HB 1229 Would Prioritize Recreational Fishing Over Commercial Fishing

[Tinmaniac]

I guess you guys missed the point altogether which is not surprising given the fact you work for the state that has brought us to the point of needing a bill like 1229.My point relating to 1229 is sportsmen are required to release ESA listed stocks while others are allowed to kill them.It's ass backwards policy and if you work for fish and wildlife enforcing these policies you are part of the problem not the solution.The elk during deer season was a metaphor.

[jmscon]

Read the economic study. It always cracks me up when they show how they got their data.

On the recreational side:

◗ Food and beverage stores (used for food expenditures)
◗ Food services and drinking places (used for food expenditures)
◗ Hotels and motels—including casino hotels (used for lodging expenditures)
◗ Air transportation (used for airfare transportation expenditures)
◗ State and local government passenger transit (used
for public transportation expenditures)
◗ Gasoline stations (used for private transportation expenditures)
◗ Sporting goods, hobby, books, and music stores (used for  shing and recreation equipment expenditures)
◗ General and consumer goods rental (used for equipment rental expenditures)
◗ Other amusement, gambling, and recreational industries (used for boat launching, mooring, guides, and land use fee expenditures)
◗
Other sectors: all other sectors of the Washington State economy
Recreational spending estimates were inputted into the IMPLAN model separately for expenditures made by all anglers, by resident anglers, and by non-resident an- glers.  e output of the model- ing runs included estimates of direct, indirect, and induced levels of employment and per- sonal income at the state level.

On the commercial side:

Only harvesting and primary processing e ects are assessed. Processed products can
enter seafood distribution channels that can generate additional economic e ects in Washington’s economy.

  e economic e ects from the movement of  sh resources between commercial and recreational user groups cannot be assessed with the modeled estimates. Showing economic bene ts from changes in allocations would require close examination of spending on a per unit basis and in aggregate before any conclusions could be reached.

[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.

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/

What you linked to is a site about troll caught fish. And did you know that the Alaska Troll fishery intercepts a huge portion of the Washington/Oregon king salmon runs?

[WSU]

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/

What you linked to is a site about troll caught fish. And did you know that the Alaska Troll fishery intercepts a huge portion of the Washington/Oregon king salmon runs?

I'll bet that the one thing Sitka and I strongly agree on is that the northern intercept fisheries are a much bigger problem than the local terminal fisheries.  If we ever truly want to recover of runs, we need to curtail the harvest in Canada and AK.  Something like 85% of the harvest occurs north of the Washington boarder.  We are left to fight over the remaining scraps.

You hear time and again that netting "the mouth of the river" or in the river must end.  If we want true change, the exact opposite must occur.  Harvest needs to occur at in the terminal area.  When 85% of our fish are caught in the open ocean in Canada and AK, all stocks are mixed.  ESA listed fish and killed right along with healthy runs.  If harvested at our near the river of origin, we could do a whole lot better controlling what fish we are killing and what fish we let spawn.

It would be great if the tribes, sports fisherman, and commercial industry could all get on the same page regarding northern intercept.  Frankly, I think the commercials support it because many Washington fishers and processors operate in AK and make lots of money.

[JimmyHoffa]

I've heard that to be the main cause, too, WSU.  The other thing regulating harvest to terminal areas would likely do is to increase the size of the fish.  How many year five spawners are caught in their third year?

[WSU]

How many year five spawners are caught in their third year?

I don't know the answer but it is safe to say that if you harvest 85% of the fish before they get home, you'll be catching lots and lots of immature fish.  Also, those older fish that stay on the feeding grounds (where the troll fisheries occur) are just that much more likely to eventually get caught.  The Elwha is your area is a prime example.  Does anyone really think very many fish are going to make it to 7 or 8 years old having to live through an 85% harvest rate?

[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/

What you linked to is a site about troll caught fish. And did you know that the Alaska Troll fishery intercepts a huge portion of the Washington/Oregon king salmon runs?

Look my point is that line caught fish are worth more.  Am I wrong? There are 2 ways to make $ produce more or produce a higher quality that people are willing to pay for.

I think there are lots of options out there but none are easy. The hardest part is getting the Tribes to even participate in reporting for management.  On here somewhere it was posted that the tribes in BC signed an agreement to make fisheries better. I don't remember the details. We need something like that here but it will likely require a complete crash of the runs.

[JimmyHoffa]

Look my point is that line caught fish are worth more.  Am I wrong? There are 2 ways to make $ produce more or produce a higher quality that people are willing to pay for.

I think there are lots of options out there but none are easy. The hardest part is getting the Tribes to even participate in reporting for management.  On here somewhere it was posted that the tribes in BC signed an agreement to make fisheries better. I don't remember the details. We need something like that here but it will likely require a complete crash of the runs.

I've heard they are worth more, but it is the more knowledgeable buyers that even know it--fancy chefs vs regular restaurants.  The netted fish supposedly get crushed/smooshed under the other fish in the net which makes meat have mushy spots.  The line caught supposedly are firmer/more uniform.  Even if you can sell for more, the cost to acquire is a lot higher; so still more profit in the net for certain cases.

[Special T]

I'm obviously  too ignorant to say much more on this matter so I'll sign off.

[baldopepper]

If you're really interested in seeing how this whole system works, go sit thru a North of Falcon fisheries get together.  I sat thru several and left every time with my head spinning.  Havent been in a long time now, but used to leave thinking that it was 3 days of arguing about who got to catch the last salmon.

[WSU]

If you're really interested in seeing how this whole system works, go sit thru a North of Falcon fisheries get together.  I sat thru several and left every time with my head spinning.  Havent been in a long time now, but used to leave thinking that it was 3 days of arguing about who got to catch the last salmon.

North of Falcon is a joke.

[Tinmaniac]

Bigtex, I took your advice and made some calls today.everyone I spoke with said that taking ESA listed Puget Sound salmon is in fact a crime.they also said that it was very troubling that a fish and wildlife and enforcement officer would suggest that it wasn't.

[JimmyHoffa]

Probably just a misunderstanding of when/how prosecution can be brought by federal vs state

[Skillet]

 

I think bigtex was taking about a nuanced way of not being prosecuted under the ESA due to included terminology.  Not that I'd ever want to hang my hat on that and go fishing anyway, since you'd still be put through the wringer by the state. I seriously doubt the clerks you likely spoke to have the level of understanding of the actual letter of the law as bigtex does.  Even if they did, they would be very unlikely to tell you as much, since you would then use that conversation as justification for catching an ESA listed king, or shooting an elk in a field in a closed unit, or whatever.
 

[bigtex]

Bigtex, I took your advice and made some calls today.everyone I spoke with said that taking ESA listed Puget Sound salmon is in fact a crime.they also said that it was very troubling that a fish and wildlife and enforcement officer would suggest that it wasn't.

Show me where I said that!

Apparently I need to draw this in crayon for you. Because only you are having a hard time comprehending what I wrote.

The federal ESA requires the government to show you knowingly took the species in order to be prosecuted in federal court. Don't believe me? Here is the provision right here:

16 USC 1540(a)(2)
Any person who KNOWINGLY violates any provision of this chapter (the ESA), of any permit or certificate issued hereunder, or of any regulation issued in order to implement subsection (a)(1)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), or (F), (a)(2)(A), (B), (C), or (D), (c), (d) (other than a regulation relating to recordkeeping, or filing of reports), (f), or (g) of section 1538 of this title shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both. Any person who knowingly violates any provision of any other regulation issued under this chapter shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $25,000 or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/1540

Now in comparison, the state (WA) offenses are strict liability crimes. Which means the government does not have to show intent, or that you did the act knowingly. If you have an endangered chinook then the state can prosecute you. But for the feds to prosecute you they'd have to prove the knowingly aspect of the federal ESA.