Each Puget Sound Blackmouth costs $768

[returnofthefish]

Check out the story. The state auditor says the the blackmouth program is inefficient and the program must be changed. The Department of Fish and Wildlife supports the state auditors decision. Environmentalist also support the reduction of blackmouths because they compete with traditional chinook salmon. What will happen to the blackmouths?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l ... it10m.html

[Blackmouth]

Poor piece of writing. Holes all over that article....

[Gonefishing]

I have to agree that it was a poorly written article. When I first saw it I was going to post the link here and gripe like mad and then say something like this will be the last year I get a fishing license and this time I really mean it....

Did the auditor or the writer look into the fact that because of the blackmouth program people are going fishing, buying tackle, getting fuel for the boat etc and in doing so are spending money and tax that the state gets back from us?

[Dave]

From the article: "They say blackmouth production should have been halted years ago because the large hatchery-bred fish are built tough and compete with threatened chinook for food." "The financial issues absolutely must be considered," said Kurt Beardslee, with Wild Fish Conservation Northwest. "But I always hoped they would kill this program for biological reasons — not just because we can't afford it."

My thoughts: I get that it's expensive to raise these hatchery fish and I get that these hatchery fish compete with wild chinook for food. What I don't get is why the State of WA allows commercial and tribal netting in Puget Sound waters. How about the State of WA stops ALL netting in Puget Sound? Then there would be no "salmon recovery" or "save the salmon" efforts or programs needed because there would be abundant numbers of salmon in our waters. What a concept! In my opinion it comes down to financial greed vs having abundant numbers of fish in our local waters.

[wolverine]

What they conveniently fail to mention is the recreational value that the winter blackmouth fishery provides to the fishing population and the money spent in the local areas on gear, tackle, bait, gas, etc.

[zen leecher aka Bill W]

I would like to halt the $10 I contribute to Puget Sound enhancement.

[Fish-or-man?]

There's some pretty good replies in the comments section:

"King County pays 2.65 million for every run the Mariners score"

Which is a relative bargain, in some low-scoring years it's twice that much. I don't have the patience or beer capacity for baseball anymore either, even slugfests.

I read about 10 posts and people seem to see this story for its shotiness. I agree with Dave, until the netting goes away the stocks can never recover. I think the netting is even bigger than stormwater runoff or habitat loss at this point.

[Gonefishing]

" It's paid for by license fees derived from saltwater anglers, money that is dedicated to improving fishing. "

What is the point of crying about the costs with the above sentence? It the Blackmouth program is being paid for by our fees. Not taxes to the individual tax payer who never goes fishing. Ok so it might tork off somebody that is land locked and has no access to salt water but still.

Poor reporting again by the Seattle Times.... or much ado about not much. I do agree with Dave however. Remove the nets and the numbers will improve assuming that we have bait in the waters as well.

[sickbayer]

I reckon they should pay off the netters and commercial and allow recovery. Although i do wonder how much each method makes, and what do they bring to the state coffers via company tax etc verses the sports fisherman.

[zen leecher aka Bill W]

I would like to halt the $10 I contribute to Puget Sound enhancement.

To quote my previous post. Originally anyone wanting to fish Puget Sound paid $10 for the enhancement. Once it was rolled into the general fund I believe everybody buying a saltwater license paid the "extra $10".

The state needs to be reminded where that $10 comes from if there's any more talk about stopping the blackmouth program.

[scott080379]

As much as this artical is BS and everything else. Even if they stopped the BM program 90% if not more of the anglers that fish the sound still would fish the sound.

My biggest complaint about the artical is the fact that it doesn't mention anything about how many are caught by the commercial and native fisheries.

this is a news reporter, so there are going ot be holes in the story. Oh and if they stopped all netting in the sounds they would just let them net more in the rivers and still causing the same problem. iwould liek to see them reduce the number thye are allowed to net in the sound and rivers to start with.

[Dustin07]

so while it may be true that fishing creates economical impact in the surrounding area in terms of tackle, gas, food, etc, I don't think anyone cares as these things effect different budgets. WDFW doesn't get anything from DOT, or vice versa.

as mentioned above, our licenses and whatnot is all that pays for the fishery I believe, and I also read a year or two ago that WDFW was profitable. Is that not true? I imagine it would be mostly up to them to decide if they keep it up or not based upon their budget. Raising license for BM's may have to be a solution if it were a purely fiscal issue.

Lastly, I read just a 1/2hr ago that in the Columbia river springer run about 1% is allowed for sport fishermen, 1% for commercial, and 10% for tribal netting. Is that true? I don't need to give an opinon on those numbers I dont' think.