Originally Posted By: Carcassman
The original intent of the Columbia River endorsement was to provide WDFW with specific funds to open fisheries in ESA affected waters. WDFW would whine that "we don't have the money to monitor or enforce an opening." The endorsement was originally drafted as a direct response to this and that is where the money was supposed to go.


The original intent as mentioned was initiated by an upper Columbia legislator at the request of her constituents to improve fisheries in that area. In the legislative process it morphed into covering virtually all of the Columbia River and tributaries.

That endorsement was up for review as it was due to expire 30 June 16 and was extended during the last legislative session for only one year. Part of the recommendations from the advisory group was to extent the coverage to include the remaining portion of the Columbia to B10.

In short, be careful what you ask for......

Now, it is also important to separate salmon funds from steelhead funds and it is also critical to know your history.

Some years ago the late State Senator Bob Oke sponsored and successfully pushed through the legislature a Puget Sound salmon stamp primarily intended to augment the winter blackmouth fishery. That legislation set specific production goals of delayed release Chinook which WDFW never met. Ultimately that stamp was eliminated and its cost was rolled into the saltwater license. WDFW has slowly tried to eliminate the legislative requirements and has morphed those monies into the Puget Sound Recreational Fishing Enhancement Fund. So, if you buy a saltwater license and indicate on your CRC that you fished for salmon in Puget Sound you already are paying the equivalent of an endorsement.

So, no, I am not in support of an additional endorsement for salmon.
_________________________
Remember to immediately record your catch or you may become the catch!

It's the person who has done nothing who is sure nothing can be done. (Ewing)