Cowlitz,

The issue needs to be separated out a little.

Could the department have made cuts in other areas to eliminate the need for the fee? Obviously yes

Would it have been better to make cuts in other areas rather than jepordizing hatchery funding? For us, yes. But remember that the Govenors budget at the time called for hatchery closures, directing the department where to make cuts.

You stated I just want to make clear that the process used for implimenting the fee was in no way secretive, or even instigated by the department. It was supported by the department, but I think you would be hard pressed to find any fee increase that was not supported by the benifiting agency. The legislation got through both houses and the govenor.

I agree with you Mike!

So let's attempt to separate the issues at hand.

First, I believe that you have also agreed that the "department" (WDFW) could have made cuts in other areas to eliminate the need for this new tax (fee).

Some people will cover this up by calling it a "fee", but in reality, it's just another tax! It's not like a user fee, it is an additional tax if you want more.

You have read the RCW's and you are fully aware that the "Wildlife Fund" is an unaccountable fund that almost has no limits to what it can spend its revenues on. It can be for almost whatever the Director, or his staff applies it to! If I am wrong with this definition, please explain where.

Before WDFW can move forward, they must first establish trust among there users and supports. That means all users and all supports, and not just the ones who they may choose! The WDFW has lied too many to get the support of the few who are vocal in the legislation. That fact is almost impossible to now deny.

So how will WDFW correct this screw up that has been now exposed?

Could some of those "cuts" have been made in there own management? Could a Bio or two have been let go? Could a publication or 50 been cut? Could the Hunting and fishing rules been published in black and white instead of color? Could a few less computers been purchased? Could two or three new trucks or cars been cut back? The list is endless, except we were not even given a chance to see the list!

WDFW will never get any better in fish management until they are up front with the people who support their actions and pay their salaries; and that means all of us!

This is only a "tip" of an iceberg that has been floating astray for way to long. Sooner or later it's going to have to melt . . . and then what?


Cowlitzfisherman

I am all for cuts but any money saved by thoes cuts should go to wild fish.. We already spend plenty on hatcheries and there are more than enough hatchery fish.

Rob Allen,
You finally made a comment that I agree with.
"one punch card per year period" I would buy into that if you didnt have to punch chums or pinks.

There is a huge amount of taxpayer money being spent on wild fish. It is just not all in WDFW budget. Look at department of Ecology, Outdoor Recreation, and others. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.

The punch card is a data recording tool so they can try to manage the resources properly. Lets try to avoid making its purpose into an allocation tool. The use of seasonal limits is better applied on a species by species and location by location basis and really should only be a consideration when bag limits fail to address a specific problem.

Cowlitz-
Tax, Fee, whatever, it is more money paid by those who choose to harvest a higher rate than the average.

If you follow this link
http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/com/minutes/sep1401.htm
you will see the meeting minutes from a 2001 commission meeting where the commission has to approve the supplemental budget. There are several other meetings minutes where the commission approves land aquisitions. There are opportunities to scrutinize the department budget, but not from the internet.

Mike what i am saying is that more hatchery fish is a bad thing!! Our rivers are already flooded with them, well except when hatcheries prove how poorly they work sometimes.. like last winter.

Hey Rob

I got a much better idea! Let's make every fisherman who wants to fish for "wild fish" buy a special $10 punch card. Every time they c&r a wild fish, they must punch their cards. Think of the money that you guys could make to save all those wild fish! Think of all that viable information that WDFW could do with it. Then they could really known just how strong each rivers wild runs were.

I hear some guys on this board say that when the "wild" fish are in, that they can go out and hooked and released 6-9 wild fish each trip. Boy what a money maker that would be for the wild fish recovery! Why aren't the "wild fish" advocates pushing for this kind of fee increase? Maybe it just a tad bit to close to home! Then they can truly say that they are paying their fare share of what WDFW is spending on wild fish recovery.

Cowlitzfisherman

Boy now theres a GREAT idea CFM. I like that one the best so far.

Would never work, what is going to make someone punch the card. You catch 10 fish and release 10 fish, number of punches would be 0.

Hey!

If all these "wild fish" supporters are as good as the claim that they are, it will work! If they are not, then the buck falls where it lands!

What is it now? almost 40 or 50 % of sport fishers claim to be for c&r ..... so surly they will do what is "right".....right?

While all us "bad guys" do not!

Cowlitzfisherman

CF.......My comments about getting involved in the process were in no way pointed at you. It is obvious that you have been involved to a large degree. Those who are not involved or engaged in the process of formulating the rules can still complain about the rules but the beauty of our system (if there is a silver lining) is that all of us are invited to get involved with no strings attached and I can assure all those doubters that getting involved and having your voice heard works wonders for change.

As far as a special punch card for released fish goes I think I will bring that up soon as a possible tallking point for NOF prep work. I think it could work this way: On the current punch card we simply add a section for C&R fish. This information would be very valuable. Right now WDFW has a log anyone can get from them to record the fish you release. This is voluntary at this time but why not make it mandatory. Check a little box to indicate wild or hatchery. Check another box for using a fly or bait. The voluntary log is a good idea because it gives WDFW a better idea of the number of C&R fish. Right now they rely on checkers at the ramps to ask you how many you released and studies have shown that most people (myself included) overestimate that number causing an overinflated estimate of hooking mortality and shorter seasons.

I'm all for the C&R numbers to be recorded accurately with stiff fines for the wild fish advocates to pay for noncompliance. Great idea!

CF

"What is it now? almost 40 or 50 % of sport fishers claim to be for c&r ..... so surly they will do what is "right".....right? "

If you are talking 40 or 50 % of the board members I might believe it.

If you are talking 40 or 50 % of all fishermen, no way do I believe it. To many meat eaters running around.

Aunty

There is not enough enforcement to prevent all the other game laws in effect.
Not that I would not punch my card but my chances of not punching it and getting away with it are almost 100% in my favor.

It is a law that cannot be enforced and would rely on the integrity of the fishermen. Way to many fishermen, with very few ethics in regards to doing the right thing.

Thanks grandpa for verifying what you had said! As you well know, when tons of people are attacking you, it's always best to ask them what they are saying. I understand, and I also know by what you have written that you are a very active person when it comes to "getting involved".

Please except my apology if I took you the wrong way. As you know, most people just site back and yap and do nothing else!

I do believe that it is time that all parties show their true colors and pay the piper for the colors that they want to see.

Cowlitzfisherman

Hey lead thrower

Show me the numbers that support what you have claimed, and I'll adjust my numbers!

Besides, ALL wild fish supporters always obey the laws to protect the wild fish. . . right? So what are you worried about? Either they care, or they don't care! Its time to put up or shut up!

They will not do the fishermen any wrong! They care! They are the ones, who are pushing for all of the reforms, so why would they not obey the game laws to the letter?



Cowlitzfisherman

CF i am not opposed to that idea except in the general terms of being opposed to any fee increases anywhere for anyone period.
and maybe i wasn't clear. i am also opposed to more hatchery fish period even if they are free. More hatchery fish would be wasteful and bad for wild fish. There are already hundreds of thousands of unharvested hatchery fish. What i say to the guy who doesn't punch as many as he'd like id. Go out fishing more.. There is an overabundance of hatchery fish everywhere in the state already. making more would be stupid ,wasteful and expensive.

is it just us sportsfisherman who have to put more money into the wildlife fund ? ,or do other users of the resourse have to pay more money such as guides, commercial fisherman, charter boat operators etc. ?

lead thrower

It is more then "feasible". But will all of the "wild fish" supporters walk their talk?

I will stand by these numbers, until someone can prove them wrong! I do agree with what you had said; "The people who will not obey the law are the same people who already don?t obey it and this is an enforceable law in my opinion."

The game wardens love to "enforce" all the game laws because they are "enforceable"!!

You know, there is another way that WDFW can also control "hatchery fish". They could make it illegal to "release" a hatchery fish if they really wanted to control all hatchery fish. That way the "wild" guys would either have to keep their catch, or punch their "wild" card when they landed a fish. Either way, the hatchery fish would be taken out of the rivers and the wild fish catch could be recorded. Now what are you going to spin on that one?


Cowlitzfisherman

CFM i think you are onto somehting there...
madnatory retention of hatchery fish ain''t a bad idea. They do it for the Non-native lake trout in Yellowstone lake that typically eat the native cutthroat..

However i think with such a reg you'd also have to say that a guy has to either quit fishing after he catches his two or three whatever the limit is or he is allowed to C-R after that..