Post by: bigtex on January 13, 2017, 08:45:58 AM
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
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
Post by: northwesthunter84 on January 13, 2017, 09:04:48 AM
Post by: bigtex on January 13, 2017, 09:09:46 AM
Post by: Whitpirate on January 13, 2017, 09:11:33 AM
Post by: Magnum_Willys on January 13, 2017, 09:11:57 AM
Post by: JKEEN33 on January 13, 2017, 09:16:18 AM
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.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 13, 2017, 09:57:15 AM
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.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.
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.
Post by: JKEEN33 on January 13, 2017, 10:12:12 AM
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.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.
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.
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.
Post by: baldopepper on January 13, 2017, 10:55:19 AM
Post by: Bean Counter on January 13, 2017, 11:14:53 AM
Post by: Special T on January 13, 2017, 11:26:14 AM
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.
Post by: jmscon on January 13, 2017, 12:59:07 PM
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.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 13, 2017, 01:07:44 PM
Post by: Skillet on January 13, 2017, 01:21:23 PM
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... :rolleyes:
Let's be careful what we ask for - we might get it.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 13, 2017, 01:31:46 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 13, 2017, 01:48:35 PM
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.:yeah:
There is no quota change.
Post by: Skillet on January 13, 2017, 01:52:26 PM
Willipa bay is a special situation, I think @WSU is really well informed on that.
Post by: Special T on January 13, 2017, 02:45:12 PM
It wouldn't be a giveaway to the tribes, if they accurately reported their take. The issue is they will be further incentivized to game the system by not reporting catches because the competition in the commercial market will be removed. If we trust the tribes to honestly co-manage the fish, there shouldn't be a problem with tribes overharvesting to the sportsmen's detriment.Not only that but it wouldn't surprise me that a big deal would be made out of those that didn't turn results of thier fishing punch cards.
Willipa bay is a special situation, I think @WSU is really well informed on that.
Post by: lokidog on January 13, 2017, 05:24:45 PM
It wouldn't be a giveaway to the tribes, if they accurately reported their take. The issue is they will be further incentivized to game the system by not reporting catches because the competition in the commercial market will be removed. If we trust the tribes to honestly co-manage the fish, there shouldn't be a problem with tribes overharvesting to the sportsmen's detriment.
Willipa bay is a special situation, I think @WSU is really well informed on that.
Aren't fish buyers required to report their purchases? If not, maybe changing this, or enforcing it, would be a way for the Indians to be held accountable?
Post by: jackmaster on January 13, 2017, 05:40:58 PM
Post by: RB on January 13, 2017, 05:55:41 PM
Post by: 2labs on January 13, 2017, 06:24:48 PM
Post by: yum tag soup on January 13, 2017, 06:31:59 PM
At one time washington state was world renowned for salmon and steelhead!!! Sorry but natives and commercial has DEMOLISHED our fisheries, we have lost , I am not sure but I think almost all state ran hatcheries and the natives have taken them, don't know if it's a good thing or s bad thing, what I do know is fishing in Washington for steelys and salmon in the salt and the rivers suck!! And our bottom fishn sucks even worse, if this will help it I am ALL FOR IT!!! Piss on commercial fishing and piss on tribal fishing :twocents::yeah: :pee:
Post by: 2labs on January 13, 2017, 06:32:10 PM
It wouldn't be a giveaway to the tribes, if they accurately reported their take. The issue is they will be further incentivized to game the system by not reporting catches because the competition in the commercial market will be removed. If we trust the tribes to honestly co-manage the fish, there shouldn't be a problem with tribes overharvesting to the sportsmen's detriment.
Willipa bay is a special situation, I think @WSU is really well
informed on that.
Aren't fish buyers required to report their purchases? If not, maybe changing this, or enforcing it, would be a way for the Indians to be held accountable?
An accountable Indian? Good one Loki! :chuckle:
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on January 14, 2017, 07:01:10 AM
This state should be the Salmon/Stealhead Capitol of the world! It's got everything needed except management!
:yeah: The Steelhead is the state fish after all.............
Post by: BigGoonTuna on January 16, 2017, 07:58:40 AM
phasing out non tribal commercial fishing in this state would make things a 2 way split, rather than a 3 way split.
Post by: Whitpirate on January 16, 2017, 09:05:29 AM
Post by: dreamunelk on January 16, 2017, 06:31:50 PM
Post by: Tinmaniac on January 18, 2017, 08:18:18 AM
Post by: jmscon on January 18, 2017, 10:32:07 AM
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?
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 18, 2017, 10:50:42 AM
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.
Post by: Special T on January 18, 2017, 10:52:46 AM
Post by: Tinmaniac on January 18, 2017, 11:36:52 AM
Post by: jmscon on January 18, 2017, 11:55:16 AM
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.
Post by: jmscon on January 18, 2017, 11:56:37 AM
Post by: WSU on January 18, 2017, 11:57:45 AM
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.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 18, 2017, 12:00:37 PM
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.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 18, 2017, 12:10:03 PM
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.
Post by: WSU on January 18, 2017, 12:18:27 PM
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.
Post by: Stein on January 18, 2017, 12:23:49 PM
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.
Post by: Special T on January 18, 2017, 12:53:15 PM
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.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.
https://www.alaskagoldbrand.com/hook-line/
Post by: jmscon on January 18, 2017, 01:11:02 PM
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.
Post by: pcal on January 18, 2017, 03:22:07 PM
Post by: Tinmaniac on January 18, 2017, 03:29:53 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 18, 2017, 03:41:45 PM
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.
Post by: jmscon on January 18, 2017, 04:00:14 PM
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.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 18, 2017, 04:10:36 PM
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.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.
Post by: Tinmaniac on January 18, 2017, 04:18:23 PM
Post by: WSU on January 18, 2017, 04:18:53 PM
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
Post by: Tinmaniac on January 18, 2017, 04:48:59 PM
Post by: WSU on January 18, 2017, 05:38:58 PM
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.
Post by: Tinmaniac on January 18, 2017, 05:57:59 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 18, 2017, 05:58:59 PM
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.
:yeah:
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.
Post by: Airnip on January 18, 2017, 06:09:44 PM
Movies and fine ranting about Grays Harbor river fishing.
At one time there were three legal methods. Trapping was stopped.
Post by: Tinmaniac on January 18, 2017, 06:14:19 PM
Post by: WSU on January 18, 2017, 06:16:32 PM
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.
Post by: bigtex on January 18, 2017, 06:30:22 PM
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.
Post by: Tinmaniac on January 18, 2017, 06:54:30 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 18, 2017, 07:12:46 PM
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. :dunno: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.....
Post by: olyguy79 on January 18, 2017, 07:16:08 PM
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
Post by: Tinmaniac on January 18, 2017, 07:27:38 PM
Post by: jmscon on January 18, 2017, 09:37:08 PM
On the recreational side:
Quote
◗ 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:
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 19, 2017, 04:06:16 AM
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.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.
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?
Post by: WSU on January 19, 2017, 08:48:48 AM
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.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.
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.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 19, 2017, 08:57:19 AM
Post by: WSU on January 19, 2017, 09:05:44 AM
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?
Post by: Special T on January 19, 2017, 09:26:54 AM
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.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.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.
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 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.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 19, 2017, 09:34:10 AM
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.
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.
Post by: Special T on January 19, 2017, 09:39:12 AM
Post by: baldopepper on January 19, 2017, 10:04:51 AM
Post by: WSU on January 19, 2017, 10:36:57 AM
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.
Post by: Tinmaniac on January 19, 2017, 03:30:23 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 19, 2017, 03:49:26 PM
Post by: Skillet on January 19, 2017, 06:12:12 PM
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.
:twocents:
Post by: bigtex on January 19, 2017, 06:34:19 PM
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.
Post by: dreamunelk on January 19, 2017, 06:50:19 PM
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.
:tup:
Post by: Tinmaniac on January 19, 2017, 07:14:47 PM
Post by: RB on January 19, 2017, 09:32:25 PM
Bigtex,if I rob a bank it's a federal crime if I get caught or not.If I keep ESA listed stocks,like unclipped kings in a area that does not allow retaining of these fish I am guilty of a federal crime.I do realize that common sence is not a requirement to do your job.Why is it impossible for you to see my point.If it is against the law to keep the fish and I keep them I have broken the law.Do you write tickets in crayon?
Yes and you will be prosecuted in the state and the feds won't touch it because they can't prove you knowingly knew it was an ESA fish because the area was open to fishing in the first place. When the down rigger goes off can anybody tell if it is a ESA fish? When the fish gets to the boat we all look for the "fin" and either bonk it or shake it loose easy peasy if not Stop Trolling then. :twocents:
Post by: Tinmaniac on January 19, 2017, 10:14:29 PM
Post by: jmscon on January 19, 2017, 11:02:47 PM
I guess I'm in denial and don't want to see one of the industries that helped build the towns in puget sound, on the Columbia river and the coastal communities get pushed out of the way so that other people can have fun.
But don't worry folks, the tribes will be the only one you'll have to share your quota with.