingcod, i hardly catch any rockfish. It is a different story when you are actually targetting rockfish, that is really when you catch alot of them. Most people there fishing for lingcod are using pipe jigs offshore, when it is allowed. I personally think lingcod are way more of a preditator to rockfish than us fisherman, with how every thing is set up now should just stay the same, by keeping lingcod season open with its regular dates.

SHEEHAN, JOHN   January 29, 2013
SEATTE, WA  
Comments:
No- do not limit the length of the season. Removing less ling cod would actually be worse for the rockfish population since lungs each rockfish.

LOPEZ, MARCOS   January 29, 2013
BELLEVUE, WA  
Comments:
Absolutely against this proiposal. Rock fish are not in decline or indangered in MA 4 Weat of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line.

BYKONEN, DON   January 29, 2013
SUMNER, WA  
Comments:
6 months open closed 6 months. Reduce limit to 1 over 30 lnches and 1 under 40 inches. None over 40 inches to be retained

BYKONEN, DON   January 29, 2013
SUMNER, WA  
Comments:
Leave as is no change.