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 3 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#959361 - 06/20/16 03:24 PM Puget Sound Salmon & Steelhead Endorsement Idea?
Backtrollin Offline
Juvenile at Sea

Registered: 10/18/07
Posts: 174
Loc: Duvall, WA
I was browsing the proposed license fee increase today and wondered why there is not a Puget Sound Salmon & Steelhead endorsement?

While I am not for fee increases, if a new endorsement means we can protect our wild fish and increase hatchery plants I would be all in.

It seems to be working in the Columbia River drainage. Why not here?

Thoughts???????

Top
#959364 - 06/20/16 03:47 PM Re: Puget Sound Salmon & Steelhead Endorsement Idea? [Re: Backtrollin]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
The original intent of the Columbia River endorsement was to provide WDFW with specific funds to open fisheries in ESA affected waters. WDFW would whine that "we don't have the money to monitor or enforce an opening." The endorsement was originally drafted as a direct response to this and that is where the money was supposed to go.

Top
#959365 - 06/20/16 03:50 PM Re: Puget Sound Salmon & Steelhead Endorsement Idea? [Re: Backtrollin]
Backtrollin Offline
Juvenile at Sea

Registered: 10/18/07
Posts: 174
Loc: Duvall, WA
I would like to see that action in the Puget Sound, it seems to me we have plenty of fisheries in ESA affected waters as exemplified by the whole NOF debacle.

Top
#959368 - 06/20/16 05:53 PM Re: Puget Sound Salmon & Steelhead Endorsement Idea? [Re: Backtrollin]
Brent K Offline
Juvenile at Sea

Registered: 08/12/13
Posts: 108
Loc: Arlington, Washington
If it re-opens our steelhead C&R seasons in Puget Sound I would be interested. Otherwise I will keep spending my steelhead dollars to the north and to the east of Washington.

Top
#959370 - 06/20/16 06:18 PM Re: Puget Sound Salmon & Steelhead Endorsement Idea? [Re: Carcassman]
Larry B Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3020
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
Originally Posted By: Carcassman
The original intent of the Columbia River endorsement was to provide WDFW with specific funds to open fisheries in ESA affected waters. WDFW would whine that "we don't have the money to monitor or enforce an opening." The endorsement was originally drafted as a direct response to this and that is where the money was supposed to go.


The original intent as mentioned was initiated by an upper Columbia legislator at the request of her constituents to improve fisheries in that area. In the legislative process it morphed into covering virtually all of the Columbia River and tributaries.

That endorsement was up for review as it was due to expire 30 June 16 and was extended during the last legislative session for only one year. Part of the recommendations from the advisory group was to extent the coverage to include the remaining portion of the Columbia to B10.

In short, be careful what you ask for......

Now, it is also important to separate salmon funds from steelhead funds and it is also critical to know your history.

Some years ago the late State Senator Bob Oke sponsored and successfully pushed through the legislature a Puget Sound salmon stamp primarily intended to augment the winter blackmouth fishery. That legislation set specific production goals of delayed release Chinook which WDFW never met. Ultimately that stamp was eliminated and its cost was rolled into the saltwater license. WDFW has slowly tried to eliminate the legislative requirements and has morphed those monies into the Puget Sound Recreational Fishing Enhancement Fund. So, if you buy a saltwater license and indicate on your CRC that you fished for salmon in Puget Sound you already are paying the equivalent of an endorsement.

So, no, I am not in support of an additional endorsement for salmon.
_________________________
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
#959394 - 06/21/16 12:46 AM Re: Puget Sound Salmon & Steelhead Endorsement Idea? [Re: Backtrollin]
OceanSun Offline
Repeat Spawner

Registered: 07/01/04
Posts: 1303
Loc: North Creek
Exactly! But no accountability to spend the money as intended. Breach of contract!
_________________________
. . . and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and have dominion over the fish of the sea . . .

Top
#959398 - 06/21/16 06:27 AM Re: Puget Sound Salmon & Steelhead Endorsement Idea? [Re: Backtrollin]
truant Offline
Eyed Egg

Registered: 06/16/14
Posts: 6
What Larry B said. I remember the days of being asked if I wanted the license with the $8.25 Puget Sound enhancement stamp or the one without. What have we learned from this? Nothing. Guys still think their money is going to go to specific programs that they like and that more money is the answer to the problem.

How has the Puget Sound crab endorsement been working out? It started as a voluntary fee of $3. It's original intent was to pay for more checkers and enforcement so that we could better account for the resource so sports guys could catch more crab. It's now just another fee that we asked for.

If it hasn't been made abundantly clear, politics drives our fisheries. If you want to spend a few extra dollars join PSA or CCA and give them your money to go fight for an equitable share of our public resources.


Edited by truant (06/21/16 06:33 AM)

Top
#959399 - 06/21/16 06:37 AM Re: Puget Sound Salmon & Steelhead Endorsement Idea? [Re: Backtrollin]
Larry B Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3020
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
Here is a link to a relatively new WDFW webpage identifying some, but not all, advisory and management boards: http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/advisory/.

You can click on the hotlink for individual boards and find a treasure trove of information to include meeting minutes and how money is being spent. The good new is that for both the CRSSEF and PSRFEF there are advisory groups which have some oversight function on expenditures.

What you will not find is a listing for the Puget Sound recreational crab advisory group. Another tidbit is that that group has NO advisory oversight function despite the fact that the endorsement pulls in close to $2 million per year. Just how is that money being spent????
_________________________
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
#959400 - 06/21/16 06:38 AM Re: Puget Sound Salmon & Steelhead Endorsement Idea? [Re: Backtrollin]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
WDFW is short of funds to so everything they are tasked to do. Or need to do. Fish and wildlife management has to include a significant piece for habitat protection, acquisition, and maintenance (like the launches and sani-kan condition?). But, the Leg has its own problems in funding the vast array of demands on taxpayer funds-McLeary, Western State, prisons, roads, and that doesn't even scratch the surface.

WA and probably most states are moving more to flat-out user fees. Hunters and fishermen have shown a well recognized willingness to pay to play. When I started out in this game it was recognized by WDG that, for example, Opening Day Trout was a money-maker. The license revenue received more than covered the costs to produce. Which was also why hunting licenses cost more than fishing. It doesn't cost more to grow a deer or elk, but the hunter will pay more for one.

What viable alternatives are there??

Top
#959405 - 06/21/16 08:14 AM Re: Puget Sound Salmon & Steelhead Endorsement Idea? [Re: Carcassman]
Larry B Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3020
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
Originally Posted By: Carcassman
WDFW is short of funds to so everything they are tasked to do. Or need to do. Fish and wildlife management has to include a significant piece for habitat protection, acquisition, and maintenance (like the launches and sani-kan condition?). But, the Leg has its own problems in funding the vast array of demands on taxpayer funds-McLeary, Western State, prisons, roads, and that doesn't even scratch the surface.

WA and probably most states are moving more to flat-out user fees. Hunters and fishermen have shown a well recognized willingness to pay to play. When I started out in this game it was recognized by WDG that, for example, Opening Day Trout was a money-maker. The license revenue received more than covered the costs to produce. Which was also why hunting licenses cost more than fishing. It doesn't cost more to grow a deer or elk, but the hunter will pay more for one.



What viable alternatives are there??


From this user's perspective: not all consumptive users are paying their fair share. For example, in 2015 roughly 240K Puget Sound recreational crabbers ponied up nearly $2MM just in endorsement monies (not including a portion of the required shellfish license) and harvested about 2.8 millions pounds of crab.

The 249 non-tribal commercial crabbers took about 3.2 million pounds out of Puget Sound with an ex-vessel value of around $14 million. At $235 for each P.S. crab license those commercial operators paid a collective $58,515 in license fees for the opportunity to harvest more crab than does the entire recreational community. (see WDFW commercial license fee schedules at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/licensing/commercial/license_fees.html).

Going back to 2009 the WDFW's shellfish manager reported to the Commission that Puget Sound NT commercial crabbers paid $.02 per pound of crab harvested while recreational crabbers paid $1.46 (http://d3dkdvqff0zqx.cloudfront.net/groups/ccapnw/attachments/economic_data_crabs_wa%5B1%5D.pdf). I have not seen a more current analysis but suspect that the disparity has not changed appreciably.

So, back to my point. If there is going to be more emphasis on user fees then associated costs need to be fairly distributed.

And then there is the whole issue of what I will describe as unfunded mandates. If the Legislature is not going to provide funding sufficient to pay for what it demands of WDFW then the Legislature needs to be honest and adjust the demands to be consistent with the money it provides. But we know that won't happen.....


Edit: The link cited above to the 2009 data doesn't work but the document can be found searching "Non Tribal Crabbing in Washington."



Edited by Larry B (06/21/16 09:38 AM)
_________________________
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
#959413 - 06/21/16 10:44 AM Re: Puget Sound Salmon & Steelhead Endorsement Idea? [Re: Backtrollin]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
The Commission, I believe, has directed the Agency to be more responsive to the fee-payer, which is why salmon hatcheries are facing issues when the sporties pay and the nets harvest.

I agree, Larry, that if WDFW maintains commercial fisheries and supports tribal fisheries and expects the sporty to foot the bill there will be problems. I hope.

Top
#959414 - 06/21/16 10:49 AM Re: Puget Sound Salmon & Steelhead Endorsement Idea? [Re: Backtrollin]
Salmo g. Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13521
How ironic to charge $17 for a steelhead CRC when steelhead fishing opportunity in WA state has never been less nor more bleak in outlook. While I'm sympathetic to WDFW's funding issues, the Department needs a refresher in Econ 101 and examine just how the product and service they are selling can possibly be worth more going forward. Knowingly or not, WDFW is sending WA steelheaders, and their money, to B.C., ID, OR, and now even CA.

I've known deer hunters who haven't bought a WA license in years because they get a far better deal hunting in MT.

Top
#959418 - 06/21/16 10:59 AM Re: Puget Sound Salmon & Steelhead Endorsement Idea? [Re: Backtrollin]
FleaFlickr02 Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/28/09
Posts: 3314
In principle, I think license fees should be periodically increased, not only to account for inflation, but also to cover some of the costs we have now that didn't exist when licenses were cheap (things like habitat improvement and hatchery reform). I also think regional endorsements, for each species of concern, are the most fair way to implement user fees. That way, people who want to fish for salmon and steelhead help pay the additional costs of managing those species. There should be ways for the folks who only want to fish for trout and other types of game fish to get a basic license, at a low cost. Endorsements target the people who will be exploiting the resources, which seems completely fair and appropriate to me.

Of course, as has been said, we're always the first to pay more and the last to see improved opportunities because of it, and that needs to change. I'm writing a letter that I plan to mail to each of my state and federal legislators, to let them know that I'm okay with fee increases, provided they translate to my user group reaping the supposed benefits. I think I'll include Larry's example about the PS crab endorsement as an example of the sort of management we have grown tired of supporting with our increased fees.

I also plan to include a statement to the effect that unless I see fair compensation for our continuing investment (in terms of commercial vs. Sport allocation), I won't be buying a license, let alone any endorsements. Whether or not I can see that through remains to be seen, but I think if they got that message from enough anglers, they'd be encouraged to tread lightly. I'll be sending the letter via snail mail, to make sure someone in the offices has to open it and read it. If even half of us did this, there would be piles of envelopes on these folks' desks, each representing another frustrated sport angler advising them to put up or shut up. I think that visual would carry more weight with them than a mass email campaign that spouts the same, impersonal message 2 million times.

Top
#959419 - 06/21/16 11:00 AM Re: Puget Sound Salmon & Steelhead Endorsement Idea? [Re: Salmo g.]
Rivrguy Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4394
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
WDF&W has made or is close to the business model that says your product is not worth the price asked. They are in a very graph-able down spiral ( death ) that a private sector business or organization would be afterburners on to reverse right down to reinventing themselves. Remember guys this is a government agency and they continue to get paid. Private not so as they do what the corp I worked for did. Called management in told them performance was not acceptable. Read a list of names told the others keys on the counter and security escorted them to the parking lot. Failure to perform has consequences in the private sector not so much government.


Edited by Rivrguy (06/21/16 11:01 AM)
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in

Top
#959421 - 06/21/16 11:08 AM Re: Puget Sound Salmon & Steelhead Endorsement Idea? [Re: Backtrollin]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
On the other hand, if WDFW is heading towards being based on the WF, like WDG was, then when the money ain't there neither is the agency. They will become very beholden to the license holders. Or die. Their choice.

Top
#959423 - 06/21/16 11:20 AM Re: Puget Sound Salmon & Steelhead Endorsement Idea? [Re: FleaFlickr02]
Larry B Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3020
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
Originally Posted By: FleaFlickr02
In principle, I think license fees should be periodically increased, not only to account for inflation, but also to cover some of the costs we have now that didn't exist when licenses were cheap (things like habitat improvement and hatchery reform).


Edited to focus on my question - should habitat restoration be a user fee expense? Or should it be paid for out of the State's General Fund insofar as the damage was (arguably) caused by the general public for its benefit? My opinion is for the latter perspective although monies could be run through (which to some extent may be occurring).
_________________________
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
#959425 - 06/21/16 11:32 AM Re: Puget Sound Salmon & Steelhead Endorsement Idea? [Re: Rivrguy]
FleaFlickr02 Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/28/09
Posts: 3314
Originally Posted By: Rivrguy
WDF&W has made or is close to the business model that says your product is not worth the price asked. They are in a very graph-able down spiral ( death ) that a private sector business or organization would be afterburners on to reverse right down to reinventing themselves. Remember guys this is a government agency and they continue to get paid. Private not so as they do what the corp I worked for did. Called management in told them performance was not acceptable. Read a list of names told the others keys on the counter and security escorted them to the parking lot. Failure to perform has consequences in the private sector not so much government.


I think there's a lot of truth in there and that it explains a lot, but I think the state Legislature is the organization that is ultimately responsible when our fees go up while quality of fishing goes down. They hold the purse strings, which means what they say goes. I think it's safe to say that not marching to the Legislsture's orders would be far more detrimental to a WDFW manager's career than any amount of negative feedback from sport fishers, or even fellow employees. That's why I'm writing the deciders directly this time around.

Top
#959426 - 06/21/16 11:35 AM Re: Puget Sound Salmon & Steelhead Endorsement Idea? [Re: Larry B]
FleaFlickr02 Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/28/09
Posts: 3314
Originally Posted By: Larry B
Originally Posted By: FleaFlickr02
In principle, I think license fees should be periodically increased, not only to account for inflation, but also to cover some of the costs we have now that didn't exist when licenses were cheap (things like habitat improvement and hatchery reform).


Edited to focus on my question - should habitat restoration be a user fee expense? Or should it be paid for out of the State's General Fund insofar as the damage was (arguably) caused by the general public for its benefit? My opinion is for the latter perspective although monies could be run through (which to some extent may be occurring).


I agree. All citizens (and corporations) should pay for habitat restoration. Of course, that means taxes, so we pay either way, but if the burden were appropriately shared, it would cost less per person.

Top
#959432 - 06/21/16 12:16 PM Re: Puget Sound Salmon & Steelhead Endorsement Idea? [Re: Backtrollin]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
The fish and wildlife resources you (we) want to harvest depend on that habitat. It would be nice that folks (all of us) who **cked it up pay to fix it up. But, they're not interested which leaves the responsibility to those who want to use the resources.

We could, of course, go entirely to artificial production/game farms where you would pay for what you harvest but at least you you would be assured that what you paid in went directly to what you took out.

Top
#959445 - 06/21/16 02:08 PM Re: Puget Sound Salmon & Steelhead Endorsement Idea? [Re: Carcassman]
Larry B Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3020
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
Originally Posted By: Carcassman
The fish and wildlife resources you (we) want to harvest depend on that habitat. It would be nice that folks (all of us) who **cked it up pay to fix it up. But, they're not interested which leaves the responsibility to those who want to use the resources.

We could, of course, go entirely to artificial production/game farms where you would pay for what you harvest but at least you you would be assured that what you paid in went directly to what you took out.


I took the class and still have Aldo Leopold's book.

That said, to the extent that many (most?) of our popular saltwater fisheries are on artificially produced stocks yet limited by ESA listed species the habitat aspects which affect ESA recoveries should be a State responsibility to be paid for out of the State's General Fund (for example, replacement of culvert which hinder salmonoid passage).
_________________________
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
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >

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
3Gonads, herm
Recent Gallery Pix
hatchery steelhead
Hatchery Releases into the Pacific and Harvest
Who's Online
3 registered (Carcassman, Salmo g., 1 invisible), 1070 Guests and 3 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
645299 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 |