Defiance Boats!



Kast Gear!

Power Pro Shimano Reels G Loomis Rods

  Willie boats! Puffballs!


Three Rivers Marine


Page 6 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#154477 - 07/11/02 06:20 PM Re: Washington Trout declares war on recreational fishing
RICH G Offline
I believe in a lot of stupid schit

Registered: 11/05/00
Posts: 3312
Loc: Land of the Lost
Thanks WT,

Its nice to know that there are groups out there that are fighting for the wild fish.

#154478 - 07/11/02 09:49 PM Re: Washington Trout declares war on recreational fishing
Fish Jesus Offline

Registered: 09/25/01
Posts: 768
Loc: Tacoma
Man...this has been on heck of a thread.
It made me cry, cheer, refrain from lashing out, shadowbox, shake my head, clench my fists, grit my teeth, roll my eyes, do the one man wave, take a walk, scratch my head, ponder future fishing prospects, break out the soapbox, slap my forehead, pump my fist, yell, walk away and laugh! :p laugh

The rest of the time was spent fishing with a little work thrown in. laugh

Good thread! cool


#154479 - 07/11/02 10:39 PM Re: Washington Trout declares war on recreational fishing
BigShark Offline
Juvenille at Sea

Registered: 08/20/01
Posts: 224
Loc: PDX
Thanks WT
I am one of those who at least at this point believes there is a need for some hatcheries, yet if the science works, there could come a time when none would be needed. You have mentioned the forms by which your WDFW would show reason as to why some hatcheries would be exempt from closure even if not in full compliance with the laws. This I assume covers, among other reasons, those that would cripple local economies if closed. Many make no bones about the fact they put the welfare of a community above any fish. That said,
no one has as yet shown them that with good science and honest governmental support, the stocks cannot be restored and the communities remain economically viable. This is not the Dark Ages, there is enough brain power to bring this about. The money is there if the fishers will come together as a strong force to be reckoned with. Where does the 900 lb gorilla sleep?
We in your neighboring state are watching. We have yet to raise our testosterone level and our
organizational level to match yours, but its going to happen. We watch in great interest what you will accomplish. If you can show us that there will be plenty of fish for ALL in your state, your actions will become a blueprint. We must get past this "can't be done" mindset. Let us watch WT and see if it can show us the merit of their cause with positive results.

#154480 - 07/12/02 12:16 AM Re: Washington Trout declares war on recreational fishing

Well I have to agree that yes it does come down to fighting for wild fish laugh . I will do my part in the way I see as the right path amongst the several that are possible choices...hope you can respect that? laugh And my greatest hope is that in the end we will all like the results of our personal endeavors towards that end

#154481 - 07/12/02 04:32 AM Re: Washington Trout declares war on recreational fishing
Big Jim Offline
Returning Adult

Registered: 02/07/00
Posts: 424
Loc: Tacoma, Wa. USA
You know, I have always wondered about these non profit groups and their missions. WT makes good points, but still does nothing to solve the problem. So they sue they state. Where do they think WDFW gets the money to fight these law suits? How many improvements good be made to hatcheries with the ten of thousands of dollars this will cost? I think any group that sues any person or agency and loses, should foot the bill for both sides. That will end the sue happy nature of this country. WT and others should spend their time working with the state and not against it. We have many biased network TV channels to help air the problems, so get them involved also.
Just because I look big, dumb, and ugly, doesn't mean I am. It means I can stomp you for calling me it!

#154482 - 07/12/02 10:51 AM Re: Washington Trout declares war on recreational fishing
Robert Allen3 Offline

Registered: 04/23/00
Posts: 762
Loc: vancouver WA USA
Big Jim The point is that WT has tried to work with the state for two years in this issue and WDFW hasignored them just like they ignore every ofther conservation concern until it's too late. WDFW is 2 years late on developing a plan for solving the problems with these hatcheries and they have no timeline for coming up with a plan. here is an analogy of what they are doing.
They have gone 2 years without paying taxes without so much as filing extention.
They are breaking the law purposfully and intentionally and it's time they get nailed to the wall for it.

#154483 - 07/12/02 07:16 PM Re: Washington Trout declares war on recreational fishing
OntheColumbia Offline
Returning Adult

Registered: 11/02/01
Posts: 251
Loc: Columbia Co. Oregon
Ramon, Thanks for the insightful reply. It should clearup a lot of misinformation, and I appreciate knowing more now about WT and the activities you're involved in.

Big Jim, if WFG had taken the steps they KNEW were needed and necessary they never would have been sued. Fortunately, we citizens have the right to compel our government to obey its own laws. Seems funny that you would have a problem with that basic right. The question you should be asking is -- why has Washington drug its feet on this matter for so long?

I'll bet my money that this won't go before a judge for a decision though. Instead it will be a negociated settlement as these sorts of things nearly always are.

#154484 - 07/13/02 12:49 AM Re: Washington Trout declares war on recreational fishing

posted 07-11-2002 08:06 PM
Where will all the fishers go if those Puget Sound hatcheries close! Simple answer... where they can fish. Let's see...they won't be able to even cnr in Puget Sound so where would they go? Well the Olympic peninsula is one place...southwest Washington is another....simple fact is that a majority of those fishers will displace to other opportunities. Since fishing opportunity on those rivers is based upon scientifically predicted fishing effort and catch per unit effort the simple result is the inevitable shortening of seasons and in the case of wild fish a likelihood of prohibitions at times against any fishing including cnr. Wild fish release which I have no problem with will also be imposed but even that may not keep those fish from being put at risk of ESA listing.

#154485 - 07/13/02 12:56 AM Re: Washington Trout declares war on recreational fishing

As to WDFW being in compliance or not with ESA? The simple answer is that technically they are as they have been granted by NMFS a grace period to submit their proposal under 4d. Until that grace period is officially and lawfully ended by NMFS or other legal action then their compliance with ESA is valid. Doesn't matter what they've done to date as long as that grace period is in place. And that my friends is the Law!

#154486 - 07/13/02 01:01 AM Re: Washington Trout declares war on recreational fishing

posted 07-11-2002 08:24 PM
Oh where will the cute marine mammals go to for dinner if they shut down the Puget Sound hatcheries? You see there is a very huge population of harbor seals and sealions in Puget Sound whose numbers have swelled to match the amount of food available...namely salmonids. As it stands now the hatchery fish bear the vast brunt of there hunger. If there are no longer any hatchery fish to sustain this onslaught they will have to dine on something else? Can you guess what this might be. A seal population that is used to a dinner table set with likely a half million chinook counting blackmouth(my estimation) reduced to a wild only population of less than 50,000 on which to prey upon. In the short term those cuteys are gonna consume the same gross quantity of chinook...will the wild chinook habitat gains and survival gains offset this ecological fact enough to restore themselves? At least stay where they are currently? Or even survive this final foolishness? Yes I know we created the problem but thats a stupid argument if your overall concern is the restoration or even existence of those wild fish. Mother nature has its rules and predator prey relationships are part of it. A pretty well known thing amongst ecologists ....has anyone from Wash. Trout considered this or is it to inconvenient? Would really like to hear from the experts?

#154487 - 07/13/02 01:03 AM Re: Washington Trout declares war on recreational fishing

Those last 3 posts should give the armchair scientists and fishery managers something to chew on...please... I await your most thoughtful responses? laugh rolleyes

#154488 - 07/13/02 01:40 AM Re: Washington Trout declares war on recreational fishing

Shoot here's one more to consider!Oh yes the issue of science? Well I dearly love to see nonscientists and shoot even real scientists bandy around numbers for the masses to worship! One problem though is they very routinely avoid giving the 95% Confidence Intervals(CI) for those numbers which are typically averages. Now the Confidence Interval can tell alot about the strength or believabilty of a scientists conclusions. Let's see...didn't someone on this bulletin board claim cnr mortality to be only 3%? My question is what was the 95% CI for that number? Plus or minus 10% or what 90%? Now Washington Trout on its very own site lists a canadian study that found cnr to have a 10% mortality rate....but was it plus or minus 10 or 90%? Was it 50%? Hey if the CI for that canadian study was 50% then theoretically the mortality rate could really be 15%! People with agendas like to pick and choose that which bests meets their faith even if its science. Then those people tell us to accept their faith in their choice of science as the only truth.

#154489 - 07/13/02 01:41 AM Re: Washington Trout declares war on recreational fishing

Ramon could you please provide answers to my posts? Something other than what is intended for the masses to hear? laugh

#154490 - 07/13/02 02:38 AM Re: Washington Trout declares war on recreational fishing
ramon vb Offline
Juvenille at Sea

Registered: 07/10/02
Posts: 125
Loc: Duvall, WA
I really wanted to avoid getting involved in the back and forth here, but I feel compelled to address comments that are simply inaccurate.

Goose, I don't know how to put this delicately, but I'm afraid you're misinformed about that grace period. It ended in Jan 2001. NMFS has certainly decided not to take any enforcemnt action against WDFW (or the Tribes) while they all "negotiate" the HGMPs, but there is NO official or lawful "grace period" in effect. If there was, our notice would have no merit and you'd have nothing to be upset about. We can only seek relief for violations of the ESA. (Despite what you may think, we're not idiots, and we don't just make stuff up. This is the sort of thing we might have checked before we went to all this trouble.)

As to your other points; I'll leave it to others to debate you on conjectural points with made up numbers. But I will say that WT's whole approach to resource managemnt is all about recognizing and managing for the risk and uncertainty in the available data. However, we look at it a little differently than the approch you seem to advocate. We would take a look at the data points, and manage for the conservative end of the CI, in order to give the resourse the benefit of the doubt, not the stakeholder, particularly when the resource is in clear decline. No data does not mean no problem; the burden of proof should be on the fisher, not the fish. Making the salmon PROVE they are in trouble is what got us here.

#154491 - 07/13/02 03:23 AM Re: Washington Trout declares war on recreational fishing

Ramon I concede that legal point with no problem!
As to the other points you were right in not venturimg there...but you did a little...the predation one is one that I would dearly love to hear your resident ecologists try to discuss. Most environmental groups would avoid it like the plague...have your's the ball's?

#154492 - 07/13/02 11:54 AM Re: Washington Trout declares war on recreational fishing
ramon vb Offline
Juvenille at Sea

Registered: 07/10/02
Posts: 125
Loc: Duvall, WA

#154494 - 07/13/02 01:06 PM Re: Washington Trout declares war on recreational fishing

I wish to express my appreciation to Ramon also....Washington Trout has done many things to help in the battle for native fish protection and only disagreement with them is on this sole issue that we have been discussing....and even with that I am not in any way disagreeing that hatcheries have been a problem and in many cases continue to be. My concern is that in the process we do no further harm even though the intent is for the good of the fish. Sorry but my training and experience causes me to analyze issues like this from every aspect and play the "devils advocate." rolleyes I still believe I brought forward several good points...especially the predation one and the displacement of fishing effort causing further grief for wild fish...that need to be seriously considered. Ramon and Washington Trout please continue your efforts as your intent is good...I just wanted to point out some of the possible ramifications.

#154495 - 07/13/02 05:21 PM Re: Washington Trout declares war on recreational fishing
Smalma Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/25/01
Posts: 2788
Loc: Marysville
Wow; an interesting and intense discussion.

Clearly this issue shows the value of watchdog groups. Sometimes they are needed to nudge folks in the proper direction.

Ramon - Thanks for taking the time to post and present more detailed information.

How about the trout fishery in the Columbia Basin seep lakes as a sport fishery supported by a hatchery program?

However what caught my interest was your reference to Washington Trout's suit against NMFS regarding the Resource Management Plan (RMP) governing fisheries affecting Puget Sound chinook. WT's new release states: "Washington Trout does not oppose commerical salmon-harversting in all cases and does not intent to challenge tribal treaty-fishing rights." No where in the release is there any mention of recreation fishing; does WT have a position regarding the recreation fisheries?

Am I correct in that the major crux of the suit is that the RMP allows excessive harvest or impacts of ESA protected Puget Sound chinook? If so what would WT consider to be acceptable impacts? Can those impacts be brought down w/o aftecting the all ready limited recreational fishing? The harvest model run used for the 2002 salmon season (based on the NMFS approved RMP stock specific expliotation rates)in North of Falcon process showed that much of the non-treaty impacts occurred in the recreational fishery; mostly as incidental impacts in fisheries directed toward either hatchery chinook or other species.

WTs news release also states:" Harvest aimed at hatchery stocks impose unacceptable risks to threatened wild stocks mingled in with the hatchery fish." Does that mean WT is opposed to selective fisheries (retention of marked hatchery fish only) when ESA protected fish are present?

In WT's comments to NMFS regarding the RMP the Snohmish basin chinook was used as an example. The comments correctly state that the explioation rates (ER) for those fish has declined from nealry 80% in the late 1970s to 55% by mid-1990s to 35% in the late 1990s. The harvest model run for the 2002 season shows a projected ER of less than 20%. It is also correct in that there hasn't much a positive response in wild chinook escapements (limited upturn the last 3 or 4 years). Doesn't that strike you as odd? With substantial reduction in fishing I would expect to see some sort of postive response in escapment. What is even more interesting is that since the mid-1990s there has been a 4 fold increase in escapement of chinook to the Wallace hatchery on the Snohomish system; precisely the kind of response expected with reduced fishing. The Wallace and Snohomsih wild chinook should be experiencing the same marine survival conditions as well as the same fishing impacts; why didn't they respond similarly? The major difference is the wild fish are more dependent on freshwater/esturay conditions than the hatchery fish. It would appear that at current reduced ERs that fishing is not limiting the wild population but rather some freshwater productive factor. Similar difference in returns between hatchery and wild chinook have been noted elsewhere in Puget Sound.

In the introductive portion of WT's comments it state; "The local and state agencies in question have shown again and again an inability or unwillingness to enforce their own existing environmental regulations." Perhaps given the difference in hatchery and wild returns the focus should be in the habitat arena rather than harvest. The co-managers appear to have made a good faith and appropriate effort to reduce the over-fishing of the past (reducing harvest rates from 70-80% to less than 35% in the Snohomish example). Has any other the other Hs reduced their impacts by 50%? or at all?

Sorry, this is all ready too long - so enough.

Tight lines

#154496 - 07/13/02 08:33 PM Re: Washington Trout declares war on recreational fishing
superfly Offline
The Renegade White Man

Registered: 02/16/00
Posts: 2417
Loc: The Coast or the Keys !!!
Like I said before Dude, Put in the hours that I have in Fish enhancement and you will see that there needs to be some kind of help because of the amount of pressure put on the resource. I agree to saving the wild fish, but not at the expense of all sport fishing. Let me ask you this , How much money does W.T. put into enhancement/ I bet very little.
Yes the W.D.F.W is dragging there feet and suck at running the hatcheries, but with out them there is no fishing.
So In retrospect W.T. Can still BLOW Me !!
They are still out for themselves and there own agenda.
Also the W.S.C. needs to quit riding the fence and take a position on this. Like Goose said ," Do you have the Balls to "?????

Peace Superfly mad mad
Facebook/Superfly Guides


Reservations for Fall Salmon start June 1st Season Opens Sept. 1 st this year
Conventional & Fly Fishing



#154497 - 07/13/02 11:39 PM Re: Washington Trout declares war on recreational fishing
Robert Allen3 Offline

Registered: 04/23/00
Posts: 762
Loc: vancouver WA USA
Superfly and what happens when the hatcheries fail????? I'll tell you what cause it happened on my home river(the Washougal) in the late 80's early 90's There is nothing to fish for and no wild fish left!! So as far as I am concerned hatchery fish provide nothing in the long term! And to use your words those that value the fishery over the fish can "blow me" seeing as how they won't be fishing.

Anyway you slice it saving wild fish = better fishing opportunity in the future. Hatcheries now = sporadic fishing in the future. take your pick.

Page 6 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

Moderator:  elparquito 

Site Links
Our Washington Fishing
Our Alaska Fishing
Contact Us
About Us
Photos / Videos
Visit us on Facebook
Today's Birthdays
BratBonker, markshoreline, Nick Barr, _mtlhead
Recent Gallery Pix
Hatchery Releases into the Pacific and Harvest
Gibbs Delta Time Capsule
Who's Online
11 registered (ondarvr, snit, ArvidBarker, WDFW X 1 = 0, Ward, stonefish, DBS, 3 invisible), 186 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
CorneliusDunghamer, OnLine, JussieSmolt82, whatfish, BiggPP69420
11454 Registered Users
Top Posters
Todd 26239
Dan S. 16220
Sol Duc 16117
elparquito 13957
Salmo g. 12945
eyeFISH 12556
Dogfish 10979
ParaLeaks 10513
Jerry Garcia 9159
Forum Stats
11454 Members
18 Forums
75962 Topics
845696 Posts

Max Online: 3001 @ 01/28/20 02:48 PM

Join the PP forums.

It's quick, easy, and always free!

Working for the fish and our future fishing opportunities:

The Wild Steelhead Coalition

The Photo & Video Gallery. Nearly 1200 images from our fishing trips! Tips, techniques, live weight calculator & more in the Fishing Resource Center. The time is now to get prime dates for 2018 Olympic Peninsula Winter Steelhead , don't miss out!.