HB1660 Puts Sport Fishermen First IMPORTANT!!!

[Bay wolf]

Sorry, not sure where this should go, but it is IMPORTANT!

Representative Liz Spike has sponsored HB1660.
Here is an oped of the bill:

Creating a world-class sport fishing industry in Washington
By Rep. Liz Pike, Bryan Irwin and Dave Patterson
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (DWF) is funded by the state Legislature every two years to manage, among other things, our state’s fisheries. In the last budget cycle, DWF received nearly $376 million in federal, state and local funding. Nearly $71 million came from the sale of recreational fishing licenses and excise taxes on fishing tackle, or about 19 percent of DWF’s total budget. The smallest contribution – $1.5 million – or less than one-half of one percent of DWF’s budget came from commercial fishing interests.
In 1974, Federal Judge George Boldt upheld treaty fishing rights, in what is known as the “Boldt Decision,” allocating 50 percent of the annual catch to Native American treaty tribes. The remaining 50 percent of the harvest is split between recreational fishing enthusiasts and commercial fishermen using gill and seine nets.
State policies have given the advantage to non-tribal commercial gillnet fisheries on the lower Columbia River, allowing them to harvest two-and-half times more salmon than recreational fishers. The disparity is even worse in Willapa Bay as recreational fisheries are constrained, but non-tribal commercial gillnet fisheries are free to harvest 93 percent of available salmon, even though recreational fishers contribute vastly more income to our state’s economy and to DFW’s budget than commercial interests.
More troubling is the preferential treatment given to commercial fishing over recreational fishing in the form of priority seasons set by DFW. For decades, recreational anglers have been treated as a nuisance at DFW, while preferred timing and seasons have been reserved for commercial interests. This has limited recreational fishing opportunities, as well as additional license revenue and economic value that could be flowing to the state from sport fisheries.
The economic impact of the recreational sport fishing industry far outpaces commercial fishing. In Willapa Bay, recreational fishing generates three-and-a-half times more economic value than the commercial fishery, despite catching only 7 percent of the fish. A federal study pegged the annual economic value of Columbia River recreational fisheries at $36 million, but credited only $2.1 million to non-tribal commercial fisheries. Locally, in the 18th Legislative District, 13,500 recreational fishing licenses are sold each year along with 10,000 Columbia River salmon endorsements. Just two other legislative districts in the state sell more Columbia River salmon endorsements than our district.
Recreational anglers don't just buy fishing licenses. They buy fishing tackle, bait, and large items, such as fishing boats, trailers and trucks to pull their vessels to and from their favorite fishing spots. They buy gas, snacks and beverages to consume while they are waiting for the fish to bite. They buy smokers, grills and freezers. Despite DFW's restrictions, recreational fishing contributes hundreds of millions of dollars to our state's economy each year with much of it flowing to Washington’s rural communities.
Washington has a unique tax structure that relies mainly on sales taxes. Sport fishing is an excellent means to bring tourism into our state in which non-resident sport fisherman could help fund state programs, such as public schools.
Overall, recreational fishing is a $1 billion industry in Washington. We believe that could blossom into a much larger industry with economic benefits for Washington and the state’s general fund through a change of policies and priorities. That’s why we have introduced House Bill 1660. The bill would transform Washington into a world-class fishing destination by providing parity to recreational fishing enthusiasts and ensuring fishing opportunities are consistent with user groups’ economic contributions.
Let's face it, sport fishing tourists will spend their money in the most desirable and competitive locations, whether here in Washington or other states or countries. Why should we let DFW constraints send sport fishing tourists elsewhere when we can attract those dollars here? HB 1660 would expand sport fishing tourism in Washington and increase economic opportunities in the hospitality industry with outfitters, guides, restaurants, car rental companies, retail stores, boat builders, and others.
Let's work together and pass HB 1660 to transform Washington's recreational fishing into a multi-billion dollar industry, improve our fragile rural economies still struggling from the Great Recession, and ensure DFW begins serving its primary customer and source of revenue. Contact your Washington state legislators at 1-800-562-6000<tel:1-800-562-6000> and urge them to support HB 1660.
Editor’s note: Rep. Liz Pike, R-Camas, serves the 18th Legislative District. Bryan Irwin is the Coastal Conservation Association’s former executive director. Dave Patterson is a recreational fishing enthusiast from Camas.

[MarkFromSea]

It's a game changer of a bill! Prioritizes sport fishermen ahead of commercial fishermen in setting seasons and allocating resources.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary ... &year=2015" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's a summary: HB 1660 - DIGEST
Requires the department of fish and wildlife, when making
fisheries management determinations and setting fishing
seasons, to maximize recreational fishing opportunity within
available harvests before determining commercial fishing
opportunity.
Requires the fish and wildlife commission, when using
hatcheries to enhance fishing opportunities, to, consistent
with all tribal treaty obligations, prioritize production at
hatcheries based on their contribution to recreational
fisheries.
Requires license fees and tax revenues deposited into the
state wildlife account that are received from specific user
groups to be appropriated to, and used for, activities that
directly support or benefit the user group from which the
funds were received.
Here's the full text: http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/ ... s/1660.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Toni]

If you go to this page http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary ... &year=2015 You can comment on the bill. It asks for your address etc. and sends it to the proper people.

There is a companion bill SB 5844 Take a look at it too. http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/ ... s/5844.pdf

[Idstud]

We need to get more behind this The HB 1660 is being stalled But the SB 5844 is suppose to get a hearing on the 18th. Please e-mail your local rep and let them know you want them to support it.

[Toni]

The people I have written to have all said they are not on that committee.

[Idstud]

The people I have written to have all said they are not on that committee.

Even though there not on the committee they wont try and help? What are we paying them for?

[Toni]

The people I have written to have all said they are not on that committee.

Even though there not on the committee they wont try and help? What are we paying them for?

They made it sound like they don't have control or input in it. I don't know enough about government process to understand what is happening.

[Idstud]

They made it sound like they don't have control or input in it. I don't know enough about government process to understand what is happening.

Me either I worked hard to get a passing grade in high school that stuff is dry.

[MarkFromSea]

HB 1660 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary ... &year=2015" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
SB 5844 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary ... &year=2015" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They are either identical or near identical. The bill is seven pages long, it changes 4 separate existing laws, the actual changes are contained in about 5 paragraphs of the 7 page bill, look for the lined out and the underlined text, in addition, Sec 1, that paragraph is new.

The four separate laws that are changed are: RCW 77.04.012, 77.04.055, and 77.12.047; reenacting and amending RCW
77.12.170

RCW 77.04.012 is Olympia's Mandate to WDFW, like a mission statement.

I love the concept of the bill, however, it seems to need additional language in order to prevent misuse or misinterpretation by WDFW or the public(WFC types). IMO it needs to include non-native commercial fisheries in second position behind sportsmen in at least a couple locations. To include native fisheries but exclude non-native is just wrong. Rep Pike responded to my suggestion positively:
"Thanks Mark. This bill is a priority for me. I like your suggestion of listing commercial in second position as to not reduce hatchery fish.

I'll talk with the gentleman from OPR staff who did the bulk of work on this bill with me. Thanks.

I appreciate the technical suggestion.

Liz Pike
WA State Representative
District 18"
With some minor changes, I support it.