February 14, 2019 — SEAFOOD NEWS — The Washington Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources and Parks held a hearing Tuesday on SB 5617, the anti-gillnet bill, and testifiers on both sides of the issue had strong feelings about the bill.

As introduced, SB 5617 would mandate the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife develop a three-phase program for purchasing and retirement of nontribal salmon gillnets by Dec. 31, 2022. However, no appropriations for buying out the permits was included in the bill. It would effectively eliminate gillnet fisheries in Puget Sound, Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay and the Washington side of the Columbia River.

Chief sponsor Sen. Jesse Salomon, a Democrat and vice chair of the committee, introduced the hearing by saying gillnets are the only non-selective gear allowed in Washington waters and said they are not the best management tool for managing salmon, particularly ESA-listed species.

Sport fishermen were the primary supporters of the bill. The arguments and tensions surrounding the issue mirrored controversies and arguments heard on the Columbia River about the reforms put in place six years ago designed to move gillnets off the main river.

Sport fishermen and guides said their fishing and business was dropping and that the only solution was to eliminate gillnetting. Furthermore, recreational fishing is big business and that should count toward support of the bill.

“Our industry is a transfer of wealth from urban to rural Washington,” said Mark Bush, an northwest guide and angler. Furthermore, some guides have had to reduce their rates or start guiding on inland fisheries to make up for business losses, he added.

Commercial fishermen and processors countered that idea.

The problem is not with gillnets, they said, but with hatchery production. More hatchery-produced salmon would benefit both sport and commercial fishermen. And, they said, it would benefit the southern resident killer whales whose main diet is salmon.

“Our delegation, our association in Bellingham is against this bill, …” said Shannon Moore, a Puget Sound gillnetter. “This bill will not accomplish anything expect putting families out of business.”

Moore also noted a letter from Ron Garner, president of the Puget Sound Anglers, that was posted on SquidPro Tackle’s Salmon Chronicles website, mentioned the unintended consequences of banning gillnets. SB5617 would stop hatchery production increases, Garner wrote.

“It does not address the ESA requirement of commercial clean up or commercial netting to stop the excess hatchery fish on spawning beds. This state bill removes the tool in the tool box that allows those increases to happen. There are ways to work with the commercials to adjust but this is flat out to remove them and going to stop hatchery increases dead in its tracks.

“Our commercials are the ones tasked to clean up excess hatchery fish, allowing us to make more fish for our Orcas, communities, and fishers of Washington. This is law in today’s world that cannot be ignored, until newer science is adopted, which is being working on. While the general public thinks it is the right thing to do, they do not understand the full dynamics and end result it will be bring,” the letter continued.

The letter also showed a graph of orca populations trending down at the same time salmon hatchery production dropped off over several years.

Shortly after Moore’s testimony and mention of Garner’s letter, committee chair Sen. Kevin Van De Wege said Garner sent him an email rescinding that letter.

Some of Washington’s tribes also opposed the bill. The Lummi Nation representative, Lisa Wilson, said it would negatively impact the tribe, despite the bill’s wording of “non-tribal” gillnets. The Quileute Tribe also opposed the bill based on four premises: it did not acknowledge the status of tribes; it was written on the false premise that gillnets are non-selective; it also included the false premise that mark-selective fisheries would always protect wild stocks; and that it’s time for all fishermen — sport, tribal, commercial — to come together to work on the real issues affecting salmon management and orca declines.

Salmon For All’s Jim Wells, a gillnetter, made the point that there is “… no biological reason for banning gillnets.”

The committee room was packed, with several audience members seated in a nearby overflow room. More than 67 people signed up to speak. Due to time constraints, each person was limited to one minute of testimony. The future of the bill is uncertain and it may not move out of committee as it is rumored some of the co-sponsors are re-considering their supporting position.

This story was originally published by SeafoodNews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.