FF couldn't possibly have any knowledge from any other source, or under any other screen name ? Hmmm, I thought he was making some sense.

Fringe element?

WTFYTA

Fringe element my ass!

You asked a question and I answered it.

I know for a fact that it effects the local economy.
Ask anybody in Astoria Oregon if there is a change when they close the fishery early.

The whole town looks deserted compared to when they leave it the fishery open and on schedule.

This is true in many areas with seasonal fisheries.

Local Guides make a living with far less impact on the resource than commercial.

Regards,

I never doubted the money showing up in Astoria when the fishing is good. Do you understand that I get that ?

My point is that when the money doesn't show up in Astoria, it shows up someplace else. You must know someone who has went to a game or a race, or fishing in a lake when fishing was either closed or sucked so bad that it was a joke. The State sees just as much of that money even if it shows up in another "economy". The State is making the rules, and they seem to think the sporties economic power is a joke.

Rather than digest that pill, perhaps you could find a grammer error in my post........

Nope. No alter egos, outside sources of information, etc. For better or for worse, what I wrote was my personal opinion.

That kind of thinking is what puts Oregon at the bottom of the heap.

Except of course in the case of homelessness and hungryness we are tops there.

OK!

I guess they will just spend the money elsewhere.
The jobs will be formed someplace regardless if I have one.

I think what we are really discussing is Freedom.

Given the right to fish and recreate in a meaningful manner will help local and regional economies. Restrictions to the sport fishery will only continue to hurt us.

Deep breath KZ, count to ten, reread my posts on this thread without trying to find some hidden agenda (paranoia).

Is it "that kind of thinking" that upsets you, or is it the fact that it's true ?

The larger question is : what are some policy changes that you can think of that might enhance the sportfishing experience ?

I only mentioned the economic power of the sporties being a joke because it seems that many sporties are unimpressed with the status quo. IF the sporties have some economic weight, then let's throw it around and get something done, and if we don't have the weight, then let's stop talking about it like a broken record.

Oregonian, the problem is that it has taken this long and FF's insight to maybe determine what you have been trying to discuss - if this can even be described as a discussion.

I can't speak for Oregon but I do know there has been an ongoing battle over MPAs in Oregon and that various sportfishing groups and individuals have been very active in that issue.

As for Washington, we (sport interests) established the current Commission via referendum with the goal of removing critical resource management issues from the (direct) political process.

We also have responded to legislative efforts during at least the last two legislative sessions to eliminate the Commission. Those efforts were initiated and pushed by commercial fishing interests among other commercial activities unhappy with decisions made by the Commission.

Within the last month the Commission has agreed to change its policy and prioritize recreational Dungeness crabbing in Puget Sound over non-tribal commercial harvesters. At the same time the Commission agreed to changes in seasonal rules that for the 2011 season will increase recreational seasons. INCREASE SEASONS!! This was accomplished through the combined efforts of several groups and many individuals who testified before the Commission. That testimony by the way, included facts as to the relative value of crab in the recreational fishery versus the commercial fishery. Had this not occurred the recreational fishery in Puget Sound would have been held to a rigid quota and due to increased participation there would have been further reductions in seasons and daily catch limits to ensure that the recreational catch stayed within that quota.

The crab issue is only one of those dealt with successfully in the last year or two and is probably the most important as it resulted in a change in policy regarding the relationship between sport and commercial harvesters.

So, in closing, your spoutings imply that there has been nothing tried and nothing accomplished. Obviously I disagree. I do acknowledge that more needs to be done and I fully anticipate that further changes will occur as sports groups become better organized and (for your benefit) politically savvy.

Wow. You must be under a lot of stress or something...

I asked a couple of questions...if I implied anything it was right there on the page, nothing that required your great perceptive skills.

I think it's great that you got the crabbing regs changed, congrats. I think there is still a few fish missing from the river though...




This is one of the questions I asked, what exactly would you change if you had your way, and how would the changes be implemented. What do you think can be done to improve the situation ? I didn't say or imply that no one has ever tried anything.

I used the term fringe element to describe the people who would simply stay home and bury their money in coffee cans when sport fishing isn't available. I should go back and check, but I think I spelled it out almost word for word the first time...

Oregonian:

I will play this game a bit longer with you.

You said "IF the sporties have some economic weight, then let's throw it around and get something done, and if we don't have the weight, then let's stop talking about it like a broken record."

That clearly implies to me that you believe "sporties" haven't accomplished anything and need to get something done or simply shut up. No where do you acknowledge any of the efforts/accomplishments that have recently been on this BB.

And you have not answered the question I posed as to what YOU have done in support of recreational fisheries or the resource.

And, no, I don't think I want to share with you any of my ideas for future changes that are needed in Washington State. I hope you can figure out why not.

Oregonian --

To answer one of your questions, I'd be absolutely fine with reducing non-tribal commercial fishing in our state to ZERO. As already stated we have a treaty tribal fishery which can supply most/all of our local needs. Furthermore, we have interesting aqua-culture (including closed containment) technology locally that can and ought to be supported as a long term strategy for feeding people.

How would I transition this? I would be fine developing a model that takes the 10 year discounted profits from the existing commercial fleet and simply "acquiring" it for the sportfishermen. It'd be quite interesting to see that model, and figure out how to raise that money in fact.

And I do believe this action, buying out the non-tribal commercials, is a net positive for jobs and the economy in the region. And likely it is a SIGNIFICANT positive.

Orgonian,

You claimed that if fishermen don't spend their discretionary money on fishing opportunity in WA or OR, then they will spend it on something else, still in the local WA or OR economies. While that is likely true for some, the hard core fishermen who spend perhaps a disproportionately large amount of their money on fishing don't do that. They take that money and spend it on fishing in BC, AK, or other states.

If sport fishing opportunity deteriorates enough, then I will still spend money on fishing, but I will spend all of it in other states or countries, where it won't do anything for the local economy in WA.

Although it would be more economical for me to buy a commercially caught Columbia River spring chinook for $25 a pound at my local market, I've instead made the irrational decision to buy a boat suited to this fishery, a trolling motor that I otherwise didn't need, and a ton of salmon fishing tackle that I never needed since I'm primarily a fly fisherman. And then there are the hotels, campgrounds, restaurants, and gas stations in the LCR region that I wouldn't patronize with my business, but for salmon fishing.

As for why haven't sport fishing interests exerted greater influence in government and WDFW to give greater consideration to sport fishing, that's not so hard to figure out. Sport fishing, although declining, and with fewer participants, is still a significant economic activity. And the fishing is not so bad for so many as to motivate enough people to become political active through volunteering their time and donating their money. But that has been changing. More time and money is being channeled into sport fishing advocacy. However, the desired changes won't happen quickly. State law explicitly protects commercial fishing, and reallocating that non-treaty share to sport fishing will take more time, money, and work in order to be realized. Given enough of those resources, it will be; otherwise not.

Any other questions?

Sg

And to put a "Finer Point" on the above. The current demographic that actually has the "moxey" to understand, analyze, plan, and DO, is now retiring with a lot of time on our hands. I know, I did (retire) and put that time and experience to good Sports Crabbing Interests. And that retirement "Bulge" is growing larger by the day. We tend to be "Do'ers" with strong work ethics, and the experience to accomplish things, i.e., that is why we could afford to retire comfortably. That is what happened down in Olympia last year when some Old Style Politician (Jacobsen) unsuccessfully tried to turn the tide back to commercials by threatening OUR F & W Commission. There are more things than a large economic clout, and that is a Large Committment Clout by a lot of Individuals, scares the beejesus out of Old Style Politicians, i.e., now gone Jacobsen. Oh, did I point out that Jacobsen's Replacement signed the letter urging the F & W Commission to Change the Dungeness Crab Policies to our Sport Crabbing Interests???? It is not just ecomonics that are swinging, but folks that are committed to change. As a possible future example, please watch current State Senator Hargrove's Un-election next cycle (hint -- he is/was Very Ex-Senator (State) Jacobsen's Political Buddy).

i would change willipa bay back to a sept 16th opener for the commercial fisherman so sportfisherman could experience some decent fishing.

If you are talking about the gillnet test fishery that has days in Aug. that started this year and is going to run for many more years,---I agree.

Just thinking and typing out loud with what I read on previous threads and without researching further.

It appears that:

1) it would be the perfect place for selective gear to get their tests and research done and release the fish unharmed.
Now the problem with that might be funding.

2)by using gillnets it appears that they are being paid to help with research by keeping the fish instead of or in addition to some funding?

If that is the case they are being paid with sporties fish that was intended for us in Aug, and that should be totally unacceptable and could/should be dealt with by using the same tool the commercials use.

Going to court if negotiations failed to stop that nonsense.

Oregonian:

A word of advice, coming from a "chick" : You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar!

Just so there aren't suspicions of any "hidden agendas" related to this post, let me clarify. It is easier to persuade people if you use polite arguments than if you are confrontational.

If you want people to really take you seriously, STOP SLINGING SH!T.

For example:
"Deep breath KZ, count to ten, reread my posts on this thread without trying to find some hidden agenda (paranoia)."
and
"Wow. You must be under a lot of stress or something..."

What are you really trying to accomplish with attacking statements like that. If it is showing your true colors, then congrats! Success!

Sink or swim-
BEST OF LUCK TO YA!

if the fish are going to be released unharmed like you say why do they have to do any research ?

Is that you Jenny ?
;-)

NOPE!