Weather its a little or alot of money. They're still getting paid twice for these fish, which makes it a business. And with 50k surplus coho on the satsop, i could see the state make quite a bit on those numbers. Until i see something from the state to where that money really goes, i dont think anybody will believe otherwise. Its also one thing to have surplus fish if there was a substancal fishing season. Which we didn't get. I did not know that volunteers got paid for their work. If they get paid, its not volunteering. Volunteers do work out of the kindness of their hearts and dont expect a dime in return. The state is there to conserve and help protect and rebound our failing fisheries. If everybody is so hard at work for so long, volunteers and state, why are we still scratching our heads about where our fisheries went what is the future of there runs? Sorry for the gripe but, when we lose more of our in river fisheries every year without logical explanation and all of this money out there that us recs give to the state. We deserve transparent logical answers. The money should go back to the people who buy licenses, you know the people that help fund the raising of those fish.

It should. But if you continue to buy a license and still get short shrift on fisheries whose fault is it?

Of course the ones buying the license who help fund the crack habit. But who is at fault for not fixing the issues we have. Who is supposed to stand up for the recs/guides that aren't. You know the people that are hired to do so. The people see where the problem lies. Something stinks here and its not all those surplus fish. Time for a restructure and significant change.

At least some of us can admit they are at fault for continuing to buy licenses. There are others that cant muster up the gumption to admit their failures and make a promise to the people to make a change for the better of our fish and fisheries. I have never heard sorry come from the state to the people. We definitely deserve one after the last season we had. Believe me, it would go along way with the people that get that short stick.

Voters perhaps...

Unless things have changed the RFEG program divides the income from E&C between all 14 RFEGs. If an RFEG operates a facility they get the income from any surplusing or other sales which goes back into funding the facility operating cost. Any large volunteer project or operation has part time or full time staff as frankly having did volunteer work depending on day to day operations or fish rearing with only volunteers is not a good idea. You can look up the ALEA and RFEG programs on WDFW's website.

One more time WDFW does not get any income from hatchery surplus. The ALEA funds are different and WDFW has been siphoning funds here for years but ALEA is a bit more of a true volunteer thing than the RFEG program.

SF you raise some good points on harvest but right church wrong pew on who how why benefits. If you boil it down to end results it is the fish that benefit from the carcass sales.

From what ive gathered the state does get some of the profit. Ill look into these programs a little further. Still, if this money is divided between people, thrown to operation costs, its a business. How do the fish benefit? The license buyers funding, raises these fish, keep state workers paid and help keep the lights on. Where's our benefit if we're sitting on the bank? You know who it does benefit? The ones that get to wet their nets/lines in gh this winter for steelhead. Mid coasters as well. If the fish got so much benefit gh wouldn't be closed this year. These are facts.

One GH landowner asked WDFW when the fish that benefitted from habitat protection on his land would come back and spawn there, so that he could at least see the results of his handiwork. He was told no more fish would come back to HIM; they would just be added to the outside catch. The fish may have become more productive, but the stream didn't see the benefit.

The fish "may" be more productive but the stream didn't see much benefit. The key word, may. Then was told the fish wouldnt come back? Sounds like he got the run around.. What part of the system were they more productive if they never made it back? Here is a real question. How many natural origin fish would we need per system to have a successful broodstocking program in gh. You know like the quinaults program. Look at the program on the Wilson or sandy, (cant remember which it was) in orygun. Success is all i see.

The fish were going to be caught in outside fisheries. His work was designed to benefit the marine mixed stock fishery.

WA hatcheries would "look" a lot more successful if the marine fisheries were significantly reduced or eliminated. The fish would not be one whit more productive but it would look that way because the inside folks would see fish.

How do you define "success"? If enough fish come back to meet egg-take needs or the designated escapement then you have successful management of the fish.

Ah you remember John do you CM and he did work his tail off for the fish.

I remember the story. It just reiterated the view I heard from many bios and managers that all the agency work goes to making better marine fisheries. Heck, there was a Director who wanted to grow fish specifically for Canada fisheries; some sort of trade to get them off of listed fish.

i agree with reducing the marine fisheries, that is a start. Meeting egg take goals is not mismanagement. But when you got 50k surplus coho on one system and all the surplus winters that will go to waste, wasted opportunity, and not standing up for your big funders is mismanagement. Anybody that has fished the 2 rivers i mentioned above with very successful programs know what im talkin bout. They're definitely not sitting on their banks. Wa state would look more successful in general with more transparency, and owning up to their failures regarding lost fisheries with no solutions after 30+ years. Cman, if me and all my other fishy brothers could wet a line for a gh winter (at the time the fish are actually there) this year. That is what success would look like.

Meeting eggtakes but not being able to fish for unclear reasoning is not what success looks like.

all of the agencies work going to only make better marine fisheries and raising fish for a neighboring country is not what success looks like.

This is a never ending circle revolving around money. The state knows there is money to be had and numbers are clear when looked at from the commercial side but the state doesn’t see all the money spent by anglers buying boats, tackle, nets, gas, bait, etc. Every year the state sees the numbers from the commercial side and says yeah we could get more money here and there by eliminating anglers here and there. And how are they supposed to hear us? They don’t troll the fishing pages looking at what anglers say because they don’t care. They just keep trying to find more money, and it’s getting harder because the runs can’t compensate for the amount of money already taken out of them so they have to find a way to get that money which is to cut off anglers.

Not sure I understand your argument. The license holders pay lots more to the state in fees than do the commercials. The state directly receives more from the recs from licenses than from landing taxes. Must be that the commercials pay more in campaign donations to directly support officials.

(Must be that the commercials pay more in campaign donations to directly support officials.)


now your talking..Im sure thats what goes on

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Tell him what he's won, Johnny!

He's won.... a lifetime of paying license fees to subsidize commercial fisheries!!!... oh.....

But seriously, lobbying matters. It's not an enormous amount of money, but the fact it is all directed toward exactly the same cause (we sporties can't get united behind a common message to save our butts, largely because we have so many different opinions and ideas) makes it formidable.

Lol, of course we have to mention the allmighty Wilson program, in what year of adult return are they now? Does it even have even data points yet to make a graph with a trend line?

Funny thing is this...

The Chehalis river(2002-2015data) and the Wilson River have *nearly* the same harvest on steelhead.(ours is just split between two parties) both were hovering around 5,000 fish