TUMWATER, Wash. — Outgoing state wildlife director Phil Anderson says although Washington has moved slowly in developing a program to buy back Columbia River commercial fishing licenses it’s still on the agency’s radar.
Two years ago, the Washington and Oregon fish and wildlife commissions adopted the most sweeping overhaul of lower Columbia River fisheries policies in 80 years.
The reforms — jump-started by Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber in mid-2012 — allocate more chinook salmon to sportsmen in the main Columbia and restrict gillnetting to off-channel sites like Youngs Bay near Astoria, Deep River in Washington and potentially Cathlamet Channel.
Sometimes called the “Kitzhaber Plan,” the reforms also require live-capture commercial fishing methods in the main Columbia — such as purse seines and beach seines — designed to harvest abundant hatchery stocks and release wild fish. The goal is to reduce hatchery fish on the spawning grounds used by wild fish.
Washington’s policies implementing the reforms direct the Department of Fish and Wildlife to begin development of a commercial buyback program in the 2013-2016 transition period.
Anderson and his staff gave the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission its annual briefing in mid-January on the progress of implementing the reforms.
The apparent lack of progress on a buyback program was discussed.
“We’ve spent a fair amount of time looking at how to approach it,” Anderson, who is leaving his post in February, told the commission.
Washington has developed a draft questionnaire to send to Columbia River commercial fishermen to gauge their interest in selling their licenses.
Anderson said Washington decided it would be best to coordinate with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, since both states issue licenses.
“We haven’t got a lot of interest shown on the part of Oregon,” Anderson said.
Oregon officials might be interested, but are just busy working on other facets of the complicated reforms, he said.
“It could just be a workload issue versus actual degree of interest,” Anderson said.
The big questions regarding a buyback program are how is it financed and how much are individual fishermen paid.
Buyback programs are not new, Anderson said.
Historically, they’ve been paid for by state money, federal money, commercial fishing industry money or a low-interest federal loan paid back over 30 years by taxing the commercial catch of fish, he said.
“Whether there’s interest or not depends on how much you’re going to pay for the license,” Anderson said.
“Are you going to include boats, or not? I’m not a fan of including boats and gear, that’s my opinion. So, if you’re going to do licenses only, if you have a dual license do you have to sell both licenses? How much are we going to be willing to pay? Until you answer that question, it’s probably hard for someone who you’re surveying to respond.”
Anderson speculated there would be a lot more interest in a program that pays $1 million for a license compared to $10,000.
A buyback program “is easier said than done,” he told the commission.
“It isn’t because we haven’t been working on it.
“At the same time, we’re slow to try to find the pathway forward. It isn’t because we’ve been totally ignoring it.”
