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.