House Bill 1660

Take a look and send your representative your thoughts. Its more important than ever to get involved.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1660&year=2015

I'm not an expert by any means. From what I've heard and read so far it makes a move to prioritize recreational fishing over commercial, and keep money generated by recreational fishing(licenses, etc.) from being pilfered for other State uses. Recreational fishing generated around $71 million for the WDFW compared to the $1.5 million from commercial.



"(4) The legislature further finds that Washington will not be able to grow its sports fishing tourism industry, and compete with other popular sports fishing destinations, unless the fish and wildlife commission prioritizes recreational harvest opportunities11and establishes predictable and stable recreational fishing seasons that enable both state residents and visitors from around the country and around the globe to make long-term trip planning and tourism spending decisions that lead them to Washington's rural communities.

(5) The legislature further finds that recreational fisheries are capable of avoiding the harvest of endangered fish species through selective harvest practices, thereby often increasing access to harvestable populations. Current state policies often result in fisheries management decisions that constrain recreational fishing opportunities and seasons in favor of nontribal commercial fisheries incapable of selective harvest practices, thereby harming too many endangered fish and limiting access to harvestable populations.

(6) The legislature further finds that sports fishing is a billion dollar industry in Washington and the single largest source of funding to the department of fish and wildlife. The seventy-one million dollars generated by the buyers of recreational fishing licenses in the 2013-2015 fiscal biennium represents over nineteen percent of the department of fish and wildlife's total budget. By comparison, the commercial fishing industry only generated one and one-half million dollars in funding over the same time period to the department of fish and wildlife, which amounts to less than one-half of one percent of the agency's overall budget.

....

All license fees and tax revenues deposited into the state wildlife account that are received from specific user groups, including hunters, recreational fishers, and commercial fishers, may only be appropriated to, and used for, activities that directly support or benefit the user group from which the funds were received."​

It isn't going to pass. Trust me.

Tell us more !!! Oh gifted banker.............

It just isn't. As much as I would like for it to pass I'm a realist.

5) The legislature further finds that recreational fisheries are capable of avoiding the harvest of endangered fish species through selective harvest practices, thereby often increasing access to harvestable populations. Current state policies often result in fisheries management decisions that constrain recreational fishing opportunities and seasons in favor of nontribal commercial fisheries incapable of selective harvest practices, thereby harming too many endangered fish and limiting access to harvestable populations.


Here's one large problem with it, there's never been any long term studies done to back up this claim.

Not sure studies are needed.

case in point, Willapa bay managment 1960-2014

Stop arguing amongst yourselves! This is a great opportunity to send a message if nothing else. Respond to the proposed law. If you think it's a good thing, tell your "elected" representatives. Tell them that you vote and are watching how "THEY" vote on this bill. Imagine if half the recreational fishermen did that? It may not pass, but with a huge response in favor of this, it just might embolden some legislatures to begin the conversation! There are 13 Representatives listed on the Bill. Here is a copy of my comments to my Legislatures'

I am encouraged in reading bill 1660! As a registered voter and an avid recreational fishermen, I fully support bill 1660. This action is long over due. Far too long the un-represented recreational fisher has taken a back seat to others with lobbies and money. It is time our fees are used exclusively to fund our sport. Further, the economic advantage of focusing efforts on recreational fishing will not only increase from Washington State citizens, but will attract dollars from outside the state from those wanting to enjoy the fishing without having to travel to more distant destinations. I applaud you for your courage to vote in favor of this this bill. You will no doubt find much opposition from money backed quarters. PLEASE STAND STRONG! WE ARE BEHIND YOU! I intend to publish a copy of the vote on all the fishing web sites so other registered voters can thank you for your support.

Case in point Willamette River 25 years of selective fishing..Results? Zilch

Willamette river is a Washington watershed?. Has no bearing here. It is 150 miles of toxic waste dump, case in point.

Sports fishing Mecca for Portland, you would think they would care just a little more.

I fully support this, of course, but I also think it has no chance of passing.

That being said...it would be great to get the list of all those in the Legislature who vote against it, because I will bet you $100 all of them talk about "jobs" and "the economy" all the time, and will vote against both if they vote against this.

Why? Because they represent people who are bad for jobs and the economy, and those people donate to their elections and get them elected, that's why.

Fish on...

Todd

Click the link. Click comment.
I used Baywolf's. Todd's above would be fun to send as well.
Thank you. Your bill comment was successfully sent.

A little search and one can read up on the 12 miles of the river designated as a Superfund site; here is one source of info: http://www.willamette-riverkeeper.org/WRK/superfund.html

Calls and personal visits have more impact than emails, but every bit counts.

Tribes are making it work despite Hanford, the BPA and using non selective fishing methods to boot.......Amazing!!

Because a small number of non-treaty commercial fishermen and a couple seafood buyer/processors are better connected politically and financially and don't want to give up their welfare subsidy fishing, courtesy of WA state taxpayers.

Well polished and nicely said.

They might have the money but we have the votes as some unemployed legislators have found out.

Be sure to call the legislative hotline, 800.562-6000 to support the bill. Ask your legislators to contact Brian.Blake@leg.wa.gov to have a hearing on HB1660.

Besides the commercial fishing industry is so much more efficient in providing the complimentary seafood essential to a legislator's cocktail party. Like the theme from Ghost Busters, "When the party's on, and you need some fish, Who you gonna call?"

Is this practice going on now, I don't know. Has it gone on in the past? According to one of my hunting/fishing partners, who was a lobbyist in both Washingtons, it did, and it helped explain the symbiotic relationship between our elected leaders and the commercial fishing industry.

I have contacted my two reps and the local Senator, too, for good measure...asking for their position on this bill and the explanation for their position.

Fish on...

Todd

Sen. Blake from the Aberdeen area is very pro commercial fishermen, which is weird when one considers there are barely more than 2 dozen gillnet licenses for Grays Harbor and who knows how many thousand sport fishermen. For Blake to be so deep into the commercial pocket, there has to be more to the story.

I sent my comment in. I'll contact my rep's too. If this is going to get fixed, it has to start somewhere.

fb

+100

Rep. Brian Blake (D-Aberdeen) 19th legislative district, Chair of the House Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee, would be on the top of my list to be replaced at election time if HB 1660 is ignored/stalled by him as it now appears.

Used the link provided by the OP to send comments to my Reps. One of them, Chris Reykdal, is a sponsor of HB1660. Seven of the thirteen listed sponsors are Republicans; six are Democrats. Good to see bipartisan backing for this bill. Keep the pressure on Brian Blake to move this legislation along.

I contacted my Reps and asked them to keep this bill moving forward. Constituents of Blake need to go visit his office!

Talked with Brian Blake the other day, and asked him about house bill 1660, and he says hes opposed, to the bill said it was a mess. I've known him since high shcool. He never has a straight answer.. kinda flakey

Salmo,

Blake also represents Pacific County, which includes Willapa Bay and from the mouth of the Columbia to Longview. Lots of commercial fishermen, as well as the packers and processors they sell their catch to.

Blake is a commercial fishing industry guy...of course he opposes it.

The "mess" is that his guys lose on the economic questions...by a mile.

Fish on...

Todd

Brian and I don't agree on everything, but he is actually a pretty decent guy.

He may be a decent guy, but he is no friend of sportsfishermen, sportfishing, or the sportfishing industry.

Since I am part of all three of those things...he is no friend of mine.

Fish on...

Todd

"Every single peson who works for the "goverment" is a cu.nt? Hey assh**e, my wife works for the govt. , she spent a LOT of time fighting for 4 days in and 3 days out in Greys Harbor, way to go to alienate your allies.Dicks like you should be hung up by your balls! (If you actually had any!). To brand anyone who works for the "government" is a cu.nt is pretty fu*ked up, you must be a teabagger(in both meanings of the word!
And we both will get on legislators about this bill because we lobby for slamon run restoration AND fishermen's rights. Bob R

I love the subtle troll. Glad you are back.

I still carry a gun with the intent of using it against human beings, so that part hasn't changed.

Pretty much nailed it. 'Murica!

Another teabagger who gets LOTS of perks for living in a country like ours and hates the system of govt. that we have. You should go live in another country if you are such a hater of our particular form of govt. Go to Iran, or North Korea, or anywhere else but here , we won't miss you.If our system didn't have validity why did the public outcry against gillnetters work in Greys Harbor? Oh, thats right . You didn't participate in proceedings. Yet you harvest fish? You talk a lot, but it's all bullsh**. Bob R P.S. After looking at your profile I can see was wasting my time even responding to a fuc**** troll like you, go to fishchan to get your laughs, I'm not amused by your mindless bullsh**

Great opinion piece in todays Aberdeen Daily World pro 1660.

I'd post it here but can't find it anywhere on line.

I'm sure it had to run in other local papers in WA.

Anybody got a link?

Sent in my VoterVoice in support of HB 1660.

Unfortunately, the e-mail goes directly to Blake and Takko.... neither of which is likely to be sympathetic to this effort to recognize the importance and economic impact of recreational fishing.

We shall see....

For those who don't have access to VoterVoice, feel free to email your respective State Representative(s)

If you have trouble composing your own talking points asking for their support, here's the text of the request on the V V webpage:

I urge you to support HB 1660, which has been introduced to prioritize and grow recreational fishing here in Washington. For decades WDFW's policies have constrained the economic and social benefits of recreational fishing, often in favor of non-tribal commercial fishing interests. At the same time, WDFW continues to ask the recreational fishing community to pay more for fishing licenses in order to backfill cuts in state funding.

WDFW is now asking for another $3 million in fishing license fee increases (HB 1563 and SB 5531), with over 75% of it coming from the recreational fishing community. Sport anglers support funding for our hatcheries and fisheries, but it is time to change how WDFW manages our fisheries.

We must recognize and enhance the economic, conservation, social and revenue benefits of recreational fishing and end subsidizing wasteful, non-selective commercial fisheries.

I hope you will support common sense reforms like HB 1660 as the legislation and WDFW's budget comes before you.

Dogfish,

Even more sport fishers that he represents then. A "decent guy" Senator doesn't work or advocate the interests of the few against and at the expense of the many. Sure looks like Blake is pimping full bore for a few. Sport fishing interests aren't doing enough to line his pockets is the logical conclusion.

An interesting analysis about our state legislators over a decade ago was not surprised at the conclusion that their influence could be bought. The surprise was how cheaply that influence could be bought. The Legislature, like Congress, is the best government money can buy.

Sg

There's no doubt that there are lot more sportfishing voters in Blake's district than there are commercial fishers, packers, suppliers...but the commercial industry is lining his pockets, and the voters keep voting him in...so that is what you get.

There are a lot more voters who aren't sportfishers and don't work in the commercial fishing industry than both of those two combined, by far, I'm sure, too.

It's not like he's going to change his stripes. As long as he's there then those will be his guys, and he will be theirs.

Fish on...

Todd

He is also stopping Bill 3759 with his influence. Give and take. One side doesn't win every battle.

I would suggest giving him a call sometime. He's pretty approachable and explains his reasons for the stances takes on certain bills. In some of my efforts I've been completely blown off by a number of legislators, while Blake, Hatfield, Sheldon and Hargrove have always been willing to talk.

Nice trade off considering the bill tracker says that there is no bill 3759.

Quite a cast of characters you have there also.

I have sent plenty of e-mails over the years with no response from Chair Blake. Not once.

Considering that there are 13 bi-partisan sponsors of HB 1660 shows a great balanced interest in this bill and contradicts Blake's lonely stance.

Chair Blake of the House Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee is siding with his crony’s money and with their minority view by not introducing this bill.

The people of District 19 should smarten up, remember this at election time, and vote this clown out of office.

Anyone read the letter from Rep. Liz Pike, Bryan Irwin, and Dave Patterson in Aberdeen's Daily World paper on the bill and Rec v Commercial in general ? Really hit the nail on the head.

My apologies Louie, 5739. Transposition is a bitch. These are the reps/senators in my area, so I talk to them. I can get you his cell number if you want.

Also, when you write them it is helpful to not start the letter off, "Hey asshole...."

Blake was also very helpful in getting Jennings off of the commission, along with a long list of other characters.

Interesting points all over this thread but as to Rep Blake he has been a descent Rep for his district. That said on the issue of salmon allocation he has been duplistic to say the least. He seldom is forthright on the issues of allocation instead has preferred to manipulate things behind the scenes. Worked fine with the former Director as this his chosen method of operation. So it will be interesting to watch this bill ( I think it lacks a companion Senate bill ) go forward. At some point Rep Blake will have to come out of the closet and again that will be interesting to say the least.

Is there a link to the article? I used three of my five attempts. Bing, yahoo, and google don't show this?

I'll take that number.

If you are implying that I start my e-mails to Blake with "hey asshole" or any other derogatory remark and that is the reason he hasn't responded back--- you would be wrong.

Dogfish, I did not mind former Commissioner Jennings views. I would rather err on the side of conservation than maximum exploitation.

I believe harvest reform is in order!

Trying to get a electronic copy but I did not find it on the papers website. Soon as I or someone gets a electronic copy it will be up I am sure.

Or maybe someone could scan the paper if that's all we've got for now?

Fish on...

Todd

I was joking about the "hey asshole". Have a sense of humor.

Let me get permission to share that and I will with you via PM.

I know you do a lot of work for fisheries related efforts and I do appreciate that.

I would agree that some sort of harvest reform is needed as well, but Jennings wasn't a conservationist, he was a preservationist. Two different animals entirely so don't kid yourself. He preferred non-use of the resources, really pushing his "non-consumptive" user stance. Non-consumptive user was his go to phrase, along with biodiversity.

Using data gathered from the dive group he participated in as the basis to influence ideas he was in support of was a big conflict of interest. The data he presented could not be considered to be from an arms length independent source.

Looks like we've started a big old dog pile. Great.

Just so you know, I also finance a number of commercial fishermen. Crabbers, both tribal and non-tribal, charter boats (in reality a portion of the commercial fleet), a number of longliners, a few geoduck divers, a handful of shellfish growers, and 5 or 6 gillnetters who fish in Alaska. Yes, I am the Devil himself. Go commerce!

Unemployment in the Harbor is something many of you folks outside of this county have no clue about. When we dip under 10%, we are doing backflips. In reality after taking into account viable workers who have stopped looking for work the true unemployment figures are much higher. Our elected officials work at protecting established commerce and jobs.

There are plenty of people employed by the sports fishing industry at this moment along the coast. There is also plenty of excess capacity to serve additional customers as it stands. Is there any anecdotal information that says the approval of this bill would automatically increase jobs? Show me that. There isn't a shortage of opportunity for sports fishermen to fish out here on the coast either. Try fishing one of the many open Puget Sound rivers in February and March. Aren't those managed on the basis of sports anglers first? How is that working out?

I look at both sides because I know families affected on both sides of the issue.


What is Puget Sound Angler's stance on this? Are they for this, against this, or neutral?

I have. Those didn't turn out so well. Cantwell and Murray never return my calls or emails.

Here is the letter to the Editor in the Daily World I mentioned previously.

Creating a world-class sport fishing industry in Washington
By Rep. Liz Pike, Bryan Irwin and Dave Patterson

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) is funded by the state Legislature every two years to manage, among other things, our state’s fisheries. In the last budget cycle, DFW received nearly $376 million in federal, state and local funding. Nearly $71 million came from the sale of recreational fishing licenses and excise taxes on fishing tackle, or about 19 percent of DFW’s total budget. The smallest contribution – $1.5 million – or less than one-half of one percent of DFW’s budget came from commercial fishing interests.

In 1974, Federal Judge George Boldt upheld treaty fishing rights, in what is known as the “Boldt Decision,” allocating 50 percent of the annual catch to Native American treaty tribes. The remaining 50 percent of the harvest is split between recreational fishing enthusiasts and commercial fishermen using gill and seine nets.

State policies have given the advantage to non-tribal commercial gillnet fisheries on the lower Columbia River, allowing them to harvest two-and-a-half times more salmon than recreational fishers. The disparity is even worse in Willapa Bay as recreational fisheries are constrained, but non-tribal commercial gillnet fisheries are free to harvest 93 percent of available salmon, even though recreational fishers contribute vastly more income to our state’s economy and to DFW’s budget than commercial interests.

More troubling is the preferential treatment given to commercial fishing over recreational fishing in the form of priority seasons set by DFW. For decades, recreational anglers have been treated as a nuisance at DFW, while preferred timing and seasons have been reserved for commercial interests. This has limited recreational fishing opportunities, as well as additional license revenue and economic value that could be flowing to the state from sport fisheries.

The economic impact of the recreational sport fishing industry far outpaces commercial fishing. In Willapa Bay, recreational fishing generates three-and-a-half times more economic value than the commercial fishery, despite catching only 7 percent of the fish. A federal study pegged the annual economic value of Columbia River recreational fisheries at $36 million, but credited only $2.1 million to non-tribal commercial fisheries. Locally, in the 18th Legislative District, 13,500 recreational fishing licenses are sold each year along with 10,000 Columbia River salmon endorsements. Just two other legislative districts in the state sell more Columbia River salmon endorsements than our district.

Recreational anglers don't just buy fishing licenses. They buy fishing tackle, bait, and large items, such as fishing boats, trailers and trucks to pull their vessels to and from their favorite fishing spots. They buy gas, snacks and beverages to consume while they are waiting for the fish to bite. They buy smokers, grills and freezers. Despite DFW's restrictions, recreational fishing contributes hundreds of millions of dollars to our state's economy each year with much of it flowing to Washington’s rural communities.

Overall, recreational fishing is a $1 billion industry in Washington. We believe this could blossom into a much larger industry with economic benefits for Washington and the state’s general fund through a change of policies and priorities. That’s why we have introduced House Bill 1660. The bill would transform Washington into a world-class fishing destination by providing parity to recreational fishing enthusiasts and ensuring fishing opportunities are consistent with user groups’ economic contributions.


Let's face it, sport fishing tourists will spend their money in the most desirable and competitive locations, whether here in Washington or other states or countries. Why should we let DFW constraints send sport fishing tourists elsewhere when we can attract those dollars here? Let's work together and pass HB 1660 to transform Washington's recreational fishing into a multi-billion dollar industry, improve our fragile rural economies still struggling from the Great Recession, and ensure DFW begins serving its primary customer and source of revenue. Contact your Washington state legislators at 1-800-562-6000 and urge them to support HB 1660.

Editor’s note: Rep. Liz Pike, R-Camas, serves the 18th Legislative District. Bryan Irwin is the Coastal Conservation Association’s former executive director. Dave Patterson is a recreational fishing enthusiast from Camas.



Representative Liz Pike
Washington State, 18th Legislative District
(360) 786-7812 | LEG 122B
P.O. Box 40600 | Olympia, WA 98504-0600

Thanks for your reply. I believe the biodiversity of the catch is in question along our coast, Canadian, and Alaskan waters.

IMHO commercial element for the state has been satisfied, offshore fisheries.

No need for the most harmful, least sustainable method of harvest. gill nets, in the home waters

Properly conducted gillnetting is a significantly better way to harvest fish with conservation in mind than the offshore mixed stock and net fisheries. Gillnets can certainly be abused, but they target , or should, specific identifiable stocks and can be managed on a daily basis to take only the identified surplus.

The offshore fisheries are, at best, shots in the dark aimed at reasonably unknown numbers and mixtures.

Yeah, I testified before in favor of more terminal fisheries. That did not go over well.

Absolutely welcome. I know that you also participate in the process of WDFW rulemaking by attending meetings, so I appreciate you doing your part on a regular basis. Those who don't ever participate in the process ring sort of hollow when they complain.

It is good to have a discussion where all sides of the issue are looked at, not just from "our side" as sportsfishermen. I just wish we could do something about the harvesting wall in AK and Canada that salmon have to go just to get to Washington. That would have the biggest impact on salmon returns, but then that is another issue that is out of our ability to control.

It is not right that the whole state should be taken hostage by Chair Blake’s inaction to move the bill forward. Put the bill out there and let it play out as it will.

I noticed his legislation that he is the only sponsor of HB1118--is moving right along.

HB 1660 has thirteen sponsors and is being ignored. Not right.

Something to remember if folks choose to go after Blake, or any politician, on a single issue that you may be severely burned. It is often reported that voters will vote for candidates who share their social views and end up with representation that screws them economically.

Blake may very well be anti-recreational but what is his whole record for the area he represents? The alternative may be you more sport fishing at who knows what cost.

Bills 1722, 1245, and a number of other bills, that are aimed at dismantling I -594 and clarifying firearms law related language, that I am trying to move through are being held up by Laurie Jinkins, the chair of the house Judiciary committee.

Would I like her to hold a hearing? Yup. Will she? Nope.
That is unfortunately how our legislative system works. If you aren't happy with it, change it.

From today's inbox....

Regarding HB 1660, I do not support it. Puget Sound has had "sports priority" for chinook and coho for nearly twenty years and in talking with fisherman locally none have declared they were pulling their lines out of the water to head for better opportunities in Puget Sound. I was talking with Joe Superfisky the other night and he declared that his salmon guiding season was the best fishing of his lifetime. I do not support bringing failed Puget Sound management to our coastal rivers. Sincerely Brian Blake

.

Just like a politician to make an apples to oranges comparison into a bull$hit smoothie that goes down like 12-year Scotch.

Can you tell he's been at this for a few terms?

Enemy of sport fishing though he may be, as others have said, Blake's pretty good overall, which is probably more than could be said for any replacement. Getting him out of office will only make room for the next guy to have his palms greased by the same interests, resulting in more of the same (and maybe worse on other community issues). It WOULD make room for a new Natural Resources chair, but the same folks who put Blake there will see to it the new chair is pro-commercial. Remember - those guys and gals get gifts from the same special interests.

Pay these folks like the attorneys and business types they are, get rid of private funding for elections, and watch the bad legislation fade away. That's my dream.

And more to chew on.

Court of Appeals dismisses challenge to Columbia River gillnet reforms efforts on track to remove destructive gear from Lower Columbia, improve local economy

A policy to remove non-tribal gillnets from the mainstem of the Columbia River moved another step closer to implementation this week with the Washington Court of Appeal’s opinion affirming the Thurston County District Court’s dismissal of a lawsuit filed by commercial gillnet interests challenging the policy.

The gillnet policy, adopted by the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife in January 2013, seeks to remove non-tribal gillnets from the mainstem of the lower Columbia River and restrict them to off-channel areas where this non-selective form of gear would encounter and kill fewer wild and endangered fish. The policy also anticipates the implementation of selective commercial fishing gears for mainstem commercial fisheries. Commercial gillnet interests have sought to overturn the policy since its adoption in both Washington and Oregon.

“Our region is already seeing the economic, conservation and social benefits of this policy, which is still in the transition period,” said Nello Picinich, Executive Director of CCA Washington. “As this policy is fully implemented it will generate tens of millions in economic value, jobs, revenue to fund the enhancement of our fisheries, and improved conservation of our wild salmon and steelhead populations.”

In 2012-2013, both the Washington and Oregon Fish and Wildlife commissions adopted a plan proposed by Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber that prioritizes recreational fisheries in the mainstem of the Columbia River and eliminates the use of non-tribal gillnets in the lower Columbia’s mainstem after a transition period ending in 2017.
The Governor’s plan was offered in the wake of CCA’s successful efforts to put a gill net ban initiative on the Oregon ballot. However, unlike the ballot initiative, Gov. Kitzhaber 's plan resulted in both states adopting a plan that eliminates the use of non-selective gill nets.

“The policy has now withstood two legal challenges in Washington, but that doesn’t mean the gillnet lobby won’t try again to derail it now and in the future,” said Picinich. “We would be wise to note that a net ban in Florida was briefly overturned last year after more than two decades on the books. We will have to remain vigilant to defend this landmark reform.”

Currently, a similar challenge to the gillnet rules adopted by ODFW is awaiting a decision from the Oregon Court of Appeals.

And the link to the Senate Companion Bill

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

After Brian Blake says he opposes 1660, he tells me he hopes I support HB1563, I couldn't find any info on it...

Here you go. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1563 Her you go.

Why? Because it might actually work? IT'S NEVER BEEN TRIED NOR GIVEN THE CHANCE ON THE COAST!!

I received the same reply when I sent my comments.

Well, I REMEMBER the mid 70's.......275+ charter boats working out of Westport.....people from all over the world coming to fish. $$$$$$$$ was being spent on everything. Some boats making 2 or 3 trips some days. Rivers in the area were fished LOTS.

It would work.....but I'd have to change my choice of fish areas!!!!

Why did I read this fuckin' thread?

Support of HB 1660 that went to the South Coast Legislators.

As an out-of-state sport salmon fishing enthusiast, I support passage of HB 1660. I encourage you to also support this bill!

I encourage the State of Washington to develop and maintain a world class sport salmon fishery. It would be good for the economy of your coastal communities. For the past 15 years I have been coming to Washington from Colorado to sport fish for salmon at various locations along the coast of your State. Initially, I would spend over 3 months every summer starting at Snow Creek (near Neah Bay) then moving to Grays Harbor (Westport), and then onto Willapa Bay (Tokeland) before heading home to Colorado in late September. However, as the commercial fishery took priority over sport fishing in Washington State I have reduced my days fishing and traveling in your State.

In 2014, I spent about 7 days fishing salmon in Washington. All of these days were fishing out of Tokeland. I now spend most of my salmon fishing dollars in British Columbia and Alaska. However, I would much prefer to keep my salmon fishing dollars in the State of Washington. Passage of HB 1066 would be a great step in again making Washington a national salmon fishing destination.

I also encourage you to support the development of Willapa Bay into a world class Chinook Salmon sport fishery! I would like someone to show me a more productive and safe Chinook salmon fishing area than Willapa Bay. I don't believe such a place exists. From my perspective, the Willapa Bay Commercial salmon harvest is the primary road block to the development of Willapa Bay into a world class sport fishing destination. Do you remember when Westport was the Salmon Fishing Capital of the World! I do! At that time, small business in and around Westport were booming.

Thanks!

DW,

I keep trying to finance more charter boats for people to fish. Not enough people have sufficient capital to build new boats at $500-1,000,000 each and there are only so many 43'-50' Delta Delta's out there at $200-350,000 each in fishable condition that will pass CG inspection.

If you find me boats and people with sufficient capital to buy them, I'll finance every one that is a viable deal. I've financed three boats in the past 30 days, but it is all churn within the existing fleet. No new boats from out of the area.

Blake has probably stated that so many times, he is starting to believe his own propaganda.

Why would commercial boat owners in Blake’s district want to come to PS when they catch 93% of the take in Willapa? Leaving not only crumbs there to sport fishers, but also crumbs to sport fishers in Blake’s backyard, the many various rivers in the Chehalis River Basin. These rivers not only have crumbs left but also rarely meet escapement goals.

Believe it or not, there was a time when I would actually travel and spent days and $$ to fish in those area rivers and also in Tokeland. Those times of local businesses getting my tourist buck have long gone and in some cases, some businesses are long gone themselves. I’m not the only one that changed locations to spend those dollars. AZ& NV get a majority of my fishing bucks now.

I could see where this bill could help in some of the economic depressed areas in this state that has fish to be caught.

+1
My $$ are heading out of state also.

This e mail thread was forwarded to me so I thought I would put it up. Two things come to mind. First it was descent of Rep Blake to respond in a frank manner directly to the gentleman a most of our elected folks do not do that. Secondly is I think it is safe to say that any Rec fisher worth their salt would call BS on Rep. Blakes views that appear to be locked in not recent past but last century!



From:
To: "
Sent: Saturday, February 7, 2015 2:18:34 AM
Subject: Fwd: Support HB 1660

FYI, here is some correspondence I received from Brian Blake. Clearly he has some personal views that will likely prevent HB 1660 from moving forward. I am new to the fishing game however his logic seems quite flawed and unsubstantiated to say the least. How someone (in this case a strong political leader) could compare the dynamics of South Puget Sound Salmon fishing to that of Willapa and Chehalis is beyond me. I guess this just goes to show how our political system, in many cases, only serves to perpetuate and muddy many of our already complex environmental and social problems.

Thanks!




Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Blake, Rep. Brian" <Brian.Blake@leg.wa.gov>
Date: February 6, 2015 at 20:16:45 PST
To: Dave Ragsdale
Subject: RE: Support HB 1660

Yes I am saying that sport fishing for salmon in Washington State will be worse off if HB 1660 were to become law. Puget Sound has had the sports priority called for in the legislation for twenty years and I do not want the piss poor chinook and coho fishing that occurs now in Puget Sound to become the norm in my fishing areas. Willapa sport fishing was off the charts this year, my local guide friends had spectacular salmon seasons in the Chehalis basin, B-10 was off the charts this year for sportfishing. Why bring failed Puget Sound management to these fisheries?

From:
Sent: Friday, February 6, 2015 8:00 PM
To: Blake, Rep. Brian
Subject: Re: Support HB 1660

Thank you for your reply.

I am not sure exactly how to take your response. Are you implying that the application of a recreational priority in the state of Washington will produce the same recreational opportunities that we have in Puget Sound? I may have interpreted your response incorrectly but it sounds like you are not in support of HB 1660?

Thanks for your time!

David



On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Blake, Rep. Brian <Brian.Blake@leg.wa.gov> wrote:
David, you have “sports priority” in Puget Sound now and I don’t believe it has produced better outcomes for us sports fishermen. Sincerely Brian Blake

From:
Sent: Friday, February 6, 2015 7:40 PM
To: Blake, Rep. Brian; Takko, Rep. Dean; Hatfield, Sen. Brian
Subject: Support HB 1660

Please support HB 1660. It's time to put an end to DFW's historical bias against recreational fishers and at the same time, stop subsidizing commercial gillnetters out of the wallets of taxpayers and recreational fishers that are stuck footing the bill.

Thanks!

Here is a copy of the email I sent to Rep. Blake. I CC Rep. Liz Pike as well.

Representative Blake,

Recently there has been a lot of internet traffic and interest on many of the Web forums regarding HB1660.

You need only do a search on these to see that HB1660 has overwhelming support from the sport fishing community, which holds a large majority of state citizens who are stake holders in this issue.

It has also come to light (and has been posted) that you are opposed to this bill, and responded with reasoning like this:
“Yes I am saying that sport fishing for salmon in Washington State will be worse off if HB 1660 were to become law. Puget Sound has had the sports priority called for in the legislation for twenty years and I do not want the piss poor chinook and coho fishing that occurs now in Puget Sound to become the norm in my fishing areas. Willapa sport fishing was off the charts this year, my local guide friends had spectacular salmon seasons in the Chehalis basin, B-10 was off the charts this year for sportfishing. Why bring failed Puget Sound management to these fisheries?”

You surely understand that the Sport Fishing community is a little better informed than that?

To justify your opposition to this bill with reasoning like that is ridicules. Have you even bothered to consult with the DFW biologist regarding the decline in salmon returns to the Puget Sound?

The time has come, both environmentally and economically for the State to move on this bill.

Your opposition and apparent move to stall this bill is shameful. Consider the economic impact that a robust sport fishing culture would have in your district. Short term there may be some adjustments in the transitions away from a commercial gill netting based economy, but in the long term your “guide friends” will be very thankful to you for your future thinking support!

I'm sure the buggy whip manufactures felt much the same way as you do. But Rep. Blake, it is time to stop being a road block to the future and betterment of the State.

We, the huge Sport Fishing community, ask you to have the courage to support this bill, and demand you allow it to the be voted on!

Fish On!

Perry Menchaca
USA 1SGT (Ret)
Washington State Sport Fishermen since 1974

The gentleman from my previous post forwarded Mr. Blakes response.

From: Brian.Blake@leg.wa.gov

To: bigboattwo@msn.com; Dean.Takko@leg.wa.gov; Brian.Hatfield@leg.wa.gov

Subject: RE: Support HB 1660

Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2015 02:09:48 +0000
I notice that you historically did not spend time fishing for salmon in Puget Sound where Washington State has had the sport priority for twenty years and the salmon fishing is by any measure poor. It is my position that the bill if enacted would lead to the same poor sportfishing opportunities that now occur in Puget Sound to occur in other regions of the State. The Salmon fishing in the Lower Columbia was spectacular this year and Willapa Bay was smoking hot for salmon also. In addition my guide friends in the Grays Harbor/Chehalis river system are reporting their best season ever. We have World class sport fishing here now and I do not intend to allow that to be diminished. Thanks for contacting me.

Sincerely Brian Blake

My thought is that Blake has so many relatives gillnetting Willapa Bay that we don't have a chance with him.

Hope somebody could prove me wrong?

fp

My $$$ is going to BC and Alaska. I used to fish blackmouth a fair amount but that is getting even cut back to. In 2014 I probably fished 10 days in Washington State. 2015 will probably be 0 along with my family members.

Definition:
de•lu•sion
/dlooZHn/ noun
An idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument

What is smoking hot is probably the hot seat Chair Blake finds himself sitting in continually defending his weak position--- using amped up exaggerated rhetoric each passing time he writes.

The companion bill, SB 5884, is out there as well.

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

Please ask your legislators for support.
800.562.6000 Call and leave a message.

If anyone here is a regular reader of the Aberdeen Daily World, would you keep us posted on any letters, or opinion pieces, that support or thwart the passage of HB1660/SB5884. I've used up most of my free visits to their website. I'd be especially interested if Brian Blake responds to the Pike, Irvin, Patterson opinion piece.

In the meantime, I'll check the local library to see if it carries the Aberdeen paper. Thanks.

Why is CCA's legislator of the year not promoting the Senate bill? He isn't a sponsor.
What is Puget Sound Angler's stance on the bill?

Regardless of what any organization says about Sen. Pearson, he is on my suspect list after not confirming Chair Wecker of the F&W Commission last year. Whether Sen. Pearson follows in the footsteps of Blake’s outrageous innuendos, will be seen, and I'm sure dealt with accordingly.

CedarR,

The Daily World's site management is easy to bypass when accessing from a desktop computer. Just click on the "X" in the upper right hand corner of the green "buy a subscription" pop-up as soon as it appears and you will be able to read the story unobstructed. Hope this helped.

Puget Sound Angler's stance?

I have been a volunteer since my service days. I believe it is time to change from the harvest at any cost mindset.

How many legislative politico's do we have on this board? Can someone clarify the fate of this bill?

So OK... Blake blocks this bill from ever being deliberated in the House and it never sees the light of day in that chamber. Does that render it DOA?

Or does sit still have a fighting chance originating in the Senate?

I read this page...

http://leg.wa.gov/legislature/Pages/Overview.aspx

.... and it's still not clear as to whether the Senate bill, if passed, would survive once it "moves" to the opposite chamber (the House). Could Blake's committee hold the Senate bill hostage once it moves to the House?

Here is the process a bill must take using a bill that passed last year.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5956&year=2013

It goes through both houses. It can get blocked anywhere along the way. It may pass the senate but get hung up in the house. Many bills take multiple years to pass. The one above took two sessions.

Reading that bill history, its clear to me it had to get thru committee in each chamber.

If Blake blocks the bill from ever having a public hearing in his committee, it's pretty much DOA.

That is correct. Pearson could also block the bill by not giving it a hearing.

I still think the biggest reason nothing like this ever passes is that the opposition can legitimately argue that, no matter how the harvest pie is divided (short of closing sport fisheries altogether), the sport fishing dollars will continue to flow. As long as there's opportunity, we buy our licenses, like clockwork. Meanwhile, legislators continue to collect contributions from the commercial lobby. Indeed, we let them have their cake and eat it too.

If we want the status quo to change, we have three options:

1. Stop buying licenses. One year ought to do the trick.
2. Start supporting campaigns.
3. Keep fishing, but also start supporting campaigns.

Any one of those options will have the desired effect. Unfortunately, the second coming of Christ is more likely to occur during our lifetimes than any of those things. If we were organized as one interest and each kicked in $5, we'd probably be able to out-lobby the commercials, but, lest we forget, sport fishers getting organized is the least likely scenario of all.

Yes, my understanding is if passed in the senate chamber it would be assigned to committee in the house chamber, and that committee would be the Natural Resource committee that Rep. Blake is the chair of.
The possible positive outcome could be the press received on the bill subject itself and at the same time letting Blakes constituents in district 19 figure out at next election if he is really representing them or his deep pocketed cronies out of King Co.

From my seat that is not going to happen. Rep Blake represents a rural region as a whole he does a fairly descent job. He is not Sid or Lynn but does his best to help ALL the rural folks. The thing is prior to 09 the locals and commercials tolerated each other to a reasonable degree. After 2010 with the implementation of that management plan ( but not adopted by the Commission ) all hell broke loose starting with the so called Commercial "dip in fishery " So the travelers got nailed in the 2T Rec fishery first followed by in river as the agency ramped up netting to harvest hatchery Chinook. This was followed by the absolute collapse of the natural spawners which were on the ropes to start with.

The thing that I have trouble with most is HSRG was adopted and became law in 2010. The management in the Willapa violated about every directive in HSRG but our former Director pretty much refused to address the issue until legally he was forced to with a court settlement.

So from Rep Blake's view he is looking at a huge mess that the agency created, his constituents did not want and the Commercials ( some of them ) are his constituents also. The thought that the voters of Southern Grays Harbor and Pacific Counties are going to become enraged over this little mess is more than a bit of a reach. It is a fisheries management issue brought on by WDF&W's unbelievably poor choices that now must be rectified and the harvesters both Rec & Commercials will pay the price as the staff that made these decisions move on to the next issue without consequences.

Blake had a very close election in 2010 with more convincing outcomes in the past two elections since then.

Former Sen. Jacobsen with heavy commercial backing who tried to gut the commission as he put it in 2009, rode into the sunset without King Co. falling into the abyss. Most don't miss him if they remember him at all.

I really doubt district 19 would miss Blake either.

I can only hope some other candidate beats him at election time.

http://thedailyworld.com/opinion/columni...rity-washington

Here is the operative thinking from the opinion of Mark Cedargreen in the above editorial link:

Third, I would propose a more sensible alternative to a sport fishing priority policy. I have been party to many endeavors where the allocation combatants have joined together to work toward increasing the size of the “pie” rather that battling over diminishing opportunity. The success of a campaign to produce more resource, which is an attainable goal, is maximized when fishery resource harvesters unite to enhance the resource for everyone as opposed to the strife of an allocation battle. Higher resource abundance tends to dampen debate over who gets to catch it. I’ve always wondered how the outcome of a quest to fully fund fish production, engaged in by those who are usually at odds with each other, would be received by those who control the purse strings. Maybe we’ll never know.

I find it interesting that people seem to forget failed approaches from the past. For instance, this was exactly the approach that was taken after US v. Washington. Instead of actually trying to control harvest as defined by the court, the answer was to "raise the pie" so that the existing sport and commercial non-Indian fishery would remain the same as well as accommodate the new Indian fishery. Raising the pie, in the late 1970's and today simply meant/means increasing hatchery production without concern for impact on natural populations. To make this seem sensible of course, we had to write off a bunch of natural populations based on the fact they they could not, on their own, provide the amount of harvest that we all needed.

It seems to me that we tried Mr. Cedargreen's approach once to get ourselves out of a hole that we dug for ourselves. I don't think we need to try it again.

Thanks for sharing that article.

That seems to be a pretty centrally positioned opinion of what the situation really is. Mark has been there, and done that, and has taken an active role in salmon and other coastal fisheries management over the year. Thoughts?

The Puget Sound Anglers are going to remain neutral on this bill. Some Chapters are for it and some against.

Mark is always well reasoned in his thoughts but one should remember this, much like the previous Director he is part of the fisheries establishment. Additionally one can and many do make the case that as a voting member of PFMC he is part of the problem. PFMC approved the Chehalis Chinook reduced escapement goals that the QIN requested. Not for conservation but rather to facilitate harvest. PFMC like WDF&W is about maximum harvest and particularly ocean intercept harvest. So Mark's thoughts should not be surprising as from PFMC to WA, BC, AK, OR, & Ca it is all about marine harvest which as a charter boat operator is where the driver for him is. Now bay fishers & inriver are the add on for what PFMC has left to fight over. Nothing new here.

Thanks Ron for clearing that question up.

I saw what I thought are two flaws in Mark's article. First, since US v WA, why do we need a non-treaty fleet to supply salmon to the marketplace for that part of the public that doesn't go fishing for themselves? Seems like the treaty fleet is more than capable of supplying the market. Trying to preserve an anachronistic status quo just leaves all of us - commercial and recreational - on the non-treaty side fighting for a share. Which leads to flaw number 2, making the pie bigger so everyone gets all the fish that they want or need. Ain't never gonna' happen, no matter how big the pie is. The big pie train left the station long ago, never to return. I'm not saying that runs cannot increase or that the pie cannot be made larger. It just can't be made into the kind of large that would be necessary to satisfy everyone.

Maybe not since the beginning of time, but for most of recent history, people have been competing for scarce resources, be it good land, oil, or fish. And that's not going to change. The refusal to acknowledge that the time in history for a viable non-treaty gillnet fleet in WA state has come and gone just prolongs the pain of making the decisions that are consistent with this reality.

Sg

For those who may not know Fishinnut he is the President of the PSA State Board and also president of the Sno-King Chapter hence in a position to respond.

My personal opinion of Mr. Cedargreen's article is that it attempts to justify
the status quo. In the article he mentions WDFW supporting both Tribal and state fisheries with the State's fisheries being both commercial and recreational. Okay, agree with that. But when he wrote that the resource is a public resource and that the State's commercial fishery provides fish to the State's non-fishing citizens he pointedly fails to recognize that the Tribal fishery is virtually all commercial. He also failed to engage on the reality that the general funds going to WDFW (you know, the dollars from those non-fishing citizens which used to help support WDFW's hatchery operations) have been cut dramatically over the last several bienniums.


Edit: Salmo snuck in while I was (slowly) thinking also hitting on the concept that the Tribal fishery needs to be recognized. Begs the question of whether the legislative mandate that WDFW manage for commercial harvest in addition to recreational use is met by the tribal fishery.

In short, pablum for the masses and a failure to recognize that what used to be in terms of who is paying for what has changed. Time to look at that old paradigm.

One other observation. His article seems to suggest that commercial fisheries be stopped. I don't read it that way; it addresses prioritization tied to proportion of funding.

And this is different from what Trout Unlimited did to I-696 Ban All Nets, HOW?

Here is Mark's Letter to the Editor in the Daily World. ( Aberdeen's Newspaper )

Mark Cedergreen

Last week an op-ed was published in the Aberdeen Daily World that solicited support for a legislative bill that would transfer fishing opportunity from commercial fisheries to recreational fisheries, basically for purely economic gain. I would like to counter that proposal. My opinion is my own and does not necessarily represent the views of all of the folks I work for.

To begin with, there are volumes of reasons not to embark on the path that House Bill 1660 would lead into. I will deal with just a few here.

First, salmon and our other fishery resources are public property. They don’t belong to any particular subset of the public. They are managed by the state and the tribes. Tribal fishing rights are settled by federal law. The federal government manages in matters relating to the Endangered Species Act and fisheries that occur in the ocean outside state waters. The state works with their co-managers, the tribes, to set seasons and allocations that are allowed by federal law, specifically in the federal Magnuson Act governing fisheries and fair allocation principles on a national scale.

The state also allocates harvest among non-tribal harvesters that have been developed over decades of negotiations and participatory government in the fishery arena. These were developed using principles that include not just economics but social and cultural considerations. Recreational fisheries provide economic, social, and cultural benefits. So do commercial fisheries. Some of the public choose to catch and consume the harvest individually. Others choose to share in the resource benefits by going to the market or a restaurant. To argue, based solely on economics, that one mode of participation is superior to another and that the other mode should be severely constrained or eliminated leads toward privatizing the resource for a small subset of the public.

Second, the economic values and tax revenue claims made by the authors of the op-ed are misleading at best. Numerous economic studies have been done over the years. The conclusions drawn are various and usually leave out important contrary information that might compromise the results sought by the sponsors/financiers of a particular study. Many times I’ve heard the argument that “I’m more valuable than you, therefore you should be eliminated and what you have given to me.” That’s a rather myopic mindset that lacks consideration of a host of other important considerations related to social and cultural values, particularly in the coastal communities that the legislators sponsoring the sport priority profess to benefit. Those considerations are too numerous to expand upon here. Additionally, there is the “law of unintended consequences” that so often rears its ugly head after the fact, particularly for policies that are not well thought out, and negates any benefits of the action.

Third, I would propose a more sensible alternative to a sport fishing priority policy. I have been party to many endeavors where the allocation combatants have joined together to work toward increasing the size of the “pie” rather that battling over diminishing opportunity. The success of a campaign to produce more resource, which is an attainable goal, is maximized when fishery resource harvesters unite to enhance the resource for everyone as opposed to the strife of an allocation battle. Higher resource abundance tends to dampen debate over who gets to catch it. I’ve always wondered how the outcome of a quest to fully fund fish production, engaged in by those who are usually at odds with each other, would be received by those who control the purse strings. Maybe we’ll never know.

I would submit that one thing is for sure. The passage of House bill 1660 (Senate companion bill SB 5844) would do far more damage to fishery management, coastal communities, and ultimately the fishery resource than any of us can currently imagine. I would urge the public to contact their Washington state legislators at 1-800-562-6000 and urge them to oppose both HB 1660 and SB 5844.

Mark Cedergreen has been the executive director of the Westport Charterboat Association since 1995. Prior to that he and his family were engaged in the charter boat business in Westport since 1956. He has also served on various fishery advisory boards, state and federal, including nine years as a voting member of the Pacific Fishery Management Council. - See more at: http://thedailyworld.com/opinion/columni...h.zaePt7sk.dpuf

I suck at converting the pdf format. lol

The bill is aimed at equitably sharing the financial burden of managing the public resource.

If it is about equitably sharing the financial burden then a lot of landowners and inland communities should be on board. They pay the cost for habitat protection. Does this mean, if it passes, that they get the benefit, too? The fish come back to their streams?

You seem to be implying that the fish are not returning to those streams. Fact is that in recent years there have been significant increases in both numbers of fish returning, rivers where those returns are occurring, and related fishing opportunities. Icicle River Chinook, Yakima River, and main stem Columbia for sockeye just to name a few. You might want to check out the CR Endorsement report which was recently released.

And the CR has sport priority. For inside waters anyway.

Ask the folks in GH or WB, or even PS if they get the fish back to their streams or if any increase in returns is taken in fisheries outside the streams.

True, if one is talking about only the State's share.

I was responding to your post which referred to land owners and inland communities; took both to be "inland."

As to the rest, not sure exactly what your point might be.

Well, you heard many of our fish are traded to Canada for Alaskan take.

The Director, WDFW, "represents" the State in the PFMC and US/Canada negotiations. Perhaps they need to allow more salmon return to home waters.

When WDFW was directly asked by a WB landowner if their habitat restoration project would result in more fish on the spawning grounds the answer was no, we'll catch them outside.

The point is the landowner is being asked to spend money to benefit somebody else. While I agree that we all have greater responsibilities to society, it should not be simply a one-way street.

This hits the nail directly on the head. What percentage of "adult" fish produced in Washington that are ready for harvest are intercepted in Canadian and Alaskan waters each year? Anybody?

Without any increase in fish numbers, trying to state that WB and GH would become world class fishing destinations is sort of pointless, isn't it? Divvying up 500 kings over escapement and promoting that as a world class fishing population of fish doesn't ring true either.

Anyway, lots of good people here with differences of opinion on what needs to be done. I wish you the best on your option, but this still isn't going to pass.

Okay, your point is now clear even if there are no details supporting that the individual in question was actually spending his own money on restoration (could be on his property but funded by others). But, again, the point is made.

And I agree!

But let's not forget all of the land owners whose use of their property has been limited by law in the name of habitat protection and fish restoration without compensation.

Managers at all levels need to work together to ensure that all of those efforts are rewarded by spawning numbers well in excess of minimums.

Going from memory it is about 48% of the harvestable adults taken in intercept fisheries. Some on the coast but most are AK & BC.

I've heard harvest amounts as high as 60-70%, but have no information source.

Lotsa good info here...

http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/forum...html#Post922160

From the PFMC/PSC re exploitation of coastal WA chinook. Queets is the PSC indicator stock for WA Coast and GH is... well.... GH. Bastages take about half of all pre-harvest adult production



For GH, that historically translates to 75% of the kings bonked for the box. Some years it's been a lot worse.

Check out these CWT recoveries from the 2003-2005 brood years ( representing returns as recent;y as 2011)



And here's comparative pre-terminal interception data for GH, Queets, CR URB's, and Willapa...



NOT pretty.

"leads toward privatizing the resource for a small subset of the public."

...like the present bias towards commercial fishermen?

No. The commercials are a tiny subset

If nothing else, HB1660 and the Senate companion bill has got us talking as a group. Yes, there are a lot of differing opinions, and just as many problems with the fisheries. But what this Bill primarily address' is the amount of money we the Sport Fishing Community contribute directly to the WDFW as opposed to what our Commercial Fleet does. And how WDFW's management polices favor the Commercial Fleet. Since there are FAR MORE Sport Fishermen and we are contributing FAR MORE Money we SHOULD be considered the Primary Stakeholder in the management decisions. Even removing the wording about making Washington State a world class fishing destination, the root of equality to the Sport Fishermen still rings true.

IF this Bill would pass, it would mandate that Washington State manage the fisheries with priority given to the Sportsmen, and that would go a long way in opening the door to address many other issues that have been outlined and brought up in this thread. But, the first step is to get the legislation passed that gives the Sport Fishermen a real voice by mandating the direction of the WDFW be focused on Recreational rather than Non-Tribal Commercial Fishing.

Unfortunately using that argument could be translated into other spending.

Since King, Snohomish and Pierce County hold the bulk of the State's population and produce the bulk of the gas tax revenues and other sources of funding for DOT, they should get most of the monies for road building and maintenance. The rest of us are left to drive on gravel roads.

It doesn't work that way, thankfully.

Not to put too fine a point on it...but rural counties are all against "welfare" except when they get it, which is where most of it goes.

Grays Harbor...I don't have the numbers in front of me but I bet Francis or Rvrguy can fill them in, but I believe that it costs the State more money to set up, monitor, assess, and enforce the commercial fishery there than the entire commercial fishery makes combined.

If anyone, anywhere, can give me even a remotely cogent argument for how that makes any sense I would appreciate hearing it...and if any non-tribal commercial guy ever tells you that they are "providing fish for the non-fishing public who can't get it otherwise" tell them to stick it...the tribal fisheries catch plenty to provide to the non-fishing public.

Fish on...

Todd

It cost more to manage the GH commercial season than the total value of the non treaty commercial harvest but I cannot remember the exact amount. In Willapa it is about 625k for Commercial and 175 for rec to manage the fisheries. I imagine the GH Rec is similar to Willapa in cost to the agency.

PS: We will GLLLLAAAADDDDDLLLLLLLYYYYY give back the 60% of our welfare cases to the Sound counties! That is where they come from looking for cheaper housing. Kinda the way it works.

Government is seldom, if ever, managed based on a profit motive. I know it should be at times.

The Gubmint doesn't have to turn a profit if it is providing a service to the public...this isn't even doing that, though, it's just flat out spending our tax dollars to inefficiently put a handful of dollars in the pockets of the few at the expense of the many.

Fish on...

Todd

I don't disagree at all.

Last figures I saw from WDFW is that is costs about $250,000 to manage the GH commercial salmon fishery which lands an annual average of $178,000 in ex-vessel value. This means it would cost taxpayers less to pay the NT gillnetters to just stay home and not gillnet.

The Grays Harbor non tribal ex-vessel value in 2014 must have been well below average. My estimate is $82,500.

It is based on fish value data in the Willapa model and Grays Harbor harvest numbers on the department web site. It includes 15 Chinook at $38.27/fish, 5,474 coho at $12.24/fish, and 2,614 Chum at $5.73/fish.

After driving down that gravel road to go fishing, I stop in at Mom & Pops' gas station and fill up, buy some snacks, pick up some fishing tackle and bait. I bet Mom & Pop really don't care if WDFW is catering to me. They see the benefit just the same.

And, oh.. King, Pierce Snohomish counties DO get the bulk of the DOT funding because the have more infrastructure.

Is tiny a smaller part of small, or is small a tinier part of tiny?

Tiny is smaller than small

So, why in the world is PSA not behind this bill?

Folks, if the sportfishing community can't unanimously get behind a bill like this, there is officially no hope for us. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how likely it is to pass, or even get through Blake's committee; it's about finally having the ability to stand up with a real voice for what's right.

And PSA is gonna pass? Really??

If you don't mind, may I ask what exactly some chapters object to?

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

The link is to the Senate companion bill and I have been told a hearing is to be held next week. Anyone know more?

Just this:

SB 5844
Feb 18- Scheduled for public hearing in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources & Parks at 1:30 PM. (Subject to change)

I'll plan on going. Hope the PSA members that are advocates for fish, sportsmen, and resource equity show up to testify. Every sports fishing group and every sports fishing business should be there to show their support for this bill, and to thank the Senate Committee for holding this hearing.

If you do plan to speak, write down your comments. Time yourself a few times, and edit, edit, edit. You will have 3 minutes to speak, unless they ask you questions.

Please sign in and support. Even if you do not wish to testify.

800.562.6000 is a way to send support as well; if you cannot make it to Olympia.

You hit it right on the head!!!

I have been reading post after post about the sportfishermen playing second fiddle in this state and now someone has at last said "Here ya go, let's see if these guys can get behind this!"
I want to know what Chapters of the PSA stand, and which shrink! It would be VERY INTERESTING to hear why they are non-supporters!

There is NO MENTION of HB1660 on the PSA web site! WHAT????

What say you PSA Chapter Presidents? PRO or CON? Make it public.




I WILL BE AT THE HEARING!!!

The Daily World has another Opinion piece today but it is not on the web site yet. The headline "Sport fishing priority leaves most of us out" by Ed Owens.

The point seems to be that all commercial fishing in Grays Harbor is a big business more valuable than sport fishing. Also several hundred thousand sport fishing enthusiasts should not control access to fisheries resources owned by all citizens.

Ed Owens has been lobbying for the commercials since forever. Whenever a positive change threatens Washington commercial fisheries, you can count on Owens to try to make it go away. Another droning voice for the establishment and status quo that ought to be ignored. Unfortunately, he has the ear of a number of politicians, so the only way to counter his influence is with a flood of emails, letters and phone contacts that state the facts.

Good to see the CCA is solidly behind SB 5844/HB 1660. A bipartisan group of ten Senators and thirteen Representatives has attached their names to these bills as well. They deserve the support of all sportsmen and sportswomen this week.

The somewhat hidden fallacy in the argument is several fold.

1) Only about 1% of that commercial value is salmon. On an apples to apples comparison, sport salmon is 3-4 times more valuable than commercial. This situation is true in places like willapa bay despite an allocation of 90% commercial/10% rec. This is all about salmon. Its not like the ocean crabbers, shrimpers, or bottom draggers fear the recs. If you look at where the commercial money comes from its mostly the ocean and PS shellfish.

2) The financial argument laid out includes tribal harvest, but tribal harvest will not be impacted by this bill. In fact as mentioned above, the state already has a dedicated commercial fleet that will always get at least 1/2 the available take. The seafood availability to the public is just grandstanding.

3) The arguement is that rather than ~100,000 users utilizing the resrouce a few dozen is more equitable? With the justification being the commercially caught fish reach more people. I don't know about you guys, but I supply at least a dozen people a year with free seafood. If the other 100,000 salmon anglers are similar, I would argue we reach about 20% of the sate with our salmon, maybe the commercial harvesters reach more people, but I don't think they're state residents.

100,000 people fishing Willapa Bay?

In a presentation WDFW staff made on Willapa they stated that commercial Salmon fishing is about .075 of the total value of aquatic managed resources. ( crab / shell fish ect ) In fact Willapa & Ilwaco are two of the top four for commercial landings but salmon is almost insignificant.

Additionally the recent rec seasons are around 4.25 million in economic value on 10% or less of the harvestable fish while the commercial salmon harvest is about 1.4 million on 90% plus of the harvestable. Economically the current WDF&W management in the Willapa Estuary is killing Pacific County economically. You only have to look South to a similar shallow water bay and that is Tillamook Bay. Recreational fishing is a major component of the tourism draw to that part of the Oregon coast.

If any of the naysayers hanging out in this thread do not believe the numbers e mail me and I will send you WDF&W's bloody presentation to the Pacific County Commissioners.

Dogfish,

No no, 100,000 is my estimate of the total number of salmon fishermen in the state.

I suspect there are a lot more than a 100,000 licensed salmon anglers in the State.

In 2011 sport catch report WDFW reports that there were 65,805 saltwater resident licenses sold. In addition there were another than 158,120 combo licenses sold, a total of 223,925 resident folks that could fish the salt. I would guess that there were 200,000 salmon anglers and maybe more if you include the 1, 2, and 3 day licenses and non-residents.

Curt

What would be good info to get, if the state can do it, is a good number on how many actually folks fish for salmon, steelhead, halibut, and sturgeon. Lots of folks get the validation CRC for all species but some never fish for them.

When the state runs the numbers on estimated harvest, they'll use the whole universe "...because they could fish for the target species..." That can skew the information.

bushbear -
From TCW economics 2008 final report "Economic Analysis of the non-treaty Commercial and Recreational Fisheries in Washington State" I found the following 2006 estimates.

For steelhead some 113,000 anglers fished 1.1 million days

For salmon 294,000 anglers (both fresh and salt and I expect that included some cross over) fished 2.5 million days.

All other marine fish 44,000 anglers fished 187,000 days

To put those values in context there were 337,000 trout anglers fishing 3.6 million days

Total value of the recreational fishery was $462 million (with 9 million angler days). I would expect the number of anglers fishing salmon have increased since 2006; if for no other reason than larger pink runs, more mark selective opportunities in Puget Sound and increased Columbia river runs. As the value of the angler day has increased substantially; the latest WDFW report that I saw (Columbia endorsement report) used a value of $82/day. That would put the value of 9 million angler days at approximately $738 million.

Curt

The same report said that the 2006 total value of the non-treaty commercial fishery was 65 million dollars of which 9.5 million came from the salmon fisheries.

Also of interest 1/2 of the commercial salmon value came from chum and more than 15% came from sockeye (note 2006 was a non-pink year).

Curt

Thanks, Curt.

Here is the recent letter to the editor by Ed Owens from the Aberdeen Daily World. Draw your own conclusions but the rural inland ( I will highlight ) bit that commercial harvest benefits them is so far past hysterically funny that it almost gives the word hysterical a new meaning!

By Ed Owens

The OpEd “Creating a world-class sport fishing industry in Washington” recently published in The Daily World makes disturbing – and less than accurate – statements. The authors of this OpEd assert that “recreational fishers contribute vastly more income to our state’s economy …” than commercial interests and further state that “Overall, recreational fishing is a $1 billion industry in Washington.” Dr. Hans Radtke, a natural resource economist from Oregon, published a comprehensive study on Washington commercial fisheries in January 2011 documenting $3.9 billion in economic activity by all commercial fisheries in Washington State.

NOAA’s Fisheries of the United States 2013 report, the most recent available, shows that in 2013 commercial landings in Washington made the state the third largest harvester by volume in the nation and fifth largest by dollar value. B&O, excise and retail/wholesale taxes (for fuel, ice, supplies and equipment, etc.) generated by $3.9 billion dollars in economic activity are substantial and are returned to the state general fund. All tax revenues sent to the general fund contribute to the ability of the state to provide a positive and healthy capital budget for schools, roads and other societal priorities. The fleets have long argued that some portion of this substantial revenue stream should be diverted to the state Department of Fish &Wildlife, but the Legislature steadfastly has refused because of the need to prove to bond markets the ability to repay debt – a general fund obligation.

In short, the argument that less than half of 1 percent in contributions to the Fish &Wildlife Department’s Wildlife Account by commercial fishing justifies a dramatic shift in public policy is grossly misleading. The authors argue that sport fishing contributes the largest dollar amount to the Wildlife Account therefore sport fishers deserve special priority. Of the total Wildlife Account revenues earned in FY14 ($51.8 million), 35 percent were derived from hunting licenses and endorsements, 42 percent were derived from recreational fishing licenses and endorsements, and 23 percent were derived from Discover Pass, Non-Game licenses, Firearm Permits, Watchable Wildlife decals, and transaction fees. Caution in the use of the sport fishing numbers is appropriate as about $8 million of these revenues are for freshwater fisheries, $1.2 million for shellfish licenses and about $2 million from temporary or limited opportunity licenses (such as charter boat one and three day salmon tags).

To properly assess “rural” impacts I direct your attention to a recent study by the Port of Grays Harbor demonstrating that commercial fishing is considerably more valuable to rural Grays Harbor than sport fishing. There are other items I could discuss to illustrate the stated and implied inaccuracies in this OpEd but the examples presented illustrate my point.

In closing, please allow me to observe that the proponents of “sports priority” have taken similar arguments to the voters on multiple occasions – and the voters have been abundantly clear that they do not support several hundred thousand sport fishing enthusiasts controlling access to fisheries resources owned by all the citizens. Why? One observation is that six plus million residents of the state enjoy the bounty of the oceans and they don’t fish for these resources themselves.

Ed Owens is a former Research Director and State Director of the WSU Small Business Development Center is and now a retired natural resources consultant and lobbyist with more than 45 years experience advocating for numerous hunting, sport and commercial fishing and wildlife conservation organizations in Washington State and the Pacific Northwest.Coming to a Point — In... - See more at: http://thedailyworld.com/opinion/columni...h.JcavWJ89.dpuf

Talk about trying to muddy the waters. Here is a link to the Radtake economic study the Owens referred to in his OP-Ed piece.

http://www.phillipspublishing.com/smbc/a...sheries%204.pdf

In that article Radtake refers to 3 major omissions in the TCW paper (remember the TCW was pretty narrowly defined comparing in State NT commercial and recreational fisheries).

The first omission was the failure to include the Tribal fishery piece.

The second omission was the failure to include "distant waters fisheries"; for example money spend to outfit various Alaskan fisheries - deep water trawls etc.

And the third omission was not including aquaculture; including clams and oysters.

Clearly this is an attempt to greatly inflate the commercial piece for an apple to orange discussion designed to confuse and miss-lead folks.

However let's accept the Owen/Radtake commercial value of 3.9 billion dollars. For sure the commercial fishing industry is an important component of the State's economic. That said the commercial salmon fishery is just a tiny piece of the overall commercial fishing industry in this state. The economic value referred to in the TCW of the NT commercial salmon industry or 9.5 million dollars represents only 1/4 of 1 per cent of commercial fishing industry. In other words completely eliminating that segment of the commercial fishing industry would hardly be seen/felt. On the other hand transferring those salmon taken in the NT commercial fishery would greatly increase the 200 million dollar value of the recreational fishery.

Not sure that many are arguing that the NT commercial salmon fishery be eliminated. Only that increased priority be given to utilizing important recreational salmon species (such as Chinook and coho) in recreational fisheries. Something akin to what we currently see in Puget Sound salmon fisheries or steelhead statewide. Further as the information provided by Owens provided via his OP-ED piece doing so would have a barely measurable affect on the over all commercial fishing industry in this State.

Curt

Ed Owens retired a couple legislative sessions ago after years of lobbying for the Purse Seine Vessel Owners Association and the Coalition of Coastal Fisheries (commercial). Looks like he's back to work penning propaganda pieces, or "Ed"itorials. I found his recent letter to The Aberdeen World to be only slightly less bewildering than the DNA evidence presented to the O. J. Simpson jurors. He's managed to "murk up the waters" down there in Grays Harbor County; someone local needs to challenge his statements and his statistics... how 'bout you, Rivrguy?

Did anyone watch Outdoor GPS yesterday? (Comcast ch. 617)

Owin Hayes, the host, had bill sponsor Liz Pike on the last 20 min of the show and pretty much gave her the microphone to explain the history of the bill and what led up to it.

She said it would be interesting to see what happens if 1660's companion bill does get a hearing and moves on. Still would have to get by Blake's committee eventually.

Ed Owen retirement was preceded by an ethics scandal between him and one of the many organizations that he represented if I remember right. I seem to remember a thread on here about 2009-2010 if anyone is interested in looking up.

To reinforce Smalma's observations the TCW study was intended to evaluation the value recreational fisheries in WA State as well as the WA State NT commercial fisheries. The study's report also emphasized that it was NOT intended to be used to compare the two fisheries.

To add the values of commercial fisheries prosecuted outside the State but affecting the State's economy in any discussion regarding this bill is simply off target and irresponsible.

We were joined by former WDFW Director and current President of Fish Northwest Curt Smitch to discuss the issue.

Here's the PODCAST

Thanks for the excellent informative podcast!

Here is the link that was eluded to in the podcast.

http://www.growsportfishing.com/

Great interview! It's very informative; hope it inspires others to get involved. The Wednesday hearing will be historic. Unbelievable that PSA chose to sit this one out. You were right when you stated that you're either "for" or "against" these bills. In the end, these legislators will only be tallying the support for SB 5844/HB 1660 and the political cost of inaction. Thanks for the link.

Eric, there's an Outdoor GPS show scheduled for 6:00 am tomorrow. I'm hoping its a repeat of the one you heard. Should be interesting if it is.

I sent an email to each Chapter of PSA. I received a few replies, most not supportive. Here is an email exchange I had with Mr. Don White, NKPSA President, and that Ron Garner added to:

-----Original Message------------------------------------------------------
From: "Combat Doc" < baywolf9@hotmail.com>
Date: Feb 13, 2015 7:34 PM
Subject: HB1660
To: Don White <dnwhite13@gmail.com>Ron Garner, President PSA

Sir,
Can you please inform me where your Chapter stands on support of HB1660 and it’s Senate counterpart?

Many sportsmen are wondering why the PSA has not made a public statement in support of this bill?

We can only assume, each individual chapter will make their own choice. So, where does your Chapter stand?

Thank you for your timely response,

Perry Menchaca
PSA Member
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don White <dnwhite13@gmail.com>
To: rgarner755 <rgarner755@aol.com>
Sent: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 10:37 am
Subject: Fwd: HB1660

Ron,
I am assuming you received this email also? I find it odd that he sent it to my personal email, and not NKPSA's.
I am not inclined to answer individual Member's questions from other chapters (he doesn't identify his affiliation).
Is there anything threatening in the fine print of HB1660 that I am missing?
Thanks,
Don
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rgarner755@aol.com
Sent: &#8206;Saturday&#8206;, &#8206;February&#8206; &#8206;14&#8206;, &#8206;2015 &#8206;11&#8206;:&#8206;19&#8206; &#8206;AM
To: dnwhite13@gmail.com, Combat Doc, fishnbrad@gmail.com


Perry
Please identify yourself as to what chapter you are a member of so that we can verify it. We are gbe coming out with a statement shortly.

I have received your email several times this morning. My concern is that you might want to speak out for PSA when asking these questions to all of the chapters.
You do not have authority to speak for us on the internet discussions.
Thanks
Ron Garner
PSA State President
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Combat Doc <baywolf9@hotmail.com>
To: rgarner755 <rgarner755@aol.com>; dnwhite13 <dnwhite13@gmail.com>; fishnbrad <fishnbrad@gmail.com>
Sent: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Subject: Re: HB1660

Ron,

I am a member of the South King County Chapter.

I can assure you that I am not, and have no intention of speaking on behalf of, or for PSA.

I simply wanted to know where the chapters stand on the support of this bill since there has been no official statement.

I apologize for the multiple emails, and for any emails sent to personal email accounts. I used the official “contact us” links found on the web sites.

I also want to insure you that I have no political connections to this bill other than being a long time sport fishermen and registered voter.

Thank you for your concern.

Looking forward to reading your statement.

Perry Menchaca

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rgarner755@aol.com
Sent: &#8206;Saturday&#8206;, &#8206;February&#8206; &#8206;14&#8206;, &#8206;2015 &#8206;11&#8206;:&#8206;19&#8206; &#8206;AM
To: dnwhite13@gmail.com, Combat Doc, fishnbrad@gmail.com

Thank you Perry
I will be sending it out today.
Ron

Has anyone seen or heard the Statement that Mr. Garner says he was sending out on the 14th?

Perry, my name is Brad Ridgeway and I'm the President of Renton PSA and the secretary of the State Board of PSA and I'm here to tell you Renton Supports both bills. Futhermore I have collected support votes from 10 chapters so far and 1 choosing not support still waiting for the responce from 4 chapters. I'm curious how 1 equates to "most"?
I saw you email but did not respond due to 1 not knowing anything about you other than you like to post on the internet and 2 having more important matters at hand, and to add to that i'm having outboard issues which I put you right after so here is my statement. See you in Olympia Wednesday

P.S Ron's PSA statement will be coming today, would you like one of us to post it here or would you like it sent to you so you can do that?

Thanks

Brad

Here is the answer for PSA. We are going to sign in support of the bill. I have worked politics for many years and this bill looks great to anyone that looks at it. I had to call the chapters in for a vote and it is not easy with 15 voting chapters. There are chapters still waiting to be heard from. I am going to lay it out as I see it as I have had so many calls and pressure to succomb to this bill. PSA is a ground up organization meaning it does what the chapters want.

I have been working in the political arena for many years and was able to bring in a lobbyist to help with our cause. There are many battles we have fought. PSA as a whole is going to go forward to support SB5844 on Wednesday. We have taken a chapter vote and will go forward with a yes vote. This has not been easy as there are many things at play here. This is something we have not taken lightly. We always want to pick our battles wisely and make sure there are not repercussions down the road that we made the right choice. This bill puts added pressure on several of the remote chapter communities that have differences in how their fisheries are managed. This bill is stated as a recreational priority bill. It says when dealing with our fisheries recreationals get priority.

The reason we had given the neutral stance is because we knew that Representative Blake was not going to hear (HB1660) in the House, it is a huge longshot that PFMC is going to change the ocean fisheries management towards the recreationals. This boils down to going after the ocean trollers. We know that to change any ocean fisheries management, it has to go through PFMC. The ocean is managed federally and not as much the state. PFMC is comprised of 14 voting members and only 1 is from Washington. Most has almost always voted commercial. Oregon would not be on board, but there is one issue where they might. Let's say even if we could get a bigger share of the Ocean Chinook, the Oregon trollers are going to come right in and take those fish away. These fish will be open game for them. So a win would be quickly taken away.

Right now of the Non-tribal fisheries side we have already:
1. Repositioned crab and shrimp for the recreationals in the Puget Sound. We have the lion's share of halibut in Washington state. PSA was the reason this happened as they were the advisors that did the ground work to get it done.
2. Have most of the Chinook and Coho managed for sport in the Puget Sound. Non tribal commercials get the Pink and Chum.
3. Puget Sound Halibut (from Neah Bay in) non tribal is 100% recreational. No commercial fishery.
4. Non tribal ocean halibut fishery-Recs get most of it.
5. We have 73% of the Coho in the ocean and 50% of the Chinook out there. If we could change the ocean troll fleet we would have to get a law mandated in Oregon to stay off of these fish. Not likely as PFMC is mainly managed for commercial fishing.
6. Our seasons for Puget Sound Rockfish are closed. We have a managed Lingcod fishery.
7. Columbia River is already trying to be managed for the sports and has issues between Washington and Oregon and non stop fighting.

The rest of the ocean fishery is a non issue. We can fish for and catch about as much tuna, rockfish,and lingcod as possible except going up against the impacts caused by species of concern, i.e, Canary and Yelloweye Rockfish. These are the drivers that shorten our opportunity.

We have not sat idly by as some may think. We have been working on this through many calls to make sure we are doing the right thing. There are always reactions for every action so we want to be careful.

Do we want to send our PSA NOF representatives into the North of Falcon process making it tough to deal with the other user groups that are comprised of Tribes, Non tribal commercials, and recreationals on the chance that this bill might not make it? I know there is a lot of pressure on Brian Blake to pass HB1660 but reality is that he lives in a commercial fishing town with commercial family members.

Do we want to make the North of Falcon planning process meeting tough on our reps that have to sit in a room with all parties that partake in splitting up the salmon on the west coast, from Point Falcon California to the Canadian Border.

They have to divide up all of the salmon between the user groups and come to an agreement on who gets what salmon. Our NOF representatives work very hard with all entities looking forward to a positive outcome for us.

We have some remote chapters that this affects differently and think we should be respectful of their situations.

We had to cast a chapter vote due to outside pressure trying to paint us as "for" or "against." So we will be going forward with the yes. As of right now the votes that have come in are high enough to have the state board represent a yes vote on these two bills. The accusations that have come to me are ludicrous and unacceptable.

From I went behind our organizations backs to legislators to cut their throats to being a traitor. With all of the fishing issues that PSA has rolled up its sleeves and helped to gain for the recreational, that was a huge slap in the face.

There are a lot of positive aspects in this bill and legislators have stuck their neck out for this bill to happen for recreational fishing. PSA signing on will help this bill move forward.

If it wasn't for the strength of PSA, this would never be an issue. We are focusing our energies on the Puget Sound Rockfish ESA listing. This is going to make this bill issue seem like peanuts as there is intent from NOAA to shut down parts of the Puget Sound to fishing. This would be a federal permanent closure on our fishing grounds. PSA is the only fishing organization that is at the table trying to guide this in our favor to stop these closures. The rest are NGOs that are paid to be there and many want closures. In my opinion some are there to fund their organization through crisis funding. No crisis no funding. Remember that we are a 100% volunteer organization with no salaries.

I really hope this helps shed light on what we see that is happening. If you would like to speak or comment on the bill please do. We are not trying to tell you how to vote. We want our perspective to be known. I have called about everyone in the world that this would affect to make sure we are doing the right thing. This takes time. We want to make sure that this is not ready, shoot, aim.

The scheduled public hearing is on Feb 18, this Wednesday, at 1:30 PM in Olympia. This is in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Parks. This is in the John Cherberg Building, 304 15th Ave SW, Olympia, bottom floor. Please come and support your position. If you choose to not show up and be heard, don't complain.
Thank you and see you in Olympia.
Sincerely,
Ron Garner
PSA State President

Thanks, Ron

Thank you Ron,

And thank you for all the hard work and long hours spent making sport fishing a priority.

These are hot topics, and frankly, there is a lot of politics and money involved. Emotions run high on both sides, but that is no excuse to slander or call into question anyone's character.

I'm sure the majority of sportsmen know how difficult it is to work on these issues, and applaud you and the other PSA board members for your work.

Brad,
I can understand how my emails requesting information on where the varies chapters stood might of been misunderstood. It was not my intent to put anyone on the spot, but rather to gain some insight as we (the sporting community) had not heard anything official from PSA. Perhaps the "Less than supportive" comments were due to a misunderstanding of intent. No matter, in any case, PSA has stated fully supporting the measure and THAT is what matters!

With Mr. Garners released statement, the momentum has increased exponentially.

By the way, Brad. I'm an old SOB and posting on the internet is not one of my favorite things. But having served 22 years in the armed forces, I'm willing to stand up for what I believe in. And if that means I have to spend 40 minutes trying to type something on the internet then I'm willing to do that.

P.S. Don't bother posting the statement. Someone already did!

I understand Perry, We have been working hard over the last few days and both Ron and I have been bombarded from all sides and I’m a bit defensive, sleep deprived and pissy. It was tough to see people criticizing by mail, phone, internet and airways of one of the, if not the hardest working person the fishermen in this State have.

Thank you for your service.

Brad

Straight from the author of HB 1660...

The biggest thing YOU can do right now if it's even remotely possible is to show up at the hearing on the Senate companion bill on Wednesday.



This is generally the kind of thing I jump at in a heartbeat, but unfortunately I personally will NOT be able to attend the hearing to testify.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

The same diehards show up at these meetings to do the heavy lifting. Here's YOUR chance to take a bit of the burden off their shoulders. If at all possible please attend and sign in SUPPORTING the bill. Better yet take a few minutes to jot down some notes and sign up to TESTIFY in support of the bill.

We all know Blake has no intention of hearing the original HB 1660 in committee. If this thing passes the Senate with bipartisan support, it will be much more difficult politically for Blake to ignore when it comes back to the House the second time around.

The scheduled public hearing is on Feb 18, this Wednesday, at 1:30 PM in Olympia. This is in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Parks. This is in the John Cherberg Building, 304 15th Ave SW, Olympia

I'm heading down from the McChord AFB area. I have room for two more if anyone needs a ride. Just let me know with enough lead time so we can plan a meet up location.

Please, if anyone else is going, offer a ride to others that may want to attend but have no ride. If ever, we need to have a really, really good turn out.

There will be other bills having a public hearing by Chair Pearson at the 1:30pm time slot along with SB 5844.

Killing 2 birds with one stone, I will sign in opposed to SB 5881 regarding Sen. Chase’s bill concerning the composition of the F&W commission.

The other bills I am undecided on at this moment but maybe you have preferences.

The commercial industry will be represented as usual and we need a good showing of the recreational industry being represented as well, for SB 5844, to balance or hopefully dominate the hearing. If you fish for salmonids, make or sell tackle, manufacture boats,and are part of the 800,000 fish license holders, etc. for recreation purposes, you are part of the recreational industry.

If you have a chance to be there, then come to Olympia and sign on in or sign in to testify.

I just had a doctor's appointment rescheduled from Thursday to 12:30pm tomorrow, so there's no way I can make it down there now...so thank you to those who can make it.

I've sent in comments, and I've contacted my legislators to let them know where I stand on it.

Fish on...

Todd

In these discussion I often see references to the commercial fishery or the commercial fishery industry. In reality what is really under discussion is the non-treaty SALMON commercial fishery.

The commercial fishery industry is a large and diverse business that is a significant contributor to the State's economy. The non-treaty commercial salmon fishery is but a tiny portion of that overall commercial industry. While some will likely try to confuse the issue by talking about the value of that commercial industry those in the recreational community would be will served in the arguments by being specific about the issue and precise in our terms.

In addition it would probably be wise to focus the prioritization of Chinook and coho for the recreational fishery. In marine waters the chums and San Juan Island sockeye typically account for approximately 2/3 of the economic value of the NT commercial salmon landings.

It has been a long uphill fight to get to this point in this debate and the reality is it will likely drag beyond this legislative session. Success over the long term may well hinge on the recreational community's ability over the long haul to educate the legislators by being both concise and precise in our arguments.

Some of my thoughts.

Curt

Thank you Curt for your thoughts.


I have two numbers written down. One number represents my guess on how many commercial fishers show up and the other number represents how many recreational fishers show up.

Of the 800,000 recreational fishers, experience shows that the only one you can count on to show up is yourself and we are behind in the turn out column.

If there is only one thing that you do to represent yourself and your sport this year, hopefully this is the occasion.

If anyone wants to listen in TVW will have the hearing videotaped.

http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwschedule#date=2015-02-18&time=13:00

SB5844 sits right in the middle of the agenda ( 5th of 11 bills) to be heard over the course of about 2 hours starting at 1:30PM

Of the numbers I had written down, I was close on the commercial turnout but the sport anglers turn out number was crushed and hit absolutely out of the park.

Pro-- 23 signed in to testify + 41 signed in =64 in attendance “pro”
Con--19 signed in to testify + 15 signed in =34 in attendance “con”

Almost double was for the bill.

The powers to be are trying to show a landscape of an equal standoff of support from both the sport angler and commercial industries yesterday, which simply was not the case.

It was a great feeling of not being surrounded and out spoken by the commercials like in other venues I have attended in the past.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I just feel great today.

Enough of that, now we need the bill to continue to move.

You can track the bill progress through the link below. There is also a box you can check and send your comments on the bill to your local legislator(s).

You can also do the same for HB 1660. Just type in 1660 in the bill number box.

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