I noticed today that some shellfishing seasons were dropped from year round to 1.5 months simply to ease enforcement....

I'm wondering what people think about setting rules around how easy it is to enforce them. It seems to me they keep making more and more excuses to limit opportunities for us. "we cant watch you so you cant do it" doesn't sit well with me. Then in the usual contridictory, they create the "fish out of water" rule. How will they manage this one? "no officer, the bottom 1/2inch of the fish was in the water...." Who's to say they wont close fishing because they cant enforce that rule?

I dont know how to make a poll here, but Id be curious to see what people think.

I dont harvest on those particular beaches so it doesn't really affect me that much yet.

The thing that gets me is that they limited harvest to april thru june... Well May and June is when they are starting to spawn and the quality is hit and miss.

I dont even go after oysters.... but thats not the point. Is ease of enforcement an acceptable reason for setting regs? what if there are cutbacks and there are less officers, does that mean some seasons will be cut because there are less people out there watching? How do they decide what should be cut next? What makes one area more difficult to enforce over another? lots of questions..... zero answers.

I've worked with those enforement folks quite a bit in the past..They have always been spread thin. The probelm is that the state does not want to allocate money for enforcement, they'd rather spend it on mismanaging the resource. In 1994 I was offered a job as an officer with them and I turned it down for financial reasons. I am so glad I did because they ended up laying off everyone in that hiring phase. Of course you could hire twice as many and never adequately cover the need. They should train and encourage local law enforcement to pick up the slack.. But..the problem there is everyone is spread too thin....So..to answer your question..maybe the answer is to shut it down, as much I hate to see that happen. We should have our fishing organizations lobby for more enforcement money. One other thing. to show you how cheap the state is...the enofrcement oficer s could only put so much milage on their vehicles per week..then they had to park them or get in a boat..lol,...what a joke!

It depends on the beaches I suppose.

If the only reason is for enforcement then I say no, its not a good reason. But if the beach seasons have to be shortened to limit harvest it makes sence to have them cooincide with another season for enforcement purposes.

I read in the Times a while back that the Mariners pay for the Seattle Police to provide security at the games. I know fish and game is a different part of the government. But I wonder if sportsfishermen could pitch in to provide enforcement if we really wanted a season that would otherwise be closed? Or if we could pitch in just to see snaggers get their due and shut down a snagfest. I'd put in a few bucks to see some busts.

We already pitch in for enforcement, its called a fishing license. I don't think the law abiding majority should have to suffer for the unlawfulness of a few. I also would not like to see special seasons for those who can afford to rent enforcement.
The proposed changes in the Sound ling seasons is another example of managing for convienence and not the resource. I am against changing the season for lings based solely on the depts. wish to enforce the laws at its convienience.

Maybe trained volunteer fish checkers and other non enforcement duties could free up some money for more fish cops?

Twenty years ago we could harvest clams all summer long. At present, we have twice the population, so we should be able to harvest 1/2 the summer. Right?? 1/2 * 2 = 1, right?? This is the type of math I understand. WDFW math I do not understand. 6-10 days of clamming a year I do not understand. A Lake Wa sockeye escapement requirement of 350,,000 fish for one river I do not understand. A 3 dollar per fish cost to count harvested Lake Wa sockeye I do not understand.

Good point Elkrun, enforcement (or lack of it)should not dictate the regs. It seems true that this is what is happening though.
Maybe we should shut down the stock market cause there are not enough SEC cops out there to watch for the thieves? Same deal!
Its a bad policy to start shutting down fishing cause we cant enforce the reg's, come on WDFW.....................

I don't blame the problem of enforcement on the officers faced with dealing with the cut funding, but crowding sportsmen into an enforceable area/time must deplete resources in that area, wouldn't you think?

As far as clamming in the summer....pthththhthth. Maybe it's just an old guy's saying, but you ever hear of clamming only in the months with an "r" in them?

I think that people should realize that if they don't want to open a season becuase lack of enforcement, then that means that there was very poor compliance from "sportsmen" (and women) in the past. When the beach looks like an anthill kicked apart, that should be the indicator that overharvesting could be a problem.

Read the rule change goingfishin.... nowhere does it say anything about over harvest. It simply says for ease of enforcement. I always am reading about how you steelie fishermen never get checked, yet in the salt, some days I feel harrassed (checked 3 times in one day, boarded twice). Its simple... pack us into a small area, give a short season, tons of people will come and its easy to check them. I'll bet Sekiu and Disco bay fishermen got checked today... What does that say for those of you who fish remote areas for steelhead? What if it is deemed hard to enforce? Could they close sections of rivers simply because it's tough to watch? Dont get me wrong, I'm not anti-enforcement. I'm just not sure that I like the possibilities...

I hear ya!! I fish the salt plenty too! Never have been checked except by a deputy doing a boating safety check... But I was looking at it from a different angle..maybe my own..who knows? Maybe the ease of enoforcement is just the excuse to shut down...I guess I should call some folks down there and find out...I'll let ya'll know..

Piper, you were the most right..I called Pat at WDFW today and found out that they changed the seasons to cooincide with each other so that enforcement could check the beaches in roughly the same time frame. Some of the closures and re-opening had to do with resource mamangement. One example is Eagle Crk, which aprently had a big reduction in the legal size of the oyster population. In other areas, such as the Dosewalips, clam populations are rebounding well. So, if I understand what he was saying correctly, it was mostly about resource and people management.

goinfishin-

thanks for looking into that! I'm still not sure I like the reasons.... same question keeps popping into my head. Will they shorten other seasons so they can be there to enforce it better??? more people, short season, sit in the parking lot and write tickets... I like the idea that there are lesser know spots where I can go and be relatively alone in my pursuits.... whether its fishing, clamming, crabbing...... whatever.