No. The Wildife Fund is from licenses and permits. GF has been consistently curtailed.

Maybe the lawmakers just quit listening to you people after the seine fiasco???

Here is the most important take away from the above link.

"The programs probably did not make a significant inroad into current fishing capacity."

Unless you buy out all the licenses or proportionally decrease the allocations, you simply shift the harvest to the remaining license holders, thereby increasing the value of their licenses.

If the end result is that same number of fish are being taking by the commercials, from a rec perspective we're probably better off having 100 unprofitable license holders than 10 profitable license holders.

How excited would I be if the state decided to buy out all the rec licenses but mine and a couple of my buddies.

This is the truth, and why a buyback program does nothing but further entrench the welfare recipients in their program.

I feel for them that they have business debts and other things to pay for, but so do the rest of us and that doesn't make our jobs or chosen industries ironclad...

Fish on...

Todd

Did Todd just become a Repub? I think Todd just became a Repub. I know Climate Change is the hot topic these days, but has anyone recently checked the temp in Hell?

I kid....I kid...

Hell could have froze over. After that I have no idea either!!!

Those previous buyouts were just a straight reduction in the fleet, not an elimination of a specific fishery fleet so you're assessment of the same fish being spread out over fewers nets is correct.

I would propose the elimination of the GH commercial gillnet fishery altogether through a phased buyout. After a period of years there would be no non-treaty commercials in GH. Their nets would have no effect.

Been looking at some historic salmon catch material on WDFW's sport catch reports. The latest report on WDFW's site is for 2011. During 2011 there were 334,593 salmon (all species) caught in the marine waters of Washington. Of those 229,160 (approximately 2/3) were caught in Puget Sound.

For fun I compared those numbers from the earliest year I could find. In 1971 the marine sport catch was 1,199,000 salmon with 282,000 (less than a quarter of the state total) being caught in Puget Sound.

Note neither the above or my earlier posts on the Puget Sound angler use is meant to say the Puget Sound angling is great; in fact the catch/rod is lower than many area in the state. That said the current management is generating a lot of economic activity in the backyard of much of the State's population that may be similar to what was seen 40 years ago (pre-Boldt) at least in terms of fish caught.

To put the Puget Sound recreational salmon fishery with other popular fisheries I compared the number of salmon caught in 2010 and 2011. In 2010 the numbers were-
The ocean salmon catch (MA 1 to 4) was 68,404,
For Puget Sound (MA 5 through 13) it was 50,697,
For Buoy 10 Washington licensed anglers caught 5,121 salmon,
For the Willapa Bay anglers caught 1,893.

In 2011 the numbers were -
For the ocean the catch was 74,599.
For Puget Sound it was 229,654 (thanks to the pinks)
For Buoy 10 Washington licensed anglers catch was 5,996
For Willapa Bay the catch was 6,314.

Curt

Westport was, at the time, living up to the Salmon Capital hype. If I recall correctly it was a three fish limit; any species.

Have to wonder how much the pinks and, especially, bonus pinks have affected the totals. I have my suspicions.....

I’m not even gone a week…

Dogfish, I think that you should re-read what I wrote again.


The issue is the action or inaction of the lawmaker not reporting abuse and not about his son’s actions as your misleading account states.
The news article that accompanied that headline had several components to it. “A police report clearly states that both Hatfield and his wife were already aware of the abuse, and in fact, Hatfield reported the abuse to the attorney by her own admission.”

The second component was “Hatfield’s attorney, Christine Beck of Tacoma, put out a statement refuting the claim that he and his wife were criminally negligent.”

If the Senator puts his hat into the ring for re-election in 2016, the voting public in his district will determine which component they believe at election time or if they think an ethical issue was breached by not reporting sexual abuse by the lawmaker. Only time will tell.

As you can see, I did this without stomping my feet, threatening a senator, dragging his family and sons through the mud and like you said, it is common knowledge.

Dogfish, I didn’t know you had such an imagination along with flair of being such a drama queen. You’re a dangerous person when misusing those two weapons.