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.