[OB-1]

For those of you who care the Damn Democrats in the State legislature are getting ready to screw us again!!! House bill 2944 and its senate counterpart Senate Bill 6337 is ready to come out of committee in the House and come to a vote. It already passed the house, this bill will increase the catch quota of the commercial gil-netter and purse seine fisheries after the hatcheries have retained enough fish to replenish their stocks and, guess what the sportsmen get?! NOT A DAMN THING!!!!!! Amazing that there isn't enough fish for the sportsmen to get more but, there is enough to give the commercials more.
If you don't believe me then read the bill for yourself!!
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2007-08/Pdf/Bills/House Bills/2944.pdf

Also (are you ready for this?) Even though 6900 failed a new bill has already passed the senate that will require ALL auto manufacturers to put a sticker on any new car sold in Washington that will tell how much Carbon monoxide the car produces so that they can hit you with a new "Carbon Tax" And according to my State Senator Mike Carrell a new form of 6900 is already in the works!!!
Thanks again for all of the great work Democratically controlled State Legislature! I didn't really need all of the money you take from me in taxes to put my kids through college or anything!!!

 

[Fish4Dinner]

Amen to you, OB-1! Oh Amen to that...!

 

[Dizane]

For those of you who care the Damn Democrats in the State legislature are getting ready to screw us again!!! House bill 2944 and its senate counterpart Senate Bill 6337 is ready to come out of committee in the House and come to a vote. It already passed the house, this bill will increase the catch quota of the commercial gil-netter and purse seine fisheries after the hatcheries have retained enough fish to replenish their stocks and, guess what the sportsmen get?! NOT A DAMN THING!!!!!! Amazing that there isn't enough fish for the sportsmen to get more but, there is enough to give the commercials more.
If you don't believe me then read the bill for yourself!!

I read the bill...

I'm struggling to find where it increases the quota for commercial fishermen at the expense of recreational fishermen.

Could you point it out for me?

 

[OB-1]

Here is a clip from part of the senate bill #6337 and the substitute section that is an add on to the original.

Whenever the commission determines that a stock or run
of salmon cannot be harvested in the usual manner, and that the stock
or run of salmon may be in danger of being wasted and surplus to
natural or artificial spawning requirements, the commission may
authorize units of gill net and purse seine gear in any number or
equivalents, by time and area, to fully utilize the harvestable
portions of these salmon runs for the economic well being of the
citizens of this state.

These discussions are
meant to address current issues within the commercial fishing industry,
and will not affect noncommercial fisheries or fishing interests.

 

[OB-1]

The real problem with this bill,and if you have read it I think that you will agree, is that the wording is so vague that it could be interpreted by the peolpe in charge to mean whatever they want at that time. What I am trying to get at with the posting and email my Reps. is that the sporties play just as important role in fisheries managment and local economic development as do the commercials, yet we never seem to get a seat at the table when things like this come up. If there are enough fish to be able to allow commercials to selectively have longer seasons or larger quotas due to "Surplus fish runs" then let the sporties have a crack at those fish too.

BTW when did we start calling an amount of fish in excess of what the hatcheries need Surplus?

 

[OB-1]

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.

 

[Dizane]

OB-1,

This bill attempts to ammend pre-existing RCW's.

Both passages that you cited are pre-existing portions of those RCW's. Those sections are in place right now, and this bill will do nothing to change them whether it passes or not.

I'm confused why you pointed to sections that will not be affected by the bill you're complaining about. conf:

 

[MAD.CAM.AL]

I don't think your thread title will help our cause. Rather childish IMO. To be expected by a Limbaugh listening, O'rielly worshiping, kool-aid drunk righty. Are you going to post this in yet a third forum with a different, flashier title? :lol:

Seriously though, we all show a common interest in sport fishing and want to protect our right to a % as well as protect the future of our fisheries. I'll keep my eye on the "lets talk fishing" thread too. wink:

 

[OB-1]

Mad Cam El, I hope for your sake you live close enough to work to ride a skate board cause if the legislature has its way none of us will be able to afford to even dream of driving.
You should hear some of the other items that Senator Carrrell metioned were coming to the floor, when I get a little more info on them I will probably find an equally appropriate title for those also!! wink:

 

[OB-1]

Dizane, It was my understanding that this was a "New Bill" I took the underlined sections as changes made to the original draft of the bill. When I asked the legislature about this bill they acted like we were discussing a new piece of legislation. If am wrong then I appologise, my title was to attract attention about an issue that I felt strongly about and wanted input or support on.
I have read about this bill in other section of this site and found that the other posters interpreted this bill pretty much the same way I did. If I mis-interpreted it then I guess there was much ado about nothing.

That being said there is still a bunch of Hanky Panky going on in Olympia that we as citizens are going to end footing the bill for. And I feel just as strongly about the other items I mentioned in this post.

 

[fishinfoolz]

A line through a bills text is the stricken language and the underlined text is the newly added or replacement language. Tup:

 

[Dizane]

It is a new bill...that amends existing RCWs.

FF's got it on the underlines and strikethroughs.

I actually think the amendments seem like a pretty good idea. I don't see anywhere where they try to change the allocation between sport/commercial. They just appear to prioritize how the commercial quota is used.

It seems currently most Washington commercial salmon are caught, exported, processed overseas, re-imported, etc. This bill tries to promote keeping local fish in the local economy through the whole process.

If we want to save salmon habitat in Washington from encroaching development giving salmon as much local economic value as possible (whether its through tackle sales or processing/selling) is probably the best ways to do it, absent a fundamental shift in American values.

IMO of course.

 

[OB-1]

I appreciate the info Dizane. I have read the bill a number of times since I got interested in this and as I see it the bill states that the state can increase the length or quota of the commercial gil-net season based on surplus after they have enough for the hatchery, the commercials that were willing to make sure they sent their catch to local markets got first chop at the fish.
My real issue with this bill is that the quotas both commercial and sport fish are set based on projected returns. If there is enough fish to let the commercials have more next year than this year then, the sporties should get more also. My feeling is that the sporties spend more money and create more jobs and in turn pay a larger share of the tax burden than do the commercials.
The best this bill can do is probably create 50 to 100 new jobs state wide, ( I think that figure is probably even too high) Compare that to the amount of money that would be spent by the sporties if our seasons were longer or we allowed to keep more fish