If this suit is tried in Federal court,won't a ruling in favor of WT's point that these hatchery fish compete in the wild with endangered species stocks have a broad impact on vertually all hatcheries,private ,state and federal in any state that has endangered salmonid stocks?

Goose,

It may suck to not be able to fish but like yourself, if it comes down to it I can deal with it.

At least there are a few that are willing to make sacrifices.

DanS
In answer to your question...the Quilcene summer chum run(with the help of hatchery supplementation) is very healthy( 5000 spawners plus on the average) and is in little danger overall even with all the idiots we have both seen on that river. Now on the otherhand I watched the summer chum runs on both the Duck and the Dosey plummet from several thousand fish to only a few hundred. Every time I went by those rivers to check on those runs...guess what I found....some urban cowboy rivers runs through it types whooping it up on those fish with their flyflogging outfits...and the fish kept getting fewer every year even though the Quil's run kept getting healthier(maybe due to the hatchery?)! But hey they had a steelhead punchcard and it was open so they could get away with it....well sadly not anymore. So the diference my friend is one of apples and oranges...the Quil chums are healthy and able to take the abuse whereas the other runs were not healthy and unable to take the abuse. Do I like what happens on the Quil? Not anymore than you do...but that situation there is more one of ethics not protection.

RichG alraedy knew that would be your response .

There seems to be one thing wrong with this discusion.We seem to be arguing to the effect the salmon are only here for our selfish reasons.They are a large part of the eco system and if we keep managing towards the fishermens gains the rest of the delicate balance could be dealt a blow more severe than we realy want to think about.In my head any more it is not about being able to fish it is maintaining the balance for the rest of the evergrowing circle to keep working!

I have not been convinced as of yet that the hatcheries and there fish are doing that much harm but the politics that come with these fish certainly is.There are alot of fisheries open based on non existant hatch fish,doing nothing but harm to the wild stock.This is an expense that scares me.

There will always be a need for hatchery suplements.But do not fool yourself into thinking that hatchery fish to bonk can replace wild fish in the big picture.I am afraid generations will regret that kind of selfishness.

Just curious how many of ya were thinking to yourself last year when there was so many silvers in the system, and you were having double digit fish days(CNR) that those poor wild fish are been pushed around by those mean hatchery fish. I didn't think you were. You were having the time of your life. Don't feel bad your not alone.
If you really don't want hatchery fish in the systems quit pissing and moaning to us and get off your @$$ and start doing something about it. I'm gonna go glowballing tonight and bring home a nice hatchery steely for tomorrows dinner. HMMMMMM HMMMMMMM good!

lTlcleo my good friend the real sadness is that for many of the listed runs that occur within the most altered ecosysytems within Puget Sound there will never be anything but a museum piece run that occurs for the nonfisher to take succor in. Without people fishing then there will be little other incentive for politicians and taxpayers to support the presence of any more than just that....something for the masses to "ooh" and "ahh" at in their satisfied ignorance. Salmon will always have to live within the reality of the political arena. As fishers aka harvestors(including cnr) we can choose to stand and fight for the salmon in that arena or we can choose to join the masses in the seats to "ooh" and "ahh." Washington Trout by their actions is forcing the more than vast majority of fishers into those very same seats and that is the concern I have tried to address within this thread. I simply don't want to be part of the crowd in the seats.

D@mmit Greg you sure do cause me to hang out on the river below the cabin a lot these days....not fishen just alot of thinking !

Dan S. Who gave you the right to speak on behalf of me? This is a board where people speak their mind.If someone is out of line, there is a process that is in place to deal with it. Who died and left you the right to bypass this process?This is a heated topic for many folks, and to see how one reacts during the process of voicing their opinion, is a great way to gauge their credibility. This is my own opinion. So please allow the process that has been in place to continue, doing what it does and stop being a hypocrit. How many times have you told people to shut it an leave the board due to your heated feelings on a cerain issue. PATHETIC..

Ahhhh.......

Never mind.

Nah, going to put it back.

Piss up a rope, fool, you phuckhead. Go dunk your head in the Hoh. Maybe you will get lucky and run into Tony D. and I sometime, and then you can explain your BS to the both of us. Or maybe you can accuse Aunty M of fishing with her husband in some tourney that neither one of them fished in. Pull your head back into the sun, dipsh1t. If I wanted to speak for you, I'd get a lobotomy first.

Hey guys... What if we are lookin at this wrong? It really just seems to be a group of people looking for attention, nothing else. I dont think they really care much for the salmon, but you guys sure are giving them a bunch of publicity by doing this. Just an observation i guess.. I dont have nearly as much to lose as you guys so I might be in the blank on the whole thing. I'm mainly a trout fisher... Salmon hasnt come to me yet.

No matter what the intent is, I do hope this turns out for the better. I personally cannot stand fanatical organizations who criticize everything the public does. Usually the members are hypocrytical in their accusations anyways.

Well, good luck to you all.

Curtis

What was the river where a similar group down in Oregon successfully managed to get a hatchery closed? I remember seeing an editorial about how boneheaded it is in STS an issue or two back. When I read that I could see the writing on the wall for us here in Washington.

Talk about cutting your nose off to spite you face. Whatever happened to the idea of hatchery reforms?

I wish the WSC still had it's forums up and running. As a member and contributor, I'd like to see the WSC's "official" stand on this suit. If nothing else, I think taking a stand against such a kneejerk lawsuit could really show the doubters that the WSC is not the elitist, anti-hatchery, organization its detractors have made it out to be. It could also be a good opportunity to gain some new members. I'm sure this is not something all WA Trout members are happy about.

Bruce

Uhhh Fool thanks for that...not sure where the connection is to this dialogue but...uhh thanks? I think? DanS my friend please post away ! You cause me to think at least.

Jerry Garcia was having an excellent time at Neah bay. WARNING.....WARNING If some folks can't keep from personal attacks {mostly you boater1] the bonking stick is warmed up!!!!

Just thought I'd try to bump this one back up top to see if the WSC has any statements about the lawsuit....

I would like to take the opportunity to respond on behalf of Washington Trout. We appreciate the opinions expressed on this forum, from both our detractors and our defenders. Others have articulated here and on other threads some of the scientific basis for the position that hatcheries have been a factor in salmon and steelhead declines, and that their productive role in recovery will be very limited at best. My goal here is not to add to that debate (although perhaps at some other time...), but rather to just outline WT's position, goals, and motivations regarding the action at issue here: our filing of a 60-day notice of intent to sue WDFW over their Puget Sound chinook-hatchery program.

Technically, we say in our 60-day notice that we will seek "relief" from the courts, which implies we will sue to shut down the hatcheries, and that's what we said we're prepared to do in our press release (and I suppose we would be prepared to do that if necessary). But really what we're saying is that WDFW needs to start complying with the law. Their hatcheries are currently violating the ESA and they have to stop. Yes in many cases they would have to shut down the hatcheries to do that, but probabaly not in all cases. Further, WDFW has a mechanism under the ESA 4d Rule to recieve exemption from ESA enforcement for its hatchery program. They can submit "Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans" to NMFS for approval (and should have a long time ago). These HGMPs would describe how WDFW will minimize or mitigate the harm the hatcheries do to listed wild fish, and/or make the case for how the "benefits" of the hatchery program outweigh or justify whatever harm they do. They've had since June 2000 to prepare and submit the HGMPs. So far they haven't, and they continually push back their promised deadlines. (Now they're saying "maybe" by the end of this year.) If they do have a plan for modifying operations or a case for justifying current operations, we want to see it, review it, and offer input (as is ours and everyone else's right under the 4d Rule). At this point we have no confidence that we will see it in a timely fashion without applying pressure. After all, these chinook are THREATENED with extinction. Isn't time of the essence?

It boils down to this: WDFW has to comply, just like everybody else, with the ESA; they could do it by ceasing the harm they are causing listed fish through the hatchery program (even if that means temporarily or permanently shutting down some hatcheries), or they could do it by using their 4d option of making a publicly-reviewed case for an exemption. They have done neither. The goal of our 60-day notice is to force at least one or the other.

WT's sole mission is the protection and recovery of wild, native fish; we do not advocate for sportfishing interests. But we have not "decalred war" on recreational fishing by "focusing" on hatcheries and "ignoring" harvest and habitat. First, WT is not against more fish in the rivers; we simply believe that the science points us in a clear direction toward that goal of healthy, harvestable fish populations; current hatchery management will not take us in that direction. Second, even if it DID shut them all down, this suit would affect only 18 out of the 55 state, tribal, and federal hatcheries in Puget Sound (over a hundred throughout the state). And finally, WT works on ALL issues affecting wild fish, and recreational fishers HAVE NO BETTER FRIENDS THAN WT on habitat issues, and ALMOST NO OTHER FRIENDS BESIDES WT on harvest (including tribal harvest) issues.

You should all know (and probably do) that WT is involved in a seperate suit regarding the Tokul Creek steelhead hatchery, alleging site impacts that harm listed chinook (fish-passage barrier, unscreeened water intake, and habitat degradation associated with bank-hardening to protect the facility grounds from flooding). We are not at this time contemplating any specific actions targeting any other hatcheries besides Tokul and the 18 listed in ur 60-day notice. I would note however, that WDFW acknowledges site impacts that are likely harming listed fish at at least 30 hatcheries throughout the state, making them vulnerable to similar suits.

A few weeks ago, WDFW made a big stink out of fining one guy for poaching listed chinook on the Skagit River, and carried on about how enforcing the law is their "top priority." If that's so, all we're really asking them to do is look in the mirror. They will say they're "working on it" and now we're just getting in their way. Well, they've had TWO YEARS to "work on it" and we haven't seen anything yet. When NMFS adopted the 4d rule in June 2000, they gave everyone until Jan 2001 to do things like prepare and submit HGMPs. That 6-month grace period ended a year and a half ago, and now WDFW says they need MORE time (without saying how much more), in the meantime continuing to run the hatcheries exactly as they always have. How much time do the fish have? If WDFW does have a solution to propose, great. They have 60 days to propose it (I guess 50-something now).

Washington Trout is fighting for better forest managemnt, better land-use regulations re agriculture and development, and more consistent application and eforcement of existing environmental laws including the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and Washington's Hydraulic Code. We are fighting daily for commercial and tribal salmon-harvest management that makes sense, and that will allow depressed stocks to recover. We are currently sueing the National Marine Fisheries Service over Puget Sound harvest-management, trying to reduce harvest levels and modify commercial-fishing practices. We carry out important research, and design and implement model habitat-retoration projects. In short, we are working every day to protect and recover Washington's wild fish and their habitats. Learn more about WT at www.washingtontrout.org

Ramon Vanden Brulle,
Communications Director
Washington Trout

Ramon

That was a great response. You clearly and concisely displayed all the shortcomings of the current WDFW policies. I for one wish to lend my support to this endeavor, if you can think of anything I can do to help with forcing WDFW into compliance with current regulations please feel free to contact me privately.

POS Clerk

B.Gray,
WSC is still in the process of putting together a stance on hatchery reform.

Thanks WT for addressing this concern.

I do not see how WT's claim that hatchery fish impact native stocks in the wild,if successful,would not impact any hatchery that is anywhere near an ESA listed stock.only 18 out of 55?Maybe.

Why would a Federal ruling be limited to Washington State anyway?

I am very worried about the possibility of the next Judge Boldt drilling one out of the park with his ESA bat.I hope you folks at WT realize the impact you will have on wild stocks if sportsmen and their organizations get bonked by a Federal Judge.

I think most of us agree that we need to look at reform for our hatcheries.Killing them off with WT's point 3 and 4,from their press release will be a disaster for the fish.

I hope WSC addresses the impact WT's points 3 and 4,concerning competing in the wild for food and survival and the impact of mixed spawning.

Nicely put Leadslinger. WTs response was about what I expected. Stating that there are 55 hatcheries in Puget Sound in order to try and minimize in peoples minds the potential effects of WTs actions is very deceptive as yes there are 55 facilties that could be called hatcheries but they range hugely in scale of production and intent. The 18 hatcheries they are aiming at are not solely dedicated to chinook so other types of production would be impacted. I have one question: Has Washington Trout offered any solutions to their items #3 and #4 other than close down the hatcheries? The other items could be corrected in time and given the money...but those 2 points are the sticking point. Those 2 points all by themselves has the very real potential to shut down any hatchery located within the area of any listed salmonid. Thats been the focus of my argument and the only reply I've seen has been very vague or has taken the form of "gosh that would be too bad" to " its not likely but could happen." I'll stick with working for restoration and conservation that works for fish and fishers.

Ramon ... thanks for your post on the subject. A heated subject for sure, I appreciate you taking the time to explain WT's position. I also commend you for your willingness to hop into a crowd with a few that don't always treat others with respect.

Ramon,
Thanks for your response. There are a lot of people who read about WT, TU, NFS and other conservation organizations' actions on the internet and get a very skewed version of the intent and story behind the actions because certain fishermen see only the "threat" to their fishery involved with taking significant actions to help wild fish. You really need to be vocal in the fishing community about why you're doing what you're doing. This is a good start.