Good message to the commission!

Will any of the Commissioners who voted for the rollback of the Columbia River Reform admit their culpability for failure of the license fee increase?

"Since 2010, revenue from the Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead Endorsement (CRSSE) has been essential in helping the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) maintain and improve recreational fishing opportunities throughout the Columbia River Basin."

J-ust
F-or
C-larification...

They should have just called it what it was... the CRGEF

Columbia River Gillnet Enhancement Fund

Glad to finally see it go away!

Unfortunately the CRGEF just sucked another $8.75 out of me a couple of weeks ago for this license year - damn! When does it disappear?

Not sure but the PS crab thing might be in the mix. Lot of opinions out but it appears the Senate side told the House side that no more rec subsidizing commercial. Remember they burned the reserves in the last go around and Big Phil's cuts were fish food and that was about it besides musical chair time. I am sure more info will emerge but I was told by two folks that it was all about the agency not being willing to turn loose of the commercial fisheries supported by the House negotiators so the Senators went home. All done.

Wonder how big Rep Brian Blake’s nads feel now?

Sun sets on June 30.

Not good. He pushed for a 4 year extension on the CRE and could have got one from the senate. He decided to play chicken and lost.

Interestingly, he’s posting on huntingwashington today that CCA and NSIA tried to push in at midnight. Interesting tactic when you just lost a push to include it in the budget then blame it on the very people that opposed it.

In that case the blame game began sooner than I expected.

I find it odd that so many seem to view this as some sort of middle finger to WDFW and the commission. The orcas and the commercials already got theirs (it's budgeted). Any guess where the zero sum budgeting will lead managers when the money dries up? Less opportunity for you and me is my guess, friends.

Recreational license fees do pay for a lot of BS, but at the end of the day, if we don't pay, we don't play.

The other side of that coin is that sport anglers may have reacted to how they perceive their interests have been treated (badly) by not supporting an INCREASE in fees.

Frankly, WDFW has done a miserable job of marketing. At least the CRE was touted as opening up more opportunities and some good things certainly did come out of that additional revenue. But at the same time high value fisheries such as the Cowlitz were effectively killed off and then there was the final nail in the coffin - the rollback of the CR Reforms.

What did they really expect to happen???

I will suggest that if WDFW was a large corporation and had received what I perceive as a vote of no confidence by consumers those responsible would be looking for new jobs. So, as I inquired previously have Commissioners who voted in favor of the rollback acknowledged their culpability?

Time to move some of the "big dollar" WDFW personnel into retirement...will that make up all the budget problems, NO, but it will slow down the "cut fish food, cut hatchery's, etc.".....things that affect sports people, should not be cut... we have been paying our share !!!!! IMO

Suggest they start with Ron Warren, and work their way down from there. Forty years with the Dept. are more than enough...

Totally agree with the counterpoint. WDFW has not delivered on their promises in the past, and as such, they don't deserve a budget increase. The trouble is, if they're underfunded, they WILL cut services (translate to opportunity) to shore up the budget. They really don't have other options.

Not saying I agree with it; just stating what I fear will be the reality.

I fully agree with your concerns and the expectation that there will be cuts which will adversely affect the recreational community particularly on the Columbia River. When that does occur I hope that our Legislators hear about it loudly and clearly and maybe, just maybe, they will take notice.

And just so I am not misunderstood I stand firmly behind the Commission concept being old enough to recall how it used to work when the process was far more bent by politics. That said, this iteration of a Commission needs to hit the Reset button and do it quickly!

Edit: Remember that the last recommendation for extension of the CRE included extending the coverage from Tongue Point to Buoy 10. That effort to increase revenue did not make it into the legislation which extended the CRE to June 2019. I bring that up because at some point there will be an attempt to reimpose the CRE and we need to read any such proposed legislation very closely!

What benefits to sport fishing came from the CRE?

When will the tribes sue the state for under funding WDFW and them not producing enough fish or cutting hatchery production?
SF

I was going to refer you to the https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/advisory/crssrab as there used to be a fairly good record of meeting minutes and projects funded by the CRE.

Unfortunately the new website was stood up without all of the information previously available also having been migrated to the new website.

I would suggest it is not a matter of whether there were some benefits to recreational anglers......a better question is whether the benefits were worth the cost. But that is another matter.

Or better yet sue the Feds who signed the treaties. I can envision a lot of discussion about tribal operations that they might not want.

It's an honest question, as I don't know exactly what all the money was used for. I would like to though.

I took it as a serious question and WDFW should have that information readily available for us all. Prior to this new website one could go to the webpage for each of the advisory groups (or, more accurately, those which had complied with the intended configuration of said web pages) and found a history of meetings, agendas and minutes/notes as well as information on upcoming meetings. For the cited Columbia River advisory group you would also have been able to readily find a list of projects - as I recall by year for which money was approved. Feedback I received from the webmaster was that they will be moving additional data to the new site over time. How much and when? Stand by but don't be holding your breath.

Good point on the feds. I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet.

Care to elaborate on the last part of your reply?

Thanks,
SF

But...when the tribes challenged their rights for 50% allocation against WA state, the Boldt suit was titled "United States v Washington". Since the US federal government is responsible for enforcing the tribal treaty rights, and the tribes sued the federal government for negligence, it would be "United States v United States."
The tribes love beating up the state bankroll on the feds dime. We pay both sides when we sue ourselves on behalf of the tribal rights. Sadly, sometimes it's rightly so, sometimes not.

It might be perceived as a risk to the privacy of the financial aspects of other tribal enterprises.

Duh, you don't have to have the amount of WDFW personnel making $100,000 plus, now is the time to "pull on the reins and get the WDFW run away horse under control" …..


You have x dollars, fund hatcheries, feed whales, make sure conservation is the #1, keep sport's happy(they pay their way), worry less about gill netters, keep other fixed costs under control.....difference has to come from salaries, benefits, nothing says "you can't cut salaries"...…


The tax payers need to see a WDFW pie chart for last be biennium, to get a realistic view of the total budget for WDFW and where the money is spent.

Staff sent a email out from the Director and in it was this on budget. C&P makes it a bit jammed but I think those interested will figure it out.



2019 WDFW budget development
With Washington's population growing at one of the fastest rates in the country, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is increasingly important to millions of longtime and new state residents.

Unfortunately, WDFW has experienced chronic budget shortfalls – essentially a gap between available funding and required spending. Today, the projected gap for the next two-year budget cycle has grown to about $31 million.
What's causing the shortfall?

The shortfall has several causes:

State funding from general taxes and the sale of recreational licenses has not kept pace with the cost of managing fish, wildlife, and their habitat.

Several one-time funding patches will expire soon.
The department still has not fully recovered from the deep cuts imposed during the recession, and recreational license fees have not been adjusted since 2011.

Ultimately, programs, services, and facilities will have to be reduced and, in some cases, eliminated if the problem is not addressed during the 2019 legislative session.

Steps already taken by WDFW
The Legislature in 2017 directed WDFW to find efficiencies in current operations, examine the department's management and operation, and develop a long-term funding plan.

In response, WDFW:
Contracted with an independent consultant for an extensive management review, which concluded that the WDFW's management practices had not contributed to the funding problem.
Identified $2 million in spending cuts to find efficiencies and reduce the agency's budget needs going forward. Conducted a "zero-based" funding analysis that connected the dots between WDFW's mission and its day-to-day operation.

- Zero-base Budget Executive Report
- WDFW foundational map with 2015-17 investment data
Developed a long-term funding plan, with help from a stakeholder advisory group, describing the current budget situation and offering a vision to stabilize funding.

- WDFW Long-term Funding Plan
Solutions for 2019 and beyond
With a long-term funding plan in place, the department submitted proposals to the governor and Legislature to eliminate the projected $31 million shortfall and make strategic, focused investments that will provide long-term benefits.

The proposal to close the $31 million gap will avoid cuts and preserve current services in the following programs:
Wildlife conflict prevention and response ($4.4 million)
Shellfish enforcement and consumer protection ($2.5 million)
Land management ($2.7 million)
Hatchery operations and fisheries management ($9.3 million)
Hunting management, including hunter education ($3.2 million)
Recovery of at-risk species and prevention of invasive species ($3.5 million)
Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead Endorsement program ($3.3 million)
Customer service support ($1.9 million)

The department's Budget and Policy Advisory Group was emphatic about not just reacting to today's challenges but also anticipating future needs, essentially telling WDFW to try to secure the funding needed to implement its mission. The Fish and Wildlife Commission, which provides policy direction to the department, agreed.
With that guidance in mind, WDFW developed several budget enhancement requests for the 2019-21 budget cycle.

Elements include:
Conservation investments in such programs as salmon recovery, watershed health, biodiversity, and conservation enforcement ($12.9 million)

Expanded fishing opportunities and hatchery improvements ($6.9 million)

Hunting enhancements, including improved law enforcement and access ($3.9 million)

Wildlife area enhancements, including improved law enforcement ($4.2 million)

Orca recovery (amount TBD)

So, where should new money come from? The Fish and Wildlife Commission directed WDFW to submit a budget proposal to Gov. Inslee that would close the $31 million funding gap and make another $29 million of targeted investments.

As part of that proposal, the Fish and Wildlife Commission authorized WDFW to request a 15 percent increase in recreational hunting and fishing license fees, with caps to cushion the impact on people who buy multiple hunting and fishing licenses. These caps would limit the maximum increase for bundled packages to $7 for fishing and $15 for hunting. For example, WDFW sells multiple fishing licenses in the "Fish Washington" package and plans to create additional value packages to hold down license costs for avid recreationists.

The Commission also previously approved a request to the Legislature to make the Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead Endorsement permanent, which would otherwise expire in June 2019. This increased license revenue is expected to cover about 25 percent of WDFW's new budget proposal, with the other 75 percent coming from general funds.

The department's full proposals to avoid deep budget cuts, make targeted investments, and perform additional necessary maintenance will total about $67 million.

Those of you who are high fiving the legislature for sticking it to WDFW, be careful what you wish for. You don't want the legislature becoming more involved in fish and wildlife management in the state. I suspect that many (most?) of the legislative districts have a majority of people who don't hunt or fish and the importance and perspective of these people on fish and wildlife will differ from those that do. In another forum or issue of interest, the outcome for hunters and fishers may not be so favorable after the legislature has their hands on it.

From the comments above I feel that "we" are in a maze from which there is no escape and that "we" are all doomed.

So what should "we" be doing to escape the maze with the least amount of damage?

Larry B.,

My plan is to suggest to the WDFW Commission that the Department needs a new business plan. And a motto to go with it. The motto should read: "Don't bite the hand that feeds you!"

Most of WDFW's money comes from the General Fund and License fees, along with federal money via P-R and D-J. If WDFW wants public support for license fee increases it must stop biting the hand that feeds it and throwing sport fishermen under the buss in its effort to "get along with treaty tribes." Getting along with the tribes is desirable, but not by having the tail wag the dog. Closing the Skagit and Stilly to sport fishing for trout and steelhead for largely imaginary conservation benefits to coho and Chinook salmon, because tribes demanded it, is wrong-headed management. Closing the Skokomish River - which undeniably has negative social issues - to placate the Skokomish Tribe is also wrong-headed.

Continuing to charge us for the CRE, which was originally intended to fund monitoring of recreational angling so that seasons could re-open on the Methow and other mid-Columbia tributaries when those rivers are closed for years at a time, is disingenuous and does not win friends or favorably influence people. Use the money for its intended purpose, or don't collect the money - seems simple enough.

WDFW operates 82 hatcheries. The Department should audit each facility in terms of its cost and its benefits to Departmental constituents who actually pay the Department's freight. So benefits to Canada, AK, WA non-treaty commercial fishing, and WA treaty fishing don't count. The WA non-treaty sector pays next to nothing (annual license and landing tax) for the benefits they receive. It's time to join the 21st century and stop subsidizing commercial fishing. Same with treaty fishing, only more so - treaty fishing does't pay into state hatchery salmon production for the most part, but they will catch them just the same. Close the hatcheries that provide the least benefit to WA taxpaying and license buying constituents. (The $31 million funding gap might just disappear right there!)

When WDFW decides to market itself to the people who most willingly pay for its existence, they might just find it's a lot easier to get the Legislature to fund it.

Sg

Salmo - I agree with all of your points. The only problem is that the Commission should not have to be told to not bite that hand and that capitulation to tribal interests is a never ending circle around the toilet bowl.

Everything that Salmo points out should be a giant WAKE UP CALL for all sports fishermen! We ARE being taken advantage of and disenfranchised in our own fishery management.

One reason we keep going “around the toilet bowl” on this is because there are no real consequences to Commissioners for doing it. In fact, as I’ve said before, they take the path of least resistance. And right now that path has been “it’s better to piss off a bunch of stinking sport fishermen then challenge the tribes. Past experience has shown that NOTHING OF REAL CONSEQUENCE happens if a bunch of fishermen get pissed. The fish mafia and big shots in the sport fishing industry cover for them so it’s business as usual.
Short of a lawsuit or a mass uprising we have essentially already lost unless we stop taking shots at each other and start working to end this corrupt co-management system. That’s why we’re working so hard to end the closed door meetings at North of Falcon. It won’t fix everything, but it will expose ( or prevent further) skullduggery. And from there we can start working collectively on the rest.

Irrelevant at this juncture.

Blake is OUT!

https://tdn.com/news/local/red-wave-swee...c2c4159233.html

And with him gone, WDFW’s chances of getting a fee increase and more general fund money swirl the drain.

Who wants to bet they start being reactive to their constituents’ needs now?

They already are reactive. Tribe speaks, they jump.