HB 1563 Would Create a Commercial Fishing Vessel Crewmember License

[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."