Why are we talking about bailing out gillnetters? Did we have this conversation when all the people who bought WA liquor licenses and former state stores lost their life savings because of regulation and competition? Is anyone proposing "saving" beginning teachers when they get laid off due to levy failures? After all, they've invested a lot of money in their education. Where was the help when "Ma and Pa" sporting goods stores, up and down the river, were shuttering their doors because of poor fish returns, constantly changing regulations, and severely curtailed seasons? At one time, so many different types of stores had aisles of fishing tackle, a wall of fishing tackle, or tackle displayed behind the counter; stores like Penney's, PayNSave, Sears, Warshal's, hardware stores, gas stations, grocery stores and even cafes. Surely, some tackle manufacturers, distributors, and bait suppliers suffered significant financial loss when these stores stopped carrying fishing gear. Did you hear of any "rescue" programs for them? After banks and commercial fishermen, where do you draw the bail-out line?

I can guarantee you this...no one was lining up to give me and my business money when pretty much all of Puget Sound closed down to steelhead fishing.

Too bad Blake isn't my uncle...we'd be having a Puget Sound Recreational Fising Industry Welfare Program and I'd be raking it in.

Fish on...

Todd

All I'm trying to do is figure out a way that they would be willing to relinquish their licenses. You guys go ahead though, and try to get your idea passed. Good luck with that. It sure seems light years ahead of anything else.

Larry, that is along the lines of what I was thinking.

There have been situations where permits and boats have been purchased and with the boats being rendered no longer serviceable for fishing. On a documented vessel that is easy to do. Sort of like a deed restriction. Titled vessel might be a bit of a deal to work out with DOL. Boats in those cases are usually able to be used as work boats, with a restriction that they cannot be used in any US fishery in any state.

Work boats could be used as oil boom layers, crew boats, construction, etc., but they cannot be directly used in a fishery, even as a tender.

Permits aren't going for much.
http://www.dockstreetbrokers.com/permits.php

Two Columbia River permits are 6,000-6,500. A GH permit is listed at $8,500.

Not to put too fine a point on it...no one asked me if I'd be willing to relinquish the PS steelhead fisheries when they were deciding what to do, or the good chunk of my income that comes from them. As a matter of fact, they considered my opinion on my own income source to be a bit of a nuisance to them.

What do you think "equitable" is in this situation?

Fish on...

Todd

I would talk to WFC about that Todd.

Andy, what do you think is equitable in regards to Grays Harbor fisheries and this issue?

How much welfare is "equitable"? Is it the amount we are all paying now? A different amount?

How do you feel about Blake's "facts" about the multi-million dollar windfall that is the Puget Sound "unmitigated disaster"?

How about the amount of money and jobs recreational fisheries on Grays Harbor create vs. the net loss of money the commercial fishery there causes?

Where is this equity you are looking for?

Fish on...

Todd

A far as GH is concerned, try buying them out for the value of their boat and permit. It is a lawful fishery and there isn't a conservation issue is trying to be resolved. It is a reallocation of a resource. They have standing. You think you should be able just wipe that aside. You have legal training. What is the legal precedence for compensating someone to give up a permit? Just because you want to doesn't fly.

Eliminating that fishery through a buyback would reduce the amount spent by Wdfw to manage that fishery over time. I'm assuming that would be the welfare you are referring to.

As to the Puget Sound fishery, I don't fish it much, 6 times in the past 4 years. It would seem that as many rivers and streams that there are that empty into it, we should be fishing a lot more in there, but it tends to get closed down right as it is getting good. Why can't we fish Kings all year if it is a booming success? I think there were a number of times a seine fishery opened up the night before the Edmonds coho derby started. That was a bit of a bummer. I'd like to see seines gone as well. Blake has his opinions on things, so ask him if you really are wanting him to detail that for you. We don't agree on everything. I'm pretty sure he would like to see the non treaty gill netters in GH and WB as long as there are fish. I don't. I would love to see the fishery eliminated, gill nets. But any elimination needs to be reasonable.

In the example solution I gave the GH fishery would be eliminated in 5 years. An incremtal process. Management costs would/should decrease over time. Shouldn't they? Get the nets out, please.

Stomping your feet and demanding it didn't work well this year. Do you think it will work next year? Do you think threatening to drag a senator and the actions of his son, because of an event that is already public knowledge, through the mud once again will buy any sympathy towards the plight of the GH and WB sportsfishermen? That was a an absolute low by Luckie Louie. No class whatsoever.

All I am trying to do is have people look at it in a different way Todd. I told you this bill would fail as presented and it did. How do you change the presentation and the result? You are a wicked smart guy. Think. Leave the emotion aside. Let's get rid of the nets.

While I think that there is no good reason to have the GH commercial fisheries at all, the bill would in question was in no way seeking to eliminate them.

And...as long as Brian is head of that committee then this bill will never get a chance to get a vote, much less pass...I think we can all agree on that, while also agreeing that that has no bearing on its merits.

I suspect that Brian's "equitable" includes ignoring basic math and facts about the "unmitigated disaster", and the status quo welfare fishery...at least the status quo.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd -
A little more about that economic windfall from that Puget Sound "unmitigated disaster". The latest years I can find estimates of the total man days of angling effort in Puget Sound marine fisheries are 2010 and 2011.

In 2010 the estimate of angling effort was 307,000 days or at $82/day roughly a 25 million windfall.

In 2011 (a pink year) the marine effort estimate was 424,000 angler days or roughly a 34 million dollar windfall.

Have not found an estimate for the freshwater effort but for those two years 38% of the Chinook, 40% of the coho and 68% of the pinks were harvested by the recreational fishery in freshwater.

I would be comfortable with a conservative estimate that recreational salmon fishing for the marine and freshwater areas of Puget Sound contribute more than 40 million dollars on even years and 55 million dollars during pinks to local economies.

Curt

The welfare is the hartchery Chinook and coho, paid for by Wildlife fund, that they catch and sell.

Now, if they wanted to limit their fishery entirely to wild fish.......

I'm saying your whole approach needs to change. I have no idea what Blake thinks about my idea. I haven't asked him about it. The solution I presented is in no way Blake's to my knowledge. The idea of making this an equitable situation is entirely mine.

Don't the funds for those come from the general fund?

Dogfish,

The probable backlash for the state would likely be a lawsuit similar to the one filed by Lower Columbia River non-treaty gillnetters over the changes to that fishery that shifts a proportion of the catch to the recreational fishery. Please note that the lawsuit failed, totally.

Gillnetters hold a permit, but it is not an entitlement. It wasn’t even property until limited entry effectively made it so, and caused the value of permits to increase. That increase in value was simply an economic windfall to existing gillnet permit holders. By way of analogy, the state could decide that the recreational fishing fleet is becoming too large and make it limited entry, where existing fishing license holders would be allowed to renew their licenses annually, and no further new fishing licenses would be issued. Your and my fishing licenses would similarly become a private property interest that would increase in value because no new ones are being issued. Presumably the new law would similarly allow an existing fishing license holder to sell his license to a newcomer, at whatever the prevailing market value happens to be.

For further comparison, consider the drastically deflated value of Puget Sound gillnet permits. The US – Canada fishing treaty was modified in 1985, and WA fishermen who used to catch 50% of the Fraser River sockeye catch now catch a pittance. And then WDFW sport fishing priority status to PS Chinook and coho harvest. PS gillnet permit holders didn’t get a dime for that transition for the simple reason they weren’t entitled to anything.

A commercial salmon fishing permit is nothing more than a limited franchise granted by the state to individual fishermen for a price for the opportunity to harvest some of the surplus salmon production as determined by the state. The permit holder owns no right whatsoever. They own the opportunity to harvest whatever the state determines is available for them to harvest, with consideration for all other potential allocation uses of those fish, including treaty right harvest, recreational harvest, and the inevitable surplus of hatchery production that will “waste” itself on the hatchery racks because of the conservation need to protect the escapement of wild salmon that cannot withstand the same high harvest rates that the hatchery fish can.

So no, it’s not quite the same as an eminent domain issue, although I understand why you might see some similarities. No, these fishermen are not the same as a mega bank, but they are owners of small businesses that are vulnerable to changes in both the social and economic climate. They really need to understand and come to appreciate that the GH non-treaty gillnet fishery is about as relevant to the regional economy as a buggy whip manufacturer. So yes, to some degree they need to suck it up and face the reality of the 21st century. The fish they don’t catch will be caught in part by an expanded recreational fishery. And the remainder would be harvested by the treaty fishery. The net change to the commercial fish brokers and marketplace would be negligible. Another critical part of the legislation that was proposed is that it didn’t intend to eliminate NT gillnetting anywhere. The purpose was simply to give priority to recreational fisheries. In many cases the recreational fleet would not be capable to harvesting all the surplus production. So the fish that the rec fleet could not harvest would still be available to be allocated to NT gillnet fishing if that were a good fit for overall fish management objectives. So we’re really not talking about an action that meets the level of irresponsible, cold, callus, and cruel.

Phasing out some of the NT fleet through buyouts that accompany reductions in allocations is reasonable. When the bill is filed again in the future, that might be part of it, including having the gillnetters themselves funding the effort through reasonable increases in landing taxes. That would lessen the welfare aspect of commercial salmon fishing and be good all the way around.

I agree with you that the approach needs to change, if for no other reason than Blake. I get the whole carrot instead of stick idea, even if the responsible parties don’t deserve a carrot. That’s politics.

What we’re seeing is that the WDFW Commission sees the writing on the wall, even if the Department overall does not. Every decrease in general fund going to WDFW increases the proportional burden on the non-commercial fishing sector. If WDFW wants to stay in business for the long haul, they need to deliver their services to the people that are providing the revenue. And increasingly it becomes more and more apparent that the NT commercial salmon fishery is simply sucking the public welfare teat and not contributing anywhere nearly proportional to the costs of their “vocation.” I thought you were kinda’ anti-welfare. Commercial fishing that formerly was a form of natural resource extraction has become dependent on hatchery salmon for its existence, hence the welfare appellation.

Sg

Good comments SG.

I understand that changes in regulation have an effect on business. I've forclosed on a few homes and businesses because of such changes. Similarly, the industry these people were involved in were in competition with Tribal businesses. I bank a few Tribes as well. These folks had active and going concerns one day, and through no fault of their own they were ruined. I don't wish that on anyone.

There is a human toll in changes in regulation and I have seen it first hand.

This is probably a fairly good assessment of the situation. Sometimes one just has to hold his/her nose a bit and do what it takes within reason to achieve the goal. I might add that WDFW should look at their financial position given that they are losing money the way this fishery is currently operated.

I will repeat that I have a problem paying recent market value for licenses even if they have dropped in value.

But if that commercial fishery could be closed out over a 5 year period for $250K total I would support it just to get it over and done with.

That kind of big picture thinking is exactly what Salmo is talking about. And as you pointed out, there are other fisheries for them to participate in.
Times are changing and if they can't see that, and adapt, they will become victims of it.