I just got this email today. Anyone else hear from their elected officials. And is anyone else still very leery of this substitute bill?

----------------------
Dear Bruce,

Thank you for your e-mail message expressing your opposition to Senate Bill
5104, an act relating to catch and release recreational fisheries.

The Fish and Wildlife Commission has established catch and release fisheries
for steelhead trout in certain state waters, but there is no statutory
framework to guide them in regulating such fisheries. There is concern that
proper management of catch and release fisheries is needed to ensure that
steelhead stocks are not harmed. SB 5104 was introduced to set out certain
requirements and guidelines that must be met before a catch and release
steelhead fishery can be authorized. However, the bill was amended in the
Senate Natural Resources Committee to remove specific statutory requirements
for actions of the Fish and Wildlife Commission.

The new substitute bill simply states that the Fish and Wildlife Commission
must not authorize steelhead catch and release fisheries in cases where
there is insufficient enforcement staffing to assure that there is a low
steelhead mortality rate. Further, the commission must assess the threat to
steelhead trout that occurs in catch and release fisheries while spawning
fish are present, and a steelhead catch and release mortality study must be
conducted to assess rates of mortality, including situations where fisheries
are conducted in warm water conditions.

Special fees for catch and release fisheries have been deleted from the
bill, and fishers would not be restricted in the number of days per week
they can fish or in the number of steelhead they can catch and release per
day. The angler education program is no longer included, and the
prohibition on the fishing for spawning steelhead has also been removed.
Penalties for poaching would not be changed.

We believe that the substitute bill is a fair compromise that provides a
sensible approach to steelhead management with minimal impact on
recreational fishing. We are generally supportive of efforts to establish
guidelines that clarify a natural resource protection strategy, but if this
bill comes before us for a vote we will keep your comments in mind as we
review the legislation and make our final decision.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with us. Please
feel free to contact us in the future with your questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

KEN JACOBSEN PHYLLIS GUTIERREZ KENNEY JIM McINTIRE
State Senator State Representative
State Representative

I have not received any responses yet, but that response is not acceptable. This bill does exactly what the other did: end C&R fisheries. It requires DFW to have sufficient enforcement or they can't open a C&R fishery. There is grossly insufficient enforcement now, and the Sub. Bill does not have an appropriation. If there is no money for enforcement now, there certainly won't be just because a bill says there has to be. Keep on it, this bill is bogus just like the original.

I got the same "form" letter. My main concern is the staffing/enforcement line. Does this mean no C&R but they will still have a Bonk season for natives? I wrote back and asked them to amend the bill to ban all keeping of natives period.

I got it too! Sounds to me like they have every intention of pushing this bill through. Since we had no luck with convincing the natural resources committee, our smartest move is to write our local reps telling them to vote NO and why.

Ultimately, this bill has to be voted on by everyone (I think) on the floor assuming it gets passed through all the committees (which it looks like it will).

This will probably be our last year of catch and release fishing because I believe everyone that put the pressure on earlier is under the impression that the bill died. It is not dead and will probably sneak through, getting passed under everyone's noses- just as it was intended to.

Everyone must write their local reps!!
It will probably be voted on before too much longer.

Most of the politicians I've talked to down there don't understand what's wrong with the bill. There's a big difference between a "percieved" problem and a "real" one. They figure that this bill must have come about because of a gross problem with catch and release fisheries. How many fisherman are there in the Senate, and how many of those partake in C&R fisheries for steelhead? We'll just have to keep calling.

In my experience with state legislatures, the Rules committee is where bills go to die. It's an easy way to kill legislation without having to commit yourself to voiting "No" on it. Very few bills that go into the committee ever make it out. Usually they just die from inaction. You get to the end of the session and they're still sitting there.

It's a favorite way for a sponsor who has introduced something they know is a dog to let it die and still save face with the people who hounded them into introducing it in the first place. In this case, Harriet gets to tell the Wildcatters she tried to help them out but just couldn't pull it off. And those who know the bill is a dog don't have to risk upsetting anyone by voting against it. Although they'd get a lot more support from more of us if they would kill it outright.

But this scenario isn't always true. Some controversial legislation does make it out of Rules in a sneaky way towards the end of the session as an amendment to another bill. So we should all keep our eyes out and keep sending those emails to your reps and committee members. I sent another note to everyone on the Rules committee urging them to bury it.

BG

Good call, B. Gray. Like you pointed out, though, not all bills die there. I, too, am contacting each and every rules committee member, and my own representatives, too, just in case it gets out of there. With all the high profile legislation out there this session and the concern that there is just not enough time to get it all done, bills that are controversial and minor, as I'm sure this bill is viewed, will not get much time. I guess that cuts both ways. It may get out fast, but if it looks like a fight over a minor bill, it would be easier just to dump it and move on to the important stuff.
In your letters to legislators, remember to ask this question. If Harriet Spanel and the Wildcat Native Bonkers are so concerned about the viability of the native steelhead on the Sauk and Skagit, why then did they both try so hard to get the Grandy Creek hatchery built in spite of an obviously poorly done environmental impact statement and clear evidence that the hatchery would have a detrimental effect upon those same native runs?
The answer is clear; WSC wants more fish to catch. So do we all. However, WSC feels that if there are not going to be more hatchery fish, and they can't bonk all spring, then no one else should get to fish, either, especially those nasty old fly fishermen who opposed the hatchery.
I hope that the legislators can come to that conclusion all on their own, but I'd sure like them to ask Harriet during any hearings or debates and see what she has to say. I haven't received a response to a letter I sent her asking that question. Don't really expect to. However, she'll have to answer other legislators who ask during debates.
Keep up the fight, and remind them that there are a lot more sportsmen who aren't in the WCS then there are in the club, and that we all vote, too.
Fish on...
Todd.

Todd or B. Gray, could you please post information regarding members of the Rules Committee and how to e-mail them.

Thanks.

Check out this page to get a list of all the members of the Rules committee. There are a bunch of them. You can click on each memeber's name to get their email. I would just post the addresses but my email program makes them all into aliases. Hope this helps.

http://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/scs/rule/default.htm

Thanks B. Gray it does help.

I may be fishing the Sauk on Wednesday as well. I'll be in an ancient aluminum drift boat. See ya!