Wild Fish Conservancy has recently announced a major win for their organization. Their efforts have altered our Puget Sound river fisheries for at least the next few years, as a recent settlement has forced the WDFW to stop the planting of hatchery steelhead in all of our Puget Sound rivers (Skykomish River excluded). Whether you live in Blaine, Bellingham, Tacoma or Seattle... your only option will soon be just outside of Monroe to get your steelhead fix. So forget fishing for steelhead in a few years folks... it ain't gonna be available.

Now that the dust has settled from the recent restraining order settlement (the settlement that has cost us every hatchery steelhead fishery aside from the Skykomish in coming years)... now it appears they have found a new battle to wage... fighting WDFW & King County.

King County approved and issued a Shorelines Development Permit to WDFW for major updates and upgrades to the Tokul Creek Hatchery in Fall City, WFC is appealing the permit, trying to get it pulled. $3 million in retrofits to the facility are now hinging on whether King County will accept the appeal and whether WDFW plans on spending the time/money/effort to fight them.

Check out the details at Rebuild of 113 Year Old Fish Hatchery Challenged

That sounds an awful like the WFC doesn't want the Tokul Hatchery to come into ESA compliance so that it can't be operated legally...and then has to be closed.

That's pretty fukked...fixing the diversion dam has always been an important part of the WFC's agenda (at least it was back when they were Washington Trout)...now it seems they'd rather use it as a reason to close the hatchery rather than encourage WDFW to fix it and be in compliance.

Fish on...

Todd

I'd like to kick EVERY member and supporter of the WFC in the d!cks. Or how bout a lynch mob? Let's get medieval on those hippies! What they don't understand is that they're harming our local economy big time with this and that they're effectively going to love wild steelhead to death. The coast will be a joke even more so with what the crowds will be like in a couple years.

As far as the economy goes, take just me for example. I've had big plans to buy a sled for some time now and at the moment I'm extremely glad I do not have a sled payment and that I own my drift boat. That's a lot of money that a local shop like 3 rivers may not get from me. not to mention all of the gas, tackle and food that we anglers purchase in various communities while fishing. I have no respect for the WFC.

I occasionally find information online about the battles being waged against sportfishing opportunities that really feel like they are a personal attack against my lifestyle... while I understand that nothing gets done by complaining online, I do see the value in sharing so that more folks that enjoy fishing will become aware of what certain conservation groups are trying to accomplish.

I would seriously consider shopping around for an organization to support that shares your beliefs on the issue, has the means to have their voice heard, and has been effective in the past with such issues... the two groups that come to mind that have fought tooth & nail for our sportfishing rights....

Puget Sound Anglers
NSIA (Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association)

There might be others that I am not aware of, but these two groups get down in the mud and play hardball... they are our loudest and most effective voice.

There is a dichotomy, those who view it as their fishing opportunity first and those view it by putting the fish first and their opportunity will come by doing so. Your economic interest in the resource may put you in one camp or the other or your preference for the type of fish (hatchery or wild) you wish to have your experience with. Unfortunately, depending on the issue, they don't always agree with other, sometimes vehemently opposing each other. That is what we are seeing in hatchery issue and its effect on the wild. From what I understand Sportfishing is not a right so that maybe a difficult argument.

The argument is whether it is going to do much good. How can you argue about genetics and say that hatchery fish will cause the total collapse of Steelhead runs at the same time we are talking about hatcheries that are over 100 years old. Please help me to understand...

The past 4 generations of Puget Sounders have enjoyed really good fishing for Wild Steelhead. It wasn't until the late 1990's that Wild protections actually went into place.

Hatchery fish dilute the gene pool. When Wild/Hatchery spawn together their offspring is more retarded and can't survive. Shallower gene pool. They've been getting increasingly retarded over the past century. Once we don't have any Hatchery fish...they will...become...less retarded? I didn't know that genetics worked like that. Hmm.

And I know everyone gets bothered with the word "rights" so let's just assume I ment to say opportunty... because I love the opportunity to go fishing, even if it's Catch & Release, and I know it isn't my right. Thinking that would be as retarded as thinking that these fish will genetically purify themselves from the evils of 113 years of hatchery practices.

I would second the endorsement of Puget Sound Anglers.

Puget Sound is in flux by WFC and partners having an apparent contest with the tribes to see who can take the most opportunity away from sport anglers in Puget Sound area.

Anybody at all curious as to why the hatchery is such shoddy condition. The dam/intake issue has been around for decades and not fixed.

How can WDFW assert that "you" have to comply with ESA rules, HPA rules, and so on to benefit fish but they don't have to?

As with the issue about not having the necessary permits is this situation WDFW's fault and WFC just can't avoid picking the apple off the ground?

So if we spend the 3 million on some pedestrian walkways over the railroad tracks by the sky... it becomes a win win correct? jobs and access. and hey the dept of fish and game could then create a new pass for all us to buy so that we could use the walkways... a Conservancy River Access Pass.

WFC's news release discusses how evil Chambers steelhead are. It doesn't address what is insufficient about the permit obtained by WDFW. Seems to me that this is nothing more than an attempt to end hatchery steelhead and has nothing to do with the permit itself.

I was thinking the same thing. It is yet another example of the WDFW not doing some very basic things that would directly help fish, like opening up actual spawning area. Unless I'm missing something, this is one of those few easy decisions.

As far as lynch mobs and kicking dicks, perhaps a xanax or something on the indica side of things would help?

Don't give CCA any ideas.

It's only a zero sum dichotomy if you want it to be.

Some would rather strike a balance between the two to do the most good for both.

I remember an organization who's mission statement said that was exactly what they wanted to do.

They may as well amend their mission statement...perhaps just borrow the WFC's and merge into one organization.

The WSC intended to be a "coalition"...hence the "C". Instead it is just another WFC/WT or TU now.

Fish on...

Todd

A brief aside . . . Old school hatchery technology adhered to the idea that anadromous fish access should be cut off at the water supply site for fish disease considerations. Consequently a lot of hatcheries in this state have migration barriers at or near water supply diversions on small streams. The loss of natural production in the upper portion of the creek was considered an acceptable trade off for the benefits associated with the hatchery production.

Times have changed, and fish agency values have evolved to decide that hatchery production should have to deal with the disease risk posed by allowing migratory fish to spawn and rear in the water supply. Not all fish culturists agree with this BTW.

Now it looks like WFC would rather close Tokul Creek hatchery instead of modernizing it. That looks like a conservation value for wild fish, regardless of how great or little that benefit is, at the expense of producing any hatchery fish at all at Tokul Creek. And if I recall correctly, Tokul is a major provider of hatchery trout for stocking lakes for recreational fishing as well as being one of the most successful steelhead hatcheries in terms of smolt to adult return rate. I think closing Tokul Creek hatchery is a good idea only if closing salmon and steelhead hatcheries in general in Puget Sound is good for salmon and steelhead conservation. It doesn't make sense any other way.

Sg

DH,

There is nothing wrong in putting conservation of the fish first, but the second part of that, where opportunity will come by doing so is flawed. Employing every conceivable conservation measure is likely to yield a modest result - at best. Alternatively, there may be no measurable difference whatever from contemporary baseline population abundances. Some who call themselves conservationists are more altruistic than others, and they tend never to be the majority. That doesn't make them less right; it's just that in a pluralistic society, the alternatives that deny present and future fishing opportunity are not going to be popular.

If WFC believes that by closing hatcheries, wild steelhead will recover to the level that supports meaningful fishing opportunity in Puget Sound, well, they missed the train. That one left the station decades ago. The last time wild PS steelhead were able to sustainably support fishing was around 1968 or when the WA state human population was 2.6 million. It's currently over 6 million and rapidly approaching 7 million and is projected to reach 10 million in fewer years than are projected for PS chinook recovery. That's relevant because the PS chinook recovery plan contains no measures to reduce the effects of the primary limiting factor. The prospective PS steelhead recovery plan, whenever it comes out, won't either.

Although the policy folks at the fish agencies pronounce "extinction is not an option," they are being duplicitous in saying so. While extinction for most populations can be avoided, recovering them to naturally self-sustaining levels that support treaty and non-treaty harvest fisheries is delusional. I think, at best, south PS rivers may support museum level populations of wild steelhead into the future, and north PS rivers may support wild populations that provide limited CNR fishing from time to time, in the best case scenario.

Absent a path forward that includes hatchery salmon and steelhead production, there will be no chinook or steelhead fishing in PS. You probably didn't read it here first.

Sg

Extinction is not an option. But may be the preferred alternative.

^If I read that how you intended it, that is a real doozy, SG. I certainly don't agree that the difference between "no conservation" vs. "every conceivable" measure would be "modest".



The Skagit will likely be the test of this statement.

As has been noted earlier, the Nisqually has been testing the "no hatchery fish" paradigm for quite a while. The Skagit will merely confirm it.

how much habitat can you buy for 32 million a year? thats what WFC says is the way we should proceed. Maybe the Skagit estuary and a significant portion of its lower river farms over 10 years or so. but that amount of money wouldn't even touch the Seattle harbor. or Tacoma, or Everett. Maybe Olympia... and that's not even including any of the headwater habit destruction. the number of years to "restore habitat" at that investment level stretches well past my lifetime I am sure. and if you box up all the habitat buy all the houses on every river, every lake and all of Puget Sound... those 10 million people will have no where to live. extinction seems the most likely outcome to me.

And when they dont get the returns they are expecting will they allow hatcheries to go about they're business again? No they will never admit they were wrong and continue to blame others.

Todd, the mission has not changed perhaps it would better to have a off line conversation.

Heres the donor list for wfc

http://wildfishconservancy.org/about/events/2013-wild-fish-soiree-benefit-auction-donors

let em know how ya feel!

To those that say by putting the fish first and their opportunity will come by doing so.

It sounds wonderful, but wake up you are dream’n.

I keep hearing that the hatcheries have been around so long that they must be the reason of the decline of wild fish.

They seem to ignore that man and our expanding populations have been around longer than hatcheries.

In Puget Sound (outside the Skagit, at least, for now) if there are no hatcheries, there are no hatchery fish.

If there are no hatchery fish, there is no fishing.

Without addressing the factors that are limiting wild fish stocks there will not be enough wild fish to provide "opportunity".

Wasting time and money closing hatcheries will remove any and all opportunity we have to fish, will hurt every business that depends on fishing for all or part of its income (as mine does)...and will have a miniscule, if even measurable at all good effect on wild fish.

There is no "balance" there. There is no "coalition" there. There is no "representing any businesses" that depend on fish and fishing.

There is a lot of time and energy going into something that is terrible for business and fishing, and negligible for wild steelhead benefits.

Generally I support all the groups that work on behalf of our fish and our fisheries, including the WSC and the WFC...but I don't blindly accept all they do, and this wholesale attack on hatcheries is embematic of what is wrong with this whole situation.

I think it's just fine if that's what the WFC wants to do, and I think it's just fine if the WSC and other groups/individuals want to support them...just don't pretend that you are doing it to support businesses or fisheries...including wild fish fisheries...or wild fish.

It doesn't do much of anything good for any of those things, and further alienates the one single group that has the most to gain or lose in the fight for wild steelhead...the steelhead angler.

Fish on...

Todd

very well said Todd...

doing this will also affect the wild populations on rivers that arent completely hammered... the Cedar and Nisqually have had no hatcheries (Steelhead) for how long now, and what has happened?

the Cedar run is most likely fully extinct... the Nisqually i dont know much about it, but there isnt a fishery thats for sure...

this will help nothing, noone, and not the fish... if anything, it will destroy the tapestry, and leave it in a pile of knotted yarn on the floor...

i almost cried yesterday when i read this...

(i forwarded the information to Duane, he is making some calls and trying to get some people on the show to address it, so pay attention)

Curious as to what the supposed ulterior motive of WFC is, if not wild fish conservation. Disagreement over the approach to conservation is another matter.

P.S. This is not some sort of kneejerk reaction by me to have come to this conclusion...frankly, I have thought about and researched it at length and I can't honestly see how anyone comes to the conclusion that this will help fish or fishing.

I don't see much of a need to have a private conversation about it, either...it won't change my mind.

I have already agreed to sit down with one of our mutual friends, Rich, who asked me to sign onto a letter in support of the recent actions and was surprised that I said no...which just goes to show how out of touch with the greater situation those behind these actions are.

The WFC, Native Fish Society, etc., at least don't pretend to have fishing or fishing businesses on their mind when they do what they do.

The WSC does, at least on paper...but may as well not if they are just going to march in lockstep with the WFC and NFS.

When we founded the WSC 14 years ago we were a bunch of fishermen who wanted to make sure we got to fish and that more and greater closures didn't come our way...and we formed a new group because fishermen and fishing businesses were not being represented to our satisfaction in the conservation world.

Closing hatcheries is bad enough...now fighting against the State when they are trying to actually bring their hatchery into compliance with the ESA?

Makes it obvious that ESA compliance is not the issue...closing hatcheries is what they want, ESA or not...doing much of a damn thing at all to help wild fish, or not.

Think that all the fishermen will just switch over to clamoring for the real things that limit wild fish to be addressed now?

Unlikely. Even if they did the political will and money to do it are in short supply...doesn't help that the organizations who should be pushing for them are busy going after hatcheries instead of the things that may actually improve wild fish runs.

No, more likely is that the fishermen will just pile more and more onto the rivers that are open still...and when it happens there, too, then there won't be any fishing at all for steelhead in Washington State.

great points under the current management regime by wdfw, but there are rivers in other ESU's that have catch and release fisheries on wild fish that are listed as threatened with no hatchery fish available. hell, wdfw opens the wind when there are enough fish but cannot open the skagit when it exceeds escapement.

i don't know what it would take for wdfw to push for this type of management regime, or if being in the boldt area changes everything but i think there is a way to have some non-consumptive opportunity. consumptive opporunities do require hatcheries for steelhead right now.

I've said for a long time that the end game will be "pay to play". There will be enough fish for some people but not enough fish for everyone. How it will eventually shape up is hard to say but there will be some sort of lotto/draw system, likely with steep "conservation fees" applied. Much of the world is already and OUR country has been on a similar path for decades (user fees, privatization, etc.).

I'm just cringing over what traffic will be like on our west end rivers as more of Pugetropolis heads out here to fish.

Thanks for your comments Todd. Spot on.

Todd pretty much summed it up. This is a fish Jihad, a difference in ideology. This appeal has nothing to do with making things better for wild fish. There is only one mile of less than optimal spawning and rearing habitat above the barrier at Tokul Creek Hatchery; in a watershed with miles of good habitat that is currently way underescaped. There is no meeting in the middle, and unfortunately, the sports angler, and wild steelhead, are going to lose, its inevitable. As a sports angler in Puget Sound, you are now down to the Green (weak plant and poor survival), Sky (decent plant and survival), Snoqualmie (decent plant and survival, but is teetering on the edge of existence) Stilly (decent plant poor survival) and Nooksack (big plant horrible survival) for your winter time "opportunity" for Steelhead. We have already lost everything else. Assuming these programs all get their required HGMP's to continue, you are still looking at several years for the facilities to bounce back from planting all their smolts in lakes this year, save for the Sky.

The WFC would love to end these programs, as would others with pragmatic viewpoints simply from a cost/benefit ratio. Is it worth it to continue for such pitiful results? If you want to be able to wet a line after work in the greater Puget Sound, then the answer would be yes, because most rivers are going to be closed after salmon seasons end. Whats it worth for that opportunity? How many like to swing a spoon or double haul a fly for a couple hours after work without having to drive 5 hours, even if the chance at a fish is slim?

And if we do get rid of the hatchery programs, and go to wild management, the only river even close to consistent escapements is the Skagit. Do you think it can handle the pressure being the only river in PS that would be open?

Think Sky type pressure on opening weekend. Can the wild fish handle that? Do we want them to? Which gets right to APs point, and I think hes spot on. Its simply history repeating itself. Look no further than the east coast or Europe to see our angling future for steelhead. Better hope you got a trust fund because thats the only way your going to be able to afford a lottery ticket, "beat", destination steelhead spot, or guide with a "limited entry" permit.

Todd, my original comment was not based in context to organization, but in context to individuals as a personal observation and what I have experience regarding the subject matter this far. As a colleague in steelhead conservation, I respect your opinions and past working together, that said, I would just personally get more out it over a beer than a bulletin board.

Rich, I am going to meet up with Rob some time soon, you should join us.

Fish on...

Todd

Sorry for the lack of clarity AP. What I meant is that by employing every feasible conservation tool in the box, the yield would be a modest increase in wild steelhead abundance.

The difference between current abundance and 1980s abundance is predominantly due to reduced marine survival, and very, very slightly due to continued degradation of freshwater habitat carrying capacity.

Since hatchery stocking on the Nisqually was discontinued, abundance has continued to decline, and that despite no targeted fishing since 1993. Cedar steelhead have increased, but not significantly - and the problems on the Cedar are more complex than anything like harvest and hatchery stocking. The showcase river, the Wind, has shown an increased abundance of wild steelhead, and it is likely significant, but I can't say how much of the increase is due to no hatchery stocking and imposition of no wild steelhead harvest. A similar increase looks to be happening on the EF Lewis also, but personally I think stopping the harvest of wild steelhead contributes more to the increase than discontinuing the stocking of hatchery fish? Why? Because when harvest restrictions on wild steelhead went into effect on most PS rivers, wild steelhead responded with increasing abundance, even though hatchery stocking continued at levels equal to, or greater than, occurs today.

Sg

Why not do brood stock programs? If you talk to a few certain forks guides they'll tell you that the Sol Duc wasn't worth a sh!t compared to what it became after the Snider program. I'm not claiming to know much about the Sol Duc or the feasibility of brood stock programs working out on our Puget sound streams. I'm just throwing out an example and asking "why not"?

I would 100% volunteer my free time, and gas money to catch and tether suitable adults for a program on the sky if it were to happen. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Thanks Todd, send me a note when and where.

Why? Man up and say what you want to say to everyone. Don't back down one bit when not-everyone agrees with you.

WE NEED A BALANCE AND WE DONT NEED LOBBYISTS THAT FUND THEIR BUSINESSES THROUGH FIGHTING THAT BALANCE

We all share this resource and we sure as hell don't need a bunch of goddammed lawyers making decisions for us.

I think the WSC started out with good intentions and mission. Unfortunately the fringe extremists usually take over and push their agenda. If memory seves me correctly, Puget Sound Anglers started out of the ashes of TU. Unhappy with the anti-hatchery mentality.

Moravec =

Your statement - "It wasn't until the late1990s that Wild protection was in place" is off by about a decade and 1/2.

In 1984 escapement goals for wild steelhead for the entire Boldt case area were develop. Not only was that the first major effort over a larger attempted on the west coast it was also the first time where attempts were to measure the escapement of wild fish (where hatchery and wild fish are mixed).

Starting in the winter of 1983/84 (earlier in couple of basins) mark selective fisheries (wild steelhead head release) became a commonly used management tool to manage for increased wild steelhead escapements.

Steeliedrew -
If one is concern about hatchery/wild steelhead interactions and the long term productivity of the wild population on basins like the Skagit or Snohomish wild brood stock programs would be more than a magnitude more impactful than the current Chambers Creek program.

While wild brood stock programs can be successful in producing fish for harvest (or in extreme cases last resort rescue programs) in is virtually impossible to develop a wild brood stock that is well integrated with the wild population. To do so the brood stock needs to representative of the wild population.

I agree with Todd on both WFC and WSC.

curt

From what I understand from one of the wdfw emails I received, a brood stock program for the skagit is set to be researched during the 12 year hault on smolt releases. Are they not planning to research these programs on our other Puget sound streams?

Also, here's a thought...why not boost the Cowlitz back up to being the hatchery juggernaut it once was back in the day and guarantee way less pressure on our streams. Give the people a grocery river like we once had. let's face it...it's a far cry from what it was.

I won't even waste my time and money to go sit in a boat parade on the coast in the next few years.

Steeliedrew,

A wild broodstock program would result in an increased harvest rate on the remaining wild steelhead population. Smalma is absolutely right in that the existing (or was existing until a few weeks ago) Chambers Ck hatchery stock program had far lower adverse impact on the wild population than a wild broodstock hatchery program would have. The risk, IMO, is that policy managers might "declare" that wild broodstock hatchery fish and wild steelhead are genetically the same, and that therefore the mixing of hatchery and wild steelhead on the spawning grounds is OK. That is the policy position some tribes have adopted, but from a biological perspective, it just ain't so. Biology and ecology don't care about and don't accept policy declarations. IMO if WDFW and NMFS adopt that position, then functional extinction does become the most likely outcome.

As far why not turn the Cowlitz back into the hatchery blood hole it was for 3 decades, it's because so far there is no legal avenue for exempting it from ESA constraints and turning it, or any other river, into a sacrificial hatchery circus. Like it or not, feasible or not, the agencies are locked into trying to recover wild chinook, chum, and steelhead on the Cowlitz River.

Sg

Recovering wild runs on the Cowlitz is a pipe dream Salmo. I think we all know that. I wish certain agencies could accept that and let it be what it should be. I see your point about the brood stock programs causing a higher wild fish mortality rate but why is it that they are going to be researching such a program on the skagit in the coming years?

Side note...Does anyone know if the WFC will attack the skamania steelhead stock and hatchery coho and chinook? In my slightly uneducated opinion I'd say it's not a matter of if, but "when".

If they get theyre way up north then I think its a safe bet that the skamania genes will follow.

Salmo G,
Is there such a thing as a wild summer run left or have the skamania integrated themselves so deep that there are no true wild summer run left?

Drew
Kings are the money fish....most likely the commercial interests will put up much more of a fight than they did with the Steelhead.

Maybe when there is physical violence threatened like has happened in this thread it shuts down discussion. Or maybe it is that all that happens is people get shouted down. That would be like me saying that everyone that wants to keep hatcheries could care less about wild fish. Though it does seem the more I read conservation thread the more people are saying screw the wild fish and pump hatchery fish in every where.

JJ

JJ, Drew wasn't serious.

I don't know he seems to want to kick me. Which is fine if you want to stop conversations. Blanket statements like that end conversation and don't really lend themselves to debate. I have a thick skin and can disagree with people but I have personally talked with people from this board that don't post in support of limiting, changing, closing, etc. hatcheries because of things like this. I haven't been one of them but I have no desire to say hey wouldn't it make financial sense to make sure that the ESA study was done before the money was spent on the hatchery to make sure that it passed the test and would be usable not after when it could be wasted. I don't know that doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Seems to make financial sense and but don't let sense get in the way of kicking someone or stringing them up.

JJ

Steeliedrew,

Thread drifting somewhat, but recovering wild salmon and steelhead on the Cowlitz isn't a pipe dream. Fundamentally it's a matter of having an effective downstream fishway, and that is currently on the drawing board. Even with the ineffective system present now, wild coho in significant numbers (1,000s) from upstream of the dams have become a regular occurrence on the Cowlitz. A few hundred wild steelhead and now even some wild fall chinook from Tilton/Mayfield are taking hold. With good juvenile fish passage, recovering viable wild runs on the upper Cowlitz will be a reality in the foreseeable future. Of course, just like in PS, there won't be many harvestable wild steelhead, because that just isn't in the cards for that species.

Furthermore, the barrier dam on the Cowlitz greatly facilitates the separation of wild and hatchery fish, so the numbers of hatchery fish allowed to spawn naturally in the upper basin can be strictly controlled.

Why are WDFW and WFC going to be researching a Skagit wild steelhead broodstock program in the coming years? Excellent question. I'd say it's because it was a negotiated term of settlement. The Skagit tribes are wondering why WDFW made WFC a third "co-manager." I think they are more than slightly pissed about that. Anyway, agreeing to research a topic can be a long ways off from coming up with a viable program. Maybe it was a throw away measure used to get agreement, maybe both parties are serious. I don't know.

I also don't know what WFC's plans are regarding going after Skamania steelhead. Doing so actually makes more biological sense than going after the Chambers Ck stock on the grounds they alleged. Skamania hatchery spawning time overlaps with wild winter steelhead far more than does Chambers Ck, so there is a substantially higher likelihood of H x W crosses and genetic introgression there, but I'm not so sure that biological integrity is the primary parameter for lawsuit selection. Since WFC (as WT) went after PS hatchery chinook before, I think it's highly likely that they will again. And that's a big deal. It would affect folks known as the movers and shakers and influential members of society and government.

Backtrollin,

I think there is a mix of endemic native wild summer runs that are free of significant or measurable Skamania introgression and some that are mixed. We don't have much summer run genetic data, so I'm speculating based on what the existing information has shown and the spatial spread of native populations and Skamania stocking.

Sg

FYI - If you're interested in organizations supporting sportfishing rights I'd suggest the Steelhead Trout Club of Washington (STCW). It's been around since 1928, and in it's heyday had a significant voice in Olympia (but they still got some teeth!). I joined a few years ago and overall, I'm really impressed with the members and what the club stands for.

The last meeting before summer break is coming up on Tuesday, June 10, at 6 PM at the Orient Express Restaurant on 4th Ave S, Seattle. PM me if you want to know more.

Salmo,

Thank you for your knowledgeable response.

JJ,

I am not going to kick anybody in the d!ck or string anyone up. I was heated the other night when I opened this thread and most likely shouldn't have said that. Am I happy about the state of our steelhead fisheries? Nope. It's extremely saddening.

Sorry for coming off so harsh. I'm actually pretty nice.

Steeliedrew , there are some other Puget sound wild brood stock programs out there , the one on the white, and green but they are both small programs , but the foundation is there.

People need to see the film "Wild Reverence". Listen to what they are saying and what the data show...then think carefully about what you think is realistic in the future for Puget Sound (and other) rivers. Perhaps we save the wild runs that can be saved and operate hatcheries in the rivers that have designated harvestable runs, like the Cowlitz. The opportunities for harvest are not going to be the same and it's going to be a hard pill to swallow. It's surely not going to happen overnight either...it's going to take some time. I foresee some difficult negotiations with the Tribes too. This may get worse before it gets better.

P.S. the film is not sponsored by the WFC

But the show has been shown by WSC which is partners with WFC.

It sounds like there is a guarantee that goes with the experiment of wild fish galore if no hatchery fish produced.

What is the plan after decades stacked on decades shows little to no results?

Redd_D,

Your words paint a picture.

That is a sad picture indeed for the majority of 700,000+ fish license holders in WA state.