Interesting to me is that there is no scientific evidence referenced in the attached complaint document. Most of the verbiage used the term "potentially adverse consequences".

Where is the science? (not speculation)

The Wild Fish Conservancy is not in this for the sake of “wild fish”. This outfit has been lining their pockets for years on the tax payers dollar. Here is how they operate:

The WFC creates a project, then applies for and receives local, state and federal dollars to fund the project. Once the project is approved the WFC pays itself to manage the project.

In this instance; The hatchery fish will be removed and the wild population wont improve. When that happens the WFC will be quick to point to habitat as the key contributor to the failure of increased wild returns. This allows the WFC to create more projects and be funded by all party’s that are willing to save our wild fish. Its simple, these projects are the gift that just keeps on giving $$$$$.

Take a look at their website and note the size of the projects the WFC manages.

I did a little math for you below:

The WFC lists twenty-one projects on their website, of those twenty-one, eighteen have a dollar amount attached to them. The total dollar amount for all eighteen projects is $4,787,391. That makes the average project that the WFC takes on about $265,966.

The point is that the WFC is not in the just for the sake of conserving wild fish. The WFC is in this to collect money with the ruse of conservation.

Follow the money….in 2011 payroll expenses for WFC was $929,332.

That is just under half of their total reported revenue of $1,999,164.

This outfit is a complete waste of government money. How much money that was directed for projects went in to the pockets of this outfit?

Take a look at their balance sheet at http://www.nonprofitfacts.com/WA/Wild-Fish-Conservancy.html#balanceSheet