Any thoughts on this?


http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=150642

im not sure what it means..???

There is only one change from the original.

The law provided for public/private partnerships to run hatcheries.

It now will provide for those private partners to harvest chum salmon and sell them to raise the money to operate the hatcheries.

Fish on...

Todd

My guess is an attempt to resume meat-market levels of chum production in WB.

Here's the whole bill.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1071.pdf

1 partnership. The business plan may also allow the partner to harvest
2 hatchery chum salmon in a designated area through persons under
3 contract with the partner as provided under a permit from the
4 department or by rule of the commission. All chum salmon harvested
5 must be sold at prices commensurate with the current market and all
6 funds must be utilized by the partner to operate the hatchery.


This is the proposed addition. Designated area is disturbingly vague.

It does two things. First, it removes the requirement that the state-private partnerships be for CLOSED hatcheries. All hatcheries would be open to such agreements.

The second change, and what is really the biggie, is it will set up Ocean Ranching for chum. The operator of the hatchery can contract with somebody to harvest and sell fish, with the proceeds going to the hatchery operator. Like the Alaskan Co-ops.

For example, somebody could take over Hoodsport. While the tribes would still get their 50%, the remainder could be taken by the operator's folks and use the sale of those fish to support the hatchery. This opens the possibility, since chum are specifically called for, that non-Indian commercial and recreational fishing would not occur.

It certainly is one step closer to ocean ranching. Of course while the partner would be harvesting fish that they produced, they would also more than likely be harvesting fish that are the property of the state.

The "hatchery operating partner" will be using their cut to operate the hatchery.

The ones doing the harvesting for them, though, will be one or more non-tribal commercial fishers.

It looks to me like taking a state run hatchery, putting it into private hands, and then using it to raise salmon for non-tribal commercial fishers, and those non-tribal commercial fishers would be cashing in on some of the catch, and using the money from the rest of the catch to pay the operators of the hatchery.

Any benefits to non-commercial fishers and the private "partner" running the hatchery will be...incidental.

Yes, that includes us.

Fish on...

Todd

I would imagine PSSEHA is probably behind this. It seemed like their main goal was to add money to their coffers first and run their hatchery second. The anticipated bounty caught the ire of sport and commercials last year.

It was suggested by the Chair, to go away, rework it, and then try again.


This looks like another attempt this year.

Can a state-owned hatchery be used for this? If so, does the partner pay a lease fee to the state? I'm curious about any private benefits accruing from a publicly owned resource and property.

I guess I don't understand the question. The law applies to state-owned hatcheries. As carcassman said, it used to apply only to closed hatcheries. With the proposed changes, all hatcheries would be open to these partnerships.

The bill mandates that the partner will be either a federally recognized tribe or a for-profit entity. It also states that the private partner may subcontract to harvest hatchery chum to pay hatchery operating costs. (No doubt the subcontracted commercial fisher will be a subsidiary of the partner running the hatchery.) Given that a hatchery can only raise a finite number of any species, what's preventing the for-profit partner from skewing the ratio of particular species raised in favor of chum to increase their profit margin? Would we eventually see astronomical numbers of chum return for the subcontracted commercials to catch, sell, and pay for hatchery operations, which includes the salary of the CEO/COO?

Is there a RCW or WDFW policy to prevent such a scenario?

A law (RCW) would trup any WDFW Policy. Policies are supposed to comply with the law.

I suspect that if a private entity was paying to operate the facility then they would dictate what and how many gets raised and released. I suspect that pinks and chums woyld be the species of choice. Really cheap to raise, produce a boatload of fish for a small amount of water, not need to operate 24/7/365.

That would "allow" WDFW to fund Chinook, coho, steelhead, and trout.

Presumably these programs would have to go through the same Future Brood Document approval process as any other program (at least in Puget Sound), so I don't think that the entity could dictate what and how many are raised.

At the same time, they couldn't be forced to grow stocks, species, or amounts that would not allow them to recoup costs.

Of course not.