Game Fishing Forum banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,884 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Ok guys I need your help here, I read about this bill in the fishing forum and decided that it was a bad idea. I contacted my representative Mike Carrol (R) and the other two representatives and was shocked to hear that this bill has passed the house with NO opposition! If you really don't want this thing to pass you had better get on your horses and let your reps know about it!
I am also looking for more info on this as to how this hurts the sportsmen, Mike Carrol has given me his home phone number and I am going to call him later tonight and discuss this with him. Any extra info would be greatly appreciated!!!!!!!!!!!

Here is the link [url=http://apps.l...ps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary ... &year=2007
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
475 Posts
This started as HB 2944 and companion Bill SB 6337. HB 2944 died in committee but SB 6337 lives on. In its present form, it is an unfunded mandate for WDFW to work with the "appropriate" commercial fishermen (AKA Puget Sound gill netters) to prepare a report showing how they (WDFW) intend to “enhance and improve� the gill net fishery. The Bill presently resides in the Rules Committee awaiting a second hearing.

Here’s what I sent the members of the rules committee.

Representative :

I am writing to inform you that I strongly oppose SB 6337 (companion bill HB 2944) and I am asking you to hold this bill if it comes before you.

SB 6337 promotes extending the season of the Puget Sound gill net fishery. Gill nets and other non-selective harvest methods should be banned from use. Not only do they kill indiscriminately, causing the death of 10’s of thousands of protected and endangered salmon species, they are often lost or abandoned when they become snagged on shipwrecks, rocks, reefs and other bottom structure; “ghost nets� as they are known, continue to fish indefinitely. There are acres of derelict nets still fishing the depths of Puget Sound, killing fish, crab, birds and other sea life. In my opinion and the opinion of several hundred thousand voting sportsmen and women, any legislation that promotes gill netting is bad legislation.

SB 6337 is being touted as a boon for the local economy but it is a thinly veiled attempt to produce more fishing opportunities for a small but well funded group known as the Puget Sound gill netters AKA the Puget Sound Harvesters Association. The argument is that the gill netters are simply asking WDFW to stretch out the season, not increase the allocation, so the Puget Sound Harvesters Association can provide a constant dependable supply of fresh salmon to farmer’s markets, restaurants and other local buyers for the purpose of local consumption thereby increasing and sustaining the market value. I believe the tribal fishers, over which we have no control, already fill that niche and adding more fish to the mix will have the opposite effect on the market. That aside, I do not believe WDFW should be tasked with influencing market prices; it certainly is not their area of expertise. In my opinion, their mission should be managing the fish stocks for “the greater good� and this Bill should be killed.
I do not oppose all commercial fishing, only the non-selective nets, there are successful selective fishing methods that could be used in Puget Sound; let’s bring the Puget Sound Harvesters into the 21st century.

As an avid sportsman and CAST for Kids volunteer, I spend a great deal of time, effort and money associated with the Puget Sound fishery and I am extremely concerned about its future.

Thank you for considering this request,

Robert Holmes

Member: PSA and CCA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When Representatives respond, I send them this reply:

Representative

Thanks for the response.

This is an important issue and it has significant fiscal implications in the sense that any further decline (whatever the cause) in protected and endangered salmon species in Puget Sound would eventually have a profound effect on the regional economy. If the decline in the wild stocks continue, we could be in the same predicament as Sacramento is today.
“SACRAMENTO â€" Officials warned Thursday that a total closure of commercial and recreational salmon fishing may be needed this year to protect dwindling Sacramento River fall-run Chinook populations.
In a preseason report, the Pacific Fishery Management Council offered data showing the 2007 Sacramento fall run reached its lowest level in 37 years of recordkeeping. The report largely confirms data leaked to the media last month.
But various officials went further, warning that all salmon fishing may have to be closed in 2008 to protect the Sacramento fall-run Chinook. The normally abundant run underpins a coastal fishery with an average annual economic value of $103 million.
"This is very bad news for West Coast salmon fisheries," council Chairman Don Hansen said in a statement. "The word 'disaster' comes immediately to mind."
The cause of the run's decline is not known, but probably is related to both ocean and in-stream problems. The council has developed a list of 46 possible causes.
A full closure of salmon fishing is one option the council will consider when it meets March 8-14 in Sacramento. A final decision is expected in April.�
There are many causes for poor returns; some known some unknown, but we do know that gill nets are not selective in-that they kill whatever swims into them. Hatchery fish are produced for the purpose of harvest but wild stocks are mixed in with the hatchery fish and are caught in very high numbers in Puget Sound and other terminal fisheries. SB 6337 directs WDFW to “enhance and improve� the Puget Sound gill net fishery for a small but well funded group of fishers known as the Puget Sound Harvesters Association.
While I have sympathy for the gill netters as businessmen, their short term gain has far reaching consequences. Alternatively, there are successful commercial fishing methods, other than gill netting, that do allow selective harvest and those methods should be employed in Puget Sound.

The argument you are likely to hear in the Rules Committee is that the gill netters are simply asking WDFW to stretch out the season, not increase the allocation, so the Puget Sound Harvesters Association can provide a constant dependable supply of fresh salmon to farmer’s markets, restaurants and other local buyers for the purpose of local consumption thereby increasing and sustaining the local market value. I do not believe WDFW should be tasked with influencing market prices; that certainly is not their area of expertise. In my opinion, their mission should be managing the fish stocks for “the greater good�.

Thanks again,

The Rules committee members are:
Frank Chopp - Chair (D)
Richard DeBolt - Ranking Minority Member (R)
Mike Armstrong (R)
Barbara Bailey (R)
Mark Ericks (D)
Doug Ericksen (R)
Bill Grant (D)
Tami Green (D)
Zack Hudgins (D)
Christopher Hurst (D)
Troy Kelley (D)
Lynn Kessler (D)
Dan Kristiansen (R)
Jim McCune (R)
Joyce McDonald (R)
Jim Moeller (D)
Dawn Morrell (D)
Jeff Morris (D)
Daniel Newhouse (R)
Timm Ormsby (D)
Sharon Tomiko Santos (D)
Larry Springer (D)
Bob Sump (R)

And you can get their direct email addresses here:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/memberemail/Default.aspx
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
936 Posts
Okay,

I emailed them. That link is something that all gamefishers should learn how to use. Otherwise, why vote?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
475 Posts
Emailing your Representatives is important and make sure they know they are your Rep but... if you go to the direct email link so you don't have to go through the filter, then whoever you are emailing doesn't know that they are not your Rep. I've sent close to 75 emails and, other than the canned "Thanks for your interest..." from the Governor, the only responses I got were from my district Reps and those I sent direct eamils. I have not received a response I sent through the filter.

Right now we need people to email the members of the Rules Committee and ask them to "hold" SB 6337so it never gets out of committee. This will get you the email address, http://apps.leg.wa.gov/memberemail/Default.aspx

Thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,884 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I just finished speaking with Mike Carrel my State senator, He in formed me that Sb6337 is sitting in committee in the house and is ready to come to the floor. I explained to him that this is a bad bill for sportsman. Basically the bill says, "Once the conservation quota has been met (Once the hatcheries have enough fish to replenish their stocks) then the State can extend the commercial gilnet and purse seign seasons. It also says this is to help ensure that the fish caught make it local markets even though there are no provisions to make this happen. I find it very offensive that there aren't enough fish for me to have more than one Chinook per day and no more than two in my possession at any one time but there is plenty of fish to let the commercials have more. Furthermore after reading the bill I found that the only people infavor of this bill are the commercial lobbyists, Patrick Pattillo of WDFW came out in opposition of this bill. That ought to tell you something, when the State's own Dept. come out against a bill to give more fish to commercials than sporties then you know it is a bad piece legislation!!!!!

EMAIL YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES AND CHRIS GREGOIRE NOW BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,884 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Here is a copy of the Email that I sent to my State Reps: Tammy Green and Troy Kelley
and Queen Christine

This is a bad piece of legislation, this bill unfairly increases the commercial gill-netter and purse sein catch quota after the hatcheries have collected enough fish to replenish their stocks. Meanwhile the sportsman get no increase in catch quota, as a matter of fact the Sport catch quota has gone down again in many areas this year. Once the hatcheries have enough fish why not let the rest go on upstream and spawn? Or let the sportsman have a few more since, I am sure the financial contribution of the sportsman to the State through Vehicle license, vessel license, fishing license, gas tax for for both vessel and vehicle fuels, sales tax on boats and boating equipment, taxes on repairs, sales tax on fishing tackle and hardware, etc, way exceeds that of the Commercial fisheries.
This is just another example of the government of this state doing what is best for it Campaign contributors instead of what is best for the VOTERS WHO GAVE THEM THEIR JOBS!!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,884 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Here is another little tid bit for you, this bill lets the WDFW manage salmon runs and award incresed fish quotas for commercials based on "Surplus Runs" and uses hatchery and wild fish together as one run. Here is the text from the Senate bill:

For the longer term, the department of fish and wildlife shall
proceed with changes to the operation of certain hatcheries in order to
stabilize harvest levels by allowing naturally spawning and hatchery
origin fish to be managed as a single run.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
475 Posts
OB-1 said:
Here is another little tid bit for you, this bill lets the WDFW manage salmon runs and award incresed fish quotas for commercials based on "Surplus Runs" and uses hatchery and wild fish together as one run. Here is the text from the Senate bill:

For the longer term, the department of fish and wildlife shall
proceed with changes to the operation of certain hatcheries in order to
stabilize harvest levels by allowing naturally spawning and hatchery
origin fish to be managed as a single run.
I am by no means an expert on the legislative process, but this is what I think I know. SB 6337 presently resides in the Rules Committee; it has had one reading where the gill netter’s folks tried to amend the language to reflect the original Bill. That amendment was narrowly voted down 7-6 so the language presently reads as follows:

S-5329.1 _____________________________________________
SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 6337
_____________________________________________
State of Washington 60th Legislature 2008 Regular Session
By Senate Natural Resources, Ocean & Recreation (originally sponsored
by Senator Jacobsen)
READ FIRST TIME 02/08/08.
1 AN ACT Relating to the state's management of the Puget Sound
2 commercial salmon fishery; creating a new section; and providing an
3 expiration date.
4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
5 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. (1) The department of fish and wildlife must
6 work with appropriate commercial fishers and commercial fishing
7 associations to consider ways to facilitate the commercial harvest of
8 Puget Sound salmon in a manner that conserves the resource, maintains
9 the economic well-being of the fishing industry, promotes orderly
10 fisheries, and enhances and improves commercial fishing in the state in
11 accordance with the intent of RCW 77.04.012. These discussions must
12 consider the impacts of economic changes that impact commercial
13 fisheries over time, and keep in mind the well-being of all aspects of
14 the Puget Sound commercial salmon industry. These discussions are
15 meant to address current issues within the commercial fishing industry,
16 and will not affect noncommercial fisheries or fishing interests. The
17 department of fish and wildlife must provide a summary of these
18 discussions, recommendations, and outcomes to the appropriate
19 committees of the legislature by November 1, 2008.
p. 1 SSB 6337
1 (2) The department of fish and wildlife must carry out the
2 requirements of this section within existing funds.
3 (3) This section expires December 31, 2008.
--- END ---
SSB 6337 p. 2

It will have a second hearing in Rules today sometime around noon.

In its present form (the tip of the iceberg) this is an unfunded mandate directing WDFW to work with the “appropriate commercial fishers� (read that “gill netters�) to prepare a report showing how they (WDFW) intend to “enhance and improve� commercial fishing (read that “gill netting�) in the state. The really ugly language, contained in the original Bill, was amended in order to get it through the Agriculture and Natural Resources committee but, as I understand it, there are opportunities for it to be amended back in.

The way I think it works is if this Bill is moved out of committee today, it will go to the floor. If it is not moved out of committee today the Speaker of the House, Frank Chopp, can pull it out any time and send it to the floor. In any case it has to be heard on the floor by 5:00 this Friday or it will die. When it is on the floor they can propose amendments such as the harmful language in the original Bill. If it moves from the floor, the only hope then is a Governor veto.

I have a person in Olympia keeping an eye on this Bill and I will post updates as I receive them.river with a canoe. There are no warning signs on the streets, It may be very easy for someone unfamiliar with the area or the nature of that shop to drive up expecting a warm cup of joe and end up having to explain to their kids why someone is serving with no clothes on and although the old argument is "they're gonna need to discuss that stuff someday" it's the parents decision to determine when and where and I don't think that a public coffee shop should be the catalyst for that discussion.

I think people have a tendency to over react when dealing with certain subject matter but all of the studies I posted confirm what I've been saying. Did I clear anything up? If not what did I miss? Maybe it's better to take each point one at a time if need be... Tup:
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top