HB 1229 Would Prioritize Recreational Fishing Over Commercial Fishing

[bigtex]

HB 1229 which has bipartisan sponsors consisting of Representatives Pike, Pollet, Pettigrew, Shea, Taylor, Vick,
Springer, Goodman, Harris, and Kraft would prioritize recreational fishing over commercial fishing in WDFW decisions.

The change would eliminate the striked through language and add in the underlined: The department shall promote orderly fisheries and shall enhance and improve recreational and commercial fishing in this state, when making fisheries management determinations and setting fishing seasons, maximize recreational fishing opportunity within available harvests before determining commercial fishing opportunity.

The reasoning for the legislation is:
(1)  The legislature finds that the state of Washington has the weather, infrastructure, amenities, location, and fisheries resources to become a world class sports fishing and tourism destination that attracts out-of-state tourism money to rural communities.
(2)  The legislature further finds that the cool, clean waters of Washington produces a world-class quality bounty of harvestable fish, including prized species of salmon and steelhead. Washington's fisheries resources are known worldwide for their high quality, culinary attributes, flavor, and dietary healthfulness. These attributes not only attract in-state and out-of-state sports fishers to Washington's waters, but can be enjoyed by Washingtonians through the sizable commercial markets served by tribal fishers.
(3)  The legislature further finds that sports fishing tourism spending will occur annually in the most desirable and competitive locations, whether here in Washington or in other states or countries. The state of Washington should adopt the necessary policies to ensure that the tourism spending occurs here and Washington benefits from the associated economic development opportunities, such as in the hospitality industry and with outfitters, guides, restaurants, car rental companies, retail stores,
(4)  The legislature further finds that Washington will not be able to grow its sports fishing tourism industry, and compete with other popular sports fishing destinations, unless the fish and wildlife commission prioritizes recreational harvest opportunities and establishes predictable and stable recreational fishing seasons that enable both state residents and visitors from around the country and around the globe to make long-term trip planning and tourism spending decisions that lead them to Washington's rural communities.
5)  The legislature further finds that recreational fisheries are capable of avoiding the harvest of endangered fish species through selective harvest practices, thereby often increasing access to harvestable populations. Current state policies often result in fisheries management decisions that constrain recreational fishing opportunities and seasons in favor of nontribal commercial fisheries incapable of selective harvest practices, thereby harming too many endangered fish and limiting access to harvestable populations.
(6)  The legislature further finds that sports fishing is a billion dollar industry in Washington and the single largest source of funding to the department of fish and wildlife. The seventy-one million dollars generated by the buyers of recreational fishing licenses in the 2013-2015 fiscal biennium represents over nineteen percent of the department of fish and wildlife's total budget. By comparison, the commercial fishing industry only generated one and one-half million dollars in funding over the same time period to the department of fish and wildlife, which amounts to less than one-half of one percent of the agency's overall budget.

http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1229.pdf

[northwesthunter84]

About time, enough said.

[bigtex]

There were House and Senate bills of similar nature in 2015 and 2016 they didn't even get hearings....

[Whitpirate]

So give the tribes 100% monopoly on commercial and hope we get our 50% as sporties?  Color me jaded but that's crazy.  Tribal reporting and harvest and especially enforcement  has been proven to suspect at best I don't agree to give them the commercial market. 

[Magnum_Willys]

Amen ! Now see if it happens.....

[JKEEN33]

Glad I read the full post. I was getting irritated reading about tourism and local remote communities rather than resident recreational fishermen. #6 calmed me down.

I wrote a paper in college about tribal and commercial fishing taking priority over sport fishermen. It's amazing how much money the sport fishermen pumps into the economy compared to the other two. The state is crazy for not capatalizing on this.


I have a friend in Florida interested in catching a halibut. I have told him to bypass the WA  season and we can go to CA. The 3 dat season in WA split over two weeks is a working guys nightmare to participate in.

[JimmyHoffa]

Glad I read the full post. I was getting irritated reading about tourism and local remote communities rather than resident recreational fishermen. #6 calmed me down.

I wrote a paper in college about tribal and commercial fishing taking priority over sport fishermen. It's amazing how much money the sport fishermen pumps into the economy compared to the other two. The state is crazy for not capatalizing on this.


I have a friend in Florida interested in catching a halibut. I have told him to bypass the WA  season and we can go to CA. The 3 dat season in WA split over two weeks is a working guys nightmare to participate in.

These things usually don't make it far because commercial fisherman lobby has the ability to pump in lots of campaign dollars.  You could show the members in the legislature that a non-comm, non-tribal fish is worth ten times the amount to the state economy, but a handful will be on the commercial dole.

[JKEEN33]

Glad I read the full post. I was getting irritated reading about tourism and local remote communities rather than resident recreational fishermen. #6 calmed me down.

I wrote a paper in college about tribal and commercial fishing taking priority over sport fishermen. It's amazing how much money the sport fishermen pumps into the economy compared to the other two. The state is crazy for not capatalizing on this.


I have a friend in Florida interested in catching a halibut. I have told him to bypass the WA  season and we can go to CA. The 3 dat season in WA split over two weeks is a working guys nightmare to participate in.

These things usually don't make it far because commercial fisherman lobby has the ability to pump in lots of campaign dollars.  You could show the members in the legislature that a non-comm, non-tribal fish is worth ten times the amount to the state economy, but a handful will be on the commercial dole.

Agreed. You left off the local community and charters also. That's why the 3 day halibut season is spread over 2 weeks? A working guy can't go out and get his fish and go home on a budget.

[baldopepper]

Spent several years trying to do this back in the late 80's, didn't go anywhere then either.  Bottom line, recreational people didn't have any lobbyists and didn't contribute to anyones campaign coffers.  As then, just as now, reasons to manage for recreational fishing far outweighed the commercial interests.  Hope I'm wrong, but I suspect the same promises of campaign money will outweigh doing the right thing. 

[Bean Counter]

i don't have a problem prioritizing outdoorsmen over commercial interests. Mainly because I think the diffuse nature of myriad stakeholders from all walks of life makes for better management than commercial interests. But, follow the money: If I had to guess, I'd think the first and primary thing the legislature will look at will be the overall impact of commercial fishing vs. recreational angling and the license generation and economic effect thereto. 

[Special T]

So give the tribes 100% monopoly on commercial and hope we get our 50% as sporties?  Color me jaded but that's crazy.  Tribal reporting and harvest and especially enforcement  has been proven to suspect at best I don't agree to give them the commercial market.

I'm jaded. If they want to prioritize for anglers ban ALL nets tribal and commercial.  This state is reaching it's financial tipping point in regaurdless to Tribal influence. Everything from the fish, water rights, that ability to give $ to influence regulations they don't have to abide by...

In general I like the idea but if you combine the closed door meeting with the tribes this is a bad deal.

[jmscon]

Two things bother me about this bill. First, this would put most of the commercial fishing in the hands of the tribes. Some of who, of what I've heard lately, have not been reporting catch.
Second, it seems that they only talk about funds for WDFW and not the money made by the commercial fisherman that puts food on the table.

[pianoman9701]

Expect to pay higher fees to make up for the $5,000 licenses the salmon/halibut commercial boats now pay the state. I'm unsure this bill is a good idea, especially with the increased power granted to the tribes, many of whom are not currently cooperating with our fisheries managers. Jury's still out on this for me. I'll have to look into it more.

[Skillet]

There are different types of commercial fishing, some of which has far less impact on non-target species than others.  It may not be fair to say that all commercial fishing is bad for sports fisherman - but there is no doubt some commercial fisheries are directly at odds with sports interests. 

What I believe is fair to say, however, is that by handing over the commercial harvest to tribal interests you will remove the more socially responsible and regulated commercial harvest methods (ocean trolling, terminal harvest netting) and you will have many more tribal nets strung across rivers of endangered salmon runs to make up for the market demand.  If history is a predictor, the tribes well take what they want from ESA-listed runs and the non-tribal interests will be left holding the bag.  Anybody remember the Area 10 closure a few years ago?  That was all based on tribes taking fish from ESA-listed Puget Sound chinook runs, leaving no chance for a sport fishery in Area 10.  This will incentivize tribes to take MORE of the fish that negatively impact us all.

There is also the "foregone opportunity" issue, which means if non-tribals don't catch the full 50% they're allowed under the Boldt decision, the tribes are entitled to mop up the remainder...

It won't be a problem if we trust the tribes to accurately report their activities, of course... 

Let's be careful what we ask for - we might get it.

[JimmyHoffa]

I don't see where it is giving away to the tribes.  The state's 50% is divided up among state fisherman and commercials, I don't see quota going to the tribes because of this.  Given that commercial fishing is mostly done in the salt or the deep rivers, the only state fisherman getting any bump from this are going to be the ones with boats--probably in bays/terminal areas.  The guys fishing the rivers will still be last in line.  I don't even think this would transfer a large percentage of commercial quota to the state fisherman, but maybe I'm wrong.  So, for some cases the seasons/quotas are preferential to the commercial netters.  They get to net before the state guys can fish, but either go over quota which cuts days from state fisherman or WDFW misses a forecast, but the data isn't confirmed until they have commercial numbers--and the state fishing season gets trimmed.  Is Willapa Bay an example of this?  I know there's a lot of issue there, and that's sort of how it is painted.