A bill being debated in our legislature as I type

http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=2555&Year=2017

HB 2555 - DIGEST

Authorizes the director of the department of fish and wildlife to issue permits to members of the Wanapum band of Indians to also take other freshwater food fish for ceremonial and subsistence purposes.


The Wanapum is a non-treaty tribe that was given salmon fishing rights by our legislature in 1983.

Both WDFW AND Grant county are going to testify in support of this bill. WDFW looking out for the states sportsman........

I don't begrudge anyone from exercising their cultural heritage. However, we need to also consider that many non-tribal citizens are also dependent on fish for subsistence. If the tribal elders were transparent and fair in this request, they would insure that those tribal members who are in need of fish for subsistence, should have to collect those fish in the same manner and within the same regulations that non-tribal citizens have to comply with. There should also be a very clear and fully transparent policy as to a limited number of fish that can be "harvested" for cultural use.
There should not, and cannot be a dual standard in the application of the regulations fully because of ones race, creed, color or religion. If there is no treaty, then there is no federal mandate which supports preferential treatment under the law. WDFW is opening itself to a slippery slope which could very easily evolve into commercial harvest.

Uhhhhh...I just can't believe people just keep letting this stuff creep on.

I JUST SENT THIS COMMENT ON THE BILL TO MY THREE DISTRICT REPS:
I do not begrudge anyone from celebrating their cultural heritage. I do ask that you consider the many non-tribal citizens whom are also dependent on fish for substance. Many are your constituents. These people, a large number who are low income, elderly or single parent families must comply with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife policies and regulations in their attempts to harvest fish they depend on to feed themselves and their children. What message are you sending to these citizens through this bill which singles out a section of our population for preferential treatment in the harvest of fish for subsistence? Are not all hungry people equal in your eye's? If you are truly concerned about allowing your constituents to harvest fish for substance, then amend this law to allow ALL citizens in need of subsistence harvest to use the same means and methods to harvest those fish!

You may have hit on something there. A really slippery slope but there are states that allow subsistence fishing.

Let's say WA allows everybody who buys a subsistence license to subsistence fish, with a gill net, dip net, seine. Regulation would be interesting, as would the cost of the license.

Still, as a concept, it may raise the visibility of the resources as they now serve a higher purpose; subsistence.

Now, I would like to see two levels of rec fishing license. One is purely C&R. The second, and more expensive, would be consumptive. The kicker would be that the difference in cost kicks directly and only into the cost of producing fish for harvest. Like the westside pheasant.

A bit tongue in cheek here but would the C&R license come with a punchcard and be limited to a maximum number of encounters or releases? After all, they ultimately result in impacts......and are in that sense consumptive.

As to the HB - well, Bay Wolf has offered up some of my initial reactions not the least of which involves quantifying both individual and cumulative harvest limits and a requirement for reports to WDFW for management purposes. Subsistence? Is there an income threshhold?

Oh, and given my Norwegian heritage I would like some ceremonial opportunity; maybe in Ballard.

Yes, slippery slope indeed.

Slippery slope?

Do any of you know the history of the Wanapum tribe? In 1953 they signed a deal with the state of WA so that the Wanapum Dam could be built.

So the jobs for the PUD, the irrigation water, the $$ to pay for mid-Columbia hatchery production, and electricity, along with the low rates for the county and associated local counties get from that dam's operation are in place in exchange for the Wanapum's getting to fish into perpetuity.

And you guys are against the Wanapum's getting what they signed off on? (which if you look at Joint Staff Reports https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01941/wdfw01941.pdf ) in 2016 was 35 adult upper Columbia spring Chinook (28 hatchery and 7 wild). ESA impacts associated with this fishery totaled 0.123%

So less than a full 1% ESA impacts in the Columbia River for all that we got in return ... seems like a pretty fair trade to me.

Or is this just a case of you didn't know before you spoke...?

Good point on the encounters end. I think that a CRC should be required. For argument's sake, let's say the card has 20 steelhead. The first is free with the C&R license. The second and subsequent would be a cost of a consumptive CRC, even if you did not deliberately kill any.

I see your point. I read the portion of the publication you provided and I see the minimal impacts.
I agree with your point in this instance. The Wanapum subsistence and ceremonial take are minimal. Thank you for educating me and hopefully others.

We really do need to take a deep breath. Not actions directed at Tribes are in place to screw you. Actually, we need to stop and think about a lot of things before jumping in.

As long as any agreement is not misinterpreted by judges to give them ridiculously unequal rights in perpetuity, I have no problem with it.

Unrelated, it would be great if we could reopen pedestrian access across Wanapum dam that was closed to non Wanapum tribal members in 2001.
The Beverly Railroad Bridge has been closed for repairs and no timetable for reopening. The I90 bridge is too dangerous for pedestrians and bicycles. This leaves the John Wayne across state trail effectively closed.