Game Fishing Forum banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
212 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Contact your legislative representatives to vote no on House Bill 2944. This Bill is being pushed through to mandate the WDFW to manage the Puget Sound Salmon Fishery in a way that will promote the expansion of mixed stock gillnetting. sick:
The Bill is being sponsored by Sen. Jacobsen who has close ties to the gillnetting lobby. :evil:

This issue has been E-mailed by the President of the Puget Sound Anglers to all members informing us as to what this piece of legislation will do to the Puget Sound Area salmon Stocks.

According to the E-Mail the WDFW opposes the legislation.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2944

HOUSE BILL 2944 UPDATE! The Bill did not get any action and is DEAD for this session. clap: The issue is closed for the time being. Tup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,154 Posts
Educate me a little :
whom do I send the email to , My state senator? , Jacobsen has been involved in a number of things like this and what he seems to be slipping in is the Gill net part , or maybe I am wrong I thought Gillnetts were already dealt with By WDFW , And they are trying to manage all this in a way that the fisherman can release the dead endangered species [HAHAHa} , I called WDWF Biologist they said there are observers and the endangered Bycatch is limited , but then doesn't WDFW Allready manage ? And isn't this Bill meant to override the Judgement of WDFW And the negotiations with the tribes Based On real science ,I think My argument against the bill would be as stated: WDFW already manages the salmon ,and politics should not be involved when there are endangered species involved , The Bill Is Unspecific about species , The ridiculous Value stated as low is an outright lie , sockeye is the Highest value for salmon , And specifically sought after in the japanese market , Then Kings and silvers are second in price , With Pinks and chums being the Lowest price salmon , so what is this bill saying is a low value fish? , The words about value are mixed, stated as low , then sockeye are mentioned??? , Duh someone has a reason for this , And I assume our politions are not fully informed about species and value ,and who will be getting campaign contibutions from the salmon industry .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,154 Posts
I answered My own question , Go to wsh state legislature find your rep , send an email ,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,154 Posts
Fish Boy said:
oh comon' guys leave us alone.. please we will do the same!!
FB , It seems you are a commercial fisherman By your post's , I use to be now I'm not , What Anglers and Commercials have is competition for a resource , I want the resource ,DUH You want it to get paid ,Having been involved in disputes that are solved by the courts ,what I found is Every one will spend their time and money trying to get it their way , And in the end the judge makes a call , And at this time it seems WDFW And The Native tribes makes the Call ,I don't take these Issues personally , But some people do , In the End i hope anglers prevail , It's not personal , But I still want us too win this battle sick:
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
13,955 Posts
Fish boy is not a commercial netter, his Dad is.

Just remember; Sport fishing creates jobs, commercial netting creates endangered species.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
475 Posts
This bill is now SB 6337 and it has already passed the Senate (48-0) and moved on to committee in Agriculture; the committee chair is Brian Blake http://www.leg.wa.gov/House/Committees/AGNR/Members.htm and that is where you want to send your email. There is a public hearing today.

The substitute Bill is what you need to read and want to address; it is so far from the original Bill that it is unrecognizable.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdo ... 6337-S.pdf

Internally, it is being sold as a way to increase and sustain the market value of Puget Sound salmon by controlling the seasons and fishing opportunities and encouraging local processing and consumption… all of which would, through more tax dollars, help the local economy… and if successful it would work. The result of that success is predictable… higher fish prices means gill netting is more profitable, more profit means more gill netting, more gill netting means more non-selective fishing and more revenue means more money in the pocket of the gill netter's lobbyists to lobby for still more non selective harvest. In my opinion, any legislation that promotes non-selective harvest is bad legislation. We need to educate the law makers on promoting and supporting selective harvest.

If the committee doesn’t hear significant objection to this Bill, it WILL pass; please send well thought out emails. Remember, these emails actually go directly to Legislative Assistant (office managers)and then they are sent on to their bosses but only if they are viewed as having value so don’t refer to the law makers as a bunch of idiots who don’t know what they are doing. My step daughter is a Legislative Assistant and she assures me that threatening and vulgar email or personal attacks are generally disregarded as not having value. And please use spell check.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,360 Posts
Dr Hook said:
Fish boy is not a commercial netter, his Dad is.

Just remember; Sport fishing creates jobs, commercial netting creates endangered species.
correct, except my dad retired and is now a tug boat driver, i am a commercial fisherman but for other species, i catch bait herring, for the west coast and i can let you guys know personally that the stocks are very healthy and we have nearly zero bycatch and the bycatch we do get is usually dogfish but those even though we do not like them are put back in the water.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,552 Posts
Fish Boy said:
the bycatch we do get is usually dogfish but those even though we do not like them are put back in the water.
Alive and healty? :?:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
475 Posts
This is a very important issue; please stay on topic. While the herring bait fishery is an important topic, with its own issues, it has nothing to do with non-selective salmon harvesting in Puget Sound.

Thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,456 Posts
I have a couple of things I want to convey on this.

First, (Bruce, don't kill me!) there is a good website called http://www.gillnetskill.blogspot.com/ if you want a good read. The site has been created by a CCA member and Oregon Attorney who did a thesis on gillnetting 20+ years ago. I have not met her but sure hope to! Read her thesis!

Second, even if this piece of crap bill gets passed by the legislature, I doubt our governor will sign it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
475 Posts
I hope you folks are calling and emailing your reps about this bill. I just talked to a Representative (he’s a good guy with bad information so I’ll spare him the public flame) who said “This bill has nothing to do with fishing or allocation it has to do with what happens after the fish is caught and where it is sold.� I asked him where he got such a preposterous idea and he referred me to this:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdo ... -S.SBR.pdf

Read the Staff Summary

This Bill goes to executive session Feb 27th @ 8:00am so you only have today and tomorrow to make your point. If your elected officials don’t know you object to this they are going to let it go to appropriation.strokes have them though.d his last name to fishinghurts? :D
Just kidding.

Isaac
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,154 Posts
. I sent a email to My senator and heres the update :::::: Mr Williams, HB 2944 is a House bill that is dead, meaning it did not get to theFloor for a vote before the cutoff to hear bills for action. A companion Senate Bill SB 6337 has passed out of the Senate and is nowbeing considered in the House Committee on Agricultural and NaturalResources. It is scheduled for a public hearing on February 25, (today)at 3:30 PM. To track the progress of the bill, you may go to the Washington Stateweb site at http://www.wa.gov where you can enter the bill number and monitorits progress. I hope you find this information informative for your reference. Senator Franklin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
475 Posts
[quote="

HOUSE BILL 2944 UPDATE! The Bill did not get any action and is DEAD for this session. clap: The issue is closed for the time being. Tup:[/quote]

This bill is far from dead and the issue is not closed. As stated I stated before, it is now SB 6337 and passed 48-0 and moved on to committee. Read my previous posts for the real story then start writing emails to the committee,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
790 Posts
fishslave said:
I have a couple of things I want to convey on this.

First, (Bruce, don't kill me!) there is a good website called http://www.gillnetskill.blogspot.com/ if you want a good read. The site has been created by a CCA member and Oregon Attorney who did a thesis on gillnetting 20+ years ago. I have not met her but sure hope to! Read her thesis!

Second, even if this piece of crap bill gets passed by the legislature, I doubt our governor will sign it.
I hate to say it but I am not so sure that this would'nt pass in some form. Problem is this is being passed off as a good thing for the community. I beleive the general aim is to have a locally supplied fresh caught salmon product that could be sold in-town. It's alot like the organic farmers markets that they have around many places these days - that is really what they want, and the coat tails that they are riding - to have salmon marketed as fresh local and organic for sale. Problem is they will be able to sell this idea very well to the public. In fact my guess is that it is a growing public demand that's a big reason for why this bill is out there, and of course the commercials are more than ready to jump on board with this one. I hope my fears are misplaced but there is a chance that this could be a bigger issue as time goes on and more people (may) come to want/ask for this product - especially if it is marketed right and the newspapers decide it's a good story to write about the fresh local organic salmon people could get at a cozy market type of setting. This would definately be a good one to stand up and shout about and nip in the bud IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
475 Posts
thepoth said:
fishslave said:
I have a couple of things I want to convey on this.

First, (Bruce, don't kill me!) there is a good website called http://www.gillnetskill.blogspot.com/ if you want a good read. The site has been created by a CCA member and Oregon Attorney who did a thesis on gillnetting 20+ years ago. I have not met her but sure hope to! Read her thesis!

Second, even if this piece of crap bill gets passed by the legislature, I doubt our governor will sign it.
I hate to say it but I am not so sure that this would'nt pass in some form. Problem is this is being passed off as a good thing for the community. I beleive the general aim is to have a locally supplied fresh caught salmon product that could be sold in-town. It's alot like the organic farmers markets that they have around many places these days - that is really what they want, and the coat tails that they are riding - to have salmon marketed as fresh local and organic for sale. Problem is they will be able to sell this idea very well to the public. In fact my guess is that it is a growing public demand that's a big reason for why this bill is out there, and of course the commercials are more than ready to jump on board with this one. I hope my fears are misplaced but there is a chance that this could be a bigger issue as time goes on and more people (may) come to want/ask for this product - especially if it is marketed right and the newspapers decide it's a good story to write about the fresh local organic salmon people could get at a cozy market type of setting. This would definately be a good one to stand up and shout about and nip in the bud IMO.
Finally! Someone get's it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
This is what I sent my reps. I'd have been a little quicker on the draw, but I was in surgery day before yesterday.


Please vote agains HB2944.

This bill appears to promote the expansion and liberalization of the commercial fishing for Puget Sound salmon stocks. Any modification of Puget Sound management in this time of ESA salmonid listings and multi-million dollar salmon recovery efforts should carefully consider potential impacts on threatened and endangered stocks. The proposed bill would circumvent the scientific management and recovery practices in place at WDFW. The current WDFW/tribal management practices aim to balance restoring wild salmonid runs while allowing some sustainable fishing where appropriate. This bill would skew the management towards harvest at the expense of recovery. The legislature needs to bear in mind that extensive commercial harvest of Puget sound salmonids occurs in tribal fisheries. The economic and food industry objectives of this bill can easily be attained through cooperation with tribal harvests already occurring locally within the WDFW/tribal scientific management scheme. Increased commercial harvest is not necessary to meet the economic or food industry objectives. At its heart this bill is an effort to permit the over-exploitation of an already threatened public samonid resource, for the sake of the short term economic benefit of a very few.
I want my children to grow up in a state with abundant wild Puget sound salmon stocks, do not sell out our public resource for the potential short term monetary gain of a very few. Now is not the time to play political or economic games with our Puget sound salmonid stocks. Careful conservative scientific based management practices must be coupled with habitat protection and restoration to recover these stocks as rapidly as possible.

Again, please vote against HB2944 it will inhibit salmon recovery efforts. Do not hesitate to contact me if you would like further input on this issue.

Thank-you for your attention,

Brian Kraemer
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top