Ed Owens has been lobbying for the commercials since forever. Whenever a positive change threatens Washington commercial fisheries, you can count on Owens to try to make it go away. Another droning voice for the establishment and status quo that ought to be ignored. Unfortunately, he has the ear of a number of politicians, so the only way to counter his influence is with a flood of emails, letters and phone contacts that state the facts.

Good to see the CCA is solidly behind SB 5844/HB 1660. A bipartisan group of ten Senators and thirteen Representatives has attached their names to these bills as well. They deserve the support of all sportsmen and sportswomen this week.

The somewhat hidden fallacy in the argument is several fold.

1) Only about 1% of that commercial value is salmon. On an apples to apples comparison, sport salmon is 3-4 times more valuable than commercial. This situation is true in places like willapa bay despite an allocation of 90% commercial/10% rec. This is all about salmon. Its not like the ocean crabbers, shrimpers, or bottom draggers fear the recs. If you look at where the commercial money comes from its mostly the ocean and PS shellfish.

2) The financial argument laid out includes tribal harvest, but tribal harvest will not be impacted by this bill. In fact as mentioned above, the state already has a dedicated commercial fleet that will always get at least 1/2 the available take. The seafood availability to the public is just grandstanding.

3) The arguement is that rather than ~100,000 users utilizing the resrouce a few dozen is more equitable? With the justification being the commercially caught fish reach more people. I don't know about you guys, but I supply at least a dozen people a year with free seafood. If the other 100,000 salmon anglers are similar, I would argue we reach about 20% of the sate with our salmon, maybe the commercial harvesters reach more people, but I don't think they're state residents.

100,000 people fishing Willapa Bay?

In a presentation WDFW staff made on Willapa they stated that commercial Salmon fishing is about .075 of the total value of aquatic managed resources. ( crab / shell fish ect ) In fact Willapa & Ilwaco are two of the top four for commercial landings but salmon is almost insignificant.

Additionally the recent rec seasons are around 4.25 million in economic value on 10% or less of the harvestable fish while the commercial salmon harvest is about 1.4 million on 90% plus of the harvestable. Economically the current WDF&W management in the Willapa Estuary is killing Pacific County economically. You only have to look South to a similar shallow water bay and that is Tillamook Bay. Recreational fishing is a major component of the tourism draw to that part of the Oregon coast.

If any of the naysayers hanging out in this thread do not believe the numbers e mail me and I will send you WDF&W's bloody presentation to the Pacific County Commissioners.

Dogfish,

No no, 100,000 is my estimate of the total number of salmon fishermen in the state.

I suspect there are a lot more than a 100,000 licensed salmon anglers in the State.

In 2011 sport catch report WDFW reports that there were 65,805 saltwater resident licenses sold. In addition there were another than 158,120 combo licenses sold, a total of 223,925 resident folks that could fish the salt. I would guess that there were 200,000 salmon anglers and maybe more if you include the 1, 2, and 3 day licenses and non-residents.

Curt

What would be good info to get, if the state can do it, is a good number on how many actually folks fish for salmon, steelhead, halibut, and sturgeon. Lots of folks get the validation CRC for all species but some never fish for them.

When the state runs the numbers on estimated harvest, they'll use the whole universe "...because they could fish for the target species..." That can skew the information.

bushbear -
From TCW economics 2008 final report "Economic Analysis of the non-treaty Commercial and Recreational Fisheries in Washington State" I found the following 2006 estimates.

For steelhead some 113,000 anglers fished 1.1 million days

For salmon 294,000 anglers (both fresh and salt and I expect that included some cross over) fished 2.5 million days.

All other marine fish 44,000 anglers fished 187,000 days

To put those values in context there were 337,000 trout anglers fishing 3.6 million days

Total value of the recreational fishery was $462 million (with 9 million angler days). I would expect the number of anglers fishing salmon have increased since 2006; if for no other reason than larger pink runs, more mark selective opportunities in Puget Sound and increased Columbia river runs. As the value of the angler day has increased substantially; the latest WDFW report that I saw (Columbia endorsement report) used a value of $82/day. That would put the value of 9 million angler days at approximately $738 million.

Curt

The same report said that the 2006 total value of the non-treaty commercial fishery was 65 million dollars of which 9.5 million came from the salmon fisheries.

Also of interest 1/2 of the commercial salmon value came from chum and more than 15% came from sockeye (note 2006 was a non-pink year).

Curt

Thanks, Curt.

Here is the recent letter to the editor by Ed Owens from the Aberdeen Daily World. Draw your own conclusions but the rural inland ( I will highlight ) bit that commercial harvest benefits them is so far past hysterically funny that it almost gives the word hysterical a new meaning!

By Ed Owens

The OpEd “Creating a world-class sport fishing industry in Washington” recently published in The Daily World makes disturbing – and less than accurate – statements. The authors of this OpEd assert that “recreational fishers contribute vastly more income to our state’s economy …” than commercial interests and further state that “Overall, recreational fishing is a $1 billion industry in Washington.” Dr. Hans Radtke, a natural resource economist from Oregon, published a comprehensive study on Washington commercial fisheries in January 2011 documenting $3.9 billion in economic activity by all commercial fisheries in Washington State.

NOAA’s Fisheries of the United States 2013 report, the most recent available, shows that in 2013 commercial landings in Washington made the state the third largest harvester by volume in the nation and fifth largest by dollar value. B&O, excise and retail/wholesale taxes (for fuel, ice, supplies and equipment, etc.) generated by $3.9 billion dollars in economic activity are substantial and are returned to the state general fund. All tax revenues sent to the general fund contribute to the ability of the state to provide a positive and healthy capital budget for schools, roads and other societal priorities. The fleets have long argued that some portion of this substantial revenue stream should be diverted to the state Department of Fish &Wildlife, but the Legislature steadfastly has refused because of the need to prove to bond markets the ability to repay debt – a general fund obligation.

In short, the argument that less than half of 1 percent in contributions to the Fish &Wildlife Department’s Wildlife Account by commercial fishing justifies a dramatic shift in public policy is grossly misleading. The authors argue that sport fishing contributes the largest dollar amount to the Wildlife Account therefore sport fishers deserve special priority. Of the total Wildlife Account revenues earned in FY14 ($51.8 million), 35 percent were derived from hunting licenses and endorsements, 42 percent were derived from recreational fishing licenses and endorsements, and 23 percent were derived from Discover Pass, Non-Game licenses, Firearm Permits, Watchable Wildlife decals, and transaction fees. Caution in the use of the sport fishing numbers is appropriate as about $8 million of these revenues are for freshwater fisheries, $1.2 million for shellfish licenses and about $2 million from temporary or limited opportunity licenses (such as charter boat one and three day salmon tags).

To properly assess “rural” impacts I direct your attention to a recent study by the Port of Grays Harbor demonstrating that commercial fishing is considerably more valuable to rural Grays Harbor than sport fishing. There are other items I could discuss to illustrate the stated and implied inaccuracies in this OpEd but the examples presented illustrate my point.

In closing, please allow me to observe that the proponents of “sports priority” have taken similar arguments to the voters on multiple occasions – and the voters have been abundantly clear that they do not support several hundred thousand sport fishing enthusiasts controlling access to fisheries resources owned by all the citizens. Why? One observation is that six plus million residents of the state enjoy the bounty of the oceans and they don’t fish for these resources themselves.

Ed Owens is a former Research Director and State Director of the WSU Small Business Development Center is and now a retired natural resources consultant and lobbyist with more than 45 years experience advocating for numerous hunting, sport and commercial fishing and wildlife conservation organizations in Washington State and the Pacific Northwest.Coming to a Point — In... - See more at: http://thedailyworld.com/opinion/columni...h.JcavWJ89.dpuf

Talk about trying to muddy the waters. Here is a link to the Radtake economic study the Owens referred to in his OP-Ed piece.

http://www.phillipspublishing.com/smbc/a...sheries%204.pdf

In that article Radtake refers to 3 major omissions in the TCW paper (remember the TCW was pretty narrowly defined comparing in State NT commercial and recreational fisheries).

The first omission was the failure to include the Tribal fishery piece.

The second omission was the failure to include "distant waters fisheries"; for example money spend to outfit various Alaskan fisheries - deep water trawls etc.

And the third omission was not including aquaculture; including clams and oysters.

Clearly this is an attempt to greatly inflate the commercial piece for an apple to orange discussion designed to confuse and miss-lead folks.

However let's accept the Owen/Radtake commercial value of 3.9 billion dollars. For sure the commercial fishing industry is an important component of the State's economic. That said the commercial salmon fishery is just a tiny piece of the overall commercial fishing industry in this state. The economic value referred to in the TCW of the NT commercial salmon industry or 9.5 million dollars represents only 1/4 of 1 per cent of commercial fishing industry. In other words completely eliminating that segment of the commercial fishing industry would hardly be seen/felt. On the other hand transferring those salmon taken in the NT commercial fishery would greatly increase the 200 million dollar value of the recreational fishery.

Not sure that many are arguing that the NT commercial salmon fishery be eliminated. Only that increased priority be given to utilizing important recreational salmon species (such as Chinook and coho) in recreational fisheries. Something akin to what we currently see in Puget Sound salmon fisheries or steelhead statewide. Further as the information provided by Owens provided via his OP-ED piece doing so would have a barely measurable affect on the over all commercial fishing industry in this State.

Curt

Ed Owens retired a couple legislative sessions ago after years of lobbying for the Purse Seine Vessel Owners Association and the Coalition of Coastal Fisheries (commercial). Looks like he's back to work penning propaganda pieces, or "Ed"itorials. I found his recent letter to The Aberdeen World to be only slightly less bewildering than the DNA evidence presented to the O. J. Simpson jurors. He's managed to "murk up the waters" down there in Grays Harbor County; someone local needs to challenge his statements and his statistics... how 'bout you, Rivrguy?

Did anyone watch Outdoor GPS yesterday? (Comcast ch. 617)

Owin Hayes, the host, had bill sponsor Liz Pike on the last 20 min of the show and pretty much gave her the microphone to explain the history of the bill and what led up to it.

She said it would be interesting to see what happens if 1660's companion bill does get a hearing and moves on. Still would have to get by Blake's committee eventually.

Ed Owen retirement was preceded by an ethics scandal between him and one of the many organizations that he represented if I remember right. I seem to remember a thread on here about 2009-2010 if anyone is interested in looking up.

To reinforce Smalma's observations the TCW study was intended to evaluation the value recreational fisheries in WA State as well as the WA State NT commercial fisheries. The study's report also emphasized that it was NOT intended to be used to compare the two fisheries.

To add the values of commercial fisheries prosecuted outside the State but affecting the State's economy in any discussion regarding this bill is simply off target and irresponsible.

We were joined by former WDFW Director and current President of Fish Northwest Curt Smitch to discuss the issue.

Here's the PODCAST

Thanks for the excellent informative podcast!

Here is the link that was eluded to in the podcast.

http://www.growsportfishing.com/

Great interview! It's very informative; hope it inspires others to get involved. The Wednesday hearing will be historic. Unbelievable that PSA chose to sit this one out. You were right when you stated that you're either "for" or "against" these bills. In the end, these legislators will only be tallying the support for SB 5844/HB 1660 and the political cost of inaction. Thanks for the link.

Eric, there's an Outdoor GPS show scheduled for 6:00 am tomorrow. I'm hoping its a repeat of the one you heard. Should be interesting if it is.

I sent an email to each Chapter of PSA. I received a few replies, most not supportive. Here is an email exchange I had with Mr. Don White, NKPSA President, and that Ron Garner added to:

-----Original Message------------------------------------------------------
From: "Combat Doc" < baywolf9@hotmail.com>
Date: Feb 13, 2015 7:34 PM
Subject: HB1660
To: Don White <dnwhite13@gmail.com>Ron Garner, President PSA

Sir,
Can you please inform me where your Chapter stands on support of HB1660 and it’s Senate counterpart?

Many sportsmen are wondering why the PSA has not made a public statement in support of this bill?

We can only assume, each individual chapter will make their own choice. So, where does your Chapter stand?

Thank you for your timely response,

Perry Menchaca
PSA Member
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don White <dnwhite13@gmail.com>
To: rgarner755 <rgarner755@aol.com>
Sent: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 10:37 am
Subject: Fwd: HB1660

Ron,
I am assuming you received this email also? I find it odd that he sent it to my personal email, and not NKPSA's.
I am not inclined to answer individual Member's questions from other chapters (he doesn't identify his affiliation).
Is there anything threatening in the fine print of HB1660 that I am missing?
Thanks,
Don
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rgarner755@aol.com
Sent: &#8206;Saturday&#8206;, &#8206;February&#8206; &#8206;14&#8206;, &#8206;2015 &#8206;11&#8206;:&#8206;19&#8206; &#8206;AM
To: dnwhite13@gmail.com, Combat Doc, fishnbrad@gmail.com


Perry
Please identify yourself as to what chapter you are a member of so that we can verify it. We are gbe coming out with a statement shortly.

I have received your email several times this morning. My concern is that you might want to speak out for PSA when asking these questions to all of the chapters.
You do not have authority to speak for us on the internet discussions.
Thanks
Ron Garner
PSA State President
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Combat Doc <baywolf9@hotmail.com>
To: rgarner755 <rgarner755@aol.com>; dnwhite13 <dnwhite13@gmail.com>; fishnbrad <fishnbrad@gmail.com>
Sent: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Subject: Re: HB1660

Ron,

I am a member of the South King County Chapter.

I can assure you that I am not, and have no intention of speaking on behalf of, or for PSA.

I simply wanted to know where the chapters stand on the support of this bill since there has been no official statement.

I apologize for the multiple emails, and for any emails sent to personal email accounts. I used the official “contact us” links found on the web sites.

I also want to insure you that I have no political connections to this bill other than being a long time sport fishermen and registered voter.

Thank you for your concern.

Looking forward to reading your statement.

Perry Menchaca

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rgarner755@aol.com
Sent: &#8206;Saturday&#8206;, &#8206;February&#8206; &#8206;14&#8206;, &#8206;2015 &#8206;11&#8206;:&#8206;19&#8206; &#8206;AM
To: dnwhite13@gmail.com, Combat Doc, fishnbrad@gmail.com

Thank you Perry
I will be sending it out today.
Ron

Has anyone seen or heard the Statement that Mr. Garner says he was sending out on the 14th?