http://tvw.org/media/MediaPlayer.cfm?evid=2009020054&TYPE=V&bhcp=1


Gee now we get to buy a stamp to fish the Columbia?

I got some low-down on this the other day. It is not just for salmon but for steelhead as well. The proposal is to require a "pass" (they didn't want to use the word "stamp" but I can't remember the exact word they used) to fish the Columbia and all tribs from the wooden power lines (upstream from the Ringold area) upstream to I believe Chief Joe Dam (not positive on the upper boundary). It would be a small surcharge, around $25 or so and the revenue would go to provide additional staff to manage the fisheries (e.g., fish checkers, extra enforcement etc.). Monies would not be directed into the general fund for other expenses.

It would greatly affect me and the areas I fish but if it would improve the chances to have fisheries on the Wenatchee and Methow, then I'd pay double the price, at least for steelhead.

A couple of negative outcomes could be the potential of having this idea spread to other parts of the state but I don't see it much different than the classified waters in BC and I guess I'm not opposed to that idea.

I'd pay just about any price if it would really help the upper columbia. HOWEVER, it's kind of a farce when you consider that the main problem with the upper columbia, at least the Reach, is downriver and ocean harvest, NOT habitat or upriver harvest. Consider: estimates of prime spawning habitat in the Hanford Reach indicate that it could handle 60-80,000 spawning salmon just utilizing primary habitat, not considering marginal or secondary areas. However, the newly established escapement target for McNary Dam is 60,000 fish. Not too far off, right? Unless you consider that the number of fish going up the Snake and up past Priest Rapids Dam on the Columbia have been steadily increasing, meaning less fish percentage-wise stay in the Reach to spawn. For the past two years the spawning recruitment in the Reach itself has dropped to less than 25% of the total McNary escapement. For each of the past two years, the local WDFW biologist estimates that less than 20,000 spawners have utilitized the pristine habitat that could handle four times that many. In fact the numbers are 18,767 for 2008 and 13,887 for 2007, and the forecast for 2009 is looking pretty grim. We are being told to expect an early closure of fall fishing in the Reach this year, likely September 30 instead of the usual October 22. So... needless to say, the prospect of getting to pay an extra $25 for the privilege of fishing a shortened season while watching slaughter occurring below McNary doesn't sit well with folks up here.

It's clear to me that the McNary escapement target should be set based on a calculated (variable) level considering a true minimum escapement target for the Reach (which ought to be in the 40,000 - 80,000 range at least) PLUS whatever is forecast for Priest Rapids passage, Ice Harbor passage, PRD hatchery return, and Prosser (Yakima R.) passage.

Here we have prime habitat, great genetics, sufficient numbers of fish reaching the estuary ... and we can't seem to allow enough fish to reach the gravel to do their thing. And we wonder why the numbers keep spiralling downward. This is crazy.

Watch and see, when the URB forecasts come out in the next few months, the press release will indicate a large number of fish headed for "the Reach". But look closer at the numbers and remember that less than 25% of the McNary passage is really going to spawn in the Reach, and officially anything over 60,000 fish at McNary are "surplus" so we'll intentionally under-escape the spawners in the Reach...again.

Sorry to come across as a rant, but it's incredibly frustrating to see the wild spawning escapement drop from 80K in 2004, 64K in 2005, 47K in 2006, 14K in 2007, 19K in 2008... and nobody notices or cares because we still have 100K fish crossing McNary so we still have "surplus" fish.

Salmon stamp? We already got one! It's called the "Delta Enhancement Stamp" and while it is supposed to provide money for rehab of the delta (Susuin, San Pablo, San Francisco, etc. bays) and tributaries, we had the salmon stock collapse and our state gov continues to divert water out of the system for farming/irrigation and water use in the L.A. basin. Maybe it would have worked if they charged more than $5-$6 for the stamp. NOT!

Yeah, good post Starfish. I don't fish the Hanford Reach chinook but I'm pretty familiar with it. I know the Pasco WDFW Bio, perhaps the same one you refer to, has argued for the past several years to the 'harvest managers' downriver that more fish are needed on the spawning grounds. Too bad it has fallen on deaf ears. The Hanford Reach gets special protection flows from Priest Rapids during critical life stages (spawning, incubation, and emergence) that minimizes mortality and arguably provides better protection than a natural river. Unfortunately, the fish are mopped up in the lower fishery.

After a little more thought I have a few questions about this approach. Another thing to consider about the localized surcharge to these fisheries is this: The management agency for the state (WDFW) should already be allocating the necessary resources to manage these fisheries. Why does this particular geographic area not already have the funds needed to carry out these fisheries? If this was occuring elsewhere, what would the state do?

And finally, I believe its pretty pathetic to have a group of common citizens organize an effort to address an issue that the state should already be doing. Kudos to those who took the initiative to see a problem and come up with a solution for a possible fix.

This chaps my a$$. I wouldn't mind paying an extra fee- like a Qualified Waters Stamp, if I thought it would actually do the fish any good. But this would be used to maintain a hatchery harvest regime, and do nothing for wild fish.

The stamp is supposed to pay for the fish checkers and monitoring that are required under the ESA take permits for hatchery salmon and steelhead seasons on the Upper C. However, I don't believe this is the only part of the state that has fisheries over ESA listed fish, so I don't see why we should be singled out for paying an additional fee.

I already pay a state fee to fish. The sad state of affairs for salmon and steelhead, in this area, is not because of sport angler impacts, but primarily a result of hydro activities n the Big C. This fee is an attempt to externalize those costs on to another user group.

I think it will probably be called an "endorsement", not a stamp...and will likely cost about $15.00.

The money will be earmarked for enforcement of selective fisheries in the upper Columbia, places like the Methow or Wenatchee, or Columbia River proper, where there are hatchery fish retention seasons with ESA fish around.

This endorsement is gaining quite a bit of traction at the State...it's not a lock by any means, but I'd say odds are in favor of it passing.

Fish on...

Todd

Stamp, pass, endorsement, whatever they want to call it, if you want to charge an extra fee to fish in a special area, then the fishing should be "special" too. The only thing special about salmon and steelhead fishing in WA is what it used to be contrasted with what little it's become. Saying that makes me feel old.

Sg

"The only thing special about salmon and steelhead fishing in WA is what it used to be contrasted with what little it's become." Sg


Sad but true.

i'm still waiting for them to tack the puget sound and warmwater enhancements back on as addtional fees...several years after they were rolled up into the "mega license".