I tried to increase WDFW funds.........but all it fell on "deaf ears"...........2nd rod fee for rivers...would have generated funds.........but no go, year after year.........soooooooooo, let the ax fall....cut, cut cut

7% at the admin level, 1.76 million.........wow, that blows me away, that's some BIG salary and benefit packages.......

WDFW.....probably some "PERS",Plan 1, people hanging around ......move them out!!!!!!!!

Double income .... both employed in WDFW......well, in tough times....calls for tough decisions.....1 would have to go.........

Have never fished Canada or Alaska for salmon.........guess I'll have to "use my kids" inheritance for a few trips north..........

Whew..............glad the income tax thing never past.......would be right down to all those with incomes of $1 and up.........

IF THIS HOLDS TRUE?? SAN ISLAND' S SUMMER CHINOOK FISHERY WILL BECOME SEVERELY REDUCED!!!!!!!!!!

JohnQ - No, I did not forget about the $10.00 penalty. But since it is not a license fee if I were a manager I would not build that revenue item into my budget. That said, it is good of you to remind us that the recreational crabbers do generate other monies to the department albeit as a fine in this instance. Adding the estimated CRC fine total to my license figure and you are just under $5MM. And they suggest that that is not enough??????

Well, if as estimated the recreational catch may move up to 45-50% of the P.S. non-tribal harvest maybe the commercial crabbers need to see their licenses move up to at least $3.5 million to equal the contribution from the recreational crabbers. On that basis the annual license fee for each commercial license would be $140,562.

AuntyM - You are absolutely correct in your conccern about how the wording of legislation may allow the politicians/bureaucrats to redirect funds to uses not high on the user groups (payers) priorities while ignoring what the original supporters thought they would be seeing accomplished. Did anyone else wonder if the boats WDFW used to provide general law enforcement support for Sea Fair hydroplane races were paid for by crab money? Or if that law enforcement effort was reimbursed to WDFW?

Law enforcement agencies in this state that have a marine enforcement program get funding/grants from State Parks to do boating enforcement. WDFW gets the biggest chunk of money. They get $200,000 per year to do boating enforcement. As a result of this funding WDFW is required to work SeaFair and Operation Dry Water. Other law enforcement agencies in King County that have boating programs are also required to work SeaFair. And all agencies that get the grants are required to work Operation Dry Water which is a nationwide LE operation.

Here's the Colorado statute on how wildlife cash funds can be protected from raids by legislators looking for money for general fund uses. As long as WDFW gets GF money, a legacy of the old Dept. of Fisheries, it will continue to face cuts in their budget.


(1) (a) Except as provided in subsections (7) and (8) of this section, sections 33-1-112.5 and 33-6-105, and in part 7 of article 22 of title 39, C.R.S., all moneys received from wildlife license fees, and all moneys from all other wildlife sources, and all interest earned on such moneys shall be deposited in the state treasury and credited to the wildlife cash fund, which fund is hereby created, and such moneys shall be utilized for expenditures authorized or contemplated by and not inconsistent with the provisions of articles 1 to 6 of this title for wildlife activities and functions and for the financing of impact assistance grants pursuant to part 3 of article 25 of title 30, C.R.S. All moneys so deposited in the wildlife cash fund shall remain in such fund to be used for the purposes set forth in the provisions of articles 1 to 6 of this title and shall not be deposited in or transferred to the general fund of the state of Colorado or any other fund.

Bigman:

Thanks for the information; that assuages some of my concerns (seriously) but from a political angle I live in Pierce County and really don't give a rip about Sea Fair. And isn't Parks in worse shape than WDFW but maybe they are passing down funding from the Feds. Oh, but they (we) are also broke and worse! So maybe Sea Fair just needs to pay its own way.

And an open question remains as to what assets (boats) have been purchased (if any) from dedicated funds (P.S. crab monies), whether any such assets are used for activities outside the parameters of the dedicated funds and, if so, is there any repayment to that dedicated fund? The point being that if we are careening to a "pay to play" then there needs to be scrupulous accounting for those monies. I am pretty sure there is a substantial lack of confidence on the part of WDFW's customers regarding the use of those funds.

Bushbear:

Clearly there were folks in Colorado that saw a problem and addressed it through legislation. Unfortunately, legislation is only as good as the next session. An example is the small portion of gas tax derived from sales to boaters that went to a fund intended to support boating activities which has been raided for the general fund. If you are unhappy with the lack of and/or terrible condition of launches some of the cause may be directly related to that raid and resulting reduced availability of funds.

Geez, I am getting old and cranky!

" . . . . needs to be scrupulous accounting for those monies. " lets see, started the Crab Audit in 2006, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm I guess Hell must Freeze over first before that'll happen

Larry - Check your email

The CO statute has been on the books for a long time. There have been attempts made to access the wildlife cash fund, but without success. It is sportsman dollars, not general fund dollars, and while the legislature can still impose spending restrictions and they can hurt, they can't divert the money.

That said, they did ram through a merger of Parks (broke) with Wildlife this year, obstensibly to save money. The last time Parks was merged with Wildlife it lasted about 4 years and the separation cost Wildlife a chunk of change because of diversion of wildlife lands to parks use which then transferred the land to state prisons......a lot of us are waiting to see how long the current "marriage" lasts.

Legislators don't like dedicated funding. They have to continually be reminded who is paying the freight.

I am a little confused about some of these proposals where cuts will save a certain amount, but the economic impact to the local economies is projected to be considerably larger than any savings done by cutting or eliminating.

If programs are cut or eliminated does that mean there will be staff reductions or extensive furloughs?

If that is the case, is this figured in the proposed cuts?

While I hate to see people lose their jobs, I'd prefer to see even more cuts in the upper management level than field workers.

These are tough times and cuts are necessary, but I question the wisdom of some.

I am a believer in user fees, but it is frustrating to see personal costs increased while user opportunities are lessened.

So all the planned hatchery budget cuts are in one thread, here are the planned 2011-2013 hatchery cuts based on WDFW's expected budget PRIOR TO the latest reductions shown in Joe Stohr's letter:

Summary of 2011-13 proposed salmon and steelhead reductions by facility and region:

Marblemount Hatchery (Skagit) coho reduced from 380K to 190K
Issaquah Hatchery (Mid-Puget Sound) Chinook reduced from 2.0M to 1.0M
Coulter Creek/Tumwater Falls (South Puget Sound) Chinook reduced from 3.8M to 1.0M
Hupp Spring Hachery (South Puget Sound) Chinook reduced from 700K to 0
Bogachiel Hatchery (Quillayute) steelhead reduced from 200K to 180K
Humptulips Hatchery (Grays Harbor) Chinook reduced from 500K to 0
Humptulips Hatchery (Grays Harbor) coho reduced from 970K to 240K

All of these were in the same August 17 letter that DrifterWA referred to in his post about Humtulips Hatchery.

This is where the saying "penny-wise and pound-foolish" came from.

Bushbear:

On that note of property diversions, since you are sort of out that way has there been any more information on the attempted slight of hand regarding the Pt. No Point launch property which WDFW was going to turn into a small boat/canoe/kayak launch and then give to (as I recall) Kitsap County? That rather than turn it into the full service concrete launch as planned and approved? Fortunately, that little game was caught before it was consummated and put on hold pending review.

And the State Parks gave Mukilteo the Lighthouse Park with its launch and the City has let the launch deteriorate despite adding a fairly substantial launch fee. How long before they decide to simply close it because their lack of maintenance has created a liability for the City?

I saw something recently on the PNP ramp. I think it was in the Kitsap paper. My recollection is that the negotiation process is continuing between WDFW and the county and it would be couple of years before anything (money needs) gets done. If I can find the info, I'll pass it along. Someone here on PP might have the info close to hand and can share it, too.

Found it - August 20 issue

http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2011/aug/20/consensus-reached-on-point-no-point-boat-launch/

HANSVILLE —It took eight months, but an agreement has been reached between local and state leaders over the installation of a boat launch at Point No Point that Kitsap's sports fishing community says it can also support.

A memorandum of understanding between Kitsap County and the state Department of Fish and Wildlife is set to be approved by county commissioners Monday night. The agreement outlines how the two entities will work together to see the site developed once grant funding is found.

The agreement is the first step at resuming an effort to get a boat launch built on the former Point No Point Resort property that the state purchased in 1996.

The next move is for the county and state to draft a maintenance and operation agreement detailing maintenance responsibilities that would cover development on the upland portion of the property.

The memorandum identifies how the site will be developed and includes provisions for the construction of parking areas, a pass-through lane when the entry gate is opened, a turnaround area when the entry gate is closed, restroom facilities, recreational vehicle accommodations, water and electricity, boat-staging areas, fencing, and lighting consistent with the current permit application.

Any changes must be done in cooperation with the state and county.

The most notable sentence of the three-page agreement for sport fishermen is one that says a "new elevated pre-cast concrete deck with a self-service boat ramp consistent with the current permit application" will be built once funding is secured.

"I think the agreement keeps everything open for what our goal is, which is to get an elevated boat launch and keep fishing access up there," said Arvilla Ohlde with the Bremerton Sportsmen's Club.

The size of the boat launch was the primary sticking point for members of the sport fishing community last winter when the county and state prepared a similar agreement. That agreement outlined the state's plans for the site, which at the time called for the construction of a "hand launch."

The hand launch would support boats lifted by hand — rowing shells, kayaks, canoes or dinghies — or smaller motorized boats with aluminum hulls that could be dragged into the water. Larger fiberglass boats and those needing a trailer to access the water were too big for the launch.

Outcry from groups like the Kitsap Poggie Club and Bremerton Sportsmen's Club, as well as some neighbors who wanted an elevated launch, prompted the state and county to back off on the agreement. Instead they promised to work with interested parties to come to a consensus on a new agreement.

Since then, County Commissioner Robert Gelder took over former Commissioner Steve Bauer's task of finding a compromise. Gelder met with members of the Greater Hansville Area Advisory Council in May and has maintained communication with all parties as drafts of the agreement have evolved between the state and county, he said.

Neighbors are concerned about the impact an elevated boat launch will have on the surrounding area, including increasing traffic problems, vandalism and garbage. Gelder heard concerns from Hansville residents at the May meeting, but he hasn't heard complaints about the final draft commissioners will approve Monday, he said.

Kitsap Poggie Club President Norm Reinhardt said his group feels like its concerns were heard. They support the memorandum and will remain involved in the process as the site is developed, he said. Members are willing to volunteer at the site to help keep it clean and to address neighbors' concerns about vandalism and garbage, he said. Those details will be addressed in the maintenance and operation agreement.

"All we're doing is agreeing we're putting a boat launch up there," Reinhardt said of the memorandum. "We still have the hurdle of the permitting process and getting grant money."


Read more: http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2011/aug/2.../#ixzz1ZCrQULDR

Oncy T referenced other cuts that have occurred, not to mention the cuts that flew under the radar two years ago such as the Minter Fall Chinook and a host of off station Steelhead plants such as Goodman Creek, Lyre, and a bunch inside Puget Sound, that we havent seen the effects of yet. This winter will be the last return of three salt steelhead to a bunch of places.

Mark rates in many of the selective Chinook and Coho fisheries are already borderline to prosecute fisheries; if these go through, say bye bye to a bunch of fisheries that we have become accustomed to.

Oh well, glad I have spent the time to learn to diversify, and spend my recreational dollar in Canada. And I wont be selling my bass gear anytime soon.

Thank You!

It never stops amazing that so many on this BB do not know what happens when you remove hatchery fish from the harvest pool. I am not going North though guy. You can live cheaper in Mexico ( East Cape ) or Costa Rica and the weather is WAY better.

That is great news but the devil is in the details.

My limited experience with a local Conditional Use Permitted facility is that each succeeding ownership management team (elected officials) has been further removed from the original agreement and more inclined to unilaterally implement their own ideas for the site. Politicians being politicians they want to appease their local constituents today and not be bound by their predecessors' commitments.

But that is another, ongoing story.

Edit: Remove duplicate post. Sorry.t

You remove the motivation to prosecute fisheries on hatchery fish with obscene exploitation rates that CANNOT be supported by the wild component of the run. They simply get wiped out in the process.... esp when 1/2 the take is allocated to a user group that refuses to fish responsibly with selective gear.

Flooding a treaty river system with hatch fish only incentivizes the treaty nets to assert their right to harvest their "fair" share.... and they have no problem doing so with non-selective gear, even if it means wiping out the wild fish in the process. In my back yard that means wild Hump coho, wild Chehalis chinook, wild late Chehalis (Satsop/Skook) coho, chum, and wild winter steelhead.

Come on Francis, lets get real. That argument could apply to your favorite bay fishery ( and mine mid river ) just as well as the tribal harvest. Curtail the ocean / bay / below the bridge the QIN 50% impacts drops WAY down. In GH and the Hump especially, loose the hatchery production you loose the non tribal harvest right with it. Will be interesting to see what happens on the Chehalis side with the commercials, that will be something to be a spectator at!

Now if you are saying it is a good thing so the Hump wild fish are not harvested as they are then I apologize as giving up harvest for the benefit of the fish is a pretty noble thing. Just I doubt many local folks would have the same view as you do about continuing to give up more.

Little edit: When the harvest picture as a whole is viewed one can not over look the huge impacts of AK and BC. From AK to salmon cross the bar somebody is getting them and now they hit home turf and oops the locals must conserve? The feds & state give away OUR fish to every user group imaginable then it is the LOCALS who must conserve? While I do not agree with many harvest practices myself I recognize the system and how it functions. Bottom line is as the H / W mix changes we will loose sport fisheries. If you have money then you travel or get a boat whatever you will need to do to fish, those who do not have spare change will have very limited harvest opportunities. Salmon fishing of any quality will be for those with money, average Joe is gonna be pickin with the chickin!