SENATE BILL 5739

Protecting salmon and steelhead spawning beds.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2015&bill=5739

A similar bill to others unsuccessful over the last couple of years.

Good idea in parts, but a bit vague on implementation. Buffer zones or the whole river? How big of a buffer zone are we talking? Fish spawn in the oddest areas at times, not just in big slow flats. Assuming some fish begin spawning in September and proceed all the way through April , that means no activities from September through July.

No wading? What about fording a river when you want to get to another area to fish?

Oops, here come some innertubers in June/July, hot day, ticket fest.

Dragging anchors? Chain style anchors like some on the Yakima I've seen, or any anchor? Oops, flow is high and the scope on my anchor was incorrect so my anchor was drug 2 feet before it stopped while I landed a fish.

High powered jet motors? Are we looking at HP limitations?

If it was more selected in scope, sure. As written, I don't support it because it has been left open to interpretation.

Actually, in some watersheds you'll have salmonid spawning in all 12 months of the year. July may be the only month where I have not seen it myself.

I'm sure you are correct. I estimated 2-3 months incubation periods which is where I tagged on that additional time.

I'm a banker, not a fisheries biologist.

I worked on describing spawning/incubation times for the salmonids in WA. It does cover the whole 12 months, somewhere. Certainly a major system like the Skagit will cover all 12 but even a little creek with coho, chum, and steelhead could easliy cover September to sometime in July.

CM is correct, on the Skagit/Sauk the steelhead and salmon spawning period covers the entire 12 month period. On the same bar on the Sauk I have seen steelhead spawning as late as the last week of July and the first of the spring Chinook the same week.

This bill is a continuation of an anti recreation fishing bill that has came up every session for a number of years.

curt

There isn't anything that I would consider a major salmon bearing stream in her district, Senator Chase.

Think it might be blowback from the recreational mining community who are kept of of streams during spawning and incubation? Or some other group that does not see why fishing should be a highr form of fish-killing than their pet recreation.

Could be commie retribution for net ban attempts and continual assaults on their right to catch the last fish. Bill would be as thick as The New Testament if it listed all activities that could threaten redds. Throwing sticks in the river for your retriever... Good for your dog; bad for dog salmon.

Push for a bill like this started after I-696 Ban All Nets. Maybe if the state had banned nets two decades ago, we would be walking across the river on salmon, instead of stepping on a few of their eggs. OK, that was a stretch, but I have a dream, too.

Probably need to look up a list of Senator Chase's contributors to figure out who "encouraged" her to drop this turd bill on the 2015 legislature. Likely find a strange coalition including "Citizens for Canned Salmon".

There is also a push by recreationals to fish rivers, transferring some catch from the salt to fresh. Could be the marine sporties, too.

Completely protect the salmon in the streams, kill 'em in the salt.

I'm not sure on this bill so will research it more. I'll be contacting my District's Legislators on this and also tell them I support SB5551, (Pearson is my district's Senator)

My read on this bill is very narrowly written that really will effect a limited group of potential users (fishers, boaters and swimmers).

Sebastes - is see that you live in Monroe. I am reasonably familiar with Skykomish and the steelhead and salmon that use that basin. Based on my read of the original bill and that familiarity of the Skykomish fish resources I would expect if SB 5739 were to pass the fishing season on the Skykomish might look something like the following.

June first to the end of January -
Bank fishing only (no wading) except wading allowed in August.
Fishing from a floating device allowed only from June 16 to end of August (prohibited the rest of the season) with no motors or anchoring allowed from June 16 to the end of July.

Now that might be reasonable regulation if it were indeed make a significant difference in the survival of the wild steelhead and salmon of the basin leading to the de-listing of the ESA species. I doubt that the potential benefits from those more "conservative" regulations are measurable. I can provide you a long list of potential actions that would surely provided more benefits than SB 5739 for the fish. Of course those actions would affect a much broader range of society.

Curt

I haven't waded (sorry) through the entire bill but the Digest seems on one hand to be very broadly written in terms of preventing any harm or disturbance to spawning beds but on the other hand it specifically instructs the WDFW to implement the regs. That raises a question as to whether WDFW has the authority to implement regulations that are or may not be directly related to hunting and fishing activities. Note that at least the Digest does not limit the harm and disturbance to periods when spawning/incubation are occurring.

So, does this bill as proposed broaden the authority of WDFW or simply direct WDFW to implement regs that only restrict hunters/fishers?


"SB 5739 - DIGEST
Requires the department of fish and wildlife to prohibit
activities that harm or disturb spawning beds of salmon and
steelhead and other fish on all rivers and streams where
spawning activities occur.

They probably have the right from two places. Certainly regulate time, place, and manner for fishing and hunting. Protecting the in-stream habitat would [probably fall under the HPA authority.

They would need to file those regs under both RCWs, because if they put it only under sport fishing then they can only regulate anglers. Note that their eregs ban fishing from a floating device, or fishing from a motorized floating device, and so on. You can run your speedboat however you want on that body of water if you are not fishing.

That is why speed limits, hours of motorized operation, etc. are often set by the local city or county.

This is an anti-sportfishing bill, clear and simple. It's been tried before and rather easily defeated, but that doesn't mean it will be that simple again.

Senator Chase is from up in the Shoreline area (Dist. 32), and that's where a ton of the commercial fishers who used to live in Ballard live now.

It's a short trip to "follow the money" on this one.

They don't give twoshits about anyone walking on redds or any such nonsense...they don't want anyone other than "their" fishermen catching "their" fish.

Fish on...

Todd

Still waiting for answers from questions I asked Sen. Chase aide, which probably are not coming after this much time has elapsed.

If interested, there is a comment tab on the link below where a written message that you write will be distributed to all members of the Legislature. It doesn't take any longer than posting something on here.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2015&bill=5739

Time is of the essence because Feb. 5 is scheduled for public hearing in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources & Parks at 1:30 PM

SB 5739 - DIGEST
Requires the department of fish and wildlife to prohibit
activities that harm or disturb spawning beds of salmon and
steelhead and other fish on all rivers and streams where
spawning activities occur.


The "other fish" would be interesting. Suckers, squawfish, bullheads, catfish, sculpins?

The HPA RCW requires protection of "fish life". See no reason to change that.

First post from a new guy..

I would 100% agree with Todd (above), this is an "anti-everything" type of
bill, and yet another attempt by those who seem to believe the rivers are their sole property.

And it's not just fishing they want stopped..it's pretty much any activity
that utilizes the water resource.

Carcassman: You are correct, they are after the small scale prospectors
and miners. Regardless of how the state wants to phrase it, all prospectors
and miners are working for a profit...there is no such thing as
"recreational" prospecting. I might have a good time while out
panning or sluicing in a creek, but believe me, no one does that kind
of hard work just for fun. The 1872 Mining Act protects the rights of
prospectors, but they (same ones proffering this type of bill) are
making every effort to take those rights, as well.

They've got laws so tightened up down in Calif. that on some
creeks/rivers you can't even allow your 5 year old to play on the
beach with a bucket and plastic shovel..the bucket is OK, just not
the little plastic shovel.

There's even a site called "Fish, not gold", and it is chock full of BS
about small scale dredging and using sluices to capture gold. These
folks don't care if they lie...so long as they get what they want.

Our adversaries in all this are not conservationists in any sense...they
are dedicated preservationists, and they won't stop until every
bit of public land is locked up and people are locked out.