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.