See proposed rule
language (CR-103)
2013 Recreational Fishing Rules Concise Explanatory Statement
Fish & Wildlife Commission
Meeting Feb. 8-9, 2013

2013 – 2014 Sportfishing Rule Proposals – Briefing and Public Hearing. Audio available.

Sportfishing Rule Changes for 2013-2014

Sportfishing Rule Proposals & Comments

View proposals and comments on proposals that were submitted by the public and WDFW staff.
There are two types of rules available for viewing.


Recommended
for Public Comment
Not Recommended
for further consideration
View by Category
Statewide Coastal Region
Freshwater
Statewide
Shellfish/Seaweed
Puget Sound
Region Freshwater
Coastal Region
Marine
Puget Sound
Region Marine
Eastern Washington and
Columbia Region Freshwater

Recommended for Public Comment

Rule Change Recommendation Short Title
# 67. Tuna daily limit

 • Final Rule Actions
 • See comments

Rules Category
Coastal Region Marine

Type of Rule Change Proposal
Conservation

Short Description
Implement two fish daily limit for yellowfin, skipjack and northern bluefin tuna.

Explanation
These species are rarely caught in Washington coastal waters. This regulation will align the daily limit for these tuna species with other marine food fish not common in Washington.

Final Rule Actions

Staff Recommendation
Adopt as proposed.

Commission Action
Adopted as proposed.

Rule Modifications
No


Public Testimony

Comment opposed proposal.

Online Public Comments  (143 comments)

HAROLD, RUSSELL S  September 21, 2012
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
I support this rule change.
KNOBBS, KENNETH D  September 21, 2012
SILVERDALE, WA  
Comments:
I agree that non listed offshore pelagic species should be listed as to allow possession, but I think putting a two per day limit on them is not the correct approach. As the offshore pelagic species vary greatly from year to year off the coast of Washington, if a boat full of tuna fisherman 60 miles offshore find themselves in a school of catch-able Blue-fin Tuna, it seems more than unfair to only limit them to two each just because they are rarely seen, even though their Eastern Pacific populations appear to be quite healthy. I think maybe a better approach would be to come up with an aggregate offshore pelagic species limit and group all of the possible pelagic species that could be seen in the waters off Washington State together. This should include albacore tuna as well. I would suggest a combined limit of all offshore pelagic species of 25 per fisherman.
COATNEY, DON C  September 21, 2012
OAK HARBOR, WA  
Comments:
There is no reason to set a limit on tuna at this time, tuna populations in the north are healthy and at this present time only a handfull of people go out that far to get the tuna when they are in. There is no reason to set limits on tuna when most of the time they can not be reached by the sport fisherman in the first place.
TAYLOR, SEAN M  September 21, 2012
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
Given that these type of tuna are rarely caught off the Washington coast, it seems unnecessary to implement this newly proposed regulation. New regulations cost money to incorporate, and considering there isn't a problem, this proposal seems wasteful.
PARKER, CRYSTAL L  September 21, 2012
DUVALL, WA  
Comments:
There is no evidence of 1) significant catches of Yellow fin, Skipjack and Northern BF Tuna in Washington, or 2) danger of extinction or severe reduction in any of those species in Washington waters, that would require a limit. These species are not native to Washington waters and WDFW has questionable cause or reason to impose a limit. This appears to be nothing more than a stepping stone to attempting to limit albacore tuna catches even though as usual, the sport fishery makes up less than 1% of the total catch of these species. I am not in favor of this proposal
DALTON, FLOYD   September 21, 2012
YELM, WA  
Comments:
Unless this also applies to commercial fishermen in the name of conservation then I do not see why it should apply to the few sport fishermen who might get into a school of "MIGRATING" Tuna.
BERGERON, DAVID A  September 21, 2012
LAKEWOOD, WA  
Comments:
Truly not necessary as these species are rarely encountered in Washington.
LANIER, KEVIN C  September 21, 2012
BURIEN, WA  
Comments:
I oppose any recreational Bag limits on these types of Pelagic fish. Any negative impacts on these fish would occur from commercial harvest not from the Recreational angler. As with Albacore Tuna our seasonal opportunities it itself limits our impacts. This would be a "limit" for appearances only
STAUFFER, DAN H  September 21, 2012
KENMORE , WA  
Comments:
Silly thought process here. Anglers rarely catch one, so put a limit on them? How's about regulating destructice commercial fishing instead?
GIRTZ, TODD   September 21, 2012
SUMNER, WA  
Comments:
No need for this rule very few are caught off the washington coast
WARDLOW, DONALD D  September 22, 2012
WOODINVILLE, WA  
Comments:
I do not like this proposal. Just because we don't have these other tuna in our waters in great numbers doesn't mean that it will always be the case. Putting a limit on tuna that are not scarce in the ocean makes little sense to me. So few blues are caught every year. I only hear of a handful caught off of Oregon. Haven't heard of any caught up here. Might as well put a limit on Wahoo and Marlin if you are going with this one.
MAK, HANS M  September 22, 2012
SHELTON, WA  
Comments:
Please oppose this proposal. It does not recognize the limited actual opporunity. Weather, wave frequency, and cloud cover for sea surface temperatures and chlorophill breaklines are just a part of the window sport fishers face. If you must have some number for the PFMC how about ten each species and an additional 25 albacore daily limit.
DOCKSTEADER, GAREY   September 22, 2012
LONGVIEW, WA  
Comments:
If these fish are "rarely" caught off of Washington, why are we regulating it? Is there ANY reliable data that these species are endangered? If so then I'm for it. If NOT, again, why are we regulating it?
SCHWARTZ, TODD   September 24, 2012
SNOHOMISH, WA  
Comments:
I do not support this change. The fish mentioned happen very rarely in WA Coastal Waters due to ocean currents and temps not because of overfishing. In California where these fish are commonly caught there is a 10 fish limit. If there was a conservation reason to limit the catch it should come from where the fish normally inhabit. When we get a chance to catch these fish, it should not be limited, until such time that a limit is warranted. It is not warranted at this time.
SAWIN, KEITH   September 24, 2012
DES MOINES, WA  
Comments:
support this proposal
MARTIN, DAVID B  September 24, 2012
FREELAND, WA  
Comments:
I am against this proposal. These species are mostly incidental catches for anglers fishing for albacore tuna. Having a limit on these fish unnecessarily increases the burden on WDFW officers to be offshore enforcing this limit. I cannot find any research the show the populations of these species are jepardized by the current fishing pressure. This doesn't make any sense to me.
REESE, DAVID M  September 24, 2012
WOODINVILLE, WA  
Comments:
No, not at this time.
LANTZ, BRADLEY G  September 24, 2012
VAUGHN, WA  
Comments:
These fish get very little pressure in comparison to other species in washington due to the distance, cost and dangers involved with venturing so far into the ocean. The limit needs to be increased or stay as it currently is.
DURBIN, JOSH D  September 24, 2012
BELFAIR, WA  
Comments:
I believe this is a un-needed proposal considering the chances for those particular fish are very uncommon. Ive personally been offshore up to 4-8 trips per year for the last 4 years and have not caught any of those species. I am also very active on a couple offshore fishing websites and have only heard of 2 blue fin caught this year.
HOLT, ERNIE   September 30, 2012
EPHRATA, WA  
Comments:
The species mentioned in this proposal are caught only rarely in WA waters. Putting a limit on these species is not needed as conservation issues are not at stake. I respectfully request this proposal does not get excepted. Tuna are not a state regulated fish, nor should they be.
LUCE, KEN A  October 01, 2012
OLYMPIA, WA  
Comments:
no need for a limit on a fish that is rarely caught in washington
WALSER, PAUL L  October 01, 2012
RENTON, WA  
Comments:
Why would you even waste your time on writing such a regulation?? This is a waste of time and money. I have been fishing Tuna for years off our coast and have NEVER caught any of these tuna. There are not enough of these tuna caught to even count. So how would this effect the actual species by putting this limit into affect? My vote is NO on this recommendation. It is a waste of ink.
LINNEY, LARRY   October 01, 2012
OLYMPIA, WA  
Comments:
This is absurd, why waste time on proposals that have no bearing whatsoever, when's the last time you have seen any of these caught in Washington? Maybe a fluke every now and then, Against this idiotic proposal.
HIBBARD, KEN L  October 02, 2012
EVERETT, WA  
Comments:
This is a bad proposal, I do not support this at all. It is an absolute rarity to have these types of fish caught in the pacific northwest and this is not necessary as the catch in the pacific northwest is almost zero especially in Washington. This will lead to limits on Albicore which is very plentifull and not necessary. The sport fisherman take a drop in the bucket compared to the comercials fisherman. And the sport fishermen put 10 times the money back into th economy compared to comercial fishermen. Stop the commercial fishing on tuna, salmon and the retuns will be much better and the money going into the economy will be much higher thus creating more jobs. This is a very bad trend and not good for anything.
ZEUTSCHEL, KURT D  October 02, 2012
ISSAQUAH, WA  
Comments:
A reasonable person might ask "Why would the state place regulations on species rarely caught in Washington waters?". It simply makes no sense from a resource conservation standpoint as it will not impact the harvest. It makes no sense from an enforcement standpoint either as it would be meaningless to try to enforce. Such meaningless rules make citizens skeptical of the intent of governing agencies.
NISSELL, STUART   October 02, 2012
EVERETT, WA  
Comments:
Why try to manage species that are only in our waters incidentally? Not in favor of limits and spending management money on incidental catches.
PENEV, KAMEN   October 02, 2012
SAMMAMISH, WA  
Comments:
I strongly oppose this proposal. There is no scientific justification for imposing a limit on these rare species. This just increases the volume and complexity of the fishing regulations. We should be removing and consolidating rules, not adding one-offs.
TORGERSEN, HARALD   October 02, 2012
SHORELINE, WA  
Comments:
since very low catch, keep it simple for sport fishemen, and the agency,no limit please
GRAHAM, JIM   October 03, 2012
SEATTLE , WA  
Comments:
This is a merely an attempt by the state to introduce regulation into tuna fishing. If the fish in question are rarely caught here why regulate other then to start to introduce a bag limit onto all tuna. This is just the first step.With the high cost of tuna fishing as it is, upwards of a $1000.00 per boat per trip.The recreational fisherman is making no impact on this species.If your going to go down this path you will eventuly kill off this activity as no one will spend that type of money for 2 fish. Your costal communities will be the ones to suffer the most. It is the commercial fishery that should be regulated for tuna not the recreational fishery.
RICKMAN, TRENT E  October 03, 2012
OLYMPIA, WA  
Comments:
There is absolutely no need for this rule proposal. As an experienced tuna fishermen who has logged numerous trips, I can confidently state that there are not enough yellowfin, skipjack or northern bluefin tuna caught by sportfishermen to justify putting any kind of limit on them. The group of people I tuna fish have logged numerous trips for years, and neither myself, nor any of the people I tuna fish with have ever caught a yellowfin, skipjack or northern bluefin tuna while fishing the Washington coastal waters.
BENTON, RICHARD W  October 04, 2012
ISSAQUAH, WA  
Comments:
I think that since these species are so rarely caught in these waters, this is almost a non issue. the cost of regulation would be more than the benefit unless a very minimal effort was put toward this effort
STUDZINSKI, TOM   October 05, 2012
MARYSVILLE, WA  
Comments:
#67 Tuna Limit-No-No reason to put a limit just to put on a limit. Could start a limit on Albacore
HARRIS, MILES   October 05, 2012
FEDERAL WAY, WA  
Comments:
No. No reason to set a limit on species that are rarely caught/seen in Washington offshore waters.
SAVIDGE, MATT C  October 05, 2012
BREMERTON, WA  
Comments:
No reason to put a limit just to put on a limit.
PERKINS, STEVEN L  October 05, 2012
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
I strongly disagree with this proposal. It is completely rediculous and unnecessary to impose limits on species that are not even present in our waters. This is clearly a push to impose unfair limits on sportfishers for the sake of just imposing limits. Additionally, there is no valid science supporting a sportfishing limit on these species in our waters.
OWEN, THOMAS A  October 05, 2012
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
No. I have never heard of EVER a single boat catching more than one of these on a single tuna trip. Whats the point? Just more rules that are needless and starts a trend of a limit on tuna. Ridiculous
WILSON, GEOFF D  October 05, 2012
ARLINGTON, WA  
Comments:
I DO NOT agree with this. These fish are so rarely caught in our waters that a limit on them is a ridiculous idea. The wording alone makes it sound like all that is wanted is some kind of limit in place to make it easier in the future to add a species to the list.
GAUTHIER, CHARLES   October 05, 2012
BREMERTON, WA  
Comments:
this law would just be so much hot air. I have heard of an occasional tuna other than albacore but that is a rare occasion.
KINTZELE, JAMES   October 07, 2012
MOUNT VERNON, WA  
Comments:
We should not establish a limit on these highly pelagic fish just to establish a limit.
ABEL, GREG A  October 07, 2012
BREMERTON, WA  
Comments:
Disagree. This is an open ocean fishery. We see very few yellowfin, skipjack and northern bluefin tuna because they rarely travel here. Just because we don't catch them reguarily, doesn't mean the fishery is in distress - we don't catch marlin here either. Leave this one alone.
YOUNG A, SETH A  October 08, 2012
MT VERNON , WA  
Comments:
no this could eventually lead to a daily limit on albacore.
COLLINS, EDWARD W  October 08, 2012
BELLINGHAM, WA  
Comments:
No need for a limit on tuna...this is a Trojan horse attempt to limit everything. There is zero proof that small boats even dent the tuna population. Limit just to limit is over reach
BUNNIS, SEAN R  October 08, 2012
NINE MILE FALLS , WA  
Comments:
there is no need for more regulation on a fish that is rarely caught off washington. There are enough regulations to try and keep up with. A big no on this one.
SHAJANIAN, ARVIN   October 08, 2012
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
I disagree with this rule change. It is unnecessary and serves no benefit to managing our fisheries. The explanation provided makes no sense - if these species are rarely caught, then we do not need to implement a limit nor spend any effort managing the resource, since it, effectively, never even existed to begin with. It is listed as a "conservation" type change, but these fish do not exist in these waters due to unfavorable water conditions for these species, NOT due to overfishing of any sort. They are rarely caught because they rarely reside in waters off WA state, not because the biomass has been negatively impacted by fishing pressure. Even in Mexican water where these fish species are common and the health of the fishery relies on regulation, the limits are far greater than two fish for yellowfin and bluefin, and there are no limits for skipjack. This rule is pointless and causes unnecessary regulation with no benefits or improvements, and is a waste of tim
TACHELL, JONATHAN T  October 08, 2012
GIG HARBOR, WA  
Comments:
I am not in favor of this regulation as sometimes when warm water swings close to the coast these species can be readily caught and there should be no limit until it is proven that further regulation is needed.
RICHARD, STEVEN   October 11, 2012
MARYSVILLE, WA  
Comments:
Reject this idea. Any catch of these fish would be purely incidently to Albacore fishing, catchs will be minimal, and would have no impact on the overall health of the fishery.
LEWIS, DAVID P  October 15, 2012
RAYMOND, WA  
Comments:
I do not support this proposal. As stated, these species are rarely caught in WA waters; additionally, the possible sport impact upon these stocks is practically non-existent. There is no benefit to implementing this rule.
ROSE, CORY   January 28, 2013
EVERETT, WA  
Comments:
NO!!! Tuna are not in danger.
KEIZER, JOHN A  January 28, 2013
UNIVERSITY PLACE , WA  
Comments:
No reason to put a limit just to put on a limit on tuna. This could start a limit on Albacore. Weather in the NW is the limit
VOIGHT, RYAN   November 26, 2012
ENUMCLAW, WA  
Comments:
No limit should be implemented for this species as no evidence is available showing a decline in the population.
LEY, COLIN R  November 26, 2012
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
I DO NOT support the implementation of this rule change. If these fish are rarely caught in Washington waters, then there should be no need for further government regulations that reduce the fishing opportunities of sport fishermen.
BISWAS, SHREYA   November 26, 2012
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
I DO NOT support the implementation of this rule change. If these tuna are rarely caught in Washington waters, then there should be no need for further government regulations that reduce the fishing opportunities of sport fishermen. Enforcing rules upon commercial fisherman is a more effective way to deal with the tuna population if this fish population is reduced through bi-catch. Due to the difference in volume between commercial fishermen and sport fishermen, regulating commercial fisherman would help any problems more anyway.
RISSER, JOHN D  November 26, 2012
STANWOOD , WA  
Comments:
I do not support this Where is the TRUE Science behind it. These fish do not frequent the NW Pacific waters
PARKER, CRYSTAL   November 26, 2012
DUVALL, WA  
Comments:
This makes no sense at all, these tuna are in no danger and in Washington waters are almost a once-in-a-lifetime fish. Putting a limit on them just serves as a springboard to limit all tuna in the future. Do not pass this.
MOONEY, DON   November 27, 2012
EDGEWOOD, WA  
Comments:
Why lord why? The arguement makes little sense. Why do we need a limit of something that is rarely caught? What next a limit on peacock bass or penguins.
FORRESTOR, BEN J  November 27, 2012
BELLEVUE, WA  
Comments:
I oppose67
BUMGARNER, ROGER E  November 27, 2012
KENMORE, WA  
Comments:
I oppose this proposal simply because it is a waste of time. A 2 fish limit per fisherman for these species is irrelevant as there is no evidence that anyone ever catches that many of these species recreationally. Out of the 1000's of albacore I saw landed this year on our coast, I know of only 2 blue fin tuna that were caught. Why waste time and paper on a rule that will likely never come into play?
LANIER, KEVIN C  November 29, 2012
BURIEN, WA  
Comments:
I would support a one fish limit on Blue fin only. Catch limits must be placed on Commercial fishing prior to any consideration of limits on recreatonal fishing
CARVER SR, RUSSELL L  November 29, 2012
LAKETAPPS, WA  
Comments:
Please pass rule#67 Two is sufficient for these species of fish.
RICHARDSON, BEAU J  November 30, 2012
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
I DO NOT support the implementation of this rule change. If these tuna are rarely caught in Washington waters, then there should be no need for further government regulations that reduce the fishing opportunities of sport fishermen. Enforce rules upon the commercial fisherman if this fish population is reduced through by-catch.
BOBKO, KEN E  December 04, 2012
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
Why you are spending time and effort on this is unknown. Setting limits that are not required since the are "not common in Washington". It feels like the basis for adding limits to Albacore at a later date. At least be truthful with the people you work for. In any case this is silly by default. Let's have a law that is note required. What?????
HOWARD, JAMES D  December 04, 2012
LYNNWOOD, WA  
Comments:
Why? They are pelagic and rarely stray into our marine areas. If you begin to impose more restrictions on these types of fish then you and the economy will loose out on fishing trips out to get them. Why are you suggesting more rules and regulations when they aren't needed or would not benefit anything? Make not a lick of sense. Please reconsider. Thank you, Jim Howard
RAPACZ, KEVIN J  December 04, 2012
OLYMPIA , WA  
Comments:
Why - how many tuna fisherman do you see out of neah bay. The ones willing to go will stop along with most charter boats. Who will be willing to spend the time, money etc to go out for 2 fish? Not I. You will kill off more business and potential grow in this industry.
HAY, CLIFF A  December 06, 2012
FORKS, WA  
Comments:
Although these species are rare in our coastal waters a shift in water temperatures could bring in a healthy stock of these fish. As these warm water species could be shifting north with the changing currents why should we not be able catch a good number of them ? If these stocks are determined not be maintaining healthy harvestable numbers then they should closed to fishing. It seems we are making rules where none are needed at this time. We have enough rules on the books now and we should be making compliance easier instead of more complex.
COLEMAN, MARK   December 07, 2012
SNOQUALMIE, WA  
Comments:
These species are rarely caught in Washington because they don't occur in our waters normally. What few are caught are strays and don't impact normal stocks. No need for a ruling here.
DRESOW, JOHN L  December 07, 2012
LACEY, WA  
Comments:
This summer would have been my first tuna charter and I was hoping to get enough to have in the freezer for a while. But if I am going to lay down that kind of money I just won't do it for 2 fish. Since we are such a fringe fishery no limits is not going to cause irreparable harm to the stocks.
HANSEN, ERIC M  December 16, 2012
ALLYN, WA  
Comments:
The number of fish caught can be limited in two ways – (1) limiting the daily catch or (2) limiting the number of days fished. Tuna fishing is such a major commitment (100 mile round trip) requiring near perfect conditions (both wind and swell), the number of days fished are few and far between, effectively limiting the number of tuna caught. Implementing this rule change would kill tuna fishing for sport fishermen.
RAMEY, DAVID A  January 28, 2013
LAKE STEVENS, WA  
Comments:
Against - this is more unneeded regulation in an attempt to further limit fishing opportunity. This proposal would open the door for limits on albacore, which are abundant.
WARM, WALLY A  January 13, 2013
ANACORTES, WA  
Comments:
what next ya gone ban them
JABLONSKI, MIKE   January 13, 2013
MOUNTLAKE TERRACE, WA  
Comments:
If these species are rarely caught in Washington waters there is no need for these regulations
BORDEAU, BRIAN R  January 17, 2013
WOODINVILLE , WA  
Comments:
I disagree with this proposal. It is not necessary to regulate this fishery at this time.
GAYNOR, MICHEL A  January 17, 2013
KEIZER, OR  
Comments:
Please stop right now. Do provide additional legislation that is only going to add to the current volumes of regulations already on the books. There is no reason for this rule change and it makes the whole process of conservation look foolish and useless. I implore you to not make rules just because you can. You do not have to justify your position just because you can. Bad idea Bad law total unnessary Michel A Gaynor contact me as above
PUTNAM, DAVID A  January 17, 2013
GRAHAM, WA  
Comments:
Why? Why make a rule that really has no meaning? Yellowfin tuna are not endangered and as far as I know, no yellowfins have been caught in Washington. If the warm water were to get here, maybe an angler or two might be lucky enough to catch one. Now bluefin tuna do make it up here each year and most times the total catch for the area would be less than 50. These are migratory fish and just because they are seldom caught here, does not make them endangered. Having a limit on these fish is a act of uselessness. It is only done to make someone feel good. So again I ask WHY?
SUTHER, DAVID   January 17, 2013
MT VERNON , WA  
Comments:
Why? There are so few in these northern waters that if a sport angler does get in a school let them catch them. I spent the summer in Ilwaco fishing every day on a charter boat and only heard of 2 bluefin caught on the coast for the year. Leave it as it is now . No limit
STAGGS, ERIC A  January 17, 2013
NINE MILE FALLS, WA  
Comments:
This limit has absolutely no grounding on scientific data, purposeful catch restriction based on stock management, or even an appropriate response to pressures elsewhere. Enforcement of this rule will also be exorbitantly expensive as it will require either long range capable vessels spending thousands of dollars for a few hundred dollar fine, or more dockside checkers which are already stretched to the budgetary limit. For anadromous fish, a two fish limit is by far the best way to manage the stock in relation to the number of anglers and the difficulty of their trip. Conversely, the aforementioned species are migratory to the tune of many thousands of miles, are spread globally, and those that reach our region are not the breeding stock that will propagate the species. To the Washington pelagic angler, this proposal feels more like rule making for the sake of rule than actual stock management.
SHARFF, JEFFREY A  January 17, 2013
PORTLAND, OR  
Comments:
crazy proposal. These species are rarely caught off Washington and do not need restrictions. In 10 years of offshore fishing (often bring the boat down from Anacortes and fish down to Ilwaco and then back up) we have caught 1 yellowtail and 2 bluefin. Not worth the trouble. Also with carking at sea would be next to impossible to distinguish from Albacore
TUCKER, TIMOTHY J  January 17, 2013
PORT TOWNSEND, WA  
Comments:
This is a waste of time and legislation. As of December 2012, I believe the first Bluefin Tuna was recorded landed in Washington State. An acquaintance has the state issued certificate. I have never heard of a skipjack tuna every landed in Washington. There are very few yellowfin tuna ever caught off the Washington Coast. This is tantamount to fixing something that is not broke. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are about individual freedom and liberty. No where in our founding documents was there room for unnecessary legislation. I am fundamentally opposed to limiting freedom and liberty without cause. Simple book-keeping is not a reason to limit freedom.
JOHNSON, LARRY   January 18, 2013
OLYMPIA, WA  
Comments:
No ! Makes no since almost nobody cathes that many anyway These fish are rare in our waters but abundant world wide
STENERSEN, LEVI E  January 18, 2013
YACOLT, WA  
Comments:
As you have already stated "these fish are rarely caught in Washington coastal waters" why are you wasting our tax dollars on something like this? Might as well include saltwater crocodile too. When is species is in no danger of being depleted it makes no sense to make a special ruling or protection for it. Use your power to change rules somewhere else
HAMPTON, KIM   January 18, 2013
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
This rule is a non item, waste of resource time and the paper it would be printed on. WA has a limited budget....take it elsewhere please.
MCKEE, BILL   January 18, 2013
OCEAN PARK, WA  
Comments:
Another law/reg on the books that is not needed. If they are not present in numbers why make another reg. that isn't necessary? Too many already!
WILSON, GEOFF   January 18, 2013
ARLINGTON, WA  
Comments:
I DO NOT agree with this proposal. These fish are not caught very often in this state and to catch two in a single day is even more rare. The only thing this proposal seems to do is put a limit on a species just for the case of putting a limit on them. There seems to be very little science to back this need.
PENEV, KAMEN   January 18, 2013
SAMMAMISH, WA  
Comments:
The regulations are already way too complex and difficult to interpret for the average angler. Adding a useless rule like this is exactly the opposite of what you should be doing, namely, consolidate and simplify the regulations.
MCDOWELL, BRIAN   January 18, 2013
BRIER, WA  
Comments:
These fish are not endangered. Why are we even considering this? Do we really need to spend taxpayer dollars managing something that doesn't need to be managed?
HYDE, MICHAEL   January 19, 2013
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
I am strongly opposed to this proposed restriction. This seems to be the classic case of adopting more regulations without any purpose or potential benefit. The catch of these species is extremely rare in Washington waters and I doubt the proposed limits have ever been exceeded. Nevertheless, this proposed regulation serves no purpose. These tuna species occur in high abundance off the coasts of Mexico and California. For a few months, limited numbers migrate up the Oregon and Washington coasts. There is no conservation reason for this proposal. The number caught in an entire season in Washington is less than the number caught in a single party boat trip in California. This is not a situation like many rockfish species where the limits are intended to protect a declining or low resident population. These are not resident fish and you could completely eliminate any catch and it would have ZERO impact on how many swim into Washington waters in subsequent years.
GAUTHIER, CHARLES   January 19, 2013
BREMERTON, WA  
Comments:
There are enough regulations to deal with, why add something that will not happen. Consider change if it really comes to pass that these fish begin to show up in catchable #'s.
GILMAN, DANA   January 19, 2013
LONGBEACH , WA  
Comments:
These fish are caught daily off the coast of Washington between July and September. Limiting the fish too 2 per angler is going to hurt every aspect of the fishing business the Washington ports need to live.I dont understand why they need to be aligned with other food fish not common in Washington. I could understand some kind of limit,but 2 fish is rediculous.The cost to go 30 miles off shore in your boat or a commercial guide boat ranges from $150.00 to $450.00, do you think anybody is going to pay that for 2 fish. Do astudy on what is best for the fish and if it can withstand a 10 fish limit then start there.
HALE, RICHARD M  January 20, 2013
VANCOUVER, WA  
Comments:
Rule is not needed as there is so little catch of these species in our waters.
MYERS, BILLY G  January 20, 2013
CENTRALIA, WA  
Comments:
get real! Much of the tuna caught is donated to needy families and only targeted for a few weeks per year by NW fishermen. The coastal economies depend on tuna trips. who would charter a trip that far out in the ocean to only catch 2 fish? Its already cheaper to fly north for halibut if you track the pounds of fish kept per dollar spent. why do the same for tuna?
SCOTT, HAROLD   January 20, 2013
KENT, WA  
Comments:
Lets make more rules and laws that we dont need. Look back a few years into the sport regs. Tuna was listed to be caught year around in Puget Sound. There has never been a tuna in Puget Sound in the history of the universe! So now lets make more laws for fish that are acknowledged to rarely be in WA water. Is there an issue now. Who has been coming back from tuna fishing with even one YFT, BFT or skipjack. I fish for albacore as my main outdoor activity of the year. I probably have more funds invested in tuna sport tuna fishing than any other tuna fisherman in the state of WA. Of the hundreds I have caught personally and the thousands I know of caught I have yet had anyone show me a tuna other than a albacore.
NOLET, LAURENCE   January 21, 2013
ROCHESTER, WA  
Comments:
Creating a limit on a species that is rarely caught in Washington coastal waters seems like a waste of time and energy. Additionally, it opens the door to impose limits on tuna species like Albacore that are targeted by sport fisheries. The sport Albacore fishery takes a very small fraction of the total catch. With recent attempts by other states to impose limits, and charge fees for pelagic recreational fisheries, when that state government spends zero dollars in the management of the species, approving this rule would only create an opening for further "revenue based regulation".
PONAS, JOE   January 21, 2013
VANCOUVER, WA  
Comments:
Because these species are rarely caught in Washington coastal waters regulation/conservation is unnecessary. Why attempt to control species that are not comman to this region? Because someone from PETA or a similar eco-groups thinks this may be a good idea or direction? These are incidental catchs at best. There is no foundatation for any regulation or current data that exhibits these fish are endangered in any respect nor are they targeted to the degree food fish are. They should not be lumped together just for the sake of doing so especially without conclusive research. Spend your time and my fees paid in areas that do the most good for all anglers. Since I actually help pay your salary and fund your programs as all anglers.... do that is what is needed. Remember most "eco-groups do not contribute to your funding besides what may sometimes happens behind closed doors.
THURESSON, CHASS   January 21, 2013
SPRINGFIELD , OR  
Comments:
This is an absurd waste of time. Should we set a limit on mermaids while we are at it? Just because we don't catch any doesn't mean we shouldn't regulate it right? You guys are wasting our tax dollars by spending even one red cent discussing this. Chass Thuresson
GARD, KENLEY P  January 21, 2013
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
This limit really is unacceptable given the cost required to put oneself in a position to catch one of these fish. This will essentially close the private tuna fisheries to only those with tons of extra money to spend on gas to head out to the tuna grounds for (2) fish. And will make it without a doubt the most costly fish per pound to fish for. It will lead to using the charter fleets as a more cost effective. Which maybe the intent of this rule in the first place.
ROSE, SHAWN F  January 23, 2013
MONTESANO, WA  
Comments:
wa. fish and wildlife has never been able to put any limits on tuna off our coast and never should be able to. these are migratory fish with no wa. f&w juridiction.not in favor of any limit on any tuna species in saltwater.these fish are not available in our waters every year. sportfishing from our ports will not add up to a hill of beans. and further more i have seen no study made to prove our ports made any real impact of sport fishing for any tuna species out of our ports. and quite frankly tuna talk like this is just a waste of your dept. time. so count me and my 11 friends against this.
ROSS, ROGER G  January 28, 2013
PORT ANGELES, WA  
Comments:
No reason to put a limit just to put on a limit. This could start a limit on Albacore.
GRAHN, MICHAEL   January 28, 2013
MOUNT VERNON, WA  
Comments:
Tuna Limit-No-No reason to put a limit just to put on a limit. This could start a limit on Albacore.
PELLETIER, RICK   January 28, 2013
EVERETT, WA  
Comments:
No reason to put a limit just to put on a limit. This could start a limit on Albacore
HANZELKA, DALE   January 28, 2013
CLINTON, WA  
Comments:
No. These species are so rarely caught of the Washington coast, it doesn't make sense to add it to our already complicated to read rulebook.
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. #67 Tuna Limit-No-No reason to put a limit just to put on a limit. This could start a limit on Albacore.
LEWIS, PHILIP J  January 28, 2013
RAYMOND , WA  
Comments:
No, this is a un-needed change
LEEVER, DON   January 28, 2013
KENT, WA  
Comments:
I am afraid that establishing a catch limit on these species would be a precursor to limits on all tuna. I am opposed to this rule change.
KAMINSKI, LARRY   January 28, 2013
POULSBO, WA  
Comments:
No....why are you wanting to put a limit on a fish migrating in our waters and fished by very few wanting to go that far...give those fishing a chance to make it worth the fulel and boat and equipment cost..
HILL, JENNIFER   January 28, 2013
POULSBO, WA  
Comments:
No reason to put a limit just to put on a limit. This could start a limit on Albacore.
MARTIN, DAVID B  January 28, 2013
FREELAND, WA  
Comments:
NO ON THIS PROPOSAL - There is no reason to put a limit on any species just to have a limit on the books. Who is going to enforce this on the water. Way to costly.
FRENCH, RICHARD E  January 28, 2013
SEQUIM, W  
Comments:
No-No reason to put a limit just to put on a limit. This could start a limit on Albacore.
PHILLIPS, RICHARD V  January 28, 2013
ENUMCLAW, WA  
Comments:
This is a ridiculous proposal. The time of year, water conditions and tuna numbers all point to a "no-limit" fishery. Maybe if tuna were within reach off-shore 12 months out of the year some limit may make sense. But with today's in-ability to regularly reach these fish, limited by weather conditions, boat capability and time of year when they swim with in reach of our coast in no way supports any kind of catch limit restriction. Not to mention the fact that you also have to keep these fish on ice once caught, savvy fisherman know how many fish they can take care of once on board. Thank you.
WISNER, LEEROY   January 28, 2013
CHEHALIS, WA  
Comments:
NO There is no reason to put a limit on a subspecie that is hardly ever caught off our coast. This could start a limit on Albacore which are abundant.
FRIEND, STEPHEN   January 28, 2013
SHORELINE, WA  
Comments:
I disagree with this proposal. Just because they are rarely caught in WA doesn't mean they won't show up someday and be a new source of fishing IE Humboldt Squid. If these species of tuna were endangered, then there may be a basis for this regulation but as is, it just seems like another senseless regulation.
TOBECK, ROBERT   January 28, 2013
RENTON, WA  
Comments:
No-No reason to put a limit just to put on a limit. We should not be in the habit of fixing problems that do not exist. This sets a bad precedent.
LOFTEN, CRAIG A  January 28, 2013
OLYMPIA, WA  
Comments:
Tuna Limit-No: No reason to put a limit just to put on a limit. This could start a limit on Albacore.
BODINE, GARY A  January 28, 2013
BUCKLEY, WA  
Comments:
I do not believe there is science available to support this restriction. I believe this is a knee jerk reaction.
NAMES, THOMAS E  January 28, 2013
RENTON, WA  
Comments:
#67 Tuna Limit-No-No reason to put a limit just to put on a limit. This could start a limit on Albacore.
SCHMITT, JOSEPH L  January 28, 2013
JOYCE, WA  
Comments:
Opposed. No science behind this. Very low catch rate. No need to put a limit on something just for the sake. I have fished Albacore over 25 years and caught only 1 yellow fin the entire time. How ever that is my fish of choice every winter in mexico. Rediculious
SILVERS, MIKE G  January 28, 2013
LACEY, WA  
Comments:
No-No reason to put a limit just to put on a limit. This could start a limit on Albacore.
ELLIOTT, TOM J  January 28, 2013
MARYSVILLE, WA  
Comments:
Tuna Limit-No-No reason to put a limit just to put on a limit. This could start a limit on Albacore.
CHAPMAN, PAUL   January 28, 2013
EDMONDS, WA  
Comments:
There are a lot more tuna than fisherman. We who have fished for tuna know you can only deal with a few as recreational fisherman. Furthermore it is so expensive to fish for them only a few are caught by sportsman, don't mess with a limit.
AUMAN, DAVID W  January 28, 2013
TACOMA, WA  
Comments:
No-No reason to put a limit just to put on a limit. This could start a limit on Albacore.
BROWN, TOM C  January 28, 2013
FRIDAY HARBOR, WA  
Comments:
Tuna are plentiful and not easy for sport fishermen to get to in the first place. There is no need for a sport limit on these fish as the impact from sport fishing is very low.
PETERSON, ERIC   January 28, 2013
LAKE STEVENS, WA  
Comments:
No-there is no scientific reason to put a limit on these fish. it seems like the incentive is proposed just to put on a limit in place.
HOWARD, JAMES D  January 28, 2013
LYNNWOOD, WA  
Comments:
Conservation? So, it's rare to catch them because we are so North of their traditional range, but South, in their common range they are not threatened or endangered but harvested in great numbers. And we, as sportsmen, when we run into the occasional school, after traveling 30-50 miles offshore to target albacore, we have to throw them back because why??? Again, conservation?? After spending an average of $300- $500 per trip to get out there? Who suggested this??? Seriously. jim Howard
OPSTAD, DAVID   January 28, 2013
MILL CREEK, WA  
Comments:
I do NOT agree with this rule change. It seems unnecessary to regulate fish that are "rarely caught in Washington coastal waters."
FUGERE, TIM J  January 28, 2013
PUYALLUP, WA  
Comments:
No! Bottomline is to put a limit on a fishery just to put a limit on makes absolutly no sense at all! Of the fish that are listed very few are even caught and are rare to say the least.
GETTER, DALE E  January 28, 2013
BOTHELL, WA  
Comments:
#67 Tuna Limit-No-No reason to put a limit just to put on a limit. This could start a limit on Albacore.
MITCHELL, DAVID   January 28, 2013
SILVERDALE, WA  
Comments:
NO-No reason to put a limit just to put on a limit.
REESE, DAVID M  January 28, 2013
WOODINVILLE, WA  
Comments:
No-No reason to put a limit just to put on a limit. This could start a limit on Albacore.
HIMMELBERGER, TIM F  January 28, 2013
SNOQUALMIE, WA  
Comments:
Why put a limit on these species of Tuna? They are far more abundant south of Washington State and are rarely targeted by recreational anglers. Non of them are even listed, not even the Northern Pacific Bluefin. Plus, almost all of the tuna fishing occurs in international waters. This is a silly rule request. Stop this non-sense! People that want to protect these species need to get Japan and other countries to agree to limit their commercial harvests.
HAGLER, STEVE L  January 28, 2013
SEQUIM, WA  
Comments:
No I do not support this rule because sportfishing for tuna is usually done at greater distance from shore and since you stated these species Listed are not really impacted any way I see no reason to limit them .
DELINSKY, MICHAEL   January 28, 2013
EVERETT, WA  
Comments:
#67 Tuna Limit-No-No reason to put a limit just to put on a limit. This could start a limit on Albacore.
TOWNLEY, BRYAN   January 28, 2013
NORTH BEND, WA  
Comments:
No reason to put a limit just to put on a limit. This could start a limit on Albacore.
HOLT, ERNIE   January 29, 2013
EPHRATA, WA  
Comments:
Disagree
FANTZ, TERESA L  January 29, 2013
MAPLE VALLEY, WA  
Comments:
Tuna Limit-No- No reason to put a limit just to put on a limit. This could start a limit on Albacore.
ROSS, CHRISTOPHER G  January 29, 2013
BOTHELL, WA  
Comments:
No reason to put a limit just to put on a limit. There is no shortage of tuna nor a problem with over fishing of tuna of WA shores.
BUCKLIN, LAURENCE A  January 29, 2013
UNIVERSITY PLACE, WA  
Comments:
I recommend a No on this proposal. Limits on these pelagic species should be related to their abundance throughout their range rather than to their limited presence when available to WA fishermen. It would be a different matter if these species were attempting to establish a permanent presence here but that is simply not the case. I further recommend that WDFW re-evaluate its current regulations pertaining to pelagics rarely caught in WA. The fact that they are rarely caught here is because we are on the edge of their range and our limited fishing windowns of opportunity and NOT the health of the particular stocks.
BURLINGAME, TOM AND DORA   January 29, 2013
MONROE, WA  
Comments:
We oppose implementing a 2 fish limit on Tuna. This is an unnecessary regulation because very rarely (never for us) does anyone catch and keep these varieties of fish. We feel it is bad policy to create more regulations just because you can.
THOMSON, WILLIAM G  January 29, 2013
ANACORTES, WA  
Comments:
No, give me reasons for imposing a limit on these tuna.
CARTER, MICHAEL   January 29, 2013
POULSBO, WA  
Comments:
No on #67 a limit on tuna is not needed at this time stock assessments say it is not needed.
DAWSON, DENNIS   January 29, 2013
ALLYN, WA  
Comments:
A two fish limit on a resource that is healthy makes no sense. A tuna trip requires a substantial boat and a multiple hour run to even get to where you can fish. Limiting the recreational fisherman to a two fish daily catch would essentially allocate 100% of this resource to commercial harvest unless you are also going to restrict their daily catch. No,no,no on a two fish limit.
REINHARDT, NORM   January 29, 2013
PORT ORCHARD, WA  
Comments:
I see no biologic data to support a limit on tuna or albacore. Limits are not warrented
BRACKMANN, KARL H  January 29, 2013
WOODINVILLE, WA  
Comments:
Moderate support for this proposal. Assure that limits set are consistent with biomass available for yellowfin, skipjack, bluefin tuna. Caution that this will affect albacore tuna with the same limits! Support an albacore tuna limit of 10 fish to prevent overfishing.
PARKER, PETE   January 29, 2013
BREMERTON, WA  
Comments:
Not a valid reason to change if they are not abundant or commonly caught.
SHEEHAN, JOHN   January 29, 2013
SEATTLE, WA  
Comments:
Tuna Limit- No reason to Limit Tuna at this time. Please vote No
GRAHAM, WILLIAM H  January 30, 2013
MUKILTEO, WA  
Comments:
For fish rarely caught off the coast of Washington, Why impose some type of limit just to impose a limit? I haven’t heard of a Yellow fin caught in the cold waters off the Washington coast? What next, a Marlin, Swordfish limit? It seems that the effort of the conservation could be better utilized in other activities.

Other Comments Received