After reviewing the proposed 2003-2004 sport fishing rules changes and proposed seasons and bag limits I have concluded that sports fishing is on a steep decline in Puget Sound. Should commercial fishing and commercial shell fish harvesting be banned inside Puget Sound to allow for enhanced sports opportunity?

Grandpa, I think I can predict the results of this poll!!! When the anti-netting initiative was on the ballot a couple of years ago, I thought it had a real chance. We got outvoted and outpoliticked. As I recall, the most effective method from the other side revolved around a romantic notion of saving jobs from those greedy sportfishers. lf we are to do anything with this I really believe that we need to speak with one voice - sportfishers need to unite. Is it the RFA or PSA or the Audobon Society? I don't know and as I talk with fishermen and women on the banks I am discouraged from thinking that we can ever unite. I hate being discouraged!! Can you offer hope? Is it Al in 2004??? (just kidding and I believe this is very serious).

Aunty, now that my cup of coffee has kicked in, I am feeling optimistic again. You are right, it can be done. Changing the charter of the Commission is probably a better way to go than the initiative process. That will require Legislative action. Anybody have a recommendation of a strong, brave Legislator that can spearhead this?

I have been against commercial fishing inside of the Straights since 1985, when a friend of mine was a skiff man on a seiner an he told how the captains targeted "incidental catch fish" i.e. Blackmouth. I felt the results of these "incidental catch" results with the lack of Blackmouth from the first opening until it closed. Several times we would be mooching Point Defiance for several days to several weeks before these openings and would have no problem catching salmon from 15 - 27", after the 1st opening you could fish 8-10 hours without a bite! My buddy told me that the boat he was on averaged 500-700 Blackmouth a day and a handful of Chum there target fish.

In my opinion the problem stems primarily from misguided priorities.
Fish are not our friends… Fish are not toys… Fish are food!

As a food resource, fish would be best managed to provide the most nourishment to the most people secondly and firstly for sustainability. Thirdly the fish might, where excess permits, be used as toys for sport.

Commercial fishing, sport fishing and consumptive personal use fishing all serve to attain these goals but only when personal use fishermen are given the first opportunity. No commercial fishing should be allowed anywhere that does not have a harvestable abundance beyond what prudent citizens would take for there own use.

The difficulty here is that sport fishermen want to exclude consumptive use fishermen, commercial fishermen want the lions share of the harvest and the consumptive use fishermen just want to fish.

Groups who would prohibit noncommercial harvest by other citizens divide the angling community, as do those who would restrict the methodology to fly fishing or specific selective gear or techniques. Those anglers who consider their selves to be a cut above the unsophisticated blue-collar masses are as much of a problem in developing reasonable harvest allocation guidelines as the commercials.

Certain media and many organizations both within and without the angling community promote dissent as a means to further their own selfish goals. Ideas like the mandatory release of a particular fish, be it bass, trout, steelhead or carp, come from organized efforts to grab a resource for a select few. The current anti-snagging campaign is another example of using dissent to further selfish goals, in this case the restriction of fishing to certain gear and methods. To equate flossing with snagging and then find new examples of flossing methodology to rationalize restricting techniques to moving lines or non-moving lines or bobber only, etc. simply serves to disallow diversity in fishing style.

I'll have to agree with AuntyM that "the commissions mandate needs to be changed. This states resources should be allocated to citizens FIRST…" but with small family commercial operations having seconds at the table for any harvestable excess and after that the use of the fish for toys or sport should come third.

It would be awfully hard to argue that any stocks in the Puget sound region exists in numbers sufficient to warrant commercial harvest. That said, a most difficult problem might be getting the tribes with fishing rights on board with this proposed policy.

Besides changing the mandate of the Commission, here's another idea to kick around! We should be considering multiple attacks to be going on at the same time. If we can do that, they will have to the pick the lesser of the two evils to fight use on! We must learn to "play the game" as they do, if we expect to beat them at their own game! If we loose at one front, the other front becomes even stronger. If forces them to deal with more then just one choice, and they will have to deal with making a decision on the "lesser of the two evils" (in their eyes).

If its jobs that killed the last anti-netting initiative that was on the ballot a couple of years ago, lets deal with that issue. Why not pass an "anti-netting initiative" that addresses this issue. There could be an answer, even though some "sport" fisherman may not like or accept this idea!

Why not allow sport fishermen to sell their catch of salmon and sturgeon? What better way would you create jobs, and at the same time, save the indiscriminate taking of wild or protected species or stocks of fish? I'll bet you money that the tribes would probably have heart failure if we were to pass such an Initiative! It would only allow sport fishers to harvest by hook and line, and that just might be the key that could force the tribes to do the same! Even if you couldn't force them into using the same fishing methods as sport fisher's use, you would certainly place upon them the public "burden" to change their ways of "harvesting", and that should also affect what share of the pie they should receive!

The allotment of harvestable fish would not change, only the "method of harvest" and who is harvesting it would be changing. Fishermen could sell their extra portion of their catch and make a little money to spend at the same time. That extra money could help to increase or generate new jobs in the sport fishing industry to help compensate for the few jobs that may be lost in the commercial net fishery industry. Those same commercial people could still fish for a living, but they would be required to compete with the sport fishers. It could also help eliminate the need for hatcheries in some of the areas where "hatcheries" are being misused for the sole purpose of rearing fish to support only the needs of commercial interests.

Just think of the corruption that would be removed from the politics of the commercial fishing lobbyists. The same fishing rules and same laws would apply to all fishers, instead of the double standards that currently exist. All of these points could be used to support this new initiative. The State could save millions by not being forced into buying back those "limited" gill net licenses.

I know that there would be many problems in working out this idea, but it's a whole lot better then just doing nothing. Can you add anymore to kindle the "spark" that just may start the firestorm, or are you one of those people who just want to "hose" down every new idea or new approach?

I know that this idea is only a "spark", but sparks have been known to start huge firestorms!!

What can you do to kindle this spark…any suggestions?


Cowlitzfisherman

CFM,

I agree with you on the multiple tactics. After sitting through hours of North of Falcon meetings the commercials have figured out the fine art of manipulation and negotiation for the largest share of all harvestable species.

Yesterday while at the AT&T Wireless store in Tacoma I ran into a guy that owns a processing plant in AK, we started talking about eggs and the market for them and he told me something that blew me away he said" his processing plant does between 28 - 32 million dollars a year in egg sales to Japan plus several mil to USA buyers", that is just 1 presser multiply it by the number of possessors in AK and the numbers are staggering.
My thought on the egg issue would be a tariff of lets say 30% for eggs leaving the U.S. What do ya think?

If you made everyone catch with a rod and reel, wouldnt that create jobs? How many people would it take to do the work of one net?

I agree the fragmented efforts of the past were doomed from the start. And a multi-headed approach would divide commercial efforts as well. But if they still have more resources and political know-how, we may lose again.

What about hiring someone who has experience and a successful track record in doing this type of work. They would know the pitfalls to avoid and could direct our effort in the most useful way.

Start a NPO to unite alike organisations, or pick an existing one. Planning may be the most critical part of the process. I dont see how you could plan something like this without the knoledge of an expert. Unfortunatley, that means lawyers, more lawyers and the lot to do it right.

I would contribute time and money to this effort, have paypal

We may also want to consider fighting this from another angle. Say political reform. The couruption of government is popular issue and may be worthy of addressing. I read of a few other organisations above. Are they the most likley and why? Are there others?

Face it, it's possible to do this for all the right reasons and with the best of intentions only to have the wrong PROCESS. I think this forum would best be serverd by exploring the process first. Figure out what your resources are and how to use them efficiently.

I'm sure there are more great ideas in the heads of forum members just waiting to be posted. C'mon, step up or shut up!

The commercial processors gut most of the fish they process and half of them contain eggs. A tariff won't stop them from gutting the fish nor will it prevent the fishermen from catching them. There has been a glut of commecially caught salmon for years yet the harvest continues as usual despite extremely low valuations buoyed by government subsidies.

The reason personal use anglers are prohibited from selling their catch is to prevent competition with the commercial harvesters. In many parts of the world this distinction is not so sharp and any legally caught fish may be offered for sale. On the surface this has always seemed like a good idea to me but in more recent years my opinion has moved towards support of the current prohibition.

Personal use fishermen will tend to catch and keep only what they can use or, with many, give away. Most who retain in excess get tired of tossing out freezer burnt waste.

If commercial sales of what we call 'sport caught' fish were legal it would simply encourage many honest anglers to catch and keep as many as the law would allow and also serve to increase poaching beyond legal posession limits. It would no longer be sport fishing and would certainly not qualify as personal use fishing.

I recommend we... "Limit Our Catch" rather than "Catch Our Limits"!

The tarrif could go back to renew the resourse if the importing country decided to pay it, but I think it would change the egg market thus allowing more fish for the sportsman in either case.

commercial fishing should go the way of commerical hunting: dead.

YOU want fish, YOU catch it. i don't want to hear the excuse of "it's our right to buy fish because our tax dollars pay for hatcheries." tax money helps fund programs for deer and other game and you don't see them in the store(unless it's farmed)

The blackmouth program is still in existence in Puget Sound funded by sports license fees. The program raises blackmouth and releases them late so they stay in Puget Sound to be caught by sports fishers. Our season is cut way back now and I would guess that the commercial nets catch many times more blackmouth as incidental catch than we do.

In my opinion, our best hope is to make organizations like the Recreational Fishing Alliance and Puget Sound Anglers much stronger with many times the current membership. We are having a positive effect on fishing issues now but with more support we could afford a lobbyist which is really needed to compete in Olympia with the commercial fishing lobbyists.

Shifting our salmon rescorses to the sportsmen would undeniably be better for the states economy and the fish.I was surprised at last years sportmen show to see the wdfw documenting this and handing it out.

I am an ex comercial fishermen.I raped the Berring sea for ground fish for 8 years.The amount of money that was flying around was scary.32 million is a drop in the bucket when it comes to roe sale to Asia.

When you guys think of taking on the comercial interest her in washington you need to relise something.You are not simply taking on a few purse sieners.You are taking on the comercial fihing industry around the world!There coffers are bottomless.They have more than a lobbiest in olympia.

I am not trying to discourage you guys.I have already said that it is in the best interest of the state and the resource.

I unfortunately do not believe that the sportsmen can unite long enough to get it done.Hell you can't even get 50 of them to get along on a stupid BB.So saying that I would say that the first thing that needs to be done is the orginization of the sportys into a voice that has to be listened too.Untill then...no.

Aunty,

Back in the good ole' days, sportsmen may have gotten their share, but it was a smaller % of the total catch than nowadays. Commercial catch used to dominate. Recreational harvest is taking a larger % than before from a declining resource. Commercial interests didn't used to care about the sport harvest, because it was a blip like background noise. Now they are very aware and sensitive that their share is decreasing as the total take is also decreasing, so they are going to defend their interest at the recreational and conservation expense.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Perhaps, in the not to distant future, recreational anglers will adopt an ethic to release everything they catch unharmed.

Then we would be allowed by the commercially driven commision to fish whenever and wherever we want without threat or harm to the commercial interests or the resource.

Maybe we could even make mandatory release of all fish without exception the law of the land.

i jus wrote jim mc dermot about the issue of commercial and tribal fishing, i forgot to add ban all nets... im not sure if he will respond, but i have to do sumthing..