2015 WDFW Proposed Legislation: Excise Tax on Commercial Shellfish 2 Increase LE

[bigtex]

It's the end of summer/beginning of fall and that means one thing in the legislature/state agencies, it's the time when agencies are compiling their "agency requested legislation." This is essentially the legislation that agencies not only approve of, but are requesting. At the upcoming WDFW Commission conference call the commission will formally approve the 2015 agency requested legislation. I will be highlighting the 2015 WDFW requested legislation, and this will be the first post:

Concerning an excise tax to support shellfish enforcement

This proposed bill would add an excise tax of four-tenths and one one-hundredths percent to the "Private sector aquaculture shellfish" industry which means bivalve shellfish produced by an aquatic farmer.

WDFW will receive the $ and they believe that with this $ they can fund 9 new WDFW Officers and 1 new WDFW Detective. These additional officers would be stationed in shellfish producing areas to increase the frequency of patrols along the hundreds of miles of harvestable tidelands, at the region’s marketplaces, shipping terminals and border crossings, as well as investigations of large-scale commercial violations and illegal trafficking.

Now I am sure you are thinking, does this mean these proposed officers could only work shellfish? No. Basically what WDFW would have to prove is at the end of the year the agency worked an additional equivalent of hours that would equate to the 10 new positions. As an example, the Discover Pass is funding one WDFW Officer, this doesn't mean that WDFW has one officer who all they do is Discover Pass, it essentially means that every month WDFW must show that as an agency officers worked 171 hours (WDFW Officers work 171 hr months) of Discover Pass enforcement.

According to WDFW this is their "problem" as identified in the legislative support document:
Shellfish, such as clams and oysters, thrive along many of Washington’s shorelines, offering recreational harvest opportunities and helping to support a multimillion dollar commercial industry that continues to grow. But as demand for Washington’s shellfish increases both locally and internationally, the black market for this resource appears to be growing as well.

In one recent case alone, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) police officers confiscated more than $2 million in shellfish stolen from public and private tidelands in Puget Sound, successfully preventing tens of thousands of pounds of potentially contaminated clams and oysters from entering the marketplace.

WDFW police officers are charged with protecting the state’s natural resources and enforcing laws specifically designed to ensure only safe shellfish are available for recreational and commercial harvest.

However, current funding levels do not provide adequate enforcement at the marketplace, shipping terminals and along Washington’s beaches, where only half of the harvestable tides are patrolled.

This lack of funding threatens the sustainability of the resource, the safety of consumers and the reputation and viability of an important industry, which currently injects about $270 million a year into the region’s economy and provides more than 3,200 jobs.

[Stein]

Just to be a devil's advocate here.

Say the police discover that a bunch of software pirating was going on in Seattle and they didn't have enough cops to form a unit to crack down.  Would they then propose a tax on all software manufacturers to hire more cops?

Guy A is breaking the law, so we are going to single out and charge Guy B to go get Guy A?

[bigtex]

Just to be a devil's advocate here.

Say the police discover that a bunch of software pirating was going on in Seattle and they didn't have enough cops to form a unit to crack down.  Would they then propose a tax on all software manufacturers to hire more cops?

Guy A is breaking the law, so we are going to single out and charge Guy B to go get Guy A?

From what I have heard this tax is actually supported by the industry that would be paying the tax.

Basically the industry wants the additional officers out there to police the industry to essentially keep it in line. There is a lot of illegal/"dirty" shellfish being sold and if you have more officers out there removing these dirty shellfish then that helps the legal producers, because you have essentially removed the illegal product which means the buyers are forced to go purchase from the legal producers.

[Special T]

There are MANY cases in industry where they go to the legislature and request self imposed tax/fee for increased services. If industry wants it... 

[pianoman9701]

Just to be a devil's advocate here.

Say the police discover that a bunch of software pirating was going on in Seattle and they didn't have enough cops to form a unit to crack down.  Would they then propose a tax on all software manufacturers to hire more cops?

Guy A is breaking the law, so we are going to single out and charge Guy B to go get Guy A?

From what I have heard this tax is actually supported by the industry that would be paying the tax.

Basically the industry wants the additional officers out there to police the industry to essentially keep it in line. There is a lot of illegal/"dirty" shellfish being sold and if you have more officers out there removing these dirty shellfish then that helps the legal producers, because you have essentially removed the illegal product which means the buyers are forced to go purchase from the legal producers.

I'm in the industry and I don't support it. Oysters and crab are expensive enough from WA without making us even more noncompetitive. Why don't they make the fines so big that it pays for the LE? The suppliers are going to get hurt and the exporters like me are going to get hurt. The criminals won't get hurt. They never do.

[floatinghat]

PM,

If they upheld the law and prosecuted fully would you be more in favor?  I tend to be against most fee increases but believe many merit conversation.  What positive increase (if any) comes from removing the poached product from the market.

RE fines, while I agree with increasing them, I can't imagine trying to budget off fine revenue.

[Special T]

That is the current rub. what does more enforcement do IF they are not willing to actually procecute these lawbreakers?

Or are they willing to procecute fishery related crimes and not commercial poatching if it is game related...

[bigtex]

Just to be a devil's advocate here.

Say the police discover that a bunch of software pirating was going on in Seattle and they didn't have enough cops to form a unit to crack down.  Would they then propose a tax on all software manufacturers to hire more cops?

Guy A is breaking the law, so we are going to single out and charge Guy B to go get Guy A?

From what I have heard this tax is actually supported by the industry that would be paying the tax.

Basically the industry wants the additional officers out there to police the industry to essentially keep it in line. There is a lot of illegal/"dirty" shellfish being sold and if you have more officers out there removing these dirty shellfish then that helps the legal producers, because you have essentially removed the illegal product which means the buyers are forced to go purchase from the legal producers.

I'm in the industry and I don't support it. Oysters and crab are expensive enough from WA without making us even more noncompetitive. Why don't they make the fines so big that it pays for the LE? The suppliers are going to get hurt and the exporters like me are going to get hurt. The criminals won't get hurt. They never do.

It only affects bivalves, so the crab industry won't be affected.

As far as increasing fines to fund LEOs. I will address those issues below:
1-Like floatinghat said, you can't fund a budget simply off of fine revenue, you simply have no idea how much fine revenue you will be receiving, will it be $50,000 or $5 million. If it's $1 million this year, but only $125,000 next year how are you going to make up that loss?

2-The overall mentality in most states is to NOT directly fund LE by fine money. Legislators are bombarded by the "cops will start writing more tickets, to get more money/cops" statements. Now I personally could care less, I hear we are revenue makers all the time, who cares if the money goes to my agency directly, or a general fund which then provides funding to my agency. A couple years ago when the legislature diverted the Discover Pass fine money from the statewide fine scheme to the actual Discover Pass account (84% Parks, 16% split between DNR and WDFW) State Parks actually opposed the measure even though the agencies would be receiving more $, they opposed it becasue they didnt want to be viewed as revenue generators.

3- And finally, you can make fines astronomical, but if there isn't a prosecutor to prosecute the cases then you won't be bringing in those fines. You could make poaching a cow elk a $10,000 mandatory fine, but if prosecutors won't prosecute the case then what's been accomplished by increasing the fines?

[bigtex]

That is the current rub. what does more enforcement do IF they are not willing to actually procecute these lawbreakers?

Or are they willing to procecute fishery related crimes and not commercial poatching if it is game related...

Most of the shellfish harvested in this state are harvested from closed/unhealthy beaches. So there is a health risk there, it's not the commercial took all the clams from the sportsmen, it's the commercial took unhealthy clams and is now selling them to the public.

When it comes to these types of commercial cases from closed/unhealthy beaches the offenses will include charged under RCW 69 which is a public safety RCW, compared to RCW 77 which is fish and wildlife. Additionally, most illegal shellfish cases involve theft, trafficking stolen property, and other related offenses, essentially the same offenses these prosecutors deal with in regards to city and county agencies. It's not simply Billy Bob took illegal clams, but rather in many times a criminal enterprise. In fact the first case in WA to be tried under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) law was a WDFW shellfish case.

I am in no way saying fish or shellfish are more important. But I think when prosecutors see these shellfish cases, they do put more importance to them because of the wide variety offenses that are involved, and are more appealing. 

[Special T]

Why do you think Shellfish have such a special place in both the LEO and prosecutors hearts?

[bigtex]

Why do you think Shellfish have such a special place in both the LEO and prosecutors hearts?

I think it's because it can be billed/viewed as a public safety issue, which is why these offenses are under RCW 69 and not under RCW 77.

Somebody goes out and shoots 100 elk, eh if you don't care about elk/wildlife who cares?

Somebody goes out and harvests shellfish right next to a sewage outlet (yes this happens, and honeslty quite a lot) and then sells those clams to stores/restaurants and people get sick/and or can die. Obvious public safety issue here.

Plus like I said, these larger shellfish cases often involve crimes outside of fish/wildlife such as the trafficking in stolen property, the criminal enterprises, theft, etc. So it becomes a lot more then some guy who is taking dirty shellfish.