As good as the information they get from staff...

Even when 3rd grade remedial Math is probably out of the question

For those wondering about the proposed fee increase and what the non-resident license fees are/will be, here is the wording out of HB1387. Non-residents will be seeing an increase in their fees, too. The ((....)) indicate the old fee and the new amount follows.

You can go to this link to see the legislation:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1387&year=2011



(2) The fees for annual personal use saltwater, freshwater, or
5 combination licenses are as follows:
6 (a) A combination license allows the holder to fish for or possess
7 fish, shellfish, and seaweed from state waters or offshore waters. The
8 fee for this license is ((thirty-six)) forty-five dollars for
9 residents, ((seventy-two)) ninety dollars for nonresidents, and five
10 dollars for youth. There is an additional fifty-cent surcharge for
11 this license, to be deposited in the rockfish research account created
12 in RCW 77.12.702.
13 (b) A saltwater license allows the holder to fish for or possess
14 fish taken from saltwater areas. The fee for this license is
15 ((eighteen)) twenty-five dollars for residents, ((thirty-six)) fifty
16 dollars for nonresidents, and five dollars for resident seniors. There
17 is an additional fifty-cent surcharge for this license, to be deposited
18 in the rockfish research account created in RCW 77.12.702.
19 (c) A freshwater license allows the holder to fish for, take, or
20 possess food fish or game fish species in all freshwater areas. The
21 fee for this license is twenty-five dollars for residents, ((forty))
22 fifty dollars for nonresidents, and five dollars for resident seniors.
23 (3)(a) A temporary combination fishing license is valid for one to
24 ((five)) three consecutive days and allows the holder to fish for or
25 possess fish, shellfish, and seaweed taken from state waters or
26 offshore waters. The fee for this temporary fishing license is:
27 (i) One day - ((Seven)) Eight dollars for residents and
28 ((fourteen)) sixteen dollars for nonresidents;
29 (ii) Two days - ((Ten)) Twelve dollars for residents and twenty-
30 four dollars for nonresidents; and
31 (iii) Three days - ((Thirteen)) Fifteen dollars for residents and
32 ((twenty-six)) thirty dollars for nonresidents((;
33 (iv) Four days - Fifteen dollars for residents and thirty dollars
34 for nonresidents; and
35 (v) Five days - Seventeen dollars for residents and thirty-four
36 dollars for nonresidents)).
37 (b) The fee for a charter stamp is ((seven)) eight dollars for a
HB 1387 p. 14
1 one-day temporary combination fishing license for residents and
2 nonresidents for use on a charter boat as defined in RCW 77.65.150.

My quick read of the legislation is that all the recreational license fees, including the saltwater, shellfish, and razor clam license fees that used to go to the General Fund, will all now go to the Wildlife account.

What I didn't find was any license fee increase for the commercial licensees. It looks to me like their "bump" will range from $70 to $105, depending on license type, as an annual application fee to renew their license(s).

Unless I missed it somewhere and that is possible, it looks like the commercial fees will continue to go into the General Fund and then have to be appropriated (I hope) back to the WDFW. Personally, I think all of the commercial licenses fees collected should be directed to the Wildlife account.


Some of the commercial fee (surcharge) is directed to Regional Fishery Enhancement Groups. A portion (amount unknown) of each recreational license also goes to the RFEG or to the Warm Water Game Fish account.

My Dad comes up from Idaho every year for 7-10 days and fishes the Ling/Halibut and I usually pick up the cost of his liscense. I have absolutely no issue with increasing it as it is a pleasure to be able to return the favor of the fact he started me on this fishing kick. Increase away, as long as it goes to the right fund and supports "US" sportsman.

Chad

I think that sportfishing groups should be vocally supportive of this proposal. A fee increase is the only other alternative to seeing drastic spending reductions, which would result in wholesale hatchery closures.

So, we have a choice of paying more just to maintain our current opportunities (even though we still will see some reductions) or fishing A LOT less.

Now that is extremely good news, now if WDFW & F&W Commission can be split off from the Body Politic ala Self Financing/Self Supporting, we would be on the path to common sense. BB, is their any way to confirm/verify that GF to WL account???? This issue alone should get CCA & PSA to start a very loud cheering section.

The formatting doesn't show up, but as I read it, the items in the (( )) are deletions so it looks like the move of recreational licenses from the generalf fund to the wildlife account are found in Sec. 3, lines 2 through 5.

Now, if we could just get the commerical license fees moved from the General Fund to the Wildlife account, we'd have a better handle on income.


Sec. 3. RCW 77.12.170 and 2009 c 333 s 13 are each amended to read
30 as follows:
31 (1) There is established in the state treasury the state wildlife
32 account which consists of moneys received from:
33 (a) Rentals or concessions of the department;
34 (b) The sale of real or personal property held for department
35 purposes, unless the property is seized or recovered through a fish,
36 shellfish, or wildlife enforcement action;
1 (c) The assessment of administrative penalties((, and));
2 (d) The sale of licenses, permits, tags, and stamps required by
3 chapter 77.32 RCW ((and)), RCW 77.65.490, ((except annual resident
4 adult saltwater and all annual razor clam and shellfish licenses, which
5 shall be deposited into the state general fund)) and application fees;


...and here is Sec. 4 where, as I read it, commercial fees still go to the General Fund


Sec. 4. RCW 77.12.177 and 2001 c 253 s 16 are each amended to read
30 as follows:
31 (1) Except as provided in this title, state and county officers
32 receiving the following moneys shall deposit them in the state general
33 fund:
34 (a) The sale of commercial licenses required under this title,
35 except for licenses issued under RCW 77.65.490; and
36 (b) Moneys received for damages to food fish or shellfish.


..and for those who don't have it, here's the link to HB 1387 as currently drafted and being worked in the Legislature

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1387&year=2011

Ned: Doesn't look like anyone has answered your questions. No, tribal fishermen do not have to buy ANY license from the State. Nada!!

BB, thank you for posting this up.

AM

Here is the crab CRC fee adjustment. Section 9 lines 15/16 bumping the fee to $7.50

Sec. 9. RCW 77.32.430 and 2010 c 193 s 11 are each amended to read
4 as follows:
5 (1) Catch record card information is necessary for proper
6 management of the state's food fish and game fish species and shellfish
7 resources. Catch record card administration shall be under rules
8 adopted by the commission. There is no charge for an initial catch
9 record card. Each subsequent or duplicate catch record card costs
10 ((ten)) eleven dollars.
11 (2) A license to take and possess Dungeness crab is only valid in
12 Puget Sound waters east of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line if the fisher has
13 in possession a valid catch record card officially endorsed for
14 Dungeness crab. The endorsement shall cost no more than ((three))
15 seven dollars((, including any or all fees authorized under RCW
16 77.32.050,)) and fifty cents when purchased for a personal use
17 saltwater, combination, or shellfish and seaweed license. The
18 endorsement shall cost no more than ((one dollar, including any or all
19 fees authorized under RCW 77.32.050,)) three dollars when purchased for
20 a temporary combination fishing license authorized under RCW
21 77.32.470(3)(a).

So how is it established how many reporting lines are on the initial CRC?

For 2010 the summer and winter cards each had 20 reporting lines and we burn a line any day we crab and retain even one crab. One could go through a card and retain a minimum of 20 crab. Using the 2010 shellfish license fee of $12.00 and the now $7.50 endorsement the license fees could be a maximum of $1.00 a retained crab. Compare that to the $.011 per pound (roughly $.02 per available crab) the commercials paid in license fees to participate in the 2010 season.

Also, am I reading this correctly that a second CRC is going to cost $11.00 which is 47% more than the initial endorsement/CRC? And 267% more than the current $3.00 CRC/endorsement????

And exactly what was the proposed increase in commercial license fees? I want to hear it again.

What I am interested in...how big is the user group (number of licensed users) VERSUS the total $ amount of license fees that contributes to WDFW budget. Is it quite possible the total dollar value users are contributing is LESS THAN the WDFW budget? While I love fishing, and enjoy the opportunities WFDW gives me, I can't say that the cost that commercial license holders pay (remember, that's their living) should be equal to what I pay to enjoy this as a HOBBY.

I know! Totally against the grain here, but it's worth discussing!

If we are going deeply into the realm of user fees then it is my perception that my costs shouldn't be significantly different than the costs of other consumers - in this instance those who buy commercially caught crab.

Just for kicks take the 2010 shellfish license fee of $12.00 and the proposed $7.50 endorsement/CRC for a total of $19.50 and multiply that by 212,694 endorsements issued for summer 2010 (assuming all were paid for and that there will be no decrease in the number of crabbers in 2011) then the total license fees from P.S. crabbers will be $4,134,000 in 2011.

(I hope that the increase in opportunity will off-set the effects of any increase in license fees - but I have my doubts)

The commercials paid $32,110 in 2010. Even if their license fees were to go up by 51% their new total would only amount to $48,486.

Moravec, what is your take on the difference? Seriously. And keep in mind that WDFW estimates that non-tribal commercial crabbers will still harvest 55% of the State's share in P.S. while recreational crabbers will take 45%.

Is it reasonable that WDFW generates commercial license fees of only $.02 per crab (pro rata) available for commercial harvest in P.S.? Also keep in mind that 32% of the crab harvested in P.S. is exported out of state and 28% out of county leaving only 40% consumed within the State. That consumer in Chicago or New York City or Hong Kong or Tokyo is paying WDFW a measly $.02 in license fees (effectively) as a part of his/her meal price.

Another words using Larry B year 2010 figures sport caught 1266971 lbs. X1.75 lbs. per crab (Avg. weight per WDFW )=723983.42 sport crab caught. 723983.42 divide by212694 sport crabbers =3.40 crab per crab license holder. Shellfish fee of $12 and $7.50 endorsement fee =19.50 divide by 3.40 =WDFW wants to charge each license holder$5.735 per crab caught in 2010. Ridiculous.

If WDFW believes each crab is worth $5.735. Why the 2 cent give away to commercials?

The part time Puget Sound Commercial crabbers don’t want to share the resource or support the responsibility that goes with it.

Pretty clear that the state is wasting Puget Sound crab resource on non-treaty commercial crabbing then. Recreational crabbers return more $$ to the state per crab caught. Since crab are a public trust resource, the state ought be obtaining the highest and best value from each crab. With such severe budget concerns, the Legislature and WDFW should be keenly interested in allocating PS crab to the highest economic return.

Sg

Yah, like that will happen when all of the Doofus's in Pugetopolis Vote Rossi in as Governor We are trying to be rationale & have a "Modicum" of common sense; and we ought to know better since we are discussing the current crop of Elected Dummies.

The above comparisons are just for license revenues since that was the thread topic. But that is only a part of the crab value story so for those who may have missed it:

The WDFW used 2006 economic values for recreational activity ($43.00/day) and still came up with the 2009/2010 recreational value at $15,255,000 (352,148 estimated angler trips). Adjusting for inflation it should have been $16,475,400. THAT WAS FOR 1/3 OF THE STATE'S PORTION OF P.S. CRAB!

The WDFW provided a consumer price index adjusted ex vessel (payment to fishermen) average of $6,251,767 (2007-2009). THAT WAS FOR 2/3 OF THE STATE'S PORTION OF P.S. CRAB!

For true comparison take the 2/3 commercial ex vessel value of $6,251,767 and half it to $3,125,884 for a 1/3 value.

Thus a commercial ex vessel 1/3 is $3,125,884 whereas the recreational 1/3 has a value of $16,475,400 - both in current dollars. That is a ratio of 1:5.27.

Remember that only 40% of commercially caught P.S. crab are marketed within the State whereas 32% goes to other States and 28% goes out of country.

One more tidbit for consideration:

The three year (2008-2010) average for issuance of P.S. endorsements was 223,188. The average recreational catch over the same period was roughly 1,276,800 pounds or 672,000 crab at 1.9#/crab. On a pro rata basis each Puget Sound recreational crabber would harvest three (3) crab!

Please consider these when evaluating who is in line for increases in license fees and the amount of those proposed increases. I am willing to pay my fair share and more but I have a real problem when the commercial extractor is essentially paying pennies to our dollars.

Edit Note: My figures vary somewhat from LL's in large part because I used 1.9 pounds/crab which is a number also provided by WDFW. As I recall the SAO audit report made a recommendation that WDFW needs to have one weight per crab (they had two in play as average crab weight varies by area). I also used a three year average for endorsements.

commercials pay B&O tax amung other fishing speciifc taxes. More than I thought. Shouldnt there be a "using a net" tax to go the group removing derelict nets?

http://dor.wa.gov/content/doingbusiness/businesstypes/industry/fish/default.aspx

we pay sales tax on all of the gear we buy for our hobby so we pay much much more and expect no income in return. Thats our choice.

watch out for the fees, or what they deam as excess, being transfered to the general fund on a regular basis. thats appears to be Olympias goal right now.

Is there a thread or web page that accuratly describes the flow of money starting at the user fee?

2 cents.

I believe the excise tax for crab is .025 based upon the ex vessel price. At $2.70 a pound at the dock a 1.9# crab will be sold for $5.13 and have an associated extractive excise tax of $.13 which goes to the general fund. That same crab generates roughly $.02 in license revenue.

When we start talking taxes we open up another can of worms. Not only do we pay a State sales tax on all of the goods and services we purchase the manufacturers of recreational fishing equipment pay a 10% Federal tax (Wallop - Breaux Fish Restoration Act) which is passed along as a cost of the product which is then subject to mark up along the distribution system until it is purchased at retail and the State sales tax is paid.

Again, who is paying and who is getting the benefits? Not necessarily the same folks!

Nunyet - There has been a lot of discussion about who will fund removal of nets and pots in the future. Please recall that nets still do not have to be identified as to owner nor do they have to be reported if lost. But that is another story.