Money for nothing?

Our illustrious WA state governor has come up with another beauty... or is it just the same old broken record?

http://nwsportsmanmag.com/inslee-proposes-fish-hunt-fee-increase/

Might as well hit legislators early and often beginning the day after Christmas, reminding them that WDFW is asking for more $$ at the same time it is closing recreational fisheries whenever tribes demand because the agency has made no effort to secure its own separate ESA permit from NMFS. Contact your own legislators and the ones on the Senate Environment and Natural Resource Committee and the Ways and Means Committees of both houses every two weeks until the session is over.

The CCA-led effort in the last session prevented fee increases, so it can be done. Make the effort again, or WDFW will think we really want to pay more while they reduce our seasons.

Funny thing is, if WDFW acted like they were on our (sportfishermen's) side, I'd happily pay double for a fishing license. The cost isn't an issue until the agency took up backstabbing as Department policy.

Salmo - you're in a position to afford it. Licenses are already very expensive as it is - with minimal to show for the cost. Add in all of the other expenses that come with fishing and it's increasingly becoming a rich man's sport. What if you are a young dad with a young family? That could be 1000's out of pocket. An extra $10 here or $50 there and it really adds up.

Between all of my fishing and hunting licenses in this last year, I think I spent around $400 - 500. That's just for licenses. I'm a single guy without kids and I do very well for myself financially. I couldn't imagine trying to do it with 4 kids.

WDFW = Mariners Baseball. A whole lot of cost for not much action.

If you're in private business and you can't make profit enough to survive, you trim fat.

WDFW is top heavy with people who essentially do very little compared with what they contribute. Has been for a long time. It's typical of most government agencies. But with Kelly's approach of creating more top management (Remember Ron Warren's "promotion") and without any real change to business as usual, I sure as hell have no inclination to pay more for the opportunity to fish.

Hunters may feel differently, I can't speak for that, since I don't hunt anymore. But I consider myself an average guy when it comes to fishing in this state. I'm not made of money and I sure don't feel like my interests are really being considered anymore by the Commission nor the administration of WDFW.

Gov. Inslee is attempting to backdoor a rate increase, just like he has with a lot of other things. He was quite happy that he funded his failed Presidential run on the taxpayers back.

I can't help but suspect that Dir. Susewind has participated in the formation of this effort as well. It goes without saying that rather than look for real solutions, Kelly's approach echos that of his predecessors, which is: KEEP THINGS SECRET AND GET MORE MONEY OUT OF THE RECREATIONAL ANGLERS, THEY ARE, AFTER ALL, WDFW'S CASH COW!

I am in full agreement with Salmo on this: Everyone who has had their fill of underhanded, back door moves like this, and the results we've seen from our (loose "our") Commission and the Department need to voice their opposition to your representatives and those in the Environment and Natural Resource Committee and the Ways and Means Committees of both houses.

It's glaringly obvious that attending meetings and giving testimony in front of the Commission and to representatives of the Department has very little worth, if any at all anymore.

Our vote is the only real power you have left as a private citizen it seems.

Here is a link with information on how to contact your State Representatives:

CONTACT YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES

Kids are costly; four kids very costly. Four??? On purpose????

Anyway, just remember that licenses are free up until about the age of 16.

WDFW, time to get real....The money tree is bare, sports fishermen have paid more than their share and watched as the resource has been on the decline and even RW's "opportunity" is taking more of a hit, less fishing time.

Washington State needs to get in line with "out of State", license purchasers paying a significant higher rate than Residents. I would suggest a increase of 4 timers the current rate.....across the board.

Columbia River endorsement needs to needs to go away---forever!!!! It was a temporary fee, set up for a period of time. SB 5421, 2009, was the Bill that got the Endorsement started......In the Bill, the ending date was January 1, 2016.

The CR Endorsement was initially proposed to open up opportunities in the upper CR basin. The legislature expanded its coverage exponentially but fortunately included regular reporting requirement and, most importantly, a sunset provision. In its last year or two of its life efforts were being made to reduce the reporting requirement and to expand coverage to include B10 to Tongue Point. Then the self-inflicted mortal wound of reneging on the CR Reforms and allowing continued gill netting on the main stem.

So, no to revival of the CR Endorsement.

Bingo!



Drifter, the endorsement was kaput earlier this year.

I know BUT ITS GOING TO BE BACK ON THE TABLE...….Grrrrrrrrrr Believe me....

I love to fish. Always have, always will. My kids and wife, my brother, and multiple friends, have all fished or would fish with me, if the fishing was good. Otherwise, they could care less. If fishing were decent, I alone could get a few hundred dollars in fees to the department, from people who may only go out once or twice. It doesn't have to be anything special, even a few pinks. But, what has happened is that even if the pinks or chums are there, because no other opportunities exist, the crowds are not something I want a novice to put up with. In the end, I rarely ask anyone to come along. Lately the opportunities have been so poor I don't even want to submit my diehard friends to come along. It feels very hard to ask someone to put up money for a license, go out all day, and not even see anyone catch anything. The more they kick up fees without producing, the less money they will get. The downward spiral is not going to end unless they get a clue about how the market actually works. The demise of the Snoopy Classic is a perfect example. Even this crowd feels uncomfortable asking others to show up for a near non-existent opportunity.

I don't mind buying licenses for either hunting or fishing. Since I buy out of state, the cost is totally the issue. But, there has to be some resource to interact with. I don't have to actually catch fish, but I need to see them rising or striking. I don't need to kill deer/ducks/geese but I do have to see animals that are legal and in range.

One of my gripes is that I like to walk and wade fish, even in lakes and ponds. WA is doing a fairly goof job of producing boat-based fisheries. I get seasick too easily to enjoy boats. If I found some nice fishing. especially closeby, I would be doing it.

WDFW needs to figure out how to get people out fishing and hunting. Especially how to get people started.

Smalma often reminisces about Lowland Lakes OD. I remember that the bios used to go out, sample the lakes, and report it in the paper. Then report the results. And there were derbies, "breakfasts", and the like. It was Big Deal. As was OD for hunting with reports and so on. The agency acts as if they wish the users would just go away.

Nick,

Yeah, I can afford a fishing license. My kids are grown and on their own, so even as a fixed income retiree I have more discretionary money than I did while raising my family. Enough so that I can buy a non-resident British Columbia fishing license and a non-resident Montana, oh, and last summer a non-resident Colorado fishing license. And all of those non-resident licenses are better values than my resident WA fishing license. Why is that? Because none of my non-resident licenses help pay $93 million for salmon hatcheries, where over half the salmon are caught in Canada, and of those that return to WA, most are caught by non-treaty commercial and treaty fisheries, with a paltry few being creeled by recreational anglers.

This is a matter of principle for me even if it is about the $$ for many. And no one should have 4 kids who cannot afford them. - As Todd wrote, stupidity should hurt.

I don't want a return of the Columbia River endorsement. It originated at sportfishermen's request to fund fishery monitoring of mid-C and tributary fisheries as required by NMFS because of ESA stocks being present. And WDFW adopted a Columbia River policy in 2013 to phase out mainstem CR non-treaty gillnetting. Last year the WDFW Commission double-crossed sportsfishers by backpedaling on that policy, and the mid-C tributaries haven't been open to fishing in several years. I'm willing to pay the CRE when the streams re-open and WDFW moves forward, not backward on the CR gillnetting policy.

WDFW is planning to close the Skagit steelhead season in 2021 unless they get their supplemental budget request. And they close the Stillaguamish River for 3 1/2 months (last Sat. in May through Sept. 15) because the tribes have the Department by the short and curlies at NOF, not because of Chinook conservation as they falsely claimed. And they closed most of the Chehalis River basin last summer initially due to low spring Chinook abundance, even though spring Chinook are always in low abundance, along with appropriate Chinook closures throughout the basin for conservation. As one of the Region 6 bios wrote in an email string, ". . . if we close rivers to all species fishing every time we have a low (salmon) escapement, we're out of business." Or words to that effect.

If WDFW thinks gamefish closures are the solution to their low salmon abundance fish management problems, then I want them out of business. If WDFW won't fight for sportfishing, then taxpayers and license buyers are being ripped off. If they want to take our money and use it for foreign, commercial, and treaty fishing, but not sportfishing, then the Department is more useless than tits on a boar.

As near as I can tell, the Department has no plan, nor any plan to make a plan, for the Stilly to be open for gamefish in 2020. They seem content to have it closed for the next 100 years or until Stilly Chinook are extinct. Five years now, and no intention to even try to secure their own ESA permit from NMFS so that tribes can't tell them how to manage sportfishing. I don't see how that isn't criminal negligence. And we should pay increased fees to support this?

If I were compute savy enough, I'd set up an automatic system to bombard legislators with 200 emails a day from now through the end of the session to remind them that they should gut the Department's budget, all except for the part to pay for Skagit fishery monitoring. Bastards!

I havent bought a Wa fishing license in 4+ years. Sportsfisherman keep picking the low hanging fruit, when one door closes we just gravitate to another species of fish. That will only work for so long until we will all be warmwater fisherman, bass, perch, etc.... Maybe they will stock more planters for opening day!!!! At this rate steelheading will be done fairly soon, then salmon. Its not a matter of "if" anymore, its just a matter of when it all closes..... very sad

So it looks red users are expected to kick in another 14.3 million every two years. I assume the commercials will be contributing a similar amount.

Salmo G. FYI. "where over half the salmon are caught in Canada, and of those that return to WA, most are caught by non-treaty commercial and treaty fisheries, with a paltry few being creeled by recreational anglers." Yes, a bunch are caught be Canada. Regarding the non-treaty commercial fishery, catches have been greatly reduced since the late 1990's in Puget Sound for Chinook and coho and are now much less than recreational.

See Table B39 and B40 in attached for catches in Puget Sound salmon fisheries.


https://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uplo...inal_021419.pdf

Wow! Very well stated. I would hope that you could find a way to email your comments to each legislators. My situation is near identical to yours except in a different geographic location: Chehalis basin and O.P.

South Sound crabbing was allowed to be fished out by sports and poorly regulated treaty fishery. Hood Canal once had six weeks of shrimping, now only a few days. Deschutes was open to sport fishing on 100 percent hatchery Chinook, now all returnees are sold as surplus. Queets River should support a population of thirty thousand winter steelhead. Now it struggles to meet a stupidly low escapement number that WDFW and the Quinault Nation can't agree on. The Clearwater suffers right along with the Queets. The Hoh? Similar deal. Ocean salmon were once a three fish limit and open from April through October. McAllister Hatchery is now closed and along with it Percival Cove net pens, so winter blackmouth is almost non-existent. WDFW sold the best South Sound hardshell beach to Taylor Shellfish. WDFW can't do what's right about Wynoochee mitigation, or follow their own Willapa policy.

Whew! I still dig razor clams.

Those who have paid attention for decades, especially if you viewed wide areas, shows what we have lost. Or at least misplaced for a while.

Some of our resources are more abundant, lots are less, some are really variable. We humans don't seem to be able to take a long-range look. For those who have been out there, species are changing. Anchovy instead of herring. Where are the amphibians???

Way back in my youth, growing up (some debate this) in CA, I was of the opinion that the state source agency knew all there was to know about the animal resources. I had a question about trout, bears, mice, ducks, etc. there was somebody in CFG who either knew the answer or would find out and get back to me.

Today? I don't know were the expertise lies, but it is not in the Agencies. How can you manage fish, game, trees, etc. if you don't clearly understand the biology and use it as basis?

And, as to this Razor Clams, Tug, Sea Otters love them. Ask Californians what happened to the Pismos when otters moved in.....

"The human mind may not have evolved enough to be able to comprehend deep time."
John McPhee

Tug, South Sound crab demise was also a victim of WDFW's 3-S management scheme; Size-Sex-Season. The current Shellfish Manager wrote in a presentation to the Commission (12 April 2018) that the 3-S system was developed for coastal waters and may not be appropriate for areas with limited water exchanges such as South Sound. And then there was one tribe which harvested 3X its quota one year and 2X the following year and then decided to not sign off on any harvest numbers.
Recreational harvest was comparatively miniscule.

Larry brings up a good point. I suspect (having been there) that much of our resource management is based on "average" production. For example, the average coho stock can support 50% exploitation. So, we apply that to all. What if PS is actually marginal for crab? What if few eggs actually survive to settle? Once they settle, they do super well but few make it that far.

Darth Baiter,

Thank you for that reference. OK, so the recreational Chinook catch in PS is more than a paltry few. I guess my point centers around whether enough is returned to the recreational creel to be worth the expenditure made. That value is elastic across people, so it comes down to how much one is willing to spend to create a recreationally caught Chinook. Or coho.

What people seem to miss is that the cost is more than just the license fee. To truly be effective for salmon, it is becoming more important then ever to own a boat. I figured with just gas for the boat & truck, launching fees, and other costs, I was in about $100 dollars by the time I started fishing (not including the cost of the boat or maintenance). Much more if I went to the Neah Bay or other destinations. Add in time spent, lodging and food if going a distance, and then add in the amount of times you don't catch anything and the fee per fish is very high. For people who need to catch fish to enjoy the experience, they usually can find better bargains for their entertainment dollar. Just driving the car down to the river and buying lures or bait can run me between $20 on the low end and $100 on the high end, without counting the cost of lost work income. I find myself going less and less, and making few long trips.

I really think that WDFW is making a huge error (only one??) in emphasizing boat-based fisheries. No way that somebody is going to start from zero if a boat is required.

On the other hand, if their measure of a fisheries desirability is the economic benefit then let's go for the Big Boat Opportunity.

Whatever the number it probably is more than a paltry few. But let's take a look at the number for 2017 - 52,203 fish. But wait, there is that little footnote "a" to consider. In part it reveals that for the years 1989 to present the numbers have been adjusted by .685 due to estimates being 46% too high. Hmmm, then there is footnote "c" which indicates 2017 and 2018 numbers (actually none listed for 2018) are preliminary.

So, assuming that the 52,203 for 2017 is preliminary and not adjusted then using the prior adjustment figure the 2017 number would be 35,759. That number falls in line with numbers back to 1998. (Editorial: I would really like to see that recreational Chinook break-out by MA).

Add the NI commercial harvest of 12,065 and you get 47,824 for the State fishers. Treaty Indian harvest? 136,699 or 2.86 times the State harvest.

Anyone see the data differently so as to arrive at a significantly different Tribal/State harvest comparison?

It actually gets worse than your accounting, Larry. The shares were "supposed" to be accounted by adult equivalents for Chinook and coho. Younger fish were discounted by the survival factor. In actuality, with the NI fleet concentrating on immature fish (back in the 80s) the NI actually to a higher number of fish.

Now, though, with that kind of disparity, if its real, is even wider than the raw numbers indicate.

That adult equivalent adjustment has been utilized in the past as you indicated. I suspect that it is still utilized at some point but whether these numbers include that factor is unspecified.

With the erosion of WDFW's support for the winter blackmouth fishery that methodology will become less and less important.

Another thing to ponder is the impact of pinniped predation on the survival to maturity graph. Bet it isn't pretty.

I wonder how far the Co-Managers have strayed from the Boldt/Supremes Accounting methods. I recall that Parker had some speakers at a UW COF class who described management of WA salmon. One thing that stuck in my mind was that the inside tribes (say Muckleshoot) got 50% of the harvestable coming back to their U&A but the other 50% was taken in all the outside fisheries (marine mixed stock but included Indian troll.

I don't think you can assume that just because the number is preliminary that it hasn't already been adjusted. Typically the difference between something being reported as preliminary and final is that either some catches aren't available yet or the estimate has not been reviewed by whatever method that particular co-manager uses before declaring a data set final. I don't believe that the Pacific Council would use one methodology to come up with a preliminary catch estimate and then another methodology (e.g. adding the adjustment) for final estimates.

Nevertheless, the catch disparity is still significant, just closer to 2.1 times the state harvest rather than 2.8. Until the state fisheries move away from mixed stock fisheries that are restrained by weak stock management, this disparity will probably always exist.

Based on how NOF seems to go, the Tribes are pushing (and the state supports) marine mixed stock fisheries and the further out the better. There seems to be a real effort to eliminate in-river and other terminal rec fisheries. This may be fine, so long as WDFW clearly explains why that choice is made.

Absent a clear explanation with the data as presented I chose an interpretation which put the adjusted preliminary figure more in line with data from recent years albeit still higher. Maybe the Council needs to be provide better definitions.

Anyway, another approach is to look at the average for the prior ten years data as presented which is 34,266 and ask the whiff test question. If the 52,203 figure for 2017 is already adjusted and assumed to be pretty close and the prior ten year average is 34,266 did we recs really catch 52.3% more Chinook in Puget Sound in 2017 than the prior ten year average?

Moving past that little exercise we are in full agreement with the bigger picture as portrayed by the data - the disparity between tribal and State harvest of Chinook.

Government may operate differently than the Private Sector, but they're subject to the same economic stresses (inflation, e.g.) any business entity faces, which means as time goes on, it costs more money to provide the same level of service and much more to improve service in a meaningful way. From that perspective, we should be willing to pay small, occasional fee increases for a similar amount of opportunity over the years. That said, I think it's completely fair for us to refuse to pay increasing costs while the level of service provided continues to decline.

Like Salmo g., I'd gladly pay double what I do now for my license if it meant increased, meaningful opportunity. I'd gladly accept regular, nominal fee increases to cover the increasing cost of doing business as well, were it not for the fact we've no reason to expect our money to go to maintaining our fisheries.

Anyone concerned about paying too much for a license, now or ever should step back and look at how much it costs to go salmon or steelhead fishing, from the bank (no boat), just once. I did the math over the weekend (after yet another extremely disappointing day of steelhead fishing that should be on fire this time of year), and here's what it looks like for me:

1. Gas and vehicle wear - occasionally as little as $10, but as far as I usually have to drive to find fish anymore, usually closer to $30/day. This assumes gas mileage in the mid-20s per gallon. This amount, alone, for a single trip, is almost half the cost of the annual combo fishing license.

2. Tackle - On a good day (had what you needed to start with and didn't lose any tackle), this is close to zero, but an average day sees me lose at least 2 lures to snags/etc. I'd say $5/lure is about average cost, so let's call this $10 per trip.

3. Wader/boot wear - It's hard to quantify this, because waders and boots come in a wide variety of prices, but I tend to buy middle of the road waders ($300-$400; as much as I can afford) and high end boots (about $200/pair). Let's call it $550 for the outfit. Waders usually last less than 2 years, but I'll be generous and allow them that rate of longevity for argument's sake. I take about 50 trips a year, so I figure I get about 100 trips out of an outfit before it essentially becomes a wetsuit. That divides out to just over $5/trip in estimated wader wear.

I'm sure there are costs I'm forgetting, but we're looking at something just south of $50 per trip. That's more than the total annual cost for freshwater only and about $20 less than the combo license. Hook up a boat for the day and it probably exceeds the entire annual combo license cost. If I go conservative and estimate $40/trip, then divide my annual costs by my annual catch (harvested salmon and steelhead), I figure I pay over $200 per fish harvested. Not exactly a viable means of sustenance....

I think this shows 4 things:

1. Fishing is expensive.
2. Fisherfolk inject a lot of money into local economies every time we go fishing (the Legislature should appreciate this a lot more than they seem to).
3. License fees aren't where we get hurt, and it won't kill us to cough up more (with justification, of course).
4. (Pay attention WDFW) Even if it's not a ton of money in the grand scheme, people don't like spending more money to get less in return. That's bad business.

I agree with Flea; the cost of a license is rather minimal in the grand scheme of fishing or hunting. Heck, cut down on beer or smokes (a little) and the license is paid for.

But, again like Flea said, I will pay for "something". When you buy lures, or shells, or whatever you exchange money for something tangible.

Lot of folks here certainly go ape for razor clams. Besides being tasty, you have a pretty good idea that when you go you'll get some. The seasons, openings, and conditions are well publicized and known. Compare that to crab, salmon, or steelhead.

Following is a link to WDFW's contracted study report entitled Economic Analysis of the Non-Treaty Commercial and Recreational Fisheries in WA State citing 2006 dollars and published in 2008:

https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/00464/wdfw00464.pdf.

On page 19 the following per day values were used to estimate the net economic value of sport fishing followed by the CPI adjusted value (June 2006 to June 2019):

Salmon - Marine Waters $58 $73
Other Fishing - Marine Waters $60 $76
Shellfish $43 $54
Trout $50 $63


These are per participant/day values which should provide some perspective on the contribution of our activities.

Not sure why this never occurred to me before, but I think (fear?) we're answering our oft-asked question of why WDFW seems to favor boat fisheries over bank fisheries, right here, in this very discussion:

Bringing the boat means you're injecting more money into those aforementioned local economies (in more markets, too) than bank walking. More money for the gubmint, too, cause you have to register your boat and trailer EVERY YEAR. I bet
that explains why they like their anglers in boats so much....

When I was first exposed to recreational fish management it was measured by total economic impact to the state. Fishing and hunting, at least in WA, are considered recreational (not subsistence) pursuits. The "ideal" opening is massive participation with minimal harvest.

As an extreme example, if you limited deer hunters to guns holding two rounds and iron sights you could probably extend the modern firearm season to months. More opportunity.

One other thing I was told early on was that, for WDG, hunting licenses were the prime income source in that hunters would pay "more" to hunt and most of the game was wild. For fish, you had to grow and plant them. Also, Opening Day was so big (and one-day licenses not allowed) in the hope that families would fish one or two days a year. Again, good cost-recovery.

Much as I gripe about "opportunity", if one has boat(s) WA offers some really good fishing. Ocean salmon, rockfish, albacore, halibut. The major river fisheries are now boat-based. Walleye, Tiger Musky, OD lakes, kokanee. All highly productive and put a lot into the economy.

That certainly is a logical factor but not the only one. Another key ingredient is access. Saltwater? Used to be seasons were open literally year around and there were small boats available for reasonable rent everywhere and fish were available to those small boat/motor fishers. With the loss of those boat houses, reduced numbers of publicly available ramps, and a myriad of openings/closings one needs to be mobile both as to launch point and speed on the water.

Rivers? Bank access is being restricted by owners to include WSDOT and the railroads and WDFW has not kept up on obtaining and/or maintaining launch sites so river boaters are pushed to bigger and faster sleds.

Lakes? More of the same although WDFW won't stock a lake that doesn't have public access of some sort.

Typical WDFW: listing dollars and cents rather than value.

C-Man,

In regards to razor clams, you have to factor in breakfast/lunch/or dinner at the Green Lantern, plus a beer or maybe two, or the cost of hotdogs, buns, etc. roasted over a beach fire. Again, there certainly costs, but what is the value? Not arguing, but trying to be thought provoking on value or worth over costs.

Razors are a great example of a "valuable" fishery when all those external costs like meals and beer are added in. And, it just came to me, that it is also one of the few "low user cost" fisheries that WDFW pushes. You don't need a special (boat, truck, gear). It is a family opportunity where the kids can rather easily get involved. Has lots going for it.

And WDFW/the State does (or did) invest quite a bit in monitoring and sampling.

I know this is off topic but, if any of you guys got a chance to dig last Thursday and Friday. Did any of you guys notice the size difference of clams on mocrocks beach?

Thursday on copalis, I was done in 10min and the clams were on the larger side.
Friday in mocrocks took me and the ol lady 2hrs to get limits and the clams on average were very small and few and far between.

Anybody experience the same?