Catch Record Cards

Thinking back, I can remember that when the state first promoted the idea of catch record cards for salmon, a food fish, they assured us all that they would never charge a fee for the cards.
Yeah! Right!

But I'm not posting just to whine about their trustworthiness. I wonder if anyone here can remember just when the advent of salmon catch record cards was. I'm thinking it was just after the Boldt decision but just cannot remember for sure.

Can anyone help with this?

Thanks!

1967 ??

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/harvest/

Thanks boater,

Using your link and examining the earlier "Catch Reports" I found the following:

Year - No. of Salmon Harvested
1963 - n/a
1964 - 475,662
1965 - 942,223
1966 - 756,896
1967 - 1,063,440

Year - No. of Cards Issued
1963 - n/a
1964 - n/a
1965 - 387,875
1966 - 392,850
1967 - 472,225

That leads me to believe that the first "Catch Record Cards were probably issued in either the year 1964 or 1965, well before the Boldt decision.

77.32.430 RCW states that, “(1) Catch record card information is necessary for proper management of the state's food fish and game fish species and shellfish resources. Catch record card administration shall be under rules adopted by the commission. There is no charge for an initial catch record card. Each subsequent or duplicate catch record card costs ten dollars”.

It is not clear when it became mandatory, enforced by penalty, to mark each fish.

The reason I am digging into this is that I recently caught and recorded the catch of several salmon in the rain. The record of the first fish is barely legible and the records of the others are not legible at all and in fact are barely even visible.

It struck me as bizarre that we are required to record our catch immediately, as though we the client cannot be trusted to do the right thing at a time when conditions are more favorable to creating a usable record.

As things are now I dare not even correct the legibility issue for fear of complaint concerning the altering of the record.

Therefore I am considering proposing a rule change to require that the cards shall be returned promptly at the end of the season with all salmon retained properly recorded as means of simplifying our recording obligation and providing more usable data.

Although it seems doubtful that the DFW would entertain such a proposal it does make sense to me that a little trust might result in lower administration costs and more adequate data being returned.

Plunker wrote:
Therefore I am considering proposing a rule change to require that the cards shall be returned promptly at the end of the season with all salmon retained properly recorded as means of simplifying our recording obligation and providing more usable data.

Although it seems doubtful that the DFW would entertain such a proposal it does make sense to me that a little trust might result in lower administration costs and more adequate data being returned.

Hey Plunk, isn't that already a rule?

WAC 220-56-175 Agency filings affecting this section
Catch record cards....

" (6)(a) Every person issued a catch record card must, by April 30 of the year after they used the card, return the card to the department of fish and wildlife. People issued a Puget Sound Dungeness crab catch record card must return the card to the Washington department of fish and wildlife or report the card information at the designated internet site by the dates indicated on the card."

I doubt that even with real-time data from sportfishers, the WDFW would use the data collected. Real data can't be manipulated, massaged to meet the model objectives. They have a formula to calculate any conceivable lack of actual data. Trust me......

There's no way. Polar opposites. The commercial fleets are not scrutinized at anywhere near the level that sportfishers are. Recreational fisheries are curtailed or eliminated if the level of enforcement isn't to the WDFW standard. In the FRAM process, additional sportfishing impacts are attributed to our mortality, based on non-reporting, or illegal catch, its a substantial increase. Nowhere in that FRAM process is there that kind of accountability for commercial fishers. How many damn commercial ghost nets have an impact, where are those, or other assumption of guilt attributes, for increasing commercial impact present in that process?

The bias is blatant, and obvious.

Sorry, didn't mean to go there without some explanation. My point was, if the WDFW was really interested in using catch record data, they'd get serious about collecting it, not pretending to use it after the fact. I don't see the bias against sportfishers changing from an adversarial role. Best you'd get is another citizens panel as a feel good reach-around.

Good one Bob,

I see you have been spending enough time debating lawyers and government employees to have caught me with a fuzzy proposal.

RCW 220-56-175 says a couple of things pertinent to this discussion.

(4) Immediately upon catching and possessing a salmon, steelhead, sturgeon or halibut, anglers must enter, in ink, in the appropriate space on the card, the place, date of catch, and species (catch type). For sturgeon, anglers also must record the length of the fish; for halibut, anglers also must record the vessel type; and for salmon, anglers also must indicate whether or not the fish was marked. (and)

(6)(a) Every person issued a catch record card must, by April 30 of the year after they used the card, return the card to the department of fish and wildlife. [i]

What I would propose is to replace the "highlighted phrase" and "the above portion of (6)(b)" with something like...

"[i]Every person who retains" a salmon, steelhead, sturgeon or halibut, anglers must enter, in ink, in the appropriate space on the card, the place, date of catch, and species (catch type), and must by April 30 of the year after they used the card, return the card to the department of fish and wildlife.

Hairlipangler makes a good point! It is likely not something fish & game would consider.

But as a personal use fisherman I would prefer the luxury of recording my catch at home.

Why cannot sport fishermen be afforded the same privilege as the citizen and Tribal commercial fishers?

Would anyone else here be in favor of seeing such a change?

Is there any probability that such a proposal would even get so far as to be considered by the Commission? (dumb question huh!)

Probably not, because it wouldn't embrace the dual use of enforcing the daily limit...said daily limit not applying to commercial or tribal fishers.

Fish on...

Todd

There are too many people out there keeping salmon and not filling out their salmon cards at all, if they even own one..

The focus s/b on ticketing those individuals. Yea, right, HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Anyone out there know how many Game Wardens are assigned to the lower Duwamish area when the salmon are in thick?

If our WDFW REALLY wanted us to turn in our "punch cards" they wouldn't be making YOU pay the postage to send in the damn cards in! If they simply allowed the dealers to collect the cards and then paid the dealers postage once a month to send them in, they would likely get back 10 times more cards! At the very least, the cards should have a pre paid postage on them.

That would be way to simple and easy!

No one has ever accused the WDFW of being very smart....and there is good reason for that!
:140: