Check

 

Defiance Boats!

LURECHARGE!

THE PP OUTDOOR FORUMS

Kast Gear!

Power Pro Shimano Reels G Loomis Rods

  Willie boats! Puffballs!

 

Three Rivers Marine

 

 
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#891851 - 04/15/14 01:28 AM Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters
Moravec Offline


Registered: 03/27/08
Posts: 1045
Loc: Snoqualmie WA/Cordova AK
Wild Fish Conservancy might just put the final nail in the coffin for our Puget Sound Steelhead, Chinook & Coho Salmon fisheries. With their current lawsuit against WDFW, the state has tentatively cancelled hatchery Steelhead smolt releases this spring. If you care at all about our potential loss of our prized fisheries in Puget Sound, you might want to take a look at the list of WFC donors... individuals and companies that support WFC.

I plan on contacting sponsors and giving them my opinion on their generosity to the WFC.

Official WFC Donors LINK
_________________________
God Bless America!
riptidefish.com

Top
#891854 - 04/15/14 01:58 AM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: Moravec]
eyeFISH Offline
Ornamental Rice Bowl

Registered: 11/24/03
Posts: 12766
FishEyeGuy Photography has some stunning images in his gallery!
_________________________
"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." (Zane Grey)

"If you don't kill them, they will spawn." (Carcassman)


The Keen Eye MD
Long Live the Kings!

Top
#891927 - 04/15/14 03:27 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: eyeFISH]
SBD Offline
clown flocker

Registered: 10/19/09
Posts: 3743
Loc: Water
_________________________


There's a sucker born every minute



Top
#891929 - 04/15/14 03:53 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: SBD]
MPM Offline
Spawner

Registered: 12/09/08
Posts: 766
Loc: Seattle, WA
How do you figure the suit will hurt coho fisheries ?

Top
#891936 - 04/15/14 04:40 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: MPM]
OncyT Offline
Spawner

Registered: 02/06/08
Posts: 506
My guess is that he suspects they will also file suit about the rest of the hatchery programs. I don't know why they couldn't. Those don't have permits either.

Top
#891956 - 04/15/14 07:10 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: OncyT]
Eric Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 3513
Very few of those donors will lose a dime if the worst-case hatchery scenario played out (elimination).

A few surprised me being on the list.

Top
#891958 - 04/15/14 07:17 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: Eric]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
I think the more important thing to note here is that if all the donors went away, and the WFC went away, WDFW would still be in blatant violation of the ESA several times over...we don't have to like the WFC, but this is exactly what they do, make sure that the various agencies follow the law, and WDFW is not even close on this one.

The next press release that WDFW wastes four minutes writing about how they'll have to suspend hatchery steelhead releases because of this mean ol' lawsuit tell them to STFU and go DO THEIR GODDAMMM JOBS and get the permits that they were legally required to get TWELVE YEARS AGO and have known about all along.

That is where the fault lies in this entire issue...with the State and the Feds for not getting this handled, and with the Tribes for not using their considerable weight to get it done, too.

It's like blaming a speeding ticket on the cop who gives you the ticket instead of taking the blame for going 85 in a 50.

Fish on...

Todd
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#891959 - 04/15/14 07:26 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: Todd]
MPM Offline
Spawner

Registered: 12/09/08
Posts: 766
Loc: Seattle, WA
I'm with Todd on this one.

Top
#891960 - 04/15/14 07:35 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: MPM]
JJ Offline
Juvenile at Sea

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 203
Loc: redmond, WA
But Todd why would you want to let facts get in the way of thinking an organization is terrible. Good post. WDFW had 12 years to get their poop together and they didn't. Period end of statement. 12 years people. Come on.
JJ

Top
#891962 - 04/15/14 07:56 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: JJ]
eyeFISH Offline
Ornamental Rice Bowl

Registered: 11/24/03
Posts: 12766
This whole thing is just another replay of what went down in Oregon… same smell, only the names have changed.

NFS took quite a beating for just trying to hold ODFW accountable for its hatchery practices.

No one said close 'em, just run 'em right (and legal, too).
_________________________
"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." (Zane Grey)

"If you don't kill them, they will spawn." (Carcassman)


The Keen Eye MD
Long Live the Kings!

Top
#891964 - 04/15/14 08:17 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: eyeFISH]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
I like to go fishing, and my customers like to go fishing for those fish...my business in part relies on those fish being there.

I'm pissed as hell at WDFW for fuckin this off for so long, them and NOAA-F both.

I'm pissed that the tribes, who also benefit from these hatchery programs, didn't do anything about it, either.

I'm pissed at sportsfishermen who think it's the WFC's fault.

The only ones I'm not pissed at are the folks at the WFC...they're just doing what they do, whether or not we like it. It's not their fault that NO ONE HAS DONE THEIR JOB on this issue.

Fish on...

Todd
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#891971 - 04/15/14 09:55 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: Todd]
Double Haul Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 03/07/99
Posts: 1558
Loc: Wherever I can swing for wild ...
I saw this on WF BB written by Kent Lufkin and felt it was interesting post to share here:

"Two points: First, I couldn't agree more that like it or not, it often takes a lawsuit to get someone's attention.

The WFC suit wasn't some nefarious conspiracy to enrich the previously mentioned 'fat cat lawyers'. This suit was brought with the intention of forcing WDFW to do its job. This isn't the first time a lawsuit has been filed, nor will it be the last. Neither will WFC be the only group to file one. It takes the threat of appearing in court to force WDFW and other agencies to answer hard questions or to take action they'd rather avoid.

Second, it helps to understand WDFW's worldview. The department holds three things above all others: hatcheries; harvest; and license sales.

Like many other states, Washington drank the hatchery Kool Aid early and deep. WDFW is fully on board with the notion that hatcheries are the panacea to the problem of people killing more fish than are able to reproduce. Every fisherman should make a point of reading 'An Entirely Synthetic Fish: How Rainbow Trout Beguiled America and Overran the World' by Anders Halverson. It traces the history of fish hatcheries in glorious detail while discussing the problems with the fish they literally manufacture. Problems WDFW and their peers in other states would prefer not to acknowledge, like how hatchery fish impact the survival of natives.

Hatcheries cost a shitload of money to build and to operate. By committing to them as an ongoing enterprise, WDFW needs to continually justify their enormous expense, especially in these tight budget times. Promoting catch and kill fishing is the best way to do so. The more fish that are harvested, the more hatcheries need to crank out more fish to replace them, and in the process rationalize their cost and purpose. WDFW is NOT interested in promoting catch and release for the simple reason it flies in the face of its investment in hatcheries.

In these dark days of post-McCleary budget woes, WDFW desperately needs to sell fishing licenses and raise fees to replace money that it previously received from the general fund. That train has left the station, so in order to continue to fund hatcheries and indeed all other department operations, WDFW needs to sell licenses - a LOT of licenses. Hence the huge marketing push to promote fishing and to lure new and so-called lapsed anglers to the water with the promise of stringers full of fish - bigger fish. Guess where all those 'catchables' come from?

The WFC lawsuit serves as a well-placed broomstick handle in the spokes of WDFW's bicycle. Forcing them to acknowledge the Chambers Creek hatchery's role in the demise of wild fish and to live up to their existing obligations to mitigate damage caused by hatchery fish calls into question the role of hatcheries and everything connected with them. In essence, the very soul of the department.

WDFW's decision to not release a batch of hatchery fish is a shot over the bow of fishermen across the state, a calculated statement that the department believes there are more people who'd rather catch and kill a hatchery fish than see natives survive. By splitting sporting groups along that line, they likely figure the backlash by pro-hatchery fishers will pressure WFC into either withdrawing their suit or settling on a watered down compromise that WDFW can then proceed to ignore."


Edited by Double Haul (04/15/14 10:00 PM)
_________________________
Decisions and changes seldom occur by posting on Internet bulletin boards.

Top
#891983 - 04/16/14 01:11 AM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: Double Haul]
Lucky Louie Offline
Carcass

Registered: 11/30/09
Posts: 2286
I’m not going to support these sponsors so some of the profits they make off me goes to WFC and possibly their partner organizations.
_________________________
The world will not be destroyed by those that are evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.- Albert Einstein

No you can’t have my rights---I’m still using them





Top
#891998 - 04/16/14 12:04 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: Lucky Louie]
AP a.k.a. Kaiser D Offline
Hippie

Registered: 01/31/02
Posts: 4533
Loc: B'ham
Kent Lufkin and Todd both lay it out well. The blame rests so squarely on the WDFW, I have a hard time even understanding the vitriol directed a WFC? For whatever reason, those with the most fire towards WFC seem to be loose with words and late to the party, neither of which is beneficial to their position given the game being played.

Top
#892023 - 04/16/14 02:30 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: AP a.k.a. Kaiser D]
Larry B Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3020
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
Originally Posted By: AP a.k.a. Kaiser D
Kent Lufkin and Todd both lay it out well. The blame rests so squarely on the WDFW, I have a hard time even understanding the vitriol directed a WFC? For whatever reason, those with the most fire towards WFC seem to be loose with words and late to the party, neither of which is beneficial to their position given the game being played.


Acknowledging my ignorance would you please lay some foundation for your assertion that the blame rests squarely on WDFW? Not saying you are wrong but are you able to provide a timeline of germane WDFW/NMFS actions and which agency currently has the ball in their court in that process?
_________________________
Remember to immediately record your catch or you may become the catch!

It's the person who has done nothing who is sure nothing can be done. (Ewing)

Top
#892032 - 04/16/14 03:16 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: Larry B]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
Larry, 12 years ago when the PS Chinook were listed WDFW came under the legal requirement to make sure that all of their activities in Puget Sound were in accordance with the ESA.

That included getting permits for their hatchery programs certifying that they were being run in accordance with the ESA.

They never got the permits that were required by the ESA. This is not a "probably should get" permits...this is federal law that requires that they get permits.

After sitting on it for a while and not getting permits, they were sued by Washington Trout (who is now the WFC) for being in violation of the ESA.

After some haggling WDFW and WT/WFC settled out of court...and WFC agreed to lay off suing WDFW over this issue...which WDFW was blatantly and admittedly in direct violation of...for ten years.

They gave them ten years to get their ducks in a row and get the permits so that they wouldn't be in direct violation of the ESA.

There's no question that WDFW is in violation of the ESA...there won't even be a trial if it comes to it, it will take one hour and WDFW will lose on summary judgment.

"Do you agree that the ESA requires a permit?"
"Yes"
"Do you have the permits?"
"No"

Judgment for the plaintiff, plus costs.

That's how long the trial would take, and exactly how it would go.

So...during the ten year hiatus of the lawsuit, the PS steelhead were listed, too. This will also require a permit, but I suspect that the work for the Chinook ESA permit and the Steelhead ESA permit will be virtually identical...as a matter of fact I'd be very surprised if they didn't all come in one bundle.

The ten years goes by...more, actually...and guess what?

WDFW still has not got the permits to show that their PS hatchery programs are ESA-compliant.

They knew all along they needed them, and they did not get them.

They also knew that they would be sued for it after TEN YEARS and still didn't get it done.

Now the WFC is doing exactly what they said they would do over TEN YEARS AGO...give them an entire decade to get their program certified as ESA compliant...which they did...and then sue them if they didn't.

CCA or PSA or some other sportfishing group has a problem with this? Where the fukk have they been the last 12 years making sure the programs they like are fully permitted?

Dudes starting boycotts against the WFC and their donors? Where the fukk have they been the last 12 years?

The tribes? They benefit from these programs...where the fuckk have they been the last 12 years?

WDFW? NOAA-F? The agencies whose JOBS it is to do this stuff? Where the fukk have they been?

There is a TON of blame to go around here...and like the WFC or not, they should be at the bottom of the blame list long after all the rest.

They did EXACTLY what they said they would do...and WDFW did NOT.

Did NOAA-F drag their feet? Then the tribes and State should have sued them to make them do their JOB. Has the State dragged its feet? Then NOAA-F should have stepped in YEARS ago and told them to either get compliant or shut it down.

Now it's WFC's fault that the WFC did exactly what they said they would do, while every other group either sat on their asses and did nothing, at best, or were in direct violation of federal law for well over a decade, at worst?

I don't give two fukks about the WFC donor list or what they do...I give a lot of fukks about my TAX dollars, my business TAX dollars, my license fees, my customers, and their taxes and license fees that are going to WDFW, the State of Washington, and the Federal Government while they sit on their asses and do absolutely NOTHING about this, and this is their JOB.

Fish on...

Todd
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#892037 - 04/16/14 03:47 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: ]
fishbadger Offline
Repeat Spawner

Registered: 03/06/01
Posts: 1194
Loc: Gig Harbor, WA
Fukkin-A!

I have no particular dog in this fight, and I'm neutral on WFC, but it doesn't take too many neurons to rub together between the ears to figure out that the WDFW is halting this hatchery plant to pit the sportsmen against the WFC (and indirectly against each other along the lines of pro/anti hatch),

fb


Edited by fishbadger (04/16/14 03:48 PM)
_________________________
"Laugh if you want to, it really is kinda funny, cuz the world is a car and you're the crash test dummy"
All Hail, The Devil Makes Three

Top
#892041 - 04/16/14 04:08 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: ]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
Originally Posted By: Redd_Daetona
Whewww, thats a lot of phuks to work through...


I have a lot more of them that I'd have liked to have used...couldn't help but let a few in there.

I have another theory about why WDFW failed to ever get their permits, too, and it's not a happy theory.

My theory on that is that they won't be able to get their permits because their operations are in violation of the ESA to a very significant extent, and they know it, NOAA-F knows it, the tribes know it, so no one wanted to actually do it.

We'll see, because they are going to have to get those permits, no doubt about it...I sure hope they can do it soon, and do it right.

Fish on...

Todd
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#892044 - 04/16/14 04:13 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: fishbadger]
Larry B Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3020
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
Todd, I appreciate your response but it seems overly defensive.

Are you saying that WDFW has not submitted any paperwork to NOAA/NMFS for the required permit?
_________________________
Remember to immediately record your catch or you may become the catch!

It's the person who has done nothing who is sure nothing can be done. (Ewing)

Top
#892047 - 04/16/14 04:19 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: Larry B]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
No, I'm not.

I'm saying that WDFW has not got their permits...where they are, and why they haven't been done...I don't know exactly.

But if WDFW hasn't submitted the required paperwork, then shame on them.

If they have, and NOAA-F hasn't acted upon it, then shame on them for not doing it, and shame on WDFW and the tribes for not suing them to make them do their JOB.

I'm not being defensive...I'm just flummoxed by the "sportfishing" reaction to the WFC when they are doing exactly what they promised they would do, and doing exactly what they represent, while those who have failed to do their jobs are the very people that all of us pay to do their jobs...the State, and the Feds.

Every single WFC donor can pull out, the WFC can close up shop and go away...and WDFW will still be in direct violation of the ESA, and who will get blamed then?

I like how everyone hates the Gubmint and wants them to follow the law and venerates those who fight the Gubmint tooth and nail to make them follow the law...unless the Gubmint breaking the law benefits them, in which case those striving to make the Gubmint follow the law are now the bad guys.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

Fish on...

Todd
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#892049 - 04/16/14 04:41 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: Todd]
Jumbo Offline
Smolt

Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 96
Loc: Seattle, Wa
One thing is for sure, there is no shortage of retards on this one...

retard sandwiches, all around!!!
_________________________
enjoy!

Top
#892052 - 04/16/14 05:57 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: Todd]
Larry B Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3020
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
Originally Posted By: Todd


I'm saying that WDFW has not got their permits...where they are, and why they haven't been done...I don't know exactly.

But if WDFW hasn't submitted the required paperwork, then shame on them.

If they have, and NOAA-F hasn't acted upon it, then shame on them for not doing it, and shame on WDFW and the tribes for not suing them to make them do their JOB.

Todd


And this is why I chimed in on this thread in the first place; laying it on only one agency without the facts is premature.

And while I understand the concept that at some point a lawsuit may be necessary I am also a believer in progressive steps. What actions, if any, has WFC taken to elevate this matter either to the State or Feds prior to actually filing suit? If they have sat on their hands for a number of years and then file suit (shortly before this year's production is ready for release) then they, too, are a part of the problem.
_________________________
Remember to immediately record your catch or you may become the catch!

It's the person who has done nothing who is sure nothing can be done. (Ewing)

Top
#892057 - 04/16/14 06:29 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: Larry B]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
WDFW is the one who is supposed to have the permit...they are the one you have to sue if you want to make them get it.

They didn't "sit on their hands"...they settled out of court with WDFW when they sued them for this ten years ago, and said they would give them ten years to get it done before they'd sue them again.

The ten years are up.

When should they have sued them?

Fish on...

Todd
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#892060 - 04/16/14 06:44 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: Todd]
Larry B Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3020
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
And I am back to the question of what has occurred during that ten years , if anything, and which agency currently has the ball in their court? If by chance WDFW has submitted the permit application and NOAA/NMFS has been sitting on it the scenario before the judge might be different than as described.
_________________________
Remember to immediately record your catch or you may become the catch!

It's the person who has done nothing who is sure nothing can be done. (Ewing)

Top
#892062 - 04/16/14 06:50 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: Larry B]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
No, it won't...they have to have a permit, and they don't have one. If NOAA-F has been sitting on the application then WDFW needed to sue them to make them act upon it...that is their job.

WDFW is not excused for not having the required permit for the last 12 years if, hypothetically, NOAA-F has been sitting on it. NOAA-F has a statutory timeline they have to follow, and if they don't then it is WDFW's job to hold them to it, in court if necessary.

Regardless...it is not the WFC's fault in any way, in any scenario, ever, that WDFW has not obtained its permits.

Fish on ...

Todd
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#892064 - 04/16/14 06:51 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: Larry B]
wsu Offline
Returning Adult

Registered: 06/23/04
Posts: 422
If WDFW had submitted all their permit apps and had all their ducks in a row, wouldn't it make sense for WDFW to simply bring NOAA into the lawsuit? That would certainly press NOAA to act, right?

Top
#892066 - 04/16/14 06:55 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: wsu]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
I would think that if WDFW has done all it was supposed to do (besides demanding that NOAA-F do their legal duty, too) then yes, WDFW should absolutely try to get NOAA-F into the fray to explain why they have sat upon it.

My fear, as I stated above, is that neither WDFW, NOAA-F, nor the PS tribes wanted the permit application process to proceed in the manner it is supposed to...because all three feel that the programs will not be certified ESA-compliant, and would rather have gone along operating illegally rather than making them legal.

Fish on...

Todd
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#892068 - 04/16/14 07:02 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: wsu]
cohoangler Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 12/29/99
Posts: 1611
Loc: Vancouver, Washington
Lemme add some context and perspective.

WDFW is NOT at fault here. NMFS is. WDFW submitted everything they were supposed to seven years ago. NMFS sat on it. Why did they sit on it? NMFS has bigger things to deal with. Like getting ESA compliance for the Columbia River dams. And hundreds of hatchery programs in the Columbia Basin and on the Olympic Pen. Indeed, there are lots of ESA issues all around the PNW, and not alot of NMFS staff to deal with them. NMFS has budget cuts, just like every other Federal agency (remember the Sequester?).

Relativily speaking, Chambers Creek steelhead program is small potatos. Really small potatos. Plus nobody was beating on NMFS doors to complete consultation. But now they are. WDFW is caught in the middle. They are on the hook for not having completed the permitting process, not NMFS. But WDFW has done everything they've been asked to do. In my view, that is their defense in court. They've done what they are required to do by law. They cannot unilaterally determine that Chambers Creek steelhead adversely affect wild PS steelhead. Only NMFS can do that. And NMFS has NOT made that determination. So, at this point, nobody can say whether the stocking program has any effect on ESA listed species (except NMFS). Even the WFS cannot say that with any scientific authority. They are only guessing too.

As such, I'm puzzled by the reaction from WDFW. They are presuming that Chambers CReek steelhead have an adverse impact, so they are not going to release them. Seems like they're surrendering before the battle even begins.


Edited by cohoangler (04/16/14 07:04 PM)

Top
#892070 - 04/16/14 07:04 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: Todd]
Keta Offline
Repeat Spawner

Registered: 03/05/00
Posts: 1092
Any idea of what WDFW would have to do to get the hatchery programs ESA compliant?

Top
#892071 - 04/16/14 07:04 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: Larry B]
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13521
Inexact chronology:

2004, WT (now WFC) settles with WDFW over the hatchery permits (HGMPs) due to the chinook ESA listing.

WDFW drafts HGMPs and sends them to NMFS for review and hopefully approval.

NMFS sends the drafts back to WDFW with notes regarding deficiencies.

WDFW takes about a 40% whack to its budget, losing some staff and even reducing some hatchery production. (some of those lost staff now work at NMFS doing ESA consultations)

Hatchery HGMPs sit on back burner and eventually just fall off the stove entirely.

2014, WFC files notice of intent to sue, and then sues because HGMPs that should have been filed shortly after 1998 and 2007 have never been completed.

WDFW has 2 staff people for all ESA coordination work statewide, and they are busy just handling the day to day routine ESA activities.

Top
#892072 - 04/16/14 07:09 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: Salmo g.]
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13521
Cohoangler,

I too am puzzled why WDFW is surrendering before any allegation is proven. The burden is on WFC to prove that WDFW doesn't have the HGMPs (it doesn't) and that HGMPs would conclude significant harm to wild chinook and wild steelhead, a significantly higher bar.

Sg

Top
#892073 - 04/16/14 07:22 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: Salmo g.]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
I think those are two separate issues...first they are in non-compliance if they do not have federally approved genetic management plans...period. The bar to prove this one is laying on the floor...barely have to step to get over it.

Second, once the plans are approved, then if someone wanted to challenge them as insufficient the burden of proof would be on them (the WFC, presumably) to show that the plans are inconsistent with recovery under the ESA...a very high bar to prove.

The day that PS Chinook were listed and there were not ESA approved plans in hand WDFW was in noncompliance...and every fish they release is in violation of the ESA. (Well, having the plans in a reasonable time, at least).

I suspect that what the WFC would love to do is to have federally approved HGMPs in place, and then sue everyone who came up with and/or approved them, and try to have the entire operation scrapped...but they can't do that until there are approved HGMPs.

I also don't think that playing "hide the HGMP" from the WFC is entirely on accident, either...as long as they weren't being sued the last thing they want is to have their HGMPs up for review by the federal courts.

WFC has forced their hand (after many years) and now it's either get the plans and open them up to scrutiny, or get shut down for not having the plans at all. Either way it is a tough position for WDFW to be in.

Usually sportfishermen are quick to claim that WDFW is violating about six thousand laws at a time every time they do something...here is a situation where they actually are and sportfishermen don't seem to mind one bit, and in fact are upset with what appears to be the only entity right now interested in actually having federally approved hatchery genentic management plans, if only so they can sue over them.

Fish on...

Todd
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#892074 - 04/16/14 07:33 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: Todd]
stonefish Online   content
King of the Beach

Registered: 12/11/02
Posts: 5205
Loc: Carkeek Park
Originally Posted By: Todd

I suspect that what the WFC would love to do is to have federally approved HGMPs in place, and then sue everyone who came up with and/or approved them, and try to have the entire operation scrapped...but they can't do that until there are approved HGMPs.


Todd,
Entire operation meaning close all hatcheries?
If so, how would this apply to tribal hatcheries?
SF
_________________________
Go Dawgs!
Founding Member - 2023 Pink Plague Opposition Party
#coholivesmatter

Top
#892077 - 04/16/14 07:59 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: stonefish]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
Not sure if it would, or would not...the State's genetic management plans wouldn't cover those hatcheries, either way. (I think).

Fish on...

Todd
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#892079 - 04/16/14 08:06 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: Todd]
Us and Them Offline
Repeat Spawner

Registered: 10/20/10
Posts: 1279
Loc: Seattle
Regardless of the issue having a divided sportsman camp is bad in the long term . If you look at hunting as an example the archery guys would not accept the cross bow hunters and lost opportunity consistently across he US to the rifle hunters. The division between the fly, gear and wild fish camps only benefits the tribes and commercials in the long term. The public in General will side with the wild fish just based on emotional appeal. We need to find a way to live in one big tent to effectively hold our ground against the other side.
_________________________
Once you go black you never go back

Top
#892089 - 04/16/14 09:14 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: cohoangler]
MPM Offline
Spawner

Registered: 12/09/08
Posts: 766
Loc: Seattle, WA
Based on my understanding of the law, if WDFW has not gotten a permit, even if they applied, then they have *not* done everything they were asked to do.

That's like me applying for a drivers license, driving before I receive it, and claiming I didn't do anything wrong for driving without a license.

Top
#892090 - 04/16/14 09:31 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: Us and Them]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
Originally Posted By: Tom Joad
Regardless of the issue having a divided sportsman camp is bad in the long term . If you look at hunting as an example the archery guys would not accept the cross bow hunters and lost opportunity consistently across he US to the rifle hunters. The division between the fly, gear and wild fish camps only benefits the tribes and commercials in the long term. The public in General will side with the wild fish just based on emotional appeal. We need to find a way to live in one big tent to effectively hold our ground against the other side.


I agree with that, and I think that all sportfishermen should agree that if we are going to have hatchery programs that they should be in full compliance with the ESA.

Besides being the legal and ethical thing to do, it also would insulate the hatchery programs from challenges by those who would seek to eradicate them...and if they are in compliance with the ESA then there would be no real reason to even want to get rid of them.

Asking WDFW, NOAA-F, the tribes, or the WFC to just ignore the fact that there are no permits for the operation of the programs right now is just asking for anyone to challenge them.

Fish on...

Todd
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#892113 - 04/17/14 12:03 AM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: Todd]
OncyT Offline
Spawner

Registered: 02/06/08
Posts: 506
There has been a lot of discussion here about when something happened, who did it?, who didn’t do it?, who’s responsible, etc. Some of the information provided has been accurate as far as dates. Some has not. To try to put things in perspective, I will try here to provide all the dates of actions or inactions about hatchery permits in Puget Sound of which I am aware. Hold on folks, the action you're going to see will be amazing!

1999 - Puget Sound Chinook listed as threatened under the ESA

1999 - Puget Sound Tribes through the Bureau of Indian Affairs provide NMFS with a Biological Assessment of their hatchery programs and begin Section 7 consultation

2002 - Washington Trout and other plaintiffs sue WDFW claiming that operations of certain WDFW Puget Sound Chinook hatcheries violated the ESA

2002 – WDFW and Tribes provide NMFS with a hatchery resource management plan (RMP) for Puget Sound Chinook hatcheries along with hatchery and genetic management plans (HGMP’s) for each program

2003 - Washington Trout filed a Complaint against WDFW claiming that operations of certain WDFW Puget Sound Coho and Steelhead hatcheries violated the ESA

2003 – WDFW and Tribes provide NMFS with a hatchery RMP for non-chinook hatchery programs along with HGMP’s for each program

2003 – NMFS begins draft Environment Impact Statement (EIS) to guide review of RMP’s and HGMP’s. EIS is to be completed by 2005.

2004 – NMFS files notice of intent to prepare a Puget Sound hatchery EIS in the Federal Register

2007 – Puget Sound steelhead listed as threatened under the ESA

2008 – WDFW Commission adopts statewide steelhead management plan that addresses natural production, fishery management and artificial production among other things. Requires the development of regional management plans with tribal co-managers.

2009 – WDFW Commission adopts Hatchery and Fishery Reform Policy. Requires hatchery programs to meet HSRG broodstock management standards by 2015, develop wild salmonid management zones and watershed management plans to meet conservation and harvest goals at the ESU and watershed levels.

2011 – NMFS again files notice of intent to prepare a Puget Sound hatchery EIS in the Federal Register. EIS to be completed by 2013.

Time Passes

Lawsuits are filed

To date as of April 2014 – No comments from NMFS on EA provided by Tribes in 1999, RMP and HGMP’s provided in 2002 and 2003. NMFS EIS that was going to be developed in 2004 and 2011 to guide review of Puget Sound hatchery programs is not complete.

April 2014 – WDFW director blames NMFS, saying WDFW provide them the information in 2005 (actually provided in 2003). A day or so later, WDFW Fish Program Manager says that on or about April 10th WDFW provided NMFS with updated HGMP’s for 6 of the 7 WDFW steelhead programs. At this moment I cannot say if NMFS has received an updated HGMP for Marblemount hatchery on the Skagit River (the largest steelhead program in Puget Sound?)

So what happened? Who is to blame? Feel free to make the call.

In summary:

1) NMFS has not responded to program evaluations beginning in 1999, and following in 2002 and 2003. NMFS has not completed the EIS that was going to guide hatchery reviews even after starting in 2003 and re-starting in 2011.

2) What is the most definitive thing you can find that NMFS has to say about hatchery programs 15 years after listing Puget Sound Chinook and 7 years after listing Puget Sound steelhead? Well here it is:

“Based on the current scientific information, NOAA Fisheries believes that artificial breeding and rearing of salmon and steelhead is likely to result in some degree of genetic change and fitness reduction in hatchery fish and their progeny when they interbreed with fish from natural populations. Hatchery best management practices harmonize conservation goals with the implementation of treaty Indian fishing rights and other applicable laws and policies.”

3) On WDFW’s side, (in my opinion) the RMP and HGMP’s provided to NMFS early in the process were nothing more than a description of how the programs currently operated and really did not reflect any effort to modify hatchery programs to reduce risks to listed population. The steelhead HGMP’s that WDFW provided NMFS just a few days ago, probably finally reflect the changes that they made in response to the two commission policies identified above. Under the commission directions they have one year to complete watershed management plans with tribal co-managers to meet conservation and harvest goals and to meet HSRG broodstock management standards.

Personally, given the break-neck speed that things have been accomplished since 1999, I won’t hold my breath for anybody to get it together.



Edited by OncyT (04/17/14 11:49 AM)
Edit Reason: Edited to add Washington Trout lawsuits in 2002 & 2003 to timeline

Top
#892120 - 04/17/14 12:56 AM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: Todd]
TastySalmon Offline
Smolt

Registered: 04/16/14
Posts: 77
Loc: Lake Samish
Originally Posted By: Todd
Originally Posted By: Tom Joad
Regardless of the issue having a divided sportsman camp is bad in the long term . If you look at hunting as an example the archery guys would not accept the cross bow hunters and lost opportunity consistently across he US to the rifle hunters. The division between the fly, gear and wild fish camps only benefits the tribes and commercials in the long term. The public in General will side with the wild fish just based on emotional appeal. We need to find a way to live in one big tent to effectively hold our ground against the other side.


I agree with that, and I think that all sportfishermen should agree that if we are going to have hatchery programs that they should be in full compliance with the ESA.

Besides being the legal and ethical thing to do, it also would insulate the hatchery programs from challenges by those who would seek to eradicate them...and if they are in compliance with the ESA then there would be no real reason to even want to get rid of them.

Asking WDFW, NOAA-F, the tribes, or the WFC to just ignore the fact that there are no permits for the operation of the programs right now is just asking for anyone to challenge them.

Fish on...

Todd


A lack of NEPA documentation through EAs or EISs does not put programs in violation of the ESA. WDFW has to actually be in violation of the ESA in order for them to violate ESA regulation. Can you suggest a way that their programs are in violation? Most people cannot. As mentioned several times before, WDFW did everything necessary required by the federal government. They follow their HGMPs per HSRG recommendations and guidelines and in most cases, the early steelhead programs show surprisingly low rates of introgression. In some systems, their is hardly any indication of introgression, exceeding PNI guidelines for listed stocks several-fold.

Why then is WDFW running scared? They simply didn't want to enter into litigation, although this is presently not an option for them at this point. Their initial thoughts were to payoff WFC and lose the million or so dollars invested in the Chambers steelhead to avoid going to court. As of right now, they've done both but will still go to court unless they settle by paying a inordinate amount of money for WFC lawyers.

Top
#892124 - 04/17/14 02:19 AM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: TastySalmon]
Larry B Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3020
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
Accepting what OncyT has provided as being reasonably accurate then I will opine that this tidbit is the critical no-go factor:

"1) NMFS has not responded to program evaluations beginning in 1999, and following in 2002 and 2003. NMFS has not completed the EIS that was going to guide hatchery reviews even after starting in 2003 and re-starting in 2011."

I don't care how great or crappy WDFW's submittals may have been - when the governing agency has failed to establish the criteria by which reviews will be conducted they leave WDFW in a no win position.

I think WFC picked on the wrong folks on this one.....


Edited by Larry B (04/17/14 02:19 AM)
_________________________
Remember to immediately record your catch or you may become the catch!

It's the person who has done nothing who is sure nothing can be done. (Ewing)

Top
#892129 - 04/17/14 05:10 AM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: Moravec]
ReiterRat Offline
Gearhead

Registered: 12/10/99
Posts: 482
Loc: Snohomish, WA
Andrew is right. If you are not for something then you are against it.
Support these businesses who are contributing to the demise of wild steelhead and see what happens.

Think years from now.

The State is broke, WDFW cant get it together with no staff.
WDFW has already proved they don't care.
Puget Sound Hatchery steelhead seemed to be more of a nuisance to WDFW then a plus.

What's next? Blackmouth? Hatchery Coho? Hatchery Kings. The list is ripe for the WFC.
I hope you all like fishing for Humpies.

Blame them or them He said, she said, Blah Blah Blah.......

Fact is with all the detrimental combining factors our wild steelhead have faced over the years, fishing for wild steelhead PS rivers went to [Bleeeeep!] a long time ago!

You can point at who ever you want, NOAA, Tribes, WDFW or how about every one who turns on a light switch or flushes a toilet or builds a house on the river or dikes the flood plain to grow some corn. We are all to blame just by living here and ruining the environment and the wild steelhead populations.

The only rivers that's still have good runs of wild Salmon or Steelhead in this world are the ones we have not moved in on and wrecked forever. Look down that road. It's only a matter a time before we hunt elsewhere to get our steelhead fix and hurt more wild fish runs

We all lernt it in skool. Biology 101. Habitat is the key to survival. No habitat no wild steelhead.

Think real hard. Wonder why hatchery steelhead ever came about? Maybe, just maybe the steelhead fishing at some long long time ago got crappy enough that somebody had the great idea of producing reared steelhead so they could actually have something to fish for! What a concept! Fish to actually fish for!

Lets all support these businesses who support WFC and all the other groups that support them and when there are no Puget Sound hatchery winter or summer, yes summer! fish left we can all go to Forks and pound on the wild steelhead over there.

Wake up! Supporting bans on hatchery fish is not helping. Supporting the habitat is. Too late for that in the Puget Sound. we done ruinded that.
Look at what the NOT fishing on the wild steelhead did for us with all the closures on the Skykomish, Stilly, Skagit and Sack did! Boy those fisheries sure bounced right back didn't they! All the WDFDW has proven is that when they close something down it's done. period. Less for them to do.

We all want to fish but were are we going to go? We are going go hurt what wild fish runs there are in this state by just massively increasing the amount of pressure put on them by Pugetropolis. How does that help wild steelhead? That's just a f'ng great idea. Take away our PS hatchery steelhead so we can all go get our steelhead fix by harming wild steelhead elsewhere in this state.
I might not be skooled as you fellas on here with all your knowledge but hurting fish that you are trying to protect does not seem to make a whole lot of sense to me. Please enlighten me on how that works?
Look a little further past tomorrow. Where is this "fix" going to take us. How much fishing time you martyrs willing to give up? Is our population going to decrease? is the watershed going to fix itself? pollutants are all going to go away? I am sure it's just all going to get better, right?

Taking away hatchery fish is going to hurt wild fish period. Unless you have the time and money to fish elsewhere for steelhead and salmon what are you going to do? You are going to contribute to the demise of wild steelhead in our state by putting pressure on them that they do not need. And when that fishery is over
what's next for you and I ?
We can read the high glossy magazines with no ads in them about the adventures of the wealthy members of the WFC fishing for steelhead in other countries because they stopped the evil empire of the hatchery steelhead and soon to be hatchery salmon and in doing so forced all of the other fisheries to shut down through unsustainable pressure.

Argue all you want about who to blame. The unfortunate fact is the only way to get anything done is to sue the WDFW. The WFC did just that and nobody else.
They keep their elitist , godlike, I have the ball so you can't play! hypocritical mouths shut and this didn't happen. Who else do you see lining up to sue the state and take our Puget Sound fisheries away from us? WHO?

So who are you going to remember in the years from now when you are waiting to for all the wild steelhead and salmon to recover in the Puget Sound so you can maybe go fishing again?

I am going to remember a bunch of pansies who sued the already broke WDFW in hopes of settling out of court to get more "funds" to do "further" research with that's who.

Go ahead and support WFC. They are not to blame. They are only trying to help us ignorant folk who can not help themselves, that's all.
But remember, and I honest to God sincerely hope I am wrong and pray that I am, When there is nothing left to fish for because the WFC got it's way, You suck!

The list below are all the awesome folks who want to ban fishing through the process of eliminating hatcheries


2013 Wild Fish Soirée & Benefit Auction Donors

Through their generous and thoughtful support, these donors have demonstrated their commitment to the Northwest’s wild fish by donating goods and services to the 2013 Wild Fish Soiree & Benefit Auction. Support the businesses that support wild fish and consider them when making future purchases.

Acappella Safarissearun cutt

Angler's Book Supply

Angler's Sport Group

Anthony's Restaurants

Arch Anglers

Argosy CruisesChateau St Michelle 2

Cliff Barker

Kurt & Candace Beardslee

Bellevue Club

Belltown Billiards

Bonnier Corporation

Steve BroccoRooster Fish

C.F. Burkheimer

Cabelas

Café Lago

Cape Resort

Carol Carlson

Cascade Kennels Inc.

Chateau Ste Michelle Vineyards & WineriesClayoquot Resort

Bill Chinn

Clayoquot Wilderness Resort

Columbia Sportswear

David Crabb

Confluence Fly Shop

Bob DelabarSafari 1

DeLille Cellars

Deschutes Angler

Dr. Slick

Duvall Books

Jeff Edvalds Photography

Elliot Bay Books

F.X. McRory'sthe place smugglers

FarBank Enterprises (Redington)

FarBank Enterprises (Sage)

Filson

FishEyeGuy Photography

Frank Amato Publications

The Estate of Fritz Gerds

Nick Gayeskiherbfarm

Jamie Glasgow

Globe Pequot Press

Icicle Outfitters & Guides, Inc.

The Herbfarm

John Howie Restaurants - John Howie Steak, Seastar, Sport

Sand Lamoreux

Jim & Paulette Lichatowich

The Estate of Harry Lemire

Little Stone Fly Fisher/Bob TriggsLemire

Ralph Lloyd

Lost River Winery

Craig Lynch

Magic Waters Patagonia

Holly Magowan & The Estate of Rosemary Weise

Jeff Martin

Bill & Lynn McMillan

Bruce & Jeanne McNae

Montana Fly Companymagic waters

Narrows Brewing Co.

Ed Newbold

Northwest Film Forum

Northwest Outdoor Center

Pacific Science Center

Patagonia

PCC Natural Markets

Publishers Mailing Service & Jeff Jensen

Quintessential Gourmet

Ray's Boathouse, Cafe & Catering

Royal Wulff Productsswell

Sazerac Co.

Seattle Repertory Theater

Seattle Symphony

Shelter Restaurant

John Sowinski

Stackpole Bookslittle stone

George Suyama

Suyama Peterson Deguchi

Temple Fork Outfitters

Tofino Swell Lodge

Marilyn & Craig Tuohy

Michael UeharaWaterfall Resort Alaska

W Seattle Hotel

The Estate of Thad Wardall

Waterfall Resort Alaska

Bev Watt

Bill White

Wild River PressDeschutes Rod Reel

Wilderness Safaris

Woodinville Printing

Wright & McGill Co

Top
#892133 - 04/17/14 11:08 AM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: ReiterRat]
cohoangler Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 12/29/99
Posts: 1611
Loc: Vancouver, Washington
TS has it right. As he/she stated, the lack of documentation does not put programs in violation of the ESA. WDFW has to actually be out of compliance with a NMFS determination to be in violation of the ESA. That is, NMFS has to determine that WDFW actions are indeed adversely affecting ESA listed species, and then WDFW has to willfully ignore or not properly respond to the NMFS determination. But NMFS has not made a determination; and WDFW has not ignored their findings.

WDFW and NMFS are both guilty of not following up on the paperwork to ensure compliance. It's likely the court will agree, and the "punishment" will likely be a court-ordered schedule for completing consultation. Once the consultation is done, we will know whether and how the Chambers Creek steelhead adversely affect listed species. If WDFW fails to respond to the requirements of the subsequent incidental take permit, then (and only then) are they in violation of the ESA.

In my view, WDFW has over-reacted to this potential lawsuit. They need to get better tactical advice on how they are approaching this issue. I'm assuming they're already getting good legal advice....

Top
#892137 - 04/17/14 11:55 AM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: cohoangler]
TastySalmon Offline
Smolt

Registered: 04/16/14
Posts: 77
Loc: Lake Samish
CA, maybe you're being facetious about DFW receiving good legal advice. If you're poking fun, their legal advice has been to avoid confrontation at all costs. This plan clearly hasn't worked out for them.

Reiter rat mentioned the possibility of this spilling over to other hatchery programs. This is exactly what many are assuming will happen. There are indications that as soon as WFC is done with steelhead, they're moving onto the next species. 99% of hatchery programs in Idaho, Oregon and Washington are in the same situation for better or worse.

WFC wants hatcheries gone and they aren't going to stop with steelhead. This is a monumental moment for the future of fishing in the Northwest but most haven't connected the dots yet. The future of angling opportunity likely rides on the outcome of this lawsuit.

Top
#892140 - 04/17/14 12:00 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: ReiterRat]
Nor Cal Drifter Offline
Spawner

Registered: 01/28/05
Posts: 781
Loc: Sacramento, CA
Originally Posted By: ReiterRat
Andrew is right. If you are not for something then you are against it.
Support these businesses who are contributing to the demise of wild steelhead and see what happens.

Think years from now.

The State is broke, WDFW cant get it together with no staff.
WDFW has already proved they don't care.
Puget Sound Hatchery steelhead seemed to be more of a nuisance to WDFW then a plus.

What's next? Blackmouth? Hatchery Coho? Hatchery Kings. The list is ripe for the WFC.
I hope you all like fishing for Humpies.

Blame them or them He said, she said, Blah Blah Blah.......

Fact is with all the detrimental combining factors our wild steelhead have faced over the years, fishing for wild steelhead PS rivers went to [Bleeeeep!] a long time ago!

You can point at who ever you want, NOAA, Tribes, WDFW or how about every one who turns on a light switch or flushes a toilet or builds a house on the river or dikes the flood plain to grow some corn. We are all to blame just by living here and ruining the environment and the wild steelhead populations.

The only rivers that's still have good runs of wild Salmon or Steelhead in this world are the ones we have not moved in on and wrecked forever. Look down that road. It's only a matter a time before we hunt elsewhere to get our steelhead fix and hurt more wild fish runs

We all lernt it in skool. Biology 101. Habitat is the key to survival. No habitat no wild steelhead.

Think real hard. Wonder why hatchery steelhead ever came about? Maybe, just maybe the steelhead fishing at some long long time ago got crappy enough that somebody had the great idea of producing reared steelhead so they could actually have something to fish for! What a concept! Fish to actually fish for!

Lets all support these businesses who support WFC and all the other groups that support them and when there are no Puget Sound hatchery winter or summer, yes summer! fish left we can all go to Forks and pound on the wild steelhead over there.

Wake up! Supporting bans on hatchery fish is not helping. Supporting the habitat is. Too late for that in the Puget Sound. we done ruinded that.
Look at what the NOT fishing on the wild steelhead did for us with all the closures on the Skykomish, Stilly, Skagit and Sack did! Boy those fisheries sure bounced right back didn't they! All the WDFDW has proven is that when they close something down it's done. period. Less for them to do.

We all want to fish but were are we going to go? We are going go hurt what wild fish runs there are in this state by just massively increasing the amount of pressure put on them by Pugetropolis. How does that help wild steelhead? That's just a f'ng great idea. Take away our PS hatchery steelhead so we can all go get our steelhead fix by harming wild steelhead elsewhere in this state.
I might not be skooled as you fellas on here with all your knowledge but hurting fish that you are trying to protect does not seem to make a whole lot of sense to me. Please enlighten me on how that works?
Look a little further past tomorrow. Where is this "fix" going to take us. How much fishing time you martyrs willing to give up? Is our population going to decrease? is the watershed going to fix itself? pollutants are all going to go away? I am sure it's just all going to get better, right?

Taking away hatchery fish is going to hurt wild fish period. Unless you have the time and money to fish elsewhere for steelhead and salmon what are you going to do? You are going to contribute to the demise of wild steelhead in our state by putting pressure on them that they do not need. And when that fishery is over
what's next for you and I ?
We can read the high glossy magazines with no ads in them about the adventures of the wealthy members of the WFC fishing for steelhead in other countries because they stopped the evil empire of the hatchery steelhead and soon to be hatchery salmon and in doing so forced all of the other fisheries to shut down through unsustainable pressure.

Argue all you want about who to blame. The unfortunate fact is the only way to get anything done is to sue the WDFW. The WFC did just that and nobody else.
They keep their elitist , godlike, I have the ball so you can't play! hypocritical mouths shut and this didn't happen. Who else do you see lining up to sue the state and take our Puget Sound fisheries away from us? WHO?

So who are you going to remember in the years from now when you are waiting to for all the wild steelhead and salmon to recover in the Puget Sound so you can maybe go fishing again?

I am going to remember a bunch of pansies who sued the already broke WDFW in hopes of settling out of court to get more "funds" to do "further" research with that's who.

Go ahead and support WFC. They are not to blame. They are only trying to help us ignorant folk who can not help themselves, that's all.
But remember, and I honest to God sincerely hope I am wrong and pray that I am, When there is nothing left to fish for because the WFC got it's way, You suck!

The list below are all the awesome folks who want to ban fishing through the process of eliminating hatcheries



Damn good post RR. Pretty much sums up the way I feel about all of these hatchery lawsuits.
_________________________
"Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it."

Top
#892151 - 04/17/14 12:23 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: cohoangler]
OncyT Offline
Spawner

Registered: 02/06/08
Posts: 506

I find this thing more interesting as I learn more about it. I just looked up the settlement of the lawsuits against WDFW files by Washington Trout in 2002 and 2003 over operation of some of their hatchery programs. One of the rationales for the current lawsuits (2014) is that in the out of court settlement, Washington Trout/WFC agreed to not bring suit against WDFW for over operation of their Puget Sound hatcheries.

Here is Todd's quote about this settlement: "After some haggling WDFW and WT/WFC settled out of court...and WFC agreed to lay off suing WDFW over this issue...which WDFW was blatantly and admittedly in direct violation of...for ten years."

I just looked up the settlement agreement posted on the WSC website, and the way I read it, there is no specific number of years for which this settlement is valid. Instead it appears to say that the terms of this settlement last as long as it takes for NOAA to complete its review and issue its final determination regarding approval (under 50 C.F.R. § 223.203(b) and/or 50 C.F.R. § 223.209) of Joint RMPs, HGMP, or HGMPs for WDFW PS hatchery programs.

I hereby admit that I am not now nor ever have been an attorney of any sort, and perhaps the WSC posted the incorrect agreement to its website, but based on what is posted, it appears to me that by bringing this latest lawsuit, WSC violates that settlement agreement - an agreement that is valid as long as it takes for NOAA to complete its review.

See paragraph 7 of this settlement agreement from the WSC website which defines the expiration of the release and hold harmless provisions of the agreement:

WSC settlement agreement with WDFW over 2002 & 2003 lawsuits

Top
#892155 - 04/17/14 12:38 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: OncyT]
rojoband Offline
Returning Adult

Registered: 05/31/08
Posts: 264
Originally Posted By: OncyT

I find this thing more interesting as I learn more about it. I just looked up the settlement of the lawsuits against WDFW files by Washington Trout in 2002 and 2003 over operation of some of their hatchery programs. One of the rationales for the current lawsuits (2014) is that in the out of court settlement, Washington Trout/WFC agreed to not bring suit against WDFW for over operation of their Puget Sound hatcheries.

Here is Todd's quote about this settlement: "After some haggling WDFW and WT/WFC settled out of court...and WFC agreed to lay off suing WDFW over this issue...which WDFW was blatantly and admittedly in direct violation of...for ten years."

I just looked up the settlement agreement posted on the WSC website, and the way I read it, there is no specific number of years for which this settlement is valid. Instead it appears to say that the terms of this settlement last as long as it takes for NOAA to complete its review and issue its final determination regarding approval (under 50 C.F.R. § 223.203(b) and/or 50 C.F.R. § 223.209) of Joint RMPs, HGMP, or HGMPs for WDFW PS hatchery programs.

I hereby admit that I am not now nor ever have been an attorney of any sort, and perhaps the WSC posted the incorrect agreement to its website, but based on what is posted, it appears to me that by bringing this latest lawsuit, WSC violates that settlement agreement - an agreement that is valid as long as it takes for NOAA to complete its review.

See paragraph 7 of this settlement agreement from the WSC website which defines the expiration of the release and hold harmless provisions of the agreement:

WSC settlement agreement with WDFW over 2002 & 2003 lawsuits




Read the last section (#22). It specifically says: " TERM OF THE AGREEMENT: This Agreement shall remain in force and effect for ten years from the Effective Date. It shall then expire automatically."

I would take it that since this settlement was finalized on May 9, 2003 that means it expired on May 9, 2013. This seems right in line with what Todd posted.

It seems you might have jumped to an incorrect conclusion OncyT. Need to read the whole settlement.


Edited by rojoband (04/17/14 12:40 PM)

Top
#892156 - 04/17/14 12:42 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: rojoband]
OncyT Offline
Spawner

Registered: 02/06/08
Posts: 506
Thank you. I stand corrected!

Top
#892160 - 04/17/14 12:59 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: TastySalmon]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
Originally Posted By: TastySalmon


A lack of NEPA documentation through EAs or EISs does not put programs in violation of the ESA. WDFW has to actually be in violation of the ESA in order for them to violate ESA regulation. Can you suggest a way that their programs are in violation? Most people cannot.


I'm dubious about that...but if that's the case (I'm not sure if it is or not, but I'm under the belief that it is not), then there's no reason whatsoever for WDFW to not just go ahead and release the fish this spring.

Fish on...

Todd
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#892161 - 04/17/14 01:00 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: rojoband]
Larry B Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3020
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
But #7 reads, in pertinent part, as follows

" Once effective, this release and hold harmless agreement shall continue in force and with the same effect until such time as NOAA Fisheries completes its review and issues its final determination regarding approval under 50 C.F.R. § 223.203(b) and/or 50 C.F.R. § 223.209 of Joint RMPs, HGMP, or HGMPs for WDFW PS hatchery programs. This release and hold harmless agreement shall expire by its own terms upon completion of NOAA Fisheries’ review and issuance of its final determination regarding approval under 50 C.F.R. § 223.203(b) and/or 50 C.F.R. § 223.209 of the Joint RMPs, HGMP, or HGMPs for WDFW PS hatchery programs. “Final determination” means NOAA Fisheries determination regarding approval of a WDFW HGMP or HGMPs for a period of three years or more. Nonetheless, a second determination by NOAA Fisheries on a specific WDFW HGMP or HGMPs shall be considered a final determination regardless of the length or title of the approval."

This clearly puts NOAA/NMFS into play and to the extent that they may have failed to take timely action thereby precluding issuance of the required permit one might argue that WDFW has acted in good faith and is not in violation of either the agreement or the law.

But, of course, that is why we have lawyers. Just have to wonder if WFC were to lose would they end up paying back some of the $58K they squeezed out of WDFW in attorney fees? Naaa, never happen - and please don't miss the sarcasm.
_________________________
Remember to immediately record your catch or you may become the catch!

It's the person who has done nothing who is sure nothing can be done. (Ewing)

Top
#892167 - 04/17/14 02:02 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: Larry B]
cohoangler Offline
Three Time Spawner

Registered: 12/29/99
Posts: 1611
Loc: Vancouver, Washington
The reason that hatchery consultations are slipping thru the cracks (and thus increasing everyone's litigation risk) is the lack of a clear adverse impact on ESA listed species.

If, for example, someone were engaged in an activity that results in the direct take of listed species, that activity would be a high priority at NMFS. In other words, if the activity results in dead bodies, that activity goes to the top of the priority list. Hydropower operations fall squarely within this range. It's not hard to find dead salmon downstream of a hydropower project. To NMFS, this constitutes the most important consultations to be completed. These get the attention, and for good reason. The next highest priority would likely be habitat projects such as timber harvest, wetland fill permits, road construction, and near-shore development (e.g., marinas, bridges, bulkheads).

Hatchery consultations do not rise to the same level. Hatchery stocking does not normally result in dead bodies or direct loss of habitat. Hatchery releases have the affect of reducing future productivity thru genetic introgression, and other indirect affects. So, there may be an adverse impact, but it's also an impact that is hotly debated (on this BB and others), and can be a issue of considerable scientific debate and inquiry. On the other hand, nobody disputes that a hydropower project kills fish. Or that a timber sale affects instream habitat. So, if you were to prioritize the workload at NMFS, where would you put your limited resources (i.e., your staff time)? In my view, it would NOT be on hatchery consultations. Those are small potatos. Good management dictates that you put your resources where the biggest impacts are. That is, those activities that result in dead bodies or destroyed habitat. After that, you can work on the small stuff.

But if the big issues never go away, the small issues never get the attention required by law. And the litigation risk goes up. The folks at WFC, or whoever, know this very well. My cynical side says WFC or whoever, is more interested in getting paid than they are in saving fish. Otherwise, why would they target an activity with a low and unclear risk to ESA listed fish?


Edited by cohoangler (04/17/14 02:04 PM)

Top
#892181 - 04/17/14 04:18 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: TastySalmon]
Lucky Louie Offline
Carcass

Registered: 11/30/09
Posts: 2286
Originally Posted By: TastySalmon


Reiter rat mentioned the possibility of this spilling over to other hatchery programs. This is exactly what many are assuming will happen. There are indications that as soon as WFC is done with steelhead, they're moving onto the next species. 99% of hatchery programs in Idaho, Oregon and Washington are in the same situation for better or worse.

WFC wants hatcheries gone and they aren't going to stop with steelhead. This is a monumental moment for the future of fishing in the Northwest but most haven't connected the dots yet. The future of angling opportunity likely rides on the outcome of this lawsuit.


I believe WFC had already made those intentions known through the current complaint filed in federal court on March 31, 2014.

Quote from that complaint by WFC, “Plaintiff’s members would like to fish in these waters for wild Puget Sound steelhead, wild Puget Sound Chinook salmon, and wild bull trout if those species were able to recover to a point where such activities would not impede the species’ conservation and restoration.”

Puget Sound hatchery Chinook appear to be next.
_________________________
The world will not be destroyed by those that are evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.- Albert Einstein

No you can’t have my rights---I’m still using them





Top
#892184 - 04/17/14 04:56 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: Larry B]
MPM Offline
Spawner

Registered: 12/09/08
Posts: 766
Loc: Seattle, WA
If the documentation submitted by WDFW was not up to snuff, it's possible the lack of action from NMFS for so long was an attempt to not rock the boat by not declaring the documentation unsatisfactory (therebty making it clearer that the hatchery programs were not kosher).

It's speculative, but would be one explanation for the lack of action from NMFS.

Top
#892185 - 04/17/14 05:06 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: MPM]
MPM Offline
Spawner

Registered: 12/09/08
Posts: 766
Loc: Seattle, WA
Regarding whether a permit is needed, it is my understanding that any form of "take" of wild Puget Sound steelhead would require a permit. Perhaps some of the others with more ESA knowledge can confirm that.

If that's the case, even if genetic introgression is low, and the negative effects of introgression are minimal, it seems like it wouldn't be difficult to show that some form of "take" is occurring through the hatchery programs. If that's the case, then I'm not sure how such programs would be in compliance with the ESA.

Top
#892206 - 04/17/14 07:32 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: MPM]
TastySalmon Offline
Smolt

Registered: 04/16/14
Posts: 77
Loc: Lake Samish
Originally Posted By: MPM
Regarding whether a permit is needed, it is my understanding that any form of "take" of wild Puget Sound steelhead would require a permit. Perhaps some of the others with more ESA knowledge can confirm that.

If that's the case, even if genetic introgression is low, and the negative effects of introgression are minimal, it seems like it wouldn't be difficult to show that some form of "take" is occurring through the hatchery programs. If that's the case, then I'm not sure how such programs would be in compliance with the ESA.


Here's the ESA definition of "harm" which take falls under. Harm is about as close as you can get to unlawful take as described by you and others.

"Harm in the definition of 'take' in the Act means an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing behavioral patters, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering."

To make the argument that impairing breeding causes take has yet to be brought to court to my understanding. The plaintiffs would need to show direct mortality of listed steelhead in a quantifiable way due to an HxW spawning cross.

Top
#892207 - 04/17/14 08:00 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: TastySalmon]
MPM Offline
Spawner

Registered: 12/09/08
Posts: 766
Loc: Seattle, WA
For anyone who hasn't read WFC's complaint, it's worth a read: http://wildfishconservancy.org/copy_of_news/in-the-news/001.0.complaintchamberscreek3_31_2014.pdf/

WFC's complaint alleges "Defendants’ Chambers Creek steelhead hatchery programs harm, harass, kill, and otherwise 'take' threatened Puget Sound Chinook salmon, threatened Puget Sound steelhead, and threatened bull trout (collectively, “threatened salmonids”) through a variety of mechanisms, including through genetic introgression, ecological interactions, broodstock collection activities, facility effects, monitoring and evaluation activities, and disease transmission."

The complaint then explains how each type of "take" allegedly occurs. Unless WDFW denies that any wild Puget Sound steelhead are harmed, harassed, or killed through *any* of these mechanisms (which I doubt it could do in good faith), it looks to me like they need a permit from NMFS to run their hatchery programs.

That said, while I am a lawyer, I am by no means an environmental lawyer and my only experience with the ESA is as an interested angler, not professionally.

Top
#892208 - 04/17/14 08:03 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: MPM]
Larry B Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3020
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
Originally Posted By: MPM
If the documentation submitted by WDFW was not up to snuff, it's possible the lack of action from NMFS for so long was an attempt to not rock the boat by not declaring the documentation unsatisfactory (therebty making it clearer that the hatchery programs were not kosher).

It's speculative, but would be one explanation for the lack of action from NMFS.


Well, I guess anything is possible but my perception is that NOAA/NMFS is somewhat like Federal judges (who are appointed for life) - impervious to the pain of others.

Rather, my bet is on the idea that NOAA/NMFS is also feeling the budget pains and has felt there are bigger fish to fry.
_________________________
Remember to immediately record your catch or you may become the catch!

It's the person who has done nothing who is sure nothing can be done. (Ewing)

Top
#892211 - 04/17/14 08:29 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: Larry B]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
A hatchery program comes with a fishery for them, which catches some wild fish, which causes some mortality...ALL hatchery programs in an area under the jurisdiction of the ESA cause "take"...that's why they need the permit.

The permit doesn't say "your program causes zero take"...the permit says "your take is Incidental Take, and is not inconsistent with recovery goals"...and the program needs to go thru the permit process so that NOAA-F can find that to be the case...that the take is incidental, therefore allowed, and the hatchery program is good to go.

Any introgression is interfering with breeding...any release of smolts is interfering with feeding.

Don't get caught up in trying to say the programs don't cause "take"...there is 100% no doubt in the world that they cause take.

The only question is about the nature of the take...and if the take does not significantly interfere with recovery goals then the take is "incidental", and the program will be issued an "incidental take permit".

Fish on...

Todd
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#892213 - 04/17/14 08:34 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: Todd]
Todd Offline
Dick Nipples

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
Feel lucky that the standard is not whether or not the programs cause "take" or there would be no programs at all anywhere where there are listed fish.

Once the feds issue the permit, which means the programs' take is "incidental", that's where the gray area comes in and there will be more litigation about it, count on that.

One side will argue that the take is "not incidental", but is actually "significant"...but they will have an uphill battle to fight since they will have the burden of proof and the fed agency finding the take to be "incidental" gets quite a bit of deference when they make that decision.

That being said...look at the CRPPS lawsuits. The feds keep saying the salmon plans are hunky dory, and Judge Redden repeatedly sent them back telling them their plans are not hunky dory and to re-do it.

Fish on...

Todd
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle


Top
#892230 - 04/17/14 11:30 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: Todd]
TastySalmon Offline
Smolt

Registered: 04/16/14
Posts: 77
Loc: Lake Samish
Originally Posted By: Todd
A hatchery program comes with a fishery for them, which catches some wild fish, which causes some mortality...ALL hatchery programs in an area under the jurisdiction of the ESA cause "take"...that's why they need the permit.

The permit doesn't say "your program causes zero take"...the permit says "your take is Incidental Take, and is not inconsistent with recovery goals"...and the program needs to go thru the permit process so that NOAA-F can find that to be the case...that the take is incidental, therefore allowed, and the hatchery program is good to go.

Any introgression is interfering with breeding...any release of smolts is interfering with feeding.

Don't get caught up in trying to say the programs don't cause "take"...there is 100% no doubt in the world that they cause take.

The only question is about the nature of the take...and if the take does not significantly interfere with recovery goals then the take is "incidental", and the program will be issued an "incidental take permit".

Fish on...

Todd


Claiming that harvest of Chambers steelhead must fall under ESA permitting for hatchery operations is a bit of a stretch. The two are not related. By your reasoning, there are a few issues with targeted fisheries that would need to be addressed; harvest of coho in the presence of listed chinook in PS and the validity behind the OS movement would be illegal without 4(d) coverage. Almost every hatchery stock targeted in the CR occurs in the presence of listed stocks. The lawful take of those listed stocks do not in any shape or form fall under NEPA documentation for specific hatcheries.

On the note of take, so many people are certain that take is occurring. With your legal background, you should have the ability to effectively question what take actually is. Take is a defined process with a quantifiable result leading to the ultimate death of a listed fish. Harvest is not one of them. Other forms of take such as disease and competition cannot be proved let alone quantified without obscure studies. Anyone can make the claim that NO fish are dying in hatchery traps, but evidence must be provided. The same goes for disease transmission, predation, or out-competition.

I'm not defending take of listed species, but I am defending WDFW because they're caught in a bad situation right now for reasons out of their control. They're a wounded animal right now and a few people are using this opportunity to jump on them knowing full well that this steelhead problem, if it goes in the favor of WFC, will lead to the eventual demise of all hatchery programs in PS. You can't honestly tell me you desire this.

Top
#892237 - 04/18/14 12:41 AM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: TastySalmon]
WN1A Offline
Spawner

Registered: 09/17/04
Posts: 594
Loc: Seattle
For precision, from section 3 of the Endangered Species Act, Definitions;

(19) The term “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.

Collecting wild threatened steelhead for broodstock for instance would be take according to this definition and would require a permit. There is a lot of flexibility in the incidental take permitting process otherwise there would be no fisheries for chinook and steelhead in the Columbia or Puget Sound. I think the problem with the Chambers Creek stock is not breeding introgression or an incidental take in the fishery. For steelhead it is clear that in the marine environment large numbers of smolts attract predators and at the smolt and the adult stage competition for food impacts growth and survival. Any recovery plan has to take in to account these density dependent factors when hatchery fish are involved.

Top
#892238 - 04/18/14 12:49 AM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: Todd]
blackmouth Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/05/04
Posts: 2713
Loc: right place/wrong time
Originally Posted By: Todd
A hatchery program comes with a fishery for them, which catches some wild fish, which causes some mortality...ALL hatchery programs in an area under the jurisdiction of the ESA cause "take"...that's why they need the permit


In that one, short, paragraph, I see one conclusion------drawn from four assumptions.

Truly, journeymen's work. wink
_________________________
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
Winston Churchill

"So it goes." Kurt Vonnegut jr.

Top
#892247 - 04/18/14 03:00 AM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: Double Haul]
Lucky Louie Offline
Carcass

Registered: 11/30/09
Posts: 2286
Originally Posted By: Double Haul
WDFW's decision to not release a batch of hatchery fish is a shot over the bow of fishermen across the state, a calculated statement that the department believes there are more people who'd rather catch and kill a hatchery fish than see natives survive.


I would suspect that the majority of the app. 700,000 Washington State fish license holders would prefer to catch and keep fish for the price of the license otherwise why buy a license if there aren’t any fish to catch?

It hasn’t been proven that if hatchery fish aren’t produced that wild fish will rebound dramatically enough to fish over. There are many components needing correction than just closing hatcheries and consequently fishing in the process.
_________________________
The world will not be destroyed by those that are evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.- Albert Einstein

No you can’t have my rights---I’m still using them





Top
#892253 - 04/18/14 11:10 AM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: Lucky Louie]
MPM Offline
Spawner

Registered: 12/09/08
Posts: 766
Loc: Seattle, WA
Interestingly enough, the WFC complaint doesn't mention incidental mortality from the recreational fishery on the hatchery fish as one of the forms of "take". Not sure why that is.

The allegations regarding how the hatchery programs constitute "taking" of threatened fish under the ESA are in paragraphs 42-47. Again, worth a read if you're interested in the topic.

Tasty Salmon, nothing in the statutory definition of "take" requires death of a listed fish. For example, "harm" and "harassment" count as forms of take as well. I'm wondering if there is some other basis for your statement that you need quantifiable deaths to show take.

A complaint always presents a one-sided view of things, but I think it would be awfully hard to deny that some take is occurring through the hatchery programs. In that posture, the decision to stop releasing smolt rather than fighting the complaint tooth and nail (thereby reducing both the fees you pay your own attorneys to defend a tough case and the amount of the opposing party's fees, which you are at a serious risk of being ordered to pay) makes some sense.

Top
#892256 - 04/18/14 12:18 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: MPM]
TastySalmon Offline
Smolt

Registered: 04/16/14
Posts: 77
Loc: Lake Samish
Originally Posted By: MPM
Interestingly enough, the WFC complaint doesn't mention incidental mortality from the recreational fishery on the hatchery fish as one of the forms of "take". Not sure why that is.

The allegations regarding how the hatchery programs constitute "taking" of threatened fish under the ESA are in paragraphs 42-47. Again, worth a read if you're interested in the topic.

Tasty Salmon, nothing in the statutory definition of "take" requires death of a listed fish. For example, "harm" and "harassment" count as forms of take as well. I'm wondering if there is some other basis for your statement that you need quantifiable deaths to show take.

A complaint always presents a one-sided view of things, but I think it would be awfully hard to deny that some take is occurring through the hatchery programs. In that posture, the decision to stop releasing smolt rather than fighting the complaint tooth and nail (thereby reducing both the fees you pay your own attorneys to defend a tough case and the amount of the opposing party's fees, which you are at a serious risk of being ordered to pay) makes some sense.


"(19) The term “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct."

Can anyone tell me how early winter steelhead programs harass, pursue, hunt, shoot, trap, capture or collect listed steelhead?

Therefore, and as I said in a previous post, the only form of take that can apply to these programs is through harm. Harm as defined by the ESA must involve mortality of an individual of the listed stock.

Title 50: Wildlife and Fisheries
Part 17 Subpart A
17.3 DEFINITIONS

"Harm in the definition of 'take' in the Act means an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering."

Top
#892258 - 04/18/14 12:28 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: TastySalmon]
rojoband Offline
Returning Adult

Registered: 05/31/08
Posts: 264
Originally Posted By: TastySalmon


"(19) The term “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct."

Can anyone tell me how early winter steelhead programs harass, pursue, hunt, shoot, trap, capture or collect listed steelhead?

Therefore, and as I said in a previous post, the only form of take that can apply to these programs is through harm. Harm as defined by the ESA must involve mortality of an individual of the listed stock.

Title 50: Wildlife and Fisheries
Part 17 Subpart A
17.3 DEFINITIONS

"Harm in the definition of 'take' in the Act means an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering."


It's pretty easy. Hatchery programs need to collect broodstock, if one wild fish swims into the hatchery while they are collecting hatchery broodstock then you have 'trapped, captured, or collected' an ESA listed animal. Don't see how you couldn't see this as a 'take' under your own definitions, and that this action would then require an ESA permit for the hatchery program to operate. Albeit, this is just during broodstock collection, not across the entire operation of the hatchery program. A reasonable person should understand that there is a lot of potential interaction between a hatchery steelhead program and wild steelhead living in the same watershed. These interactions are what require the permitting process, given the definitions you yourself have provided here. Pretty simple really when you think about it.


Edited by rojoband (04/18/14 12:34 PM)

Top
#892261 - 04/18/14 12:46 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: Lucky Louie]
OncyT Offline
Spawner

Registered: 02/06/08
Posts: 506

Just a quick comment about how harvest of hatchery fish is dealt with:

The take of listed Chinook in Puget Sound fisheries directed at hatchery Chinook is not addressed in hatchery management plans. That has been addressed in at least two harvest plans known as the "Comprehensive Management Plan for Puget Sound Chinook - Harvest Management Component." The first of those plans covered fisheries from 2005 through 2010, and the second plan covers from May 1, 2011, through April 30, 2015. Those plans were approved by NMFS under section 4(d)(6) ESA.

Harvest of hatchery steelhead (as well as other listed species outside of Puget Sound) has also been covered in evaluation of harvest plans, not hatchery plans. These are done through review of Resource Management Plans (RMP's), Fishery Management Evaluation Plans (FMEP's), or Tribal Resource Management Plans (TRMP's). I would like to provide a reference here for Puget Sound steelhead, but can't seem to find a harvest plan (RMP, FMEP, or TRMP, or any kind of NMFS action in the Federal Register) applying to current state or tribal fisheries. Given that earlier in the thread I wasn't even capable of thoroughly reading a fairly short settlement agreement, I don't think I will make much of this. I would, however, be really interested if anyone could point me in the right direction to find a current NMFS approved harvest plan for Puget Sound steelhead.

Top
#892264 - 04/18/14 01:14 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: MPM]
Larry B Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3020
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
Originally Posted By: MPM

A complaint always presents a one-sided view of things, but I think it would be awfully hard to deny that some take is occurring through the hatchery programs. In that posture, the decision to stop releasing smolt rather than fighting the complaint tooth and nail (thereby reducing both the fees you pay your own attorneys to defend a tough case and the amount of the opposing party's fees, which you are at a serious risk of being ordered to pay) makes some sense.


Unfortunately, it is exactly that perception that generates the criticism that WDFW is not sufficiently standing up for the stakeholders who are increasingly being asked/required to pay for their operations. Whether true or not, reality is what folks perceive it to be.......
_________________________
Remember to immediately record your catch or you may become the catch!

It's the person who has done nothing who is sure nothing can be done. (Ewing)

Top
#892276 - 04/18/14 02:10 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: TastySalmon]
MPM Offline
Spawner

Registered: 12/09/08
Posts: 766
Loc: Seattle, WA
Originally Posted By: TastySalmon

Can anyone tell me how early winter steelhead programs harass, pursue, hunt, shoot, trap, capture or collect listed steelhead?


Read the complaint. It's paragraphs 42-47.


Edited by MPM (04/18/14 02:13 PM)

Top
#892278 - 04/18/14 02:30 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: MPM]
BEINFORMED Offline
Alevin

Registered: 04/18/14
Posts: 11
Face it PS Steelhead fishing will be gone by 2016 for at least 5 years.

Top
#892279 - 04/18/14 02:31 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: BEINFORMED]
BEINFORMED Offline
Alevin

Registered: 04/18/14
Posts: 11
And where are all the commercial guys support?

Top
#892313 - 04/18/14 06:00 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: BEINFORMED]
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13521
OncyT,

There is no NMFS approved PS steelhead harvest management plan. There is the co-managers draft plan of 2010, but it was sent back as deficient or insufficient. Allowable incidental take is too high is what I was told. Not sure if it is too high across the board, or too high for some stocks and OK for others or what. I hate it when a regulator says, "wrong rock; bring me a different rock" without describing the parameters of the correct rock.

I presume an acceptable HMP would include lower allowable take limits for the southern-most PS stocks, like NIsqually and Puyallup, where runsizes have numbered in the low hundreds and those stocks suffer the highest apparent mortality rate when migrating out of PS. Then higher take limits would be acceptable for north Sound stocks that number in the thousands of adult fish and apparent smolt mortality rates during out-migration is much lower.

One reason I hear is that salmon management takes so much time, and (treaty) steelhead fishing is a so much lower priority, that little time or resources have been available to work on the steelhead plan.

Sg

Top
#892325 - 04/18/14 06:57 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: Salmo g.]
OncyT Offline
Spawner

Registered: 02/06/08
Posts: 506
Thanks Sg. All I could find was the initial exemption from the prohibition of take written in 2008 or 2009, so I sorta had that feeling.

Looks like everybody that has gone fishing for steelhead was in violation of the ESA without any permit coverage. Please send your names and addresses to the WFC so you can be named in a harvest lawsuit later.


Top
#892333 - 04/18/14 07:22 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: OncyT]
Smalma Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/25/01
Posts: 2844
Loc: Marysville
NMFS does move slowly in meeting check points in these ESA listings.

Nearly everyone agrees that the biggest driver in limiting Puget Sound steelhead has been habitat lost. It took NMFS until 2013 to list proposed critical habitat for Puget Sound steelhead and until early in 2014 adopt the formal critical habitat for steelhead.

Doesn't let WDFW off the hook but does make one wonder.

Curt

Top
#892404 - 04/19/14 10:18 AM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: OncyT]
Lucky Louie Offline
Carcass

Registered: 11/30/09
Posts: 2286
Originally Posted By: OncyT

Looks like everybody that has gone fishing for steelhead was in violation of the ESA without any permit coverage. Please send your names and addresses to the WFC so you can be named in a harvest lawsuit later.


The sad thing is there would be a large dose of WFC and their partners members on that list, fishing for steelhead and incidentally killing the wild fish they what to protect.

Hypocrisy at its highest.
_________________________
The world will not be destroyed by those that are evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.- Albert Einstein

No you can’t have my rights---I’m still using them





Top
#892423 - 04/19/14 12:42 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: Lucky Louie]
Blktailhunter Offline
Returning Adult

Registered: 08/07/09
Posts: 485
Originally Posted By: Lucky Louie
I’m not going to support these sponsors so some of the profits they make off me goes to WFC and possibly their partner organizations.


+1

Screw those sponsors.

Top
#892429 - 04/19/14 02:10 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: Lucky Louie]
Lucky Louie Offline
Carcass

Registered: 11/30/09
Posts: 2286
Originally Posted By: Lucky Louie
Originally Posted By: OncyT

Looks like everybody that has gone fishing for steelhead was in violation of the ESA without any permit coverage. Please send your names and addresses to the WFC so you can be named in a harvest lawsuit later.


The sad thing is there would be a large dose of WFC and their partners members on that list, fishing for steelhead and incidentally killing the wild fish they what to protect.

Hypocrisy at its highest.


I know you can rationalize it off by stating it was open-- just like the OP is open to retain wild fish. After all the preaching, and shaming that these people do to those that think about or heaven forbid retain a legal native fish, then they go out and kill natives incidentally just wants to make me puke!
_________________________
The world will not be destroyed by those that are evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.- Albert Einstein

No you can’t have my rights---I’m still using them





Top
#892431 - 04/19/14 02:28 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: Jumbo]
Lucky Louie Offline
Carcass

Registered: 11/30/09
Posts: 2286
Originally Posted By: Jumbo
One thing is for sure, there is no shortage of retards on this one...

retard sandwiches, all around!!!


Would you please add a pinch of foot in the mouth and a whole lot of hypocritical condiment to your retard sandwiches handed out by WFC and partners...


Edited by Lucky Louie (04/19/14 02:41 PM)
_________________________
The world will not be destroyed by those that are evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.- Albert Einstein

No you can’t have my rights---I’m still using them





Top
#892500 - 04/20/14 03:19 PM Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters [Re: ]
ripple Offline
Smolt

Registered: 08/24/99
Posts: 88
Loc: Auburn, WA
Thanks all for supporting the WFC suit. For those that don't perhaps this will help. Bill McMillan explains http://vimeo.com/91886221

ps: I wonder why my name was not on that list of supporters of the Wild Fish Soiree. It should have been and so should your name.


Edited by ripple (04/20/14 03:21 PM)
_________________________
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. HST.

Top
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >

Search

Site Links
Home
Our Washington Fishing
Our Alaska Fishing
Reports
Rates
Contact Us
About Us
Recipes
Photos / Videos
Visit us on Facebook
Today's Birthdays
CHUBS
Recent Gallery Pix
hatchery steelhead
Hatchery Releases into the Pacific and Harvest
Who's Online
0 registered (), 939 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
John Boob, Lawrence, I'm Still RichG, feyt, Freezeout
11498 Registered Users
Top Posters
Todd 28170
Dan S. 17149
Sol Duc 16138
The Moderator 14486
Salmo g. 13521
eyeFISH 12766
STRIKE ZONE 12107
Dogfish 10979
ParaLeaks 10513
Jerry Garcia 9160
Forum Stats
11498 Members
16 Forums
63773 Topics
645302 Posts

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

Join the PP forums.

It's quick, easy, and always free!

Working for the fish and our future fishing opportunities:

The Wild Steelhead Coalition

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

| HOME | ALASKA FISHING | WASHINGTON FISHING | RIVER REPORTS | FORUMS | FISHING RESOURCE CENTER | CHARTER RATES | CONTACT US | WHAT ABOUT BOB? | PHOTO & VIDEO GALLERY | LEARN ABOUT THE FISH | RECIPES | SITE HELP & FAQ |