Nice trade off considering the bill tracker says that there is no bill 3759.

Quite a cast of characters you have there also.

I have sent plenty of e-mails over the years with no response from Chair Blake. Not once.

Considering that there are 13 bi-partisan sponsors of HB 1660 shows a great balanced interest in this bill and contradicts Blake's lonely stance.

Chair Blake of the House Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee is siding with his crony’s money and with their minority view by not introducing this bill.

The people of District 19 should smarten up, remember this at election time, and vote this clown out of office.

Anyone read the letter from Rep. Liz Pike, Bryan Irwin, and Dave Patterson in Aberdeen's Daily World paper on the bill and Rec v Commercial in general ? Really hit the nail on the head.

My apologies Louie, 5739. Transposition is a bitch. These are the reps/senators in my area, so I talk to them. I can get you his cell number if you want.

Also, when you write them it is helpful to not start the letter off, "Hey asshole...."

Blake was also very helpful in getting Jennings off of the commission, along with a long list of other characters.

Interesting points all over this thread but as to Rep Blake he has been a descent Rep for his district. That said on the issue of salmon allocation he has been duplistic to say the least. He seldom is forthright on the issues of allocation instead has preferred to manipulate things behind the scenes. Worked fine with the former Director as this his chosen method of operation. So it will be interesting to watch this bill ( I think it lacks a companion Senate bill ) go forward. At some point Rep Blake will have to come out of the closet and again that will be interesting to say the least.

Is there a link to the article? I used three of my five attempts. Bing, yahoo, and google don't show this?

I'll take that number.

If you are implying that I start my e-mails to Blake with "hey asshole" or any other derogatory remark and that is the reason he hasn't responded back--- you would be wrong.

Dogfish, I did not mind former Commissioner Jennings views. I would rather err on the side of conservation than maximum exploitation.

I believe harvest reform is in order!

Trying to get a electronic copy but I did not find it on the papers website. Soon as I or someone gets a electronic copy it will be up I am sure.

Or maybe someone could scan the paper if that's all we've got for now?

Fish on...

Todd

I was joking about the "hey asshole". Have a sense of humor.

Let me get permission to share that and I will with you via PM.

I know you do a lot of work for fisheries related efforts and I do appreciate that.

I would agree that some sort of harvest reform is needed as well, but Jennings wasn't a conservationist, he was a preservationist. Two different animals entirely so don't kid yourself. He preferred non-use of the resources, really pushing his "non-consumptive" user stance. Non-consumptive user was his go to phrase, along with biodiversity.

Using data gathered from the dive group he participated in as the basis to influence ideas he was in support of was a big conflict of interest. The data he presented could not be considered to be from an arms length independent source.

Looks like we've started a big old dog pile. Great.

Just so you know, I also finance a number of commercial fishermen. Crabbers, both tribal and non-tribal, charter boats (in reality a portion of the commercial fleet), a number of longliners, a few geoduck divers, a handful of shellfish growers, and 5 or 6 gillnetters who fish in Alaska. Yes, I am the Devil himself. Go commerce!

Unemployment in the Harbor is something many of you folks outside of this county have no clue about. When we dip under 10%, we are doing backflips. In reality after taking into account viable workers who have stopped looking for work the true unemployment figures are much higher. Our elected officials work at protecting established commerce and jobs.

There are plenty of people employed by the sports fishing industry at this moment along the coast. There is also plenty of excess capacity to serve additional customers as it stands. Is there any anecdotal information that says the approval of this bill would automatically increase jobs? Show me that. There isn't a shortage of opportunity for sports fishermen to fish out here on the coast either. Try fishing one of the many open Puget Sound rivers in February and March. Aren't those managed on the basis of sports anglers first? How is that working out?

I look at both sides because I know families affected on both sides of the issue.


What is Puget Sound Angler's stance on this? Are they for this, against this, or neutral?

I have. Those didn't turn out so well. Cantwell and Murray never return my calls or emails.

Here is the letter to the Editor in the Daily World I mentioned previously.

Creating a world-class sport fishing industry in Washington
By Rep. Liz Pike, Bryan Irwin and Dave Patterson

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) is funded by the state Legislature every two years to manage, among other things, our state’s fisheries. In the last budget cycle, DFW received nearly $376 million in federal, state and local funding. Nearly $71 million came from the sale of recreational fishing licenses and excise taxes on fishing tackle, or about 19 percent of DFW’s total budget. The smallest contribution – $1.5 million – or less than one-half of one percent of DFW’s budget came from commercial fishing interests.

In 1974, Federal Judge George Boldt upheld treaty fishing rights, in what is known as the “Boldt Decision,” allocating 50 percent of the annual catch to Native American treaty tribes. The remaining 50 percent of the harvest is split between recreational fishing enthusiasts and commercial fishermen using gill and seine nets.

State policies have given the advantage to non-tribal commercial gillnet fisheries on the lower Columbia River, allowing them to harvest two-and-a-half times more salmon than recreational fishers. The disparity is even worse in Willapa Bay as recreational fisheries are constrained, but non-tribal commercial gillnet fisheries are free to harvest 93 percent of available salmon, even though recreational fishers contribute vastly more income to our state’s economy and to DFW’s budget than commercial interests.

More troubling is the preferential treatment given to commercial fishing over recreational fishing in the form of priority seasons set by DFW. For decades, recreational anglers have been treated as a nuisance at DFW, while preferred timing and seasons have been reserved for commercial interests. This has limited recreational fishing opportunities, as well as additional license revenue and economic value that could be flowing to the state from sport fisheries.

The economic impact of the recreational sport fishing industry far outpaces commercial fishing. In Willapa Bay, recreational fishing generates three-and-a-half times more economic value than the commercial fishery, despite catching only 7 percent of the fish. A federal study pegged the annual economic value of Columbia River recreational fisheries at $36 million, but credited only $2.1 million to non-tribal commercial fisheries. Locally, in the 18th Legislative District, 13,500 recreational fishing licenses are sold each year along with 10,000 Columbia River salmon endorsements. Just two other legislative districts in the state sell more Columbia River salmon endorsements than our district.

Recreational anglers don't just buy fishing licenses. They buy fishing tackle, bait, and large items, such as fishing boats, trailers and trucks to pull their vessels to and from their favorite fishing spots. They buy gas, snacks and beverages to consume while they are waiting for the fish to bite. They buy smokers, grills and freezers. Despite DFW's restrictions, recreational fishing contributes hundreds of millions of dollars to our state's economy each year with much of it flowing to Washington’s rural communities.

Overall, recreational fishing is a $1 billion industry in Washington. We believe this could blossom into a much larger industry with economic benefits for Washington and the state’s general fund through a change of policies and priorities. That’s why we have introduced House Bill 1660. The bill would transform Washington into a world-class fishing destination by providing parity to recreational fishing enthusiasts and ensuring fishing opportunities are consistent with user groups’ economic contributions.


Let's face it, sport fishing tourists will spend their money in the most desirable and competitive locations, whether here in Washington or other states or countries. Why should we let DFW constraints send sport fishing tourists elsewhere when we can attract those dollars here? Let's work together and pass HB 1660 to transform Washington's recreational fishing into a multi-billion dollar industry, improve our fragile rural economies still struggling from the Great Recession, and ensure DFW begins serving its primary customer and source of revenue. Contact your Washington state legislators at 1-800-562-6000 and urge them to support HB 1660.

Editor’s note: Rep. Liz Pike, R-Camas, serves the 18th Legislative District. Bryan Irwin is the Coastal Conservation Association’s former executive director. Dave Patterson is a recreational fishing enthusiast from Camas.



Representative Liz Pike
Washington State, 18th Legislative District
(360) 786-7812 | LEG 122B
P.O. Box 40600 | Olympia, WA 98504-0600

Thanks for your reply. I believe the biodiversity of the catch is in question along our coast, Canadian, and Alaskan waters.

IMHO commercial element for the state has been satisfied, offshore fisheries.

No need for the most harmful, least sustainable method of harvest. gill nets, in the home waters

Properly conducted gillnetting is a significantly better way to harvest fish with conservation in mind than the offshore mixed stock and net fisheries. Gillnets can certainly be abused, but they target , or should, specific identifiable stocks and can be managed on a daily basis to take only the identified surplus.

The offshore fisheries are, at best, shots in the dark aimed at reasonably unknown numbers and mixtures.

Yeah, I testified before in favor of more terminal fisheries. That did not go over well.

Absolutely welcome. I know that you also participate in the process of WDFW rulemaking by attending meetings, so I appreciate you doing your part on a regular basis. Those who don't ever participate in the process ring sort of hollow when they complain.

It is good to have a discussion where all sides of the issue are looked at, not just from "our side" as sportsfishermen. I just wish we could do something about the harvesting wall in AK and Canada that salmon have to go just to get to Washington. That would have the biggest impact on salmon returns, but then that is another issue that is out of our ability to control.

It is not right that the whole state should be taken hostage by Chair Blake’s inaction to move the bill forward. Put the bill out there and let it play out as it will.

I noticed his legislation that he is the only sponsor of HB1118--is moving right along.

HB 1660 has thirteen sponsors and is being ignored. Not right.

Something to remember if folks choose to go after Blake, or any politician, on a single issue that you may be severely burned. It is often reported that voters will vote for candidates who share their social views and end up with representation that screws them economically.

Blake may very well be anti-recreational but what is his whole record for the area he represents? The alternative may be you more sport fishing at who knows what cost.