2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

This problem is like a barrel with staves full of knotholes. You can pick your favorite stave and plug the holes in it but the other holes still leak and the barrel will not hold wine.

It is also very easy to conflate information and draw illogical conclusions. We are becoming better observers with new technology. Watching an ocean temperature change from an infrared satellite and drawing conclusions about the last 100 years is pretty illogical.

For the salmon there are many staves in the barrel. As a fisherman I remember good years and bad, plentiful salmon summers and summers of no fishing at all. What we need is honesty. Can we ignore the fact that we have changed many of the river systems with dams? Can we ignore bycatch? Can we ignore pollution? Or treaties that allow non selective fishing methods? And others who use those treaty rights to justify their *rights* to use the same non selective methods?

The tendency is for each user group to blame the others.

The barrel leaks .. lets start over.

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context

Yes this is true. The fisheries were fished to the limits set by the fisheries managers. And as always happens detailed studies of the affected stocks came only after they were depleted and harder to catch. At one time the PFMC was staffed solely by commercial (fishing) interests. This is no longer true as there are sport reps. on the council.

Rockfish are long lived. The effects of over fishing will be with us for a long time.

The proposed closures are a foot in the door. The battering ram that tears the door off it's hinges will be the NGO's that step up to pay for the management of these area. Money that will have strings attached. The areas will expand and the allowed fishing areas will be greatly reduced. Only then will the true agenda become obvious. They sure as hell aren't going to tell you now while you still have time to get involved and demand some answers.

This expansion is happening in California now.

I will ask the question again.

Which of the depleted rockfish stocks are we protecting by closing the less than 100 foot deep areas?

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context

How do shallow water reserves help deep water fish? By the way they are the species identified as overfished.


1)Name the largest fishery closure area in the world. Where is it located?
No Trawl rockfish conservation area. From the beach to 250 fathoms, border to border. Restricts rockfish trawl.

2)What is the Yellow Eye Rockfish Conservation Area? Where is the YRCA located? Who instigated it's establishment?
Stonewall bank off Newport ~ 15 miles. Suggested by sport fishers and implemented by ODFW. For the purpose of limiting YE Rockfish by catch.

3)What is a Yellow eye rockfish?
Large orange, slow growing long lived (200 yrs) rockfish. Likes craggy reefs in deep water 30 fathoms.

4)What other species of rockfish are currently constraining west coast fisheries?
Canary rockfish, Widow rockfish

5)And for the grand prize ... What percentage of these troubled rockfish live in the nearshore environment?
All of the constrained species inhabit waters 30 fathoms and deeper. That line is about 5 miles offshore.

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context

All I could ask of any of you is that you tool up before you sheepishly follow the leader. Read about the Magnusen Stephens Act and the PFMC and try to understand the regulations already in place. Try to understand the history of west coast fisheries management. There will be a test .. here goes.

1)Name the largest fishery closure area in the world. Where is it located?
2)What is the Yellow Eye Rockfish Conservation Area? Where is the YRCA located? Who instigated it's establishment?
3)What is a Yellow eye rockfish?
4)What other species of rockfish are currently constraining west coast fisheries?

And for the grand prize ...
What percentage of these troubled rockfish live in the nearshore environment?

If you don't know any of this stuff then you are not a fisherman and or marine biologist and anything you say is just an opinion.

I would not take my car to the dentist for repair. And I think it is a bad idea to let popular sentiment instead of science make decisions regarding our environment.

Signed John Wells. Habitual participant in fisheries management and frequent nearshore ocean visitor.

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context