SENATE BILL REPORT
SB 5146
BYSenators Owen, Craswell, Kreidler, Lee, Stratton, Sellar and Conner
Providing a Hood Canal marine fish preservation area.
Senate Committee on Environment & Natural Resources
Senate Hearing Date(s):January 30, 1989; February 7, 1989
Majority Report: That Substitute Senate Bill No. 5146 be substituted therefor, and the substitute bill do pass.
Signed by Senators Benitz, DeJarnatt, Kreidler, Owen, Patterson, Sutherland.
Senate Staff:Vic Moon (786-7469)
February 8, 1989
AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT & NATURAL RESOURCES, FEBRUARY 7, 1989
BACKGROUND:
Non-Indian commercial and recreational fisheries both occur for food fish in Hood Canal. There is competition between the commercial and recreational fishermen who fish Hood Canal for coho salmon, chinook salmon, pink salmon, ling cod, and rockfish species.
Some recreational fishermen would prefer to have Hood Canal designated as only a recreational fishing area.
SUMMARY:
Non-Indian commercial harvest of food fish in Hood Canal is incrementally reduced 25 percent, 50 percent, 75 percent and 100 percent in the first four years following enactment of the legislation. After four years, a total prohibition of Hood Canal non-Indian commercial food fish harvesting occurs.
EFFECT OF PROPOSED SUBSTITUTE:
A commercial fishery is allowed for herring used as bait fish and for food fish produced by private aquaculture. Escapement will be allowed to salmon hatcheries and for natural production. If the Indian tribes that have fishing rights on fish destined to go to Hood Canal claim foregone opportunity to increase their catch, the restrictions on commercial harvest will not take effect until an agreement can be reached between the state and the tribes.
Appropriation: none
Revenue: none
Fiscal Note: requested January 20, 1989
Senate Committee - Testified: Steve Arbaugh, Puget Sound Gillnetters (con); Barry Jenkins, Trout Unlimited (pro); Ed Manary, Department of Fisheries (con); D. McBreen, Salmon for All (pro)