In light of WTs current anti-hatchery agenda, I was curious how the members of this board feel. There seems to be fairly strong support for WT, but almost no opposition to hatcheries.


Do you support state run hatcheries?

I'm for hatcheries, but there are many things they could change at hatcheries.

Jay

With only two options it is tough. You can support hatcheries but not like what they do or agree that they can improve. I don't think anyone has every said that hatcheries are perfect even their biggest supporters.

JJ

This might be common knowledge so i will appear ignorant (rightfully so).

Do the hatcheries pay for themselves out of license income or are they subsidized any other way?

I also support state hatcheries, but the real problem is with the big shots starting with Locke and his little band of commercial fishing advocates , that is where the problems start and we as sportfishermen can change that by voting these kind people out of office .

I support hatcheries in their proper place. I don't support what we have now. dumping hatchery fish by the 10's of thousands in almost every river in the state.

I'll pass on the poll, how can you issue a black and white poll to an issue or topic that is not black and white?

Lets build even more. More hatcheries means more BONKIN.

Could not vote with just those two choices.

Geoduck,

I see you're a fry yet, so it's OK for a while if you try to simplify very complex issues. I looked at your poll and thought some would see it the same as asking who's for or against motherhood. Oh, but does that include unwed mothers? And mothers-to-be due to rape? You see, real life is complex. Perhaps you get a better picture of the situation now.

I'm far more interested in why someone is for hatcheries or against hatcheries than whether they are for or against. Simple answers don't tell me much. The only reasons I can think of for opposing all state run hatcheries are a Libertarian philosophy opposed to government businesses of any kind and a mindset favoring a pre-20th century environment - which is unrealistic in my estimation.

State hatcheries, along with others, do have some adverse effects on native and wild fish populations. Closing them is one way of avoiding the effect. Reforming and modifying production are less drastic, but perhaps nearly as effective methods, while retaining many of the benefits that hatcheries provide.

Absent hatcheries, there would be almost no chinook fishing in Puget Sound or the Columbia River; no summer steelhead fishing in most of Washington State; very little winter steelhead harvest in the state; no coho fishing in the ocean, Columbia River, or its tributaries; very little lowland lake trout fishing; and almost no alpine lake fishing.

I enjoy fishing, and I'm especially fond of eating some fish. My interests are better served by the continued operation of hatcheries, so I favor reform and modifying operations over closing them.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

I would like to see a poll of how many are this "in the dark" concerning F&G...
"Do the hatcheries pay for themselves out of license income or are they subsidized any other way"

None, and I mean zip, of the monies generated by license/tag sales or excise tax that we pay on sporting goods goes to F&G... What?! you say??
Thats right folks. It ALL goes into the State general fund, of which the good ole' boys then decide how much to allocate to F&G.
If ALL the funds that we pay in went to the source we are paying to support, we no doubt would have the best fishing and hunting around.

If more of us were aware of this sham, maybe we could get pissed enough and scream loud enough and it might change..... Right....

MC

Ok, I admit this poll is simplistic but a good poll is simplistic. Its not that my thinking on the issue is simplistic. Polling is not the place for nuance and shades of gray.

What I wanted to find out was what fraction of people on this board are in favor of the idea of having hatcheries. The vast majority (~85% according to the poll) appear to be.

The thing I don't understand is if most people are in favor of hatcheries, why do a substancial fraction of those people support WT. I am not aware of a more anti hatchery group than WT.

For those of you that are pro-WT and anti-hatchery I applaud you; you are consistent in your thinking.

For those that are pro-WT and pro-hatchery, have you thought about the inconsistency of holding those views? Or are you just snowed by WTs PR?

I'd be particullarly interested if Ramon would comment, and clearly state where WT stands on hatcheries ( but I'm not holding my breath).

Thanks for participating in the poll. I found the results very informative.

MasterCaster; I beleive you are right that none of our license money is dedicated to F&G activities, but what I really want to know is do we pay more into the general fund than we get back or visa versa.

If we are getting screwed fiscally, we should fight to have our license money go to a dedicated F&G fund. I suspect it's the other way round, especially if we consider the huge expense of all those 150 hatcheries plus Indian hatcheries plus Federal hatcheries.

I think I know where to get the answer to this question. If I do i will post it.

Mastercaster,

Talk about in the dark . . . However, I see Idaho's your homeport. First, there is no F&G in WA State. I've mentioned it here before; and sometimes we can be a little slow on the upstake, so perhaps it's worth repeating: there is no F&G in WA State. There used to be a Dept. of Fisheries and a separate Dept. of Game. That's history. For the past 6 or 7 years we have had the WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). The separate agencies were merged by the state legislature.

As for license fees, you're absolutely correct. It all goes into the state general fund. However, it isn't that simple. This is just like real life, and it's kinda' complex. The "old" Dept. of Game did derive much of its funding from license and fee revenue, and it went straight into the department's budget. The old Dept. of Fisheries was always funding by the legislature from general revenue, and its license fees went into the state general fund. As part of the merger legislation, all license revenue now goes into the general fund, BUT - there is a mildly complex formula that doles out what is "expected" to have been collected by "old Game" under the old fashioned arrangement, and a % of the collections that are from saltwater licenses, etc. are doled out under the present version of the old Dept. of Fisheries arrangement.

The upshot is that all the funds represented by license revenues are allocated back to the "new" WDFW. That, and many millions more. Those of you who believe that if only 100% of your license fees were available to WDFW, then we'd have hatcheries and fishing like you couldn't believe, well, let me tell you - you wouldn't believe just how bad it would be! Most of the state-funded hatcheries would probably have to close because WDFW wouldn't have enough money to operate them. Fisheries in this state are extensively subsidized by the general fund. Your beer-drinking, golfing, non-fishing neighbor is subsidizing your fishing! Now go over to his house and thank him!

It gets even funnier if you're a steelhead angler. Hatchery steelhead are further subsidized by your once-a-year-lowland-lake-trout-fishing neighbor who buys a fishing license. Stocking lakes is cheap compared to raising hatchery steelhead and planting enough of the little buggers to get a decent enough return to make a decent fishery. So license-buying-non-steelheaders help subsidize your hatchery steelhead fishing habit.

And BTW, the excise tax on fishing and hunting equipment is a federal tax that is returned to states in proportion to the amount generated. And since we buy so much, WA gets a pretty healthy return of $$ from the federal gov't via the Dingell-Johnson and *****-Robinson Acts (memory failure there, sorry).

And Geoduck,

there's even more to your consistency Ps & Qs. I'm sorta' pro-WT and pro-hatchery, and you would then consider me inconsistent. Not true. You'll find me to be one of the most consistent people you're likely to meet. I know a whole lot about the pros and cons of the state hatchery system. I've advocated for some hatcheries and programs and against others. I've designed and built some hatcheries. And I'm an ardent advocate of wild salmon and trout. And these are not inconsistent beliefs.

A large problem emerges when you, or anyone, attempts to simplify, or over-simplify, what is a fairly to very complex system of relationships among various hatcheries and hatchery programs and wild salmon and steelhead stocks. The problem lies in assuming the issues can be so simple as pro-WT or pro-hatchery, with no place in the middle. Actually, there is almost no place at the extreme edges of pro-WT and pro-hatchery when the overwhelmingly vast majority of the substance of the issue lies in the vast, complex, and perhaps confusing middle ground. Which is probably why we see such fervent and polarized and unsubstantiated opinions expressed here on this BB. People like it simple and easy. Sorry, this ain't Burger King, and that choice simply isn't on the menu.

The more complex reality is that some hatchery programs can co-exist with wild fish, and some hatchery programs can exist only at the expense of wild fish, and a lot of hatchery programs exist somewhere in that grey, muddled, middle. That's real life folks. Messy.

So how would you like yours Sir? Flame broiled, fried, or extra-greasy?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo g thank you for that excellent post on WDFW funding and hatheries. The feds also heavily fund the hatchery systems within the Columbia River basin, plus a large number of other hatchery operations elsewhere operated by the feds or various tribes.

Salmo

Kudos for an excellent and informative post on hatcheries and politics. The issue of hatchery existence or nonexistence is a real hot potato because the specter of a "no fishing" world that might emerge without hatcheries is very threatening to most fishing enthusiasts.
Atleast in the near term it is.

Politics and funding have an enormous amount to do with the issue and that is why simply suing WDFW to force supposed change is suspect at best and even possibly malicious. A lawsuit cannot force the government to reform hatcheries as fast as it can close them down. The funding dilemma in this wacky state is a real one. You are absolutely correct that the general fund has to come up with the money to fund the hatcheries..that would be the same group of politicians who must answer to the tribes who donate so much to their campaigns and to the farmers and commercial fishermen and loggers and businesses. So I ask , why try to cripple an agency that is already limping by suing? Could it be that suing was intended to further cripple and perhaps kill the hatcheries?

Since you know so much about hatcheries I am sure you know about the efforts going on to reform them and the studies recently released. Do you think those studies have promise? Did you notice the money the governor already pledged to the reform efforts? The money pledged and allocated by the feds for the same reforms? I think your answers would be welcome.

Hunters, Fishers Pony Up $478 Million For State Wildlife Agencies
Environment News Services
May 6, 2003


WASHINGTON, DC - Some $478 million in excise taxes paid by America's hunters, anglers and boaters will be divvied up among state fish and wildlife agencies, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Steve Williams announced Monday.
The two laws that allow for the taxes - the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937, and the Dingell-Johnson Act, enacted in 1950 - collectively have raised more than $8.5 billion.

"Anglers and hunters have been the leading force for conservation in America," said Williams. "By supporting these excise taxes, they are contributing critical funds for maintaining and restoring our fish and wildlife resources."

The agencies will use the money for fish and wildlife conservation by acquiring land, improving habitat, and conducting research, education, and other programs, Williams said, and to help pay for hunter safety, aquatic education and fish and wildlife-related recreation projects.

The wildlife restoration apportionment for 2003 totals $213 million, with $39 million apportioned for hunter education. The apportionment for sport fish restoration for 2003 totals more than $265 million.

The Pittmans Robertson Act of 1937 authorizes an 11 percent excise tax on sporting arms and ammunition, a 10 percent tax on pistols and revolvers and an 11 percent tax on certain archery equipment. Half of the tax on handguns and archery equipment is made available for state hunter education and safety programs.

This money is put into the Wildlife Restoration Program - these funds are made available based on land area and inland waters such as lakes and large rivers, and the number of hunting license holders in each state. Distribution of hunter education funds is based on the relative population of each state.

States use Wildlife Restoration Program funds to manage wildlife populations, habitat, research, surveys and inventories and to fund hunter education.

Enacted in 1950, the Dingell-Johnson Act collects funds for the Sport Fish Restoration program through a 10 percent excise tax on fishing equipment and a three percent tax on electric trolling motors and sonar fish finders.

This money is distributed based land and water area and the number of fishing license holders in each state.

It is used for a range of efforts to ensure there are places for people to catch sport fish - and fish for them to catch.

Funds from both wildlife and sporting fishing pay for up to 75 percent of the cost of each project while the states contribute at least 25 percent.

Hey Salmo, your still a "turkey!(jk)

I haven't had a chance lately to torment you at any of our Tacoma's meetings, so I must take advantage, and do it here. You always seem to prove worthy of coming up with good answers!

Since everyone here (including me) usually respects your professional opinion on "fisheries issues", I got a question
that I would like you to answer. You known, you kind of question that makes you give me that funny looking face sometimes!

My question to you is about hatcheries, and what many "scientists" may perceive to be the problems that are reportedly related to the "negative effects" of our hatcheries. I know that you have worked for, run, and helped design hatcheries over the years, and that you are also a biologist. I would think that at the time you were doing it, you probably thought, and truly believed that you were doing it right (knowing you, it was "right" at the time).

Anyway, I was thinking of you the other day when I was listening to the news and was taken by surprise by what I had just heard! It was a "scientific report" (and study) that had just been released on the "the negative effects of secondary smoking" (I known how you like using science). I hate first stage smoking and can't stand secondary smoke either, so the "scientific report" took me by surprise! Apparently, the report was a scientific report that was done on the "long term side effects of secondary smoking", and it took a real deep look over a 43 year period. Grant it, the "old tobacco companies boys" helped pay for some of long term study, but so did we and others. So it was not just paid for by the "bad guys"!

Basically, the scientists had found that "secondary smoking" DID NOT have the effects on people that everyone had first though that they have had, and in fact, it showed that there was "no more higher rates" in lung cancer or heart disease in the people who were exposed (i.e. a none smoker spouse, wife/husband/child) to it them then those that were not continually exposed to them. The study did not say that smoking or "secondary smoke" did not have "other" negative effects, (sounds like hatcheries to me) but it did say that after studying, testing and reviewing a large number of participants for over 43 years, that the "science" has now showed that the results of "secondary smoking" did not have the effects that the scientists had originally first thought it did. Yea, I have too have my doubts, but if the facts of this study remain undisputed, it begs us to be compared it to how some scientists and hatcheries critics may justify closing our hatcheries by their misunderstanding of what the "long term" effects of our hatcheries may really be!

So here's my question. If all these "numerous" scientists have spent millions and millions of dollars on all of those "short term" scientific studies which supported their early conclusions and now we find that their "conclusions" were indeed wrong, what's going to happen to all those none smoking laws and restrictions? I known their will be many that will dispute the findings, but the "long term" results of that study are going to be hard for them to dispute with science!

So how can I compare this to our hatchery problems? Simple, the "hatcheries" are being credited by a group of "scientists" as being the "direct cause" that has brought on the decline of our wild fish runs to our rivers.

That current "scientific theory" has only been developed over the past 10 years or less, just like the "secondary smoke" theory was also developed. Again, please don't get me wrong, I think that the "secondary smoking" effects can kill you, but now the current scientific "long term study" says otherwise! The most current scientific long term results are in, and they now are saying that's there is no science to support that "secondary smoke" is a cause of cancer or heart disease!

After all those millions and millions of dollars were spent and all those countless scientific studies were done; they are now telling us that the "long term studies" has shown that the original "short term" scientific studies were wrong!

So what does that tell us about how we may be applying "science" to our hatcheries? Should we be closing down all of these hatcheries and assuming (ass-u-me) that the "short term" results of science is correct, and that it will be bringing back our wild fish runs; or should we be "testing" this "short term theory of science" out on just a "few specialized rivers" to see if, indeed the "hatchery" are the cause of the problem?

In my opinion (and you known, I usually have one them), that this is the only "way to the means" that the people who are claiming that the hatcheries are the problems can be scientifically supported! I am sure that in some specific cases and location/or rivers, "a" single hatchery may well be "the problem", but to paint the "bigger picture" that all hatcheries are "the problem" is just a plain simple minded way of thinking (my opinion).

Before we start shutting down anymore of our hatcheries, let's just stop and see what the "science" has really found out about all of the "hatcheries" that have already been shut or closed down over the past 10 years. What has happen to all that "fishery data" on those rivers, and will it be able to support that the closer of those hatcheries; has it resulted in the "rebuilding" of those so called "wild runs" in those same rivers or streams? I hear a lot lip-service out there from the guys who keep saying that we ought to "shut them all down", but I never hear a word from those same guys telling us, or showing us, where the "shutting down" of any of those hatcheries had actually shown that a documented recovery had actually occurred. It can be said, that if a run can not be self- sustained, that it would most likely parish anyway.

Finally, is it the mentality of the c&r people, that as long as wild fish return, hatcheries are not needed? Do the c&r people really believe that their masses of people out-number the masses of people who want to have the opportunity to harvest when "they" choose to?

OK, beside you Salmo,

It's a lot for people to think about and to criticize, so let the BS fly!!!

Cowlitzfisherman

To respond partially about my being in the dark because I use the term F&G.... It's just a term. I am from Everett and live in Boise (I hope temporarily). I am well aware of the huge and expensive WDF&W hippocracy, er I mean Bureau-crazy, er.... you know what I mean. Believe me, 100% absolutely DOES NOT go to F&G unless you want to count the millions that are allocated to the highway division as part of the F&G responsibility to maintain the roads (for the fisherman and hunters.... Yeah right).
It is no better than our public school system. Millions upon millions are dumped into that system, and very little actually gets to the kids or their education. Same with F&G..... A very small percent gets to the fish. Oh, and Salmo forgot to mention that a very large chunk of F&G monies are lumped with Fed money to run the indian hatcheries also. A real oxy-moron statement often heard is "Tribal Run" hatcheries. They run them opinion wise (and with input from biologists), but the sportsman and taxpayer in general fund them.....

If it were not for the hatcheries, the tribes would be the only ones with them (eh, can you say "Treaty"?) and then we would be at their mercy to fish in "their" rivers... Very complicated stuff, but bottom line is that a huge portion of what we pay in fees is pissed away and wasted as it is in any other branch of our Gov't.....

So spend away! The fish depend on us....

Salmo G;
So let me get this straight....one's ability to formulate an opinion of merit on this board is based on whether your're a fry or a smolt or a spawned out ole' boot! I see no direct correlation between number of times rambling to intelligence level! As to the hatchery issue...I believe each drainage has to be assessed individually as to whether hatcheries should be pumping smolt into a specific river. Given the effects of extensive clear-cut logging, pollution and or dams in most river drainages in Washington State it is obvious that many wild runs cannot rebuild themselves to the river's carrying capacity of yesteryear anytime soon that would sustain kill fisheries. Once river habitats are restored in a river then I'd be willing to eliminate or reduce hatchery released fish in that river. If it weren't for hatcheries we would be doing a lot less fishing and a lot more fingerpointing at the usual culprits of river degradation and reduced wild fish numbers.

Having grown up in logging country and partaking in that shameful, fish-killing clearcutting of yesteryear myself, I agree that a large problem with fish runs has been the decimation of their fragile environment. But when is someone going to bring up the Japanese, Taiwanese, and Korean drift net fleets that sit off our boundaries (and sneak in too I am sure) and drag their 30 mi (YES, 30 MILE) long drift nets and rape the ocean???
People act like that has nothing to do with the stocks disappearing, or say since it is "International Waters" there is nothing we can do..... I say "BS" to that. They are coming and raping a resource that everyone knows starts and ends in the Americas, therefore we have a right to protect that resource. They next time (Happens all the time) they catch one of the "Squid Boats" tossing over tons of Steelhead and Salmon that "just happened to get caught in the nets", I say "Fire up the F-14 and light their arse up". I am sure after one or two of those reactions and they would find the Salmon/Steelhead didn't taste quite so good.

That is our bureaucracy for you, we know all the many problems, but we fixate on a couple of the minor ones and then wonder why all our time and millions spent are not fixing the problem.
Same with the indian fishery..... Way too many native steelhead and salmon getting caught in those nets..... But of course, we cannot even think about changing that... We are truly a weird species....

MC

Salmo G.

Ok maybe it is a complex issue, but you are a professional fish biologist, correct?

Your job is to manage fisheries scientifically, no?

I recognize it is difficult if not impossible to do anything scientifically when politicians are involved.

However, to get anysort of sensible behavior (and this is still no sure thing) out of politicians, you need to present the problem in the simplist possible terms. Also, given that there is public imput in this process, having the public understand what's going on in simple terms is also good.

So, its your job to simplify these problems for us. To make any progress from a fisheries managment standpoint shades of gray will not cut it.

If you say "this hatchery is good and that hatchery is bad and if you're not an expert you will never understand so just believe me" nobody will be satisfied.

People here are very passionate about fish . . . educate us about what is really important on this hatchery issue.