Mill Creek Skagit Steelhead Meeting

TroutHustle

Active Member
I just got back from it. The Department is saying that they only have enough money to live up to the monitoring requirements in the Proposal to NOAA for 14 days. This is to be spread out over 2 months as of now. I believe the Department said they are 110k short of what they would need to pay for monitoring for the entire 2 month period.

So, that’s a few days per week of the two month period. Many people in the room were surprised. I was one of them.

I personally think they should wait a year for a more solidified and well funded plan. But, god bless em’ for trying.

Anyone with a better understanding please feel free to correct or elaborate.
 

Klickrolf

Active Member
Don't have a better understanding, none at all actually. But, I think it can work if they make sure no one knows when monitoring will occur and if they hit scofflaws hard, HARD!
 

quilbilly

Big Time Hater
Short of money......after all this time working on the plan a paltry 100 large is going to limit it to 2 weeks...is this where the 'classified waters' and associated tags begin.....?
I've felt for a while that eventually it will happen.

Sad to hear about this, was kinda hoping to fish it a bit more than 2 weeks.
 

TroutHustle

Active Member
However, I guess they could run it as stated this year and hopefully have the better plan and funding next year?

Who knows.
 

Hillbilly Redneck

wishin i was fishin
I’m guessing that if there is no c&r season there will be zero days of monitoring/enforcement.
No worries. I’m sure the locals will keep a eye on things.
I believe that the responsible anglers are the only ones that truly give a shit and by having them on the river you are actually saving fish.
 

plecoptera419

Active Member
I'm calling bullshit on this quoted dollar figure. I just calculated wages for four Scientific Technician 1 (fish checkers), a Fish and Wildlife Biologist 1, and two Fish and Wildlife Enforcement Officer 2 all full time at 40 hrs a week for three months and your still only at $65371.20. https://www.ofm.wa.gov/state-human-resources/compensation-job-classes/ClassifiedJobListing That's wages for monitoring and enforcement with two full time enforcement guys working the river full time 100% of focus on the Skagit fishery! When have we ever seen that happen? What am I missing here? 45000.00 in gas money???
 

BDD

Active Member
I'm calling bullshit on this quoted dollar figure. I just calculated wages for four Scientific Technician 1 (fish checkers), a Fish and Wildlife Biologist 1, and two Fish and Wildlife Enforcement Officer 2 all full time at 40 hrs a week for three months and your still only at $65371.20. https://www.ofm.wa.gov/state-human-resources/compensation-job-classes/ClassifiedJobListing That's wages for monitoring and enforcement with two full time enforcement guys working the river full time 100% of focus on the Skagit fishery! When have we ever seen that happen? What am I missing here?
You are missing the benefits and other fringe that is required for some of these positions; WDFW has an indirect rate of around 30%. Not saying there isn't more to your argument but just citing the job listing will fall well short for the other expenses it takes to hire these positions.
 
Last edited:

quilbilly

Big Time Hater
100 grand is not a lot more than a rounding error in a 430 million dollar operation like WDFW....if they wanted to find the money to open it, I'll go ahead and guess they could find it.....
 

plecoptera419

Active Member
No. Fish checkers are non permanent. No benefits. Biologist 1 same. No Benefits. Enforcement + 30% still only $69915.10 total, and the day I see two full time enforcement guys working one area full time for three months straight pigs will be able to fly.
 

BDD

Active Member
100 grand is not a lot more than a rounding error in a 430 million dollar operation like WDFW....if they wanted to find the money to open it, I'll go ahead and guess they could find it.....
Probably so, but what are you going to give up? If it wasn't budgeted, you have to make it up somewhere and then it becomes a political issue. If you have the Director on record saying there will be a season and then there isn't the budget for it, well that would not look too good on his part.
 

Stonefish

Triploid, Humpy & Seaplane Hater....Know Grizzler
Probably so, but what are you going to give up? If it wasn't budgeted, you have to make it up somewhere and then it becomes a political issue. If you have the Director on record saying there will be a season and then there isn't the budget for it, well that would not look too good on his part.
He’ll say yes, I promised a season....but I didn’t promise how long the season would be.

He continues to lose credibility and give WDFW a bigger black eye then it already has.
I personally think the guy needs to go along with the rest of his cronies.
First the lack of transparency in NOF, then the PS Chinook management plan and now this.
SF
 

BDD

Active Member
No. Fish checkers are non permanent. No benefits. Biologist 1 same. No Benefits. Enforcement + 30% still only $69915.10 total, and the day I see two full time enforcement guys working one area full time for three months straight pigs will be able to fly.
Which is why I said SOME positions. Just because they are non permanent doesn't mean there are not other expenses involved in hiring and non permanent positions are still potentially subject to indirect and fringe. I don't know if they would hire new personnel or not for these positions. It might depend on how long the actual season is. But the people they have do the work might be entitled to benefits...I don't know. I do know it often takes more than what the listed hourly rate of the position is to make the hire. But I totally see your point...if there is a will, there is a way.
 
Last edited:

plecoptera419

Active Member
If you have the Director on record saying there will be a season and then there isn't the budget for it, well that would not look too good on his part.
That is precisely whats happened here, and yes he stuck his foot in his mouth in a big way. They never had the money to fund this, and they had to have known that from the get go. The legislature took the money from the Skagit fishery when it was shut down years ago. That's how they roll at the state. Spend the money we gave you, or we take it back for the general fund.

Which is why I said SOME positions. Just because they are non permanent doesn't mean there are not other expenses involved in hiring. I don't know if they would hire new personnel or not for these positions. It might depend on how long the actual season is. But the people they have do the work might be entitled to benefits...I don't know. I do know it often takes more than what the listed hourly rate of the position is to make the hire. But I totally see your point...if there is a will, there is a way.
Look, I get what your saying 100%, but I'm not exactly just flying off the cuff here. I speaking from personal experience of having worked for the State. The figures I quoted are middle of the road in the step system. Considering that new hires rarely get that rate unless they have the experience to back it, and the fact that two enforcement guys working an area exclusively is never going to happen, that $69,915.00 should more than enough to cover the hiring process. (Note I said should be)
 

quilbilly

Big Time Hater
It would be hard to fathom that somewhere along the line the topic of cost to the department didn't come up, was discussed, and a decision on how to proceed on that was made.
Being that they know how much they're short, they knew how much ( or close to ) they needed and failed to budget for it.
That's just absurd, any large agency can get 100k just by digging around and asking around.
 

Support WFF | Remove the Ads

Support WFF by upgrading your account. Site supporters benefits include no ads and access to some additional features, few now, more in the works. Info

Latest posts

Top