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.

[CAMPMEAT]

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

So NO!

I like this idea, since they vote for our side of the state laws and screw us big time.

In fact, make the welfares pay $200 a month to be able to get welfare.

[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?

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.

Wrong. There are no dams to blame in Blake's district.  Only commercial fisherman and the hatcheries we all pay for to fuel their income. 

Regarding buffalo ranches - A more accurate analogy would be to buy and raise buffalo, release them onto public land, and then let the buffalo "ranchers" go shoot them and sell the meat.

Don't get confused and lump me in with CCA.  They are only barely involved in Willapa (again, where Blake is from and where the commercial fishers he goes to bat for are from).  Hatcheries are different beast depending on where they are and what they are for.  In Willapa, they are there almost solely to provide fish for commercial harvest.

[Skillet]

So as not to be "confused" - you are not in support of CCA's stated mission of closing all hatcheries, and you do support hatcheries on rivers that have dams?

To extend my analogy correctly - those released buffalo would be available for harvest by anybody who bought a tag.  Not limited to the ranchers themselves, but for everybody's meat hunting and sporting enjoyment.

I have sport fished for salmon off of pukers out of Westport many times, and I am 100% certain I've caught Willipa and Grays harbor hatchery fish doing so - and I am 100% certain that out of the money I spent on charter fees, hotel, tips, meals, fuel, ice, etc... 0% of it went to a commercial fisherman.

I like hatcheries in our waters that provide increased angling opportunity, I support all of our hatcheries for that reason.  There are colossal wastes of money in programs throughout the state that benefit tiny numbers of special interests, but the hatcheries pumping millions of fish into the rivers and oceans for everybody to have access to is not one of them.

[WSU]

So as not to be "confused" - you are not in support of CCA's stated mission of closing all hatcheries, and you do support hatcheries on rivers that have dams?

To extend my analogy correctly - those released buffalo would be available for harvest by anybody who bought a tag.  Not limited to the ranchers themselves, but for everybody's meat hunting and sporting enjoyment.

I have sport fished for salmon off of pukers out of Westport many times, and I am 100% certain I've caught Willipa and Grays harbor hatchery fish doing so - and I am 100% certain that out of the money I spent on charter fees, hotel, tips, meals, fuel, ice, etc... 0% of it went to a commercial fisherman.

I like hatcheries in our waters that provide increased angling opportunity, I support all of our hatcheries for that reason.  There are colossal wastes of money in programs throughout the state that benefit tiny numbers of special interests, but the hatcheries pumping millions of fish into the rivers and oceans for everybody to have access to is not one of them.

I don't think that is CCA's stated mission?  In any event, I'm not a member of CCA, do not support closing all hatcheries, and support hatcheries on many rivers.  To me, it's a case by case question of whether a particular hatchery is worth spending our tax money on.

Here's the rub with your analogy - in Willapa, the seasons are intentionally set to ensure the vast majority (90%) of the salmon are commercially harvested.  They are not available for sport fishers and the general public because they are allocated, through season, bag limits, gear restrictions, etc., to the gillnetters.

I'd urge you to look at specific hatchery programs rather than assuming a hatchery run by WDFW means more fish for you/me and more money for the local economy.  I completely agree that sport fishing pumps millions into the ecomony.  WDFW has a study proving that recreational fishing creates far more value per fish than commercial fishing (salmon).  The state knows damn-well that the Willapa fisheries cost more money to create and manage than they generate for the state.  Period.  Those fish are not intended for sport fishers and very small percent are caught by sport fishers.  I'd be all for taking the half million bucks we waste on those fisheries and spending somewhere on hatcheries that made economic sense.  Instead, we continue to waste the state's (your money and my money, and the money of the local gas stations, resorts, guides, restaurants, etc.) so people can pretend their 1920's business model is still viable.

Your statement that "hatcheries pumping millions of fish into the rivers and oceans for everybody to have access to is not one of them" is spot on.  The problem is, these aren't those hatcheries and that isn't what is going on.

[ipkus]

I don't want facts to get in the way of a good argument, but it should be noted that CCA is absolutely not anti-hatchery.  I'm really curious to know how you came to think their "stated mission" was to close all hatcheries?

Hatchery Funding and Reform
Hundreds of hatcheries throughout Washington play a vital role in salmon and steelhead conservation and recovery while also creating sustainable fishing opportunities. Hatchery review efforts illustrate the need for better management of state, federal and tribal hatchery and harvest programs to fulfill these important roles. Unfortunately, many hatcheries lack the funding needed to upgrade these facilities and agencies have not implemented key broodstock management reforms. CCA Washington supports science-based efforts to reform hatchery operations and urges the federal and state agencies to provide the funding and leadership needed to promptly implement these reforms.

[MtnMuley]

Completely stupid HB once again.

[Skillet]

I don't want facts to get in the way of a good argument, but it should be noted that CCA is absolutely not anti-hatchery.  I'm really curious to know how you came to think their "stated mission" was to close all hatcheries?

Hatchery Funding and Reform
Hundreds of hatcheries throughout Washington play a vital role in salmon and steelhead conservation and recovery while also creating sustainable fishing opportunities. Hatchery review efforts illustrate the need for better management of state, federal and tribal hatchery and harvest programs to fulfill these important roles. Unfortunately, many hatcheries lack the funding needed to upgrade these facilities and agencies have not implemented key broodstock management reforms. CCA Washington supports science-based efforts to reform hatchery operations and urges the federal and state agencies to provide the funding and leadership needed to promptly implement these reforms.

Guys, mea culpa - I got my acronyms mixed.   CCA and WFC...  I was talking about the Wild Fish Conservancy.  Serves me right to try and work while carrying on a discussion on here in them middle of website upgrades.

[JJB11B]

I dont think the crewmembers should have to pay, I think they should raise the cost of the licence per vessel though 

[buckhorn2]

One reason that is good they have a license to work on a boat is that if they do something wrong the captain doe;st get all the tickets. Right now the captain is responsin=ble for everything that happens on the boat. When the crew gets on you tell them where the emergency equipment is and life saving instructions. Then you tell them No undersize crab-No soft crab and nothing that's not legal goes in the tank. Then you start fishing and along the way they do what you told them not to and when you get checked the skipper gets the ticket and the crew says sorry. It would be nice if the skipper new everything that went on back on deck but when your in the pilot house watching ahead looking for you pots and not running over some elses you just hope you can trust them. I know we hired a couple crew members when our regular crew was busy and I am into about 10 thousand into a lawyerand facing fines so I think its good they have a license so they have to follow the rules or be subject to enforcement just like the captain. Ona boat its 3 violations and the revoke your license.

[WSU]

One reason that is good they have a license to work on a boat is that if they do something wrong the captain doe;st get all the tickets. Right now the captain is responsin=ble for everything that happens on the boat. When the crew gets on you tell them where the emergency equipment is and life saving instructions. Then you tell them No undersize crab-No soft crab and nothing that's not legal goes in the tank. Then you start fishing and along the way they do what you told them not to and when you get checked the skipper gets the ticket and the crew says sorry. It would be nice if the skipper new everything that went on back on deck but when your in the pilot house watching ahead looking for you pots and not running over some elses you just hope you can trust them. I know we hired a couple crew members when our regular crew was busy and I am into about 10 thousand into a lawyerand facing fines so I think its good they have a license so they have to follow the rules or be subject to enforcement just like the captain. Ona boat its 3 violations and the revoke your license.

That's no different than any other business, including mine.  While I'm very sympathetic to employees costing businesses money (all businesses owners eventually run into issues, including me), that's how it works for a business.  I don't think licensed crew members is going to change your penalty for having undersized crab.  Ultimately, the buck stops with the owner. 

[ipkus]

Guys, mea culpa - I got my acronyms mixed.   CCA and WFC...  I was talking about the Wild Fish Conservancy.  Serves me right to try and work while carrying on a discussion on here in them middle of website upgrades.

   Yep, that's the group that hates 'em!

I'm not normally for new fees/licensing requirements that are only about raising revenue, but in this case something has to be done.  Someone else suggested making the permits themselves more expensive...fine, that works, too.  Make the landing fees more expensive?  Ok.

If the commercial industry doesn't want to start paying their way, then I hope they understand when their way goes away.  Even this state can only afford so much free lunch.

[WSU]

Guys, mea culpa - I got my acronyms mixed.   CCA and WFC...  I was talking about the Wild Fish Conservancy.  Serves me right to try and work while carrying on a discussion on here in them middle of website upgrades.

   Yep, that's the group that hates 'em!

I'm not normally for new fees/licensing requirements that are only about raising revenue, but in this case something has to be done.  Someone else suggested making the permits themselves more expensive...fine, that works, too.  Make the landing fees more expensive?  Ok.

If the commercial industry doesn't want to start paying their way, then I hope they understand when their way goes away.  Even this state can only afford so much free lunch.

I'm sure it was WDFW's budget proposal (higher fees on commercial fisheries and shutting some down - including Willapa Bay where Blake and his gillnetter supporters are) that caused this proposal to be put forth by Blake.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Guys, mea culpa - I got my acronyms mixed.   CCA and WFC...  I was talking about the Wild Fish Conservancy.  Serves me right to try and work while carrying on a discussion on here in them middle of website upgrades.

   Yep, that's the group that hates 'em!

I'm not normally for new fees/licensing requirements that are only about raising revenue, but in this case something has to be done.  Someone else suggested making the permits themselves more expensive...fine, that works, too.  Make the landing fees more expensive?  Ok.

If the commercial industry doesn't want to start paying their way, then I hope they understand when their way goes away.  Even this state can only afford so much free lunch.

I'm sure it was WDFW's budget proposal (higher fees on commercial fisheries and shutting some down - including Willapa Bay where Blake and his gillnetter supporters are) that caused this proposal to be put forth by Blake.

Most gillnetters fish alone or have an additional operator who is already covered. Not going to be much revenue made there. Crabbers and draggers will be more affected and seiners which only operate in Puget Sound.

[bigtex]

Senators Hatfield and Chase have now co-sponsored a Senate version of this bill.

Representatives Tharinger and Moscoso have added themselves as sponsors of the House bill.

[WSU]

Guys, mea culpa - I got my acronyms mixed.   CCA and WFC...  I was talking about the Wild Fish Conservancy.  Serves me right to try and work while carrying on a discussion on here in them middle of website upgrades.

   Yep, that's the group that hates 'em!

I'm not normally for new fees/licensing requirements that are only about raising revenue, but in this case something has to be done.  Someone else suggested making the permits themselves more expensive...fine, that works, too.  Make the landing fees more expensive?  Ok.

If the commercial industry doesn't want to start paying their way, then I hope they understand when their way goes away.  Even this state can only afford so much free lunch.

I'm sure it was WDFW's budget proposal (higher fees on commercial fisheries and shutting some down - including Willapa Bay where Blake and his gillnetter supporters are) that caused this proposal to be put forth by Blake.

Most gillnetters fish alone or have an additional operator who is already covered. Not going to be much revenue made there. Crabbers and draggers will be more affected and seiners which only operate in Puget Sound.

Which is perfect for Blake's gillnetter constituents.  More of the same with everyone but the gillnetters paying for their welfare "job." 

[Skillet]

With mainstem CR gillnetting becoming a thing of the past, you'd think they would be scrambling to save the two fisheries that they have left in Grays and Willipa.  Any idea what the numbers are in terms of #'s those two commercial fisheries produce annually?

[WSU]

With mainstem CR gillnetting becoming a thing of the past, you'd think they would be scrambling to save the two fisheries that they have left in Grays and Willipa.  Any idea what the numbers are in terms of #'s those two commercial fisheries produce annually?

What kind of numbers do you want to know?  I will post them up.

[Skillet]

Thanks - curious what the pounds of fish the gillnetters are catching out of Willipa and Grays?  Only curious to see if it is enough that they could tax themselves to keep the hatcheries close to self-sustaining.  If they're only bringing in 100,000# of fish, it wouldn't make sense.  But if they're bringing in 5,000,000# of fish they could probably tax themselves $.10/# to pay for them.  I know if I was a Willipa/Grays gillnetter, I'd be all about paying for the operating costs of those hatcheries if I could swing it.  The likelihood of ever getting a hatchery returned to service, or even new hatchery started up after one has been shut down now is next to nil, IMHO.

[WSU]

Here are the landings for the two fisheries: http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/landings.html

If you look at years past, you can see that the landings vary greatly.  For example, the netters kept roughly 77K coho last year in Willapa.  The year before, they kept roughly 11.5K.  The fisheries are constrained by a number of stocks that have been fished to the point of never making escaping.  Typically that includes wild kings, which never make escapement do to commercial harvest pressure, and chums which have been overharvested as well.  Usually there are enough coho to go around.  The problem is a gillnet can't tell the difference between a chum, king, or coho and nets don't harvest selectively.

Also, before someone jumps on the tribes, please understand that there is no tribal fishery in Willapa.

[Skillet]

Ok, I see where you're coming from now.  Not looking very viable for the gillnetters, especially in Willipa bay.  Even with last year's 94,622 fish, they couldn't tax themselves enough to pay for the just Willipa hatchery and still be able to sell the fish competitively, I'd guess.  Completely speculative, if the Willipa hatchery was half of the $500K costs for the two, even at $250K they'd have to tax themselves about $2.50 a fish if all years averaged as good as this year.  Let's say average 10# silver, that's $.25 /# in a good year.  In last year's 25K fish year (11.5K coho, 13K king), that would be a buck a pound tax.  Not going to happen, and the hatcheries are at risk.  That's too bad, too, since I am certain that a lot of sport fisherman and charterboat guys in Westport depend on that production to keep the economy flowing as the fish are still feeding heavily outside of the bay before they head in.

WDFW may be under some other pressure to continue to operate the Grays Harbor hatcheries for the benefit of the tribal harvest though. That would have Billy Frank's fingerprints all over it, I'm sure.

[BOWHUNTER45]

Do you think this type of greed will ever stop ..it seems they are searching everyway possible to gain revenue ...it is so sad !  We just keep letting do so 

[BOWHUNTER45]

Next it will be people like a carpenters helper or plumbers helper and on and on 

[WSU]

Grays Harbor is a tougher problem due to the tribes.  The other thing to note for Willapa (and GH) is those fish are split 60 or 70 ways (gillnetters).  Nobody is really making a living fishing for a few weeks in the fall.  During the public process to redo the plans for GH and Willapa in the last year or so, gillnetters have argued that they can't fish in certain parts of Willapa Bay because they can't afford the gas to drive their boats across the bay.  They can't afford nets that are more fish friendly.  If you can't afford the gas to drive 5 or 10 miles, is it really a profession we should be bankrupting WDFW to pay for?  WDFW admittedly can't afford to pay for the staff and enforcement officers to operate the fishery.  At best it's a hobby and tax write off. 

[Skillet]

WDFW, and in my opinion all government agencies for that matter, suffer from a non-free-market economic mentality.  They have to spend what they get in terms of funding, or they don't get it again.  In good times (ie., high tax revenue years), they have absolutely no incentive to focus on cutting costs and let them balloon out of control.  Is some cases, they look for ways to make them balloon (I have an incredible story about a waterfront trail currently being put in along the beach in Anacortes to illustrate this one, it is ridiculous).  So when the funding sources tied to non-directly-related activities (like general fund money) are shut down, they panic and say their costs are too high - they need to raise revenues through user fees to pay for things that they never should have been paying for to begin with.  WSU has made a strong argument that the hatcheries in Willipa and Grays fall under this category.

As a lifetime private industry guy that has weathered two economic downturns now, I firmly subscribe to the belief that we must use the good times to prepare for the bad times, and to never waste a good recession.  When I share this point of view with my cohorts in government positions, they either give me a quizzical look or treat me as an unenlightened neanderthal who simply doesn't understand the greater good "the system" provides.  I have tired of that discussion with them...

Ok, off my soapbox for now.

[WSU]

WDFW, and in my opinion all government agencies for that matter, suffer from a non-free-market economic mentality.  They have to spend what they get in terms of funding, or they don't get it again.  In good times (ie., high tax revenue years), they have absolutely no incentive to focus on cutting costs and let them balloon out of control.  Is some cases, they look for ways to make them balloon (I have an incredible story about a waterfront trail currently being put in along the beach in Anacortes to illustrate this one, it is ridiculous).  So when the funding sources tied to non-directly-related activities (like general fund money) are shut down, they panic and say their costs are too high - they need to raise revenues through user fees to pay for things that they never should have been paying for to begin with.  WSU has made a strong argument that the hatcheries in Willipa and Grays fall under this category.

As a lifetime private industry guy that has weathered two economic downturns now, I firmly subscribe to the belief that we must use the good times to prepare for the bad times, and to never waste a good recession.  When I share this point of view with my cohorts in government positions, they either give me a quizzical look or treat me as an unenlightened neanderthal who simply doesn't understand the greater good "the system" provides.  I have tired of that discussion with them...

Ok, off my soapbox for now.

We are in agreement.  However, there is yet another wrinkle here.  As you can see from this bill, a lot of this is pushed by the legislature itself.  I've been following the process.  When WDFW has threatened these hatcheries and commercial fisheries, Blake is on WDFW immediately.  In one instance, a meeting occurred the gillnetters didn't like and he was having a breakfast meeting with Anderson about the meeting just days later.  The legislature, and specifically Blake and a few others, are just as big a part of the problem.

[Firedogg]

 It puts Washington more in line with the rest of the west coast fisheries rules. I would guess it would include more than just salmon fisheries to include crabbing, clam harvesting, and other such commercial harvesting activities. $100 is a drop in the bucket fee to be required to work commercially.

[csaaphill]

Why is this a issue? Why should a crewmember be punsihed for working on a commercial boat?
What areas of abuse is this trying ot adress now? That crewmembers get to work or ? Isn't Washington a right to work state?  but seems to cut the nose off just to spite the face kind of thing to me. BTW I voted no!

[Forks]

I just shelled out a grand to the state for my professional license. If you don't want to pay, find a new career.

[csaaphill]

I just shelled out a grand to the state for my professional license. If you don't want to pay, find a new career.

I take it your for this?

[Forks]

Your guess is correct.

[fastdam]

Kind of reminds me of so.e of the more poor corupt third world countrierls where you have to bribe your way into anything and actully pay to get a job.   Im amazed this nonsense comes from Americans who should value FREEDOM and LIBERTY.   True benefactors.

[jeepster]

I'm a fisherman and I'm not opposed. I already have to pay 250$ a year for an Alaska crew member lisence....

[elk247]

I'm a fisherman and I'm not opposed. I already have to pay 250$ a year for an Alaska crew member lisence....

were already used to the crewman's lisence. Congrats on the new addition Jeepster.

[jeepster]

I'm a fisherman and I'm not opposed. I already have to pay 250$ a year for an Alaska crew member lisence....

were already used to the crewman's lisence. Congrats on the new addition Jeepster.

Hey thanks man. Yeah not looking like I will be able to go seining up north this coming year, kid happens first week in July or so... Maybe I will be able to find a crabber or something for the fall...

In all reality, if you are gearing up for a commercial fishing season, when it's all said and done after you buy boots, rain gear, gloves, sweatshirts and pants, socks, knives, and all of the required gear, shelling out a hundred bucks or so really isn't that big of a deal, considering that you will make back that 200$ or whatever the cost of the lisence is in the first day of fishing.

 When I go up to alaska for a season, I usually have to spend 1000$ or more in gear regardless, sometimes I can save some cash by raiding the gear pile in the shed, but when it's all said and done, you are gonna blow the cost of the lisence at the bar one way or another, it's not money you are going to miss, it's just another thing factored into the season, and it's 250$ or so that you get to write off on your taxes.

Commercial fishing in Washington obviously isn't as lucrative as up in alaska, but either way, you are making money, fishing has a lot of expenses, at the end of the season, 200-300$ for a crew member lisence just really isn't that big of a deal

Washington is a joke, the way we deal with the commercial fisheries here is pathetic, the way we manage our hatcheries is disgusting. Any extra little bit might help, it's doubtful, but it's a start. What really needs to be done is get the feather heads and Cowboys on the same level, make the Indians play the same game we have to. The Indians are a major part of why our commercial fisheries here are so screwed up. They don't condribute into the system, they net rivers 6 days a week and complain about no fish. Get rid of this tribal stuff, and put everybody on the same page