WDFW Requested Legislation: Fish and Wildlife Law Enforcement...BILL PASSED

[Sitka_Blacktail]

a $2,000 fine for a sturgeon over 65 inches seems awfully steep (if the legal limit is 65").  What if a guy honestly measures the fish at 64-7/8" long and decides to keep it.  Then when he gets checked and the fish is then relaxed and easier to measure, the warden measures it at 65-1/16" ?

You wanna know something funny? The Feds go one farther on this when it comes to halibut.

For longliners the minimum size limit is 32 inches with the head on and 24 inches from the tail to the collar on head off fish. But here's the kicker. They don't want you sorting through fish (catch and release style) if you're a commercial boat trying to get bigger fish which pay more per lb. It doesn't matter that by doing so you'd be killing fewer fish overall because each boat has their own poundage quota. Bigger fish mean less fish to fill your quota. And it doesn't matter that after you fill your quota you can and in fact must release the rest of the fish on your longline. And it doesn't matter that sport fishermen can catch and release all the fish they want until they get a big one. That is all well and good though and not the bad part for commercial boats. What is bad is, even if your intentions were good, if you throw any legal fish back before you catch your quota, for any reason, and get caught, you will get a ticket. I know two different boats that were written up because they were using a mark to measure their fish that was one inch over the legal minimum. They were worried that as they hustled through their gear in bad seas, it would be easy to mis-measure a small fish as the boat was tossing and turning and keep undersized fish, so to prevent that, they used a 33 inch mark instead of a 32 inch mark. But when they got boarded one of the boarding officers measured the mark they were using and wrote them a ticket for not keeping fish down to the minimum size limit.

[Special T]

Sitka, that story gives me faith in the system... NOT!

[Sitka_Blacktail]

•   Institutes a fine of $500 plus statutory assessments for being too close to an Orca Whale. Current fine is $42 plus statutory assessments which bring the total fine to $87. This is the same for ALL natural resource infractions.

So would these guys get fined for being too close to an Orca?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RfuqJvfhbc

[steen]

I for one am glad that the Orca fine has been increased. The interesting part is, if you follow the laws you dont have to worry about it.

I disagree.  If there was a law requiring us to relinquish our firearms I don't know if I'd follow that law.  If they told me I could not worship or believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, I would have to disobey that one also.  There are more. If it goes against what God's law is I would not follow it.  There are getting to be a lot of laws regarding wildlife that are getting to be ridiculous. The Lummis taking away white folks right to irrigate out of the Nooksack is another.  Fining someone $20,000 for protecting their livestock, pets, and family from wolves and allowing killing of unborn babies is another. Charging all Americans (through our new healthcare system ) for anything that goes against what they believe is another.  I could go on.... Sorry have to rant 

[bigtex]

In regards to the orca fine, it has gone up and down over the past several years. Back when the law came into existence the fine was $1,025. About two years ago the state Supreme Court (which sets all fines) made all natural resource infractions have a $87 fine. Last December the Supreme Court changed the fines for fish and wildlife infractions and reinstituted the $1,025 fine for the orca whale infraction. So about all the law did now is take the authority to lower the fine away from the Supreme Court and set it at $500 which after statutory assessments comes to $1,025.

[bigtex]

The bill was signed by the governor on March 19th and the new laws/changes take effect June 12th.

[whacker1]

bigtex - do you know why Kretz went from being a sponsor to voting against the bill along with a bunch of people from the Spokane and NE corner of washington?

Kretz, Short, Kevin Parker, Dansel, etc.

Just curious where the bill went astray with those members, and why?

[bigtex]

bigtex - do you know why Kretz went from being a sponsor to voting against the bill along with a bunch of people from the Spokane and NE corner of washington?

Kretz, Short, Kevin Parker, Dansel, etc.

Just curious where the bill went astray with those members, and why?

Good question, honestly I have no clue. The final bill did have some amendments from the original, which is common but they weren't anything major in my eyes, more technical then anything.

[whacker1]

I was just curious.  I will ask Kevin Parker the next time I see him.

[onetrapper]

Why agree with rubber stamping their bills when they are out of touch with sportsmen.  So they take some poor fools boat and truck etc then does he get a federal charge too?

[BOWHUNTER45]

You know all these bills they want to pass has nothing to do with wildlife or fish ...It is going into these whatever you want to call them...pockets ...I never imagined I would loss interest in fishing ...Salmon fishing mainly ...all these laws and crap have taking a toll on me ...The tribes can kill any fish they want and if we catch just one of the ones they can catch and we can not then we have to pay ...They can take their laws and wipe their ........well you know what I mean ...I am seriously tired of it    yeah I had one of those days today