The Outdoor Line Forum

Here's the latest blog from the WACPAC!
http://washingtonanglerspac.com/2011/12 ... orary-win/

Rob,

To play the devil's advocate here ... I have to ask the question: How are less fish in the water a win for the recreational angler? If these hatcheries are shut down ... even with the inequity in harvest between the user-groups, it can only result in decreased opportunity. If these hatcheries are shut down (and even at such a time when new revenue sources are discovered) , will they ever be re-commissioned? Remember too that if the fisheries surrounding these hatcheries decline, it will have a negative impact on the outdoor industry and local communities.

Another thing to consider is that these fish numbers do figure into international agreements. The Canadians catch our fish on WSVI and the Straits - we get theirs on the inside waters. Will that formula change with less hatchery production?

It just seems to me that in an effort to block funding in order to avoid subsidizing a percentage of couple of commercial fisheries, that we are cutting off our noses to spite our face ... without considering the negative economic consequences and the possibility of less time on the water.

Jay

For a little history on this, the governor asked WDFW to come up with budget cuts of at least another 10%. Understanding that they had to do this, WDFW came up with some proposals that they felt would impact the largest user group and the economy the least. The closing of these mostly commercial use hatcheries were proposed and in turn saves recreational angling opportunity to a greater degree than would other closures. Remember, cuts are being made, the question is where?

Keep in mind also that one of the cuts we are talking about is the closing of the Grays Harbor gillnet fishery. This fishery actually costs the state money every year. That's right, the cost for this fishery is $382,679, and net revenue is $180,000....this is a failing program and we as a state can no longer afford to support failing programs. What other private business can operate this way?

Where I say that rec anglers got a temporary win is that during the special legislative session the governor's proposal to take money from license fee revenue generated from rec anglers and hunters to prop up predominantly commercial fisheries did not pass. It may still yet during the regular session but it hasn't yet. Our license fees are a user tax that we voluntarily pay and we even support increases from time to time because we understand the pay for play concept and we want our fisheries. I believe that revenue from recreational angling should be used to support recreational fisheries, not prop up failing commercial ones.

In this state, it's time to end commercial fishing subsidies of any kind.

The Washington recreational angler has been footing the bill for far too long and have waited patiently at the end of the line to recieve what we've payed for and until very recently we've been denied as much as a voice.

Now we're finally speaking a language that's being heard. The State of Washington can no longer afford to ignore the huge, positive economic impact of sportsfishing.

Nelly for govenor!!!!!!!

trophymac wrote:Nelly for govenor!!!!!!!

Now you are scaring me

So, to simplify it, I'll pose this question: Wouldn't a win be an allocation adjustment as opposed to hatchery closure? Again, how is closing hatcheries a win?

Dash One wrote:So, to simplify it, I'll pose this question: Wouldn't a win be an allocation adjustment as opposed to hatchery closure? Again, how is closing hatcheries a win?

That's a good question and the short answer is: Closing hatcheries is not a win.

My understanding of the issue is that State budget cuts forced a decision that amounted to the choice of the lesser of two evils.

Faced with closing a hatchery that drives sport fisheries versus one that provides commercial harvest, the State wisely closed a facility that amounted to a quarter-million dollar commercial subsidy.

Hopefully better economic times are ahead and no more of these closures will be necessary.

Thanks Tom for your response. I am aware of the economics and politics, and don't mean to over-simplify matters ... my questions and comments were meant for effect; to start some dialog; and have others think about the consequences of closing those facilities. I'll probably be flamed for saying this ... but it sounds like we're using the word "Commercial" to conjure up images of the Boogy-Man, and paint the issue with another "us-against-them" argument as a means to and end, without really considering the negative economic consequences along with the loss of opportunity.

If the State does not spend the 1.5M from the Wildlife Fund (today) to keep those hatcheries open, then what will the money be used for? This, I understand, was a one-time stop-gap measure which will mean that no hatcheries will close. Why don't we keep those hatcheries open 'till the rec's get more allocation ... and fish managers can then adjust release numbers to reflect recreational effort ... which might be a budget saving action? I just can't get over the fact that less fish in the water is a win, and in the end, a good result for anyone. I think those (Rob, George, Ron, et al) that do so much good work; who went to Olympia to represent my and other rec's best interests; have picked the wrong battle ... and I cannot agree with their decision to block the funds.

In the case of the Samish Hatchery ... the commercial effort is concentrated in and near Samish Bay, which for now, makes it a very clean terminal fishery. Even though it is reported that commercials get 80% of the fish (I don't think that includes in-river sport harvest), the remaining 20% does provide opportunity up here in my part of the country. For now, I'd rather fish on 100% of 20% than 100% of nothing. I'm also concerned that less fish will negatively affect the International Salmon Treaty Agreement allocation between us and Canada. And, as I stated before: Will we ever get those hatcheries re-opened, once they are taken out of production?

I do not think this short-term strategy is the best course of action for recreational interests for some reasons described.

Jay

I hate to see any hatcheries closed and I believe that the Samish Hatchery contributes in a big way to the Marine Area 7 sport fishery.

I also firmly believe that the time for commercial salmon fishing in Washington has come and gone.

The bigger message carried to Olympia by the sportfishing industry should be to emphasize the fact that recreational fisheries enhancement creats jobs while commercial fishery subsidies do nothing but drain the State coffers.

Did the Recreational Fisheries lobby "pick the wrong fight"? I honestly don't know and all of your points are well taken.

I certainly agree that a portion of those Samish-reared salmon entering the sport catch is better than nothing!