HB 1229 Would Prioritize Recreational Fishing Over Commercial Fishing

[jmscon]

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.

I was using sarcasm.


Looks like a $50 billion national industry to me.

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

Again, sarcasm.

There are a few companies that charge fees to use their land but there are a lot that don't.

[JimmyHoffa]

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.

I was using sarcasm.


Looks like a $50 billion national industry to me.

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

Again, sarcasm.

There are a few companies that charge fees to use their land but there are a lot that don't.

In the case of certain species, they are private stocks in aquaculture that can account for those totals.  I think salmon 'harvested' in Washington is something like 70% coming from net pens.  Fish like halibut would be tougher to have a contained commercial industry like salmon.

[Tinmaniac]

Jmscon,Washington fisherman are the ones that book most of the lodging and charters in Washington.Sekiu will become a ghost town under current managment stratagies.Westport suffers when sport seasons are closed.Area 9 is suffering right now as millions of dollars in equipment sits onshore waiting for an opening.Area 9 quota for sportsmen wouldn't provide a decent living for 2 commercial boats.HB 1229 is not a bill for out of state people.It states that with the way things are run now we can't attract out of state people.No one can plan a trip here including Washington sportsmen because we can't even set a season.Memorial Day weekend has been a Halibut fishing vacation for countless Washingtonians for decades and now it's gone.

[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.

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.

Here is the economic study if you want to use real numbers rather than assumed numbers:

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00464/wdfw00464.pdf

[Tinmaniac]

As a sportfisherman I am guilty of a federal crime if I keep ESA listed speicies.What is a commercial fisherman guilty of.?Are they allowed to be sold as bycatch?Do they get tossed back dead?

[WSU]

As a sportfisherman I am guilty of a federal crime if I keep ESA listed speicies.What is a commercial fisherman guilty of.?Are they allowed to be sold as bycatch?Do they get tossed back dead?

Not really accurate. There is allowed mortality built into our seasons, rec and commercial. ESA fish are at times legal to retain.

[Tinmaniac]

You didn't read what I said.ESA listed fish like Puget Sound Chinook.So called wild chinook are off limits in many marine areas to sportsmen.As a sportsman if I keep those fish I am guilty of a federal crime because ESA is a federal law.The allowance for mortality is a joke it counts against our quota.Encounters count against our quota.You must not fish much.

[bigtex]

As a sportfisherman I am guilty of a federal crime if I keep ESA listed speicies.What is a commercial fisherman guilty of.?Are they allowed to be sold as bycatch?Do they get tossed back dead?

Not really accurate. There is allowed mortality built into our seasons, rec and commercial. ESA fish are at times legal to retain.

Additionally, under the federal ESA for a criminal prosecution the gov't has to prove you did the act knowingly. For example they'd have to prove you knew it was a chinook.

[Airnip]

http://fishingthechehalis.net/

Movies and fine ranting about Grays Harbor river fishing.

At one time there were three legal methods. Trapping was stopped.

[Tinmaniac]

Ignorance of the law does not make you immune from it.The fishing regs that come out every year explain everything in great detail.Even comes with pictures.Lower gum line is black.Read it,know it,live it.

[WSU]

You didn't read what I said.ESA listed fish like Puget Sound Chinook.So called wild chinook are off limits in many marine areas to sportsmen.As a sportsman if I keep those fish I am guilty of a federal crime because ESA is a federal law.The allowance for mortality is a joke it counts against our quota.Encounters count against our quota.You must not fish much.

I read what you wrote and It is more complex than that. There are plenty of mixed stock fisheries that allow retention of wild fish and where some of those wild fish are ESA listed.  The Columbia and coastal fisheries are prime examples.

Of course, if it is illegal to retain wild fish and those fish are listed, you could very well be charged. Just ask a recently well publicized guide about cowlitz ESA listings.

The discussion about encounters and mortality rates applied in the various models used to construct our seasons is an entire problem in itself.

[bigtex]

Ignorance of the law does not make you immune from it.The fishing regs that come out every year explain everything in great detail.Even comes with pictures.Lower gum line is black.Read it,know it,live it.

Yup I enforce it! The federal ESA has a knowingly aspect to it. You can't be prosecuted federally if the feds can't prove you knew what you caught.

State law is different. But you mentioned federal ESA so I told you how the federal ESA case would work.

Don't believe me? Call NOAA OLE or USFWS OLE tomorrow.

[Tinmaniac]

I could be prosecuted.Wheather or not I was found guilty is another thing.Not a hard thing to prove for a first year prosecutor.I have been buying licenses for 34 years.Would be hard for me to claim I didn't know what I was doing.I can hear it now,honest officer I didn't know I wasn't allowed to shoot Elk during deer season going 90 down I-5.

[bigtex]

I could be prosecuted.Wheather or not I was found guilty is another thing.Not a hard thing to prove for a first year prosecutor.I have been buying licenses for 34 years.Would be hard for me to claim I didn't know what I was doing.I can hear it now,honest officer I didn't know I wasn't allowed to shoot Elk during deer season going 90 down I-5.

Elk in WA aren't protected under the ESA so they're is no knowing aspect to their prosecution. You obviously don't believe me so I don't even know why I'm responding. A career in fish and wildlife enforcement apparently means nothing. No matter what I say you'll see me as wrong. Read the ESA yourself, it's pretty simple. Call up a USFWS/NOAA SA or a federal prosecutor, they'll tell you the same thing. But hey, they're all wrong and your right.....

[olyguy79]

Bigtex is correct. The federal ESA requires a knowing aspect in the prosecution, this is black and white in the statute.

Now the state offenses are different. They (WA) don't require the govt to prove you knowingly committed the act. This would be one of those situations where you took an ESA listed species and the Feds can't prosecute but the state can.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk