Claiming that harvest of Chambers steelhead must fall under ESA permitting for hatchery operations is a bit of a stretch. The two are not related. By your reasoning, there are a few issues with targeted fisheries that would need to be addressed; harvest of coho in the presence of listed chinook in PS and the validity behind the OS movement would be illegal without 4(d) coverage. Almost every hatchery stock targeted in the CR occurs in the presence of listed stocks. The lawful take of those listed stocks do not in any shape or form fall under NEPA documentation for specific hatcheries.

On the note of take, so many people are certain that take is occurring. With your legal background, you should have the ability to effectively question what take actually is. Take is a defined process with a quantifiable result leading to the ultimate death of a listed fish. Harvest is not one of them. Other forms of take such as disease and competition cannot be proved let alone quantified without obscure studies. Anyone can make the claim that NO fish are dying in hatchery traps, but evidence must be provided. The same goes for disease transmission, predation, or out-competition.

I'm not defending take of listed species, but I am defending WDFW because they're caught in a bad situation right now for reasons out of their control. They're a wounded animal right now and a few people are using this opportunity to jump on them knowing full well that this steelhead problem, if it goes in the favor of WFC, will lead to the eventual demise of all hatchery programs in PS. You can't honestly tell me you desire this.