Northwest Fishing Reports

Most of us have heard by now of Washington's 9 billion dollar deficit. Supposedly this is bringing about the closing of several hatcheries and loss of hundreds of associated jobs (biologists, etc). How many of you would be OK with increased license fees, which I see coming, as a means of increasing revenue? I read the other day that WA hasn't had a license fee increase since 1999. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with it. My only concern is that this money would not find it's way back to the WDFW.

Dosen't matter 2 me,..either way no matter what it costs I'm gonna BASS!

BB

I agree with you on this one raffensg64, i wouldn't have a problem except for the fact that just like all of the other money we dump into the washington government they always seem to have a shortfall. I agree that the money isn't the problem except for the fact it probably wouldn't be given to the department of fisheries.

I would be fine with this. I wouldn't mind if they created Add-Ons that cost more either. Similar to the rule for next year that will allow more than one pole in the water. Perhaps adding things like double-limit for double the price of the license. Special crawfish licenses for an open ended season... I don't know.. anything that would add value to my fishing season, for an extra price. Perhaps make the add-on price cost prohibitive for most people so that the fishery isn't impacted, but a decent amount of money could be made.

Some people want fee-specific licensing, which I think makes sense.

Abandoning some of the General Fund principles, making all fees of WDFW go to WDFW programs only. It does carry the risk of opening up cuts as the General Fund pays a great deal of WDFW's budget.

Maybe change the Columbia fishery so that WA landed fish require a WA license?

Then again, Im kinda with BB. Trout are nice and all, but WDFW has spent so much time and money on that one species its almost absurd. Warmwater fish are just as, if not more popular, and are a more sustainable fishery. We have become so reliant on 12" stocker trout...

E

Gisteppo wrote:We have become so reliant on 12" stocker trout...

And equally bored. Sometimes I think WDFW feels the media impact of opening weekend is what defines a successful fishing program. Yeah, it's great for those who only go out a time or two a year, but in general, those folks aren't interested in anything beyond those first few weekends early in the season. Those of us who are, get the leftovers from a lopsided fisheries management philosphy.

Gisteppo wrote:Warmwater fish are just as, if not more popular, and are a more sustainable fishery.

Absolutely right, and far more fun than catching clones of hatchery raised rainbows.

Now if we could get a blackmouth hatchery inland to stock Slammins in the above-Grand-Coulee-Dam watersheds, THAT would be a worthwhile stocking program.

E

It doesn't matter to me. Either way you look at it you still need your license to fish. Pay the license fee or pay a real nice ticket and have to go to court and still end up paying 75 dollars for not having it. I know from experience.

I'm not against having additional fees/endorsements that would go directly to supporting a WDFW program. We, as users of the resource, just need to keep an eye out and make sure the money is spent on what it was meant to support. When we first had to pony up the Puget Sound Dungeness Crab endorsement fee the following year the WDFW got busted by the Puget Sound Angler's Association for not using the money where it was promised.

I'd love to be able to directly fund/influence a "pet" project or resource. Fees for specific resources would allow that. Volunteering helps but in most cases funding is what's lacking. I also think the WDFW needs to do a better job at letting the public know about the current projects and programs in which they are involved. I got a serious jones going when I ran across the Jack Creek Chinook facility in the upper Teanaway River watershed a couple of years back during a Spring turkey hunt. After that I did a little research on the the Teanaway River project and I found all sorts of reasons to be even more impressed. Folks need to know about these types of programs so they feel better about what their tax dollars and fees are doing.

Try this on for size guys.........

Put a fine of $100-$200/per fish on all poachers. If they can't pay it, put them in jail. Then put them to work for the game department earning .20¢/hr until they pay off the fine. Place them on work details, in pink jump suits, cleaning up the public access areas (pit toilets included) and the shoreline around the lake. Once they have paid off the fine through this kind of work, tell them they can buy back their boat and tackle at the fair market value plus storage fees. This program could be easily applied to game also. Up the fine to $10.00/lb. on large game and $200/bird---------Judge Roy Bean

Toni wrote:Government seems to go through money faster than I can.

They seem to be an expert at that...

Haha, I like the idea there on the fine...

raise the fees we need those hatcheries the sport depends on them

You guys are a tad slow on this one = the boys have been getting out of raising fish for years before all the budget cuts for salmon and steelhead and the funds very very little go to anything but the general fund FACT!
Once we understand the fish and facts then we can talk policy and politics nah lets pass:-#

Heres the numbers released by Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission on the economic impacts of sportfishing. Fishing for trout was the most popular freshwater fishing activity 48% of all fishing days for trout followed by salmon 23%, steelhead 12%, bass 12%. Income generated by trout fishing $145.9 million dollars, salmon both salt and freshwater $129.4 million, steelhead $51.3 million, bass $39.4 million. On opening day there will be over 200,000 anglers heading to a lake on opening day of trout season, that is a lot of income generated up and down the food chain, from groceries, fuel, tackle, boat rentals, camping fees, just to name a few, this creates jobs for a lot of different folks. Don't sell trout fishing short or kid yourself about its popularity, as far as fishing for left overs I prefer it that way I can't say I enjoy the taste of a fresh hatchery trout that has been fed with power-bait pellets.

Do I think things could be done a little differently, of course I do and I'm sure everyone out there has an opinion. I for one would like to see more lakes in the 1,000 acre range and larger that also has some depth, managed for trophy trout and it could be something as simple as releasing a couple hundred thousand fry in the winter every year and limiting its numbers and the size you are allowed to keep and making them barbless, baitless lakes, that will cut down on the mortality rate of those released, even making them seasonal lakes from April thru October, you could even have some of those lakes opening in the fall and closing in the spring especially hear on the west side. I have several lakes in mind that would fit this criteria. I have one lake I work up in Whatcom County that I have become quite fond of and that is Samish Lake, you are allowed two cutts that must be 14" or larger to keep. I think simple things like this would go along way in developing such a fishery, and keep those opening day lakes with there 8-12 inch stockers for those folks that look forward to that type of fishery this type of fishery also introduces the youngsters to the thrill of the catch. But as I have said before everyone has there own opinion and this is just part of mine.

Wes, you make the point very succinctly:

On opening day there will be over 200,000 anglers heading to a lake on opening day of trout season,

They spread that number out over the year. Granted a ton of people go out for opener, but we are talking about number of rod hours, not numbers of people fishing. Statistically its easier to count heads than hours, which is why Im one of the Volunteer Angler Survey participants to remedy the statistical issues. When you talk about trout fishing they are extrapolating data from head count to dollars per angler spent. Conversely bass and warmwater species get many more hours on the water per year per angler compared to the stocker masses.

I don't disagree in the least about your management ideas. I think there are a few bodies of water (Lake Spokane definitely included) that would really benefit from large-scale plants to raise trophies. Many seasonal-flowing bodies of water that are dam controlled could produce massive trout that would create far more angler rod-hours, burning more fuel and using more terminal tackle than the current fingerling practices.

E

You are probably right RAFF...I would not mind paying a slightly higher license fee. I love to fish so it would be worth it in my book.

Personally, I don't care about the trout hatacheries! But, if it keeps jobs alive for others, so be it! I'm all about bass, crappie, etc...

Uncle Wes wrote:Heres the numbers released by Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission on the economic impacts of sportfishing. Fishing for trout was the most popular freshwater fishing activity 48% of all fishing days for trout followed by salmon 23%, steelhead 12%, bass 12%. Income generated by trout fishing $145.9 million dollars, salmon both salt and freshwater $129.4 million, steelhead $51.3 million, bass $39.4 million. On opening day there will be over 200,000 anglers heading to a lake on opening day of trout season, that is a lot of income generated up and down the food chain, from groceries, fuel, tackle, boat rentals, camping fees, just to name a few, this creates jobs for a lot of different folks. Don't sell trout fishing short or kid yourself about its popularity, as far as fishing for left overs I prefer it that way I can't say I enjoy the taste of a fresh hatchery trout that has been fed with power-bait pellets.

Could you give me the link for the stats from the Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission, I have troble finding stuff on WDFW site.

Toni try this link. I looked high and low and remembered that it had been e-mailed to me, there is a little something in a magazine along the lines that I wrote about.


http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/econ_analysis.html