Can't get a clean copy. This link will take you to the Senate Ag.,Water, Nat. Res., and Parks committee website. Click on SB 5617, then click on bill history, and then on Amds/Proposed Subs and click on PSSB for the current wording


https://app.leg.wa.gov/committeeschedules/Home/Documents/25275

Here's my rough summary:

The timeline for implementation is shortened. Gill nets can't be used in WA waters of the Columbia River starting Jan. 1, 2021. The buy-out format has been changed. It looks like gill nets will remain legal in other waters (Puget Sound, Grays Harbor, and Willapa Bay). Money available for developing new gear for the fishery with an emphasis on avoidance of non-target species, fishing mark selectively, low release rate mortality, and operational effectiveness. with priority for gill netters individually, as a group, or those who have tried seines and pound nets. Selective gear incentive restricted to seines, pound nets, and weirs. Statute talks to maintaining and enhancing hatchery production through removal of surplus hatchery fish.

The bill now goes to the Senate Ways and Means committee. No timeline yet, for that.

It’s too bad but not surprising that they gutted this bill. Making it only about the Columbia is just reaffirming the Commission policy that has already been in place but has failed in implementation.

CCA Washington still has not gotten off the ground like it has in other places. Why should Puget Sound be not be included in Gillnet and Pinniped relief? Our fisheries are on life support!

"The buy-out format has been changed. It looks like gill nets will remain legal in other waters (Puget Sound, Grays Harbor, and Willapa Bay). "


Wow, How do I find out who strong armed who, to get these 3 areas, (Puget Sound, Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay) removed from SB 5617, especially Grays Harbor.


The reason I keep mentioning Grays Harbor, Chehalis numbers are down AND there are 3 commercial groups fishing...….and the smallest group is the NT netters, and some of those just net part time. At NOF, 100's of staff hours plus 100 's of reams of paper are used to justify some hours for the NT, more money is spent on the process than the funds the NT fishermen get when the fish are sold...…...grrrrrr how stupid can it get???????

I'm sure there was a fair amount of arm twisting that went on to get the re-write of the original bill. Might not have made it out of committee without the changes. As currently written, it would remove gill nets from the Columbia and speed up the deadline. That's a step in the right direction.

The bill is now in the Senate Ways and Means committee. It has to be passed out of committee to the floor by Friday evening, March 1, or it won't see the floor of the Senate and would be dead for this year.

One of the sponsors said "...it needs a tremendous amount of support for that (getting out of Ways and Means) to happen..."

I looked at the Ways and Means committee hearing schedule and the bill isn't on the calendar any day this week. Looks like the Senate is going to be in Caucus all week. Would think if there is any hope down the road, it will be added to the Committee calendar.

Same can basically be said for the 100's of staff, commission, and volunteer advisor hours being expended for WB. Getting to be very little value in return. The gillnet fleet is on its way out, it's just a matter of time, now. SalmoG summarized it VERY nicely in his recent posts on Ifish, but I don't wanna steal his thunder. Mebbe he'll copy and paste here.

Politics! $#*$)#&$)#(&$)#($

Add to that another full round to get WB rid of nets in the future, then another round for Puget Sound, and so on. Shoulda done it once and for all, instead of stretching it out God-Knows how many years.

With SRKW goals, and the economic vitality that sport fishing provides over commercial business, it surprised me they watered it down so much. It seemed the time was right to get it over with once and for all. I shoulda known better.

Is this what you meant Eyefish?

In a word, yes. Hatchery and wild fish can co-exist. They can co-exist best in systems where a means of separation is present so that returning adults can be separated according to their hatchery or wild origin. A harder condition to meet is that they will also co-exist better when the wild populations are abundant relative to the numbers of returning hatchery fish. Likely candidate river systems include the Cowlitz, NF Lewis, Clackamas, McKenzie, and possibly other Willamette basin rivers too, where migration barriers exist or could reasonably be retrofitted to permit adult fish sorting.



I suppose we all would like to have wild runs that are healthy enough to not only be self-sustaining, but abundant enough to support a significant level of harvest (however many significant is). I don't think that is realistic in the PNW world that we have made. In WA's heavily populated Puget Sound region, wild runs that could support harvest every year and sustain themselves have not been present for 50 years, and longer for certain stocks. I read that the Puget Sound treaty tribes list naturally self-sustaining wild stocks that support a significant tribal harvest is their recovery goal. I don't know if they actually believe that's possible, but I've been around this all my life, and I think such a goal is delusional. That train has left the station, and it's not coming back.


It's not coming back because the human population continues to grow unchecked. And local, state, and federal agencies approve 10 projects that indirectly or directly degrade fish habitat for every habitat restoration project. Anybody should be able to do that math, and it doesn't bode well for the kind of wild fish population recovery the agencies and tribes have been talking about.


Regarding the question of can we have hatchery fish without wild fish? Hypothetically, yes, we can. Until the inevitable occurs. Despite backup systems and near fail-safe mechanisms, hatchery fish kills continue to happen. And they always will. The best that can be done is to reduce the frequency, but eliminating them is not possible. To think otherwise is as delusional as thinking wild stocks will be recovered to support large harvests. So the prudent manager and conservationist will do all he or she can to maintain as many of the extant wild populations as possible. Remember that intelligent tinkering includes saving all the parts.


Regarding the on-going squabble between Jacksalmon, Gun,rod,bow, and Big Game Fishing and commercial Chinook fisheries, we have to consider that the existing situation is not desirable or meeting the perceived needs of either sport or commercial fishing interests. People like to talk about "growing the pie" instead of fighting over the crumbs. That necessitates being blind to the facts that we have already been fighting over the crumbs for the last 2 or 3 decades. Most commercial salmon fishing has been relegated to the status of hobby fishing. As things get worse, which is likely, they will continue to fish until they feel they can no longer absorb the financial loss, probably depending on how well they are doing in the Alaska season, where many, if not most, actually earn a living from fishing. The state fishery agencies can't regulate the commercial interests out of fishing because they read their enabling state statutes as requiring commercial fishing. Some interests will read that as commercial fishing down to the last available salmon, profitable or not.


Sport fishing can exist at some level with really low abundance of salmon and steelhead. The only question is how many anglers will find it worth their time and interest to participate when the prospects of a successful fishing trip drop to unprecedented low levels. Think, for instance, of fishing for Atlantic salmon in Maine, where catching one fish for a week's fishing, or for a season, becomes the mark of success. How many will do it? I don't know, but it will be a lot less than are fishing today. Especially if that fishing is catch and release only, like fishing for wild steelhead in WA state is now.


I think Jackchinook is on the right track advocating for an end to commercial Chinook salmon exploitation when sportfishing seasons have been curtailed. The notion of all parties "sharing the pain" of low abundance is just a way to rationalize on-going diminishing returns that deliver a desirable outcome to no one. So it will take state legislation to end any part of commercial fishing since the agencies won't do it. There currently is a bill in the WA Legislature that intended to end non-treaty commercial gillnetting in the state. The commercial lobby, being as strong as it is, has so far weakened it to apply to the Columbia River only, which would allow the practice to continue in Willapa Bay, Grays Harbor, and Puget Sound (where there are few non-treaty gillnet fisheries any more). So commercial gillnetting will end, either by legislation or lack of profitability. It's a matter of time, and how many crumbs remain.

Followed up with:

Meanwhile I think it's high time to embrace some of Jacksalmon's perspective and channel his energy toward a positive end. The pie will never be large enough. I listed reasons that should be persuasive enough. Since we have treaty right fishing that is federally protected and we can't do anything about it, why on earth do we need a non-treaty commercial troll fleet and gillnet fleet? There is not a shortage of commercially caught salmon. Either we wait until it is so unprofitable that they hang it up, or we humanely legislate them off the water. The former means salmon will be in such low abundance that sport fishers won't bother either, while the latter preserves an opportunity to save a reasonable amount of recreational fishing.

Bi-state workgroup/committee from both commissions on either side of the big river decided to exempt the CR from the gillnet ban yesterday. Pretty de-moralizing.

If you ban gill netting and the result is better escapements for wild fish then that will put the First Conservationists into a bind. Same with the use of traps. Having actual evidence instead of models might create problems.

You know, I've been making empty threats to quit buying licenses every year lately. Sometimes, it's after reading that a joint committee of shills has, yet again, decided to trump the will of the citizens and kill gillnet reforms, like this year. Other years, it's after reviewing the outcomes of North of Falcon and finding that another fun fishery has been taken away to provide for a commercial welfare fishery of some stripe or other. Whatever the case, it's abundantly clear that I am getting access to less opportunity each year. Meanwhile, old fees increase, and new fees get implemented, allegedly to benefit programs for which they are named, but eventually revealed to have been nothing more than a general increase in a not-so-clever disguise. Whatever the case, I eventually cave and buy my license, practically begging them for more of the same treatment next year.

Why do I allow myself to be suckered like this? Will I ever learn?

E-mail sent by an articulate buddy.... feel free to use all or parts thereof.

Dear Commissioners,

It is my understanding that yesterday, by a vote of 4-2, a joint-state committee recommended the return of non-tribal gillnetting to the lower mainstem Columbia River during the spring and summer seasons and an increase in mainstem gillnetting during the fall season and that this recommendation was made despite historically low spring, summer, and fall chinook forecasts.

Because this recommendation directly contradicts promises made to Washington sportsman—for which they paid in the form of increased regulation and financial contributions—and because it violates common-sense fisheries management, I urge you to reject the recommendation, uphold the 2012 bi-state Columbia River gillnet reforms, and fulfill the promises this Commission made to each and every citizen of Washington State.

I trust you will do the right thing and would welcome the opportunity to speak with you more on this issue

-----

Feel free to borrow / crib from.

RW

I wish I could say this is shocking, but it's not, not even a little.

With both Departments failing at most opportunities, and any bill that may have any good effect at all being gutted down to being worthless by the Legislature, that brings us back to the initiative process.

That's had pretty schitty success so far, too.

Fish on...

Todd

Step 1....There you go...….started out, complete ban on NT gill nets in all of Washington State.


Step 2......Pull Puget Sound, Grays Harbor, and Willapa Bay, from the original SB 5617......but leave Columbia River as the area to MAYBE get rid of the "walls of death".

Step 3......Whole SB 5617, shot down !!!!!!!


I realize the CR is a lot of people wishes to be net free, I mean who doesn't enjoy a "up river bright" for a bar b que. The problem was this was a 2 State thing, what seemed good, got shot down, again....

I said it before.....maybe a small step would have been better, Grays Harbor is the perfect place to have started a NT gill net ban. Three gill net groups work the "walls of death", QIN, Chehalis Tribe, and NT......NT is a very small group, less than 15 netters, might have been a start to have some NT nets gone.....now back to ground zero...….

Save the Orca's. A well ran emotional campaign could derail the nets. CCA built great momentum and had WA flipped. OR went backwards when Kahbiltzer got caught banging one of his employees and Kate Brown took the helm. Coulda woulda shoulda.

On another forum it was brought up to send your license to the governor with a note that you won't be buying another one. Fine idea. I'm going to make copies and send them to the commissioners, my legislators, and the governor along with a note that I refuse to subsidize the commercial fleet with my license fees next year. I can handle a year off...I live close to Canada.

Instead of just sending in the license, let them know where you will be spending your recreational money. From the Governor's perspective, if you give up fishing in WA and start (say) golfing or gambling instead that money stays in-state so there is no loss.

On the other hand, if that license money, gas money, food money, lodging money, and so on goes to AK, BC, OR, WY, MT, ID or whatever then it does become an economic drain that might get their attention.

I sent one to the director and the gov telling them their mismanagement was a big factor in leaving the state. Oddly enough nobody has responded

Well, the bill's been watered down to exempt PS, WB, and GH. The only basin left is the CR.

Guess again....

WFWC just voted 5:1 y'day to undo the CR gillnet reforms put into policy in 2013

Wonder how many of them know what the mechanics of gillnet harvest even looks like? How the hell anyone believes this gear-type can be responsibly/morally/ethically deployed when fishing over ESA-listed stocks is beyond me.

https://youtu.be/cUCXlK3kod0?t=102

But staff told them that GN's are the greatest thing since sliced bread. and will MAGA.