collapse

Author Topic: Proposed Federal/Trump Budget Would Cut Game Wardens in Coastal States  (Read 1749 times)

Offline bigtex

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Dec 2009
  • Posts: 8697
NOAA/NMFS (the federal fisheries agency) has an enforcement arm which has a staff of uniformed officers/plain clothes agents which enforce federal fisheries laws. To supplement their work, the agency gives funds to every coastal state for state game wardens to enforce federal fisheries laws. The Trump administration proposes ending this program all together. In WA this comes to about a million dollars a year which fully funds three WDFW Officer positions and the vehicle/vessel maintenance, fuel, etc to deal with federal fisheries enforcement.

For those that are thinking "well I live on the eastside who cares" well there's federal fisheries enforcement issues on the eastside as well where you have critically low (and now protected) steelhead and salmon runs. When a WDFW Officer is patrolling those streams NOAA is paying for it. When WDFW Officers work halibut enforcement anywhere in WA NOAA is paying for it. When WDFW Officers roll up to SeaTac airport to check export of geoducks and other fish/shellfish NOAA is paying for it. And so on.

If those provision were to pass every coastal state would see a reduction in the number of state game wardens.

Excerpt:
"Fisheries enforcement

But those pale in comparison to the $17.8 million — more than 25 percent — cut in funding for NOAA Law Enforcement.

The entire law enforcement reduction is coming from the agency's cooperative enforcement program and will eliminate funding for joint enforcement agreements with law enforcement partners from 28 states and U.S. territories.

"You cut enforcement and you open the door to all sorts of unsavory individuals, such as Carlos Rafael," Moulton said, referencing the New Bedford fishing kingpin currently serving a 46-month federal prison sentence for rampant and long-standing circumvention of current commercial fishing management policies."

http://www.gloucestertimes.com/news/fishing_industry_news/moulton-noaa-cuts-recipe-for-disaster/article_117f0e06-57ee-554e-b74a-ff01b3c0e6d3.html

Offline KFhunter

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Posts: 16504
  • Location: The Wedge
  • My posts do not reflect an official opinion of HW
Convince me that more federal dollars is going to stop:  1) native over harvest and 2) too many pinnipeds

I don't think the people that this money targets (white people like me) are the culprits here.  So end the dollars and no net less.  (excuse the pun)

Offline jmscon

  • Business Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Longhunter
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2015
  • Posts: 926
  • Location: Seattle
  • RMEF BHA TRCP
At this rate it’ll be a free for all, for all parties!
And I’m sure there will be free for all parties going on as well!
My interpretation of the rules are open to interpretation.
Once I thought I was wrong but I was mistaken.

Offline olyguy79

  • Political Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • ****
  • Join Date: Dec 2016
  • Posts: 318
  • Location: Thurston
Right now enforcement for halibut for example is paid for by the feds. If it goes away who will pay for it? Oh ya us WA license purchasers.

It's not like if the federal contracts go away WDFW is going to say well we just aren't going to work halibut, offshore commercial fisheries, or protected salmon runs. They're still going to work it, but us WA citizens will be paying for it.

Offline Stein

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2013
  • Posts: 3604
What federal fisheries laws do they enforce in WA.  I'm guessing it isn't me with my flasher and Coho Killer?

Offline bigtex

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Dec 2009
  • Posts: 8697
Right now enforcement for halibut for example is paid for by the feds. If it goes away who will pay for it? Oh ya us WA license purchasers.

It's not like if the federal contracts go away WDFW is going to say well we just aren't going to work halibut, offshore commercial fisheries, or protected salmon runs. They're still going to work it, but us WA citizens will be paying for it.
100% correct. With less officers.

Offline bigtex

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Dec 2009
  • Posts: 8697
What federal fisheries laws do they enforce in WA.  I'm guessing it isn't me with my flasher and Coho Killer?
For officers to bill their time to the feds basically the officer needs to be in a place where there is a potential for a federal fisheries violation. So if your patrolling the Teanaway River when the ESA listed salmon are coming up you can bill your time to the feds even though you contacted one guy in 6 hours and he was trout fishing. If it's pink salmon season and you're contacting a hundred people fishing for pinks you can bill your time to NOAA if the ESA Chinook are running up the river at the same time.

Just a few more examples:
-Halibut are federally managed no matter where they are in WA
-Fisheries 3+ miles off the coast (mostly consists of commercial)
-Endangered Species Act (someone takes a protected salmon/steelhead/etc or if the Cowlitz opens for smelt are examples)
-Marketplace inspections (example: someone ships in halibut from another country/state and low and behold it's flounder)
-Anything in the Olympic Marine Sanctuary
-Lacey Act (interstate/international movement of illegally taken fish into/out of WA)
-Marine Mammal Protection Act (the main emphasis is on Orcas)

In 2011 (latest data I could find) WDFW Officers generated the following stats for NOAA/NMFS funded patrols:
• Contacts: 10,408
• Warnings: 1,211
• Citations: 897
• Physical/warrant arrests: 15
• Marketplace Inspections: 111

Offline JimmyHoffa

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Explorer
  • ******
  • Join Date: Sep 2010
  • Posts: 10451
  • Location: 150 Years Too Late
Right now enforcement for halibut for example is paid for by the feds. If it goes away who will pay for it? Oh ya us WA license purchasers.

It's not like if the federal contracts go away WDFW is going to say well we just aren't going to work halibut, offshore commercial fisheries, or protected salmon runs. They're still going to work it, but us WA citizens will be paying for it.
100% correct. With less officers.
would halibut include tribes too, since it is fed?  The state season is only supposed to be 3 days this year.  So, if state is 3 and tribe is a lot more, then would WDFW have to take those enforcement funds through state licenses or would tribes be pro-rated to pay their portion of enforcement days?

Offline westsidehntr

  • Political Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2014
  • Posts: 2517
  • Location: sw wa
Good! Cut all the government programs we can! It might hurt a little bit but we have to reign in the free for all spending.

Offline bigtex

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Dec 2009
  • Posts: 8697
Right now enforcement for halibut for example is paid for by the feds. If it goes away who will pay for it? Oh ya us WA license purchasers.

It's not like if the federal contracts go away WDFW is going to say well we just aren't going to work halibut, offshore commercial fisheries, or protected salmon runs. They're still going to work it, but us WA citizens will be paying for it.
100% correct. With less officers.
would halibut include tribes too, since it is fed?  The state season is only supposed to be 3 days this year.  So, if state is 3 and tribe is a lot more, then would WDFW have to take those enforcement funds through state licenses or would tribes be pro-rated to pay their portion of enforcement days?
I think we both know that answer. There's no pro-rating going on. WDFW would flip the bill.

Offline Oh Mah

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2015
  • Posts: 3269
  • Location: Central Washington/Central Montana
Re: Proposed Federal/Trump Budget Would Cut Game Wardens in Coastal States
« Reply #10 on: March 13, 2018, 10:01:00 PM »
Right now enforcement for halibut for example is paid for by the feds. If it goes away who will pay for it? Oh ya us WA license purchasers.

It's not like if the federal contracts go away WDFW is going to say well we just aren't going to work halibut, offshore commercial fisheries, or protected salmon runs. They're still going to work it, but us WA citizens will be paying for it.
100% correct. With less officers.
would halibut include tribes too, since it is fed?  The state season is only supposed to be 3 days this year.  So, if state is 3 and tribe is a lot more, then would WDFW have to take those enforcement funds through state licenses or would tribes be pro-rated to pay their portion of enforcement days?
Sorry but this is a very good question,If and i say if strongly,We get 3 days to fish halibut,after 3 days the wardens are still patrolling but who are they patrolling mostly?Not the people that only get 3 days to fish i'm sure of that.If the feds don't pay for this why should we when we are not even allowed to be in on it?
"Boss of the woods"
(this is in reference to the biggie not me).

Offline bigtex

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Dec 2009
  • Posts: 8697
Re: Proposed Federal/Trump Budget Would Cut Game Wardens in Coastal States
« Reply #11 on: March 13, 2018, 10:09:26 PM »
Right now enforcement for halibut for example is paid for by the feds. If it goes away who will pay for it? Oh ya us WA license purchasers.

It's not like if the federal contracts go away WDFW is going to say well we just aren't going to work halibut, offshore commercial fisheries, or protected salmon runs. They're still going to work it, but us WA citizens will be paying for it.
100% correct. With less officers.
would halibut include tribes too, since it is fed?  The state season is only supposed to be 3 days this year.  So, if state is 3 and tribe is a lot more, then would WDFW have to take those enforcement funds through state licenses or would tribes be pro-rated to pay their portion of enforcement days?
Sorry but this is a very good question,If and i say if strongly,We get 3 days to fish halibut,after 3 days the wardens are still patrolling but who are they patrolling mostly?Not the people that only get 3 days to fish i'm sure of that.If the feds don't pay for this why should we when we are not even allowed to be in on it?
Ever heard of people taking halibut during closed season?

WDFW is mandated to protect the resources of the state, doesn't matter if it's a resource also managed by the feds. USFWS doesn't give states money to enforce waterfowl regs even though waterfowl are federally managed, should WDFW Officers not enforce waterfowl regs since they don't get paid for it?

Offline Oh Mah

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2015
  • Posts: 3269
  • Location: Central Washington/Central Montana
Re: Proposed Federal/Trump Budget Would Cut Game Wardens in Coastal States
« Reply #12 on: March 13, 2018, 10:14:24 PM »
yep,so.If natives are for the most part the ones fishing it then they can patrol it.if they are not gonna get any penalty from the state then the state doesn't need to be out patrolling for it.the feds pay or no patrolling.you don't like it change the rules.You can't seriously expect the hunters and fishers of this state to worry to much about pay or how hard the wardens have to work when we get a warden that steals 80k in fuel before finally getting caught do you?
"Boss of the woods"
(this is in reference to the biggie not me).

Offline olyguy79

  • Political Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • ****
  • Join Date: Dec 2016
  • Posts: 318
  • Location: Thurston
Re: Proposed Federal/Trump Budget Would Cut Game Wardens in Coastal States
« Reply #13 on: March 13, 2018, 10:17:09 PM »
yep,so.If natives are for the most part the ones fishing it then they can patrol it.if they are not gonna get any penalty from the state then the state doesn't need to be out patrolling for it.the feds pay or no patrolling.you don't like it change the rules.
Maybe you should "change the rules" (actually a law). WDFW is mandated to protect the resources, which apparently you don't like if the feds aren't paying. Until the law changes, WDFW will be there.

Offline Stein

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2013
  • Posts: 3604
Re: Proposed Federal/Trump Budget Would Cut Game Wardens in Coastal States
« Reply #14 on: March 13, 2018, 10:20:01 PM »
When they delay the halibut seasons so long as they do, they would be wasting their time trying to find sport fishers over the limit. My point is the feds aren't really patrolling sport fisherman.  Take that for what it is worth, just an observation.

 

* Recent Topics

Play Free: Hunting-Washington $100 Monthly Lotto! by birddogdad
[Today at 05:58:08 AM]


WTS - Taurus Judge - Stainless .45 LC/410 3" Chamber - $400 by prtowell
[Today at 05:54:28 AM]


Twisp hunting accident by onmygame
[Today at 05:41:23 AM]


2018 Deer, post them here by Skyvalhunter
[Today at 05:36:16 AM]


2018 seems very lean by Skyvalhunter
[Today at 05:34:46 AM]


Conflict Goat Tag by benhuntin
[Today at 05:32:35 AM]


Conconully area...Where did the deer go? by grundy53
[Today at 04:57:59 AM]


Gates by grundy53
[Today at 04:55:52 AM]


After the morning what do you do? by deerhunter_98520
[Today at 04:51:32 AM]


WTB Gen 1 Exo pack frame by spin05
[Today at 01:17:30 AM]


2018 Bears by csaaphill
[Today at 12:40:04 AM]


2018, ELK, Post them here! by csaaphill
[Today at 12:35:46 AM]


Sign up for Trapper Education class December 1st by Starlings87
[Today at 12:31:05 AM]


Remington tactical 223 by rich200030
[Yesterday at 11:59:04 PM]


.260 Rem model 700 by huntnphool
[Yesterday at 11:36:02 PM]


I'd like to try hunting snow geese in skagit valley by lokidog
[Yesterday at 11:32:45 PM]


Take Action - Send An Email to Friends & Family regarding I-1639 by JimSR.
[Yesterday at 10:57:34 PM]


Vote No on Initiative 1639 - Get the Word Out! by JimSR.
[Yesterday at 10:52:07 PM]


Wtt 243 wssm model 70 by WoodencrossIII
[Yesterday at 10:37:07 PM]


Junco, Close Up by lokidog
[Yesterday at 10:26:17 PM]