Thanks WT,

Its nice to know that there are groups out there that are fighting for the wild fish.

Man...this has been on heck of a thread.
It made me cry, cheer, refrain from lashing out, shadowbox, shake my head, clench my fists, grit my teeth, roll my eyes, do the one man wave, take a walk, scratch my head, ponder future fishing prospects, break out the soapbox, slap my forehead, pump my fist, yell, walk away and laugh! :p

The rest of the time was spent fishing with a little work thrown in.

Good thread!

FJ...out.

Thanks WT
I am one of those who at least at this point believes there is a need for some hatcheries, yet if the science works, there could come a time when none would be needed. You have mentioned the forms by which your WDFW would show reason as to why some hatcheries would be exempt from closure even if not in full compliance with the laws. This I assume covers, among other reasons, those that would cripple local economies if closed. Many make no bones about the fact they put the welfare of a community above any fish. That said,
no one has as yet shown them that with good science and honest governmental support, the stocks cannot be restored and the communities remain economically viable. This is not the Dark Ages, there is enough brain power to bring this about. The money is there if the fishers will come together as a strong force to be reckoned with. Where does the 900 lb gorilla sleep?
We in your neighboring state are watching. We have yet to raise our testosterone level and our
organizational level to match yours, but its going to happen. We watch in great interest what you will accomplish. If you can show us that there will be plenty of fish for ALL in your state, your actions will become a blueprint. We must get past this "can't be done" mindset. Let us watch WT and see if it can show us the merit of their cause with positive results.

Well I have to agree that yes it does come down to fighting for wild fish . I will do my part in the way I see as the right path amongst the several that are possible choices...hope you can respect that? And my greatest hope is that in the end we will all like the results of our personal endeavors towards that end

You know, I have always wondered about these non profit groups and their missions. WT makes good points, but still does nothing to solve the problem. So they sue they state. Where do they think WDFW gets the money to fight these law suits? How many improvements good be made to hatcheries with the ten of thousands of dollars this will cost? I think any group that sues any person or agency and loses, should foot the bill for both sides. That will end the sue happy nature of this country. WT and others should spend their time working with the state and not against it. We have many biased network TV channels to help air the problems, so get them involved also.

Big Jim The point is that WT has tried to work with the state for two years in this issue and WDFW hasignored them just like they ignore every ofther conservation concern until it's too late. WDFW is 2 years late on developing a plan for solving the problems with these hatcheries and they have no timeline for coming up with a plan. here is an analogy of what they are doing.
They have gone 2 years without paying taxes without so much as filing extention.
They are breaking the law purposfully and intentionally and it's time they get nailed to the wall for it.

Ramon, Thanks for the insightful reply. It should clearup a lot of misinformation, and I appreciate knowing more now about WT and the activities you're involved in.

Big Jim, if WFG had taken the steps they KNEW were needed and necessary they never would have been sued. Fortunately, we citizens have the right to compel our government to obey its own laws. Seems funny that you would have a problem with that basic right. The question you should be asking is -- why has Washington drug its feet on this matter for so long?

I'll bet my money that this won't go before a judge for a decision though. Instead it will be a negociated settlement as these sorts of things nearly always are.

posted 07-11-2002 08:06 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where will all the fishers go if those Puget Sound hatcheries close! Simple answer... where they can fish. Let's see...they won't be able to even cnr in Puget Sound so where would they go? Well the Olympic peninsula is one place...southwest Washington is another....simple fact is that a majority of those fishers will displace to other opportunities. Since fishing opportunity on those rivers is based upon scientifically predicted fishing effort and catch per unit effort the simple result is the inevitable shortening of seasons and in the case of wild fish a likelihood of prohibitions at times against any fishing including cnr. Wild fish release which I have no problem with will also be imposed but even that may not keep those fish from being put at risk of ESA listing.
--------------------

As to WDFW being in compliance or not with ESA? The simple answer is that technically they are as they have been granted by NMFS a grace period to submit their proposal under 4d. Until that grace period is officially and lawfully ended by NMFS or other legal action then their compliance with ESA is valid. Doesn't matter what they've done to date as long as that grace period is in place. And that my friends is the Law!

posted 07-11-2002 08:24 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh where will the cute marine mammals go to for dinner if they shut down the Puget Sound hatcheries? You see there is a very huge population of harbor seals and sealions in Puget Sound whose numbers have swelled to match the amount of food available...namely salmonids. As it stands now the hatchery fish bear the vast brunt of there hunger. If there are no longer any hatchery fish to sustain this onslaught they will have to dine on something else? Can you guess what this might be. A seal population that is used to a dinner table set with likely a half million chinook counting blackmouth(my estimation) reduced to a wild only population of less than 50,000 on which to prey upon. In the short term those cuteys are gonna consume the same gross quantity of chinook...will the wild chinook habitat gains and survival gains offset this ecological fact enough to restore themselves? At least stay where they are currently? Or even survive this final foolishness? Yes I know we created the problem but thats a stupid argument if your overall concern is the restoration or even existence of those wild fish. Mother nature has its rules and predator prey relationships are part of it. A pretty well known thing amongst ecologists ....has anyone from Wash. Trout considered this or is it to inconvenient? Would really like to hear from the experts?

Those last 3 posts should give the armchair scientists and fishery managers something to chew on...please... I await your most thoughtful responses?

Shoot here's one more to consider!Oh yes the issue of science? Well I dearly love to see nonscientists and shoot even real scientists bandy around numbers for the masses to worship! One problem though is they very routinely avoid giving the 95% Confidence Intervals(CI) for those numbers which are typically averages. Now the Confidence Interval can tell alot about the strength or believabilty of a scientists conclusions. Let's see...didn't someone on this bulletin board claim cnr mortality to be only 3%? My question is what was the 95% CI for that number? Plus or minus 10% or what 90%? Now Washington Trout on its very own site lists a canadian study that found cnr to have a 10% mortality rate....but was it plus or minus 10 or 90%? Was it 50%? Hey if the CI for that canadian study was 50% then theoretically the mortality rate could really be 15%! People with agendas like to pick and choose that which bests meets their faith even if its science. Then those people tell us to accept their faith in their choice of science as the only truth.

Ramon could you please provide answers to my posts? Something other than what is intended for the masses to hear?

I really wanted to avoid getting involved in the back and forth here, but I feel compelled to address comments that are simply inaccurate.

Goose, I don't know how to put this delicately, but I'm afraid you're misinformed about that grace period. It ended in Jan 2001. NMFS has certainly decided not to take any enforcemnt action against WDFW (or the Tribes) while they all "negotiate" the HGMPs, but there is NO official or lawful "grace period" in effect. If there was, our notice would have no merit and you'd have nothing to be upset about. We can only seek relief for violations of the ESA. (Despite what you may think, we're not idiots, and we don't just make stuff up. This is the sort of thing we might have checked before we went to all this trouble.)

As to your other points; I'll leave it to others to debate you on conjectural points with made up numbers. But I will say that WT's whole approach to resource managemnt is all about recognizing and managing for the risk and uncertainty in the available data. However, we look at it a little differently than the approch you seem to advocate. We would take a look at the data points, and manage for the conservative end of the CI, in order to give the resourse the benefit of the doubt, not the stakeholder, particularly when the resource is in clear decline. No data does not mean no problem; the burden of proof should be on the fisher, not the fish. Making the salmon PROVE they are in trouble is what got us here.

Ramon I concede that legal point with no problem!
As to the other points you were right in not venturimg there...but you did a little...the predation one is one that I would dearly love to hear your resident ecologists try to discuss. Most environmental groups would avoid it like the plague...have your's the ball's?

I really do want to try and get out of the way of this discussion, but a lot has been said here and elsewhere, and I want to add a few more points by way of clarification. First, it is important to recognize that WT has not filed a suit in this case, only issued a notice. It is perfectly conceivable that WDFW could take an action or make a proposal that would convince us not to sue, or at least wait and see. We sincerely hope that happens (lawsuits are expensive, risky, and a lot of hard work). Washington Trout is staffed by professional scientists and environmental advocates, not frothing at the mouth lunatics, despite what you may have heard or believe.

(As a point of minor clarification to a specific concern expressed above: Our notice focuses solely on chinook production. If any of the facilities we list produce other species, our action is not likely to have a major impact on those operations. We can only seek relief for violations of the ESA. It is perfectly conceivable that WDFW could continue to produce steelhead, coho, chum, or some other species at those or any facility without causing the specific harm to chinook that we allege, as long as they resolve any site impacts that may exist [the types of things that prompted our Tokul suit]. We might not like the impacts those operations would have on those species, but we’d have no basis to sue under the ESA.)

While both the chinook and Tokul cases focus mainly on site and operational impacts from hatcheries, Washington Trout is also very concerned about the well documented genetic, reproductive, and population impacts of artificial supplementation programs. Simply put, while hatchery fish can be genetically similar to their wild counterparts in a broad sense, their genetic QUALITY is inferior, manifested in traits that include lower age and size at maturity, lower fecundity of females, and fewer and less pronounced secondary sexual characteristics in males (spawning coloration, back humps, jaw kypes, exposed teeth). These traits directly contribute to lowered reproductive success, generally 1/2 to 2/3 that of wild fish. It is important to note that hatchery fish can reproduce in the wild, just not as successfully as wild fish. Therein lies the problem. When hatchery fish mate naturally with wild fish, they pass on inferior genetic traits and lowered reproductive capability to the wild population. Not only that, when a wild fish mates with a hatchery fish, it will produce fewer and less fit young than if it mated with another wild fish. For you skeptics, I am afraid that within the scientific and management communities these facts are simply not disputed; every single serious scientific study that has examined the issue has found the same thing. The only serious debate among managers is about the significance of these impacts and whether they can be successfully mitigated.

You should all be aware that since at least 1997, WDFW has acknowledged that 39 of its state hatcheries have at least one site impact that harms wild fish, the complete or partial blockage of fish-passage to important spawning and rearing habitats. Of those 39, 30 are located in the habitats of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead. Of those 30, WDFW acknowledges that 20 are actually blocking listed fish from reaching their habitats (13 in Puget Sound). This is a clear violation of the ESA, but even though WDFW has known about the problem for at least five years, and the affected fish have been listed from three to four years, WDFW has not repaired a single one of these barriers, while they continue to spend money to produce fish at every one of the facilities. Are all of you happy with that situation? Do you honestly expect it to change without some application of pressure? WDFW has been saying for five years that it’s “working on it” but that it “doesn’t have money,” but it continues to produce fish at facilities out of compliance with state and federal law. How about a shift in its “top priorities?” WDFW is the lead state agency for salmon recovery. That should be job #1. It seems to me a realistic angler would realize THAT is in the best interest of fish AND fishers.

If I may, I’d like to take off my WT hat and speak as a fellow angler for just this paragraph. (As some of you may remember, I edited NW Fishing Holes Magazine from 1995 to 1999.) WT wants the same thing all of you do. Lots of fish. Apparently, we disagree with some of you on how to get there. As I said, WT does not advocate for ANY stakeholder group, and it is against our bylaws to get involved in allocation issues, but I personally DON"T agree that attacking poor hatchery practices is attacking sportfishing. I sincerely believe and have said again and again, dating back to when I was editing Fishing Holes, that strong, effective measures to recover wild fish are the best, likely the only way to ensure the future of sportfishing in Washington. I'm sorry, but I challenge any of you to show me any historical, scientific, or even anecdotal evidence that Washington's hatchery program has made sportfishing better. I can show you reams of evidence that it has been and continues to be a major factor in the decline of the resource.

Putting my work-hat back on, I am not embarrassed to admit that WT puts fish ahead of fishers. And I am not trying to be coy. WT believes that the 18 hatcheries listed in our notice do the resource much more harm than good; we would be happy to see them closed. But we would be perfectly happy to find out if WDFW can run the hatcheries in a way that resolves the problems we cite. If they have a plan to resolve some or most of them, and at least bring the facilities into compliance with the law, we’re prepared to listen; in fact we’ve been waiting to listen for two years now. (I’ll remind you again that WDFW has the option of getting off its butt and completing the process to apply for ESA exemption.)

Finally I also want to remind people that WT has been a very good friend to the recreational fishing community on what I gather is it's #1 issue - commercial harvest. We were the ONLY environmental group in the state to support (and actively campaign for) the I-696 Ban All Nets initiative in 1999. Without any specific funding to do so, that's about all this office worked on that fall. Since then, we've been carrying A LOT of the water in that fight. We challenged the harvest criteria in the 4d Rule; we challenged the WDFW/Tribal Resource Management Plan for Puget Sound chinook harvest, and we're currently spending a lot of money to sue NMFS to stop the RMP (which if not stopped, will reduce chinook escapement goals in PS rivers by as much as half!); we are in the forefront of the fight over the fisco with the "experimental" tangle-net fishery for spring chinook on the lower Columbia that had such a devastating impact on LC and Willamette steelhead. Our efforts on that issue so far have caught the attention of the NW Power Planning Council, which funds the "experimental" fisheries, and could help stop that fishery from going forward next spring. Again, if you’d rather learn more about WT before demonizing us, please visit www.washingtontrout.org .

Ramon Vanden Brulle
Communications Director
Washington Trout

I wish to express my appreciation to Ramon also....Washington Trout has done many things to help in the battle for native fish protection and restoration....my only disagreement with them is on this sole issue that we have been discussing....and even with that I am not in any way disagreeing that hatcheries have been a problem and in many cases continue to be. My concern is that in the process we do no further harm even though the intent is for the good of the fish. Sorry but my training and experience causes me to analyze issues like this from every aspect and play the "devils advocate." I still believe I brought forward several good points...especially the predation one and the displacement of fishing effort causing further grief for wild fish...that need to be seriously considered. Ramon and Washington Trout please continue your efforts as your intent is good...I just wanted to point out some of the possible ramifications.

Wow; an interesting and intense discussion.

Clearly this issue shows the value of watchdog groups. Sometimes they are needed to nudge folks in the proper direction.

Ramon - Thanks for taking the time to post and present more detailed information.

How about the trout fishery in the Columbia Basin seep lakes as a sport fishery supported by a hatchery program?

However what caught my interest was your reference to Washington Trout's suit against NMFS regarding the Resource Management Plan (RMP) governing fisheries affecting Puget Sound chinook. WT's new release states: "Washington Trout does not oppose commerical salmon-harversting in all cases and does not intent to challenge tribal treaty-fishing rights." No where in the release is there any mention of recreation fishing; does WT have a position regarding the recreation fisheries?

Am I correct in that the major crux of the suit is that the RMP allows excessive harvest or impacts of ESA protected Puget Sound chinook? If so what would WT consider to be acceptable impacts? Can those impacts be brought down w/o aftecting the all ready limited recreational fishing? The harvest model run used for the 2002 salmon season (based on the NMFS approved RMP stock specific expliotation rates)in North of Falcon process showed that much of the non-treaty impacts occurred in the recreational fishery; mostly as incidental impacts in fisheries directed toward either hatchery chinook or other species.

WTs news release also states:" Harvest aimed at hatchery stocks impose unacceptable risks to threatened wild stocks mingled in with the hatchery fish." Does that mean WT is opposed to selective fisheries (retention of marked hatchery fish only) when ESA protected fish are present?

In WT's comments to NMFS regarding the RMP the Snohmish basin chinook was used as an example. The comments correctly state that the explioation rates (ER) for those fish has declined from nealry 80% in the late 1970s to 55% by mid-1990s to 35% in the late 1990s. The harvest model run for the 2002 season shows a projected ER of less than 20%. It is also correct in that there hasn't much a positive response in wild chinook escapements (limited upturn the last 3 or 4 years). Doesn't that strike you as odd? With substantial reduction in fishing I would expect to see some sort of postive response in escapment. What is even more interesting is that since the mid-1990s there has been a 4 fold increase in escapement of chinook to the Wallace hatchery on the Snohomish system; precisely the kind of response expected with reduced fishing. The Wallace and Snohomsih wild chinook should be experiencing the same marine survival conditions as well as the same fishing impacts; why didn't they respond similarly? The major difference is the wild fish are more dependent on freshwater/esturay conditions than the hatchery fish. It would appear that at current reduced ERs that fishing is not limiting the wild population but rather some freshwater productive factor. Similar difference in returns between hatchery and wild chinook have been noted elsewhere in Puget Sound.

In the introductive portion of WT's comments it state; "The local and state agencies in question have shown again and again an inability or unwillingness to enforce their own existing environmental regulations." Perhaps given the difference in hatchery and wild returns the focus should be in the habitat arena rather than harvest. The co-managers appear to have made a good faith and appropriate effort to reduce the over-fishing of the past (reducing harvest rates from 70-80% to less than 35% in the Snohomish example). Has any other the other Hs reduced their impacts by 50%? or at all?

Sorry, this is all ready too long - so enough.

Tight lines
Smalma

Like I said before Dude, Put in the hours that I have in Fish enhancement and you will see that there needs to be some kind of help because of the amount of pressure put on the resource. I agree to saving the wild fish, but not at the expense of all sport fishing. Let me ask you this , How much money does W.T. put into enhancement/ I bet very little.
Yes the W.D.F.W is dragging there feet and suck at running the hatcheries, but with out them there is no fishing.
So In retrospect W.T. Can still BLOW Me !!
They are still out for themselves and there own agenda.
Also the W.S.C. needs to quit riding the fence and take a position on this. Like Goose said ," Do you have the Balls to "?????

Peace Superfly

Superfly and what happens when the hatcheries fail????? I'll tell you what cause it happened on my home river(the Washougal) in the late 80's early 90's There is nothing to fish for and no wild fish left!! So as far as I am concerned hatchery fish provide nothing in the long term! And to use your words those that value the fishery over the fish can "blow me" seeing as how they won't be fishing.

Anyway you slice it saving wild fish = better fishing opportunity in the future. Hatcheries now = sporadic fishing in the future. take your pick.