#892238 - 04/18/14 12:49 AM
Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters
[Re: Todd]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/05/04
Posts: 2572
Loc: right place/wrong time
|
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.
_________________________
"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]
|
Carcass
Registered: 11/30/09
Posts: 2267
|
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
|
|
|
|
#892256 - 04/18/14 12:18 PM
Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters
[Re: MPM]
|
Smolt
Registered: 04/16/14
Posts: 75
Loc: Lake Samish
|
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]
|
Returning Adult
Registered: 05/31/08
Posts: 257
|
"(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]
|
Spawner
Registered: 02/06/08
Posts: 503
|
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]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3014
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
|
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]
|
Spawner
Registered: 12/09/08
Posts: 764
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
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]
|
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]
|
Alevin
Registered: 04/18/14
Posts: 11
|
And where are all the commercial guys support?
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#892325 - 04/18/14 06:57 PM
Re: Wild Fish Conservancy Supporters
[Re: Salmo g.]
|
Spawner
Registered: 02/06/08
Posts: 503
|
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]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/25/01
Posts: 2833
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]
|
Carcass
Registered: 11/30/09
Posts: 2267
|
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]
|
Returning Adult
Registered: 08/07/09
Posts: 477
|
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]
|
Carcass
Registered: 11/30/09
Posts: 2267
|
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]
|
Carcass
Registered: 11/30/09
Posts: 2267
|
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: ]
|
Smolt
Registered: 08/24/99
Posts: 87
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/91886221ps: 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
|
|
|
|
|
0 registered (),
807
Guests and
3
Spiders online. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
11498 Members
16 Forums
63786 Topics
645450 Posts
Max Online: 3001 @ 01/28/20 02:48 PM
|
|
|