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

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....

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.

Damn good post RR. Pretty much sums up the way I feel about all of these hatchery lawsuits.

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.

Thank you. I stand corrected!

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.