Ok, folks, I'm in the mood to expend my energy on haranging our elected officials instead of each other - how about the rest of you

Here is a letter that I have set up to send to the representative/senator of your choice, along with an article pointing out what the problem is. In it I make a suggestion for a legislative ammendment to the fisheries code to allow our Fish Commission to allocate quotas based upon return to the economy. I also included at the end of the article a quick list to local legislators phones, faxs, and e-mails. If you like this idea send this letter, or one like it with your own points would be even better, to you local elected official.

Lets put this board energy to positive use

Jerry or other moderators, if this is OK could you stick it at the top of the board for awhile? Thanks


Dear Representative/Senator:

I would like you to read the first part of the following September 18, 2003 Columbian article carefully. It points out a fatal flaw in WDFW’s ability to manage salmon harvest for the maximum benefit of the people of the State, and for the maximum return to the economy of money generated from harvest of the resource. The policy and/or law that has led to this position by the Fish and Wildlife Commission simply has to be changed. In this day of extreme economic plight in the Pacific Northwest, every effort needs to be made to maximize economic return from State activities, including fish and wildlife management. There is no excuse not to divert the majority, if not all, of the salmon produced in State hatcheries, at considerable expense to taxpayers and purchasers of fishing licenses, to the group that returns the most money per fish to the economy. Many authoritative studies show that a sport caught salmon returns many times more dollars to the economy than a commercially caught salmon. More studies show that the average value of a commercially caught salmon falls far short of the cost to the State to raise one, while the value of a salmon caught by a sportsman dramatically exceeds this cost. Finally, the effort that sports fishermen expend in trying to comply with wild fish release regulations is entirely wasted when these same wild fish wind up dead in gillnets, along with all sorts of other non-target species. In this day and age it is entirely possible in many areas for sportsmen to selectively utilize almost every hatchery salmon available while protecting wild salmon, steelhead, sturgeon, and other fish and wildlife. It will never be possible for a gillnetter to do this.

I would like to suggest that you sponsor a bill to amend the “legislative mandate” that Commissioner Ozment refers to. The amendment should be a simple one: Give the Commission the authority to set seasons based upon best science for managing and perpetuating salmon runs while providing the highest value to the economy of the State from each salmon harvested. In fisheries were there is sufficient sport effort to effectively harvest the quota, no commercial fishing should be allowed. In fisheries where it is not possible to do this, and wild fish returns are healthy enough to sustain fishing pressure, then commercial fishing may be appropriate. The results of such a management system will ensure that wild salmon have the best chance to recover and prevent further ESA listings and curbs on development. It will also allow our State to become one of the most desirable sport fishing destinations in the world, and go a long way towards reversing the economic downturn that our State has recently suffered.

Thanks for listening and for taking action.

Sincerely:


Columbian:
Notebook: Commission member says net fishery here to stay

Thursday, September 18, 2003
ALLEN THOMAS, Columbian staff writer

At almost every meeting involving sports fishing for salmon or sturgeon in the lower Columbia, sooner or later someone suggests the elimination of gillnetting, claiming it's a leftover from decades ago and fails to generate the economic activity of recreational angling.
Indirectly, state wildlife Director Jeff Koenings fueled the fire back in July when he said in a speech that fish-and-wildlife-related recreation generate $4 billion in spending in Washington while the state's commercial fleet hauls in nearly $300 million in wholesale and retail sales.
But Ron Ozment of Cathlamet, vice chairman of the state Fish and Wildlife Commission, delivered a much different message to the Vancouver Wildlife League earlier this month.
In a nutshell, Ozment told the sport group to learn to live with the gillnetters because commercial fishing in the lower Columbia River is not going to go away.
No one on the nine-member commission, which sets policy for the state Department of Fish and Wildlife, is of a mindset to eliminate commercial fishing, Ozment said.
"The Department of Fish and Wildlife has a very clear legislative mandate to provide both commercial and recreational opportunity for fishing,'' he said. "Right now I don't think there's a commission member who won't agree with the mandate and doesn't take that mandate very seriously.''
Fish allocation decisions are not made totally by the size of the sport and commercial fleets or their economic influence, Ozment said.
"While the commercial fishers are fewer and far between, and ultimately their take is a significantly lower number, they are the representative of the general, fish-consuming public who do not choose to go out on the water,'' he said.
"The commission has never adopted the stance the fishery emphasis should be strictly predicated on the economic numbers,'' he said. "And I will tell you, the commercial industry will really dispute those numbers of $4 billion versus $300 million. I cannot argue one way or another on that. I don't know. I'm not an economist.''
Ozment did say the jury is still out on tangle nets in the lower Columbia.
Tangle nets are small-mesh nets used during spring chinook season the past two years. They are designed to catch salmon by the jaw, not the gill. Wild salmon caught and released from tangle nets have a much better survival rate than those caught in gillnets.
In 2002, the tangle nets caught a lot of steelhead, although far fewer in 2003.
"There's a lot of uncertainty, obviously,'' Ozment said. "I would emphasize it is, at this point, an experimental fishery,'' he said. "I don't know if it will eventually be deemed viable, feasible or not.''
The tangle nets will be used again in 2004, he added.

On other topics
Ozment said if Klickitat Salmon Hatchery is transferred to the Yakama Indian Nation he wants assurances the chinook, coho and steelhead produced will have a clipped adipose fin, thus available for harvest as the move through the Columbia River.
Federal money for operating Columbia River hatcheries keeps waning, and the Yakamas might be able to access other government financing sources which the state cannot, he said.
The transfer is still under negotiation with a decision likely in 2004 or 2005, he added.
Smelt license: Ozment said he has a problem with suggestions from the Department of Fish and Wildlife to require a license to dip smelt.
Granted, smelt management has become much more costly than it once was, but some things in life should remain free, he said.
Marine mammals: Seals and sea lions are thriving in the lower Columbia River and they no longer need the strong protection they receive under the federal marine mammal legislation, he said.
Ozment lives up the Elochoman River valley, near the former Beaver Creek Hatchery. He said he has seen marine mammals as far upstream as his property.


Quick List for Local Legislators
Last Updated: September 18, 2003

2nd Dist. 19th Dist. 20th Dist. 22nd Dist. 23rd Dist. 24th Dist.
25th Dist. 26th Dist. 27th Dist. 28th Dist. 29th Dist. 30th Dist.
31st Dist. 35th Dist.

2nd LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT: Pierce County, including McKenna, Roy, Ft. Lewis, DuPont, Spanaway, Parkland, Fredrickson, So. Prairie, Prairie Ridge, Orting, Graham, and N of Eatonville

Sen. Marilyn Rasmussen (D)
Olympia: (360) 786-7602
Fax: (360) 786-7520
Home: (253) 874-3276
(253) 847-2168
E-mail: rasmusse_ma@leg.wa.gov

Rep. Roger Bush (R)
Olympia: (360) 786-7824
E-mail: bush_ro@leg.wa.gov

Rep. Tom Campbell (R)
Olympia: (360) 786-7912
E-mail: campbell_to@leg.wa

19th LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT: Pacific, Wahkiakum and portions of Grays Harbor and Cowlitz counties

Sen. Mark Doumit (D)
Olympia: (360) 786-7636
Fax: (360) 786-1999
Home: (360) 795-3063

Rep. Brian Hatfield (D)
Olympia: (360) 786-7806
E-mail: hatfield_br@leg.wa.gov

Rep. Brian Blake (D)
Olympia: (360) 786-7870
E-mail: blake_br@leg.wa.gov

20th LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT: All of Lewis and S Thurston Counties

Sen. Dan Swecker (R)
Olympia: (360) 786-7638
Fax: (360) 786-1999
E-mail: swecker_da@leg.wa.gov

Rep. Richard DeBolt (R)
Olympia: (360) 786-7896
E-mail: debolt_ri@leg.wa.gov

Rep. Gary Alexander (R)
Olympia: (360) 786-7990
E-mail: alexande_ga@leg.wa.gov

22nd LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT: N Thurston County, including all of Olympia and portions of Lacey and Tumwater, and the unincorporated communities of Johnson Point, Cooper Point, Tanglewilde, Thompson Place, and Boston Harbor

Sen. Karen Fraser (D)
Olympia: (360) 786-7642
Fax: (360) 786-1999
Home: (360) 491-4223
Fax: (360) 491-4222
E-mail: fraser_ka@leg.wa.gov

Rep. Sandra Romero (D)
Olympia: (360) 786-7940
E-mail: romero_sa@leg.wa.gov

Rep. Sam Hunt (D)
Olympia: (360) 786-7992
E-mail: hunt_sa@leg.wa.gov

23rd LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT: Kitsap County, including Bainbridge Island, Silverdale, Poulsbo, Kingston, and portions of Bremerton

Sen. Betti L. Sheldon (D)
Olympia: (360) 786-7644
Fax: (360) 786-1999
E-mail: sheldon_be@leg.wa.gov

Rep. Phil Rockefeller (D)
Olympia: (360) 786-7934
E-mail: rockefel_ph@leg.wa.gov

Rep. Beverly Woods (R)
Olympia: (360) 786-7842
E-mail: woods_be@leg.wa.gov

24th LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT: Clallam, Jefferson, and portions of Grays Harbor Counties

Sen. Jim Hargrove (D)
Olympia: (360) 786-7646
Fax: (360) 786-1999

Rep. Jim Buck (R)
Olympia: (360) 786-7916
E-mail: buck_ji@leg.wa.gov

Rep. Lynn Kessler (D)
Olympia: (360) 786-7904
E-mail: kessler_ly@leg.wa.gov

25th LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT: Cities of Puyallup, Milton, and portions of Fife and Edgewood, and the communities of Midland and Summit/So. Hill

Sen. Jim Kastama (D)
Olympia: (360) 786-7648
Fax: (360) 786-1999
E-mail: kastama_ji@leg.wa.gov

Rep. Joyce McDonald (R)
Olympia: (360) 786-7948
E-mail: mcdonald_jo@leg.wa.gov

Rep. Dawn Morrell (D)
Olympia: (360) 786-7968
E-mail: morrell_da@leg.wa.gov

26th LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT: Parts of Pierce and Kitsap Counties. Major Cities: Port Orchard, Gig Harbor, Key Peninsula, parts of Bremerton

Sen. Bob Oke (R)
Olympia: (360) 786-7650
Fax: (360) 786-7651
E-mail: oke_bo@leg.wa.gov

Rep. Patricia T. Lantz (D)
Olympia: (360) 786-7964
E-mail: lantz_pa@leg.wa.gov

Rep. Lois McMahan (R)
Olympia: (360) 786-7802
E-mail: mcmahan_lo@leg.wa.gov

27th LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT: Portions of Tacoma and Fife in Pierce County

Sen. Debbie Regala (D)
Olympia: (360) 786-7652
Fax: (360) 786-1999
E-mail: regala_de@leg.wa.gov

Rep. Dennis Flannigan (D)
Olympia: (360) 786-7930
E-mail: flanniga_de@leg.wa.gov

Rep. Jeannie Darneille (D)
Olympia: (360) 786-7974
E-mail: darneill_je@leg.wa.gov

28th LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT: Fircrest, University Place, Lakewood, Steilacoom, Tillicum, and West Tacoma, Anderson, Ketron, and McNeil Islands

Sen. Shirley Winsley (R)
Olympia: (360) 786-7654
Fax: (360) 786-1999
E-mail: winsley_sh@leg.wa.gov

Rep. Gigi Talcott (R)
Olympia: (360) 786-7890
E-mail: talcott_gi@leg.wa.gov

Rep. Mike Carrell (R)
Olympia: (360) 786-7958
E-mail: carrell_mi@leg.wa.gov

29th LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT: So. Tacoma, Parkland, and portions of Lakewood and University Place

Sen. Rosa Franklin (D)
Olympia: (360) 786-7656
Fax: (360) 786-1999
E-mail: franklin_ro@leg.wa.gov

Rep. Steve Conway (D)
Olympia: (360) 786-7906
E-mail: conway_st@leg.wa.gov

Rep. Steve Kirby (D)
Olympia: (360) 786-7996
E-mail: kirby_st@leg.wa.gov

30th LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT: Federal Way, Milton, Algona and Pacific. Major Cities: Federal Way and part of SW King County

Sen. Tracey Eide (D)
Olympia: (360) 786-7658
Fax: (360) 786-1999
E-mail: eide_tr@leg.wa.gov

Rep. Mark Miloscia (D)
Olympia: (360) 786-7898
E-mail: miloscia_ma@leg.wa.gov

Rep. Skip Priest (R)
Olympia: (360) 786-7830
E-mail: priest_sk@leg.wa.gov

31st LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT: So. King County and NE Pierce County, including Auburn, Bonney Lake, Buckley, Edgewood, Enumclaw, Greenwater, Sumner, and Lake Tapps

Sen. Pam Roach (R)
Olympia: (360) 786-7660
Fax: (360) 786-1999
E-mail: roach_pa@leg.wa.gov

Rep. Dan Roach (R)
Olympia: (360) 786-7846
E-mail: roach_da@leg.wa.gov

Rep. Jan Shabro (R)
Olympia: (360) 786-7866
E-mail: shabro_ja@leg.wa.gov

35th LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT: Mason and portions of Grays Harbor, Kitsap, and Thurston Counties

Sen. Tim Sheldon (D)
Olympia: (360) 786-7668
E-mail: sheldon_ti@leg.wa.gov

Rep. Kathy Haigh (D)
Olympia: (360) 786-7966
E-mail: haigh_ka@leg.wa.gov

Rep. William Eickmeyer (D)
Olympia: (360) 786-7902
E-mail: eickmeye_bi@leg.wa.gov

Cutting and pasting I e-mailed all of my legislators in 15 minutes. Technology is a wonderful thing

Sorry to rain on your parade but lobbying the legislature to do away with commercial fishing is a waste of time. Not gonna happen. The commissioners are appointed by the Governor. That would be Governor Grid-Locke. The commission is so corrupt with commercial fishing bias it is a cruel joke. The law we need is one to do away with the commission itself. It was designed to provide for a balanced voice across the spectrum of user groups including sports fishing. We have no sports fishing voice on the WDFW commission. They all hide behind the legislature when confronted about commercial bias. They start public meeting with the stern caveat that they pay no attention to which sector brings in more money to the state. Take a look at the shrimp allocations for a stunning example. A huge percentage of shrimp harvest was given to a miniscule number of commercial shrimpers. The commission went against public opinion and even the WDFW biologists to hand over another natural resource to a handful of people who contribute very very little to the state.

Start by throwing the bums out of the state house. The socialists have run things around here long enough. Vote every chance you get.

Grandpa (Eyore) has pretty much stated the current state of things.

But I like to believe government is in constant flux. I actually heard of a rep in P.A. expounding on the financial benefits to the state from rec vs comm fishing.

I disagree that writing our representitves is a waste of time. I will be forwarding Spawnout's letter.

Slab (Eyore) The state actually made its own study public showing without question that sports fishing brings in way more money that commercial fishing. I think even the tribes use their commercial fishing money for things other than the necessities of life... But the problem is that the commission , aided by the governor, does just the opposite. I am in no way saying not to wrtie letters. I am saying attack where is counts.

Grandpa, notice that the Govs contact info is not on there. I never intended anyone to write to him, he's a lame duck anyway . Write to the folks that want the votes. And I'm also preparing signed letters to fax to all of mine. This is still a democracy, if enough talk they will listen

Grid-Lockes email cannot be added onto an email list. You have to approach it directly and on its own. I was at the meeting in Mount Vernon with Grandpa and qute a few other PSA members on the shrimping issue. The commision is fully corrupt. Before we had our chance to speak on the shrimping issue the commision slammed the door on us and thwarted every thing we had to say before it was said. My foot still hurts where it was in the door. They must have read our emails that time. We did jamb up their phone lines, email boxes and mail boxes. They had top listen. Instead they did all of the talking. Grandpa is right. You have to go over the commissions head. I like the idea of the commission, but it has turned against us. Its like Bill Cosby said about the kids tonsils in the " We're gonna have ice cream" segment, the tonsils have joined the other side. Write those letters and most of all get Locke replaced with someone who cares about our great state.

Grandpa, I agree getting rid of the present commission, or figuring out how to load it with recreation-minded people, is the way to go.

Aside from that, what is a better solution other than the commission? Which state has a good model program?

Perhaps we could point that out to our respective respresentitives so we offer them a solution instead of just complaining about what is.

There's a lot of really smart individuals here when it comes to fisheries. I'll bet collectively this board could come up with more than one workable model that could be presented to the state for consideration.

The commission idea was great upon its inception. It has been the implementation that is so corrupt. When the governor appoints the members it isn't much better than if the governor just ran the whole show. Politics is so deeply seated in the system with all the graft of special interests that it can't be taken seriously. Somehow it should be possible to force the governor to adhere to the spirit of the law creating the commission and get a sports advocate in the mix.

Ok all.... Here is my CIVIL post....... Grandpa2, I believe that the above attitude (which is the norm for most touchy laws nowadays) is flat wrong. Sure, it seems hopeless, but the ONLY reason it is hopeless is that not enough people come together on the issue. Believe me, in politics, votes count, and if enough mad as hell people get together on an issue..... IT WILL CHANGE!!!!!

Not to start another argument here, but even things "set in stone" like treaties or protectionism laws can be changed if enough people holler loud enough to change it. Problem is, politicians want the bickering and discord, because then there is no organization, and without organization things do not get done.....
Hell, if they can modify the constitution of this country a zillion times (which is the premier law of the land), anything can be modified. The difference is how organized the effort to change the law or status-quo is.

Look how just one Dad was able to get the supreme court to rule that the "pledge of allegiance" was unconstitutional. It took organization and a lot of work by lawyers to get it done. May be overturned BECAUSE THEIR WAS SUCH AN OUTCRY FROM THE MASSES!!!! Now, they decided it was unconstitutional... That was their decision.... But they run and hide after 80% of America was outraged and inflamed by that "constitutional" decision... Changing their minds fast.....

Again, all it takes is a larger, louder group, and the high $$ groups loose a lot of their appeal.
The one thing you can always count on besides politicians being sleazy, is that they are bought for the highest $$ or the highest vote count. Without the votes, the $$ will not get them into office or keep them there......

Great letter!!!!


MC

I need to clarify what I meant. When I said shutting down commercial fishing ain't gonna happen I did not mean that we should not work to scale it back or even eliminate it. What I meant was that zeroing in on elimination of one harvest method (netting) to benefit another (sports fishing) always comes across as self serving because it is. The net ban initiative that I worked with so many others on was a flop partly because it was self serving...AND because most folks I talked to refused to support it as long as the indians didn't have to abide by it. What's the point they would say. I had to agree.

I am all for engaging the elected officials as I ,myself, have done for years. Just be smart and make your requests doable and reasonable. Hopefully this next time around we will elect a governor who cares about fishing issues.

One idea I like is this: Take pictures every chance you get of abuses concerning our fisheries. Publicize them and send them to your elected officials. Take an elected official out fishing. Voice you opinions in letter form and not email.

Why letters instead of email? Better chance of being read?

Letters always get more attention than emails. One time I thought the governor actually wrote a thoughtful response to one of my letters. As a member of the governors salmon advisory board I was bragging about the response letter to a friend only to find out that he had the exact (word for word) letter in response to a completely different issue. But even the form letter responses are meaningful. Most all of the elected officials I talk to say letters carry much more weight. Especially if you include your name , address and a phone number.

Emails are better than nothing though and much easier to accomplish. Phone calls are real effective too. I spend a fair amount of time on the phone with legislators and find that very interesting.

I didn't realize that.

Letters are a pain in the butt to compose, write, then finally mail compared to email. What would be nice is if there were a selection of form-type letters available online that one could choose from, print, sign, then mail.

Someone that's really good with HTML could design a letter, and in the body there could be drop down menus with selections for location, species, ideas, etc., plus menus for who to address it to. A person could choose a letter, make their selections, print, sign, and mail. With three or four different bodies to choose from, with different options in each one, it wouldn't appear like a simple form letter mass mailing.

If it was made easier for the average sportsperson to get a letter into the mail, we could have a louder voice in the legislature.

Whereas every email, letter, and phone call DO count. the form letters and cut/paste items hold the least accord. Its the same thing as signing the whatever petitions outside k-mart. And they are just as easy to answer with a form letter. But send them any way if that is all the time you have; and attend every meeting you possibly can.

A non-corrupt system would allow ALL voices to be heard at their public meetings. And just as G'pa (I think) stated, the commercial industry has a huge financial backing. If the commercial fishermen were the only ones backing their style of "fishing", the laws would have been changed years ago. However, they are backed by the business world (canneries, distributors, supermarkets, etc.) who already have ties in the political ring and a lot more money than the weekend fisherman.

Until an outdoor loving, ethical, rich fisherman (or woman) can afford to take-on the corrupt political arena, we'll continue to be stuck in this hell hole.

It just hurts the soul to KNOW what our economy could be like if an emphasis was put on the sustainability of the fish. Every port on the coast and straits has the capability of looking like Sekiu does from June til October. But hell, the government doesn't need the money......

I have the perfict places. Take a official to the Hoodsport Hatchery, on a week day, during late November and show them the thousands of Chum carcases floating around dead left by the Indians, please don't make this a Native issue, or show them a "Goast Net" full of dead animals.

I just sent off letters to all of my officials. I urge all of you to do the same. Let's make a difference!

Dose anybody know of a rich or powerful person that would be willing to "sponser" rec. fishermen?

Hi Bob,

You can bet I will be sitting down to write my letters and do my share this weekend.

Hope all is well with you and family.

Good work here.

Spawnout

I am with you 100%!

The letter is just a starting point I am amazed that with all the great minds that our board has that no one as yet thought of the most effective way to make these much needed changes. There are probably 2 different methods that we could use to achieve our goal 1) Initiatives 2) referenda to voters - (read RCW 29.79.110
Referendum petitions – Form)

If the referendum was well thought out, and well written, it could be the key to changing the laws and bypassing many of the corrupted officials and parties that have the power and money to block any legislative changes.

The key is in writing a well thought out Initiative or Referendum that will not offend the public, but yet would force the commercial into a corner. It can be done if enough members on this board and other boards join forces and efforts for the same common goal! It will take a few key minds that will be able to foresee what the commercials will do to counter our referendum or initiative. We have failed in the past only because we have not used our foresight.

I for one would volunteer my time and efforts if called upon…what about each one of you? If not your time, would you consider donating your financial support?

I know that we have several members who are attorneys that could help in this process, so if we could all get our act together, who known what we could achieve!

With the power of today's email, most of the ground work could be accomplish without driving miles to meet and discuss our strategies

Does anyone have any better ideas?


Cowlitzfisherman

http://www.savefish.com/

Go to the RFA (REcreational Fishing Alliance) website and see the Freedom To Fish Act. Coming to our area very soon

I can't help thinking about one step farther down the road. This is another option/angle to approach within your letters. Somewhere it is written that you cannot spawn fish out of another river system to another. If this were possible and we could start spawning 5 year old fish again in the Puget Sound, could you imagine the positive impacts that would have on the economy? We had Curt Kraemer (WDFW Biologist) come to one of our PSA meetings. He told us that it takes 5 year old fish spawn 5 year old fish(40-50#). These 2-3 year old fish we have now are not going to spawn big kings (5 year olds). The nets they used to use many years ago were 9 1/2" mesh. I bet it is half that size now. Get the nets out and start rebuilding stocks. I am sure there are a few 5 year olds left in every river system somewhere. That would really fire off the economy. I bet you would not see as many full colored BC fishing brochures in our region as there would be no reason to fish elsewhere. Look at what the Columbia River fish have done for the Ocean towns this year. At Neah Bay this year, we had a huge group of people that spent 1-2 weeks out there. I spent $2300 myself with my wife and son, just on the one trip. I spent almost everyweekend after that at Westport. This was a major 5 year old return for the Coastal fish. Think if we could get the nets out and return these huge kings to the Sound. I bet the recreational dollars spent documented last year would be ten times that. We would once again have people from all over the US bringing their sportfishing dollars back into Washington-like it was 30 years ago. Just an other perspective to include. Sportsfishing is a way of life for us and is also valuable to our economy.

If you are serious about attempting to change the status quo in this State it would be well to be clear about your objectives - are you anti commerical fishing or anti gill nets?

I'm not sure that the claim that the WDFW commission is unfairly tilted towards the commerical industry is true. A quick review of the 9 member's thumbnail bios show that 5 listed themselves as being avid fishers. The sport fishing interest appears to be fairly represented (though heavily tilted to the conservation and quality fishing side). The hunting interest appear to be under-represented (only one listed hunting as an interest - bird hunting and dog bredding). I think your really problem may be with WDFW's legislative mandate - that is to maintain a viable commerical industry. If so changing the commission will accomplish nothing. Perhaps the effort to change the mandate should be directed towards the state legislature, and efforts aimed at the commission would be spend on educating that body to your desires and concerns.

Fishinnut -
While is true that our large chinook (5 and 6 year old) are much rarer today than in the past gill nets have had little to do with their downfall. It has been established that retruning adult fish exposed to heavy gill netting the result is that smaller fish end up spawning- the classic example would be Puget Sound coho. However with chinook the problem is not so much that they are smaller at a given size but rather the adult spawning population has become younger. This is primarily the result of fishing on the immature fish on their feeding grounds. In the case of chinook this means that they are harvests as 3, 4, 5, and 6 years old which greatly reduces that chances of a fish living to be 6 years old. Just an example if there were a constant 30% per year fishing rate in these feeding areas 70% of the fish that mature as 3 year olds would be uncaught, 49% that mature as 4 years would be uncaught, 34% of the 5 year olds, and 24% of the 6s. Clearly the old fish pay a heavy price in those fisheries.

If we wish to see more of those older/larger chinook (and I do) we need to change our fishing patterns and I don't mean ban gill nets (lots of other reason to do so but this is one). The catch of those feeding chinook (blackmouth) is mostly hook and line fisheries -sport, charter, and troll. For Washington chinook those feeding fish are caught in SE Alaska, north, west and east of Vancouver Island, Washington Coast, Straits of Juan de Fuca, and Puget Sound.

We are seeing more older fish this year in large part due to the recent reduced fishing rates in those ocean feeding areas (good feeding conditions results in the fish of a given age being larger than normal but not older). If older chinook are desired than we as a group need to lobby for less fishing on immature fish and as individuals decide not to fish those areas.

Those anglers that opt to fish chinook on the West Coast of Vancouver Island, SE Alaska, the Washington Coast etc are very much part of the problem of younger Washington chinook (more so than gill nets). This would doubly be true of those anglers that release smaller chinook (teen agers) in hope of larger fish (30+#). That practice is clearly selecting against having older spawnig and pass on that genetic trait.

Past "ban the nets" efforts have failed in part due to its supports not having done all their home work (generally angler apathy did help either). If you are serious I encourage you to clearly state your goals, what a realistic expectation of what those goals will do for the resource, the various fisheries and economies. One false claim or arguement opens the whole effort to attack.

Just my $.02.

Tight lines
Smalma

Smalma

The commercial fishing bias on the WDFW commission is not a function of the specific make up of the commission but a function of their actions. Time and time again decisions are handed down, like the shrimp allocations this Spring, that stink of bias. The commissioners even ignore their own biologists and also the majority of public opinion. They constantly hide behind the legislative mandate malarchy when their decisions are widely criticized. The commissioners go out of their way to dismiss all the studies done by researchers pointing out the lopsided benfit of sports fishing to the state economy. "It doesn't matter"..is what I remember two of the prominent commissioners saying prior to allowing public comment. Just calling a commissioner a "sport" oriented member because he happens to sport fish is way too simplistic and off the mark. I would say a true sports fishing member would be someone that has long credentials working for sports fishing enhancement and not a fly fisherman or bird watcher. Watch what they do, not what they say.

Also the Chinook that feed and grow in SE Alaska are not just predated by sports fishing. There is a huge troll fishery up there that catches a substantial number of "our fish"....those returning to our state. Much of the hook and line fishing for blackmouth in Puget Sound is targetting fish raised specifically for local harvest and does not consist of future 5 or 6 year old Chinook for the most part.

Beware of simplifying this issue too much.

Grandpa2 -
My main point is exactly as you point out: "Beware of simplifying this issue too much."

The commission does not have the authority to change the mandate to maintain a viable commerical fishing industry. Instead of beating them over the head with economic studies why not beat those the have the responsbility to change that mandate- our state legislators. While we all may wish that the WDFW commission was more agressive in supply a leadership role in issues such of this presenting then with additional studies really doesn't mean a thing, they aren't the decision makers in this case.

I'm aware that trollers play a large role in the fishing on feeding chinook. Believe that I listed them along with the sport and charter fleet.

While much of the Puget Sound blackmouth fishery is on hatchery fish there is a wild part of the catch. Many of those wild chinook that are caught in that fishery are those that are in the most trouble in Puget Sound - spring and summer chinook. Even the fishing on immature hatchery chinook results in a younger population. It was not always the case that a large hatchery chinook was 20#. That may or may not be important to an individual angler.

In topic such as these there are many complicate aspects to the discussion and i'm more than willing to discuss them in detail if that is your interest.

Tight lines
Smalma

RCW 77.50.120
Maintaining consistent salmon harvest levels.
It is the intent of the legislature to ensure that a sustainable level of salmon is made available for harvest for commercial fishers in the state. Maintaining consistent harvest levels has become increasingly difficult with the listing of salmonid species under the federal endangered species act. Without a stable level of harvest, fishers cannot develop niche markets that maximize the economic value of the harvest. New tools and approaches are needed by fish managers to bring increased stability to the fishing industry.
In the short term, it is the legislature's intent to provide managers with tools to assure that commercial harvest of targeted stocks can continue and expand under the constraints of the federal endangered species act. There are experimental types of commercial fishing gear that could allow fishers to stabilize harvest levels by selectively targeting healthy salmon stocks.

For the longer term, the department of fish and wildlife shall proceed with changes to the operation of certain hatcheries in order to stabilize harvest levels by allowing naturally spawning and hatchery origin fish to be managed as a single run. Scientific information from such hatcheries would guide the department's approach to reducing the need to mass mark hatchery origin salmon where appropriate.


[2001 c 163 § 1.]

For those with enough time to look up the RCW (thank you) maybe you can look into who sponsored the legislation. I think you will find commercial fishing lobbying all over it. Certainly wasn't re-written to take into account the upswing in sport dollars to the economy. The RFA seems like our best shot in the near term to get some legislation pushed through that will help sports fishing.

The legislators are all part of a rat pack in Olympia that includes the governor. They all share the same chunk of cheese and scratch each others backs. The commissioners are appointed by the governor so he can repay favors to the commercial fishing lobby that helped keep him in office. We need a great big rat trap to set right outside the capital. Start getting rid of the corrupt rats and elect some people who aren't in the pocket of special commercial fishing interests.

Maybe we should form an alliance with the tribes and get tribal members elected in Olympia in exchange for abolishing gill netting and purse seining. The tribes will have a monopoly and we get more sports fishing.

Grandpa

It looks like I am not the "only guy" with a big banana in his pocket!

If you think that one was bad, what special interest or lobby would you supposed pushed this one into law?

RCW 77.50.040
Commercial net fishing for salmon in tributaries of Columbia river -- Boundaries defined.
(1) The commission shall adopt rules defining geographical boundaries of the following Columbia river tributaries and sloughs:
(a) Washougal river;
(b) Camas slough;
(c) Lewis river;
(d) Kalama river;
(e) Cowlitz river;
(f) Elokomin river;
(g) Elokomin sloughs;
(h) Skamokawa sloughs;
(i) Grays river;
(j) Deep river;
(k) Grays bay.

(2) The commission may authorize commercial net fishing for salmon in the tributaries and sloughs from September 1st to November 30th only, if the time, areas, and level of effort are regulated in order to maximize the recreational fishing opportunity while minimizing excess returns of fish to hatcheries. The commission shall not authorize commercial net fishing if a significant catch of steelhead would occur.

When will sport fishermen ever learn????????

RCW 77.04.020
Composition of department -- Powers and duties.
The department consists of the state fish and wildlife commission and the director. The commission may delegate to the director any of the powers and duties vested in the commission.

[2000 c 107 § 202; 1996 c 267 § 32; 1993 sp.s. c 2 § 59; 1987 c 506 § 4; 1980 c 78 § 3; 1955 c 36 § 77.04.020. Prior: 1947 c 275 § 2; Rem. Supp. 1947 § 5992-12.]

NOTES:

Intent -- Effective date -- 1996 c 267: See notes following RCW 77.12.177.

Effective date -- 1993 sp.s. c 2 §§ 1-6, 8-59, and 61-79: See RCW 43.300.900.

Severability -- 1993 sp.s. c 2: See RCW 43.300.901.

Legislative findings and intent -- 1987 c 506: "Washington's fish and wildlife resources are the responsibility of all residents of the state. We all benefit economically, recreationally, and aesthetically from these resources. Recognizing the state's changing environment, the legislature intends to continue to provide opportunities for the people to appreciate wildlife in its native habitat. However, the wildlife management in the state of Washington shall not cause a reduction of recreational opportunity for hunting and fishing activities. The paramount responsibility of the department remains to preserve, protect, and perpetuate all wildlife species. Adequate funding for proper management, now and for future generations, is the responsibility of everyone.

The intent of the legislature is: (1) To allow the governor to select the director of wildlife; (2) to retain the authority of the wildlife commission to establish the goals and objectives of the department; (3) to insure a high level of public involvement in the decision-making process; (4) to provide effective communications among the commission, the governor, the legislature, and the public; (5) to expand the scope of appropriate funding for the management, conservation, and enhancement of wildlife; (6) to not increase the cost of license, tag, stamp, permit, and punchcard fees prior to January 1, 1990; and (7) for the commission to carry out any other responsibilities prescribed by the legislature in this title." [1987 c 506 § 1.]

References -- 1987 c 506: "All references in the Revised Code of Washington to the department of game, the game commission, the director of game, and the game fund shall mean, respectively, the department of wildlife, the wildlife commission, the director of wildlife, and the wildlife fund." [1987 c 506 § 99.]

Continuation of rules, director, game commission -- 1987 c 506: "Rules of the department of game existing prior to July 26, 1987, shall remain in effect unless or until amended or repealed by the director of wildlife or the wildlife commission pursuant to Title 77 RCW. The director of game on July 26, 1987, shall continue as the director of wildlife until resignation or removal in accordance with the provisions of RCW 43.17.020. The game commission on July 26, 1987, shall continue as the wildlife commission." [1987 c 506 § 100.]

Effective date -- Intent, construction -- Savings -- Severability -- 1980 c 78: See notes following RCW 77.04.010.


However, the wildlife management in the state of Washington shall not cause a reduction of recreational opportunity for hunting and fishing activities.


???? what have we lost since this was signed ??

The best way to get rid of commercial fishing is for sport anglers to target a fishery and set up a group to buy commercial fishing licenses as they become available then hold thoes licenses indefinetly...
we can scream and yell all we want but as long as we make a surplus of salmon in our hatcheries they will continue to have seasons to fish for them..

There are a lot of good ideas on this board. I agree with most but disagree wwith the gillnetting not being one of the major benefactors. Yes, all take a toll on our bigger Puget Sound Kings-Which is primarily what I am talking about. BC has supposedly cut out most of their commercial non tribal-fishing, but not so from what I have been told by some of the tackle manufacturers in BC. Last year when I flew to Hakai Pass. I counted 21 nets strung across Johnstone Straight (East side of Vancouver Island). These were all in an area of about five miles long. This doesn't include what I couldn't see out the other side of the plane. These very well could have been first nations nets. I don't know. They were all strategically placed going straight out from the main land corners and begining of islands. You cannot tell me this doesn't make a big difference on a fish run. I am sure there are jsut as many on the outside of Vancouver Island. One main factor that might help is the fish running timing being off so that they miss it, but not that likely. When the ground stocks of Yelloweye at Neah Bay are listed fish now. How come they are still out there in these areas of this netting? The big mother ship and smaller ones are out there targeting sable cod in the same areas. These are a bottom fish too. I saw and have pictures somewhere where they dumped all of the smaller ones. We drove through them. The ones that weren't dead were belly up gasping and dieing. This is not good.

Rob Allen, That is a good idea. Do you have any idea how to fund it? This would be a massive amount of money.

Hey Folks, I got an e-mail back from Representitive Brian Hatfield, who, after a sentence or two of impolite personal attacks (he actually knows who I am - imagine that ), stated "I could care less about your views on sport vs. commercial fishing... " Well, I guess we know where he is at. He represents all the folks that live in the Willapa Bay watershed and down at Buoy 10. He apparently thinks it's just fine to give the fish away to the commercials at a nickle a pound and at the expense of the rest of us. I think whoever runs against him deserves our support, don't you :p

Someone with time on their hands could probably find where Brian's campaign contributions come from. If he is from Willapa area he is supporting his constituants in the commercial business.

It would be nice if one of the represetatives around Puget Sound would speak up so that us voters their area actually could have a stake in the matter vote based on an informed oppinion.

Well, here's one that spoke up in an e-mail just sent to me. Good to know that we have at least one friend on the hill. Let's get out the vote for Ike

"I agree with your entire position on salmon. I have tried three times in 3
years to pass legislation that would achieve a more balanced approach. I
could never get the legislation out of committee and I was told such
legislation would not pass in the Senate. I wanted to start with the Hood
Canal as a demonstration and go from there. I am always looking for an
opening or change of circumstances to get legislation passed and will
continue to do so. I thank you very much for sharing your opinion with me.
Sincerely,
Representative Bill "Ike" Eickmeyer
35th Legislative District"

Spawnout the legislation Eickmeyer wanted to pass would have shut down Hood Canal to ALL fishing except for guess what? You got it...commercial purse seining of chum salmon! His legislation was loaded with made up info....claiming it would restore such fishes as Black cod....take a look at the historical records and one would have to ask the question what Black cod?

I will support any sensible effort to eliminate commercial netting. BTW are you all aware that the WDFW commission is supporting the commercial gillnetters getting 2/3 of the nontribal springer allocation on the Columbia next year?

I must apologize for coming to this thread only recently. I very much agree that we need to control gill nets, but kept away from the thread due to burnout from working so hard on the last initiative where the commercials killed us. Anyway. Does anyone have names and contact info for all the commissioners? It seems to me that even though many are in the pocket of the commercials they might hear our message if we say it loud enough and long enough.

surecatch...here I go agreeing with you again. The commission is pretty protective of its bias towards commercial fishing. Showing up at a commission meeting is the best medicine. Take notes, tape record what they say, take pictures...publicize their comments about how the economics of sports fishing have no bearing on their decisions because the legislature mandates a "viable" commercial fishery. Kind of like propping up a viable buffalo hunting operation. They get pissed when alot of sport fishers show up at meetings but they can't do a damn thing about it. You have a right to speak at the meetings but they will try to stifle you. Perserverance is what we need. Stay in their faces in great numbers and then work on your legislators. Changing the laws is next.

surecatch...here I go agreeing with you again. The commission is pretty protective of its bias towards commercial fishing. Showing up at a commission meeting is the best medicine. Take notes, tape record what they say, take pictures...publicize their comments about how the economics of sports fishing have no bearing on their decisions because the legislature mandates a "viable" commercial fishery. Kind of like propping up a viable buffalo hunting operation. They get pissed when alot of sport fishers show up at meetings but they can't do a damn thing about it. You have a right to speak at the meetings but they will try to stifle you. Perserverance is what we need. Stay in their faces in great numbers and then work on your legislators. Changing the laws is next.

The department shall conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair the resource. In a manner consistent with this goal, the department shall seek to maintain the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry in the state. The department shall promote orderly fisheries and shall enhance and improve recreational and commercial fishing in this state.


Now what is the definition of the "fishing industry"? Certainly the commission defines it as the "commercial fishing industry".