Carcassman,

Truly WDFW and NMFS allowed this to happen. However I don't think the story is exactly that simple. It's easy in hind sight to say that during a period of budget cuts the agencies should have dropped some other action in order to staff the HGMPs in order to complete them in timely fashion. I'm not willing to second guess WDFW on this. In many ways the department was struggling to just remain functionally relevant because of the budget slashing. Some of the staff who had worked on HGMPs left the agency and came to work at NMFS, generally helping to reduce the backlog of overdue biological opinions, not work on HGMPs. We are a nation of laws, but the law ignores simple things like agency budgets, and separate courts can and do order conflicting priorities at times. When the budget can fund one task, there is no way that two can be performed.

And then there's politics. The political process defines the legislative mandates of agencies. And the political process funds those mandates. Or not. Unfunded mandates are not at all uncommon among agencies. Talk about being between a rock and a hard place. However the public outcry did get heard by Senator Cantwell's office, and NMFS got two more staff positions to work on the Puget Sound HGMPs. Of course this is all reactive, and it's hard to say how the agencies will respond, if they are able, to the Columbia River Mitchell Act hatchery lawsuit.

Sg

Salmo

You hit the nail on the head very well. While is see it as the fault of WDFW and NOAA because they were required to do something, the people who held the purse strings are real bad guys. Yet, they are allowed to fly away without blame. And they get re-elected.

But, at least for WDFW, they received more and more of their funds from the license buyers and that is where they should have been focusing the money.

Good observation Salmo.

These lawsuits remind me of an overdrawn checking account where the problem snowballs if the initial problem along with fees isn’t totally corrected. Lawsuits bouncing around from region to region only puts additional strain on these understaffed agencies.

According to the Puget Sound settlement agreement between WDFW and WFC there is a 30 month moratorium on lawsuits in Puget Sound which ends approximately this October where another round of lawsuits could arrive. At this point with these understaffed agencies trying to put out spot fires as they pop up, isn’t going to help the Puget Sound situation at all.

WFC having already eliminated most steelhead hatchery production in Puget Sound and now hoping for similar results with various species of the Mitchell Act hatcheries on the Columbia River, then open to return to Puget Sound salmon hatcheries as soon as this October is deplorable.

I consider WFC a foe with them attempting to eliminate hatchery fish in this state and the PNW.

Carcassman,

Regarding being responsive to license buyers, this is something I want to stress with WDFW, similar to the old days of WDG which derived most of its funding from licenses, tags, and fees. Since the Legislature wants to wean WDFW from so much general fund reliance, it is most appropriate that WDFW reduce spending on traditional GF expenses: salmon hatchery production that feeds commercial fishing. I think the perfect place to begin exercising that economic and business plan would be to close all non-mitigation salmon hatchery production in Willapa Bay and Gray's Harbor, possibly retaining one chinook facility in WB, either Naselle or Forks Ck for the terminal recreational fishery. Of course this would mean no more NT gillnetting in either area, but those fleets are an economic drag that pays next to nothing and costs far too much. Not to mention that most of the Chinook production is harvested in BC, something I'm not so fond of paying for either.

It's beyond time for WDFW to adopt the paradigm of investing in those programs that return benefits to the people that provide the Department's funding. Director Unsworth should feel right at home with that, coming from Idaho, where the F&W department is funded by the users.

Sg

Salmo,
Do you know where I could find a copy of the budget and revenue stream for the department. I always wonder what percentage of the budget is spent on non-consumer type programs, such as wolf reintroduction, dealing with wild life interactions, invasive species, endangered butterflies, etc. In other words, what percentage of the budget is collected by users than spent on things that would exist, even if no users existed.

Lucky -
While it is fun to paint WFC as the only villain in regard to the demise of Puget Sound steelhead the fact is that by 2012 (before the latest WFC suit) the number of Chambers Creek winter steelhead being planted in Puget Sound streams had been slashed by more than 50% from the pre-ESA listing of Puget Sound steelhead. Those slashes where in response to WDFW's 2008 statewide steelhead policy and HSRG recommendations.

That is not to shift the blame from WFC but illustrate that for the Puget Sound region steelhead fishing has been a low priority for WDFW (at least as measured by their actions).

Curt

Looking at the players in the game, I would imagine that I will continue to depict WFC as a villain with our hatchery salmon being under attack.

Reason being-- you can try and protect these people for only so long, but their continued actions only shows and brings out their true colors.

Krijack,

In short, no. I've never seen the WDFW budget sliced into fine enough detail to make the comparisons you mention. It would probably require a special effort to do so, and I'd venture that they wouldn't want to show it that way.

Don't worry about butterflies and other non-game species. As far as I know, all non-game program work is funded by legislative mandate through vanity license plate sales. I've heard several times that non-game is the best funded program in the department.

Sg

In some years, the non-Game fund hs, or had, more to spend then the Leg would allow.

It can get convoluted, though. There is lots of land bought by waterfowl hunters that is now being converted into salmon habitat at the expense of the ducks. While rehabbing the salmon habitat is fine, they should be required mitigate 1 for 1 the loss is upland/freshwater waterfowl habitat.

I think the new director, and Commission, are publicly saying that whoever pays the freight should have the biggest say but it is still the Olympia Clownshow that sets the actual funding in the budget.

Not sure this will give you the detail you are looking for?

http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/budget/

After going back and rereading the last couple of pages of this thread, I’m glad I did because you make a good point considering the two different time frames we were talking about. Yours pre-settlement and mine was about the 2014 settlement between WDFW and WFC regarding Puget Sound early winter hatchery steelhead. Below is the self explanatory WDFW news release link for those interested in looking at that agreement.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/apr2514b/

Still not happy with all these lawsuits that attack hatchery steelhead and now hatchery salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River.

No, better get those voices in your head checked out.