HB 1563 Would Create a Commercial Fishing Vessel Crewmember License

[bigtex]

HB 1563 sponsored by Reps Blake and Van De Wege would create a commercial fishery vessel crewmember license which would cost $100.

The proposed law:

(1)(a)  A crewmember license is required for each individual who works on any commercial vessel while operating in a commercial fishery regulated by the state, except that the individual on the vessel designated as the primary or alternate operator on the commercial fishing license does not also need a crewmember license.
(b) A crewmember license is not required for an individual aboard a licensed vessel who does not directly or indirectly participate in the operation of the vessel, the harvest, or catch processing activity. For the purposes of this section the terms "harvest" or "catch processing" include participation in tending, deploying, retrieving, or baiting fishing gear, harvesting, transferring or receiving fish or shellfish, heading and gutting fish, freezing, icing, or placing fish or shellfish in holds.
(2)  A crewmember license must be purchased by an individual working as a crewmember, which license the holder may use aboard any commercial fishing vessel. A crewmember license purchased by a crewmember may not be transferred to another individual.
(3)  A crewmember license may be purchased and held by a commercial fishing license holder for use by any individual working on the vessel named in the commercial fishing license. Each crewmember license held by a commercial fishing license holder covers one crewmember per trip, but the same crewmember license can be used to authorize a different individual to act as a crewmember on a subsequent trip.
(4)(a)  The fee for an annual crewmember license is one hundred dollars for residents and nonresidents. Additional application fees and surcharges do not apply except that if the license is purchased through the automated licensing system the fees authorized in RCW 77.32.050 apply.
(b)  A five consecutive day crewmember license may be purchased for a fee of twenty-five dollars for residents and nonresidents. Additional application fees and surcharges do not apply except that if the license is purchased through the automated licensing system the fees authorized in RCW 77.32.050apply.
(5) Moneys received from the sale of a crewmember license must be deposited into the state wildlife account and be appropriated to support commercial fisheries, including activities such as fishery monitoring, sampling and permitting activities, hatchery production and maintenance activities, and commercial fishery enforcement activities.

http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1563.pdf

[Skillet]

Another revenue grab... this doesn't appear to solve any problems, just pull more cash into the department for whatever they want to do with it, I looks like.

"We're going to tax you so we can have the money to board you to make sure you paid the tax."

Do other west coast states have crew member licenses?

[CP]

I assume tribal members would be exempt?

I support it but the cost is too low, should be at least $10,000, more for the captain, more yet for the owner.

[bigtex]

Another revenue grab... this doesn't appear to solve any problems, just pull more cash into the department for whatever they want to do with it, I looks like.

"We're going to tax you so we can have the money to board you to make sure you paid the tax."

The title of the bill is "increasing revenue to the state wildlife account"

[WSU]

It's a nice start but it would be nice to know how much it will generate.  Truth be told, commercial salmon fisheries (especially in GH and Willapa - where Blake is from) are a giant welfare system.  It costs the state hundreds of thousands of dollars more to operate those fisheries than those fisheries generate for our economy.  This is just Blake taking care of those that take care of him.  Nothing more.

[bigtex]

Do other west coast states have crew member licenses?

WA is the only west coast state without a crewmember license...

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Sure, and let's charge all workers in the state a $100 fee before they can work. That would make a big pile of money for the state to spend.

[Boss .300 winmag]

Only if we can charge state workers $200 for the pleasure of working for King Inslee. 

So NO!

[wsmnut]

Do other west coast states have crew member licenses?

WA is the only west coast state without a crewmember license...

I'm all for it.  I put myself through college as a crew member in Alaska.  Some of those license dollars in Alaska were used to fund a crew member medical program that was used regularly by folks injured on the fishing grounds.  The scale would be hugely different here, but if it helps fund fisheries and wildlife, then let's do it.
Sort of a "user" fee also.

Wsmnut

[fastdam]

Why not just pass a law that says they can take anything they want anytime from anyone. Then the state employees will always have funding and they wont have to make excuses to rob people anymore

[JimmyHoffa]

Is any of this supported by commercial fisherman?  (I would guess not, but not sure.)  When you think about it, though, it does offer up some protectionism within the industry.  Makes it a little more difficult for 'others' to get in, so for example--a dirtbag that has been kicked off boats by skippers or notorious for jumping ship could have the license and a really great worker might not have the license.  The boats could be in the clear with the dirtbag or have to risk taking on the good guy.

[WSU]

Why not just pass a law that says they can take anything they want anytime from anyone. Then the state employees will always have funding and they wont have to make excuses to rob people anymore

This isn't paying for state employees.  It's attempting to offset the drain on our state revenue created by making fish and seasons so commercial fisherman can make a few extra bucks. 

Frankly, I can't understand the whole welfare system this really is.  Perhaps we should have grown buffalo for the buffalo hunters to shoot once they killed all the wild ones.  Maybe we should just buy cattle for all the cattle farmers to slaughter and sell?  Sound like a good use of your money?

[Skillet]

Is any of this supported by commercial fisherman?  (I would guess not, but not sure.)  When you think about it, though, it does offer up some protectionism within the industry.  Makes it a little more difficult for 'others' to get in, so for example--a dirtbag that has been kicked off boats by skippers or notorious for jumping ship could have the license and a really great worker might not have the license.  The boats could be in the clear with the dirtbag or have to risk taking on the good guy.

A skipper could also look at a guy that bought his own commercial crew license upfront as somebody who is a little more dedicated and less likely to jump ship. 

[JimmyHoffa]

Yeah, that too.  But the only guys to select from would be the ones with licenses.  Just hope it doesn't expire when out to sea.

[Skillet]

Why not just pass a law that says they can take anything they want anytime from anyone. Then the state employees will always have funding and they wont have to make excuses to rob people anymore

This isn't paying for state employees.  It's attempting to offset the drain on our state revenue created by making fish and seasons so commercial fisherman can make a few extra bucks. 

Frankly, I can't understand the whole welfare system this really is.  Perhaps we should have grown buffalo for the buffalo hunters to shoot once they killed all the wild ones.  Maybe we should just buy cattle for all the cattle farmers to slaughter and sell?  Sound like a good use of your money?

Bad analogy.  The buffalo hunters killed all the buffalo to the detriment to themselves.  The dams killed all the salmon, to the detriment of everybody - commercial, tribal, and sportsman alike.

However, there are a few wild buffalo left, and there are a few wild salmon left.  By your rationale, we should outlaw all buffalo ranches and put the ranchers out of work to protect the few remaining wild buffalo.

What would really improve both  the buffalo and the salmon populations would be habitat restoration - but they are as likely to take out the dams as they are to let all of the wheat and corn farms on the Great Plains go back to seed. 

Please don't try to rationalize the idea of shutting down hatcheries as a benefit to anybody other than the CCA fundraising efforts.  They are pitting fisherman against fisherman far more successfully than anybody here is pitting baiting against non-baiters as an acceptable form of hunting.