No. The commercials are a tiny subset

If nothing else, HB1660 and the Senate companion bill has got us talking as a group. Yes, there are a lot of differing opinions, and just as many problems with the fisheries. But what this Bill primarily address' is the amount of money we the Sport Fishing Community contribute directly to the WDFW as opposed to what our Commercial Fleet does. And how WDFW's management polices favor the Commercial Fleet. Since there are FAR MORE Sport Fishermen and we are contributing FAR MORE Money we SHOULD be considered the Primary Stakeholder in the management decisions. Even removing the wording about making Washington State a world class fishing destination, the root of equality to the Sport Fishermen still rings true.

IF this Bill would pass, it would mandate that Washington State manage the fisheries with priority given to the Sportsmen, and that would go a long way in opening the door to address many other issues that have been outlined and brought up in this thread. But, the first step is to get the legislation passed that gives the Sport Fishermen a real voice by mandating the direction of the WDFW be focused on Recreational rather than Non-Tribal Commercial Fishing.

Unfortunately using that argument could be translated into other spending.

Since King, Snohomish and Pierce County hold the bulk of the State's population and produce the bulk of the gas tax revenues and other sources of funding for DOT, they should get most of the monies for road building and maintenance. The rest of us are left to drive on gravel roads.

It doesn't work that way, thankfully.

Not to put too fine a point on it...but rural counties are all against "welfare" except when they get it, which is where most of it goes.

Grays Harbor...I don't have the numbers in front of me but I bet Francis or Rvrguy can fill them in, but I believe that it costs the State more money to set up, monitor, assess, and enforce the commercial fishery there than the entire commercial fishery makes combined.

If anyone, anywhere, can give me even a remotely cogent argument for how that makes any sense I would appreciate hearing it...and if any non-tribal commercial guy ever tells you that they are "providing fish for the non-fishing public who can't get it otherwise" tell them to stick it...the tribal fisheries catch plenty to provide to the non-fishing public.

Fish on...

Todd

It cost more to manage the GH commercial season than the total value of the non treaty commercial harvest but I cannot remember the exact amount. In Willapa it is about 625k for Commercial and 175 for rec to manage the fisheries. I imagine the GH Rec is similar to Willapa in cost to the agency.

PS: We will GLLLLAAAADDDDDLLLLLLLYYYYY give back the 60% of our welfare cases to the Sound counties! That is where they come from looking for cheaper housing. Kinda the way it works.

Government is seldom, if ever, managed based on a profit motive. I know it should be at times.

The Gubmint doesn't have to turn a profit if it is providing a service to the public...this isn't even doing that, though, it's just flat out spending our tax dollars to inefficiently put a handful of dollars in the pockets of the few at the expense of the many.

Fish on...

Todd

I don't disagree at all.

Last figures I saw from WDFW is that is costs about $250,000 to manage the GH commercial salmon fishery which lands an annual average of $178,000 in ex-vessel value. This means it would cost taxpayers less to pay the NT gillnetters to just stay home and not gillnet.

The Grays Harbor non tribal ex-vessel value in 2014 must have been well below average. My estimate is $82,500.

It is based on fish value data in the Willapa model and Grays Harbor harvest numbers on the department web site. It includes 15 Chinook at $38.27/fish, 5,474 coho at $12.24/fish, and 2,614 Chum at $5.73/fish.

After driving down that gravel road to go fishing, I stop in at Mom & Pops' gas station and fill up, buy some snacks, pick up some fishing tackle and bait. I bet Mom & Pop really don't care if WDFW is catering to me. They see the benefit just the same.

And, oh.. King, Pierce Snohomish counties DO get the bulk of the DOT funding because the have more infrastructure.

Is tiny a smaller part of small, or is small a tinier part of tiny?

Tiny is smaller than small

So, why in the world is PSA not behind this bill?

Folks, if the sportfishing community can't unanimously get behind a bill like this, there is officially no hope for us. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how likely it is to pass, or even get through Blake's committee; it's about finally having the ability to stand up with a real voice for what's right.

And PSA is gonna pass? Really??

If you don't mind, may I ask what exactly some chapters object to?

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5844&year=2015

The link is to the Senate companion bill and I have been told a hearing is to be held next week. Anyone know more?

Just this:

SB 5844
Feb 18- Scheduled for public hearing in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources & Parks at 1:30 PM. (Subject to change)

I'll plan on going. Hope the PSA members that are advocates for fish, sportsmen, and resource equity show up to testify. Every sports fishing group and every sports fishing business should be there to show their support for this bill, and to thank the Senate Committee for holding this hearing.

If you do plan to speak, write down your comments. Time yourself a few times, and edit, edit, edit. You will have 3 minutes to speak, unless they ask you questions.

Please sign in and support. Even if you do not wish to testify.

800.562.6000 is a way to send support as well; if you cannot make it to Olympia.

You hit it right on the head!!!

I have been reading post after post about the sportfishermen playing second fiddle in this state and now someone has at last said "Here ya go, let's see if these guys can get behind this!"
I want to know what Chapters of the PSA stand, and which shrink! It would be VERY INTERESTING to hear why they are non-supporters!

There is NO MENTION of HB1660 on the PSA web site! WHAT????

What say you PSA Chapter Presidents? PRO or CON? Make it public.




I WILL BE AT THE HEARING!!!

The Daily World has another Opinion piece today but it is not on the web site yet. The headline "Sport fishing priority leaves most of us out" by Ed Owens.

The point seems to be that all commercial fishing in Grays Harbor is a big business more valuable than sport fishing. Also several hundred thousand sport fishing enthusiasts should not control access to fisheries resources owned by all citizens.