This morning before heading out to do some tide water salmon fishing I am trying to put together a fishing trip with Senator Oke and our two gubernatorial candidates Harold Hochstatter and John Carlson. I am not inviting Locke because I feel he has just been a puppet on the fish issue. Senator Oke is invited because I owe him a trip.

With that said...I would like to have a series of questions for these two men in regards to where they stand for our fish. I watch with jealous envy as Oregons governor takes the lead on fish issues.

I do not intend this to become a who is the better candidate thread...just questions please. If we all can pull the trip off I will then post results.

Jim

Jim:

Good idea and a great opportunity here! Some background first:

For a long time now (decade or more?) it seems WDFW has been forced to operate with less and less money each year via the legislature. Granted, the department is far from perfect but what most of us overlook is the vast majority of it's personnel(field biologists, technicians, enforcement, etc...)
are dedicated proffessionals who want to give us the best but can't because of "lack of funding" or "budget constraints".

This seems to be a yearly theme and it's geting old. Not only can't the personnel do their jobs but our meaningfull opportunities seem to be getting a tighter noose too.

I could be wrong but I thought I read somewhere that WDFW is the state's largest agency......an agency that's being punished yearly for trying to do a next to impossible job.

In this era of a booming population, looming endangered species restrictions and everything else, it seems to me that for our fish and wildlife resources to have a future, the department must be adequately funded so they can do their jobs and conduct appropriate research so future decisions can be based and backed by good science. I'm not convinced this is happening now.

My questions are 1) Do they percieve a budget shortfall in the department? and if so 2) what are their views regarding long-term stable funding for the daprtment?

Lengthy post but necessary. Thanks!

Jim,
I still haven't heard where you stand on the issues.

[This message has been edited by Neanderthal (edited 08-10-2000).]

Eric W. Thanks for the well thought out question...that is noted.

Neanderthal...I am not approaching these men with any issues or agenda so I am not sure what you statement means.

Jim

By you being the founder of a self proclaimed sportfishing political group and soliciting questions to be asked of political candidates I think you will be perceived as a representative for sportsfishermen. In that light I think it would be good to know where you stand on at least the big issues related to fish politics. Maybe a good starting point would be pointing out where Salmo G is wrong.

Hey Neanderthal...thanks,
Where Salmo g was wrong has been posted by many and hashed now for to long. It was deemed inappropriate by Bob and I am trying to honor his feelings.

As for the WAA, I am not doing this for that...there is an election coming up...I want to personally know where these guys are in regards to fish. I haven't even thought of any questions at this point. If you have any let me know and if we do pull the trip off I will post all questions with the answers...quite simple really.

Jim

By you being the founder of a self proclaimed sportfishing political group and soliciting questions to be asked of political candidates I think you will be perceived as a representative for sportsfishermen. In that light I think it would be good to know where you stand on at least the big issues related to fish politics. Maybe a good starting point would be pointing out where Salmo G is wrong.

Sorry for the double post. Anyway, I think what Bob objectected to was you posting personal info, not debating the issues that Salmo brought up. Putting whether or not Salmo has an agenda aside, I would like to know what you think should be done.

jim
iwould really like for these folks to understand the economic benefits of sport fishing [as b.c. has realized ].

hey jim, well. what i have to say is, why do the shad come back in the millions every year and keep increasing and im not sure they are netted by the tribes and others, but as for the salmon being sought after by tribal with nets, the salmon seem to be losing there battle in life...sumthing to ponder and share with your bud.. see ya **schitzo**

I defineately want to know their position on how they feel commercial fishing vs sport fishing impacts the local economies. There is no doubt in my mind that sport fishing generates more $ per fish than does a commercial trickle down fishery.
Their position on commercial license buy back programs.
Their position on how they see the hatchery systems enhancing fishing opportunities.
Their position on marking all hatchery fish and the funding to make it happen.
Their position on different types (trawler, trolling, gill net, purseiners)of commercial fishing and how each has its own specific impacts on the species targeted.
Their position on how the lobby money of the commercial fishermen effects there positions.
Their position on funding to enhance our fisheries through enforcement and rehabilition.
I want to know their position on how they plan on increasing opportunities for sport and commercial fishermen.
Position on dams and the requirements they plan on having imposed to relicense them.
Thats a few of the biggies.

What they think about a buy back program of indian commercial fishing quotas. Just to get the creative juices flowing.


Tight Lines


------------------
Marty
Steelheader.net marty@steelheader.net

Sea and ****zo,
Thanks Great Questions...more like these and we will have a clear understanding of where these guys stand.

Jim

Schitzo, don't know why your name ended up like that!?!?


Great Questions Marty...lets elect a govenor that is on our side!

Jim

Jim,

I also would like to see where you and your groups agenda is posted but, that aside the above questions are great.

I would question the following:

What are their priorities in regard to increasing Wild Steelhead and Salmon returns.

Do they believe there are benefits from C&R seasons.

Would they be opposed to alternating closures on entire systems. Major rivers with weakening remaining wild returns.

What thought do they have for designation sections of rivers/ certain small rivers for bank fishing only. Sections of the Cow for example might include barrier to the ramp, BC hatchery intake to the clay banks, river examples might include the Kalama, and east Fork Lewis...

basically are they willing to think outside the box and special interest.


thick

Jim: I always like to know who their major campaign contributors are. That tells volumes! I admire your goal, and hope you can get them in the boat, but if you can get any straight answers from the guv hopefuls, I'll be really impressed!

Scaly, I think that it's not so much about getting any straight answers as it is about creating awareness of the issues with these candidates.

One Question that I would ask is what type of an indvidual will they be placing in the directors seat at WDFW will they be trying for yet another hatchery production above all other options type or will they be looking for someone who will finally elevate the wide spread and accelerating habitat destruction that is plauging our States wild salmonid production. They probably won't have a clue about what your asking them because the lobbyist have told them that all that was fixed when they passed the timber reform (AND TAX BREAK) act last session. If by chance they want to address this subject you might explain that it is needed to have more enforcement by staff in the field where violations take place before they cut and run not reacting after the fact.

Jim, i have read and seen on this board, i think a relevent question would be something along this line:
Where do you see the most financial income to the state is coming from; ie: commercial fishier's or sports fishier's. Include all none related fish industries that are needed to support both types of fishier's.

If either or both said comercial, then we are in for more of the same as we have had.
At this point some WAA, info would be helpful. Explain that the sport's fishing industry supports 100 times more non fish industries from the little local stores, restraunts, gas stations, town's, burg's and cities and what else is near to where sport's people fish in this state.
The comercials do not invole any where near as many people directly or indirectly into the economy of fishing as sport's people.

Note:

Jim tried to e-mail you last night. looking for something in early September on a weekend. Let me know and i will have everyone ready to go.

------------------
elmtree (woody)

Why are our fisheries "managed", to benefit 1% of the population, [ commercial/tribes], when 99% of the population, provides the necessary funding, through taxes, and license fees ?????

Jim,

I never expect a straight answer from a politician, but it's worth a try. And it often offers considerable entertainment value, even if it's a bit perverse.

Gov. Locke has adopted a policy of salmon extinction is not an option. Would they have the same policy, or would they actually go on record with the consideration that extinction is an option, at least for some fish populations?

The Governor's Salmon Task Force prepare a report called the Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon and Steelhead. The Independent Science Panel reviewed it and said the objectives are good, but that the plan mainly proposes more of the same actions that have already failed and got us into this mess of ESA listings in the first place. What would these candidates do differently? (BTW, the proposed more of same actions are largely voluntary and by local groups and governments, so it would be invaluable to know what, if anything, these candidates might do differently.)

Fish hatcheries are currently a hot topic. Some hatchery funds are derived from user fees (sport and commercial licenses and taxes), but most of the money comes from the general fund. What position do the candidates have on subsidizing commercial fishing? Recreational fishing?

If it costs $40 dollars to create a particular hatchery salmon, and a commercial fisherman can sell it for only 15 or $20, would they still favor subsidizing that commercial fishery? (This assumes they answered affirmative to the previous question.)

How would they address or solve a clash between fish and water diversion? Let's illustrate with a hypothetical example. A certain stream has an annual low flow of 100 cfs. Diverters use traditional inefficient irrigation methods and divert 90 cfs to meet an actual 20 to 30 cfs irrigation need for water on the ground for crops. Salmon need at least 60 cfs just to maintain an existence in the stream, and they would need all 100 cfs to be restored to a healthy abundance that would provide harvestable numbers of fish to the public. Obviously there is no simple solution to this example, but I think it does characterize some of the situations that exist on our eastern Washington rivers. What would they do?

Do have fun with the Senator and the candidates!

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

P.S. No hard feelings regarding the personal info issue from the other day.