Skagit Wild Steelhead CnR Fishery........Eliminated 2020

Smalma

Active Member
My understanding is that of that $2.5 million for salmon and steelhead monitoring $272,000 is for the Skagit 3 month CnR season.

Curt
 

quilbilly

Big Time Hater
This looks like the it's close to becoming the time WDFW implements a BC type of classified waters permitting fee, the 'user fee' to offset the costs of having the season....
I hope not.....but I won't put it past them.
 

_WW_

Geriatric Skagit Swinger
WFF Supporter
This looks like the it's close to becoming the time WDFW implements a BC type of classified waters permitting fee, the 'user fee' to offset the costs of having the season....
I hope not.....but I won't put it past them.
And even that needs legislative approval!
Contact your legislators!!!
 

Charles Sullivan

Active Member
This looks like the it's close to becoming the time WDFW implements a BC type of classified waters permitting fee, the 'user fee' to offset the costs of having the season....
I hope not.....but I won't put it past them.
Why not? If the demand is there, and the pols wont fund it, why shouldn't the anglers fund it? I buy gas and rods and feathers etc. Why not the monitoring that the fishery requires?

Go sox,
Cds
 

quilbilly

Big Time Hater
Once you start down the road of pay to play, the WDFW will be the entity in control of how much and where.
Given their stellar management track record in anadramous fisheries, what could go wrong ?
100 bucks a day sound good to you ?
 

JS

Active Member
Once you start down the road of pay to play, the WDFW will be the entity in control of how much and where.
Given their stellar management track record in anadramous fisheries, what could go wrong ?
100 bucks a day sound good to you ?

Word, then for them to send that 100 bucks anywhere in the world, with the exception of rehabilitation of salmon and steelhead.
 

quilbilly

Big Time Hater
As an agency that has literally failed in its mission statement, and unsuccessfully managed anadramous recreational fisheries to the point where the discussion is now whether they will continue to exist...and they've done so on your money....so is it reasonable to assume giving WDFW more money will make them more efficient, more capable, more responsive to the stakeholders ?

Adding a revenue stream to a failed agency looking to backfill a budget deficit on the backs of recreational fishers who paid for them to manage it to the edge of existence.

No thanks, I'll pass....
 

Charles Sullivan

Active Member
As an agency that has literally failed in its mission statement, and unsuccessfully managed anadramous recreational fisheries to the point where the discussion is now whether they will continue to exist...and they've done so on your money....so is it reasonable to assume giving WDFW more money will make them more efficient, more capable, more responsive to the stakeholders ?

Adding a revenue stream to a failed agency looking to backfill a budget deficit on the backs of recreational fishers who paid for them to manage it to the edge of existence.

No thanks, I'll pass....

I understand what you are saying, I do think that it is super important to note that WDFW get the blame for reductions in fish runs that have been reduced due to things mostly out of their control. They have no say over logging, farming and development. To the extent that you blame harvest, they even have to share blame with boldt in that Boldt set up MSY as the way that runs were to be divided for harvest. The "blame WDFW" mindset leaves other agencies and groups who I believe are way more responsible for the decline in fish runs free from blame.
No one here singles out the DNR or Weirhouser (sp?), local planning departments, DOE, the groups fighting to defund DOE if they do their job etc. It seems as though their portion of the blame has been placed on WDFW.
It's the equivalent of the old man who rails about "the government" not knowing which government he is talking about.
I totally understand a lot of frustration with regards to WDFW. At times I share it. I also think they catch a lot of blame for things that they are simply not responsible for.

Go Sox,
cds
 

quilbilly

Big Time Hater
Probably more than a bit of truth in the blame factor, but nonetheless, I know of nobody who feels WDFW has been either proactive or effective in the management of anadramous recreational fisheries....nobody.
While they most certainly aren't alone in this, can you honestly say they've been effective in those things that they can control, or have been operating in the interest of recreational fishers ?
Giving them additional funding won't change that.
 

Stonefish

Triploid, Humpy & Seaplane Hater....Know Grizzler
Once you start down the road of pay to play, the WDFW will be the entity in control of how much and where.
Given their stellar management track record in anadramous fisheries, what could go wrong ?
100 bucks a day sound good to you ?

Totally agree.
I'm sure folks would love it once you pay the fee and WDFW goes one step further and starts assigning you beats..... with a bunch of shitty water to fish.
Time to break out the scotch, ascots and your new Simms wading jacket.
SF

1572554140382.png
 

Charles Sullivan

Active Member
Probably more than a bit of truth in the blame factor, but nonetheless, I know of nobody who feels WDFW has been either proactive or effective in the management of anadramous recreational fisheries....nobody.
While they most certainly aren't alone in this, can you honestly say they've been effective in those things that they can control, or have been operating in the interest of recreational fishers ?
Giving them additional funding won't change that.
I think that they have been as effective as the machine that they are a part of allows them to be. WDFW is an agency driven by the legislature. It's the old kaisan (sp?) deal that a process will yield what the process was created to yield. In the case of fish management in WA the process has yielded harvest because that's what it's created to do. We split harvest and can only really increase harvest with hatcheries. So that is what the machine has done.

Everyone now blames the physical machine, not the engineers who created it.

I'm not saying that WDFW is blameless, just that it's important to blame WDFW for the things they have done in the context of what they have been asked to do. Mostly they have been asked to split harvest with the tribes and pump fish out with hatcheries. It's time we asked them to do something different. That is a political problem.

Go Sox,
cds
 

quilbilly

Big Time Hater
Totally agree.
I'm sure folks would love it once you pay the fee and WDFW goes one step further and starts assigning you beats..... with a bunch of shitty water to fish.
Time to break out the scotch, ascots and your new Simms wading jacket.
SF

There's a lot lot of writing on user fees, effects and outcomes, in my view not much of it good. As a general rule, they can certainly price out segments of the population base, and multiple cases and a number of states where revenue outstripped the cost of services provided by the user fee, with excess then returned to general fund.
Courts have called that a tax, not a user fee.

User fees are how an agency tells the population we can't do our job, they (Gov) won't give us enough money, and whether that's actually the case can sometimes be difficult to discern.
In my view, not so much in the case of WDFW, they had to have seen the problems coming...
Everyone else did....[
 

DimeBrite

Active Member
You need to deal with the WA legislature in terms it can understand. Pay to play. Grow this and give it a catchy oncorhynchus brand name. Mykiss Kush or Kush for Mykiss. Bring in April Volkey to market, make T-shirts, do media interviews. Enough blather in this stuffy forum. Educate the masses and get them to pay for a cause. The people love a new cause.
Steelhead Financing.jpeg
Pay tribute. Get your season.
 
Last edited:

quilbilly

Big Time Hater
There's plenty of info out there on user fees and recreation on public lands. Pricing out of population segments, as well as shifting usage patterns come up often as unintended outcomes, as do increasing reliance on user fees, thus decreasing the public funding of public lands, and increasing user fees that never quite close the gap in many cases.

But this below makes sense to me, public resources are just that, public.

"When agencies begin to act like entrepreneurs seeking
self-funding through fees, and low-income people are excluded, the public
purpose—the very reason for public ownership—is defeated.
Why do we have public beaches, hiking trails, campgrounds or teen
centers? For these resources to be legitimately in the public sector, they must
be fulfilling a public need; a clear sense of public mission and public purpose
is essential to the formation of sound recreation policy (More, 2000). Un-
fortunately, this point is often lost in current discussions. Many see fees only
in terms of cash flows—dollars taken in versus operating costs. And the rec-
reation research literature is often most concerned with the mechanics of
setting fees—reference prices, degree of acceptance, revenue optimizing and
the like. Ultimately, however, a strong sense of mission and purpose are
fundamental to the successful management of public parks and recreation.
Our results suggest that fees undercut this mission: they are a major step in
the gentrification of recreation resources. When the parks are reserved for
the comfortably well-off, will they continue to be publicly necessary?"
 

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