Check

 

Defiance Boats!

LURECHARGE!

THE PP OUTDOOR FORUMS

Kast Gear!

Power Pro Shimano Reels G Loomis Rods

  Willie boats! Puffballs!

 

Three Rivers Marine

 

 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#951319 - 02/16/16 02:20 PM WFC... again...
5 * General Evo Offline
Lord of the Chums

Registered: 03/29/14
Posts: 6825
not only are they going after the hatcheries on the Columbia (ones in the Mitchell Act), they are now suing because they havent come up with a plan fast enough for the Puget Sound systems that were nailed a little while ago...


looks like the WSC is involved too, i thought they were good a while ago, werent like the WFC, matter of fact i mentioned that not long ago on this very board...

wolf in sheeps clothing is what they are....


http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/g...-recovery-plan/
_________________________
BLM IS A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION
ANTIFA IS A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION


Top
#951329 - 02/16/16 03:10 PM Re: WFC... again... [Re: 5 * General Evo]
What Offline
Spawner

Registered: 11/05/05
Posts: 870
BFD.

The responsible parties need to at least make an attempt to do the job(s), that they are being paid to do.
_________________________
TEAM Rainbow/Waterfall/Unicorn/Tecate/Zig Zag PRO STAFF





Top
#951332 - 02/16/16 03:24 PM Re: WFC... again... [Re: What]
GodLovesUgly Offline
Repeat Spawner

Registered: 04/20/09
Posts: 1269
Loc: WaRshington
Originally Posted By: What
BFD.
The responsible parties need to at least make an attempt to do the job(s), that they are being paid to do.


I smells a mole.
_________________________
When I grow up I want to be,
One of the harvesters of the sea.
I think before my days are done,
I want to be a fisherman.

Top
#951359 - 02/16/16 05:43 PM Re: WFC... again... [Re: 5 * General Evo]
Met'lheadMatt Offline
Spawner

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 723
Get the dams off the rivers or flood them with hatchery fish, this is the job they should be doing. The Mitchel act was to suppliment fish because the loos of habitat caused by HOW Many dams. I wish these coalitions would go back to thier blue ribbon trout water, and leave well enough alone.

They sue, the dept ends up footing the bill, for both parties. And look, they are already strapped for cash, lets just make them a little broker, and bitch when they can afford the resources to get things done.. Total [Bleeeeep!]

Top
#951396 - 02/17/16 07:00 AM Re: WFC... again... [Re: 5 * General Evo]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
So long as NOAA doesn't do their job they open themselves up to these process lawsuits.

It really is a great way for NOAA and WDFW to get out of hatchery production without ever having to debate the merits. Look at how much money they have saved by not hiring staff. What they pay to WFC is peanuts. Pencils out well.

Top
#951403 - 02/17/16 08:58 AM Re: WFC... again... [Re: 5 * General Evo]
What Offline
Spawner

Registered: 11/05/05
Posts: 870
Carcassman squarely illustrates the reality of things in his second paragraph.

For those of us that can't break out of this co-dependent relationship we have ongoing with our current resource managers, wait until you see which co-manager ends up being the sole manager.

No mole GLU, just a guy tired of hearing the same old sh!t, while the same old sh!t continues on.
_________________________
TEAM Rainbow/Waterfall/Unicorn/Tecate/Zig Zag PRO STAFF





Top
#951405 - 02/17/16 10:00 AM Re: WFC... again... [Re: 5 * General Evo]
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13521
The Puget Sound Chinook recovery plan was issued in 2007, eight years after the fish were ESA listed. While recovery planning is required by the ESA, I don't know that a specific timeframe for those plans is required. PS steelhead were listed in 2007, soon to be nine years ago. I'm not sure what WFC hopes to gain from this latest lawsuit. After all, recovery plans don't recover species; they are guidance documents. Looking at the 10-year goals of the Chinook plan and what has actually been achieved in these nine years doesn't impress me nor make me very hopeful that PS Chinook will actually recover in the foreseeable future.

NMFS can show that the PS steelhead planning process is in the works. The technical recovery team was convened several years ago, and their draft reports will be finalized soon. And then development of the recovery plan will move forward, toward whatever end, but I don't see how it will do any more for steelhead than the Chinook plan has done for Chinook. I think people, including the TRT, are going to be very disappointed to learn that most PS river systems are presently at their wild steelhead carrying capacity, and that it would take a massive shift in freshwater habitat productivity, capacity, and diversity to significantly "recover" some of the former system-wide carrying capacity. There are some exceptions; given the recent very low marine survival rates, a few streams with extremely low spawning escapements are likely severely underseeded and below carrying capacity.

I'm biased of course, but I think this lawsuit is going to do about as much good for steelhead as pissing up a rope.

Sg

Top
#951406 - 02/17/16 10:22 AM Re: WFC... again... [Re: 5 * General Evo]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
You're right, Salmo, that the suit helps recovery as much as pissing up a rope. But, it achieves their goal of eliminating hatchery fish.

To my mind, steelhead will begin to recover when salmon escapements exceed a kilo per square metre and the early returning fish are allowed to return and not get taken in coho and chum fisheries.

Top
#951445 - 02/17/16 07:22 PM Re: WFC... again... [Re: 5 * General Evo]
Salmo g. Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13521
Carcassman,

I don't think either WDFW or NMFS have a goal of eliminating hatchery steelhead. The department is wedded to hatcheries when they make sense and when they don't. (Tradition, status quo, bureaucratic inertia, etc.) NMFS has federal trust responsibility to treaty tribes, and hatchery fish are essential to providing treaty harvest whether it's cost effective or not. There's a fair amount of internal friction about the appropriate role(s) of hatcheries.

Wild steelhead recovery needs those marine derived nutrients for sure, and in large amounts. It also needs restoration of habitat complexity, which will take a long time in mid and upper watersheds and will never happen in confined lower basin channels.

Sg

Top
#951450 - 02/17/16 09:26 PM Re: WFC... again... [Re: 5 * General Evo]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
I think the state will get out of hatcheries, at least license funded ones. I think that the license holders won't continue to fund production of fish they can't catch. So general fund, Federal Grants, etc.

May lead to some lawsuits that would be real interesting. ESA vs. treaty rights to dead fish in the boat. Ultimately, that will be what it will have to come down to.

I think, too, that there will need to be some serious triage. In reasonably complete watersheds, we'll have wild fish. If we have compromised the watershed, or critical parts of it, hatchery or mixed.

Top
#951453 - 02/18/16 06:22 AM Re: WFC... again... [Re: 5 * General Evo]
Smalma Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/25/01
Posts: 2844
Loc: Marysville
I agree that this suit will provide WFC and their allies with another tool with which to hammer Puget Sound steelhead hatchery programs to near extinction!

SG -

While WDFW and NOAA may not want to eliminate PS steelhead hatchery programs their collective foot dragging and in attention have worked to the point that such a result is probable. I guess the larger question is once the dust settles would WDFW attempt to restart some sort of replace hatchery programs? I think not.

CM -
To recover salmon populations to the point that we might see anything close to the numbers of spawning salmon that you say recovery needs massive improvements will be needed to support those numbers. Currently the habitat is so trashed that the productivity of those fish that depend on freshwater rearing for any extend to time is severely compromised. Even when the region gets "lucky" with those less dependent on that freshwater habitats (pinks) the rivers have been so changed that those abundant carcasses (rivers like the Snohomish and other rivers have had escapements of between 1 and 2 million) are not retained within the rivers for any length of time. They quickly get flushed out of the rivers or deposited at the upper limits of floodways. Until the river flooding/flushing frequencies are stabilized and channel complexities restored (to capture and retain the carcasses) it will be hard for the ecosystem (at least within the river) to take advantage of those nutrients.

Yes it is hard to understand the foot dragging to produce recovery plans or even to designate critical habitats the harsh reality is that even once complete there will likely be little improvements in the habitat arena. PS steelhead and bull trout will soon be "celebrating" 20 years of ESA listing and the status of those fish suggest that little has been done to improve their lot. In the habitat arena any steelhead recovery plan will provide little addition protection that is not all ready in place with the Chinook and bull trout recovery plans and existing HCPs. In fact the PS steelhead listing decision excluded the one single positive step that could be taken under ESA by excluding the resident form of O. mykiss from the listing.

Any substantial habitat recovery will require both time (decades/centuries) and massive reduction of the human population in the region. Any volunteers to reduce your salmonids impact footprint by leaving the region? While recent actions with Puget Sound steelhead may actually succeed in forcing steelhead anglers to leave the region those support activities that are directing the bulk of habitat past and future impacts are likely to remain.

I'm sadden by what my grandchildren have lost!

Curt

Top
#951457 - 02/18/16 07:57 AM Re: WFC... again... [Re: 5 * General Evo]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
Smalma

Look at South Prairie and the White. The steelhead have responded to the massive pink escapements. I know that much of the responding White is high elevation and protected but SPC sure isn't. Plus, one needs to get away from numbers and look at biomass-even though the numbers are scary then. SPC has had about 300-500K pinks in 15 miles of anadromous zone. A million in the Stilly, Snohomish, or Skagit is a drop in the bucket.

We first have to get the chum, pink, and Chinook numbers up, especially the first two. They will clean the gravel, improving egg-fry, and feed the system. As those numbers increase they will feed the extended rearing species. It will take time.

Plus, especially for coho, the area of primary smelt productivity was the lowland swamps, sloughs, lakes, and beaver ponds. Which won't be restored. Look at the Snow Creek system. The creek itself produced about 10K coho smolts. Crocker Lake, after pike rehab, has kicked out over 30K itself. Want a lot more coho? The data is out there....

As you note, the will isn't.

Top
#951463 - 02/18/16 09:47 AM Re: WFC... again... [Re: 5 * General Evo]
RUNnGUN Offline
Repeat Spawner

Registered: 12/06/07
Posts: 1382
I hope the State gets out of hatchery steelhead production all together. Tribes take over hatcheries flood production, immune from lawsuits, middle finger to WFC and WSC.
_________________________
"Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.” – Ferris Bueller.
Don't let the old man in!

Top
#951466 - 02/18/16 10:01 AM Re: WFC... again... [Re: 5 * General Evo]
OncyT Offline
Spawner

Registered: 02/06/08
Posts: 506
Ask the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe and their hatchery manager, who was personally named, if they are immune from lawsuits over hatchery programs.

Top
#951496 - 02/18/16 02:33 PM Re: WFC... again... [Re: OncyT]
RUNnGUN Offline
Repeat Spawner

Registered: 12/06/07
Posts: 1382
Originally Posted By: OncyT
Ask the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe and their hatchery manager, who was personally named, if they are immune from lawsuits over hatchery programs.
Did he lose? Lawsuits against the Tribes rarely are successful.
_________________________
"Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.” – Ferris Bueller.
Don't let the old man in!

Top
#951501 - 02/18/16 03:50 PM Re: WFC... again... [Re: 5 * General Evo]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
If memory serves, the Tribes themselves can't be sued. In this case, the individuals who were implementing the actions were. Some sort of legal hair-splitting.

Top
#951505 - 02/18/16 04:14 PM Re: WFC... again... [Re: 5 * General Evo]
FleaFlickr02 Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/28/09
Posts: 3314
So what was the outcome of that lawsuit? All along, I've been assuming hatchery fish are being planted. Is that not the case?

Top
#951515 - 02/18/16 05:35 PM Re: WFC... again... [Re: 5 * General Evo]
OncyT Offline
Spawner

Registered: 02/06/08
Posts: 506
I stand corrected. The tribe itself was not sued. Rather four tribal employees (in their official capacities) were sued for violating the Endangered Species Act by WFC. The tribe agreed to stop stocking Chambers Creek origin steelhead and the federal court ultimately dismissed the case as the tribe received permits from NMFS to operate their programs. Nevertheless, suing the tribal director of river restoration, the tribal hatchery manager, the tribal fisheries manager, and their habitat manager had, more or less, the same effect as suing the tribe, as Carcassman says, some legal hair splitting.

Top
#951581 - 02/19/16 02:36 PM Re: WFC... again... [Re: 5 * General Evo]
Carcassman Online   content
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7413
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
An interesting aspect of coho biology is that they spawn high in a watershed but rear low. The upper habitat, though is not ideal as it is too steep, etc., to rear large numbers of smolts. Yet, we develop the lowlands and floodplains, which is where the smolts primarily would come from. So, by preserving the upper watersheds we will keep coho, just the least productive life histories.

Top
#951686 - 02/21/16 08:58 AM Re: WFC... again... [Re: Salmo g.]
FishBear Offline
Returning Adult

Registered: 11/06/05
Posts: 401
Loc: Western Washington
Originally Posted By: Salmo g.
The Puget Sound Chinook recovery plan was issued in 2007, eight years after the fish were ESA listed. While recovery planning is required by the ESA, I don't know that a specific timeframe for those plans is required. PS steelhead were listed in 2007, soon to be nine years ago. I'm not sure what WFC hopes to gain from this latest lawsuit. After all, recovery plans don't recover species; they are guidance documents. Looking at the 10-year goals of the Chinook plan and what has actually been achieved in these nine years doesn't impress me nor make me very hopeful that PS Chinook will actually recover in the foreseeable future.

NMFS can show that the PS steelhead planning process is in the works. The technical recovery team was convened several years ago, and their draft reports will be finalized soon. And then development of the recovery plan will move forward, toward whatever end, but I don't see how it will do any more for steelhead than the Chinook plan has done for Chinook. I think people, including the TRT, are going to be very disappointed to learn that most PS river systems are presently at their wild steelhead carrying capacity, and that it would take a massive shift in freshwater habitat productivity, capacity, and diversity to significantly "recover" some of the former system-wide carrying capacity. There are some exceptions; given the recent very low marine survival rates, a few streams with extremely low spawning escapements are likely severely underseeded and below carrying capacity.

I'm biased of course, but I think this lawsuit is going to do about as much good for steelhead as pissing up a rope.

Sg


Agree with your conclusion... but your explanation has holes.

The PS Chinook recovery plan was "begun, in earnest" in 2001, less than 2 years following listing. Draft chapters (there were 14 or 15 in total) to the recovery plan were coming into shape as soon as 2003 with most being completed by 2004. All but one (?) were finished in 2005 and "review, editing and adoption" took another 2 years.

This is FAR different than what has transpired with the PS steelhead recovery plan. We don't even have a decent draft to look at and we stand at year 9 past listing. Leadership on this issue by the ESA agencies has been, for the most part, absent. Just within the last year or so has there been substantive "movement" towards getting a plan pulled together.

How bad is this mess? Again, we stand at year 9 and we still have no critical habitat designation for PS steelhead.
_________________________
You're welcome America!

George W. Bush

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >

Search

Site Links
Home
Our Washington Fishing
Our Alaska Fishing
Reports
Rates
Contact Us
About Us
Recipes
Photos / Videos
Visit us on Facebook
Today's Birthdays
CHUBS
Recent Gallery Pix
hatchery steelhead
Hatchery Releases into the Pacific and Harvest
Who's Online
0 registered (), 939 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
John Boob, Lawrence, I'm Still RichG, feyt, Freezeout
11498 Registered Users
Top Posters
Todd 28170
Dan S. 17149
Sol Duc 16138
The Moderator 14486
Salmo g. 13521
eyeFISH 12766
STRIKE ZONE 12107
Dogfish 10979
ParaLeaks 10513
Jerry Garcia 9160
Forum Stats
11498 Members
16 Forums
63773 Topics
645302 Posts

Max Online: 3001 @ 01/28/20 02:48 PM

Join the PP forums.

It's quick, easy, and always free!

Working for the fish and our future fishing opportunities:

The Wild Steelhead Coalition

The Photo & Video Gallery. Nearly 1200 images from our fishing trips! Tips, techniques, live weight calculator & more in the Fishing Resource Center. The time is now to get prime dates for 2018 Olympic Peninsula Winter Steelhead , don't miss out!.

| HOME | ALASKA FISHING | WASHINGTON FISHING | RIVER REPORTS | FORUMS | FISHING RESOURCE CENTER | CHARTER RATES | CONTACT US | WHAT ABOUT BOB? | PHOTO & VIDEO GALLERY | LEARN ABOUT THE FISH | RECIPES | SITE HELP & FAQ |