Epic nonsense.

Could you cut and paste the article - otherwise one has to subscribe.

April 25, 2014 at 1:09 PM

Lawsuit over hatchery steelhead production appears resolved, but not the outcome sport anglers wanted

Posted by Mark Yuasa

The contentious lawsuit filed recently by the Wild Fish Conservancy over the release of winter hatchery steelhead appears to have been settled although the net results have the sport fishing community up in arms.

State Fish and Wildlife officials and the Wild Fish Conservancy, a non-profit group based in Duvall, cut a deal that will lead to a drastic cut in the number of winter steelhead released into the rivers.

Nearly one-million young steelhead were to be released in spring into local rivers that are raised in nine hatcheries, and constitute about two-thirds of all hatchery steelhead production.

Under the new agreement the state will release 250,000 young steelhead into the rivers, and the rest will go into statewide lakes.

These fish would be returning as adults to spawn in 2016 and 2017.

In late January, the group filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue state Fish and Wildlife over its management of the (Chambers Creek) early winter steelhead hatchery programs.

On March 31, as the 60-day period wrapped up, the group filed a complaint in U.S. District Court in Seattle saying state Fish and Wildlife had violated the U.S. Endangered Species Act.

The conservancy group says planting of Chambers Creek steelhead undermines the recovery of wild Puget Sound steelhead, salmon and bull trout, which are listed as “threatened” under the ESA.

“Those in the sport fishing community felt it was wrong to cut a deal, and we’re very upset,” said Frank Urabeck, a local sport fishing advocate in Bonney Lake. “If the state had went before a judge we felt they would’ve cut them some slack and allowed fisheries to release all 900,000 in the rivers,” Urabeck said.

“We feel that it will have a long term impact and moving forward the hope is they’ll (the state and federal agencies involved) get the paperwork done so this won’t happen in future years,” Urabeck said. “After all what’s to stop the anti-hatchery folks from taking advantage of it again.”

Phil Anderson, the state Fish and Wildlife director said in an earlier news release that his department is vulnerable to lawsuits over its hatchery steelhead operations because they were not approved by the National Marine Fisheries Service following the ESA listing of Puget Sound steelhead in 2007.

A state fisheries management plan was submitted in 2005 for its steelhead programs, relative to their potential impacts on Puget Sound wild Chinook, but NMFS had not completed its review.

The Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission also agrees that both hatchery and wild fish are an important part of the fish recovery effort.

“It’s important to remember why we have hatcheries in the first place,” Billy Frank Jr., chairman of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission said in a news release.

“They were built to make up for lost natural steelhead and salmon production that has been nearly destroyed by habitat loss and damage,” he said. “They have been an important part of salmon management in Washington for more than 100 years.”

Sport, tribal and non-tribal fishermen rely on hatcheries to provide fish to harvest as wild fish populations decline.

“It is unfortunate in the way it was handled by the state,” Urabeck said.

State Fish and Wildlife was expected to send out a news release sometime on Friday afternoon.

Here is the link to the news release from the Wild Fish Conservancy, go to http://wildfishconservancy.org/about/pre...lhead-recovery.

*******

Fish on...

Todd

Next question will be what happens to the hatchery programs and staff. How long will it take to settle this lawsuit? Todd? Nice kick in the balls today.

So when do the tribes announce their lawsuit. If anyone thought this is the end, nope!

The article is naïve to suggest that sport fishing community is united on this issue or that Urabeck's quotes represent the sport fishing community at large.

This lawsuit is done...assuming DFW and NOAA-F gets their job done in the next 30 months. Information out of the Feds as of a few days ago says that they already intended to have the HGMPs approved by the end of 2015, so that would be under the deadline.

My fear, of course, is that the WFC turns right around and does this again in 31 months if they don't like NOAA-F's approval of the HGMPs, but that will be a pretty hard bar to reach if the HGMPs are at least decent and NOAA-F approves them.

Fish on...

Todd

kaiser
I know, we are not united on just about anything. But the tribes are. That is the part that worries me. Do they now sue and how encompassing is the suit?

Going to be interesting.

if the tribes sue, the tribes will win..

we gave them their rights, and now, have taken them away, again, we just didnt directly say "you cant fish"..


when they got their treaty rights in 1974, things were different... they have an assload more money for lawyers this go around, far more than the 2 million in grants the WFC gets from the government every year.. they have hundreds of millions at their disposal, as well as Governors, Senators, and very important and influential people..

funny how the WFC gets government grants, and then sues the government with its own money.. aint America great?

this isnt going to be interesting... this is going to be painful, and scary..

I think they should. They might have a case. It would really clarify the political and legal picture for all parties involved. Personally, I'm for dealing with this NOW but I fully understand it would be a brutal, bloody fight. I'm not sure either side really wants that? I don't think WDFW has the legal ground to stand on and I don't think WFC has the public support (yet?) they would need to make a legal win a positive thing in the public's eye.

I've posted before about how we are all "living the lie" in regards to steelhead (and some salmon) fishing. It is time to be honest with ourselves. I look forward to a time where people that are pro-fishing are automatically pro-fish and I certainly don't see it that way. I'm no exception and it is an ongoing conversation in my own head.

What the potential suit could do is set up the mother of all lawsuits. The US vs The US.
The supreme court has upheld that the treaties are the supreme law of the land. Do we want to see that tested in a case of treaty rights vs ESA?

We avoided that very lawsuit just a few years ago. I really don't want it to come to that.
The tribes are just as concerned as anyone about diminishing numbers of salmon and steelhead. They have been talking about for awhile. long before these minor suits.

My own worst nightmare is we end up with a federal judge deciding how we will restore salmon and steelhead runs in Puget Sound. We have an example of how that works on the Columbia. BPA has spent more than NOAA, WA, ORE, ID and CA combined trying to restore those fish and get out from under the judges thumb.

“From the tribes perspective we blame this on the (Wild Fish Conservancy) group, and not the state of Washington,” Schuyler said.

The tribes next step is to meet very soon in a small group to “soak it all in” and assess the damage of the settlement and look at what the next course of action will be.

“From the tribes perspective we blame this on the (Wild Fish Conservancy) group, and not the state of Washington,” Schuyler said. “We’re intermingled with the state as co-resource managers and in this together. It is unfortunate it happened this way, and would like to let them understand our issues, which is to have sustainable fish for harvest by all groups. We are forever intertwined.”

Note the subltle, yet significant, difference between the Tribes and WFC. The Tribes want sustainable fish for harvest, WFC wants sustainable fish.

Well said, Carcassman. Indeed, that seems to be the dilemma. Meanwhile, most sport anglers just want TO fish. The hell of it all is that everyone wants the same thing in the end, which is to see MORE fish. It's a war of ideologies that is only benefitting attorneys.

Watching people ballwash the tribes is about as comical as anything I've ever seen at PP.

Get some kneepads, Louie.

I'll take a page out of Todd's book.

Don't shoot the messenger.

Here is the final story with the date of June 25, 2014 and time stamp of 1:09 PM

April 25, 2014 at 1:09 PM
Lawsuit over hatchery steelhead production appears resolved, but not the outcome sport anglers wanted
Posted by Mark Yuasa
The contentious lawsuit filed recently by the Wild Fish Conservancy over the release of winter hatchery steelhead appears to have been settled although the net results have the sport and tribal fishing communities up in arms.
State Fish and Wildlife officials and the Wild Fish Conservancy, a non-profit group based in Duvall, cut a deal that will lead to a drastic cut in the number of winter steelhead released into the rivers.
Nearly one-million young steelhead were to be released in spring into local rivers that are raised in nine hatcheries, and constitute about two-thirds of all hatchery steelhead production.
Under the new agreement the state will release 180,000 young steelhead into the Skykomish river watershed only this spring and again 2015, and the rest will be planted into statewide lakes that don’t feed into Puget Sound with the Conservancy getting a 14 day advance notice of the plants.
None of the young steelhead will go into any other river system. These fish would be returning as adults to spawn in 2016 and 2017.
The settlement also says the Conservancy will not sue state Fish and Wildlife over its Puget Sound hatchery programs during the next 2 ½ years, or until National Marine Fisheries Service approves those programs, whichever comes first.
In the state fisheries news release a 12-year research program will be established in the Skagit River, during which no early winter steelhead will be released into the watershed. In cooperation with the Conservancy, state Fish and Wildlife will work with tribes to evaluate and potentially implement a steelhead hatchery program in the Skagit River using native steelhead.
The department may release hatchery steelhead into other rivers around Puget Sound when the new permit is approved although it won’t apply to the Skagit River watershed, which will not receive early winter hatchery steelhead releases during the 12-year study period.
State fisheries also has to dish out $45,000 for litigation expenses to the Conservancy.
“While I am disappointed the agreement does not allow for the release of more of the early winter hatchery steelhead we have on hand into Puget Sound rivers, I am gratified that we were able to reach agreement to release fish from our Skykomish hatchery in 2014 and support a popular recreational fishery,” state Fish and Wildlife director Phil Anderson said in a news release.
Sport and tribal fishermen rely on hatcheries to provide fish to harvest as wild fish populations decline.
The Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission agrees that both hatchery and wild fish are an important part of the fish recovery effort.
“We’re in the phase of analyzing the settlement, and see what effects it will have on the tribe, and then we’ll formulate our next course of action,” said Scott Schuyler, the fisheries manager for the Upper Skagit Tribe. “From day one when this lawsuit came out we weren’t happy, and felt the settlement (made by state Fish and Wildlife) was premature if not opportunistic.”
Schuyler says the impact of this settlement goes way beyond the young steelhead plants.
“They (state Fish and Wildlife) didn’t take into account the course of action nor did they work together nor consult with us,” Schuyler said. “It is just a bad deal all around.”
In late January, the group filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue state Fish and Wildlife over its management of the (Chambers Creek) early winter steelhead hatchery programs.
On March 31, as the 60-day period wrapped up, the group filed a complaint in U.S. District Court in Seattle saying state Fish and Wildlife had violated the U.S. Endangered Species Act.
The conservancy group says planting of Chambers Creek steelhead undermines the recovery of wild Puget Sound steelhead, salmon and bull trout, which are listed as “threatened” under the ESA.
“Those in the sport fishing community felt it was wrong to cut a deal, and we’re very upset,” said Frank Urabeck, a local sport fishing advocate in Bonney Lake. “If the state had went before a judge we felt they would’ve cut them some slack and allowed fisheries to release all 900,000 in the rivers,” Urabeck said.
“We feel that it will have a long term impact and moving forward the hope is they’ll (the state and federal agencies involved) get the paperwork done so this won’t happen in future years,” Urabeck said. “After all what’s to stop the anti-hatchery folks from taking advantage of it again.”
Phil Anderson, the state Fish and Wildlife director said in an earlier news release that his department is vulnerable to lawsuits over its hatchery steelhead operations because they were not approved by the National Marine Fisheries Service following the ESA listing of Puget Sound steelhead in 2007.
A state fisheries management plan was submitted in 2005 for its steelhead programs, relative to their potential impacts on Puget Sound wild Chinook, but NMFS had not completed its review.
“It is unfortunate in the way it was handled by the state,” Urabeck said.
The tribes next step is to meet very soon in a small group to “soak it all in” and assess the damage of the settlement and look at what the next course of action will be.
“From the tribes perspective we blame this on the (Wild Fish Conservancy) group, and not the state of Washington,” Schuyler said. “We’re intermingled with the state as co-resource managers and in this together. It is unfortunate it happened this way, and would like to let them understand our issues, which is to have sustainable fish for harvest by all groups. We are forever intertwined.”
To view the state Fish and Wildlife news release, go [url=tohttp://wdfw.wa.gov/news/apr2514b/.][url=tohttp://wdfw.wa.gov/news/apr2514b/.][url=tohttp://wdfw.wa.gov/news/apr2514b/.]tohttp://wdfw.wa.gov/news/apr2514b/.[/url][/url][/url]
Here is the link to the news release from the Wild Fish Conservancy, go to http://wildfishconservancy.org/about/pre...lhead-recovery.

WFC and those who support it (is there ANYBODY on this site that does??):

You haven't done ANYTHING for the fish. You found a legal loophole and exploited it. A hollow victory, considering there is no scientific proof that wild steelhead recover when hatchery are taken out of the mix (re: nisqally river).

What you have actually accomplished is a massive reduction fishing opportunity. As it happens, there are alot more people who enjoy fishing for hatchery fish than there are of you. So a small minority has superseded the majority...only because you employed diabolical methods..

I won't even get into the economic impact of what you've done. Just as bad, you've wasted valuable public resources (the hatchery smolts + hatchery resources + state agency resources dealing with YOU). Easily in the millions. On top of that, you managed to extort another $45,000 from the state - paid directly to you. Kudos to your lawyers!

Rather than working with all stakeholders, you led with the legal threats. The net effect of this is that you've enraged the stakeholders and consolidated them against you. You've raised the ire of sport, commercial and native fishers (groups who don't normally even get along with each other)... and now, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". So expect a much tougher battle in TWO AND A HALF HEARS when you re-start your anti-hatchery campaign.

You've solved nothing for the fish. All you've done is cost the state, and the economy huge amounts of money, and denied fishers their passion, and even a living. At worst, you're starting another Fish War.

Smug.