This is a problem that we're seeing more and more of along every coast.
In the Mid-Atlantic, black sea bass have frequently been caught, in significant numbers, on deep-water cod and pollock trips.  Close the black sea bass season, and you have high levels of discard mortality.  Open the season, as was done this year, and you have high levels of fishing mortality on the large males, which in the case of black sea bass may be the most important component of the stock.  Not to mention the fact that after the head boats spend two months banking limits of big sea bass, there's not all that much left in the quota for everyone else, who don't put their boats into the water until things warm up a bit.
In the South Atlantic, we see NMFS proposing large area closures to protect red snapper and certain grouper from the same sort of discard mortality.  In the case of red snapper, newer, "better" data (which data may only be "better" because it allowed NMFS to back down on the proposed rules) allowed NMFS to leave the ocean open; in the case of deep-water grouper, I believe that data is still being gathered (in the hope, no doubt, that "better" data will emerge), although the process may have progressed beyond that point.
So anglers are caught on the horns of a dilemma.  They can either refrain from fishing on healthy stocks, to avoid bycatch of those which are depleted, and thus see angling opportunities lost, or they can continue to fish on the healthy stocks, in the knowledge that they are impeding, and perhaps preventing, other depleted stocks from recovering.
Conservation groups unattached to the angling community often call for broad closures, without seriously consulting with the angling community or considering the harm done to anglers, and thus alienate the people who should be their most dependable allies.
Managers, stuck between the two camps, try to invoke the wisdom of Solomon, and impose supposed solutions that, in the end, fail to adequately protect the depleted stocks while angering all of the interest groups involved.
It's not easy saying what the best course of action might be.
As a lifelong angler, I hate to see any opportunity to fish on healthy stocks lost.  I've never caught a cabezon, but have taken lingcod, and I can understand why fishermen would want to pursue them, particularly in a place such as Puget Sound, where angling opportunities are limited to a few species or complexes of species.
As a long-time advocate for fisheries conservation, I have often called for measures to reduce bycatch mortality in the commercial fleet, whether the problem arised from trawlers dumping dead striped bass off North Carolina or longlners killinb bluefin tuna in the Gulf of Mexico or billfish in the Straits of Florida.  It would be hypocritical for me to then turn my back on the problem of angler-caused discard mortality in other fisheries, merely because I am an active member of that sector.
What the folks in Washington are trying to do seems, on balance, to be the right thing.  And while anglers may, for some period of time, lose access to lingcod and cabezon, at least in certain waters, that might be an easier burden to bear than the alternative--the no-take marine protected areas hinted at in the article, which some members of the conservation community will undoubtedly call for in ever more strident voices if rockfish populations continue to decline.  For as fishermen in all sectors are beginning to learn on a more and more frequent basis, if you put up too much of a fight resisting reasonable regulations today, you may very well find yourself saddled with unreasonable regulations tomorrow.