WDFW considers ban on hunting octopuses off Seattle beach

[pianoman9701]

WDFW considers ban on hunting octopuses off Seattle beach

OLYMPIA - The director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) today announced plans to explore regulatory options for banning the harvest of giant Pacific octopuses off a popular Seattle beach and possibly elsewhere in Puget Sound.

WDFW Director Phil Anderson said the department will consider new rules to preserve the population of giant Pacific octopuses at Seacrest Park near Alki Point, where a 19-year-old scuba diver provoked a public outcry after legally harvesting one of the charismatic animals last week.

Under current state rules, divers can harvest one giant Pacific octopus per day in most areas of Puget Sound.

"The harvesting of this animal has resulted in a strong, negative reaction from the public and the dive community," Anderson said. "We believe this area may merit additional restrictions to enhance the traditional uses of this popular beach."

Anderson announced the department's plans at the start of a two-day public meeting of the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission, a nine-member governing body that has final authority over most new fishing rules.

With nearly two-dozen scuba divers in attendance, Anderson outlined several possible options to preserve giant Pacific octopuses, ranging from designating Seacrest Park as a marine protected area to prohibiting hunting the animals anywhere in the state.

Anderson said WDFW will hold public meetings this winter to hear Washingtonians' thoughts on those options.

All of the divers who spoke on the issue at the commission meeting supported new regulations prohibiting the harvest of octopuses at Seacrest Park and other popular scuba diving areas.

Scott Lundy, a member of the Washington Scuba Alliance, presented the commission with a petition signed by 5,000 divers supporting a ban on killing octopuses at Seacrest Park.

Dylan Mayer, the 19-year-old diver from Seattle who started the controversy, also told the commission he supports a ban on killing octopuses at the park.

"I didn't know they were so beloved, or I wouldn't have done it," he said.

While many of the divers called for an immediate ban at Seacrest Park, Anderson said Washington law requires state agencies to follow an established public process for developing new regulations.

"If the conservation of a species or the public welfare is at stake, we can take emergency action," he said. "But the killing of the giant Pacific octopus last week appears to be an isolated case at Seacrest Park, and the species appears to be healthy throughout Puget Sound."

He added, however, that the department may still consider taking emergency action if another octopus is taken from the area.

In other business, the commission heard public comments on management options proposed by representatives from Washington and Oregon to restructure salmon and sturgeon fisheries on the lower Columbia River.

Since early September, the two states have been working to develop a joint plan for phasing out the use of gillnets by non-tribal fishers in the mainstem lower Columbia River by 2016, as initially proposed by Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber.

Members of a bi-state working group are scheduled to reach agreement later this month on a final plan for consideration by both states' fish and wildlife commissions. Additional information is available on WDFW's website at http://goo.gl/MCG5q .

On Friday (Nov. 9), the Washington commission will hold a public hearing on proposed new options for allocating the catch of spot shrimp between recreational and commercial fisheries.  It will also hear public comments on proposed changes in state rules for compensating ranchers and other landowners who lose livestock to predatory carnivores.

The commission is scheduled to take action on both issues in set for Dec. 14-15. An agenda this month's meeting is available on the commission's website at http://goo.gl/HtqhI .

[clindsayrun]

Who didn't see this coming?

[billythekidrock]

I hope fishing and hunting groups get inolved to stop this. What's next? Banning hunting whenever someone's panties are in a bunch?

[Blacktail Sniper]

Already has happened....Baiting bear and hound hunting bear & cats along with leghold/body gripping traps!

[Bob33]

Hunters that act unethically can cause harm to all hunters.

[Bean Counter]

I hope fishing and hunting groups get inolved to stop this. What's next? Banning hunting whenever someone's panties are in a bunch?

 

WFW?

[billythekidrock]

I hope fishing and hunting groups get inolved to stop this. What's next? Banning hunting whenever someone's panties are in a bunch?

 

WFW?

Not really...maybe.  Hopefully larger groups with clout will get involved. This will be another win for the anti's.

[Bean Counter]

The more, the merrier, I'm sure. WFW's presence can only be a plus.

My state game and fish, oh sorry--department of "wildlife" is battling against the Maobama administration in federal court for attempting to block the use of lead ammo in certain areas. 

[uplandhunter870]

i dont see this as good thing, so a few people got all bent out of shape over a legal harvest and DFW considers banning hunting of the particular animal. that is a huge slipperly slope, what next DFW banning waterfowl hunting because the birders get upset that someone killed a few ducks  not a good precedent to set

[pianoman9701]

This is what happens when emotion trumps scientific models for sustainable harvest of resources. The people on this site who pushed the "bad ethics" of this harvest have jeopardized our hunting/fishingprivileges elsewhere. This is a bad thing. Now, every time someone has an emotional attachment to legal game, there is the chance that our privileges to pursue it will be revoked.

[Bob33]

The mission of WDFW is "To preserve, protect and perpetuate fish, wildlife and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities."

It's a falacy to believe that hunters and fishermen are their only shareholders.

Once again, the poor choices and unethical behavior of a few will have a disproportionately negative impact on many.

[huntingfool7]

WDFW has a history of knee jerk reactions.  This is nothing new. 

[Bob33]

I wouldn't necessarily classify responding to a petition with 5,000 signatures, and intense negative and widespread media coverage as kneejerk.

[huntingfool7]

Just saying that WDFW is quick to flop in the face of any public criticism and has not stood up for the hunting/fishing community in this state.
They did this with the archery elk in the north end, even while their own personnel were on site at the time of the incident and could have remedied the situation with a little traffic control.  Instead they closed the area to general hunting. 
WDFW has been detrimental to hunting on several fronts.  Regarding bear and hound hunting, when specifically asked to comment on the initiatives they declined.  Said that it was not their place to have an opinion.  I'm not sure what the biologists are for in this state? 
They did this on the trapping initiative.  They kept quiet and let the huge urban voting block think that it only effected ranchers on the dry side that wanted to remove coyotes, not the moles in our yards.

I do believe that responding to media pressure and a petition like this is the definition of a knee jerk reaction. 

[steeleywhopper]

Just saying that WDFW is quick to flop in the face of any public criticism and has not stood up for the hunting/fishing community in this state.
They did this with the archery elk in the north end, even while their own personnel were on site at the time of the incident and could have remedied the situation with a little traffic control.  Instead they closed the area to general hunting. 
WDFW has been detrimental to hunting on several fronts.  Regarding bear and hound hunting, when specifically asked to comment on the initiatives they declined.  Said that it was not their place to have an opinion.  I'm not sure what the biologists are for in this state? 
They did this on the trapping initiative.  They kept quiet and let the huge urban voting block think that it only effected ranchers on the dry side that wanted to remove coyotes, not the moles in our yards.

I do believe that responding to media pressure and a petition like this is the definition of a knee jerk reaction.

I agree 100%
Some of the radio personalities who first covered the story were unaware that this kid took it legit. Most were under the impression that he poached it. Im sure many of the folks who signed the petition were thinking it was poached as well. I think WDFW should have some backbone on this one.
 Heck, I am suprised that they did not make octopus hunting a draw only with a points option after that one.

[KFhunter]

This is what happens when emotion trumps scientific models for sustainable harvest of resources. The people on this site who pushed the "bad ethics" of this harvest have jeopardized our hunting/fishingprivileges elsewhere. This is a bad thing. Now, every time someone has an emotional attachment to legal game, there is the chance that our privileges to pursue it will be revoked.

 

exactly - no science - purely emotion


Much like the Wolves

[Bob33]

I wish we could get a 5,000 hunter petition about the wolf problem, and favorable media coverage...

[pianoman9701]

Well, Bob, we could get half of your wish, the 5K signatures. Media? Ha! Methow Valley News, maybe. Good local paper by the way.

[Bob33]

Do you really think hunters could get a 5,000 signature petition together? I'm not asking flippantly. Has it ever been done?  It's quite amazing that divers and others were able to gather that many signatures that quickly.

[pianoman9701]

Yes, depending on the issue, I do. It would take coordination and some media exposure, but i think with the right issue we could do far more than that.

[Bob33]

Without being too cynical, I wonder why it's never been tried or successfully done?

I remember a few years back when the new permit system went into effect.  Several people wrote to WDFW opposing the action. As I recall, the number was in the 100's (less than 200.)  When Ranker was up for appointment to the Fish and Wildlife Commission, a few hundred opposed it. Those numbers are too small to get their attention when groups like divers can get 5,000 signtures in a week.

[h20hunter]

I am surprised there were not more gathered.

[halflife65]

Octupi are charismatic?

I think that sums it up, right there...

THAT's how bias is inserted into news stories at a subtle level.

[provider]

This is what happens when emotion trumps scientific models for sustainable harvest of resources. The people on this site who pushed the "bad ethics" of this harvest have jeopardized our hunting/fishingprivileges elsewhere. This is a bad thing. Now, every time someone has an emotional attachment to legal game, there is the chance that our privileges to pursue it will be revoked.

The unethical behavior jeopardizes hunting...  not the guys calling them on it!

Also, science is not the only factor.  There are scientific, economic, and social considerations.

[pianoman9701]

OK, so when your favorite hunting spot is closed because someone saw a deer that reminded her of her grandmother and she got a petition signed, keep that in mind. We should support ethics within our ranks and support each other's rights to legal harvest in the public forum. Airing our differences over legal harvest publicly will not gain us favor. It'll only limit our access down the road. My 

[snowpack]

An update to the octopus story:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/aug0213c/

Prohibits recreational harvest of octopus at seven popular scuba areas.

[h20hunter]

I think it is a good ruling. You wouldn't hunt ducks at the local park. In my mind...same thing.

[Knocker of rocks]

You wouldn't hunt ducks at the local park

Or would you?
http://www.king5.com/news/environment/90-geese-at-Lake-Sammamish-State-Park-captured-and-killed-218241661.html

[pianoman9701]

I think it is a good ruling. You wouldn't hunt ducks at the local park. In my mind...same thing.

Your fishing and hunting privileges are going away and you're OK with it. No comparison between fishing and shooting ducks in a park. A duck pond would normally have rules against discharging firearms; at least the city surrounding it would. People fish off the shore all the time and catch salmon, steelies, rockfish. What is the difference between fishing with a rod and reel and scuba fishing for octopi? Answer: there is no difference, other than some people have decided to put the life of one animal over that of others. Even this report says that octopi are abundant in Puget Sound.

The harvesting of animals should be regulated using scientific data and conservation models, not emotion. When you decide you've taken a liking to one species over another, you've opened yourself up to losing your hunting and fishing rights because someone else likes the quarry you go after and thinks that because they're cute and cuddly, hunting for them should be banned. This is a ridiculous ruling by the WA Dept of Sea Kittens and Watchable Wildlife.

[h20hunter]

Piano...

Yes, I am OK with giving up my fishing privelges in the areas that they have deemed widlife sanctuary just as they have done with the Edmonds Underwater park.

[pianoman9701]

Well, let's hope someone doesn't decide WA should be an elk sanctuary. It's already a wolf sanctuary. We're getting further and further away from using science. It's eventually going to kill our sport in this state.