I received the latest issue of Sport Fishing Magazine yesterday in the mail and as I flipped through the pages I read an editorial that just blew my mind!

The article was by Doug Olander the editor and started off by telling of a group called National Resources Defense Council that wants people to boycott Shimano bicycle products.  The reason is because Shimano makes fishing products.

That's right, another attack on an American pastime that's been passed down for generations by some well funded, radical, uneducated environmental militia group.  These groups don't care about facts, science, or debate.  They have an agenda and it doesn't include people like you and me that enjoy fishing and feel enriched by creation after a day on the water.  We are literally on a battlefield right now and the recreational fisherman is under attack from all sides.

If you think that I am overreacting, then just take a look around.  Commercial fisherman are proposing an increase in the commercial harvest of striped bass in the NE and some in the commercial industry are trying to get longlining listed as a sustainable method of fishing.  Commercials are constantly pushing for more allocation and in Alaska they have successfully shut out new entrants to charters wanting to halibut fish.

Whacko environmental groups are using junk science to push for a lead band.  Marine spatial planning, MPA's and arbitrary fishing closures have become the norm.
Locally here in the NW we still have gillnets in our rivers, lakes, and saltwater.  We have a commissioner that proposed closing the state's most productive fishing grounds so that he can have a place to dive without being disturbed.

I could go on and on but hopefully you are hearing what I am saying, recreational fisherman need to stand up and be counted!  There are several ways of doing this but I believe these three are key.
It all starts with voting.  This is as American as apple pie and if you aren't going to make your voice heard at the ballot box then don't complain the next time a politician that doesn't know how to hold a rod casts a vote to deny you access. 

After we have the right people in office then it is accountability time.  Groups like CCA, NSIA, and PSA here locally and many other nationally are very active behind the scenes and need our membership.  For just a fraction of what we spend on ice every year we can pay dues or donate money. 

Lastly, we need to be actively involved.  Grass roots activism is something that I am afraid we are going to half to have going forward.  It's no longer just enough to vote or join, we have to be active on the front lines.  In reading Doug Olander's editorial I learned of a website managed by the American Sportfishing Association called, Keep America Fishing. 

The great thing about this website is that it is just asking you to act.

It doesn't require membership or money, although you can donate if you want.  Keep America Fishing  takes all the work out of it for you.  They let you know when new issues arise and tell you how to help with action items.  They have a Fishing Bill of Rights to sign, alerts, and news, both national and regional. Take a look at this site and I encourage you to sign up and then take action. 

It's time that we as recreational anglers become just as passionate off the water as we are on.
 

The following letter, signed by ten Legislators of the State of Washington expressed what we sportfishers have known for a long, long time.

We are getting the short end of the stick and have been for years upon years… The difference now is that we have some political support to aid our cause:

The commercial crabbers response to this letter? They wrote a letter of their own to the Commission, an ultimatum really, threatening legal action if the Commission rules on the crab allocation issue on Friday, October 1, 2010. The Commission responded with a simple statement:

"The WDFW Wildlife Commission will be continuing on with the meeting agenda as planned". Bravo Commissioners! Bravo!!!

With pressure like this on the Commission, we need to support the "Stand-up Ten" Representatives who had the guts to stand up on behalf of the recreational fishermen of Washington State!

How do we support them? With our votes in less than six weeks during the November election.

It appears that the Seattle Times is about to take its rightful place next to the National Enquirer on the tabloid rack in your neighborhood grocery store.

The article below appeared on the front page of the Times on Saturday, April 10, 2010. It featured a sensational headline sparsely embroidered in fact and the whole truth of the issue is not to be found anywhere within its text.

Nowhere in this unabashed attack on Sportfishing does it mention that the chinook in question are paid for by license fee increases agreed to by the salmon fishing public and the reader is led to believe that the entire Sportfishing industry is greedily feeding at the public trough contributing nothing to the greater state economy.

In fact, the "audit" that produced this "finding"  was originally called for by late Senator Bob Oake, a proponent of the blackmouth fishery who believed the funds generated by the license increase were being inappropriately used by the State for other purposes!
 
State on the hook for $768 for every salmon caught in Puget Sound
And audit revealed Puget Sound's popular blackmouth fishery costs $768 for every fish that's caught.

Puget Sound's popular blackmouth fishery — made possible by a complex system of hatcheries that produce and rear these plump young versions of chinook salmon — costs $768 for every fish that's caught.
That's a calculation made by the state Auditor's Office in an audit released Friday of the state's politically popular key winter fishery.
Each year the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife produces hundreds of thousands of the juvenile salmon in hatcheries, then raises them for 14 months or more in ponds until they lose the instinct to migrate. Then the fish are released for fishermen to hook for sport.
But some of the same environmental conditions that helped push wild chinook onto the Endangered Species list — such as pollution and habitat loss from development — mean few of the young blackmouth live long enough to get snagged. And the many fishing restrictions imposed in response to the 1999 listing of wild chinook also scaled back chances for anglers to try to catch the hatchery chinook.
That means catch rates for blackmouth are such a fraction of what they once were that the state may produce 900 fish for every one an angler nets. And each of those 900 fish costs about 85 cents.
"They're expensive to raise — more expensive than most fish," said Heather Bartlett, hatcheries division manager for Fish and Wildlife. "And their survival lately hasn't been very good."
The auditor's performance review suggested the program was so inefficient it must be changed, a charge Bartlett's agency doesn't dispute.
But the program's goals were dictated by legislative edict in 1993 as a means to sustain and promote sport fishing in Puget Sound. It's paid for by license fees derived from saltwater anglers, money that is dedicated to improving fishing. So as salmon listings have curtailed other angling opportunities, there's been little political will to cut back blackmouth production.
"Fishing used to be open unless we closed it," said Jo Wadsworth, Fish and Wildlife's deputy assistant director for fish. "Now it's closed unless we open it. And this is a unique fishery because it is open in winter when many other things are not."
Sport fishermen on Friday were immediately wary. The audit calls on the Legislature to change the law to let hatcheries produce far fewer and far younger fish — juvenile chinook that cost only about 11 cents each.
But that could reduce even further the number of fish available to be caught. And that frustrates longtime fishermen.
"Has this program always worked right? No," said Clint Muns, with Puget Sound Anglers. "But I think we've made great strides. The department's commitment to hatchery reform is without question." Environmentalists, meanwhile, say the recommendation would be a step in the right direction, but they believe the auditor missed the key issue. 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."
Fish and Wildlife officials have said they support the auditor's recommendations.
Craig Welch: 206-464-2093 or cwelch@seattletimes.com

One of the comments on this article on the Times' website says it all:

"Wow, that is one impressive piece of analysis! The Seattle Times figured out that if you divide the cost of the program by the number of caught fish, you arrive at the cost per caught fish!

I wonder how much the performance audit cost that came up with this revelation? Say it cost $500,000, and they came up with 4 other similarly stupid findings. That would be $100K per stupid finding!"

This sad piece of misguided writing was bound to attract the attention of most, if not all in the Sportfishing community.

The legendary Frank Haw, acknowledged "Father" of the blackmouth fishery penned the following response:

All:
I was heavily involved in establishing the original program that began in the late 1960’s and continued to be successful well into the 1980’s (after I left the Department of Fisheries).  During the heyday of the program upwards of 10% of the “delayed releases” of Chinook salmon from south Puget Sound were subsequently caught by Puget Sound anglers.  Instead of migrating from the sound and residing off the west coast of Vancouver Island, the fish tended to remain in Puget Sound where they contributed heavily to a year-round fishery.  The resulting benefit/cost ratio was very high and the “delayed release” programs (for Chinook and coho salmon) were primarily responsible for establishing record sport catches in Puget Sound.

Since then conditions in the South Sound, including the primary holding area in a section of Olympia’s Capitol Lake, have worsened to the detriment of survivals.  Migration patterns have, on the other hand have apparently remained unchanged.  The mandating legislation was championed by State Senator Oake (deceased) during the late 1980’s as I recall.  As I understand, Senator Oake later called for the audit because he had reason to believe that the funds were being misused.  Since then questions have also arisen regarding the elevated level of PCBs in “resident” Chinook salmon.  

Instead of mandating the annual release of 3 million delayed release Chinook into Puget Sound (which, though never achieved is way too many) the program could better serve anglers by being more broadly goal oriented (e. g., increase the quality and opportunity for salmon angling in Puget Sound) and flexible to accommodate the changing productivity and fisheries management requirements.  As recommended by the audit, the HSRG should become involved in the program to some degree.   The inability to adequately monitor mark selective fisheries is a determent to harvesting fish that already exist and this could be use of funds that is highly beneficial to Puget Sound anglers.

As far as I know, the basic techniques used for producing resident fish are the same as we used 40 years ago.  The program should also focus new ideas, experimentation, and evaluation for the purpose of enhancing resident salmon populations.
Rather than defending the existing program we should be calling for the changes needed to make it successful.  This is obviously something of great interest to the Puget Sound Anglers and we should be working with them to establish a response.
 
Frank

Let this be a wake-up call to all who call Puget Sound "home" and enjoy treating family and friends to a day on the water. Get involved! Join CCA and Puget Sound Anglers!

The sad fact is that newspapers are going the way of the 8-track tape, the Drive-In theater and will evidently resort to sensationalism to survive. 

With drivel like this article by Craig Welch sullying the formerly proud tradition of the Seattle Times, I will find another use for this publication.

The Seattle Times will now be found hanging next to my water closet.

Last year during the 2009 legislative session sportsmen and women stepped up to the plate and agreed to a two year 10% rate increase on their licenses to help cushion the blow from the massive $30 million dollar general fund reduction the state enacted for WDFW. To thanks us for our efforts and willingness to pay a price to enjoy our favorite family past time the state legislator is proposing further cuts of up to $10 million to the WDFW.  Enough is enough!!!

These additional cuts will lead to more layoffs in enforcement, closure of up to 5 more hatcheries that would directly affect the fisheries for salmon in Grays Harbor, on the coast, and in Puget Sound. In addition to these cuts, up to 60% of the budget for enhancement and salmon recovery could be cut. How can we continue to provide quality fisheries for our citizens, generate tourism dollars and grow the states tax base if we continue to cut from the WDFW? 

I for one am tired of paying a high price for these people to go to Olympia and be so fiscally irresponsible. They spend too much money when they have a surplus instead of doing what you and I do and putting a little away for a rainy day. Did they really think they were going to have a surplus forever? Why weren't they as responsible as you and I? Now Joe Fisherman has to pay the price once again. When will we get this $40 million in money from the general fund to flow back to WDFW? How much higher a price will you and I have to pay? Is that price getting so high that you will quit fishing and generating revenue for the state?  Will people continue to come to the State of Washington and spend money here to fish?

It seems to me the state would want to get as much of the billions of dollars that recreational fisherman spend each year to be spent here in the State of Washington. Wouldn't that generate some needed revenue? I here the "old timers" remarking that Washington used to be the salmon capital. Wouldn't the state coffers be better off if we could return to those days? If we keep cutting WDFW we will never get there. Recreational fishing could be a leading industry in Washington if the state would embrace it. Unfortunatley, they continue to look at you and I as little more than a side note.

 We need to make our voices heard, you can email your legislator and the governor.  I've already done it, join me in the fight.