IFPAG Meeting Report

[Don Wittenberger]

I'm not going to repeat what I said in my earlier summary, so most of this report will involve discussion of the budget.

WDFW’s Inland Fisheries Policy Advisory Group consists of 15 members appointed by the director to provide public feedback to managers about WDFW’s freshwater fisheries management policies (trout and warmwater species). I represent Washington state’s tiger muskie/pike sportfishing community on IFPAG and this report is about the March 12, 2011 meeting in Olympia. WDFW staff who gave presentations included Joe Stohr, deputy director; Jim Scott, assistant director for fish programs; Jim Uehara, resident native fish program manager; Bruce Bolding, warmwater manager; and John Weiland.

Strategic Plan for 2011-2017. Jim Scott told us WDFW plans to direct more resources (money and staff) to inland fishing to improve these fisheries in coming years, because the popularity of our inland fisheries is growing and Washington is becoming a “destination” for this type of fishing. This is good news for the tiger muskie fishery, because it probably means tiger muskie fishing opportunities will be maintained and might even be expanded.

Jim Uehara said the 2011-2017 strategic plan has two major goals, 1) conserve and protect native fish and wildlife, and 2) provide sustainable fishing, hunting, and other wildlife recreational opportunities. WDFW hopes to increase public participation in these activities through its marketing plan. Jim indicated WDFW is thinking about converting some trout lakes to warmwater species, and stocking larger trout (11-inch instead of 8-inch) in the remaining trout lakes because anglers prefer to the larger trout. This means the hatcheries would produce fewer trout, though. For the put-and-take trout fisheries, WDFW is shooting for a catch rate of 2.5 fish per angler per day on Opening Day and 1 fish per angler per day throughout the season.

One of WDFW’s goals is to maintain license sales, because this is an important revenue source. Hunting license sales were down a little in 2010, but fishing licenses had an increase, so 2010 was a record year for overall license sales.

My own thoughts are that investing resources in warmwater fisheries makes sense from both a recreational and fiscal point of view, because as fishing opportunities for salmon and other native species continue to decline more people are fishing for bass, walleyes, and other warmwater species (including tiger muskies). Except for tiger muskies, which are sterile and must be produced in a hatchery, the warmwater species can maintain their populations through natural reproduction and don't have to be supported by expensive hatchery operations, which is significant in this time of severe budget restraints.

This brings me to Joe Stohr’s discussion of the 2011-2013 budget.

2011-2013 Budget. Washington’s state government operates under a biennial (two-year) budget, and the legislature is currently working on the budget for the 2011-2013 biennium which begins July 1, 2011 and ends June 30, 2013. State tax revenues continue to decline, so legislators are focusing on where to make cuts. The state is projected to be about $5-6 billion short of what's needed to maintain existing programs at existing levels, so it’s certain there will be more programs eliminated, more spending cuts, and more layoffs. Nearly half of the state budget goes for education (public schools, community colleges, and four-year colleges), and much of the rest is spent on highways, prisons, and DSHS programs (such as Medicaid for elderly people in nursing homes). As Joe Stohr put it, 81% of the budget goes for "educate, medicate, and incarcerate."

WDFW will lose more of that portion of its funding which comes from state taxes, and probably will have to cut some programs and lose additional staff on top of last year's layoffs. The portion of its budget coming from the State General Fund (general taxes) dropped from $110 million in 2007-2009 to $71 million in 2009-2011 and Stohr expects it to drop again to about $60 million in 2011-2013. WDFW other major sources of funding include the federal government, hunting and fishing licenses, and private/local funding (such as counties and Public Utility Districts).

The breakdown of WDFW’s 2009-2011 budget looks like this: Native fish recovery, $47 million and 226.4 staff positions (FTEs); fish production, $57.5 million and 287 FTEs; fisheries management (which includes both commercial salmon and saltwater and freshwater recreational fisheries), $33.3 million and 197.9 FTEs; wildlife protection, $10.8 million and 47 FTEs; hunting and wildlife viewing, $12.9 million and 50.7 FTEs; land management, $28.8 million and 108.4 FTEs; enforcement, $37.5 million and 158.8 FTEs; ecosystem restoration, $5.6 million and 28.4 FTEs; hydraulic project approvals, $9.8 million and 52.7 FTEs; habitat conservation technical assistance, $8 million and 39.1 FTEs; and aquatic species monitoring and control, $1.5 million and 10.2 FTEs. I don't have comparable figures for the proposed 2011-2013 budget in front of me, which wouldn't be real meaningful anyway, until the legislature finalizes a state budget.

The largest amounts of State General Fund money go to native fish recovery, fish production (i.e., hatcheries), fisheries management, enforcement, hydraulic project approvals, and habitat conservation technical assistance. Stohr told us there’s “a lot of pressure" to avoid cutting hatcheries or enforcement, so the other programs that rely heavily on State General Fund funding are likely to bear the brunt of cuts. He said WDFW will try to preserve field services by concentrating cuts in headquarters operations and management staff. WDFW also is trying to replace some revenue losses through higher license fees and some new fees. I’ll talk about those in the sections below.

Licenses and Fees. I have WDFW's proposed license fee schedule, which is pending legislative approval and isn't posted on WDFW's website yet, but it's too lengthy to post in entirety here. If these fees are approved, most WDFW license fees would go up, but some would go down. The largest increases are in nonresident and hunting licenses. An annual resident freshwater fishing license will go up from $26.00 to $29.50 and an annual nonresident license from $50.00 to $84.50. There will no longer be a 3-day freshwater permit; you'll be able to buy a combination license (freshwater/saltwater/shellfish) for 1 day (resident $11.35, nonresident $20.15), 2 days (resident $15.75, nonresident $28.95), or 3 days (resident $19.05, nonresident $35.55). The two-pole permit will drop from $24.50 to $14.80 for residents or nonresidents. If you want to know what any of the other proposed fees are, e-mail me at Dw546@aol.com.

The state parks lost all of their State General Fund money ($64 million) and are seeking to restore this funding through a $30 annual access permit to state lands. If this bill passes, WDFW would get about $14 million and users who have previously used WDFW for free (e.g., birdwatchers, boaters and rafters using WDFW boat launches, etc.) would have to pay this fee. As the bill is currently written, hunting or fishing license purchases would have to pay an additional $7 for this permit, bringing the cost of your annual resident freshwater fishing privileges to $36.50 ($29.50 + $7.00) if you want to use WDFW boat launches or park your vehicle on WDFW-owned land. WDFW is working to reduce this charge to $0 for hunting and fishing license holders, so that license purchasers "don't have to pay twice" to use WDFW facilities, but there's no assurance this will happen.

Hydraulic permits are required for such projects as waterfront property owners who wish to construct bulkheads and logging operations that build roads crossing migratory fish streams. Washington's logging industry has an exemption from certain provisi

[dougw]

Thanks for the updates Don.