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