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.
for Public Comment |
for further consideration |
|
View by Category
|
Rule Change Recommendation Short Title
• See comments Rules Category
Coastal Region Marine Type of Rule Change Proposal
Recreational County or Location Information
Marine Areas 1-4 Short Description
Change spot shrimp daily quota from 80 to 200 per person in the Pacific Ocean, Marine Areas 1-4 (Marine Area 4 west of Bonilla-Tatoosh) only. Explanation
The recreational spot shrimp fishery in the ocean is very limited due to the distance of fishing grounds from shore. There are available spot shrimp to harvest recreationally. Increasing the daily limit will offset the high costs to participate in this fishery and may increase participation. Original Rule Proposal Number(s)
DFW164970
KNOBBS, KENNETH D September 21, 2012
SILVERDALE, WA
Comments:
I agree with the proposed change for the limits of spot shrimp in MA 1-4 from 80 to 200 per day, per fisherman.
There is little to no recreational pressure on this fishery and with the very limited number of days of access for the recreational shrimpers as it is an open ocean fishery, it only makes sense that allowing a larger bag limit would be a good idea.
To the best of my knowledge, any test fisheries on this resource have never indicated anything other than very healthy stocks.
The proposal makes no reference to gear restrictions so I would like to recommend allowing three pots per fisherman with the appropriate mesh size for the spot shrimp fishery.
Thank you.
Kenneth Knobbs.
LANIER, KEVIN C September 21, 2012
BURIEN, WA
Comments:
I fully support this proposed rule change. WARDLOW, DONALD D September 22, 2012
WOODINVILLE, WA
Comments:
I like this proposal although 200 per person might not be enough. The gear for this fishery would have to be heavy, expensive and take up a lot of deck space. The fuel costs and the cost of the puller would make this hardly worth going out for 200 shrimp. I mean I don't want to sound like a pig but a trip like this would be expensive and so it would make sense to up the limit so it would be worth a trip or two. This is an untapped resource and could help some of our coastal communities. As it is now the 80 per person limit isn't worth anyone's time or expense. SCHWARTZ, TODD September 24, 2012
SNOHOMISH, WA
Comments:
The distance to this shrimp is currently cost prohibitive. If the limit was raised to make this fishery worth while, then I would participate a few times per year. I support this change. LANTZ, BRADLEY G September 24, 2012
VAUGHN, WA
Comments:
I agree to the increase. This fishery has almost no pressure by sportsman as it isn't worth the gas for 80 shrimp. MARTIN, DAVID B September 24, 2012
FREELAND, WA
Comments:
With the limited fishing time available due to ocean conditions, large biomass and costs associated with shrimping in the ocean, I feel that increasing the limit to 200 is a prudent move for the commisioners to make. MARTIN, DAVID B September 24, 2012
FREELAND, WA
Comments:
With the limited fishing time available due to ocean conditions, large biomass and costs associated with shrimping in the ocean, I feel that increasing the limit to 200 is a prudent move for the commisioners to make. REESE, DAVID M September 24, 2012
WOODINVILLE, WA
Comments:
Yes. DURBIN, JOSH D September 24, 2012
BELFAIR, WA
Comments:
I think this is a good idea for a couple reasons. The first being that it may take some of the pressure off the inner puget sound fishery, and another is the revenue it will bring to the small local economys of those marine areas. P.S. Why should canada get them all! GARNER, RON G September 28, 2012
MONROE, WA
Comments:
This is going to be a very expensive area to figure out and it will not get any traction unless we have a worthwhile amount to catch. If we have to upgrade to 50 plus pound pots which will be several hundred dollars each and a lot stronger pot puller which will be about $1500 minimum to $2500 or more. Not to mention fuel. For 80 shrimp this will not happen.
We need avenues for the recreational fishers for future. I wrote the proposal for the inner halibut fishery to move forward two calendar months and became a productive fishery. This was to take pressure off of the Ocean Halibut fishery that we had to repay back from 2002-2007 from over fishing it.
This could be a great fishery if allowed to happen. Please pass this proposal and let us find a productive shrimp fishery out there. It si a non existant fishery right now. LUCE, KEN A October 01, 2012
OLYMPIA, WA
Comments:
leave it at 80 HIBBARD, KEN L October 02, 2012
EVERETT, WA
Comments:
This is good I support this proposal. PENEV, KAMEN October 02, 2012
SAMMAMISH, WA
Comments:
I support this proposal. The spot shrimp fishery is healthy and can support the increased quota. TORGERSEN, HARALD October 02, 2012
SHORELINE, WA
Comments:
very good idea, but see no reason why not the change should include all Marine areas.
Another option for Areas 8,9,10,11,12,13 would be to keep spotshrimp fishing open for 2 weeks straight. TORGERSEN, HARALD October 02, 2012
SHORELINE, WA
Comments:
very good idea, but see no reason why not the change should include all Marine areas.
Another option for Areas 8,9,10,11,12,13 would be to keep spotshrimp fishing open for 2 weeks straight. GRAHAM, JIM H October 03, 2012
SEATTLE , WA
Comments:
I think that this is a good idea. It will help offset the cost of shrimping while haveing little or no impact on the population of shrimp. STUDZINSKI, TOM October 05, 2012
MARYSVILLE, WA
Comments:
#63 Shrimp 200 Yes Build a non existant fishery-as inside fishery maxes, will provide a possible new fishery. There is no recreational pressure on this fishery now and could be to expensive with 80 shrimp current daily limit
SAVIDGE, MATT C October 05, 2012
BREMERTON, WA
Comments:
Yes Build a non existant fishery-as inside fishery maxes, will provide a possible new fishery. There is no recreational pressure on this fishery now and could be to expensive with 80 shrimp current daily limit. What a great way to actually expand opportunities for the sportsmen/women and recreational fisherpersons. Would think it could help with the charter operators, local economies, as well as another reason to come visit Washington state for your vacation.
PERKINS, STEVEN L October 05, 2012
TACOMA, WA
Comments:
I agree with this proposal. This could help build a non existant fishery-as the inside Puget Sound fishery becomes more and more popular. This will provide a possible new fishery and possible reduce pressure in Puget Sound. There is no recreational pressure on this fishery now and could be to expensive with 80 shrimp current daily limit
OWEN, THOMAS A October 05, 2012
TACOMA, WA
Comments:
Gives a new fishery, takes pressure off inland waters, tough fishery so not many will still do it but it becomes an option WILSON, GEOFF October 05, 2012
ARLINGTON, WA
Comments:
I agree with this but I don't think it will matter much in areas 1-4 as I personally do not know anyone who fishes for shrimp in those areas and don't believe it will increase participation. I also believe limits should be increased in areas 5-7 due to the fact that we have so few days to catch them. GAUTHIER, CHARLES October 05, 2012
BREMERTON, WA
Comments:
I have heard of no one catching shrimp in that area by sport pots, would be niced if you know where they are. POLLACK, SCOTT A October 06, 2012
BUCKLEY, WA
Comments:
I definately support this change. Canada has had it for many years,with great results. The expence Vs. reward has kept many recreational fisherman from even trying this fishery,because of the distance to the fishing grounds.I have been shrimping in Puget Sound for over 20 years and have seen it go from a 9mth season to a 1 or 2 day season. I think that this offshore resource that is basiclly untouched by recreational fisherman ,could help releave some of the pressure put on the Puget Sound derby mentality,that brings huge crowds and presssure to a limited fishery .This could add extra dates that would allow smaller boats to be able pick safer weather conditions in which to particpate in the puget sound fishery,while allowing bigger ,offshore worthy boats a chance at a better opportunity,for a stable resource, KINTZELE, JAMES October 07, 2012
MOUNT VERNON, WA
Comments:
This underutilized recreational fishery limit should be increased to encourage additional recreational usage which will economically benefit the adjacent ports and towns along the marine areas. KINTZELE, JAMES October 07, 2012
MOUNT VERNON, WA
Comments:
This underutilized recreational fishery limit should be increased to encourage additional recreational usage which will economically benefit the adjacent ports and towns along the marine areas. ABEL, GREG A October 07, 2012
BREMERTON, WA
Comments:
Agree. As long as the fishery will support it. YOUNG, SETH A October 08, 2012
MT. VERNON, WA
Comments:
Yes, it would be more worth time,energy,and money spent if I could keep more per trip. CARTER, RAYAN C October 08, 2012
MUKILTEO, WA
Comments:
Do not increase this quota. 80 is more than enough for one person. WILLIS, DANIEL October 30, 2012
KIRKLAND, WA
Comments:
The recreational spot shrimp fishery in the ocean is very limited due to the distance of fishing grounds from shore. There are available spot shrimp to harvest recreationally. Increasing the daily limit will offset the high costs to participate in this fishery and may increase participation. MOONEY, DON November 27, 2012
EDGEWOOD, WA
Comments:
I agree completely and support this change. It is well reasoned and thought out. LANIER, KEVIN C November 29, 2012
BURIEN, WA
Comments:
I support this proposal CARVER SR., RUSSELL L November 29, 2012
LAKETAPPS, WA
Comments:
Please pass rule #63 MCALISTER, DAVID December 02, 2012
RENTON, WA
Comments:
A HOWARD, JAMES D December 04, 2012
LYNNWOOD, WA
Comments:
I would actually consider buying shrimp gear and participating if this were enacted. Currently it's not worth it because of the limited/restricted time available to shrimp and the limit imposed.
Thank you,
Jim Howard CROONQUIST, DAVID December 06, 2012
SEQUIM, WA
Comments:
I support the increase in the bag limit for the ocean fishery CROONQUIST, DAVID December 06, 2012
SEQUIM, WA
Comments:
I support the increase in the bag limit for the ocean fishery PELLETIER, RICK January 28, 2013
EVERETT, WA
Comments:
Build a non existant fishery-as inside fishery maxes, will provide a possible new fishery. There is no recreational pressure on this fishery now and could be to expensive with 80 shrimp current daily limit
ANDERSON, WILL December 14, 2012
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
All proposals regarding the take of spot shrimp, whether by recreational or commercial fishers, must take into account ecosystem demand and biodiversity needs. The areas suggested for this recommendation are frequented by feeding gray whales. There are relatively few gray whales that comprise the seasonal northern Puget Sound group and more but still few from a genetically distinguishable population commonly referred to as the North Pacific Feeding Aggregation, though science's understanding of the population dynamics is in flux. Additionally, there has been proven presence of the critically endangered Western North Pacific gray whale mixing with the more numerous Eastern North Pacific component. See http://www.cascadiaresearch.org/reports/Weller%20et%20al%20%202012.pdf. While those from the WNP may not be entering into Puget Sound, any and all proposals for takes of spot shrimp should be accounting for their role in the ecosystem with priority given to ecosystems. RAMEY, DAVID A January 28, 2013
LAKE STEVENS, WA
Comments:
I am in favor of this proposal to build a non existant fishery. As the inside fishery maxes, it will provide a possible new fishery. There is no recreational pressure on this fishery now and with 80 shrimp current daily limit it is not cost effective.
GRAHN, GARY E December 20, 2012
PORT ANGELES, WA
Comments:
I believe the increase in bag limit for Spot Shrimp in these ares is a possitive change. Could help in eleviating pressure in some areas while providing a better opportunity off the Coast. PASSMORE, MICHAEL F January 09, 2013
CATHLAMET, WA
Comments:
Disagree! A 200+ percent increase in the limit will encourage many more to pursue/harvest. Not a good change - unless biologists are really comfortable the resource can handle the impact. MORAVEC, ANDREW W January 11, 2013
SNOQUALMIE, WA
Comments:
I am for the increased limit, the huge cost involved in targeting spot shrimp in the Pacific makes it very difficult to justify outings for only 80 shrimp. A limit of 200 shrimp would encourage recreational participation and be beneficial to coastal communities where shrimpers launch. ROSS, ROGER G January 28, 2013
PORT ANGELES, WA
Comments:
Yes Build a non existant fishery-as inside fishery maxes, will provide a possible new fishery. There is no recreational pressure on this fishery now and could be to expensive with 80 shrimp current daily limit. BORDEAU, BRIAN January 17, 2013
WOODINVILLE, WA
Comments:
I support this rule. GRAHN, MICHAEL January 28, 2013
MOUNT VERNON, WA
Comments:
Shrimp 200 Yes Build a non existant fishery-as inside fishery maxes, will provide a possible new fishery. There is no recreational pressure on this fishery now and could be to expensive with 80 shrimp current daily limit HANZELKA, DALE January 28, 2013
CLINTON, WA
Comments:
Please pass this rule. the 80 shrimp per person rule is very cost prohibitive. If it were set to 200, it would be more worth the effort and cost to go shrimping in the ocean. 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.
#63 Shrimp 200 Yes Build a non existant fishery-as inside fishery maxes, will provide a possible new fishery. There is no recreational pressure on this fishery now and could be to expensive with 80 shrimp current daily limit
LEWIS, PHILIP J January 28, 2013
RAYMOND, WA
Comments:
Yes this is a good change WALKER, GLEN L January 28, 2013
KENT, WA
Comments:
There is no pressure on this fishery. This could remove some of the pressure on the existing inland shimp fisheries. With the cost of fuel and travel to the coastal areas a limit of 80 is too small to make a trip worth it. KAMINSKI, LARRY January 28, 2013
POULSBO, WA
Comments:
Yes...increase limits...limited recreational and would increase opportuinty HILL, JENNIFER January 28, 2013
POULSBO, WA
Comments:
Yes Build a non existant fishery-as inside fishery maxes, will provide a possible new fishery. There is no recreational pressure on this fishery now and could be to expensive with 80 shrimp current daily limit MARTIN, DAVID B January 28, 2013
FREELAND, WA
Comments:
Build a non existant fishery-as inside fishery maxes, will provide a possible new fishery. There is no recreational pressure on this fishery now and would be to expensive with 80 shrimp current daily limit. PHILLIPS, RICHARD V January 28, 2013
ENUMCLAW, WA
Comments:
Open this fishery to sport. Thank you. PHILLIPS, RICHARD V January 28, 2013
ENUMCLAW, WA
Comments:
Open this fishery to sport. Thank you. WISNER, LEEROY January 28, 2013
CHEHALIS, WA
Comments:
Yes FRIEND, STEPHEN January 28, 2013
SHORELINE, WA
Comments:
I agree with this proposal. TOBECK, ROBERT January 28, 2013
RENTON, WA
Comments:
Yes Build a non existant fishery-as inside fishery maxes, will provide a possible new fishery. There is no recreational pressure on this fishery now and could be to expensive with 80 shrimp current daily limit
TEEFY, RICHARD January 28, 2013
POULSBO, WA
Comments:
# 63 yes
# 64 yes
# 65 through #69 no PAULSEN, ALAN R January 28, 2013
BRINNON, WA
Comments:
Yes, increase the limit for shrimp outside in the ocean. Is not worth the effort for only 80 shrimp. LOFTEN, CRAIG A January 28, 2013
OLYMPIA, WA
Comments:
#63 Shrimp 200 Yes Build a non existant fishery-as inside fishery maxes, will provide a possible new fishery. There is no recreational pressure on this fishery now and could be to expensive with 80 shrimp current daily limit SORENSEN, GARY C January 28, 2013
ARLINGTON, WA
Comments:
I agree with this proposal BODINE, GARY A January 28, 2013
BUCKLEY, WA
Comments:
I think increasing the daily limit is a good idea for the reasons stated in the explanation. NAMES, THOMAS E January 28, 2013
RENTON, WA
Comments:
#63 Shrimp 200 Yes Build a non existant fishery-as inside fishery maxes, will provide a possible new fishery. There is no recreational pressure on this fishery now and could be to expensive with 80 shrimp current daily limit NAMES, THOMAS E January 28, 2013
RENTON, WA
Comments:
#63 Shrimp 200 Yes Build a non existant fishery-as inside fishery maxes, will provide a possible new fishery. There is no recreational pressure on this fishery now and could be to expensive with 80 shrimp current daily limit SCHMITT, JOSEPH L January 28, 2013
JOYCE, WA
Comments:
Yes support. Very little pressure if any and lots of real estate. Pressure light due to hasseles of tide and current.
Presently its a non fishery. Would be nice if we could develope one. *80 shrimp isnt worth the exercise. Never seen wdfw do a test fisherie and i built there crab and shrimp test boat that sits in Port Townsend VINCENT, MICHAEL L January 28, 2013
EDMONDS, WA
Comments:
YES SILVERS, MIKE G January 28, 2013
LACEY, WA
Comments:
Yes Build a non existant fishery-as inside fishery maxes, will provide a possible new fishery. There is no recreational pressure on this fishery now and could be to expensive with 80 shrimp current daily limit ELLIOTT, TOM J January 28, 2013
MARYSVILLE , WA
Comments:
yes this season should be opened up. It may provide relief to the sound shrimp fishery. It will also provide more fun to the off shore fishery. CHAPMAN, PAUL E January 28, 2013
EDMONDS, WA
Comments:
This would be a new recreational fishery and it needs to be worth the effort to go out there shrimping, 8 shrimp isn't enough. A nice compliment to ones effort to go ocean fishing. HOWARD, JAMES D January 28, 2013
LYNNWOOD, WA
Comments:
If the limit is 80, we will not travel that far to harvest. If it is raised to 200, it will make the trip and expenditure worth while and will generate revenue for the state and folks along the way.
Thank you for your consideration!
Jim Howard BROWN, TOM C January 28, 2013
FRIDAY HARBOR , WA
Comments:
Yes, I believe that opening up the possibilities of a new fishery helps both recreational use as well as economical stimulus for small comunities that rely on this for economic stability.
This can simply put food on peoples table in more than one way and the resource is there to support it.
This may also ease the presure on inland prawn fisheries and spread out the fleet a little.
I am all for this!! AUMAN, DAVID W January 28, 2013
TACOMA, WA
Comments:
Yes Build a non existant fishery-as inside fishery maxes, will provide a possible new fishery. There is no recreational pressure on this fishery now and could be to expensive with 80 shrimp current daily limit ADAMS, LEROY R January 28, 2013
EVERETT, WA
Comments:
Increase daily harvest quota for spot shrimp for the sportmen GREENE, LINDON January 28, 2013
BURIEN, WA
Comments:
#63 I am solidly in support of 200. There is no recreational pressure on this fishery now and could be to expensive with 80 shrimp current daily limit
#64 Yes. What's the harm in casting a small net for live bait. Florida and other states allow this.
#65 I'm not in favor and ask you to vote No on the Cabazon size limit in Marine area 4 as it has a lot of cabezon yet. Cabezon are a by-catch fish and never will be a targetted fish as they do not commonly bite fishing lures. There is not reliable data showing 20-30 rockfish caught for each lingcod/cabezon.
#66 4A 85% is already under closure and protection. This is a closure on the small boat fishery. The ocean fishery is still very healthy and the 4B test fishery of 2011 showed a large amount of rockfish caught caught. Therefore, this proposal makes no sense. Please vote NO. TENNEY, APRIL January 28, 2013
GRANITE FALLS, WA
Comments:
Yes!! Build a non existant fishery-as inside fishery maxes, will provide a possible new fishery. There is no recreational pressure on this fishery now and could be to expensive with 80 shrimp current daily limit PETERSON, ERIC January 28, 2013
LAKE STEVENS, WA
Comments:
Yes,you have the opportunity to build a non existant fishery-as inside fishery maxes, will provide a possible new fishery. There is no recreational pressure on this fishery now and could be to expensive with 80 shrimp current daily limit. thank you for your consideration. OPSTAD, DAVID January 28, 2013
MILL CREEK, WA
Comments:
I agree with this rule change:
The recreational spot shrimp fishery in the ocean is very limited due to the distance of fishing grounds from shore. There are available spot shrimp to harvest recreationally. Increasing the daily limit will offset the high costs to participate in this fishery and may increase participation FUGERE, TIM J January 28, 2013
PUYALLUP, WA
Comments:
I agree with this. Although I have never fished for shrimp (as it conflicts with halibut days), areas 1 through 4 have very little if any recreational shrimping. The operating costs just to get out into deeper waters are very high. CURTIS, ERIC M January 28, 2013
KIRKLAND , WA
Comments:
Yes, Good idea! BUCKLIN, LAURENCE A January 28, 2013
UNIVERSITY PLACE, WA
Comments:
Yes!
Incentivize recreational fishermen to investigate and develop this activity with a daily limit sufficient to warrant the effort. GETTER, DALE E January 28, 2013
BOTHELL, WA
Comments:
I think that 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 sportsfishers, families, and also to the economy of Neah Bay.
#63 Shrimp 200 Yes Build a non existant fishery-as inside fishery maxes, will provide a possible new fishery. There is no recreational pressure on this fishery now and could be to expensive with 80 shrimp current daily limit MITCHELL, DAVID January 28, 2013
SILVERDALE, WA
Comments:
#63 Shrimp 200 Yes Build a non existant fishery-as inside fishery maxes, will provide a possible new fishery. There is no recreational pressure on this fishery now and it is too expensive to fish for only 80 shrimp current daily limit REESE, DAVID M January 28, 2013
WOODINVILLE, WA
Comments:
Yes Build a non existant fishery-as inside fishery maxes, will provide a possible new fishery. There is no recreational pressure on this fishery now and could be to expensive with 80 shrimp current daily limit
LAPLANT, ADAM January 28, 2013
NORTH BEND, WA
Comments:
Wdfw,
Please pass this.
Adam laplant HAGLER, STEVE L January 28, 2013
SEQUIM, WA
Comments:
I wish to to support increasing the limit on shrimp in to allow the public to enjoy these fisheries HIMMELBERGER, TIM F January 28, 2013
SNOQUALMIE, WA
Comments:
Yes Build a nonexistent fishery; as inside fishery maxes, will provide a possible new fishery. There is no recreational pressure on this fishery now and could be to expensive with 80 shrimp current daily limit DELINSKY, MICHAEL January 28, 2013
EVERETT, WA
Comments:
#63 Shrimp 200 Yes Build a non existant fishery-as inside fishery maxes, will provide a possible new fishery. There is no recreational pressure on this fishery now and could be to expensive with 80 shrimp current daily limit
CHILDS, JEFF January 28, 2013
QUILCENE,, WA
Comments:
Yes. Agree. As there is probably very little if any pressure within this MA, perhaps enticing folks to participate here would help lessen impact on the lower limit inside MA shrimping areas. FANTZ, TERESA L January 29, 2013
MAPLE VALLEY, WA
Comments:
Shrimp 200 Yes
Build a non existant fishery-as inside fishery maxes, will provide a possible new fishery. There is no recreational pressure on this fishery now and could be too expensive with 80 shrimp current daily limit
RAMIREZ, RAY M January 29, 2013
KEYPORT, WA
Comments:
This makes sence, by all means, pass it! ROSS, CHRISTOPHER G January 29, 2013
BOTHELL, WA
Comments:
Build a non existant fishery-as inside fishery maxes, will provide a possible new fishery. There is no recreational pressure on this fishery now and could be too expensive with 80 shrimp current daily limit KRUEGER, TONY L January 29, 2013
ENUMCLAW, WA
Comments:
The pressure there don't exist and if was open longer and bigger limits some people might even take the time to go and bring some much needed revenue to the tribe. We don't wont to travel that far for a short limit and time slot LUTZ, DAVID January 29, 2013
WOODINVILLE, WA
Comments:
I would ask that you vote in favor of this proposal. Because of the low participation by recreational fishers, it is extremely unlikely that there is a threat to the shrimp populations. It should be easy to monitor the catch and impact on populations, and action can be taken if necessary. THOMSON, WILLIAM G January 29, 2013
ANACORTES, WA
Comments:
Yes, There is no recreational fishery there at this time. THEVIK, LARRY L January 29, 2013
OCEAN SHORES, WA
Comments:
1/28/2013
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission:
Comments in opposition to rule change #63 (increasing bag limit from 80 to 200 prawns per person in the Ocean Spot Prawn Fishery)
My name is Larry Thevik. I am a lifetime resident of Washington State and have been a coastal commercial fisher for over forty years. I am a member of the State appointed Coastal Crab advisory board and a one of three State appointed members to the Tri-State Crab Committee functioning under the sanction of the Pacific States Fisheries Commission.
I have been a coastal spot prawn pot fisher since 1993. I am one of only nine licensed spot prawn fishers the entire length of the Washington coast. This fishery is very limited in participation, limited in scope and is limited in abundance. This fishery has only recently become a limited entry fishery after many years of emerging fishery status. The present fishery has regional quotas and an overall quota. At this time there exists little if any tribal THEVIK, LARRY L January 29, 2013
OCEAN SHORES, WA
Comments:
1/28/2013
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission:
Comments in opposition to rule change #63 (increasing bag limit from 80 to 200 prawns per person in the Ocean Spot Prawn Fishery)
My name is Larry Thevik. I am a lifetime resident of Washington State and have been a coastal commercial fisher for over forty years. I am a member of the State appointed Coastal Crab advisory board and a one of three State appointed members to the Tri-State Crab Committee functioning under the sanction of the Pacific States Fisheries Commission.
I have been a coastal spot prawn pot fisher since 1993. I am one of only nine licensed spot prawn fishers the entire length of the Washington coast. This fishery is very limited in participation, limited in scope and is limited in abundance. This fishery has only recently become a limited entry fishery after many years of emerging fishery status. The present fishery has regional quotas and an overall quota. At this time there exists little if any tribal CARTER, MICHAEL January 29, 2013
POULSBO, WA
Comments:
Yes on #63 increase spot shrimp from 80 to 200 DAWSON, DENNIS January 29, 2013
ALLYN, WA
Comments:
While the 80 shrimp limit is acceptable for the inner waters of Puget Sound to protect the resource, the same fishing pressure will never occur in the Pacific due to the distance from population centers and open water boat requirements. The boat costs, equipment costs and time commitment required need an expanded limit to allow some reasonable transfer of pressure to the coast. STAJDUHAR, GABE January 29, 2013
GIG HARBOR, WA
Comments:
I agree with this STAJDUHAR, ME January 29, 2013
GIG HARBOR, WA
Comments:
Agree ASHBY, CRANDALL A January 29, 2013
ABERDEEN, WA
Comments:
Im strongly against number 63 there are numerouse reasons this would be a bad idea. ASHBY, STEVE K January 29, 2013
ABERDEEN, WA
Comments:
I strongly am against the #63 200 spot prawns I beleive the limit should be kept at 80 prawns for numerouse reasons. HERRETT, MERLE E January 29, 2013
LYNDEN, WA
Comments:
Yes. With the price of fuel and travel expenses, a boater needs to be able to get a higher limit per trip. REINHARDT, NORM January 29, 2013
PORT ORCHARD, WA
Comments:
this should be adopted BRACKMANN, KARL H January 29, 2013
WOODINVILLE, WA
Comments:
This is a fishery with little recreational pressure versus the very large biomass available. Recreational fishermen have a difficult time with the investment needed for only 80 shrimp during a small time period. An increase to 200 shrimp will encourage more recreational fishermen and thus increase license sales for a new activity. ROPER, MAURY January 29, 2013
SPANAWAY, WA
Comments:
I support increasing the catch to 200, at the current quota it is too expensive to justify. SHEEHAN, JOHN January 29, 2013
SEATTLE, WA
Comments:
Please Vote yes.
|
