HB 1229 Would Prioritize Recreational Fishing Over Commercial Fishing

[JimmyHoffa]

There's a difference in catering to the first time, out of stater and the long time resident heavily invested in fishing.  Those guys are finding it increasingly difficult to justify owning a boat, going to the tackle store, etc.
What buys more tackle, boats, trucks and groceries, spends more on fuel/motels/boat ramps/mechanics/etc?  One boat getting to catch 1,000 halibut/salmon or 500 boats allowed two halibut/salmon?
I have no problem with people being allowed to commercial fish, wish there were more fish for a thriving fleet; but the scraps that WDFW gives to non-commercials while favoring commercial is pretty frustrating and even insulting.

[Special T]

There seems to be 2 competing issues here. Tribal requirements and commercial requirements. I would like to see a ban an all netting myself. I'm more in favor of a compromise where by catch can be released like the fish wheels seen used in Alaskan rivers. Endangered fish can be released as well as steal head and such. It would also seem that a better price per pound could be achieved because the fish are in great shape. I have heard that Alaska long line salmon get a premium  because of it. I think the biggest problem will be getting the Tribes to work with the state. There is a LOT more at stake than just fish revenue. Water rights and the control that can be obtained by it dwarfs the fishing industry. Just look at what is happening in Skagit and Whatcom counties right now in terms of being able to drill residential wells. 

[Tinmaniac]

Lets look at commercial fishing.At 5 bucks a pound and a 10 pound average per fish.Thats 50 bucks a fish.So using that as a guide it takes 1000 fish to make 50000 gross profit.Subtract all the cost of running a commercial boat.The boat itself,fuel,equipment,permits,moorage,crew.How much is left for net profit?I don't know how large our commercial fleet is but lets say it's 100 boats.Thats 100,000 fish taken to not provide any one with a living wage.So either they get a lot more money per pound for fish or each boat takes a lot more than 1000 fish.

[jmscon]

Puget sound and Columbia river commercial salmon fisherman are required to have a live box with a certain amount of water running through it to revive stressed native salmon. Seine fishing is the best at this practice because the fish are not as stressed and the native fish are able to be released with less harm done.

Investment to get started: permit for gilnetting in the sound $20k+Boat ($25k min.) + nets (in the thousands for new), seining in the sound $150-$200k+boat ($100k min., some new seiners are going for $2 mil) + nets (tens of thousands of $), puget sound crab permit $175k + boat ($20k min.) + gear (thousands of $), puget sound shrimp permit $220k + boat + gear, coastal dungi permit $90 k + boat + gear, you get the idea.

[jmscon]

A friend of mine made $6k as a deckhand fishing the sound a few years back. Hasn't been good for anybody the last few years.

[WSU]

My grandfather commercial fished in Washington waters, my uncle paid his way through college by fishing in the sound. I have friends who fish for salmon commercially in the sound, and they make money. That money gets spent on groceries, gas, mortgage payments, etc. The boat owners pay, to the state, business license fees, b&o taxes, fuel taxes, etc. They spend tens of thousands of dollars each year at local businesses for gear, boat repairs, food, etc. And it goes way beyond salmon, the dunginess commercial crab fishery is HUGE in this state.

So do you want to support taking money away from that so that more people MIGHT come from out of state to fish here? Take money out of people's pocket so that you can have an extra day or two halibut fishing?

You bring up a couple points I'd like to address.  First and foremost, times change.  I'm sure some buffalo hunters had to find new jobs once the buffalo were too scarce to make a living.  The same is true for market waterfowl hunters and on and on.  The world changes and people need to evolve.  Right or wrong, we live in a world of ESA listings and fisheries that are constrained by severely depressed runs, not to mention a political climate that results of the vast majority of Washington's salmon being caught in Alaska and Canada (incidentally, everyone write your favorite senator and representative to push for change to the Pacific Salmon Treaty).  That brings me to my second point.

Even if commercial fisherman don't want to change, our economy has.  Far more revenue is generated for business, individuals, and taxes through recreational fishing.  It's a fact.  If those fish were caught on a pole instead of in a net they would generate more economic value.  This definitely includes the value you've referenced: business licenses (guides, stores, bait companies, publications, and a million other examples), B&O tax, fuel tax, sales tax (way more sales tax), plus lodging, boats, gear, food, etc.  By putting money in the pockets of your friends, you are necessarily taking more money out of the pockets of some other families (admittedly including many of my friends, although I have friends that commercial fish as well). 

The unfortunate reality is that our resources are a zero-sum game.  While you prefer that the money be placed in your friends' pockets, I'm sure there are many that prefer the money be placed in their own friends' pockets.  Lots of people have kids to feed and houses to pay for, and our resources simply cannot pay for them all.  It is not a question of whether people "MIGHT" fish.  If seasons are open, people will fish and contribute heavily to our economy.  It isn't about an extra halibut day or two (although that quota is a good example of heavily favoring the commercial sector at the expense of our economy). 

The economic benefit of commercial fishing, in our state, pales in comparison the value that is generated, per fish, by recreational fishing. This is why the bill calls for prioritizing recreational fishing.  It does not call for an end to commercial fishing and that is not the intent.  But, the legislature is beginning to recognize that millions and millions of dollars are lost when commercial fishing is prioritized over recreational fishing. 

[Sitka_Blacktail]

There seems to be 2 competing issues here. Tribal requirements and commercial requirements. I would like to see a ban an all netting myself. I'm more in favor of a compromise where by catch can be released like the fish wheels seen used in Alaskan rivers. Endangered fish can be released as well as steal head and such. It would also seem that a better price per pound could be achieved because the fish are in great shape. I have heard that Alaska long line salmon get a premium  because of it. I think the biggest problem will be getting the Tribes to work with the state. There is a LOT more at stake than just fish revenue. Water rights and the control that can be obtained by it dwarfs the fishing industry. Just look at what is happening in Skagit and Whatcom counties right now in terms of being able to drill residential wells.

Do you have a clue what you are talking about? Alaska long line salmon? There is no such thing.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

What about Washington citizens who would like to eat Washington caught seafood but they don't want to spend $60,000 or more for a boat and gear to go catch it? It's more cost effective for them to go buy it at the local seafood market.

Are you saying that the seafood that is a resource of the whole State belongs only to those who buy a sport fishing license? Commercial fishermen aren't the end user of the fish they catch. The public is. Commercial fishermen make eating seafood affordable for the vast majority of Washingtonians.

[WSU]

What about Washington citizens who would like to eat Washington caught seafood but they don't want to spend $60,000 or more for a boat and gear to go catch it? It's more cost effective for them to go buy it at the local seafood market.

Are you saying that the seafood that is a resource of the whole State belongs only to those who buy a sport fishing license? Commercial fishermen aren't the end user of the fish they catch. The public is. Commercial fishermen make eating seafood affordable for the vast majority of Washingtonians.

Off the top of my head, I would say two things.  One, being a Washington resident doesn't guarantee a right to eat commercially harvested Washington fish any more than it does commercially harvested Washington elk, deer, bear, cougar, duck, goose, etc.  That's a tired argument and persists only because the industry wants it to persist.  Two, the tribes will catch at least 50% of Washington's harvest and those fish will be sold.  If Washington consumers want Washington salmon, they can still go buy it.  The tribes aren't going away (and, as I said above, neither are commercial fisherman) and are perfectly capable of supplying the ever-important Washington consumer.

[Stein]

What about Washington citizens who would like to eat Washington caught seafood but they don't want to spend $60,000 or more for a boat and gear to go catch it? It's more cost effective for them to go buy it at the local seafood market.

Are you saying that the seafood that is a resource of the whole State belongs only to those who buy a sport fishing license? Commercial fishermen aren't the end user of the fish they catch. The public is. Commercial fishermen make eating seafood affordable for the vast majority of Washingtonians.

So, you believe the seafood caught in Washington is consumed in Washington?  If that is the case, why are the commercial fisheries pushing so hard for TPP? 

If your argument holds water, than commercial hunting would make a ton of sense, split the annual elk harvest 50/50 with commercial hunters.

The only way to legally get wild elk is by hunting, why should fishing be different?  For the price of one salmon dinner you can get a rod and reel and go get yourself a fish, thousands get off the couch every year and do just that.

[Special T]

There seems to be 2 competing issues here. Tribal requirements and commercial requirements. I would like to see a ban an all netting myself. I'm more in favor of a compromise where by catch can be released like the fish wheels seen used in Alaskan rivers. Endangered fish can be released as well as steal head and such. It would also seem that a better price per pound could be achieved because the fish are in great shape. I have heard that Alaska long line salmon get a premium  because of it. I think the biggest problem will be getting the Tribes to work with the state. There is a LOT more at stake than just fish revenue. Water rights and the control that can be obtained by it dwarfs the fishing industry. Just look at what is happening in Skagit and Whatcom counties right now in terms of being able to drill residential wells.

Do you have a clue what you are talking about? Alaska long line salmon? There is no such thing.

Apparently not... I sure don't have the industry correct terminolgy down. Here is a quick search as to what I was trying to state. Forgive my transgressions I haven't fished for salmon in many years.
https://www.alaskagoldbrand.com/hook-line/

[jmscon]

My grandfather commercial fished in Washington waters, my uncle paid his way through college by fishing in the sound. I have friends who fish for salmon commercially in the sound, and they make money. That money gets spent on groceries, gas, mortgage payments, etc. The boat owners pay, to the state, business license fees, b&o taxes, fuel taxes, etc. They spend tens of thousands of dollars each year at local businesses for gear, boat repairs, food, etc. And it goes way beyond salmon, the dunginess commercial crab fishery is HUGE in this state.

So do you want to support taking money away from that so that more people MIGHT come from out of state to fish here? Take money out of people's pocket so that you can have an extra day or two halibut fishing?

You bring up a couple points I'd like to address.  First and foremost, times change.  I'm sure some buffalo hunters had to find new jobs once the buffalo were too scarce to make a living.  The same is true for market waterfowl hunters and on and on.  The world changes and people need to evolve.  Right or wrong, we live in a world of ESA listings and fisheries that are constrained by severely depressed runs, not to mention a political climate that results of the vast majority of Washington's salmon being caught in Alaska and Canada (incidentally, everyone write your favorite senator and representative to push for change to the Pacific Salmon Treaty).  That brings me to my second point.

Even if commercial fisherman don't want to change, our economy has.  Far more revenue is generated for business, individuals, and taxes through recreational fishing.  It's a fact.  If those fish were caught on a pole instead of in a net they would generate more economic value.  This definitely includes the value you've referenced: business licenses (guides, stores, bait companies, publications, and a million other examples), B&O tax, fuel tax, sales tax (way more sales tax), plus lodging, boats, gear, food, etc.  By putting money in the pockets of your friends, you are necessarily taking more money out of the pockets of some other families (admittedly including many of my friends, although I have friends that commercial fish as well). 

The unfortunate reality is that our resources are a zero-sum game.  While you prefer that the money be placed in your friends' pockets, I'm sure there are many that prefer the money be placed in their own friends' pockets.  Lots of people have kids to feed and houses to pay for, and our resources simply cannot pay for them all.  It is not a question of whether people "MIGHT" fish.  If seasons are open, people will fish and contribute heavily to our economy.  It isn't about an extra halibut day or two (although that quota is a good example of heavily favoring the commercial sector at the expense of our economy). 

The economic benefit of commercial fishing, in our state, pales in comparison the value that is generated, per fish, by recreational fishing. This is why the bill calls for prioritizing recreational fishing.  It does not call for an end to commercial fishing and that is not the intent.  But, the legislature is beginning to recognize that millions and millions of dollars are lost when commercial fishing is prioritized over recreational fishing.

And how do your commercial fishing friends feel about this?

This bill does not take anything away from the sports fishing industry, it takes away from the commercial fishing industry. Saying that keeping it, how it is, takes money out of the guides and charters pockets is false!

This bill promotes people from out of state coming here to fish. That is why I said it MIGHT bring people here to fish. The people who live in this state who are going to fish probably already do and don't spend very much on lodging and charters.

Yes, political and economic times change. Looking at how many people are employed, from fisherman to support to processors to merchants who sell the finished product. With all of those considerations the commercial industry can easily be classified as a billion dollar industry. The numbers get screwed in the favor of sports fishing time and time again.

The bill mentions of how much money WDFW makes off sport fishing and how much they make off commercial and I don't see how that favoring the sports fisherman will change that anytime soon. The state will have to spend a considerable amount of money on advertising out of state to bring in more fisherman. Money that should be spent on habitat restoration among other things.

Saying that a natural resource cannot support itself then why don't we do away with logging and farming while we are at it, no one is making money their either. More money in developing forestry property into houses than standing trees.

[pcal]

The level of your ignorants of the contribution of farming to our economy is staggering and I must step up to inform you.Reference:Washington State Farm Bureau  (2015)$51BILLION.Total contributions of the seafood and fishing commercial industry: $215MILLION (National Marine Fisheries report the total worth of all catches in the USA totaled $5.3Billion in 2014)The total farm generated $ national is in the $Trillion.If you want to support fishing on an industrial level you better back up your argument with some real facts and stop throwing unsubstantiated  dirt on everyone else.

[Tinmaniac]

The timber companies have all but shut out the public as well.

[JimmyHoffa]

Saying that a natural resource cannot support itself then why don't we do away with logging and farming while we are at it, no one is making money their either. More money in developing forestry property into houses than standing trees.

When those resources become scarce enough and in high enough demand, you'll probably see the same forms of arguments.  When property values/taxes are high enough for a farm/timber plot next to a city, they usually do fall to development.