Post by: bigtex on October 28, 2013, 09:27:00 AM
• Instituting a civil fine of $2,000 for taking a white sturgeon over 65 inches in length
• Instituting a civil fine of $2,000 for taking a green sturgeon
• Instituting a civil fine of $500 for possessing a wild salmon or wild steelhead that is protected under the Endangered Species Act
The civil fines are enacted under the same laws for killing big game. A court CANNOT reduce the above fines.
• All law enforcement officers (outside of WDFW) can enforce fish and wildlife laws and individuals are required to produce for inspection gear, licenses, and game/fish. Currently under law it is a crime to not produce those items for WDFW Officers, but not “ex officio fish and wildlife officers” (big term for non-WDFW Officers enforcing fish and wildlife laws). This law changes that and closes that loophole.
• Institutes a fine of $500 plus statutory assessments for being too close to an Orca Whale. Current fine is $42 plus statutory assessments which bring the total fine to $87. This is the same for ALL natural resource infractions.
• Those familiar with federal wildlife laws may know the “Lacey Act” which has several provisions including the prohibition of transporting/possessing fish, wildlife, plants, etc that was taken unlawfully and bringing it across state or international lines. In some areas it also includes bringing it across some federal land areas, even inside the state. WDFW is asking the legislature to create a state gross misdemeanor which would create a state offense of unlawful possession of fish, shellfish, or wildlife taken or possessed in violation of another state’s or country’s laws or regulations.
Post by: buckfvr on October 28, 2013, 09:33:00 AM
Also if equipment is seized against a hatchery fish, said equip should be returned to owner.
Post by: bigtex on October 28, 2013, 09:41:07 AM
One thing that jumps out to me is, provided WDFW proves through DNA sampling that the salmon or steelhead are truley wild, and not just un-clipped hatchery fish.
The state law (already in place) adopts the federal regulations as to what is protected and what is not. For salmon and steelhead the "official" term is "naturally spawned." So a problem you may have with DNA is that if a fish doesn't return to the hatchery and does spawn naturally their offspring will not be clipped but may have DNA similar to the hatchery fish. Under federal law, those fish are protected....
Post by: buckfvr on October 28, 2013, 09:51:03 AM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on October 28, 2013, 09:58:37 AM
Quote
The civil fines are enacted under the same laws for killing big game. A court CANNOT reduce the above fines.
That is never good
Post by: CP on October 28, 2013, 09:59:04 AM
Post by: bigtex on October 28, 2013, 09:59:57 AM
QuoteThe civil fines are enacted under the same laws for killing big game. A court CANNOT reduce the above fines.
That is never good
Why? You don't like that somebody shoots a buck and gets an automatic $2000 fine? Without that a judge can say $0 and be good for 6 months
Post by: Knocker of rocks on October 28, 2013, 10:05:20 AM
Post by: hntrspud on October 28, 2013, 10:05:32 AM
Post by: bigtex on October 28, 2013, 10:06:36 AM
I trust a judge to look at reason and capability.
The fine is handed down by a judge. The person must be found/plea guilty.
Post by: bigtex on October 28, 2013, 10:07:29 AM
The interesting part is, if you follow the laws you dont have to worry about it.
Like any law :tup:
Post by: CP on October 28, 2013, 10:11:04 AM
The interesting part is, if you follow the laws you dont have to worry about it.
Like any law :tup:
You guys are saying that no one has ever been wrongfully accused or convicted of breaking a law? I wish that were true.
Post by: hntrspud on October 28, 2013, 10:14:00 AM
Post by: bigtex on November 12, 2013, 10:16:11 AM
Post by: Daytonite on November 12, 2013, 01:31:28 PM
When this bill gets introduced in January we need EVERYONE to call/email their legislator to pass this bill :twocents:
Couldn't agree more :tup:
Post by: Slow-1 on November 14, 2013, 03:09:14 PM
Post by: LndShrk on November 14, 2013, 04:08:15 PM
One thing that jumps out to me is, provided WDFW proves through DNA sampling that the salmon or steelhead are truley wild, and not just un-clipped hatchery fish.
The state law (already in place) adopts the federal regulations as to what is protected and what is not. For salmon and steelhead the "official" term is "naturally spawned." So a problem you may have with DNA is that if a fish doesn't return to the hatchery and does spawn naturally their offspring will not be clipped but may have DNA similar to the hatchery fish. Under federal law, those fish are protected....
I am not a fan. I catch a few salmon around the area and I can assure you that there are many hatchery fish with partially clipped fins. As well until we can assure that all hatcheries are operating under the same standards with clipping I really do not want to see anymore legislation and fines around this already grey area. I understand the intent of the legislation and such but there are so many other more significant contributing factors to the damage of this resource nets / bycatch habitat etc.. the list can go on and on that I feel the emphasis should be put on addressing those issues and not on the enforcement of a law that is quite debatable if it is even needed or not. :twocents: This too me is only a feel good law and a green check mark that says nothing more than "Hey look we did something"
Post by: bigtex on December 12, 2013, 08:07:13 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 15, 2013, 11:47:20 AM
I for one am glad that the Orca fine has been increased. The interesting part is, if you follow the laws you dont have to worry about it.
Really? I can think of a lot of situations where an animal that can stay underwater for 10's of minutes could pop up beside your boat without any effort to get close on your part. I've had Orcas swim right next to my boat while I was anchored for one.
Post by: bigtex on January 10, 2014, 09:42:01 AM
Post by: snowpack on January 10, 2014, 10:01:20 AM
To me 'taking' is when you kill the fish and toss it in the icebox. 'Possession' is controlling the outcome of a fish. So, if you catch one of these fish and grab its tail so you can remove the hook to release it, you would be possessing it.
Post by: bigtex on January 14, 2014, 10:02:45 AM
Post by: bigtex on January 15, 2014, 08:57:12 AM
Post by: bigtex on January 15, 2014, 05:07:03 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 22, 2014, 10:24:17 AM
HB 2460 is sponsored by Reps Blake, Chandler, Hurst, Lytton, Takko, Wilcox, Kretz, Warnick, Tharinger, and Tarleton
Post by: bigtex on February 18, 2014, 09:01:07 PM
Post by: lokidog on February 18, 2014, 09:14:52 PM
Will the fines include the natives blowing through pods with their gill netters and seiners? "Head bash! "
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I547 using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on February 18, 2014, 09:18:39 PM
Will the fines include the natives blowing through pods with their gill netters and seiners? "Head bash! "The fine for the Orca violation was already increased in December by order of the WA Supreme Court. For about the past two years the fine was $87. Prior to that the fine was $1,025. This legislation would put it into state law that the fine will be $500 plus statutory assessments which would bring it to $1,025
Post by: bigtex on February 19, 2014, 12:31:53 PM
I thought we all want those who violate fish and wildlife laws to be punished..That's what this bill will do.....
Post by: Special T on February 19, 2014, 03:48:34 PM
I don't suffer from the do something disease, i prefer they/we get something done right. :twocents:
Post by: Curly on February 19, 2014, 04:01:09 PM
Now if someone kept a sturgeon that was 67", then I could see a fine that high. Seems like a high price for a little mistake. I guess that is the way it is going to be or else they shut down the fishery completely, huh?
I'd much rather see a bounty on the sealions than these fines for sportsmen. :twocents:
Post by: bigtex on February 19, 2014, 04:10:47 PM
a $2,000 fine for a sturgeon over 65 inches seems awfully steep (if the legal limit is 65"). What if a guy honestly measures the fish at 64-7/8" long and decides to keep it. Then when he gets checked and the fish is then relaxed and easier to measure, the warden measures it at 65-1/16" ? Is that discrepancy in measurement worth a $2,000 fine? Especially when you think about all the sealions taking bites out of the bellies of the sturgeon.
Need to remember this is after a defendant is found guilty. This isn't a $2,000 ticket. The offender goes before a judge, if the judge agrees that the measurement is so close and goes with the defendant and finds the individual not guilty, or the prosecutor drops the case then obviously no fine is handed down.
Post by: bigtex on February 19, 2014, 04:15:50 PM
I have not yet voted but consider the NO and option... I must say that if the state cannot get convitions for the most agredious offenders like in Operation Cody then why bother with increasing the fines?Well these offenses are going before judges and what was said during the hearing is somebody may get a $100 fine for an over length sturgeon that may be worth several thousand dollars even though a judge can fine them up to $5,000. This same thing is the reason why WDFW pushed for mandatory civil fines for big game poaching years ago. People were getting a $200 fine for poaching a deer, now its at least $2,000.
I don't suffer from the do something disease, i prefer they/we get something done right. :twocents:
Post by: Special T on February 19, 2014, 04:26:46 PM
I'm not laying this on the WDFW, or enforcement, rather the judges. If we NEED mandatory fine scheduals then we don't need the judges and fire them. I think the SYSTEM is broken, which means a bandaid like what is proposed MAY slow the bleeding but won't stop it. I'm not sure what the solution is, other than kicking the judges in the balls so that they use thier brain. :dunno:
Post by: bigtex on February 19, 2014, 04:34:58 PM
I'm not laying this on the WDFW, or enforcement, rather the judges. If we NEED mandatory fine scheduals then we don't need the judges and fire them. I think the SYSTEM is broken, which means a bandaid like what is proposed MAY slow the bleeding but won't stop it. I'm not sure what the solution is, other than kicking the judges in the balls so that they use thier brain. :dunno:Judges and the prosecutors are at fault here.
I will say that WA is rare in the fact that for the most part we don't have mandatory minimums. Even these fines (as well as the big game fines) aren't mandatory minimum criminal fines, they're civil. In WA a misdemeanor is $0-1,000 and/or 90 days, a gross misdemeanor is $0-5,000 and/or 364 days. In many states there is no $0, there is a mandatory minimum, as an example every misdemeanor is a mandatory minimum $200. So in many states an officer can tell the offender they're looking at a minimum $X fine, in WA you cant.
Post by: Curly on February 19, 2014, 04:40:41 PM
(I'd still rather have a bounty on Sealions though). ;)
Post by: bigtex on February 19, 2014, 04:47:12 PM
(I'd still rather have a bounty on Sealions though). ;)Get federal law changed first :chuckle:
Post by: bigtex on February 26, 2014, 08:09:51 PM
The Senate bill passed unanimously today
The bill passed out of the House Agriculture and Natural Resource Committee today. It now goes on to a full House vote and then onto the Governor.
Post by: bearpaw on February 27, 2014, 11:51:49 AM
Quote
The offender goes before a judge, if the judge agrees that the measurement is so close and goes with the defendant and finds the individual not guilty, or the prosecutor drops the case then obviously no fine is handed down.
There is also a great possibility of wardens/prosecutors/judges not taking that into consideration.
Post by: bigtex on March 05, 2014, 09:28:48 PM
Representative Blake did an amendment to the bill, so now the bill must go back to the Senate where they will then have to pass the amendment as well. Upon the Senate passing the bill again it will then go to Inslee. The following is Blake's amendment: "(b) The department must adopt rules for permissible temporary actions that include, at a minimum, the conditions under which a person may capture or transport wildlife to a primary permitee, subpermittee, or a rehabilitation facility."
EFFECT: Requires the department of fish and wildlife to adopt rules that specify when a citizen may capture or transport animals for rehabilitation.
Post by: lokidog on March 06, 2014, 08:15:32 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 07, 2014, 04:17:20 AM
The bill passed out of the House today with a vote of 76-22. Those voting against were Buys, Christian, Condotta, DeBolt, Haler, Hayes, Holy, G. Hunt, Klippert, Kretz, Manweller, Orcutt, Overstreet, Parker, Schmick, Scott, Shea, Short, Smith, Taylor, Vick, and Young.
Representative Blake did an amendment to the bill, so now the bill must go back to the Senate where they will then have to pass the amendment as well. Upon the Senate passing the bill again it will then go to Inslee. The following is Blake's amendment: "(b) The department must adopt rules for permissible temporary actions that include, at a minimum, the conditions under which a person may capture or transport wildlife to a primary permitee, subpermittee, or a rehabilitation facility."
EFFECT: Requires the department of fish and wildlife to adopt rules that specify when a citizen may capture or transport animals for rehabilitation.
Makes me wish we still had F&G and let ecology take care of the other critters.....
Post by: bigtex on March 12, 2014, 09:26:34 AM
The bill passed out of the House today with a vote of 76-22. Those voting against were Buys, Christian, Condotta, DeBolt, Haler, Hayes, Holy, G. Hunt, Klippert, Kretz, Manweller, Orcutt, Overstreet, Parker, Schmick, Scott, Shea, Short, Smith, Taylor, Vick, and Young.On March 10th the Senate held another vote on this bill which would add Rep Blake's amendment.
Representative Blake did an amendment to the bill, so now the bill must go back to the Senate where they will then have to pass the amendment as well. Upon the Senate passing the bill again it will then go to Inslee. The following is Blake's amendment: "(b) The department must adopt rules for permissible temporary actions that include, at a minimum, the conditions under which a person may capture or transport wildlife to a primary permitee, subpermittee, or a rehabilitation facility."
EFFECT: Requires the department of fish and wildlife to adopt rules that specify when a citizen may capture or transport animals for rehabilitation.
The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 47-1 with Senator Dansel in objection.
The bill now goes to the Governor for his signature..
Post by: YJ Guide Service on March 17, 2014, 07:51:58 AM
Post by: bigtex on March 18, 2014, 10:15:26 AM
WDFW has enough power as it is. Until they figure stuff out at the top they don't need anymore rules to enforce, enforce what we have now.It isn't a new rule. It's just a mandatory fine now. No actual rules have changed....
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on March 18, 2014, 04:55:32 PM
a $2,000 fine for a sturgeon over 65 inches seems awfully steep (if the legal limit is 65"). What if a guy honestly measures the fish at 64-7/8" long and decides to keep it. Then when he gets checked and the fish is then relaxed and easier to measure, the warden measures it at 65-1/16" ?
You wanna know something funny? The Feds go one farther on this when it comes to halibut.
For longliners the minimum size limit is 32 inches with the head on and 24 inches from the tail to the collar on head off fish. But here's the kicker. They don't want you sorting through fish (catch and release style) if you're a commercial boat trying to get bigger fish which pay more per lb. It doesn't matter that by doing so you'd be killing fewer fish overall because each boat has their own poundage quota. Bigger fish mean less fish to fill your quota. And it doesn't matter that after you fill your quota you can and in fact must release the rest of the fish on your longline. And it doesn't matter that sport fishermen can catch and release all the fish they want until they get a big one. That is all well and good though and not the bad part for commercial boats. What is bad is, even if your intentions were good, if you throw any legal fish back before you catch your quota, for any reason, and get caught, you will get a ticket. I know two different boats that were written up because they were using a mark to measure their fish that was one inch over the legal minimum. They were worried that as they hustled through their gear in bad seas, it would be easy to mis-measure a small fish as the boat was tossing and turning and keep undersized fish, so to prevent that, they used a 33 inch mark instead of a 32 inch mark. But when they got boarded one of the boarding officers measured the mark they were using and wrote them a ticket for not keeping fish down to the minimum size limit.
Post by: Special T on March 18, 2014, 09:35:08 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on March 20, 2014, 10:05:59 AM
• Institutes a fine of $500 plus statutory assessments for being too close to an Orca Whale. Current fine is $42 plus statutory assessments which bring the total fine to $87. This is the same for ALL natural resource infractions.
So would these guys get fined for being too close to an Orca?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RfuqJvfhbc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RfuqJvfhbc)
Post by: steen on March 20, 2014, 12:26:48 PM
I for one am glad that the Orca fine has been increased. The interesting part is, if you follow the laws you dont have to worry about it.I disagree. If there was a law requiring us to relinquish our firearms I don't know if I'd follow that law. If they told me I could not worship or believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, I would have to disobey that one also. There are more. If it goes against what God's law is I would not follow it. There are getting to be a lot of laws regarding wildlife that are getting to be ridiculous. The Lummis taking away white folks right to irrigate out of the Nooksack is another. Fining someone $20,000 for protecting their livestock, pets, and family from wolves and allowing killing of unborn babies is another. Charging all Americans (through our new healthcare system ) for anything that goes against what they believe is another. I could go on.... Sorry have to rant :(
Post by: bigtex on March 24, 2014, 11:16:44 AM
Post by: bigtex on March 24, 2014, 11:17:44 AM
Post by: whacker1 on March 24, 2014, 11:28:09 AM
Kretz, Short, Kevin Parker, Dansel, etc.
Just curious where the bill went astray with those members, and why?
Post by: bigtex on March 25, 2014, 10:43:19 AM
bigtex - do you know why Kretz went from being a sponsor to voting against the bill along with a bunch of people from the Spokane and NE corner of washington?Good question, honestly I have no clue. The final bill did have some amendments from the original, which is common but they weren't anything major in my eyes, more technical then anything.
Kretz, Short, Kevin Parker, Dansel, etc.
Just curious where the bill went astray with those members, and why?
Post by: whacker1 on March 25, 2014, 11:50:35 AM
Post by: onetrapper on March 27, 2014, 07:43:26 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on March 27, 2014, 07:51:44 PM