Check

 

Defiance Boats!

LURECHARGE!

THE PP OUTDOOR FORUMS

Kast Gear!

Power Pro Shimano Reels G Loomis Rods

  Willie boats! Puffballs!

 

Three Rivers Marine

 

 
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#923301 - 02/19/15 10:32 PM CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660
bushbear Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 08/26/02
Posts: 4709
Loc: Sequim
CCA, PSA, NSIA, and FishNW combined on a joint letter to the Senate Natural Resource and Parks Committee with copies to the House Bill 1660 sponsors yesterday, Feb. 18, before the hearing. The letter is lengthy. With the logos, graphs, and tables, it is too hard to cut and paste into a text field.

The letter has been set up in a Dropbox file for folks to read. I would strongly encourage you to take a look at it.



https://www.dropbox.com/s/e2u8fa023b016fp/SB5844%20Joint%20Letter_FINAL.pdf?dl=0

February 18, 2015

Senate Natural Resources & Parks Committee Members
435 J.A.Cherberg Building
Olympia, WA 98504

Chairman Pearson and Senators Dansel, Hatfield, Chase, Hewitt, McAuliffe, and Warnick:

We write in advance of the Committee’s hearing on SB 5844, legislation to recognize and prioritize the economic, social, conservation, and state revenue benefits of recreational fishing
in Washington State. For far too long our state’s policies have ignored the economic and agency revenue implications of how our fisheries are managed. The result has been seasonsetting
and resource allocation decisions that often stifle the economic, social, and revenue benefits of these fisheries to our state. SB 5844 represents a significant step forward at a time when WDFW and the Legislature are poised to ask even more of recreational anglers in the
form of increased license fees.

Top
#923304 - 02/20/15 01:30 AM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Lucky Louie Offline
Carcass

Registered: 11/30/09
Posts: 2286
The graph on the WDFW budget sources tells the story. Fish license fees produces the most revenue for the department. Of the 9 budget resources for the department, the commercial sector is dead last in funding but still expects priority fishing in most of the state for chinook and coho.
_________________________
The world will not be destroyed by those that are evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.- Albert Einstein

No you can’t have my rights---I’m still using them





Top
#923309 - 02/20/15 07:31 AM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
CedarR Offline
Repeat Spawner

Registered: 08/04/99
Posts: 1463
Loc: Olympia, WA
The letter is well written, and the facts are persuasive. If fairness and facts played a bigger role in decision making in Olympia, these bills would sweep through both chambers. Great to see our angler groups working together!

Top
#923312 - 02/20/15 08:10 AM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
bushbear Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 08/26/02
Posts: 4709
Loc: Sequim


You can track SB 5844 and HB 1660 in the link below.

You can also send comments on the bills by checking the comment box. It is an easy way to let your legislators know how you feel about the bills.



http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5844&year=2015

If there are any other bills you are tracking you can call them up, see the progress or lack thereof, and make comments.

Top
#923502 - 02/22/15 10:10 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Dogfish Offline
Poodle Smolt

Registered: 05/03/01
Posts: 10979
Loc: McCleary, WA
So is this letter asking for additional fee increases? Sounds like the Discover Pass debacle all over again.

Me and every hunter who accesses state land now pays more for the same land we had access to before. The downside is WEYCO, Green Diamond and the like have increased their fees forcing people off of their lands and increasing the pressure on the state lands I and many other people hunt.

Add to this the WFC lawsuit that shut down steelhead hatchery production on Puget Sound rivers, funneling more pressure on the rivers I fish in the county I live in. Will the decreased hathery production also apply to salmon and therefore have an effect on the Puget Sound salmon fisheries? I haven't looked into the lawsuit details, so that would be great if someone could clarify that for me. Thanks in advance for that.

Not a really big fan of paying more for access to what I have access to today. The promise of more opportunity rings hollow when no effort is made to decrease the number of fish caught in AK and Canada that are on their way to Washington.

Are we paying Canada money to lay off these fisheries? If so, what has been the net effect of that?

Sorry, but as a dad who has seen license fees for me and my boys go from $600/year to over a $1,000/year I am extremely skeptical.
_________________________
"Give me the anger, fish! Give me the anger!"

They call me POODLE SMOLT!

The Discover Pass is brought to you by your friends at the CCA.

Top
#923506 - 02/23/15 04:42 AM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: Dogfish]
Rivrguy Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4394
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
DF not sure what you are carrying on about fee increases as neither of the bills are about that and you are well aware of it. The position that is developing from the conversation is that if the agency wants a fee increase Recs are saying the funds must go to REC programs not spent on supporting Commercial programs. In fact many are now saying that ALL Rec fees go for Rec programs ( includes our current fees) and Commercials pay there own way or no increase. 5844 & 1660 are simply Rec priority bills and with the Commission's new budget policy stating that Rec fees go for Rec programs funding is brought into the conversation.
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in

Top
#923510 - 02/23/15 06:56 AM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Dogfish Offline
Poodle Smolt

Registered: 05/03/01
Posts: 10979
Loc: McCleary, WA
Just looking at the letter and the message it appears to be sending.

"SB 5844 represents a significant step forward at a time when WDFW and the Legislature are poised to ask even more of recreational anglers in the form of increased license fees."

"The recreational fishing community’s potential support for any additional license fee increases is contingent on policy reforms that recognize and prioritize these benefits."

The intent of these two sentences appear to tell the legislature to go ahead with fee increases and and that there will be possible support for them if these bills pass.

I didn't write the letter and I'm not talking about the short game here, with these two bills. I'm talking about the long game, what is next and what may happen down the road. All through the body of the letter it discusses fees, the collection of them, and apparently support for future increases.
_________________________
"Give me the anger, fish! Give me the anger!"

They call me POODLE SMOLT!

The Discover Pass is brought to you by your friends at the CCA.

Top
#923515 - 02/23/15 09:08 AM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
CedarR Offline
Repeat Spawner

Registered: 08/04/99
Posts: 1463
Loc: Olympia, WA
Below are the cut-off dates for action on bills in the legislature. One was met when SB5844 was heard in the Senate Natural Resources and Parks Committee. I'm guessing HB 1660 missed the deadline for a hearing in the House, but Representatives could still get a look at this legislation if the Senate sent it back to the House for action. What's next? Where can individual effort best be applied to keep SB 5844/HB 1660 moving? Probably be a big mistake for sportsmen to go silent on this legislation now.

February 20, 2015 Last day to read in committee reports in house of origin, except House fiscal committees and Senate Ways & Means and Transportation committees.

February 27, 2015 Last day to read in committee reports from House fiscal committees and Senate Ways & Means and Transportation committees in house of origin.

March 11, 2015 Last day to consider bills in house of origin (5 p.m.).

April 1, 2015 Last day to read in committee reports from opposite house, except House fiscal committees and Senate Ways & Means and Transportation committees.

April 7, 2015 Last day to read in opposite house committee reports from House fiscal committees and Senate Ways & Means and Transportation committees.

April 15, 2015* Last day to consider opposite house bills (5 p.m.) (except initiatives and alternatives to initiatives, budgets and matters necessary to implement budgets, differences between the houses, and matters incident to the interim and closing of the session).

April 26, 2015 Last day allowed for regular session under state constitution.

Top
#923516 - 02/23/15 09:39 AM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
GodLovesUgly Offline
Repeat Spawner

Registered: 04/20/09
Posts: 1269
Loc: WaRshington
DF, we all know the fee increases are inevitable, I think the message is that we SUPPORT paying more if given MORE opportunity.

If they extend my season 2 months and double my quota, I would gladly give the department an extra 5$ a year on my license.


Here is the carrot:

Conservation
Non-tribal commercial salmon fisheries are almost entirely non-selective, meaning they are unable to selectively harvest returning hatchery salmon while releasing the wild salmon unharmed. Recreational fisheries are capable of mark-selective harvest, which represents a key tool in wild salmon recovery and hatchery reform efforts. With over a dozen stocks of Washington salmon and steelhead listed under the federal Endangered Species Act it is time to prioritize selective fishing practices
_________________________
When I grow up I want to be,
One of the harvesters of the sea.
I think before my days are done,
I want to be a fisherman.

Top
#923518 - 02/23/15 09:43 AM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: Dogfish]
slabhunter Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 01/17/04
Posts: 3742
Loc: Sheltona Beach
Originally Posted By: Dogfish
Just looking at the letter and the message it appears to be sending.

"SB 5844 represents a significant step forward at a time when WDFW and the Legislature are poised to ask even more of recreational anglers in the form of increased license fees."

"The recreational fishing community’s potential support for any additional license fee increases is contingent on policy reforms that recognize and prioritize these benefits."

The intent of these two sentences appear to tell the legislature to go ahead with fee increases and and that there will be possible support for them if these bills pass.

I didn't write the letter and I'm not talking about the short game here, with these two bills. I'm talking about the long game, what is next and what may happen down the road. All through the body of the letter it discusses fees, the collection of them, and apparently support for future increases.


I see things in a different light. This is at issue with the PFMC and the Canada/US treaty. Time to allow more salmon to return to home waters.

A high tide raises all local boats. whistle
_________________________
When we are forgotten, we cease to exist .
Share your outdoor skills.

Top
#923523 - 02/23/15 11:10 AM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: CedarR]
CedarR Offline
Repeat Spawner

Registered: 08/04/99
Posts: 1463
Loc: Olympia, WA
Originally Posted By: CedarR
What's next? Where can individual effort best be applied to keep SB 5844/HB 1660 moving?


Just received an email from Senator Ann Rivers stating that SB 5844 did not make it out of the Senate Committee on Friday and it will not be moving forward this session.

Representative Pike sent a very positive email with plans to keep working for this legislation, or the intent of it. Might be a year away, but she seems very motivated.


Edited by CedarR (02/23/15 12:02 PM)
Edit Reason: new email

Top
#923543 - 02/23/15 01:38 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
DrifterWA Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 04/25/00
Posts: 5074
Loc: East of Aberdeen, West of Mont...
Where can a person find "who held SB5844 up, so it didn't make it out of committee".....is this a voted on process ????? Can we find out how any voting on any bill, by Senators or Rep., pro/con....if this available????
_________________________
"Worse day sport fishing, still better than the best day working"

"I thought growing older, would take longer"

Top
#923544 - 02/23/15 02:04 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Dogfish Offline
Poodle Smolt

Registered: 05/03/01
Posts: 10979
Loc: McCleary, WA
Ranker also pulled his support just before the hearing. Anybody know why?

Past performance is not a guarantee of future performance, but it does give you insight as to how it works and how they think. License fees have gone up and access has decreased, historically.

What additional opportunity do we hope to gain by supporting higher fees? What is the next game plan if a bill like this was to pass next year? What is the next opportunity to charge us more for than what we currently pay to do today? What guarantee do we have that additional fee revenue would be used as stated? Aren't there funds related to the Wynooche dam that have just been sitting in limbo?
_________________________
"Give me the anger, fish! Give me the anger!"

They call me POODLE SMOLT!

The Discover Pass is brought to you by your friends at the CCA.

Top
#923546 - 02/23/15 02:49 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: DrifterWA]
rojoband Offline
Returning Adult

Registered: 05/31/08
Posts: 264
Originally Posted By: DrifterWA
Where can a person find "who held SB5844 up, so it didn't make it out of committee".....is this a voted on process ????? Can we find out how any voting on any bill, by Senators or Rep., pro/con....if this available????



Ahh, this is unfortunately not straight forward. Hold of bills in committee can be due to several scenarios, all political. The chair sets the agenda for what gets executively voted on, but they will likely poll the committee, at least those in their own party, before bringing/adding any bill to the executive agenda to know what might happen. So the chair holds quite a bit of power and bills up during any session, but can't always be solely blamed. This type of discussion happens in caucus (which is out of the public's view), and quite often (obviously) votes are horse traded for "if I support this then you support a bill I bring" types of deals. Furthermore the majority party head honchos, (i.e., Senate party leader, floor Chair, etc.) sometimes influence bills in certain committees, as they have the authority to remove/assign who chairs which committees. Essentially all this provides for a vast variety of influence pedaling....meaning you have to be pretty constant, and vigilant to get ANYTHING through to process. Essentially folks set this up to make it pretty hard to change laws...which it is. What I'm saying is it will be hard to pinpoint why or who is directly at fault for not moving it out of committee exactly. All you can tell is that it didn't have enough support to do so, otherwise it would have.

Top
#923556 - 02/23/15 07:31 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: rojoband]
N W Panhandler Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 01/05/07
Posts: 1560
Loc: Bremerton, Wa.
The dept fish and wildlife has said they are after 3 million dollars more in this budget through increased fee's. So the fee's are going up if they can help it........
_________________________
A little common sense is good, more is better.
Kitsap Chapter CCA


Top
#923566 - 02/23/15 08:10 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: N W Panhandler]
Larry B Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3020
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
Originally Posted By: N W Panhandler
The dept fish and wildlife has said they are after 3 million dollars more in this budget through increased fee's. So the fee's are going up if they can help it........


Hmmm......just thinking. If Puget Sound NT commercial crabbers had to pay WDFW the same amount per crab harvested that the P.S. recreational crabbers pay (fees divided by number of crab harvested) they'd have that new $3MM. Not gonna happen but that is a prime example of the disparity folks are unhappy about.
_________________________
Remember to immediately record your catch or you may become the catch!

It's the person who has done nothing who is sure nothing can be done. (Ewing)

Top
#923567 - 02/23/15 08:13 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Dogfish Offline
Poodle Smolt

Registered: 05/03/01
Posts: 10979
Loc: McCleary, WA
How about an increase in renewals of commercial fishing licenses?
_________________________
"Give me the anger, fish! Give me the anger!"

They call me POODLE SMOLT!

The Discover Pass is brought to you by your friends at the CCA.

Top
#923586 - 02/24/15 05:31 AM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: Dogfish]
Rivrguy Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4394
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
Some thoughts on the bills from someone familiar with the process.



The "ding bat woman" is the sponsor of the bill you mention to put more commercials on the Commission. Chase from Shoreline has close ties to commercial fishing, I think from family background.

There's 7 on committee which takes 4 votes to pass out. Prime sponser is the Chair who is an R. He had 3 other R's to get the 4 plus possibly 2 other Ds. Didn't move the bill out by committee cutoff on Friday so its dead for this session. Same with Chase's bill to stack deck at the Commission. Both are dead for the session.

Leaves the question of the fee increases. HB 1563 by Blake raises taxes & fees on commercials. That was transferred out of his committee over to appropriations. It's still alive but the others didn't move. Course, anything can be added back in during passage of the final budget.
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in

Top
#923588 - 02/24/15 07:20 AM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Why would one expect that higher fees have to result in more access or more fish or more game? Costs increase. Just to produce fish in the hatchery will cost more. Currently, the WDFW lands are not well maintained. How "nice" are the sanitary facilities and trash cans at the launches.

Not to disagree or denigrate the idea that WDFW needs to improve the state of hunting and fishing and access, but they are simply underfunded-and maybe poorly led- currently.

Top
#923590 - 02/24/15 08:41 AM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: Carcassman]
Rivrguy Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4394
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
The Rec fee increase did not make it but still has life in budget process. Commission budget policy is C&P below.


Commission Budget Policy 2015-17
(Draft revised 09/1/2014)
Reduction in General Funds and Increase in License Fees

The Department’s share of General Funds - State (GF-S) has declined dramatically over the past five years, decreasing from $110 million in 2008 to $61 million in 2014. Once again this year, the Department was directed to prepare and submit a budget with additional GF-S reductions of 15%, or roughly $11 million. The cuts presented in that submission are distributed over the activities that are largely supported with GF-S: enforcement, habitat protection, native fish recovery, and fish management activities associated with commercial fisheries.

Over this same period, the share of Department costs supported with sport fishing license revenues has grown. License fees were increased three years ago and now represent the largest single portion of funding. The Department now faces increased costs of maintaining existing services. In addition, we see the potential of additional cuts in future biennia to allow the state to meet its K-12 educational obligations under the McCleary decision. The Department also faces the prospects of additional reductions in federal funding that support hatchery production and critical fishery sampling and monitoring activities. If it is to maintain and expand opportunity for recreational fishing, the Department must pursue additional fee increases.

Approach for Sport Fishing License Fee Increases
The Commission recognizes the benefits of sport fishing across the state in generating funding for agency activities well beyond fishery management cost. Deposited in the Wildlife Account, user fees support such things as native fish recovery, fish production, and a variety of costs associated with management of the fisheries. It is the policy of the Department to ensure that recreational license fees are used for the benefit of the sport fishery. To be successful, the Department is committed to working closely with the sport fishing community to define the new fee structure and to identify specifically the use of the new revenue created from the new fees. The Commission recognizes that increased fees can be counterproductive. Increased fees can lead to declines in sales. To counteract that response, the Department must develop specific proposals that result in increased sport fishing opportunity.

The Commission believes that it would be beneficial to look for ways to make practical commitments to expand sport fishing opportunities at the same time that it pursues a course during this Legislative Session that avoids the need for additional license increases in the next two biennia.

Cost Benefit Analysis and Budget Decisions: Salmon Fishery Activities
The Director will provide a report to the Commission that includes all the available information relative to the costs of providing and managing sport and commercial fisheries including enforcement, monitoring, and hatchery production costs. The Director will include in his report a breakdown of the revenue sources that support the activities (GFS, federal, local, DJ). Within existing resources, the Director will also report to the Commission the Department’s best estimates of the economic benefits and license revenues that are derived by the state from each major salmon fishery, e.g. Puget Sound, Willapa Bay, and the Columbia River.

It is the policy of the Department that consideration be given to the comparable economic and agency revenue benefits of respective fisheries as various cuts, fee increases, and policy changes are proposed and discussed by budget decision-makers.
Promote Selective Fisheries

The Commission adopted policies that support hatchery and harvest reform and realigned management in a number of specific fisheries to promote more selective harvest practices. The Director will ensure that the Department’s biennial budget submission includes elements that significantly advance selective fisheries and hatchery reform measures.

Equitable Sharing of the Costs of Management
In light of continued reduction of GF-S, the Commission directs the Department to seek means to recoup the costs of hatchery production and management of commercial fisheries from the participants in the commercial fisheries or reduce agency activities in support of these fisheries.


The cost of managing and maintaining commercial fisheries has long been funded with general fund revenue. Commercial licenses provide very limited revenues to offset management costs -- roughly 4% of the costs of these fisheries. Unlike sport fishing license revenue, funds from the sale of commercial salmon licenses largely go directly to the state treasury. The sizable reduction in general fund revenue that the Department has experienced over the last two biennia has left it without the financial means to continue providing the existing commercial fisheries the hatchery fish that sustain them. The Director will include in his legislative requests submission a proposal that is designed to raise new revenues from commercial license holders that will help offset the costs of providing commercial salmon fishing opportunities.
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in

Top
#923592 - 02/24/15 08:55 AM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
DrifterWA Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 04/25/00
Posts: 5074
Loc: East of Aberdeen, West of Mont...
WDFW needs money?????? mmmmmmm, how about selling off some of their "small parcels of land"??????

Its hard to get a printout of WDFW lands but I'm aware of one small piece that the land owner adjacent to said land, wants to buy.....hes been told no, for more than 20 years.

Instead of increase fees.....how about decreasing WDFW personnel thus costs?????

The following is a example of personnel increases/decreases since 1995:

1995------1592
1997------1655
1999------1505
2001------1717
2003------1626
2005------1670
2007------1601
2009------1628
2011------2072

I know the easy answer is "raise fees" to cover short falls in the money needs.......As I see into the future, and State needs for funding of the "McCleary case" Education reform and the "culvert case" filed and won by the tribes, it will be necessary to change the way State funded agencies do business. Hint, relative to WDFW......shouldn't creative new positives that weren't there in past.
_________________________
"Worse day sport fishing, still better than the best day working"

"I thought growing older, would take longer"

Top
#923593 - 02/24/15 08:58 AM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: Carcassman]
Dogfish Offline
Poodle Smolt

Registered: 05/03/01
Posts: 10979
Loc: McCleary, WA
Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Why would one expect that higher fees have to result in more access or more fish or more game?



Isn't that what the gist of the open letter is directed towards? These organizations would support higher fees if there was a priority towards recreational fishing? By priority I mean additional opportunity.
_________________________
"Give me the anger, fish! Give me the anger!"

They call me POODLE SMOLT!

The Discover Pass is brought to you by your friends at the CCA.

Top
#923596 - 02/24/15 09:34 AM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: DrifterWA]
bushbear Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 08/26/02
Posts: 4709
Loc: Sequim
There would have to be a pretty good reason to try to sell property. Personally, I think the state needs to keep its property. Additionally, a lot of state land purchases are tied back to federal funding - Pittman-Robertson, Dingall-Johnson, or Wallup-Breaux. The state can be penalized or have to pay back those dollars if they dispose of or transfer said properties.

As far as the employee growth, it would appear that the growth has been in every program except law enforcement. In 1994, there were 165 commissioned officers. In 2014, the number has dropped to 123. The state population has grown by 2.1 million in the past 20 years. In 1994, there was 1 officer per 29497 residents. In 2014, it is 1 per 56788. Currently, there is 1 officer per 12393 licenses. I suspect the ratio of other LE agencies officers to population or licenses is probably much lower.

Top
#923602 - 02/24/15 01:44 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: Dogfish]
BossMan Offline
Returning Adult

Registered: 09/20/01
Posts: 383
Loc: Seattle
Originally Posted By: Dogfish
Just looking at the letter and the message it appears to be sending.

"SB 5844 represents a significant step forward at a time when WDFW and the Legislature are poised to ask even more of recreational anglers in the form of increased license fees."

"The recreational fishing community’s potential support for any additional license fee increases is contingent on policy reforms that recognize and prioritize these benefits


I guess I look at those two quotes as saying don't even think of raising rec fees unless those fees directly and only benefit rec users.

Not go ahead and raise rec fees

Top
#923659 - 02/25/15 10:31 AM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Dogfish Offline
Poodle Smolt

Registered: 05/03/01
Posts: 10979
Loc: McCleary, WA
_________________________
"Give me the anger, fish! Give me the anger!"

They call me POODLE SMOLT!

The Discover Pass is brought to you by your friends at the CCA.

Top
#923663 - 02/25/15 12:21 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Lucky Louie Offline
Carcass

Registered: 11/30/09
Posts: 2286
By looking at the bipartisan support by the many sponsors of each bill in their perspective chamber, combined with over 65% that supported SB 5844 at the senate committee public hearing, shows the enthusiasm that has stirred through the state legislative process in Olympia this session.
_________________________
The world will not be destroyed by those that are evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.- Albert Einstein

No you can’t have my rights---I’m still using them





Top
#923665 - 02/25/15 12:56 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Dogfish Offline
Poodle Smolt

Registered: 05/03/01
Posts: 10979
Loc: McCleary, WA
On some of the bills we have run, they were tweaked between sessions to garner more support. Have you approached Blake to see what would be palatable to him so that he might support a run next year? Worth a try. What is the worst he'll say?

I've also seen the same bill trotted out time and again, with the sponsoring legislator oblivious to that bill's chance of passing, similar to how Don Quixote tilted at windmills.

Best of luck next year.
_________________________
"Give me the anger, fish! Give me the anger!"

They call me POODLE SMOLT!

The Discover Pass is brought to you by your friends at the CCA.

Top
#923671 - 02/25/15 01:33 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: Dogfish]
slabhunter Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 01/17/04
Posts: 3742
Loc: Sheltona Beach
Originally Posted By: Dogfish
On some of the bills we have run, they were tweaked between sessions to garner more support. Have you approached Blake to see what would be palatable to him so that he might support a run next year? Worth a try. What is the worst he'll say?

I've also seen the same bill trotted out time and again, with the sponsoring legislator oblivious to that bill's chance of passing, similar to how Don Quixote tilted at windmills.

Best of luck next year.


Was this his "Axe Max" moment? The message for harvest reform will build from here. :-)
_________________________
When we are forgotten, we cease to exist .
Share your outdoor skills.

Top
#923678 - 02/25/15 03:04 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: Dogfish]
Lucky Louie Offline
Carcass

Registered: 11/30/09
Posts: 2286
Originally Posted By: Dogfish
On some of the bills we have run, they were tweaked between sessions to garner more support. Have you approached Blake to see what would be palatable to him so that he might support a run next year? Worth a try. What is the worst he'll say?

I've also seen the same bill trotted out time and again, with the sponsoring legislator oblivious to that bill's chance of passing, similar to how Don Quixote tilted at windmills.

Best of luck next year.


Common knowledge would dictate that bills submitted are tweaked. If I would contact Blake, it would be purely curiosity based on my part, because I’m sure that those organizations supporting this bill would be light years ahead of your suggestion.
_________________________
The world will not be destroyed by those that are evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.- Albert Einstein

No you can’t have my rights---I’m still using them





Top
#923680 - 02/25/15 03:38 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Dogfish Offline
Poodle Smolt

Registered: 05/03/01
Posts: 10979
Loc: McCleary, WA
How well did it work out this year?
_________________________
"Give me the anger, fish! Give me the anger!"

They call me POODLE SMOLT!

The Discover Pass is brought to you by your friends at the CCA.

Top
#923683 - 02/25/15 04:09 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: Dogfish]
Rivrguy Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4394
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
Quote:
How well did it work out this year?


About as well as a issue does first time out without prep. This approach is usually used to see how much support ( and opposition ) is really present. It also starts the process of flushing out folks who say they support something ( like harvest reform ) but in reality work to disrupt its chances of success. I am sure you know how the flushing folks out bit works DF as it is going on still, in this thread.

Next time it will do better. I have been involved in two major pushes got one & lost one. The winner took three tries because the second time out the Governor line itemed the funding mechanism out so it was reboot time. We had Senator Owen leading the charge and he was the committee chair and went to the wall. In fact we were on the ropes about to die in Rules when then Senator Paul Conner used his last "pull" to get us out of committee.

You need legislators with vision and determination leading the charge which will come about in the future.


Edited by Rivrguy (02/25/15 04:18 PM)
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in

Top
#923684 - 02/25/15 04:12 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: Lucky Louie]
CedarR Offline
Repeat Spawner

Registered: 08/04/99
Posts: 1463
Loc: Olympia, WA
Found it interesting that four of the folks that screwed up SB 5844/ HB 1660 chances of passing were Democrats: Chance, Hatfield, Ranker and Blake. That's not something I'd forget come election time if they were my district legislators. In the meantime, they'd get the chance to answer some pointed questions at their coffee clatches or town meetings.

As far as the bills being "poorly written"; there's always naysayers out there who will slap that criticism on ANY legislation or initiative that they oppose. Frankly, the whole bunch of naysayers on SB 5844/HB 1660 reminds me of the "Knights who say, NI!".




Top
#923685 - 02/25/15 04:24 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
"Poorly written" is often a euphemism for "Doesn't say what I like".

Fish on...

Todd
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#923686 - 02/25/15 04:38 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: Dogfish]
Lucky Louie Offline
Carcass

Registered: 11/30/09
Posts: 2286
Originally Posted By: Dogfish
How well did it work out this year?


We might have to wait for election time. Chair Blake sitting on a popular bi partisan bill and Sen. Hatfield already has been under fire for not reporting sexual abuse by a family member. Have to wait and see.
I’ll sure be there to remind those at election time.
_________________________
The world will not be destroyed by those that are evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.- Albert Einstein

No you can’t have my rights---I’m still using them





Top
#923689 - 02/25/15 05:24 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Dogfish Offline
Poodle Smolt

Registered: 05/03/01
Posts: 10979
Loc: McCleary, WA
Nice to see you go there Louie. That's awesome.

Personally I would love to see no gill netting, cowboy or Indian, anywhere in Washington State. My ability to impact or influence the treaty fisheries is zero.

Eliminating or drastically curtailing an established historical non treaty commercial fishery through legislation without respect to the financial impact on the families who have invested in boats, permits, and gear so you and I can catch more fish is irresponsible, callous and cold.

You also need to remember not to be a dick to politicians when working on a bill because the next session, when you need some support you might just not get it. Blake and Hatfield aren't going away soon.

Todd hit the nail on the head when he talked about perception when related to a bill being good or bad. Commercials think 1660 and its companion bill sucked. Lots of sports fishermen think it was the best bill ever. Others of us thought it was incomplete, like me.

Personally, I'd suggest buying back a few permits and bow pickers each year. This legislation would have driven down the value of the existing permits. It would have driven down the value of the boats these permit holders have, and it would have done the same to the value of their gear. It would also have an immediate impact on the family incomes of these fishermen and the businesses that market their fish. I would suggest you think about that in the next run. That would give the sportsmen something in return for their increased fees, don't you think?

Hope that helps.

_________________________
"Give me the anger, fish! Give me the anger!"

They call me POODLE SMOLT!

The Discover Pass is brought to you by your friends at the CCA.

Top
#923691 - 02/25/15 06:56 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Salmo g. Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13521
The Daily News opinion piece reflect the delusional perspective that if only we fix the environmental problems and make the pie bigger, we wouldn't have to have these allocation fights. Might sound nice, but it ain't real. The pie can be made bigger, but only slightly bigger, and never big enough to satiate an ever-increasing human population. Any realistic analysis recognizes that just like every other natural resource on the planet, it comes down to ever more people fighting over fewer remaining scraps. That's natural and logical. I cringe that so many don't understand it.

The supply of salmon is limited. It's been limited for over a century, and is only going to be more limited in years to come. An intelligent society would allocate any surplus production to the highest and best use, generally defined as greatest economic good and or providing the greatest good to the greatest number.

Reserving any surplus salmon in Gray's Harbor to less than two dozen non-treaty gillnetters at the expense of a more socially and economically beneficial recreational fishery when there is a federally protected treaty gillnet fishery to more than fulfill market place salmon needs is batshit crazy by any rational analysis. The existing economic benefit to a few non-treaty gillnetters is not an entitlement to the public resource. I don't understand why Dogfish defends their interest unless they are relatives or they owe his bank money. Businesses fail and succeed all the time. The same Dogfish that opposed the bail out of banks deemed "too big to fail" thinks it makes sense to publicly subsidize a gillnet fishery that has outlived its utility. I'm not understanding this.

I wonder how Blake would react to a bill drafted to ease, but not eliminate, the pain to his publicly subsidized gillnetters.

I'm not opposed to commercial fishing. I'm not even opposed to gillnet fishing. I am opposed to allocating public trust resources to low value outcomes when higher value alternatives are available.

Sg


Edited by Salmo g. (02/25/15 06:58 PM)

Top
#923693 - 02/25/15 07:36 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Dogfish Offline
Poodle Smolt

Registered: 05/03/01
Posts: 10979
Loc: McCleary, WA
SG

I appreciate your opinion.

What would be the backlash to the State be for effectively outlawing what is a current lawful fishery? "But we're going let these other guys fish it instead so we can make more money."

Isn't it really similar to an eminent domain issue? These fishermen own something, a permit, and they have a definable economic value, an income stream supported by tax returns. When the State takes something of value from a citizen so that they can convert it to what the State deems to be the highest and best use, they are required to pay that citizen for exercising eminent domain. The permits go a step further, because there is essentially a contract between the State and the fishermen. As long as there is sufficient escapement you can fish. The escapement exists but the State, through legislative action, says no, we'll let these guys fish for them instead so the State and its citizens are better served.

Equating a family run business to a mega bank being bailed out is a bit ridiculous, don't you think? You're saying these fishermen need to suck it up and deal with it?

While I bank lots of commercial fishermen, none of my clients or relatives hold commercial gill net licenses that I am aware of.
_________________________
"Give me the anger, fish! Give me the anger!"

They call me POODLE SMOLT!

The Discover Pass is brought to you by your friends at the CCA.

Top
#923694 - 02/25/15 07:38 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Dogfish Offline
Poodle Smolt

Registered: 05/03/01
Posts: 10979
Loc: McCleary, WA
And my method would reduce the number of gill net permits.
_________________________
"Give me the anger, fish! Give me the anger!"

They call me POODLE SMOLT!

The Discover Pass is brought to you by your friends at the CCA.

Top
#923696 - 02/25/15 07:43 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
milt roe Offline
Spawner

Registered: 01/22/06
Posts: 925
Loc: tacoma
Buy back of com licenses and equip would be a cheap solution. Did that with the troll fleet long ago, and people got over it. Sorry fellas, times have changed. Go find another job. Oh, wait. Most of you already have another job.

Top
#923697 - 02/25/15 07:57 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Dogfish Offline
Poodle Smolt

Registered: 05/03/01
Posts: 10979
Loc: McCleary, WA
Most of the fishermen I bank fish in multiple fisheries. Crab in the winter. Longline in the spring. Troll salmon and tuna in the summer. Are they multiple jobs, or one? What about the school teachers who hold a summer job, do you hold a grudge against them too?

How would any of you feel if your job, fishing with your family, was under attack so someone else could fish with their family for fun? You can't really be that heartless, can you?

Until you supply a solution to mitigate this issue this line of thinking will lose.
_________________________
"Give me the anger, fish! Give me the anger!"

They call me POODLE SMOLT!

The Discover Pass is brought to you by your friends at the CCA.

Top
#923700 - 02/25/15 09:04 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Smalma Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/25/01
Posts: 2844
Loc: Marysville
Salmo g.

From the comments that Blake, Hatfield, et al have made on this issue it is pretty clear any reductions of the commercial salmon fishing is unacceptable.

Blake has been pretty consistent in his opinion that the prioritization of Chinook and coho in Puget Sound has been a "disaster".

A look at the WDFW sport catch reports indicate that 75% or more of the marine recreational fishing trips statewide have been on Puget Sound.

During 2013 the Mark Selective Chinook fisheries on Puget Sound supported 180,000 angler trips. Those anglers caught 29,000 hatchery Chinook. The last figures I have seen in the economic value of an angler day was that each day was worth $82. That meant that in 2013 those Puget Sound MDF Chinook fisheries generated 15 million dollars for the local economies and each of the hatchery fish kept was worth $500 to those local economy.

That 15 million dollars is roughly 1.5 time the economic value produced by the non-treaty commercial salmon fisheries State wide. Oh by the way approximate 2/3 of the statewide non-treaty commercial landing value is being produced in Puget Sound fisheries. Even in Puget Sound for the non-treaty Chinook catch in marine waters the Commercial fleet is getting a piece of the action. In a typical year the commercial fleet takes 20 to 25% of the catch.

If one's goal is an economic return on the State's investment in hatchery Chinook and coho not job subsidy program for the non-treaty commercial fisheries it is pretty clear that the region needs more fisheries like that Puget Sound "disaster".

Curt

Top
#923701 - 02/25/15 09:26 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: Smalma]
Rivrguy Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4394
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope

Quote:

How would any of you feel if your job, fishing with your family, was under attack so someone else could fish with their family for fun? You can't really be that heartless, can you?



I can and am that heartless. Try this I worked in the timber industry all my life as did my father and grandfather. When the owl came along many lost jobs, businesses went broke and wages tanked. Now there was retraining stuff but most just moved on and out of the area seeking work. So why should I feel that commercial fishers are any different than timber workers harvesting federal timber? They are not. The commercial gillnet fleet is living off public subsidies just as the timber industry was and it in the end will suffer the same fate. Times have changed and my family and friends have adapted as will the commercials, like it or not.


Edited by Rivrguy (02/25/15 09:27 PM)
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in

Top
#923702 - 02/25/15 09:40 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
If the commercials want a salmon fishery on hatchery produced fish why don't they do like Alaska? Tax themselves and run their own hatcheries. If they want welfare, then keep pushing for the rest of society to support them.

Top
#923710 - 02/26/15 07:16 AM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: Rivrguy]
Dogfish Offline
Poodle Smolt

Registered: 05/03/01
Posts: 10979
Loc: McCleary, WA
Originally Posted By: Rivrguy



I can and am that heartless. Try this I worked in the timber industry all my life as did my father and grandfather. When the owl came along many lost jobs, businesses went broke and wages tanked. Now there was retraining stuff but most just moved on and out of the area seeking work. So why should I feel that commercial fishers are any different than timber workers harvesting federal timber? They are not. The commercial gillnet fleet is living off public subsidies just as the timber industry was and it in the end will suffer the same fate. Times have changed and my family and friends have adapted as will the commercials, like it or not.


Logging is still happening, with some new rules. Also, the state didn't put loggers out of work so a lot of people could go cut their own personal firewood for fun. We have loggers in our family, and I bank a lot of loggers too. While I understand your situation, it is completely different from what is being proposed.

How do you reduce the commercial fishermen's numbers in an equitable manner? If you go directly after gill netters as you suggest, you'll likely bring ALL of commercial fishing against you, along with a host of others.
_________________________
"Give me the anger, fish! Give me the anger!"

They call me POODLE SMOLT!

The Discover Pass is brought to you by your friends at the CCA.

Top
#923712 - 02/26/15 07:47 AM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
Just to nip the "playing with their food" argument that the commercial industry, tribal and non-tribal alike, love to throw out there...as a member of the sportfishing industry that depends on sportfishing for my livelihood, along with thousands of others, allow me to say this:

They can shove it.

Fish on...

Todd
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#923713 - 02/26/15 07:52 AM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Dogfish Offline
Poodle Smolt

Registered: 05/03/01
Posts: 10979
Loc: McCleary, WA
An all or nothing strategy won't work Todd. Without a reasonable dialogue between the two sides each will dig their heels in and nothing will change.
_________________________
"Give me the anger, fish! Give me the anger!"

They call me POODLE SMOLT!

The Discover Pass is brought to you by your friends at the CCA.

Top
#923714 - 02/26/15 08:58 AM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
I agree.

And I think that saying "so people can catch fish for fun" is not reasonable dialogue, I think it's a stupid talking point that deserves zero respect.

There are a lot of us...a lot more than there are commercial guys...who depend up on our living for that "it's just fun".

If you/they want a reasonable dialogue they better recognize that.

If not, and it turns into a "us against them", then I know what side I'm on.

Fish on...

Todd
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#923715 - 02/26/15 08:59 AM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: Dogfish]
CedarR Offline
Repeat Spawner

Registered: 08/04/99
Posts: 1463
Loc: Olympia, WA
Here's some reasonable dialogue I recently had with a gillnetter:

GN- Even if 25% of the people in WA buy fishing licenses, why should they get more than 5% of the fish?

At the recent hearing, one of the netters testified, "We should all be working together on habitat; that's the real problem."
In the years that I worked on restoration projects, not one commercial fisherman ever showed up to support the effort. When I asked the team leader about their absence, he replied that they never show up. Of course, they want the "low hanging fruit" when the fish return. For me, the lowlight of the hearing occurred when a netter complained that he had to fish Columbia River bays where the fish were few, last season. This comment was made in front of an audience that was predominately sportsmen, who for their entire lives have fished behind Alaskan nets, Canadian nets, nets in the Straits, nets in Puget Sound, nets choking the bays and rivers, for the few scattered and scared fish that made it through the gauntlet...and this netter expects a sympathetic ear.

Another netter testified, "There are communities that want us and our money. We should just go there."
To that I would say, "Have a safe trip. You'll be missed about as much as the rotary dial telephone."


Top
#923718 - 02/26/15 09:52 AM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Smalma Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/25/01
Posts: 2844
Loc: Marysville
Todd -
I was curious if there were any good estimates of the number of small Washington base manufacturing businesses whose major customers are recreational fishers? I'm thinking of local rod, lure, etc. manufactures.

I was thinking about of the senate hearings last week and Senator Chase's economic comments. My guess is there are significantly more of those small business on the recreation side of the equation than on the non-treaty salmon commercial side.

It is a given that commercial fishing is a large business in this state but in the dividing the salmon piece we need to sure to compare only salmon values. As I had posted on an earlier thread non-treaty commercial salmon fishery is a tiny piece of the entire commercial fishing industry.

Curt

Top
#923720 - 02/26/15 10:09 AM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
I have no idea what the actual number is...but I would safely guess that there are more recreationally-supported businesses than commercially-supported business by a factor of ten, a hundred...I don't know, but a LOT more.

Like I said above...as long as the commercial industry (tribal and non-tribal) refers to the recreational sector as "just having fun at the expense of their livelihoods", then they get what they deserve...being told to screw off.

There are far, far, far more of us who benefit from a robust recreational fishery than there are those who benefit from a robust commercial fishery, and they want to make it "us against them", then they lose, hands down, no matter what Blake says.

Anyone who is against this bill and is "for jobs and the economy" is not being honest.

If he were to say "I am only looking out for the good of the commercial fishers in my district" then at least he would be honest, because that's all it is.

Far more jobs, and far more money into the economy, comes from the recreational sector, especially with salmon.

To deny that is to deny reality.

The "failure" that Blake mentions regarding Puget Sound Chinook and coho management is either an outright lie, or he is woefully uninformed and should not talk about the subject.

Millions and millions of dollars are pumped into the economy thanks to the recreational priority for Puget Sound Chinook and coho...and...

He knows it, and he is not being truthful.

Fish on...

Todd
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#923723 - 02/26/15 11:17 AM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: Carcassman]
TastySalmon Offline
Smolt

Registered: 04/16/14
Posts: 77
Loc: Lake Samish
Originally Posted By: Carcassman
If the commercials want a salmon fishery on hatchery produced fish why don't they do like Alaska? Tax themselves and run their own hatcheries. If they want welfare, then keep pushing for the rest of society to support them.


HB1270 does just that.

Top
#923726 - 02/26/15 12:39 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
There used to be an extensive market hunting (commercial) industry in this country. That was totally outlawed and the resources given over to the recreationals. I suspect that there are numerous instances where businesses/industries were made illegal.

As noted, too, the effort to eliminate some non-Indian commercial salmon fishing is not aimed at the whole commercial industry. I suspect that the Fraser sockeye would remain, even though it is likely that the tribes could cover that one too.

Top
#923727 - 02/26/15 12:39 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: TastySalmon]
Rivrguy Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4394
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
Quote:
HB1270 does just that.


It is attempt to get a similar program as the Alaska PNP program in this state. Back in the 90's folks in Grays Harbor tried to get something similar in this state and failed due to a all out opposition by WDF. Lord from the agencies PR it would mean the end of the world as we know it.
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in

Top
#923728 - 02/26/15 01:32 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Chum and pink, even sockeye, should not be too bad for GH/WB from WDFW perspective as they aren't heavily taken in the ocean fisheries. But if the PNPs went for coho or Chinook, and essentially claimed ownership of their personally-grown product, then those ocean fisheries would have to be really constrained. Might mess up relations with BC and AK as the PNP may be more willing to fight for their fish.

Plus, it would put the state hatchery operations in direct comparison with PNPs. Such things as maintenance, legal (HSRG?) compliance, costs of production, and so on would be out there for the public and Leg to see.

It would also make for an interesting legal issue with the tribes. The Tribes don't have rights to privately cultured shellfish. They do have rights to publically cultured finfish and shellfish. Private finfish would be a very interesting case.

Top
#923729 - 02/26/15 01:51 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Dogfish Offline
Poodle Smolt

Registered: 05/03/01
Posts: 10979
Loc: McCleary, WA
Someone here talked about the need for a politician with vision to solve this but I don't see many visionary ideas being presented. Everything presented here has been extremely lopsided.

What about buying up commercial licenses through expanded license fees, say 5 per year, in both GH and WB? Within 5 years there would be no commercial gillnet fishery in GH if there are 2 dozen licenses and it would be self funding. What is preventing CCA, other organizations and private individuals from buying commercial gillnet licenses when they come up for sale, or for that matter leasing them when put out for bid? Whoever the buyer/lessee was can just sit on the license. One less net in the water.
_________________________
"Give me the anger, fish! Give me the anger!"

They call me POODLE SMOLT!

The Discover Pass is brought to you by your friends at the CCA.

Top
#923730 - 02/26/15 01:56 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
Here are a couple of reasons why it won't do anything.

1. Remove one gillnet, and the same amount of fish are caught, just by fewer gillnetters. If it came with a reduced quota for the commercial sector than that would have some attraction to the recreational side, but since the same amount of fish end up in totes either way it's hard to feel any need to pony up any money to do that.

2. The licenses aren't 'retired' if someone else buys them. As noted in #1, it doesn't change the quota...plus, if someone doesn't use the license and fails to fish it, then it goes back on the market for someone who will. Limited entry commercial licenses come with a requirement to make minimum landings or you lose it.

Both of those cost recreationals/taxpayers dollars, and neither reduces the amount of fish that end up in commercial totes.

Fish on...

Todd
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#923732 - 02/26/15 02:22 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Dogfish Offline
Poodle Smolt

Registered: 05/03/01
Posts: 10979
Loc: McCleary, WA
You didn't touch on buying back 5 licenses per year through license fee increases. If it is run through the state the licenses could be retired. Also, running legislation that allows others to purchase and retire licenses at the same time would quicken that pace.

Sure would be a pitty if civil rights were granted based on the wishes of the majority.

What are some equitable solutions?
_________________________
"Give me the anger, fish! Give me the anger!"

They call me POODLE SMOLT!

The Discover Pass is brought to you by your friends at the CCA.

Top
#923734 - 02/26/15 02:30 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
And the current situation is equitable where one group essentially funds the operations of its primary competitor? Why do the on-Indian salmon net fishermen deserve to have the recs fund the fish they catch and sell? And fund the management.

Top
#923737 - 02/26/15 02:47 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
An equitable solution would be that those bastions of freedom and personal responsibility paid their own way instead of getting welfare from the rest of us to run their fisheries.

That would be the first equitable thing to do.

Too expensive? This is America...I'm sure they believe in Capitalism and the Free Market...pass the costs on to the consumer. If GH Salmon costs $8/lb. to get to the market, then sell it for $16. If it costs $25, then charge $50.

It's not my fault, or anyone else's, if they can't afford to do it. I don't see any taxpayers lining up to cover my overhead for me so that I can make a better profit, nor do I have any local politicians lobbying for that to happen for me.

Why should commercial fishermen be any different? Why do they get welfare?

I be they are all for those Welfare Queens being drug tested before getting their food stamps...I think commercial fishermen should be drug tested before receiving welfare from the taxpayers.

I mean...fair is fair...and equitable...right?

The fact is that there is a relatively small amount of people who are being subsidized with welfare by the rest of us.

It is costing the taxpayers money.

It is costing the recreational fishing industry money.

It is costing jobs.

Blake should actually tell the truth about the Puget Sound Chinook fishery...he can't actually believe that it's an "unmitigated disaster", because by any measure...social, cultural, and most importantly economical...it is an unmitigated smashing success.

Tons of participation, tons of dollars spent everywhere from Neah Bay to the San Juans to Seattle, and parts south.

He should be so lucky that Grays Harbor could do 1/100th of what that "disaster" fishery does for the economy around here. If he was actually interested in "jobs and the economy" in whole, rather than cherry picked "a few jobs for his friends and family" then he would be clamoring to have that disaster brought to his district.

The problem is that I don't think he is talking out his ass...he is lying, and he knows it.

He is fanning the flames of "Those Rich Seattlites telling us Real Washingtonians how to Run Our County"...knowing that the locals will eat it up, to their own detriment.

Equitable?

Easy.

Pay your own way.

What could be more equitable than that?

Fish on...

Todd
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#923739 - 02/26/15 03:07 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: Dogfish]
Larry B Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3020
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
Originally Posted By: Dogfish
You didn't touch on buying back 5 licenses per year through license fee increases. If it is run through the state the licenses could be retired. Also, running legislation that allows others to purchase and retire licenses at the same time would quicken that pace.

Sure would be a pitty if civil rights were granted based on the wishes of the majority.

What are some equitable solutions?


Civil rights? Huh???

Equitable solution vis-a-vis buyout? Okay, here are some thoughts. Have the 5 year plan on a random draw paid for out of increased fees and with a commensurate annual shift in harvestable numbers from commercial to recreational keeping in mind that the increased fees need to be high enough at the front end to fully fund the program through its life as the number of active licenses is decreased (reduced revenue stream) over time. Pay market value for any used gear plus the undepreciated value for any boat used solely in that fishery and not retained by the owner. If the boat is turned in it is destroyed. If it is not turned in then the owner gets nothing and that vessel cannot be subsequently sold to another fisherman in that fishery. Now for the big issue; value of the license. I have a real problem reimbursing a license holder beyond what the license cost when originally issued by the State.
_________________________
Remember to immediately record your catch or you may become the catch!

It's the person who has done nothing who is sure nothing can be done. (Ewing)

Top
#923740 - 02/26/15 03:11 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: Dogfish]
CedarR Offline
Repeat Spawner

Registered: 08/04/99
Posts: 1463
Loc: Olympia, WA
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?

Top
#923741 - 02/26/15 03:20 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
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
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#923744 - 02/26/15 04:01 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Dogfish Offline
Poodle Smolt

Registered: 05/03/01
Posts: 10979
Loc: McCleary, WA
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.
_________________________
"Give me the anger, fish! Give me the anger!"

They call me POODLE SMOLT!

The Discover Pass is brought to you by your friends at the CCA.

Top
#923747 - 02/26/15 04:09 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Dogfish Offline
Poodle Smolt

Registered: 05/03/01
Posts: 10979
Loc: McCleary, WA
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.
_________________________
"Give me the anger, fish! Give me the anger!"

They call me POODLE SMOLT!

The Discover Pass is brought to you by your friends at the CCA.

Top
#923748 - 02/26/15 04:15 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Dogfish Offline
Poodle Smolt

Registered: 05/03/01
Posts: 10979
Loc: McCleary, WA
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.
_________________________
"Give me the anger, fish! Give me the anger!"

They call me POODLE SMOLT!

The Discover Pass is brought to you by your friends at the CCA.

Top
#923749 - 02/26/15 04:19 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: Dogfish]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
Originally Posted By: Dogfish
All I'm trying to do is figure out a way that they would be willing to relinquish their licenses.


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
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#923753 - 02/26/15 04:58 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Dogfish Offline
Poodle Smolt

Registered: 05/03/01
Posts: 10979
Loc: McCleary, WA
I would talk to WFC about that Todd.
_________________________
"Give me the anger, fish! Give me the anger!"

They call me POODLE SMOLT!

The Discover Pass is brought to you by your friends at the CCA.

Top
#923754 - 02/26/15 05:04 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
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
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#923756 - 02/26/15 05:38 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Dogfish Offline
Poodle Smolt

Registered: 05/03/01
Posts: 10979
Loc: McCleary, WA
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.
_________________________
"Give me the anger, fish! Give me the anger!"

They call me POODLE SMOLT!

The Discover Pass is brought to you by your friends at the CCA.

Top
#923757 - 02/26/15 05:45 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
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


Edited by Todd (02/26/15 05:46 PM)
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#923758 - 02/26/15 05:52 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Smalma Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/25/01
Posts: 2844
Loc: Marysville
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

Top
#923759 - 02/26/15 05:53 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
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.......

Top
#923761 - 02/26/15 05:58 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Dogfish Offline
Poodle Smolt

Registered: 05/03/01
Posts: 10979
Loc: McCleary, WA
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.
_________________________
"Give me the anger, fish! Give me the anger!"

They call me POODLE SMOLT!

The Discover Pass is brought to you by your friends at the CCA.

Top
#923765 - 02/26/15 06:46 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: Carcassman]
Dogfish Offline
Poodle Smolt

Registered: 05/03/01
Posts: 10979
Loc: McCleary, WA
Originally Posted By: Carcassman
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.......


Don't the funds for those come from the general fund?
_________________________
"Give me the anger, fish! Give me the anger!"

They call me POODLE SMOLT!

The Discover Pass is brought to you by your friends at the CCA.

Top
#923766 - 02/26/15 06:51 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Salmo g. Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13521
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

Top
#923770 - 02/26/15 07:11 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Dogfish Offline
Poodle Smolt

Registered: 05/03/01
Posts: 10979
Loc: McCleary, WA
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.
_________________________
"Give me the anger, fish! Give me the anger!"

They call me POODLE SMOLT!

The Discover Pass is brought to you by your friends at the CCA.

Top
#923772 - 02/26/15 07:18 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: Salmo g.]
Larry B Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3020
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
Originally Posted By: Salmo g.
Dogfish,

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.

Sg


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.
_________________________
Remember to immediately record your catch or you may become the catch!

It's the person who has done nothing who is sure nothing can be done. (Ewing)

Top
#923788 - 02/26/15 09:19 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Dogfish Offline
Poodle Smolt

Registered: 05/03/01
Posts: 10979
Loc: McCleary, WA
_________________________
"Give me the anger, fish! Give me the anger!"

They call me POODLE SMOLT!

The Discover Pass is brought to you by your friends at the CCA.

Top
#923789 - 02/26/15 09:20 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Dogfish Offline
Poodle Smolt

Registered: 05/03/01
Posts: 10979
Loc: McCleary, WA
_________________________
"Give me the anger, fish! Give me the anger!"

They call me POODLE SMOLT!

The Discover Pass is brought to you by your friends at the CCA.

Top
#923794 - 02/27/15 06:52 AM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: Dogfish]
_WW_ Offline
Juvenile at Sea

Registered: 01/30/13
Posts: 233
Loc: Skagit
Originally Posted By: Dogfish
we'll let these guys fish for them instead so the State and its citizens are better served.


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.
_________________________
Catch & Release Is Not A Crime

Top
#923797 - 02/27/15 08:09 AM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: Dogfish]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
No. The Wildife Fund is from licenses and permits. GF has been consistently curtailed.

Top
#923805 - 02/27/15 10:19 AM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
SBD Offline
clown flocker

Registered: 10/19/09
Posts: 3743
Loc: Water
Maybe the lawmakers just quit listening to you people after the seine fiasco???
_________________________


There's a sucker born every minute



Top
#923806 - 02/27/15 10:28 AM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: Dogfish]
BossMan Offline
Returning Adult

Registered: 09/20/01
Posts: 383
Loc: Seattle


Here is the most important take away from the above link.

"The programs probably did not make a significant inroad into current fishing capacity."

Unless you buy out all the licenses or proportionally decrease the allocations, you simply shift the harvest to the remaining license holders, thereby increasing the value of their licenses.

If the end result is that same number of fish are being taking by the commercials, from a rec perspective we're probably better off having 100 unprofitable license holders than 10 profitable license holders.

How excited would I be if the state decided to buy out all the rec licenses but mine and a couple of my buddies.


Edited by BossMan (02/27/15 10:32 AM)

Top
#923807 - 02/27/15 10:43 AM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: BossMan]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
Originally Posted By: BossMan

If the end result is that same number of fish are being taking by the commercials, from a rec perspective we're probably better off having 100 unprofitable license holders than 10 profitable license holders.



This is the truth, and why a buyback program does nothing but further entrench the welfare recipients in their program.

I feel for them that they have business debts and other things to pay for, but so do the rest of us and that doesn't make our jobs or chosen industries ironclad...

Fish on...

Todd
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#923814 - 02/27/15 11:34 AM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
NickD90 Offline
Shooting Instructor for hire

Registered: 10/26/10
Posts: 7260
Loc: Snohomish, WA
Did Todd just become a Repub? I think Todd just became a Repub. I know Climate Change is the hot topic these days, but has anyone recently checked the temp in Hell?

I kid....I kid... beer
_________________________
“If the military were fighting for our freedom, they would be storming Capitol Hill”. – FleaFlickr02

Top
#923833 - 02/27/15 02:06 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: NickD90]
Rivrguy Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4394
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope

Hell could have froze over. After that I have no idea either!!! eek2
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in

Top
#923841 - 02/27/15 03:28 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Dogfish Offline
Poodle Smolt

Registered: 05/03/01
Posts: 10979
Loc: McCleary, WA
Those previous buyouts were just a straight reduction in the fleet, not an elimination of a specific fishery fleet so you're assessment of the same fish being spread out over fewers nets is correct.

I would propose the elimination of the GH commercial gillnet fishery altogether through a phased buyout. After a period of years there would be no non-treaty commercials in GH. Their nets would have no effect.
_________________________
"Give me the anger, fish! Give me the anger!"

They call me POODLE SMOLT!

The Discover Pass is brought to you by your friends at the CCA.

Top
#923849 - 02/28/15 07:48 AM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Smalma Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/25/01
Posts: 2844
Loc: Marysville
Been looking at some historic salmon catch material on WDFW's sport catch reports. The latest report on WDFW's site is for 2011. During 2011 there were 334,593 salmon (all species) caught in the marine waters of Washington. Of those 229,160 (approximately 2/3) were caught in Puget Sound.

For fun I compared those numbers from the earliest year I could find. In 1971 the marine sport catch was 1,199,000 salmon with 282,000 (less than a quarter of the state total) being caught in Puget Sound.

Note neither the above or my earlier posts on the Puget Sound angler use is meant to say the Puget Sound angling is great; in fact the catch/rod is lower than many area in the state. That said the current management is generating a lot of economic activity in the backyard of much of the State's population that may be similar to what was seen 40 years ago (pre-Boldt) at least in terms of fish caught.

To put the Puget Sound recreational salmon fishery with other popular fisheries I compared the number of salmon caught in 2010 and 2011. In 2010 the numbers were-
The ocean salmon catch (MA 1 to 4) was 68,404,
For Puget Sound (MA 5 through 13) it was 50,697,
For Buoy 10 Washington licensed anglers caught 5,121 salmon,
For the Willapa Bay anglers caught 1,893.

In 2011 the numbers were -
For the ocean the catch was 74,599.
For Puget Sound it was 229,654 (thanks to the pinks)
For Buoy 10 Washington licensed anglers catch was 5,996
For Willapa Bay the catch was 6,314.

Curt

Top
#923870 - 02/28/15 05:33 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: bushbear]
Larry B Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3020
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
Westport was, at the time, living up to the Salmon Capital hype. If I recall correctly it was a three fish limit; any species.

Have to wonder how much the pinks and, especially, bonus pinks have affected the totals. I have my suspicions.....
_________________________
Remember to immediately record your catch or you may become the catch!

It's the person who has done nothing who is sure nothing can be done. (Ewing)

Top
#924009 - 03/02/15 05:14 PM Re: CCA, PSA, NSIA, FishNW letter on SB5844 and HB1660 [Re: Dogfish]
Lucky Louie Offline
Carcass

Registered: 11/30/09
Posts: 2286
Originally Posted By: Dogfish

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.

I’m not even gone a week…

Dogfish, I think that you should re-read what I wrote again.

Originally Posted By: Lucky Louie
Sen. Hatfield already has been under fire for not reporting sexual abuse by a family member.

The issue is the action or inaction of the lawmaker not reporting abuse and not about his son’s actions as your misleading account states.
The news article that accompanied that headline had several components to it. “A police report clearly states that both Hatfield and his wife were already aware of the abuse, and in fact, Hatfield reported the abuse to the attorney by her own admission.”

The second component was “Hatfield’s attorney, Christine Beck of Tacoma, put out a statement refuting the claim that he and his wife were criminally negligent.”

If the Senator puts his hat into the ring for re-election in 2016, the voting public in his district will determine which component they believe at election time or if they think an ethical issue was breached by not reporting sexual abuse by the lawmaker. Only time will tell.

As you can see, I did this without stomping my feet, threatening a senator, dragging his family and sons through the mud and like you said, it is common knowledge.

Dogfish, I didn’t know you had such an imagination along with flair of being such a drama queen. You’re a dangerous person when misusing those two weapons.
_________________________
The world will not be destroyed by those that are evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.- Albert Einstein

No you can’t have my rights---I’m still using them





Top
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >

Search

Site Links
Home
Our Washington Fishing
Our Alaska Fishing
Reports
Rates
Contact Us
About Us
Recipes
Photos / Videos
Visit us on Facebook
Today's Birthdays
CHUBS
Recent Gallery Pix
hatchery steelhead
Hatchery Releases into the Pacific and Harvest
Who's Online
1 registered (Carcassman), 1080 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
John Boob, Lawrence, I'm Still RichG, feyt, Freezeout
11498 Registered Users
Top Posters
Todd 28170
Dan S. 17149
Sol Duc 16138
The Moderator 14486
Salmo g. 13521
eyeFISH 12766
STRIKE ZONE 12107
Dogfish 10979
ParaLeaks 10513
Jerry Garcia 9160
Forum Stats
11498 Members
16 Forums
63773 Topics
645302 Posts

Max Online: 3001 @ 01/28/20 02:48 PM

Join the PP forums.

It's quick, easy, and always free!

Working for the fish and our future fishing opportunities:

The Wild Steelhead Coalition

The Photo & Video Gallery. Nearly 1200 images from our fishing trips! Tips, techniques, live weight calculator & more in the Fishing Resource Center. The time is now to get prime dates for 2018 Olympic Peninsula Winter Steelhead , don't miss out!.

| HOME | ALASKA FISHING | WASHINGTON FISHING | RIVER REPORTS | FORUMS | FISHING RESOURCE CENTER | CHARTER RATES | CONTACT US | WHAT ABOUT BOB? | PHOTO & VIDEO GALLERY | LEARN ABOUT THE FISH | RECIPES | SITE HELP & FAQ |