Dogfish,

The probable backlash for the state would likely be a lawsuit similar to the one filed by Lower Columbia River non-treaty gillnetters over the changes to that fishery that shifts a proportion of the catch to the recreational fishery. Please note that the lawsuit failed, totally.

Gillnetters hold a permit, but it is not an entitlement. It wasn’t even property until limited entry effectively made it so, and caused the value of permits to increase. That increase in value was simply an economic windfall to existing gillnet permit holders. By way of analogy, the state could decide that the recreational fishing fleet is becoming too large and make it limited entry, where existing fishing license holders would be allowed to renew their licenses annually, and no further new fishing licenses would be issued. Your and my fishing licenses would similarly become a private property interest that would increase in value because no new ones are being issued. Presumably the new law would similarly allow an existing fishing license holder to sell his license to a newcomer, at whatever the prevailing market value happens to be.

For further comparison, consider the drastically deflated value of Puget Sound gillnet permits. The US – Canada fishing treaty was modified in 1985, and WA fishermen who used to catch 50% of the Fraser River sockeye catch now catch a pittance. And then WDFW sport fishing priority status to PS Chinook and coho harvest. PS gillnet permit holders didn’t get a dime for that transition for the simple reason they weren’t entitled to anything.

A commercial salmon fishing permit is nothing more than a limited franchise granted by the state to individual fishermen for a price for the opportunity to harvest some of the surplus salmon production as determined by the state. The permit holder owns no right whatsoever. They own the opportunity to harvest whatever the state determines is available for them to harvest, with consideration for all other potential allocation uses of those fish, including treaty right harvest, recreational harvest, and the inevitable surplus of hatchery production that will “waste” itself on the hatchery racks because of the conservation need to protect the escapement of wild salmon that cannot withstand the same high harvest rates that the hatchery fish can.

So no, it’s not quite the same as an eminent domain issue, although I understand why you might see some similarities. No, these fishermen are not the same as a mega bank, but they are owners of small businesses that are vulnerable to changes in both the social and economic climate. They really need to understand and come to appreciate that the GH non-treaty gillnet fishery is about as relevant to the regional economy as a buggy whip manufacturer. So yes, to some degree they need to suck it up and face the reality of the 21st century. The fish they don’t catch will be caught in part by an expanded recreational fishery. And the remainder would be harvested by the treaty fishery. The net change to the commercial fish brokers and marketplace would be negligible. Another critical part of the legislation that was proposed is that it didn’t intend to eliminate NT gillnetting anywhere. The purpose was simply to give priority to recreational fisheries. In many cases the recreational fleet would not be capable to harvesting all the surplus production. So the fish that the rec fleet could not harvest would still be available to be allocated to NT gillnet fishing if that were a good fit for overall fish management objectives. So we’re really not talking about an action that meets the level of irresponsible, cold, callus, and cruel.

Phasing out some of the NT fleet through buyouts that accompany reductions in allocations is reasonable. When the bill is filed again in the future, that might be part of it, including having the gillnetters themselves funding the effort through reasonable increases in landing taxes. That would lessen the welfare aspect of commercial salmon fishing and be good all the way around.

I agree with you that the approach needs to change, if for no other reason than Blake. I get the whole carrot instead of stick idea, even if the responsible parties don’t deserve a carrot. That’s politics.

What we’re seeing is that the WDFW Commission sees the writing on the wall, even if the Department overall does not. Every decrease in general fund going to WDFW increases the proportional burden on the non-commercial fishing sector. If WDFW wants to stay in business for the long haul, they need to deliver their services to the people that are providing the revenue. And increasingly it becomes more and more apparent that the NT commercial salmon fishery is simply sucking the public welfare teat and not contributing anywhere nearly proportional to the costs of their “vocation.” I thought you were kinda’ anti-welfare. Commercial fishing that formerly was a form of natural resource extraction has become dependent on hatchery salmon for its existence, hence the welfare appellation.

Sg