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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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."

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

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

HB1270 does just that.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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.