I don't know how many people know that the lawsuit by WT has been filied not just an intent to sue anymore. If we want fisheries in Puget Sound including all the rivers we better get on the phones and contact our local represenatives. For Whatcom county call Kelli Linville at (360) 786- 7845 or Doug Erickson at (360) 786-7845. Myself I left voice mails with them on Fri. and they will contact me on Mon. I also left messages with Jeff Koenings (360) 902-2234 the head of WDFW and Bob Leland (360) 902-2817 the head contact for steelhead. The last person that might be helpful is Will Rohel at (360) 733-4640 he is the WDFW commision chair. I have a copy of the lawsuit and we stand to loose approx. 3,575,000 coho plants and 2,035,000 steelhead plants. If people on the coast think that this dosen't effect you, just imagine what a zoo it will be out there when that many more people try to crowd into those rivers. The last person you might want to contact is Kurt Beardslee of WT and let him know how hopping mad you are. I have talked with him and he didn't seem to think that that many people were so pissed off. Maybe he dosen't even care. Well I got to go my 3 year old daughter and I have to go feed our HATCHERY STEELHEAD for our club and our fishing future.

Baitchucker,

I am all for calling and getting aquainted with WDFW and commission people. A good respectable conversation leads to a better working relationship.

But I have got to ask, what is your strategy in this? Calling and getting upset with these people about a issue of the courts will be counter productive. And I know that they allready are trying to figure out what they are going to do counter the suit.

This is an issue for the courts, and the only way to become involved it to hire some layers and get involved that way, something I dont recomend either without a better understanding of if WT really has a leg to stand on.

Mike

I hear your point on the WT lawsuit but you, of all people, could help educate all of us on Washington Trout I think. RFA should be right in the face of this issue. Members of PSA are all asking what response we can have to this damaging tactic WT has of suing to effect WDFW management of our fisheries.

What is their real agenda?
Wo are the people involved? What kind of history to these people have?
Why do they avoid suing the netters who obviously kill ESA listed fish by the thousands and are doing so right now or the CR.

email me privately if you have time

Mike Gilchrist, I didn't call these people and get angry and yell at them. They were very helpful and I had great conversations with the ones I have already spoke to. The reason I called them was to let them know how concerned I was about this issue. Remember these people work for us the Tax payers and are ready and willing to listen to our concerns. One of the reasons for my concern is in the last 2 years our club has raised $30000 to raise Steelhead in the Nooksack system. The money also goes to other acctivities such as kids fishing derbys, and stream inhancement. Now if we can't raise these fish the 100's of people that donated money are not going to be to happy when we can't plant fish. Maybe when they call me I can give them WT phone #.

Grandpa,

Wasn't it just last year that PSA and WT got together to limit the tribal chinook fisheries in and around Puget Sound? I'd think that the powers that be in PSA know exactly who the WT people are and what their agenda is.

WT, along with the WSC and TU, also collected thousands of pages of information about the CR tangle net fishery and wrote countless letters to the managers about the ESA violations that not only took place last year, but are going to take place again this year if things don't change.

Why in the heck do you think the commercials are fishing far less than last year? Because many groups gathered the facts, made the calculations, and wrote letters. WT was one of the groups that did threaten to sue NMFS if things didn't change from last year.

In response to the hard work done by several folks in several organizations, the potential ESA impacts of a tangle net fishery were re-evaluated and the season was shortened considerably.

Where were all the sportsmen then? Don't assume that just because a group is doing something that you don't like that they are always doing something you don't like, and especially don't assume that they have a hidden agenda that is designed to screw you out of what you want.

If that was WT's intention, I doubt that the PSA State Board would have been working with them over the last couple of years, nor would have other fishing or fishing related groups.

Fish on...

Todd.

Todd

Your points are well taken. PSA did work with WT in the past but things got off track when WT started down the path they are on now to take things to court to try to force their narrow agenda which appears to be the closure of all hatcheries.

The tangle nets are still in the Columbia killing ESA listed fish but you are correct that progress has been made. I think PSA has hesitated to come out in opposition to WT due to the good things that they jointly tried to do in the past. There is a real dilemma there. I guess I am mostly searching for an agenda more than I am convinced of a particular or "hidden" agenda. I am speculating on a hidden agenda because I can't see their current position in a clear light. Recent cooperation among stake holders has shown alot of promise for the majority. I just don't see the WT lawsuit mentality as leading to anything positive for our fisheries.

Well thought out posts and an extremely important issue. What I read in the News Tribune yesterday seemed to indicate that the impetus for the WA Trout lawsuit was to get the Dept of Fish & Wildlife to accomplish some changes that were due a couple of years ago. I would like to hear more about this from Grandpa and Todd and others in the know.

Todd -
Again I'm confused. Is the WT lawsuit from last year the one where NMFS (now NOAA fish) was taken to court over the co-manager's Fisheries Management Plan for allowing the take of chinook?

If so and you consider that plan to be a commerical fishing plan then you have been seriously hooded-winked.

Tight lines
Smalma

eddie my son....WT is indeed trying to force action to reform hatcheries by suing. WDFW is working on a plan to reform hatcheries and some are now models of how things should be done..problem is that Gary Locke wants to close the very hatcheries that are showing the most promise. I spoke with a well known legislator the other day and he told me that I was "right on target" when I suspected that the governor comes out against the hot buttons..teacher's pay and successful hatcheries to name a couple ...that way we won;t resist so much when he changes his mind in exhange for more taxes or more entitlement programs or more state employees (aka Democratic votes)....So maybe Wt is learning how to play cutthroat politics...it that is the case Iguess I can applaude them for that...I just feel better supporting sports fishing in general that a narrow cause like wild fish...no question they are an icon of the Northwest and need to be protected and saved..I just don't believe in WT's way of saving them. And I am still not convinced that they are who they claim to be....Todd said to go to their website and everything I need to know is right there in black and white....NO NO NO..everything THEY want me to know is there..Their actions speak volumes about who they are not their words.

Grandpa, tell me more. I will give you a call this week to set up a lunch - if you would prefer to wait til then that would be okay. However, I have a feeling that you and PSA can do a great job of education through this forum. My question is what do the hatchery reform models look like? Is there info on the WDFW web site? In looking at Gov. Locke's initial budget proposal I noticed hatcheries on the Naselle and McAllister Creek (I think there was another one or two as well) were proposed for closure. Are these the ones where the new models are slated to be implemented? Inquiring minds want to know.

Thanks

One exciting idea being tried on the Op at a hatchery slated for closure by Gary is taking eggs from the redds of wild fish and bringing them to the hatchery to ensure a much higher survivability rate....wild fish mind you...I admit that I have to read my huge volumes of emails to remember all the facts but I, too , have an inquiring mind....so much to read so little time

After checking out the WT web site I saw that they have a list of Donors/supporters.
I think it might be a good idea to write these supporters and tell them as long as they support WT we as sportsman will no longer support there companys. Boycott any WT supporters. I have allready sent out afew e-mails to some of them.

What is Wa trout's url. I would loke to see who their sponsers are.

B Gray,
The web site is at www.washingtontrout.org
Than go to "Support WT" Than go to "2003 wild fish soiree and benefit auction" The list of donors is down a little ways on that page.

Duroboat15 - I am not inclined to flames, but the inconsistency of your actions (boycotting those companies lending support to WT) and your signature at the bottom of the page (Chinook are the Best all else pale in comparison!!!!!), is really funny. If you really believe Chinook are the best, maybe you should give WT a call directly and THANK THEM.

Thanks for playing.

Back Eddy

Hey Duroboat.
I think you're on target for going after WA Trout!

What these people understand is money.

They seem to be about lawsuits and headlines and use both to get themselves attention and funding.

I think the quickest way to shut them down is to make their sponsors aware of public dissaproval. Donations to non-profits are all fine for a corporation until they start hurting the bottom line and granting agencies don't like people calling in to complain about what they have funded.

I doubt any of their lawyers would work for free.

Has anybody figured out what their agenda really is?

It seems like they go after the state and feds because they are easy targets.

Why don't they go after the dam operaterors (oops that might offend one of their sponsors like the BPA) or muciple water sources for taking all the water (oops, that might angered the seattle public utilites antoher contributor) or the devlopers and timber companies and farmers for degrading the habitat (that would be really popular now wouldn't it).

I don't think they'r about helping fish, they seem to be about employing lawyers by suing any easy target that won't put up too much resistance. They then claim victory, and ask for more funding showing off their victories in cout as the reason they should be funded. And somehow this is supposed to help the fish.

I don't get it. I think their donors have been had.

Sorry for the rant,

Geoduck

Back Eddy,
I do think chinook are the best.
And I think WT is one of the worst org.'s after reading there web site. I dont think they are doing anything to help the problem. If anything they are part of the problem. But thats just my opinion. And if I can do anything to combat them I will.

Geoduck,
Thanks for the support.

I went to the WT website and looked at the donors and it looks to me like mostly fly fishing concerns and a couple of kayakers...This kind of fits...Not that there is anything wrong with fly fishing or kayaking but I am getting more and more convinced that the agenda of WT is to eliminate the crowds of sport fishers on "their" rivers so they can paddle their kayaks and fly fish in peace. There is a whole life style their that is fine as long as it doesn't seek to outlaw my lifestyle to enhance theirs. This is where I get the "boutique fishing" idea. One of their sponsors is the Douglas Ranch...great private group of fly fising only lakes in BC for catch and release rainbows..All of that is great and worth supporting but what seems to be happening is that people like WT want to stop the rest of us from enjoying fishing our way so they can be left to their special little boutique streams full of wild fish. Just another opinion on my way to attempt to understand the logic of WT. Do they really care about salmon? I'm not yet sure.

Smalma,

I was talking about two different things...one was PSA's and WT's joint endeavor to further restrict tribal fishing in Puget Sound (I believe), and the other involved the re-evaluation of actual ESA impacts from the Col. River tangle net fishery.

Probably could have been stated more clearly, wasn't talking about the 4(d)/hatchery program issue from last year.

Fish on...

Todd.

Todd -
Still confused. The only suit (fall/winter of 2001?) that I remember was the one against the co-manager's Puget Sound Harvest management plan that WT settled with NMFS after the Feds agreed to go to a full blown EIS regarding the management plan. The 2002 and 2003 seasons were to go forward under the original plan (modified for conditions appropriate for that year's run sizes) with the EIS completed for the 2004 season.

Some folks thought that was just a commerical fishery plan but it was much more than that.

Tight lines
Smalma

They have a lot of sponsors besides the ones listed on the soiree page.

Go to the "support washington trout" page and then look at their "grant and foundation"supporters: Bonneville power administration, Seattle utilities, Island county, Yakima nation, etc etc.

Try this link:
http://www.washingtontrout.org/grantfoundationsupport.shtml

The one thing I can see that all their sponsors have in common is that Washington trout hasn't sued any of them. I think its time for the state to pay up, then maybe WT will move on to sue somebody else. :

BTW, could anyone find out what WT pays its legal people. ie what fraction of their money goes to support their legal operations vs what fraction goes to helping fish (ie habitat improvements etc)? I am curious. Also are the board members paid?

Ok, just for kicks, let's try applying a little logic here:

How could WT possibly accomplish this, I mean realistically? I'm pretty sure they aren't some all-powerful consortium of flyfishing fanatics who have the power to dictate to the state who can fish and when. If they were, why bother going to court in the first place? Why not just come out and say "Grandpa, we don't think we want you catching any fish (for example) in the Snohomish system." Our club has reservations there all week so no bonkers allowed. A "boutique" fishery for wild chinook salmon? With flies only? In the deep holes of (again for example) the Sky and Snoqualmie?

See how ludicrous that sounds?

Todd, Salmo g, Bob, and others have offered rational, LOGICAL, and realistic opinions on this matter. For whatever it's worth I tend to agree with them. WT's logic escapes me on this issue, but I'm pretty sure they DO care about the future of wild salmon.

p.s. If there weren't such an air of hostility towards WT here on the board, I'd bet that Ramon would probably be willing to answer some of your questions.

Smalma,

Neither of the things I mentioned were lawsuits...they were just examples of how conservation organizations do work together, and what kind of good things they can accomplish when they do so.

1. PSA and WT worked together for a while (a couple of years, maybe?) to jointly battle some tribal fisheries that were allegedly taking too many fish. No lawsuit, as far as I know, resulted.

2. Many groups, including WT, gathered data, analyzed it, and wrote lots of letters with the conclusions of the analysis to the managers who are in charge of the tangle tooth net fishery on the Columbia. No lawsuit ensued, but the fishery did change, and it changed considerably, due to lots of noise being made about the incidental wild steelhead mortalities.

Fish on...

Todd.

Since this issue has boiled to our attention, I have done all I can to learn who Washington Trout is and what they stand for. Contrary to what some seem to think, I do not believe they are some evil empire intent on keeping us all from fishing. They have worked very hard to protect wild salmon and steelhead, in a number of ways. They have battled, nets, tribes, poor hatchery practices and anything else they believe harms the fish.

It does appear to me that they value the fish more than our rights to fish. But this is one more area where the sportsman lose because they want to bicker among themselves rather than ignore the issues where we disagree to focus on the ones where we do agree.

I think that we need to work together to the extent possible for the fish and our fishing rights. Constant name calling, and wild allegations will not help. If you disagree with W.T. on this issue, more power to you. But your best weapon will be well thought out scientific rebuttal of their allegations.

Because this will ultimately be decided by the courts the best defense will be scientific proof that the W.T. allegations are untrue. Or if the W.T. allegations are correct, we need to see if there are ways to plant fish at different sizes , places, or times to mitigate the effect.

I agree with 4 Salt that Ramone, might be more inclined to share his "proof" if this were not such a hostile environment.

Hey if you don't like or can't take hostile environments don't come on this board. Most people on here don't change their views after what you call "logical' debate. I probably use too many "emotive" words for some but my intention is not to logically agree with the rank and file of one point of view but to toss out my "wild allegations" in hopes of getting a lively discussion going so some nuggets of information will drop out along the way. If Ramon's cause was so just he would be able to defend it I would think...after all he started this debate.

I went to their site and read the material. I still dont have a favorable opinion of the organization and have no intent to support them. I think their ideas, including this one, are too extreme. I am also concerned that fishing opportunities would be diminished to the point that the loss in license revenue could severely impact future fisheries and restorations undertaken by the wdf. If the data is true (and I'm not convinced it is) there needs to be modifications to the hatchery release schedules that could curb these numbers. I'm sorry, but in MY OPINION, shutting down fishing is not an option. It is also MY OPINION that this group tends to be too extreme, and reminds me of a "fish greenpeace" organization. As far as Ramone not replying because its a "hostile environment" I would think they could expect that going in, court wont be a picnic either.

todd, since bill bakke is a trustee of the wild steelhead coalition i must assume that you have talked to him about this so why dont you just tell us what they are seeking with this lawsuit, what kind of changes do they want, your a laywer arnt you ?, you ever go to court without a game plan ?

Grandpa, Am I missing something here? I went to WT link to review who their donors are and if memory serves me the following donors also cater to gear fisherman-Gloomis, Amato Publications, Eagle Claw, Columbia Sports Wear, NW Steelheaders, Filson, Redhook, Bushnell, etc... It seems like some information is left out to support a narrow statement. I still don't understand why fly fishing has anything to do with this topic. Let's at least be fair about it.

Rich

I am not slamming fly fishermen...I fly fish myself. I am not obsessed with fly fishing only nor am I a wild fish only advocate.I think people can look at the WT website and draw their own conclusions. No need to be defensive about fly fishing...My point is simply that one group shouldn't force a narrow agenda on the majority through litigation. The organization is not called Washington Wild Chinook afterall and their website is overwhelmingly flyfishing and environmentally oriented even though some of the "sponsors" do make gear for other pursuits. I do not under any circumstances oppose fly fishermen or fly fishing..only the mind set of some of that community that would like to advance their own cause to the exclusion of others.

You know that's not what he was saying, AM.

As to the motivations of Washington Trout, by now it should be very obvious to everyone. They don't like hatcheries and they look for opportunities to strike blows at the hatchery system where they can. I can fault the department for leaving themselves open for lawsuits, but that does not take the responsibility away from the group looking for opportunity to sue. There are a few other organizations that quietly don't like hatcheries. Unlike Washington Trout, these organizations have not yet came to the conclusion that the minimal problems directly related to hatcheries are worth jeopardizing the recreational opportunity enjoyed by so many of us as well as the Tribal and non-tribal commercial opportunities enjoyed by so few of us. The economic benefit our sport brings, the political support our numbers bring, and the number of habitat restoration projects people who fish are responsible for combine to make an impact that far outweighs any negative impacts of hatcheries. And it is not as if the problems associated with hatcheries are not being identified, it seem that Washington Trout is the only organization who in unwilling to allow for the studies to be completed and the data to be analyzed so the correct decisions can be made. Washington Trout would like us to use evidence from out of state to apply to our hatcheries.

There is an obvious pattern here. This is at least the fourth time that I am aware of that Washington Trout has taken action against hatcheries. All would impact sport fishing, albeit in different ways.

Washington Trout has been the primary opponent of the permanent Sockeye hatchery project. This publicly supported project is under the guidance of some of the most respected salmon minds around. (John McGlenn of TetraTech/KCM, Jim Lichatowich author of "Salmon Without Rivers"; Dr. Rick Williams salmon geneticist, Dr. Tom Quinn U. of Washington fisheries professor; Dr. John Burke Alaska sockeye enhancement expert; and Eric Prestegard Alaska sockey enhancement expert) This hatchery project is completely different and will be capable of testing several new ideas about how to better run hatcheries in the future. It is obvious why they don't support it.

Then there was the lawsuit late last year most of you know about which would close the chinook producing hatcheries in Puget Sound. Although Ramone did write online that they would be prepared to pursue closing hatcheries if it came down to it, Ramone maintained that they really wanted to force the department to complete the Hatchery Genetic Management Plan (HGMP) so the department could attempt to gain 4D ESA compliance for their hatcheries. I have read the HGMP for Chinook that has been sent to NOAA. That document speaks more to what they have already done to alleviate the problems than what they plan to do, so for anyone to say that they department has not made any effort to change hatchery practices is misinformed. I have been told that the department currently has the steelhead and Coho HGMP in to NOAA for review. As far as I know this lawsuit is still somewhere in our federal legal system.

Now we have this lawsuit and the requested injunction to eliminate this years hatchery production, death to our Puget Sound region fisheries. I suppose local anglers can be content with a nice Chum dinner every fall, or a few pink filets every other year, not. Sorry Ted, sorry John, it really did not do all that much to save salmon, it is too bad you could not keep your stores open. Can you imagine outdoor emporium and Sportco with only 2 isles of fishing gear and a massive display of power bait? There is really no way to talk out of this one. There is no lack of an HGMP to fall back on. The legal documents are based on hatchery fish eating wild fish so they can't say that they are pushing for hatchery reform. We can not breed fish to not eat fish. How long would a Coho survive in the ocean if the hatcheries could breed out the instinct to eat fish? That being said, you would think that with all the studies being done up here, somewhere there would be documentation of this being a primary issue in our local rivers. Maybe it is an issue somewhere in Puget Sound, or maybe it is not. Lets find out. But to take steps to eliminated hatchery production as a pre-emptive step is irresponsible to society considering that the listed Chinook are not at imminent risk of going extinct (check the definition of threatened under the ESA). Washington Trout is displaying the same type of strategy that lead RFA to pursuing the Freedom to Fish Act (which has nothing to do with salmon). They want to change the rules so that all they have to do is suggest there is a problem and shut the fisheries down until proof is shown otherwise.

So what is next. Only a week ago Ramone posted a message on this board calling for people to applaud Congressman Dicks for pushing through legislation that would require clipping of all hatchery fish funded by federal money. Certainly a worthwhile cause, something we all can support. But wait, what is in it for Washington Trout. Obviously it fits their agenda to have selective fisheries. Less wild fish harvest, a responsible step. It also will allow for much more significant study of wild and hatchery fish interactions. Fine by me, it is something we need to sort out. That data would really help us to improve hatchery practices. But given the pattern Washington Trout is presenting, does anyone honestly think that they are looking for anything except reason to close hatcheries in that data?

Washington trout unfortunately has chosen to put step 2 before step 1 in this process. Step 1 is Habitat. With or without hatcheries, we risk the existence of our fish without habitat. And not just protecting what habitat we have, we need to role back the clock if we plan to fish for wild fish. Given the fact that the power in politics ebbs and flows between those who appreciate the needs of nature and those who don't, it is going to be a long while before we see the kind of habitat restoration to make the difference. In the mean time, I believe I share one thing with all anglers in that I want to see lots and lots and lots of fish. It would be great if many of them were wild. It isn't great. But there is something still swimming in there that looks awfully good. I would rather have hatchery fish than no fish.

Grandpa, I think this covered most of your comments. Oh, I will give Washington Trout a little credit where it due. The took a firm stand against the tangle net fishery in the Columbia. They can't claim they were the reason the fishery was so strictly enforced this year, neither can RFA although we weighed in on it as well. There are a couple other organizations that deserve the majority of the credit and carried most of the load.

Baitchucker, thanks for the clarification, I just misread your intentions, thanks for taking the initiative.

Thanks Mike for adding the finer points to this thread. I think if sport fisherman do not have a presence in the court room to combat these groups who don't seem to care if a viable sport fishery is maintained, we won't have one at all.

I still disagree with the idea that fishermen can help themselves on this issue in the courts. That is between WT whoever they sue.
Maybe the tribes could sue WT for interferring with their treaty rights, but I'm not sure that would help us sportsfisherpeople.


I know it has been said already but I will say it again.[/B]

[B]Get the word out about their true agenda and nobody will donate../B]

If nobody gives them money then they can't pay their lawyers. If they can't pay their lawyers, then no more lawsuits. No more lawsuits, then maybe everybody can focus on the fish instead of all this legal wrangling. Wouldn't that be nice. . .

AuntyM

I don't know you but I'd like to. Your assessment and the way you expressed it are excellent. Those who do not agree never will but you made the points well against WT and I applaud you for that....
A broad agenda makes way more sense. Politicians are more at fault than anyone here so we need to speak to them first , not sue.

Mike

Thank you for a comprehensive review of why we should oppose Washington Trout. I think your information goes a long ways to bring out issues on which to base a reasoned judgement of WT's motives. Watch their actions and not their PR. Lots of work to be done to improve the state of fishing in Washington and thanks to groups like RFA we are on track to make a difference without suing every chance we get. If I could find a case with a leg to stand on I'll bet I could raise alot of money to sue WT. I'll keep digging. Thanks again Mike

One more thing Aunty M....some on this board are more articulate than others (lawyers) but that doesn't mean their arguments are more correct. Thanks for pointing out flaws in what looked on the surface to be a good argument by Todd.

Hi, all...

Here's a great post from the WSC forum, written by our friend Smalma...I hope he doesn't mind me pirating it over here.

It's in response to a question that I asked him regarding how to avoid hatchery smolt predation upon wild chinook fry...

...

Todd -
I think it is obvious to all us fisherman that large fish eat small fish. Since steelhead generally are the largest of the smolts then if the goal is to have no wild smolts eaten by hatchery steelhead there is only one way to accomplish that -PLANTED NO HATCHERY FISH!

However if the objective is to minimize the impacts to some acceptable (again we are talking willingness to accept some impact or risk) then there are likely modifications that would be helpful. The place to start is to examine the information available about hatchery steelhead predation. To determine the mangnitude of the problem (amount of predation) one needs to know the rate at which steelhead predate on wild chinook fry and the lenght of time they have access to the fry (exposure). Then the question can be asked can either the rate or exposure be reduced?

Unfortunately there are few studies that have looked at the predation rates on a large scale. One of the better studies is form the Salmon River in Idaho where in 1992 they looked at the stomachs of 6,762 hatchery steelhead and found 10 chinook. They found that "most steelhead smolts did not start feeding extensively until about a week after release". If this predation rate is typically then it is a simple to estimate the total predation = (predation rate) times (the number of smolts) times (the number of days in the river).

Additional background information.
Fish planted in late April to mid-May leave the system quckly.

Fish that remain in the system more than a few weeks (residuals)have twice or more predation rates.

The percentage of the smolts that residualize increases if the smolts are planted too small, too large, too early or too late. Target size should be about 6 fish/#

In large rivers and/high flows smolts move downstream about 20 miles a day - slower at low flows and in smaller rivers (as little as a mile or two a day).

Hatchery smolts are hatchery fish that have been fed pellets all their lives and need to learn on to feed on natural foods (shortly after release twigs, fir needles etc are common food items.

Predators generally eat the weak, sick and injuried. All fry consumed by smolts or other fish are not destined to become all fish.

The vulunerability of the fry to predation is in part a function of their habtiat - those streams with complex habitats and channels (natural streams) have lower exposure than those that have been altered by man.

Lets look at a hyporthical example - a large North Puget Sound stream that recieves a plant 500,000 smolts fifty miles above the mouth of the river. "Best Hatchery Practice" might be planting the smolts at 6/# in early May with direct releases from the hatchery into main stem areas. On the North Sound rivers we can expect that the spring run-off will have started by May thus helping to speed the smolts to sea. In that example we would expect most of the smolts to leave the system (low % of residuals) in just a days. The high spring flows would further flush many of the potential of the residuals from the system). Using half of the 20 miles/day would expect them to be out of the system in 5 days.

500,000 smolts time 0.00148 fry/smolt (from the Idaho study above) times 5 days yields a predation mortality of 3,700 fry.

Typical fry to adult survival for chinook would be well less than 1%. In North Puget Sound rivers where chum and pink fry substantially outnumber chinook they would likely outnumber chinook as preferred items (In May they would be smaller and less mobile than chinook - my own sampling at that time of year found the chum but no chinook in 150 stomachs).

If all the fry eaten were chinook (I feel that only a small % would be) then we are looking at impacts equal to less than 37 adult chinook. The actual details in each system would vary depending a variety of factors. In this hypothical example it would be for each of us to decide whether those impacts are too great for the benefits (steelhead fishing). Washington Trout clearly thinks it is -do you?

Tight lines
Smalma

...

This represents some of the first "facts" that anyone has so far added to the conversation, at least useful ones

Fish on...

Todd.

P.S. Here's the link to the entire thread...

WT Thread on WSC Forum

Actually, it WAS a good argument by Todd......there's no "on the surface" about it.

Of course, those opposing WT's viewpoint have also expressed some very valid concerns and arguments as well.

Is it THAT difficult to understand that NO side has a monopoly on the truth here? Both viewpoints have been presented.......neither right, neither wrong.......and now we can decide for ourselves about which side better represents our interests.

Calling people names and ridiculing their viewpoint won't win them over to your side. I've been guilty of doing it in the past and it's never paid me any dividends. I've learned and gained much more by really listening and thinking about viewpoints that don't match my own necessarily. It's part of making rational decisions. I haven't often changed my original opinion, but I have a better appreciation of opposing opinions..........and that's not sitting on the fence, it's called having respect for your fellow angler.

If I've bagged on you in the past over a difference of opinion, I apologize.

It isn't difficult to see who has their mind made up. It also isn't difficult to make a convincing case for either side of the issue. Raise your hand if you think Al Gore is really the president

Calm demeanor??? WOW...I will be hearing from some of my friends on that one. I like your observations normally but I don't usually get portrayed as "calm"....Just passionate about fishing and frustrated sometimes with the state of affairs we find ourselves in.

Generally, environmental statutes that have "citizen suit" provisions also provide for the governmental agency being sued to cover court costs...but not necessarily all of them.

Also, almost any settlement that comes after lengthy (i.e., expensive) negotiations, especially if they've been at all contentious, comes with attorney's fees.

It's a double edged sword. It's intent is so that if the government is not following the law, regular folks can step in and make them stop without having to worry about how to pay for it.

In lots of cases that's a good thing. It adds incentive to the government to follow the laws, and encourages suing them if they don't.

In other cases, it's not so good. Sometimes an agency is flat out unable to comply, and it taxes their already limited resources.

All in all, I agree with attorney fees provisions. They err on the side of the law being followed.

Fish on...

Todd.

If it's frivolous or the plaintiffs lose, no government money pays for the plaintiff. They still have their own costs, unless it's really frivolous, in which case the plaintiff may end up paying for the government's case, too.

Fish on...

Todd.

WT is doing fishermen a big favor by preventing hatchery programs that damage wild fish and ultimately do little for harvest. Allowing habitat loss and replacement with hatchery fish is a dead end for all !!!

In the long run, fishermen are best served by supporting the WT lawsuit. It need not be elimination of hatcheries, but it should result in refinement.

Fair Hooker,
WT is no freind to sportfisherman.
But they are good freinds with Bonneville Power Administration, S'Klallam Tribe,and the Yakima Nation. So by the looks of things WT has decided that Dams and nets have no impact on wild fish.

Tood, If I understand you correctly the state pays for most of WTs legal fees. If that is correct, then I think we have a long term problem here. My previous post about cutting off their funding will never work. Nobody but the state can stop them if the state pays their bills.

This situation is very much similar in principle to Tim Eyman and his mooching off the state initiative system. He bribes the tax payers with tax cuts so he can keep making a fat living leeching off the initiative system.

WT is making a living by suing the state. They will continually sue the state over whatever their lawyers can dream up and then say they are doing it to help the fish. I think their motives are mainly self serving here.

If they were about helping the fish why not sue somebody that does real damage (ie dam operators, logger developers, industrial fishing, polluters, etc)?

What can we do as sportspeople to stop self serving outfits like WT?

What can we do as sportspeople?? Write to your legislators and WDFW and let them know that you oppose Washington Trout's lawsuit and expect them to vigorously defend against it. Some in Olympia are already laying plans to oppose this radical lawsuit.

All you steelheaders need to pay attention too as this applies to hatchery steelhead and not just Coho.

GET MAD and GET INVOLVED!!

Don't forget, Geoduck, that to get the State to pay their legal costs, all these things must happen;

1. WT files a lawsuit
2. WDFW is violating the law
3a. WDFW loses at trial, or
3b. WDFW and WT settle, and WDFW agrees to pay some or all of their costs.

In most situations, WDFW has to be breaking the law to pay legal costs for someone else. There's not really any excuse for breaking the law...that's why citizen suit provisions exist in environmental statutes.

Fish on...

Todd.