FYI: http://wildfishconservancy.org/about/pre...s-violating-esa

From the above link: Wild Fish Conservancy, a Puget Sound-based conservation group, filed suit in federal court today against the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), alleging that the agency’s planting of “Chambers Creek” (also known as “Early Winter Hatchery”) steelhead in Puget Sound watersheds is in violation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

You can read their PDF court filed complaint at the above link....

They had it comin?

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

More numbers from 2012

I pulled the 2012 form 990 and found that the WFC had 2,132,438 in total revenue and 1,031,115 in payroll. The interesting thing is that the revenue was distributed via grants & contributions under the impression that the dollars would be justly allocated to specific projects. This to me looks like a "for profit" corporation.

I question a few other expenses on the 990, for example:

74,125 in compensation to officers, directors, trustees and key employees? (in addition to the salary of the director @ 69,936?)
66,998 in employee benefits?
64,787 in office expenses?
31,969 in occupancy? with 3,906 to manage occupancy?
1,031,115 in total payroll?

The WFC in 2012 received 1,672,455 in grant money. After digging into this I don't agree that all of that money was directed to the intended projects.

If we want to sue because the hatchery fish are detrimental to the PUGET SOUND that's fine, just as long as the science points us in that direction.

So, does anybody have scientific evidence from the puget sound?

Some interesting digging there, Mr. Backtrollin. I don't have enough science to support the claim made by the plaintiffs. Steelhead genetics work in Puget Sound shows that indeed there is introgression of Chambers Ck steelhead with wild steelhead populations, some more than others. But the amazing thing to me is, when you consider the extremely large number of hatchery steelhead stocked, and the regrettably small number of wild steelhead, one might intuitively expect much higher rates of introgression. But in fact it is quite small.

WDFW's most recent steelhead research is more confounding. A multitude of variables were correlated with wild steelhead returns. As expected, the number of brood year spawners has a fairly high correlation. The number of hatchery smolts stocked in the next highest correlation, but that doesn't really prove that stocking hatchery smolts causes a lower wild population. The reason is because the years when the high number of hatchery smolts were stocked happened to coincide with the same years in which marine survival for both hatchery and wild steelhead went in the tank. I think it might be easy to misinterpret a casual effect from hatchery smolts when a different data set is showing that steelhead smolts aren't surviving long enough in Puget Sound to reach the Strait. It will be interesting to see how the experts argue these data sets. Or maybe the lawsuit won't rely on data or science.

Sg

"Or maybe the lawsuit won't rely on data or science." - salmo g.

That scares the hell out of me.

We have them for salt, which seems to work, why not rivers? Why are you against a barbless reg for rivers?

I assume you think people shouldn't be paid for their work or they shouldn't hire people to do the work or coordinate the work.

JJ, to the contrary.

I have spent my entire life working and being paid for it. My bone of contention comes from how the WFC operates.

There are thousands of problem areas on the Snoqualmie and these guys only attack the big money jobs. For example...the Cherry Creek project is a $550,000 project to fix under 1 mile of creek. How about we take that money and fix 5 miles of riparian habitat on the main river. Wouldn't that have a greater impact?

I live in the Snoqualmie valley and know many land owners/fishermen that despise the WFC. Why? Constant badgering about riparian vegetation and agriculture operations. I have never had a farmer (I know more then a dozen personally) come to me and say "the WFC worked with me to help fix my land" NEVER. All I hear is that the WFC turned them in to the county about a non fish bearing ditch or a truck that makes the road dirty.

They waste time and county money chasing and picking on the little guy that cant afford to fix something on their own.

Aside from that, a million dollar payroll for two million in funding? How much does it take to "manage" a project? 50% of the money goes to a company that is a 501c3 CHARITY. There is nothing charitable about the WFC. They should be considered a for profit corporation, that way they can charge whatever they want.

As long as they continue with the 501c3 tax breaks and continue to waste government money on "management" I will not support them.

Thanks for shining some Sunlight on this issue Backtrollin.

I'm not sure, but I don't think that WDFW has secured an ESA permit for operating it's Puget Sound Steelhead Program?

If it hasn't, it should...it will be hard to claim your program is in accordance with the ESA without having gone thru the permit process.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd,
you are correct,

This is part of an emial I received from Rep Roger Goodman on the subject:

"The Wild Fish Conservancy has issued a 90-day intent to sue the WDFW under the citizen suit provisions of the federal Endangered Species Act. As the story goes, they first sued the WDFW in 2002 for operating their hatcheries without a permit from NOAA (a potential violation of the Endangered Species Act). At that time, a settlement was reached where the Wild Fish Conservancy agreed to drop the suit for 10 years while the WDFW obtained permits. In that time, NOAA did not prioritize WDFW's permit requests and the permits were never issued. Now that the 10-year “cease fire” has passed, the Wild Fish Conservancy has indicated that they will continue their legal action."

Do we blame this on NOAA? Why wouldn't the WFC go after NOAA? WDFW is an easy target....NOAA not so much.

Another question, why does the WFC ask to be awarded court costs in the lawsuit? They are a CHARITY.


Definition of a 501c3:
Section 501(c)(3) is the portion of the US Internal Revenue Code that allows for federal tax exemption of nonprofit organizations, specifically those that are considered public charities.

Because WDFW is the entity running the program.

Costs are awarded in lawsuits, especially in environmental citizen suits, to specifically encourage the suits to be brought...otherwise they will be mashed by big corporate entities with huge purses.

NOAA-F and WDFW managed to get permits to pretty much continue fishing unabated after Chinook were listed in pretty quick order...this one should have been handled years ago.

There is, however, another good reason as to why it probably hasn't been handled yet...and this is the one that folks don't like to hear, but the program is very unlikely to get the permit, and is very likely in blatant violation of the ESA in more than one way.

Fish on...

Todd

Permits have not even been written for PS Chinook programs even though they were listed 8 years prior to PS steelhead. NOAA-F has not even completed the EIS that was supposed to be the precursor for the Chinook program review. That EIS "started" ~ 2003. I understand someone is working on it now!

Can I bring up the Nisqually River one more time.....no hatchery fish for approx. 20 years.........AND YOU FISHED IT LAST........same issues face Nisquallly smolt as all other rivers in Puget Sound.........

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/

April 1, 2014

Contact: Jim Scott, 360-902-2736

WDFW will not release 'early winter' hatchery steelhead
this spring unless legal issues are resolved

OLYMPIA –The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) will not release early winter hatchery steelhead into rivers around Puget Sound as planned this spring unless it can resolve issues raised in January by the Wild Fish Conservancy and restated in a lawsuit the group filed this week.

Phil Anderson said WDFW leaders made the “very difficult” decision last week under the threat of litigation by the Conservancy, a non-profit group based in Duvall, Wash. In late January, the group filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue the department over its management of early winter (Chambers Creek) steelhead hatchery programs.

On Monday, March 31, as the 60-day period ended, the group filed a complaint in U.S. District Court in Seattle against the department and the state Fish and Wildlife Commission, alleging WDFW has violated the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). The group contends WDFW’s planting of Chambers Creek steelhead undermines the recovery of wild Puget Sound steelhead, salmon and bull trout, which are listed as “threatened” under the ESA.

Anderson said the department planned to releases about 900,000 juvenile steelhead this spring into rivers that flow into Puget Sound. Those fish are produced at nine hatcheries and represent about two-thirds of all hatchery steelhead produced by WDFW hatcheries in the Puget Sound region. Steelhead planted this spring would return to the rivers in 2016 and 2017.

He said WDFW is vulnerable to lawsuits over its hatchery steelhead operations because they were not approved by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) following the ESA listing of Puget Sound steelhead in 2007. WDFW submitted Hatchery Genetic Management Plans to NMFS in 2005 for its steelhead programs, relative to their potential impacts on Puget Sound wild chinook salmon. However, NMFS’ review of those plans was not completed. WDFW is nearing completion of updates to its steelhead plans to reflect recent hatchery improvements based on the most current science.

“We believe strongly that we are operating safe and responsible hatchery programs that meet exacting, science-based standards,” he said. “But without NMFS certification that our hatchery programs comply with the Endangered Species Act, we remain at risk of litigation. We are working hard to complete that process.”

Jim Scott, who heads the WDFW Fish Program, said the department and the Conservancy were not able to reach an agreement on WDFW’s steelhead hatchery management practices during the 60-day period, but he said discussions will continue in the hope of reaching a settlement by early May so that the 2014 plantings can take place.

“It’s in everyone’s best interest to quickly reach an agreement that will promote the recovery of Puget Sound steelhead and provide for tribal and recreational fisheries,” Scott said. “Going to court would force us to redirect our staff to defend our programs in litigation, rather than focusing on conservation and restoration of Puget Sound steelhead.”

Scott said the department acknowledges that scientific findings indicate certain hatchery practices may pose an impediment to wild fish productivity and recovery. But he noted state managers have worked hard to reform hatchery programs and have taken significant steps to protect ESA-listed wild steelhead. Actions since 2004 include:

Reducing the number of early winter steelhead released in the Puget Sound watershed by more than 50 percent to minimize interactions between hatchery fish and wild steelhead.

Reducing the number of release locations from 27 to nine.

Collecting eggs from early-returning hatchery fish to maintain separation in the spawning times of hatchery and wild fish.

Using genetic monitoring to guard against hatchery steelhead interacting with wild stocks.

“We want to continue discussions with the Wild Fish Conservancy in an attempt to address its issues,” Anderson said. “I’m hopeful that our decision last week to hold off on releasing hatchery fish will keep us from having to spend our time in a courtroom, arguing about injunctions, and instead let us find real solutions that promote wild steelhead recovery.”

****************************

Fish on...

Todd

I'm not sure who to blame for it...I'm sure that everyone will stand in a circle and point at everyone else like they tend to do...but until WDFW gets its operations certified by NMFS that it is in ESA compliance then it is 100% NOT in compliance.

It's hard to blame that on anyone but whoever has dropped the ball on getting the proper permits.

This isn't even getting to the merits of the program or not...this is just de facto noncompliance...they have no permit.

It's easy and convenient to blame it on the WFC, but I'm pretty sure it's not their job to get WDFW's certification for them.

WFC's aim may be to just get hatchery programs out of Puget Sound altogether, but whoever is supposed have taken care of the permits for the enter PS winter steelhead hatchery program is the one to blame...they did WFC's job for them.

Fish on...

Todd

"Can I bring up the Nisqually River one more time.....no hatchery fish for approx. 20 years.........AND YOU FISHED IT LAST........same issues face Nisquallly smolt as all other rivers in Puget Sound........."


You have to remember that if aggressively push a run down continuously, fails continuously to meet its escapement levels, regression occurs and the run finally collapses and in some case can become functionally extinct. We seem enact these strategies to late where recovery will take a significant amount of time, which again is implemented as a reactive model. A proactive model would include to impose such strategy to a river before it collapses, but the gnashing of teeth is pretty loud.

While of topic if one wants to look at some historic Nisqually data the following might be of interest -

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00150/puget_snd_esu.pdf


For the entire Puget Sound ESA; scroll down to the "Ns".

Curt

I back backtrollin'!

You are very knowledgeable on the subject. What can we do to help? Who can we pressure?

There is the immediate issue of possibly no steelhead smolts, and then there's the much larger issue of the WFC itself. They are the ultimate thorn in the side. If indeed they are getting taxpayer dollars to do what they are doing, then it would seem that public pressure may work in stopping that flow of money.

Does not seem off topic really.........According to data in report, last year for hatchery plants on the Nisqually was 1984....30 years ago unless I missed something......sports and native fishers hatchery and native fish caught counts into the nintys.....my point in raising the Nisqually issue is that I would like to see one place that stopping hatchery fish being planted has brought better returns.....Oregon seems to like broodstocking and their people are catching fish, while we mostly catch each other.

Backtrollin,

A 501(c)(3) organization is a non-profit, but not necessarily a charity. Moreover, non-profit simply means that the organization is not run for the profit of its owners/shareholders. It does not mean that nobody working for the organization can get paid a salary.

Moreover, why should a charity not ask for its court costs to get paid?

I don't know much about WFC, but the reasons you've given to criticize them don't seem like particularly good reasons to me.

I'm not standing up for the guy but it's obviously not a shotgun pose.

Hatcheries sure do give one a false sense of security.

So basically Puget Sound steelheading will be a thing of the past soon? Native runs aren't "functionally extinct" yet but close enough to probably never see a cnr fishery in my life. Nothing above sounds very positive

Go after the entities who have failed to get their permits, not the organizationvwho pointed it out.

Get rid of the WFC and guess what? WDFW is still operating their hatchery program in violation of the ESA.

If you just like to bitch then bitch about the WFC...if you want the hatchery program then get the entities whose job it is to get the permits for and operate it to get their permits and operate it.

Fish on...

Todd

Since the Feds have shown no huevos in making WDFW get permits, there are no penalties for not getting the permits, if one gets rid of WFC we go back to square 1. Planting fish, catching a few, and ignoring the wild run.

The Co-Managers and Feds are all just fine with the status quo. Otherwise, they'd do something about it.

How many times have the Feds been told to fix their Columbia plans? And how many times do they put another shade of lipstick on the pig?

I don't get it

Good on the WFC. They are just asking the WDFW to follow the law of the land and have given them ample time to do so. This isn't some knee jerk reaction it has been 7 year or 12 depends on how you look a the dates. I know the reaction will be to go after them but as Todd puts it the WDFW is the one not following the law. At least someone is standing up for the rule of law and they have my support.

I know the status quo isn't work, heck even the wdfw says that hatchery fish have and adverse affect. I don't see wfc saying no hatchery fish but at a minimum follow the law. WDFW has made some changes and I applaud them for that but follow the law and this wouldn't be an issue. There may be other justified issues. The more I read the more I realize if we don't try something different then nothing is going to change and the path we are in now isn't a very good one. I know everyone wants opportunity and I do as much as anyone, I hurt each day in April when I can't go fish locally but I don't see how trying to recover wild fish limits opportunity. It doesn't you recover them you increase opportunity.

JJ

The WFC is nothing more than a bunch of sniveling little privileged pussies who try to force their opinions and beliefs on everyone. They've had everything spoon fed to them by mommy and daddy and live in this ideal world of how things 'should be.' So far, most of the supporters seem to be similar in that they think just because they don't fish for hatchery fish that no one else does either. Living in there own little pretentious bubble only coming out from January to April. Spending the rest of their time behind a desk turning their nose up to other fisheries. Text book definition of Elitist and not limited to fly anglers by any means.

I think this is exactly the biggest problem with us sportsmen. We're too unorganized, arrogant and self involved to band together long enough to stand up for what the REAL fishing community wants. Instead, we get a small group of these stuck up elitists who are organized enough to push their 'OPINION' and make it look like the overall voice of the fishing community. They even go on to say that the general public has been 'duped' by the WDFW and wasting taxpayers' dollars on hatchery fish. Yet now, they are forcing the WDFW to WASTE ALL THE SMOLTS THAT WE THE TAXPAYERS ALREADY PAID FOR!! Total hypocrisy. I personally feel like I should be able to sue someone over not releasing these smolts. The REAL fishing community and the rest of state already paid for these smolts to be raised and released. Now we're going to put them in LAKES!!

Everyone knows our system is fukt right now. However, if the WFC and NFS actually gave a [Bleeeeep!] about the fish, they would know that forcing the WDFW to waste money on court fees rather that put money into fixing the problems is about the worst case scenario. Additionally, where will the Reiter Rats and Tokul Creek anglers go? Ever thought about that? Ever think that now some of them will be heading over the Coast to kill their one wild fish because they enjoy eating steelhead? Ever think that since the WDFW is spending money on this stupid lawsuit (and WFC court fees ..WTF!!!) that there will be less enforcement over there? Maybe that person will kill a few steelhead then if we can't afford to have anyone over their checking? The reality is that these little pussies feel like they can sleep better at night knowing they fought the big bad hatchery fish. But wait, do you really need to fight the big bad Chambers Creek hatchery fish?......

No one knows. I have yet to see these 'studies' and 'facts' that prove that removing Chambers Creek fish will help the wild fish population. Has anyone? If this information and data is so 'definite', why is is impossible to find and why haven't they sent it to me after my numerous requests? When this goes to court, I hope to God that the WDFW requires this 'definite data', (notice I didn't quote them exactly because they say 'definite science'....... well usually REAL science has data and results.....) to be brought to the public. The same public that funds these asshats in their holy quest.

Now to tail out of my rant.... If someone can provide me the actual reports, data, and 'science' these groups use, it would be greatly appreciated. In fact, make them PUBLIC records to the actual fishing community can make up their own minds about it. I may have have the end all solution for bringing back the wild fish, but I know that this smoke and mirrors [Bleeeeep!] is not it.

My own personal mission will also be find out where these groups like to fish, and crowd the [Bleeeeep!] out of those places. I'm talking internet pictures, maps, killing my wild fish on it, if legal. I'll bring as many friends as possible out there to clog every single hole and every single launch. Just so they see the true impacts of what they're doing. I might even crowd their favorite Starbucks so it makes it hard for them to steal wifi while drinking their lattes.

If they stop the plantings in the PS, then they need to stop ALL fishing for Steelhead in ALL the rivers, period. No barbless hooks, no C&R, no nothing. Shut it down completely.

+1

Surely the first step in sportsmen banding together is to make sweeping accusations about how the other sportsmen who disagree with you are "privileged little pussies."

I will leave the name calling and personal attacks to other as you don't know me or my fishing practices just as I don't know you or yours.

So what I am hearing is that you support law breaking by the WDFW? How long does the department have to comply with the law? This has really been out there since 2002. 12 years seem like enough time but we could just use the 2007 date so 7 years. How do you go about working with agencies that only respond to lawsuits? It would be far cheaper for the wdfw to just follow the law then they wouldn't have these law suits. Laws could be changed to fit your narrative and if that happens then the wdfw would be in compliance so help make that happen that no one needs permits to impact systems. But then be careful what you wish for as that would apply to logging, polluters, etc. We have laws for a reason. They have had ample time to make changes (some they have and good for them) and at least follow the law.

JJ

Well said Mitch 184. It's time the "sniveling little privileged pussies" learn what endangered means.

Yeah, that is the problem. Well, based on your rant, you might be right on the arrogant part since you seem to be implying that you are both part of the REAL fishing community and anyone that disagrees with what you are spouting is not.

WFC has a history of trying to work with the state and make the state follow its own rules. Lawsuits are really the last option but seem to be one of the few things that actually gets the state's attention. If you really want to punish the WFC, you should support the WDFW in adopting legal and operational positions that could/would actually win in court. The state could demand the court costs from WFC rather than the other way around. Instead, you are talking about bonking wild fish to spite someone?

I would say I am part of fishing community. I take part in about every species of fish we have hear in the state and all over the state. Although that definitely doesn't give me any more authority or clout or the right to say that my word is the final end all. I'm sure people disagree and that's fine.

Arrogant...... maybe behind a computer, but I'm a facts, data guy and well calulated or documented numbers usually don't lie.

My main beef, besides the rant, is the lack of hard data, reports, documented facts for their case. It may be out there, but I haven't found it nor has anyone I've talked to so far. If these Chambers Creek and hatchery fish in general truely due have as much of a negative impact on wild stocks as they say, I definitely might change my tune. However, for a group to make the kind of claims they make, file lawsuits, and possibly be publicly funded (I'm haven't seen this for fact, but have been told), there just isn't the data, for me, to justify this.

Either way, this lawsuit will use up a lot of public taxpayer money and right now I'm not confident anything will change. Other than less fish. That's not really the goal... right?? And if this lawsuit does make a major impact in how things are run, I guess I'll be eating my words and buying lots of beers for people who say 'I told you so.' I'll honor that any day.


Open question still stands, does anyone have this Skagit report they talk about?

PS. and if it came down to it, I probably still wouldn't bonk a wild one. Just more of a point.

Here are a couple of facts.

For 12 years WDFW has been operating its winter steelhead hatchery program in Puget Sound without a permit as required by the ESA.

First it failed to obtain a permit to show that its hatchery operations were not in violation of the ESA when PS Chinook were listed.

WDFW was sued by WT/WFC to make them be in compliance, and a settlement was reached whereby WT/WFC would lay off the lawsuit for ten years...10 years...while WDFW got its ducks in a row.

Without that permit WDFW is in direct violation of the ESA.

Seven years ago PS Steelhead are listed on the ESA, and now WDFW is required to have a permit to operate their PS winter steelhead hatchery program under the ESA for that listing.

Seven years ago.

WDFW needed to submit a plan to the Feds 12 years ago, and then the Feds needed to certify that the plan is in accordance with ESA guidelines.

This is the law. It is not a policy decision, and it is not something that the feds, State, tribes, or the WFC get exercise discretion on...it is the law of the land.

Sportfishermen benefit when the program is certified.

The tribes benefit when the program is certified.

The State benefits when the program is certified.

The Feds benefit when the program is certified.

Any one of those four groups could have made it happen...they are, after all, the groups who benefit from the program.

The WFC, who makes no bones about their desire to see the hatchery programs be in compliance, is the only one making them do it so far.

If you have a bone to pick with anyone about the legal standing of the PS winter steelhead hatchery program then go directly to those who can establish that legal standing, and are, in fact legally required to do so.

The failure of the feds, tribes, and WDFW to get this program certified is directly the ONE single cause of this problem

That failure is why this will end up in court unless a settlement is reached.

Those are the people you need to be blaming for not doing their fuckin jobs...

Blaming the WFC will not make the program legal.

Having the WFC disappear tomorrow will not make the program legal.

The only way to make the program legal is for the government agencies that WORK FOR YOU TO DO THEIR FUCKIN JOB.

That's where your anger should be directed.

Now back to your regularly scheduled pissfest at the wrong people.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd,

Great facts and data.

JJ

JJ,

An unnamed source told me the paperwork had been filed over a year ago by the WDFW and NOAA has yet to approve it.WFC knows that and wants to make their waves before the decision is made.

MPM, you wrote "I don't know much about WFC, but the reasons you've given to criticize them don't seem like particularly good reasons to me."
Let me make a few points for you:
1. 1mil in payroll to manage 2mil in projects. In the business world that is a helluva margin.
2. Suing the state with little to no factual data, thus getting the ball rolling on a technicality. Waste of taxpayer money.
3. I have lived in the Snoqualmie Valley for 35 years and the locals despise the WFC. Why? They NEVER offer to help the farmer. They drive around, hide, and call King County to report a violation.

If these guys really cared, they would have an outstanding relationship with landowners, fix numerous small problems and attack the large problems as the grants come in. They are cowards. If you want to see the valley from a local perspective and fully understand why they are hated PM me and I will take you for a tour. I will show you where cut banks are falling in on spawning beds on state land, i will show you where smolt get stranded in fields after a flood because the farmer cant clean a ditch, I will show you where the lack of riparian habitat could be fixed.

The fact is small projects don't cover their payroll. Relationships don't matter to them and worst of all, they are spending grant money doing it.

Once the Feds certify that WDFW is in compliance with the ESA then the WFC would need to sue the Feds, the burden of proof would be on the WFC to prove that the program was not in compliance with the ESA, and the program would continue operating while that (hypothetical) lawsuit was taking place.

As it is right now WDFW is considering suspending planting winter steelhead in PS streams for one simple reason: They have no permit to operate it.

Here's all that's required in a lawsuit as things stand right now:

WFC files NOI to sue, and then files suit after the waiting period is over.

They allege that WDFW has no permit and is therefore in violation of the ESA and seeks summary judgment on that point.

The Court asks WDFW if it is true that they have no permit.

WDFW answers "No, we do do not have a permit".

Case over, in five minutes. Operation is halted. Costs to WFC.

Who's fault is it that we are in this situation now?

The WFC's? May as well blame the Pope and starving children in Africa, too...they had just as much to do with the failure to get a permit as the WFC did.

Fish on...

Todd

Damn, i hate it when todd is right.
I shoulda been a lawyer, they get all the chicks (and lotsa time to go fishing).

P.S. If WDFW suspends the program then there is nothing to sue over, that's why they are considering doing that...if and when WDFW and the Feds get around to doing their fuckin jobs then it can start up again...it's just too bad that they didn't do their damn jobs some time in the last 12 YEARS and now it's come to this.

Without hatchery steelhead in Puget Sound we don't have any steelhead fishing in Puget Sound.

I knew it was a conspiracy...

Backtrollin, to lay the enforcement issues on the WFC is disingenuous at least. The code enforcement program is anonymous and in my 25 years in the valley it's been neighbor reporting neighbor. I doubt most people that do not own land would know a code violation if they saw one other than a clearing and grading of a stream bank. The bigger issues is unequal enforcement on the counties part. Secondly why should WFC or anyone fund remediation of riparian habitat for a land owner? First off there is no requirement to remediate unless there has been a code violation or a permit request. Trust me when I say if you are in violation of the code you did it on purpose hoping to get away with it or betting that foregiveness is cheaper than the permit. Some of the codes are overbearing and need to be adjusted on a case by case basis.

I'm all for compliance with the rules, but it may be that WDFW has been doing what they believe is the best they can do ($hitty as that may be) for Puget Sound steelheaders. I can't help but think that the ultimate reasons why WDFW has operated out of compliance for the past 12 years in Puget Sound are financial. Most likely, in order to get the permits in question, the hatcheries in the region will need to be retrofitted in order to comply with new HSRG standards (or something else prohibitively costly), and the Department's budget simply can't cover the costs without making other sacrifices that are viewed as off-the-table. Certainly, they don't want to face the reality of losing A LOT of license revenues from the Puget Sound region (further hamstringing their ability to provide meaningful fisheries) before their hand is forced.

I personally make it my policy not to bash sport fishing interests and/or conservation/protection groups, even if I do have doubts about their agendas at times, because I appreciate anyone and everyone who is interested enough in wild fish conservation to volunteer their time and money to their cause instead of bitching about and bashing others who do. I agree with those who have lamented our lack of organization as sport anglers, but I'm not interested in making enemies of people who have proven themselves willing to volunteer their time and money just to tell them where I think they're off track. To fight amongst ourselves only further degrades our potential to enact change. It just occurs to me that suing the agency responsible for providing us with fishing opportunity is a particularly dangerous tactic.

If it turns out to be necessary (according to real scientific data) in order to conserve what's left of the wild fish in Puget Sound, I suppose I'll have to support it, but I would second the previous assertion that we had better start closing the coastal rivers if this lawsuit prevents WDFW from planting smolts in the Puget Sound rivers. I know I said something about Puget Sounders not buying licenses if they lose their hatchery plants, but in reality, recent history suggests another scenario to be more likely. Without the hatchery fisheries in the Puget Sound region, anglers from that region will descend on the coastal streams like hordes, because they will have no other opportunity. This has been proven already during the part of the past few seasons that follows the closures in the Puget Sound region. The early-timed wild fish on the coast will not withstand the added pressure for long, and that won't do wild fish, as a whole, any favors. I just hope this is the right thing to do, because the consequences may prove catastrophic to our winter steelhead opportunities.

+1

Todd is right in that WDFW is required to get a permit from NMFS. That it takes a long time for state and federal bureaucracies to do anything is generally understood. Why they can't get it done in 7 years is incomprehensible. So let's say WDFW gets its permits from NMFS this month or soon thereafter, then what? Will WFC sue NMFS claiming that the permits shouldn't have been issued because, as we keep hearing, "hatchery fish harm wild fish?" At least in that instance the burden of proof would be on the plaintiff.

Sg

At least we would be addressing the merits of the issue rather WDFW simply not having the permit. All this will likely do is force WDFW to get the permitting done. WFC would presumably then challenge the hatchery practices themselves.

My suspicion is that this is exactly what would happen...but it would be far, far, far from a slam dunk like it is now, and would cost a lot of money that could only be recouped in a win, so the strategy would change considerably, including whether or not to challenge it at all.

Fish on...

Todd

Remember that right now WDFW is considering suspending the plants this year because they have EXACTLY ZERO chance of even defending themselves in court without having the permits.

Now if it is possible to show that the Feds have the plan and that it will likely be approved within the year...if that's even possible to show...it's not impossible that the Court may allow the planting to continue, but there's not much of a legal basis for doing so. An argument about wasted dollars for the fish already in the system ready to be released wouldn't be completely out of line.

Fish on...

Todd

Typically when you don't have a permit it's intentional not an error of omission. What benefit does WDFW get w/o a permit? Maybe this is the most politically expedient way to kill the hatcheries and take the heat off them?

I'm afraid is that the benefit WDFW gets right now for not having a permit is that some activities that are in blatant violation of the ESA are going on unabated because they haven't had a permit denied because of them yet.

An obvious one is the hatchery operation on Tokul Creek...the old water withdrawal dam there is blocking upstream passage of ESA listed Chinook.

Not really any ifs, ands, or buts about that one...yet, there it is right in the middle of the river.

I'm sure there are more, that is just one off the top of my head that is an obvious and easy one that I know has ruffled WT/WFC's feathers in the past.

Fish on...

Todd

If they don't release smolts this year, I don't understand where they will get a 2015 broodstock for the 2017 winter season. Any answers?

The 2015 broodstock will come from last year's plants...if none are planted this year the bulk of the 2016 return will not be there, there will be some 3salts from the 2013 plants, and some 1salts from the 2015 plants (assuming planting is resumed in time for that).

It would even back out eventually, but it might take some time.

Fish on...

Todd

that is Bill Baake, the executive director of the Native Fish Society that started a lawsuit against the ODFW not so long ago for releasing hatchery fish into the Sandy river in Oregon, and what he is holding, and smiling with, is a hatchery fish from the Sandy river in Oregon..

Kurt Beardslee is the executive director of the Wild Fish Conservancy, and is a good friend of Bill's, and is also on the Board of DIrectors for the NFS..

the NFS and WFC are suing for releasing hatchery fish into the streams because they cause damage with wild stocks, all the while, they will fish for, catch, and KEEP fish from the very rivers they going after for hatchery plants.. not to mention, pose with them for pictures..

and that picture, was taken prior to 2010, so Bill for sure has been fishing for hatchery fish on the same river he is suing because of, for quite some time now.. he also promoted the giveaway of a custom built fly rod, built specifically for Sandy river Chinook..

the WFS had an auction last year, and one of their "conservation minded donors" put up a fishing trip, and if you look through the pictures on the site, there are quite a few bulls and rainbows being held out of the water, which is illegal in the state of WA..

i wouldnt trust anyone that is as hypocritical as that, ever..

Is it just me or would all of this bickering stop if WDFW just used native fish for hatchery fish? Would the native broodstock spawn with it's native counterpart better? Making DNA that's acceptable to purists?

I'm sure there wouldn't be a problem attaining broodstock over a few years time. Seems a bigger waste of time playing with these Skamania strain fish than anything else.

Those hatchery programs would also need permits to take broodstock. I doubt that either of the agencies involved would have been any more efficient at getting permits for those either. And just to be clear, these are not Skamania fish but rather Chambers Creek or Chambers Creek derivatives.

wonder if the permits were obtained here?

http://www.king5.com/news/environment/Threatened-fish-filling-Hood-Canal-River-253469481.html


this is the group doing it..

http://www.lltk.org/rebuilding-populations/hcsp/summary

501(c)(3) organization

This points out that everyone who contributes to a 501(c)(3) organization should investigate their annual financial report before donating.

I received a fund request from an organization that I mistakenly thought was for a regional charity. That was the way it was presented on the phone.

When I studied their financial report I discovered that they had an annual income of 42,000.000 and that their staff absorbed a large amount of the annual income.

I sincerely doubt that they provided much in financial services to the people the group was to help.

It as hardened me to the point that I do not make any donations on the phone.

Interesting question if this program has an approved HGMP or not. I can find no record of NOAA approving one even though NOAA through their Manchester Research Station is one of the responsible organizations for this program along with WDFW, Long Live the Kings and the US Fish & Wildlife Service. NOAA also provides partial funding for the project for rearing at Manchester along with monitoring and evaluation, which also requires a permit.

Let's get some more lawyers on this. Looks like there could be lots more people and agencies to be sued.

its damn near plain as day, as to who to sue, and one of the major problems with declining fish populations in all of Puget Sound and the Canal, with just looking at one thing...

the tribes..

the Quinault river..

they cant use the "its not heavily fished" thing, because the guides out there take people out every day, and alot also fish themselves.. its so good because they dont net the [Bleeeeep!] out of it, they net the hell out of other river systems and leave theirs pristine... while the other systems go down, down, down...

Bill Baake was in an interview with West Fly, and he was asked about hatcheries.. hatcheries have been around since 1877, and he said, after that long of a "test" we have proven that they arent successful, because fish are still declining, blah blah blah..

i propose a test, take the nets out of EVERY stream in Wa State besides the Columbia due to size (didnt they ban gill nets there tho, or was that just a try?), and let the natives fish with rod an line, with the same limit as sportfishers, and lets see if the runs dont improve.. we should get atleast a 100 year shot at that "test", to scientifically prove that nets do more damage than anyone can really imagine...

and an addition to the test, all ocean fishery limits are cut in half, for the next 10 years.. yeah salmon prices will go up, but i dont care about what fish costs in NY or Japan, as i catch my own..

but remember the key thing in this.. the tribes..

what do you think they are gonna do, when they have no fishery, because the WDFW didnt release any fish, and therefore couldnt continue with their way of lives, that they were granted in 1974?

they will do what they did last time... SUE..

http://www.king5.com/news/environment/Threatened-fish-filling-Hood-Canal-River-253469481.html

She said in 2004 there were 10 pair of Steelhead on the river; now that number is closer to 100.


Good to know that 200 steelhead is considered to be filling a river.

When I started working on steelhead, WDG leadership believed that one pair of steelhead per mile of stream was adequate escapement. 200 is probably close a catastrophic overescapement.

I don't understand why you find the payroll-to-projects ratio so damning. If it were a charity, and a 1/3 of donations went to payroll, that would be bad. But in their case, I don't think it's reasonable to measure the good they do in the amount of money spent on a project. A $200,000 project could potentially have a benefit on fisheries from $0 to $20 million.

If you think violating the ESA is a "technicality", then we'll just have to disagree on that.

I agree that it would be beneficial for any organization hoping to improve landowner practices to have a good relationship with the landowners. However, I'm hesitant to form an opinion based solely on the landowners' side of the story.

If they think that hatchery fish have negative genetic effects on the wild population, then it's not hypocritical to remove such fish from the gene pool.

If it can be shown that stocked summers have a negative impact on the winters then they could be stopped. Since Skamania fish show a much higher ability to establish "wild" populations, and we know that their juveniles would compete with winter juveniles, then you could an impact requiring action. That will probably be on the agenda once winter-run hatchery programs are sorted out.

In Oregon, they laddered a falls that summers made it over but winters didn't. Result was a decline in summers. When they stopped passing winters, the summers rebounded.

Lets drop the Chambers Creek plants in exchange for the Skamanias on the Snoqualmie.

I'm pretty sure there are no NOAA-F approved steelhead HGMP's for Puget Sound. I'm also pretty sure for those that might want a change to Skamania summers, that NOAA would not be too excited about switching from a domesticated hatchery fish derived from Puget Sound to a domesticated hatchery fish from outside the ESU.

longer article..

http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/w...tropolis-stock/

The long and short of this is that when local government agencies hire "grant writers" (which they do, btw)......things are way out of whack. The stated objectives get set second to the profitability. When the fishing gets put in the hands of the fishermen, we'll have fish. Until then........
I've watched land trust operatives, to mention one of many, profit greatly from salaries "earned" by "non profit" organizations. Hello?
Cost/benefit analysis?.....give me a break. How many years has the State been at this? Getting better is it?
Paying more every year for less is a good business model.

so reading between the lines I see a group working with NOAA in hood canal. trying something to save steelhead there. I was told the fishing was great in all those rivers when I was a kid, by the time I ever fished them it stunk. now they don't plant anything there, and its illegal to fish for them there.

I see this other group that wants to do basically the same thing to Puget Sound

in the group that is working on hood canal, I see one name that I recognize from all the fishing articles I have read in my lifetime. he was a congressman.

the Puget Sound group seems to be made up of some high profile names in fishery education, and some names I have heard that do research...

I am not sure I like either direction. that being said, something needs to get fixed. because the Puget Sound runs are maybe slightly better off than the hood canal runs, except the Puget Sound runs have worse freshwater habitat, for the most part.

Maybe its time to just stop, and see if we can turn this thing around. what we are doing is not working.

+1

That's why I got the hell out 8 yrs ago. Now I do all my steelheading in OR/ID. Funny as hell to go back and fish the Puget sound rivers and hear steelheaders brag about the 10lb brat they caught a week ago, and the "hot" fishing at reiter/tokul/cascade where there landing 10 fish for 50 dudes... Kinda depressing when you see all that beautiful water.

Director Anderson was asked about this lawsuit at the SAFS Seminar yesterday and he implied that the WDFW had issued a plan to the NMFS for a permit - and that they were just waiting to hear back from them.

The indirect implication was "WDFW has done what it was suppose to do and now the burden is on the government."

Seems like a lot more of you should have attended the seminar yesterday - you could have asked him all these questions directly and in a public forum for all to hear is responses.

OTOH, he seemed like a really nice guy that genuinely cares for our state fish and wildlife. Just a crappy position for anyone to be in, IMO.

It took 2 years for NMFS to issue a go ahead permit for the Port of Astoria to rebuild a dock.

The "Hood Canal group", Long Live the Kings (LLTK) is working with, being paid, by NOAA-F on Hood Canal steelhead research projects. The NOAA-F scientist directing it all is their top steelhead scientist and there are several other scientists and graduate students involved in the projects. LLTK is a northwest organization that works with various agencies and the Canadian Pacific Salmon Foundation with a focus on hatchery practices that will generate fish populations that can be harvested without great harm to the wild populations. They are a 501 c 3 organization.

The "Puget Sound group", the Wild Fish Conservancy is an organization that is also based in the Northwest but with a somewhat different focus than LLTK. They do more work in the freshwater, are not just salmon focused, and look more at the entire ecosystem. As their name states they are working to protect wild fish. They have scientists on their staff and several nationally recognized scientists on their board of directors. Like LLTK they do contract work, habitat restoration, fish population studies, and similar work.

Both groups are 501 c 3 organizations and I suspect that a review of their financial statements would show very similar spending, salaries and expenses, and income sources. What they do is valuable to the resource. Steelhead as a resource, something to be used, is not in good shape and I suspect that neither group can change that. I am not a pessimistic as FishPrince though. I don't think wild steelhead are done in Puget Sound, the idea that they are a resource, something to be harvested , is probably done for the reasons he stated. Hatchery steelhead will provide for limited harvest but the many problems they present have to be addressed.

I think the coho in the snoho as well as the pinks prove the system is capable. I think more shade trees and a metric buttload of woody debris would do wonders.

No, unfortunately, pretty much the same situation. According to the WFC website they are against broodstock supplementation as well.

The HC HGMP submitted in May 2009 has received the same results from the feds as the Chamber Creek plants, as far as I can tell.

The HC steelhead supplementation program is an ongoing 16 year experiment that expires in 2022.

If the Puget Sound rivers systems are going to be void of hatchery fish it will be interesting to see what the treaty tribes have to say. Do you think they are going to just hang up their nets and walk away?

If memory serves, few of the PS Tribes have steelhead fisheries any more, they are taken incidentally with chum. Lack of hatchery steelhead may just give them more time on the chum.

Steelhead just get in the way.

WFC evidence shown in Appendix B of the papers they filed in court that the goal of the hatcheries are to provide steelhead for sport and tribal harvest opportunity from the 8 out of the 9 hatcheries in the complaint.

The one lone hatchery was to provide in river fishing for sport fishing only.

Even in the HC supplementation program the tribes have negotiated for some of the steelhead for Ceremonial purposes.

they filed another lawsuit against the NOAA-FS, USFWS, National Parks Service, Department of Commerce, and Department of Interior for the Elwha situation..

(this one the judge sided with them on)

http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/articl...tchery-issue-in

The tribes perspective: http://nwifc.org/2014/04/statement-steelhead-lawsuit-billy-frank-jr/

This action may finally get a hearing on Boldt II and ESA. As Billy says, the treaty right is to dead fish in the boat. If WA (and the Feds) don't want to do hatchery fish then they will need to do it with wild fish. And that means leaving water in streams, keep pollutants out of the water, trees on the land, and so on.

There is a giant can of worms that may just get opened. At least the lawyers will be kept busy.

Oddly enough, it looks like the best friend that a lot of anglers on PP have will be the Tribes.

wonder what they have to say about this?


http://www.cbbulletin.com/430264.aspx

To the fisherman concerned only with dead fish in the boat, what matters is how many can be caught. Further, as WA and the tribes have said (paraphrased) about steelhead "the purpose of fish management is to provide catch and escapment is the number of fish that can't be harvested in order to support the catch". With that mindset, hatchery fish are "better" because a larger fraction of the run can be killed.

Hatchery fish also appeal to developers because they convert land and water to fish more efficiently than the natural habitat. Hoosdport hatchery at one time produced a couple hundred thousand chum on 20-30 cfs of Finch Creek water. The whole Skagit watershed doesn't do that.

I am not suggesting we should push towards hatcheries but they can be economically alluring to politicians who can't say no, governmnets that need a continuously expanding economy, and fishermen consumers that demand dead fish.

If habitat loss is the problem why do hatchery fish keep coming back? Notice a gill net was never mentioned?

While gillnets are many folks favorite whipping boy the Willapa Bay wild Chinook hit the bay this year with fewer fish than the escapement goal and the only fisheries they have encountered have been ones with hooks.

The percentage of planted fish that make it back is really quite low. Read a history of the Snohomish river and way back when the river valley was first settled the stories are that the trees along the river bank stretched over the river to meet in the middle. look at it now.

Saw a paper on the Snohomish system that estimated loss of coho smolts due to habitat changes in the lowlands. This included loss of beaver ponds, swamps, and all the other improvements we have added like dikes and levees. Current smolt production is something like one third of what it used to be. And the Snoho produces (or at least recently produced) a lot of wild coho.

Another "loss" is all the lowland lakes that used to connect to anadromous waters. Coho used to rear and overwinter in them. System I worked on produced 10-15K coho smolts in the creek. The lake got cleaned out of spiny rays and now can kick out 30K on its own. Most of those lakes had screens installed on them to keep planted rainbows in. Imaging the coho production possible if those lakes worked as God intended.

I suspect this will be the eventual end to Steelhead fishing in Western Washington.

Many of PS anglers will head to the Coast to get their fix. Thus resulting in more pressure over currently "healthy" runs. After 5 years of heavy pressure on the fish the numbers will crash and those rivers will close too.

The effect of this will also result in the commercial harvest of wild steelhead as there will be no hatchery supplementation in the nets.

100% of the Steelhead that are commercially caught in Puget Sound will be ESA listed. How is that protecting anything?

Carcass,

You seem well-versed on fisheries issues and I respect much of what you have to say but do you really mean the above quote? There's the little issue of 90+% of the entire Bay harvest being gobbled up by the commercials, chinook included. Are you saying that once wild chinook hit Willapa Bay they only are caught by hook and line and completely avoid gill nets?

A little clarity please.

No, I am saying that before they hit the bay the hook and line fisheries in AK and BC have already taken the harvestable "surplus".

Not arguing that once they hit the Bay that Nets take way too many but the history of WA Chinook is sustained excessive harvest by hook and line, especially to the north.

gtfo redhook

Puget Sound is over, you cannot fix a habitat nightmare and a state agency that is clueless.
As for Steelhead and Native type fish, just come up to Yakutat and spend a few days drifting the Situk river. Small river completely Native and a habitat that is left alone other than a few logs cut to allow drift boat passage. Huge log jambs, downed trees on all banks, perfect gravel bars and no one is allowed to disturb any part of it!
Largest run of native Steelhead(hook and release) darn close to anywhere in the world(no commercial fishing including Indians)
Huge runs of Sockeye
Huge runs of Coho
Even the King run is building every year after is was decimated by commercials and over fishing by Sporties in the river about 25 years ago.

Fix the Habitat, get rid of gill netting and limit commercials, shut down Steelhead fishing for 10 years and you might have a chance of re-building some of the PS runs.
Long road! And a road that should have been started down 20 years ago!

You can"t fix the habitat as long as you allow more people to move in.

You've clearly identified that we KNOW exactly how to have strong runs of wild fish.

Well Carcassman, I have always said that we can fix Washington by kicking out anybody that was not born here! LOL
You could even push it further and say you have to be third generation to stay!
I like the idea as I am third so it would take allot to kick me out!

Says the dude with a fishing lodge in Alaska.

You bet! Fishing is soooo much better up there!
But born and raised and fished Washington for 60 years and now Snow Bird to Arizona!
Still third generation so I get to stay!

3rd generation also.

Californication

Maybe its a good idea to sign this petition to save our jatcheries
I found it on Northwest Sportsman.
https://www.votervoice.net/mobile/CCAPNW/Campaigns/35668/Respond