To my recollection the formal idea of "gene banks" arose out of HSRG review of the State's steelhead hatchery program in the early part of this century. The idea was with the uncertainty of hatchery and wild steelhead interactions on the spawning grounds a way to insure that in major steelhead a portion of the wild genetic profile could be preserve by establishing areas where the amount of hatchery influence could be control/limited by ending the release of hatchery fish in that area.

WDFW took that idea a step further by including the need for gene banks in its Statewide Steelhead Management Policy adopted in early 2008. Generally part of the process of establishing a gene bank is a review of the suitability of the wild population as a gene bank and if needed hatchery releases would end. While there were and still are major areas (especially in Puget Sound) that would qualify as gene banks that would not require any new changes in hatchery release but to date had not been formally declared gene banks.

In short the existence of the idea of gene banks and the policy directing the establishment of them had nothing to do WFC lawsuits.

The Skagit is an interesting case. By 2008 hatchery releases had ended on the Sauk portion of the basin; in addition beginning that year the Sauk has been managed under selective gear rules with CnR rules for all fish except fin clipped steelhead. In effect the Sauk exceeds the requirement of being a gene bank and the concept taken a step further by being a de facto wild salmonids management where not only is the population protected from hatchery genetic influences management allows the full expression of full diversity (include alternate life history) of the basin's steelhead.

While still not formally declared a "gene bank" the Sauk is more conservatively managed than any existing gene bank and is three times larger than any designated gene bank to date. Clearly that is not enough for some folks.

Curt

Agreed, I never stated that it was.

Their lawsuits are sidestepping that process and if they had their way would eliminate hatcheries throughout the state including steelhead and salmon.

In spite of the WFC philosophy, these lawsuits, as I understand them, derive from procedural errors on the part of WDFW and the Feds and will not eliminate hatcheries. They will just require the hatcheries to operate under existing law.

Kinda like getting pulled over for doing 10mph over the limit - your license won't be revoked nor will you be sent to prison, but it will cost you some money.

Except that without the permits the fish can't be released. So, for 2 years no hatchery releases, all into lakes. If this year is no plant then there is no hatchery broodstock out there. It means that, because the Feds and WDFW did not meet the law that WFC was able to eliminate most hatchery production without ever having to openly debate the merits.

Kind of like if you can't ban guns, make the ammunition hard to get/or reduce the amount you can retain.

Sure, just like the Puget Sound Steelhead lawsuit that was settled around April of 2014 between WDFW and WFC.

The settlement went much further than just paying court costs to WFC and after reading the 96 page complaint filed 03/31/16, there is no reason to believe that only court costs will be awarded this time around either.

Why should the WFC have to pay you and I because 'our' WDFW didn't follow the law? Ridiculous!

It means that, because the Feds and WDFW did not meet the law that WFC was able to eliminate most hatchery production without ever having to openly debate the merits.

But now that card has been played and if WDFW follows the law, can't be played again.

Once permits are obtained the hatcheries will operate and the only way to stop them will be by proving harm to wild and or ESA listed species.

Keep in mind that evidence of genetic introgression is NOT evidence of harm. Proving long term harm is will be a much more difficult task - if it can even be done.

If it can be proved, and we wish to try and stop evolution of these fish in its tracks, then something different needs to be done.

ONCE THE PERMITS ARE OBTAINED. They still aren't issued and until they are the fish can't be planted. The window is closing fast. Again.

So another words, most steelhead fishing in Puget Sound is effectively being shut down while knowingly admitting that there might not be a way to prove long term harm now or in the future. Way to go guys----------not

Now they have moved on to the Columbia River lawsuit hoping to unleash the same nightmare with duplicating results and then they can conjure up new lawsuits in Puget Sound in another six months according to the 2014 settlement agreement.

If they crossed their T's and dotted their I's on these applications, don't you think WDFW might keep a few breeders around?

Because steelhead are supposed to be anadromous. Supposed to go to sea. What do you think WFC and dos fine-heads would say about a freshwater captive broodstock.

With the permits in place, it won't matter what they say.

There is no doubt that the feds have opened the door to lawsuits by not doing their job.

Just because you leave your front door open on your house, it isn’t an open invitation for lowlifes to come in and take whatever they want.

The reasoning that it is the homeowner’s fault that the door was open is lame when resources and opportunity are stolen from the whole community.

It is the community through its votes, its activism, its pushing the politicians that sets the agenda.

CM -
While community involvement can help establish the agenda the reality is that by and large it is special interest groups and their lobbyists that establish agendas for their benefits.

Curt

I am looking at the overall community that supports the Congress that won't fund NOAA or much else.

The rationalization behind the lawsuits by some among us ends in theft of our resource and opportunity of society.

This is supposed to be a country of laws. Follow them or accept the consequences.

WDFW and NOAA consciously chose to either not issue the permits (and blame workload), chose not to to develop workable stop-gap measures that would pass legal muster if challenged, and so on. They simply hoped the "trust us, I'll pull out in time" would work.

The sad part is that the use of the early-timed winter steelhead is most likely lost for the foreseeable future because WDFW and NOAA didn't act. They gave WFC what they wanted with no fight and left the angling community on the bank.

The rationalization behind the lawsuits by some among us ends in theft of our resource and opportunity of society.

Somehow I get the feeling that comment is directed at me. If that is the case let me say this first; I'm not bothered by it in the least - I've been misunderstood by a wide range of characters and I'm quite used to it.

Mostly what I do on these forums is to observe what is happening in our world and speculate what the possible outcomes may be based on what I hope is sound logic and without letting my emotions get in the way. Sometimes I even succeed!

If, you feel you have been robbed I would hire an attorney and seek some legal satisfaction...and I would wish you well in that endeavor! It could set a new precedence!

It is obvious that WFC has never met a hatchery that they liked and are more that thrilled to see all of them go away. That will take away harvest opportunity (surely) and fishing opportunity (probably). It is taking this from users who want to kill fish.

But we should not lose sight of the fact that WDFW and NOAA are the ones who allowed this to happen. Anglers are about to lose hatchery steelhead in many waters simply because procedures were not followed. There is uncertainty as to the true impact of these fish on the wild but WFC has never had to defend the science.

If you want to sue somebody for incompetence, sue WDFW and NOAA.