You said it Jeff Johnson,

Knowone wants to make sacrifices to save the wild fish. Knowone cares about the wild fish they are only concerned with there right to harvest. And if hatchery fish didnt exist anymore they are affraid they might not get to fill the freezer anymore.

Im tired of hearing the lame excuses that the wild fish are gone anyways, and the majority want to harvest fish so hatcherys are a must. Im tired of hearing that it is all the Indians fault or comercials fault.

Jeff is right, we should commend trout unlimeted for being willing to sacrifice there oportunity to save the wild fish. But instead people that think differently just call them fly maggot pureists that are only looking out for their own interests and want to take away any body elses way of fishing. These alogations just arnt true.

To be completely honest I would much rather see our rivers littered with fly fisherman anyday rather than gear fisherman. I would feel much better having our wild fish's future in the hands of the fly maggots as they actually care about the fish, and their future. They dont just concern themselves with there right to take from the river or its productivity. They are concerned about the river and everything inside it, outside it and all factors that contribute to it. They do it for the expierience, beauty and majic not for their right to take. Thats the big difference for the most part that shows their sincerity. They arnt concerned about them having the ultimate fishing expierience they are concerned about the health of our rivers.

I say these things even though Im a gear fisherman.

It's funny how one side of the argument has to try so hard to paint the other as selfish meat fishermen to win the argument.I did not keep a single steelhead last year.I have bonked one this year.I have bonked two salmon this year and will probably harvest another 2-4.

Unless you can prove your point that the hatcheries exist at a substantial peril to wild fish,the character assasination is pointless.

Removing the sportfishing interest from the fisheries equation is probably not in the interest of native fish,either.Who else will push for the interests of our native stocks?

I'm like Leadslinger; I rarely bonk a fish. That's only because I don't care to eat frozen fish. That's just my preference. However, I LOVE to fish. I don't mind catch at release. But I can guarantee you this: if all the hatcheries close there will be NO fishing. Not catch and release, not harvest, nothing. Just hide and watch.

The best course of action would be exactly what has been suggested here: designate some wild rivers and some hatchery rivers. Other states have done it for trout for years.

Personally I'd like to see salmon and steelhead taken off the list of "food fish" and classified as a "sportfish." Just like deer and elk. If you want to eat one, you gotta catch one. Unless it's farm raised. But that will never happen in my lifetime, and I'm still relatively young.

Well said leadslinger. They are a nasty bunch arn't they.

I apologise if I came off as standoffish or arrogant...

It is a matter of values...what myself, RichG and others may value in our sportfishing may be something totally differnt then others, such as leadslinger.

But they are values that I am very passionaite about and will fight to protect!!!!!

Secondly, I have seen the science and the science proves that in certain instances, hatchery salmonids will have a severe & detremintal (sp?) impact on other wild salmonids.

Religious zealots do tend to read and see only what supports their beliefs that they are willing to fight for. I wouldn't be all that confident in the science that supports either side or even those that had inconclusive results....and I too have seen the science. So go ahead all of you and continue your battles and splintering of any political power we have to protect our resources and our recreational fishing....I'll take the middle ground.

sparky "mr.passion", you make me "vomit". you need to sit down and open your picture book full of snapshots of wild fish you have caught and released and ask yourself how many of them are dead, you are trying to divide your type, the people who cnr fish from people who actualy eat fish and you are nuts, you do infact kill wild fish while you are practicing catch and release, get off your high soapbox and realize that you are part of the problem to, untill then just shut your big stupid mouth.

Hey boater1,

Ease up on the kid a little! EVERYONE has the right to their opinion.

This is a VERY passionate issue for both sides. So, like your momma used to tell you (or maybe she didn't) "If you don't have anything nice to say..."

4salt, there are no "sides" to this issue, either you fish or you dont fish, if you fish you have an impact on wild fish, if you dont fish you have no direct impact.

You start closing down the hatcheries and then you will see them closing down fishing altogether on those systems because they will say that the few wild fish that are there will not survive the pressure of the sportfishing even if it is catch and release. Closing down the hatcheries affects all fisherman and my livlihood at this time. Sportfishing here in the northwest is finally rebounding from the doldrums of the late 80's and ninties, and now these ninnies want to close down one of the things that helped bring it back and give all of us the opportunity to once again fish. I have probably put more hours in than most of you doing wild fish enhancement, and yes it does work , but it takes a very long time and never will be able to with stand the pounding of the masses that we have angling here in washington state, so why don't you Wa. Trout Phukkers start putting in some enhancement time on the water instead of just lobbying your bought and paid for elected officials, What you afraid to get your hands dirty ? I thought so!!
Peace Superfly

Hey 'Fly,

Before you go and shoot up the local Post office, stop, take a deep breath, let go of some of that anger, and read this reply off another BB from Todd Ripley. Todd, as you know, is a regular here too, and I believe that his assessment of this whole issue will clear things up just a little bit for you, and everyone else that is on the verge of having a heart attack.

Posted by Todd Ripley:

1. WT has been trying for years to get the impassable dam on Tokul Creek, owned and operated by WDFW to get water for the TC hatchery, upgraded to allow ESA-listed chinook to go by it and spawn. As of yet, the state has done nothing about it. That dam is in direct violation of the ESA...

2. Failures in attempts to negotiate or have useful conversations generally end up in court. Does suing for the end of operations of those hatcheries mean that they will end? The answer is no, at least not if the state decides to bring their operations into compliance with the law.

3. If fishermen want to make sure that those hatcheries do not close, don't attack WT for suing over their non-compliance. Get on the state's back for not complying with the law. If the hatchery operations were lawful, there would be no basis for a lawsuit, nothing to sue over.

Who's the bad guy here?

No one, actually.

WT wants the hatcheries to be in compliance with the law. Anyone who doesn't like that has a fairly serious problem, in my book.

WDFW wants the hatcheries to be in compliance with the law. The problem is that they don't have the money to fix them.

Is there some sort of middle ground? Yes, there is. The middle ground is improved compliance, better management with existing financial resources.

How does that come about? Voluntarily, or through a structured settlement with promises in the context of a lawsuit.

Has it happened voluntarily? No.

Will these hatcheries close? Probably not.

What likely will happen is that the lawsuit will be settled if certain conditions are met by WDFW. What they are, I don't know.

I do have a strong feeling about one, though. Tokul Creek wouldn't even be on that list if a concrete dam twenty feet wide and four feet tall was either equipped with a fish ladder or removed entirely and a different water withdrawal system were set up. WT has been asking for this ESA-mandated action for a long time, and has received nothing back.

Hence, a lawsuit.

This isn't about hatchery vs. wild fish, it's not about barbless flyflingers vs. bait fishing bonkers, and it's not about commercial fishing and treaty fishing.

It's about specific violations of state and federal laws that are going on continually, and have been doing so for quite a while. WDFW probably doesn't have the funding to fix all of them, but probably wouldn't mind being forced to fix them via settlement of a lawsuit.

Money to do that, if not new, would have to be reallocated from other places.

I'd rather see ten well-run hatcheries, in substantial if not complete compliance with the law, than twenty way out of compliance.

We'll see how it turns out...

Fish on...

Todd

I was going to stay quite, but decided to open my fingers up. If you shut down the hatcheries people will stop fishing. So where will the state get the money to rebuild wild runs? Will TU and Washington Trout fork over the money from their pockets? Not likely. I have seen science say what ever the person wanted it to say. The same with statistics. I do know that most hatchery fish and wild are genetically identical. The problem is how they live, canned in a pond. I think that the state should take every wild fish in a river, spawn them, then place the eggs in the same river. In a protected area. This will allow for better escapement and overall increase in fish. If we know every fish possible is spawning, then the runs will get better. There are some neat fish spawn cages that allow eggs to mature in the river, protected from predators, and still let in the food needed. This would be cheaper I bet in the long run too. I do have to say that most of these so called nonprofit groups are trying to force their beliefs down the throats of others. I will not support them. To me, I would feel like I am holding down a woman while she is being raped. As one final point, I have added the link from WDFW that talks about the biggest run since 1948. Gee, how did that happen if all the hatchery fish were killing the natives. And I have seen the posts on this board about how great the Columbia run of fish are. Strong fighters, great eating, and lots of them.
http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/do/jun02/jun2602b.htm

4Salt & Todd how many other hatcheries in Washington completely block the small creeks or streams they draw their water supply from? What nearly every single one? Hey I'm not disagreeing with the need for change in the hatchery system...but I have to ask one question. If that obstruction on Tokul Creek was removed how many chinook would it produce...anyone got an answer? I'm talking returning spawners in light of all the other problems those fish would face. But to get back to the focus of Mikes initial post...I thought this was about salmon hatcheries and Washington Trout and not a specific axe to grind?

Gooose,

I can't speak for Todd (I hope he doesn't mind me copying that post over here) and I certainly don't represent Washington Trout (Hell, I've never even heard of them until this issue arose). The Tokul creek thing I believe is a sidebar to the main issue. If you go back and re-read Todd's post carefully (especially the part that I put in bold text) it would appear that the BOTTOM LINE to this issue isn't about pitting one faction against another, or preventing sportfishermen from harvesting fish, or even necessarily closing the hatcheries, IT'S ABOUT COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL LAW!

Todd's post about the potential outcome of the suit is one scenario.There are other posibilties such as the State,if legal to do so,may just decide to save the cost of a lawsuit and the operating expenses of these hatcheries and shut them down allocating these budgeted dollars elsewere.I don't think the State is going to voluntarily cut somewere else in the budget to save the hatchery program.Maybe they can get the money from the Feds if the Tribes also file suit.

Tokul creek is only one of the hatcheries under attack.

I personally would rather not cut the number of hatcheries down to just the ones WT likes.

Leadslinger,

I think you may have adressed one of the other possible scenarios already in your last post. You've gotta believe that the tribes and commercials won't sit idly by while the state decides to do away with those hatcheries. Just think of the potential lawsuits WDFW faces if they did close them. A whole lot of emotional responses, and differing viewpoints were unleashed here over this issue. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe not. Personally speaking, this thread has mainly served to further expose how REALLY divided we sportfishers as a collective are.

Yes 4Salt it surely is about the law and upon rereading the Washington Trout news release it is also all about SHUTTING DOWN 100% COMPLETELY ALL HATCHERY CHINOOK PRODUCTION IN PUGET SOUND!
Thank you not Washington Trout! If all of WTs demands are enacted then good bye recreational fishing for chinook in Puget Sound as there are not and won't be enough naturally produced chinook to allow a tenth of the current recreational effort let alone any increases and this includes catch and release people. You ESA experts can twist the numbers any way you want but the truth is thats what will be the result. You all know that there is a certain amount of incidental "take" or more plainly "kill" allowed under 4d that is apportioned to many activities including even CNR fisheries for chinook or for that matter any fishery where listed chinook may be encountered. With zero hatchery chinook the truth is quite naked...zero chinook fishery including blackmouth. Quite possibly other fisheries may also be restricted further or even closed down due to this action. So lets hear it from the ESA experts... please tell us the whole truth? I for one would love to hear it. I suggest everyone read that press release closely and several times.

You're right Goose.I had assumed that the suit was about 10 of the 18 hatcheries that create a blockage for wild chinook.That's not what the WT release said.It said all 18,ALL WDFG Chinook hatcheries,were in violation of the ESA.One of their points was that the hatchery chinook competed for survival,in the wild,with the native stocks.if that is the claim,and WT sticks to it, there is no room for compromise between WDFW and WT.It would shut them all down.

Yep Leadslinger! Everyone please closely read bulleted items 3 and 4 of that press release?!
No room to compromise. See the truth in my statement regarding "religious zealots" now folks? We should all get on our knees and face towards Duvall and bow our heads in honor of such glory! Oh by the way I'm all for salmonid conservation and restoration...just not in WTs style...as I do hope to be able to at least fish for something....and yeah even if its only cnr.

Sheesh I see all the players here but no counterpoints at all?!? Wassup with that?
I asked a number of questions but no answers? Might as well add to it. You do know that the removal of the Tokul Creerk barrier will not result in any increase in chinook spawner return until downstream limiting factors significantly change...thus until then there would be zero contribution to chinook restoration...so the changes demanded by WT will only cost significant taxpayer dollars if implemented with zero results until the downstream factors are changed. This is called putting the cart before the horse. Looks good in print but the reality is that it doesn't address the real issues. At the same time the huge majority of recreational fishers are being alienated from real recovery and conservation by such actions. Thanks a bunch Washington Trout. I will be one of the first to point out your errors and first to point out where you are doing some good.