WDF has a new tactic.

Per the news on the KING 5 web site, they are saying they won't be able to have certain fishing seasons if they don't get more money. Prime example is the sockeye run in Lake Washington. No money, no fishing for non treaty fishers. Doesn't affect treaty fishers since they will do things per their budgets which are separate from the state.

Read the plea for money @ http://www.king5.com/localnews/stories/NW_110903WABwildlifewoesSW.352a8f8d.html

And who said the seasons can't get any shorter!!!

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service figures back Koenings' claim. According to the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, sport anglers spent $854 million in Washington that year, hunters spent $350 million and wildlife watchers spent $980 million.

i didnt realize how much the wildlife watchers spent, amazing.

Wildlife watchers, aka whale watchers

People drop a lot of money to see them. I think it's $75 per person per day minimum. The cattle boats are LOADED with people all summer long.

How can the natives get their half of the harvestables recogognized w/o sports/comercials being alloted anything?

I always write them off, fees that is, I itemize them under "fishing and hunting tax"

Question: How many of you "came in last year and said 'raise our fees"?

You can bet your life that I was not one of them!!!

Cowlitzfisherman

In 2004 the expected run size of Sockeye in Lake Washington is to be 700,000 fish. No season? I bet that fishery will bring in so much money into our economy it would be a shame to play politics with it. The tribes will get their 1/2 without contributing much of anything except to their own pockets.

When WDFW stops dancing on the strings of commercial fishing puppet masters and stands up to the tribes THEN and only then should they deserve more money to waste.

After reading through the WDFW's plea for more money I noticed that the tribes are complaining about WDFW not being able to do studies for them. Just how much funding do the tribes contribute to fisheries? I know in the Dept of Natural Resources budget they contribute ZERO and harvest millions of dollars in geoduck. Non tribal geoduck harvesters pay up to $6.00 PER # FOR THE PRIVELAGE OF HARVESTING THIS VALUABLE NATURAL RESOURCE. I suspect , but am not sure, that the tribes contribute little or nothing except some of the hatchery operations. Do not count their federal hand outs for hatcheries and boats and nets etc....Do the tribes contribute any funding for our fisheries or to WDFW like sports fishers do? How much money is contributed to WDFW funding by the rest of the commercial fleet?

Remember something , too, and that is that the politicians ALWAYS go for the throat when asking for money. Gary Locke perfected this scam. When you want to loot the public's bank account cry about closing the things most near and dear to the most people. For example: Ron Sims (King County's head thief) cries about closing parks while overseeing the payout of $24 million to King Coounty workers who sued because they had to work 40 hours a week instead of 35. Remember closing of Reiter Ponds? And now it is the Lake Washington Sockeye season for 2004. That fishery would bring in around 28 million to the state economy. Gotta close it down because we don't have any money. WOW.

No question that WDFW has a budget problem but is it the sports fishers who don't pay enough?

I'd pay twice what I do now for licenses. Tired of hearing people whine about license costs. Compare them to Mariners tickets. I spend more on a single night out on the town. What I get for my license money, the time I spend chasing things in the outdoors, is so precious to me I'd pay way more.

Fish and Wildlife needs help winning money from Legislature
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) – Times are tough for the state Department of Fish and Wildlife.
The cash-strapped 2003 Legislature cut $9.1 million from the agency’s 2003-05 budget, and the federal government cut an additional $7.4 million.
From 1999 to 2001, Fish and Wildlife’s budget was $302.8 million. In 2003-05, the budget is $277.8 million, even as state and federal protection requirements for endangered species increase.
The cuts could reduce or end fishing seasons on some waters. They already have reduced the number of enforcement officers, habitat biologists and other employees in game protection and salmon recovery programs.
When will anglers, hunters and wildlife watchers see a difference?
“Right about now,” said Jeff Koenings, agency director. “We’ll need to ask for supplemental funding to pay for selective fisheries next year, such as the Lake Washington sockeye fishery.”
The future of fishing, hunting and other outdoor recreation in Washington could be bright if the state makes a modest investment, said Koenings, who feels it’s time the Legislature realized these activities bring in big money.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service figures back Koenings’ claim. According to the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, sport anglers spent $854 million in Washington that year, hunters spent $350 million and wildlife watchers spent $980 million.
These people – and their money – will go elsewhere if the state falls down on its job, Koenings said. A big chunk of Fish and Wildlife’s budget – $57.1 million of the $277.8 million current budget – comes from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses and fees.
A record return of 600,000 sockeye is expected in Lake Washington next summer, but the state can’t allow fishing until there is a plan that ensures enough wild fish are left to spawn and that state tribes get their 50 percent of the harvest.
It will cost the state $200,000 to meet federal planning and monitoring standards for a Lake Washington season – a bargain, as the season will generate $12 million in angler spending, said Lew Atkins, assistant director for fish programs.
But the agency has no money for the studies, and state and federal laws forbid a sports fishery without them.
Koenings will ask Gov. Gary Locke and the Legislature for an additional $738,000 for the Lake Washington fishery, and more money for other fisheries that bring in an estimated $28 million.
Getting that $738,000 is “not impossible, but it’s going to be hard,” said Marty Brown, Locke’s budget director.
The Lake Washington fishery offers an economic boost and terrific recreation, said Rep. Mike Cooper, D-Edmonds, chairman of the House Fisheries, Ecology and Parks Committee. But others will have different plans for the state’s limited cash.
“We have to sell this to the rest of the Legislature,” Cooper said.
It’s time for anglers, hunters and wildlife watchers to step up and pressure the Legislature, said Jim Anderson, executive director of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.
Fish and Wildlife spends millions to mark hatchery fish, monitor salmon populations and enforce catch-and-release rules – the only way to protect wild fish and offer ocean fishing, Atkins said.
“Selective fisheries have brought in millions to the state of Washington,” Atkins said. “And much of that money helps the rural communities that really need help.”
The tribes worry that state cuts could damage the surveys used to set salmon-fishing limits, Anderson said. An inaccurate catch count can wreak havoc on an endangered run.
The tribes, the state’s salmon partner, “are going to look out for tribal fishermen and tribal resources” with their limited funds, he said.
Tribes see Fish and Wildlife’s budget struggles on a daily basis, said David Troutt, natural resources director for the Nisqually tribe.
“The agency really doesn’t have the resources to contribute to salmon recovery on the Nisqually, Puyallup and Green rivers in the way we would like – and that they would like as well,” Troutt said.
All Fish and Wildlife programs have taken cuts over the past two years.
Seven hatcheries have closed or reduced operations. The number of hatchery managers has dropped from 24 to 16. Fewer biologists have less time to work on habitat projects vital to wild salmon recovery.
Cuts also make things easier for poachers. Fish and Wildlife will have 158 enforcement officers during 2003-05, a drop of eight from two years ago. In 1980, there was one Fish and Wildlife enforcement officer per 23,000 state residents. This year, there is one officer per 40,000.
“I have 10 positions I can’t fill in 2003-2005 due to budget reductions,” said enforcement chief Bruce Bjork.
Fish and Wildlife now depends on a corps of citizen volunteers, called Eyes in The Woods, who help Fish and Wildlife biologists check deer tags and take scientific samples.
“For those of us who like to hunt and fish, this is a way to help give back to the system,” said volunteer Bill Byunkey of Tacoma. “We can’t bellyache if we sit around and do nothing.”
AP-WS-11-09-03 1551EST!

Grandpa,

You seem to know the score, so I'm surprised at your comments. Just how is WDFW supposed to "stand up to the tribes?" They've tried that in the federal court system and lost badly. Tribal treaty fishing rights have been the law of the land for nearly 30 years now. WDFW doesn't benefit by throwing good money after bad. What, exactly, would you have them do that would be a more positive allocation of resources?

The tribes contribute less than WDFW to fisheries management in most cases, and they have standing at law in support of that. The tribes treaty fishing right has superior legal status to any non-treaty fishing right under the state's jurisdiction. Tribes are assumed to be allowed to fish unless the state has management and conservation data to limit the treaty right. And WDFW must have management data demonstrating that there are sufficient fish for a non-treaty commercial or recreational fishery. A much lower burden exists for treaty tribes. You might think it unfair, but that is the law.

It costs money to manage a fishery, including one like the LW sockeye fishery. It costs more to manage a recreational fishery than a commercial fishery because there are so many more units of gear on the water, spread over a longer period of time. It is worth the expense, because recreational fishing will return more to the state's economy, but that becomes a policy decision.

WDFW dances to the strings of the commercial fishing industry because it's required to by legislation. Why do you fault them for following the law? I think it's more productive to focus on modifying the law.

As for using a high profile public resource when there's a budget crunch, well, that's a time-tested and generally proven buearucratic and political tool. USFS always closes the most popular campgrounds when faced with budget problems. That's been demonstrated as the best way to generate public support for budget assistance. Closing perch season on Mud Lake isn't going to have any effect, on numbers of people or on the budget, so it makes sense to light a fire under the opinion makers by talking about closing something significant.

You ask an interesting question about whether sport fishermen pay enough. It's not an easy situation when we buy the same license if we fish 3 or 4 Saturdays per year or 300 days per year. If license fees are much higher, WDFW risks losing the vast majority of anglers who fish only a few days per year. The hardcore fanatics, like you perhaps, who fish many days per year, and would pay a lot more, are the - to borrow your phrase - boutique fisheries that cater to the hard core special interest sport fisheries that should perhaps be paying something approaching the green fees at a golf course. How much is too much may depend on how many days each year that an angler fishes.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo

You say;
What laws are you referring to? What law needs to be modified? When you read the mandate of WDFW below, I see no mention that the Commercial boys get to have a larger share then the sport fisher! Where is it written that legislation requires WDFW to favor the commercials over sport fishers?

RCW 77.04.012
Mandate of department and commission.
Wildlife, fish, and shellfish are the property of the state. The commission, director, and the department shall preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish in state waters and offshore waters.

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.

The commission may authorize the taking of wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish only at times or places, or in manners or quantities, as in the judgment of the commission does not impair the supply of these resources.

The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile, disabled, and senior citizens.

Recognizing that the management of our state wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources depends heavily on the assistance of volunteers, the department shall work cooperatively with volunteer groups and individuals to achieve the goals of this title to the greatest extent possible.

Nothing in this title shall be construed to infringe on the right of a private property owner to control the owner's private property.

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.]

RCW 77.04.013
Findings and intent.
The legislature supports the recommendations of the state fish and wildlife commission with regard to the commission's responsibilities in the merged department of fish and wildlife. It is the intent of the legislature that, beginning July 1, 1996, the commission assume regulatory authority for food fish and shellfish in addition to its existing authority for game fish and wildlife. It is also the intent of the legislature to provide to the commission the authority to review and approve department agreements, to review and approve the department's budget proposals, to adopt rules for the department, and to select commission staff and the director of the department.

The legislature finds that all fish, shellfish, and wildlife species should be managed under a single comprehensive set of goals, policies, and objectives, and that the decision-making authority should rest with the fish and wildlife commission. The commission acts in an open and deliberative process that encourages public involvement and increases public confidence in department decision making.


Cowlitzfisherman

what a bunch of crap. i say none of the money we pay for licenses should go to the general fund any longer.

by the way, why on earth is there no sockeye season in lake washington when we have something like 450,000 fish returning? isn't that around the expected chum return for this year for the entire puget sound(except hood canal)?

Salmo....there are things within the law that WDFW can do to keep the tribes from overstepping their treaty rights. Remember last year when Bob posted those OP pictures of the closure signs on the rivers with indian gill netters in the background? That was stopped by intense pressure and publicity but WDFW could have done more.

As far as commercial fishing being supported by the WDFW commission because it is the law I say BUNK...it also says to provide a quality sports fishery. What the law needs is clarification perhaps but the interpretation of the RCWs is pretty slanted towards commercial fishing....not many would side with your view if you don't see that.For the commission to constantly preach about their hands being tied is feable. The sports community is starting to be heard loud and clear. Watch the boat show this year for the sports fishing section. Watch the protest in Port Townsend on Dec 5th and 6th. Watch the upcoming commission meetings. We'll be there in force. We will also be working with politicians to change the laws. Until all those things bear fruit I call bull**** on hiding behind the laws and the treaties as excuses for poor allocation of our resources.

Grandpa, CFM,

I certainly didn't intend to sound like I'm defending WDFW's commercial slant. Just pointing out what the Commissioners seem to be referring to as their legislative obligation. I'm all for trying to make conservation, social, and economic sense out of our fisheries management. Naturally, it'd be a lot easier if everyone in management agreed with me! t.i.c.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.