Looks like McAllister Creek hatchery will close, but the Sol Dic and Naselle hatcheries will stay open (unless Gov. Locke vetos).

Thoughts?

Interesting the way you put that.

Go back a few years. We had a $10 "Pugt Sound Enhancement Fee" attached to the sale of every saltwater license for establishing and maintaining the Puget Sound Recreational Fisheries Enhancement Program (PSRFEP.) In short, it funded hatchery raised Chinook that provided for a recreational Blackmouth fishery in the Sound. In 1998, that $10 "enhancement fee" on saltwater licenses was incorporated into all licenses through a license consolidation bill. One provision of that consolidation bill was to ensure the $10 from each license to remained to support the PSRFEP remained to support the PSRFEP. The bill passed (putting the $10 on ALL licenses sold) but Governor Locke vetoed the provision that retained the money in the PSRFEP. Basically, he saw a way to increase cash flow into the WDFW budget. Now, only 3 years later, we're starting to see the closure of the hatcheries supported through our recreational fishing licenses. Money previously targeted for McAllister Creek is now heading to Soos Creek which has nothing to do with the original intent of the enhancement fee for the Blackmouth fishery proposed years ago by Senator Oke.

Look at some of the recent legislation up for debate in Olympia. One actually calls for the elimination of the WDFW Commission so the Governor can appoint whoever he wants as Director of WDFW.

Seems to me, and I could be wrong, there is a power and money grab eminating from the Governor's office at the expense of recreational fishers and its being conducted very, very slyly.

Right on NWFlyfisher!

People need to be reminded about the enhacement fee and how we are really getting screwed over now that it is not being used for funding hatcheries. The bottom line, licenses cost 10 bucks more and the hatcheries in question will probably close. I'll say it again, "Pay more, get less". What a sweet deal, right?

Remember this when it is time to vote.

Please see my comment on this on the other topic at http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=008373

NWflyfisher,
I think the blame for the two (not one) bills you refer to lies with some (mostly Republican) members of the state House of Representatives, especially in the House Natural Resources Committee and particularly Reps. Buck and Sump. Both of them seem to have a vendetta against the Fish and Wildlife Commission and the two bills were clearly attempts to either eliminate or to effectively cripple that body.

Preston,

You named the "culprits" quite accurately, but I wonder if its all part of a larger "scheme" for money and control.

My state reps have informed me those two bills will not be considered again this year. I know for a fact several letters voicing outrage were sent. That doesn't make them go away for next year, however. Folks need to be diligent in communicating with their representatives.

Don't forget guys that this right to fish thing is "a privilege" (according to a few) and we should be grateful for that "privilege"...shouldn't we? Don't worry, because "they" will spend your money on themselves!

Not to fear; not much of your money will go to fish... but lots of your money will go to their own jobs!

Cowlitzfisherman
Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

NW,
I attended the hearing on the first bill (the bill numbers escape me at the moment), the one that would have eliminated the Commission. It was a blatant attempt to place the WDFW under the control of the Legislature, it would have replaced the Commission with a powerless "Citizen's Advisory Board" and put the Commission's responsibilities into the hands of a Legislative Committee consisting of six Senators and six members of the House. The hearing was something of a poke in the eye for the House Natural Resources Committee; except for a couple of disgruntled Grays Harbor gillnetters and one guy who was upset because the Commission had put some new restrictions on "small scale dredging" in rivers, the general tone of the testimony was that the Commission was doing a pretty good job, certainly better job than what a committee of politicians could manage. I think that they realized that this bill was going nowhere and the second bill represented their fallback position. Essentially the second bill would have gutted the provisions of 1995's Referendum 45 which, by an overwhelming vote, took the right to appoint The WDFW Director away from the governor and gave it to the Commission. It's definitely an attempt at a power grab, a group of Representatives from rural districts would like to subject the WDFW to a much larger degree of political control (not that there isn't a lot of that already, but that's another issue).

Good news indeed for the community of Forks!

While I'm not a believer in hatcheries being the solution to our fisheries' problems, I feel that the current role of the Sol Duc Hatchery is an important one for many programs across the Peninsula.

Now we'll have to wait and see what Locke does