The following is a private email sent to me that I wanted to pass along for comments:
"The following article was passed along to me. I thought you would be
interested in some "clarification" of the settlement of the WT lawsuit
against the WDFW. My read of the settlement has me agreeing with Frank
Urabeck's comments. If we are to maintain our sport fishing opportunities,
we are going to have to keep on top of issues affecting the resource and the
potential solutions being proposed by the various state, federal, and tribal
agencies. You can rest assured that groups like WT are going to keep
working to get their personal agendas taken care of. As sport fishers, we
too need to step forward with our comments and desires for consideration in
the management of our wildlife resources."
(private email)
Outdoors: Now, what the heck did we just settle on?
BOB MOTTRAM; The News Tribune
And you think it was easy?
You already know that negotiators worked for months to reach an out-of-court
settlement between Washington Trout and the Department of Fish and Wildlife
over how to operate the department's Puget Sound salmon and steelhead
hatcheries.
But you may not know this: The issues were so tough that after the sides
finally reached an agreement they were unable last week to agree on how to
describe it.
The U.S. District Court judge in charge of the case suggested that the
department and Washington Trout - a private fish-conservation organization -
write a joint news release to announce their achievement. It turned out to
be a no-go. Eventually, both sides ended up just answering a reporter's
questions about the settlement.
Fish and Wildlife downplayed the difficulty. There was no disagreement, a
spokesman said last week, even though neither side yet had revealed the
contents of a hatchery agreement reached four days earlier. The hang-up was
gathering all the signatures the agreement needed, the department said, not
figuring out what to say about it. And, hey, the judge's suggestion was only
a suggestion, not an order.
"The judge said, 'Why don't you guys sit down and do a joint news release?'"
a spokesman said. "Ramon (Vanden Brulle of Washington Trout) and I have been
tossing ideas back and forth."
Vanden Brulle was not so laid-back.
"You need to wait about an hour," he said. "We're trying to come up with
language for a joint press release, and you called at an unbelievably touchy
time."
Back at Fish and Wildlife, the spokesman agreed to forego the news release
and just fax a copy of the agreement itself to The News Tribune.
But even that was fraught with risk, apparently. Vanden Brulle said later
that Fish and Wildlife had called and asked Washington Trout's permission
before it released a copy of the agreement.
•
The agreement requires the Department of Fish and Wildlife to establish a
new policy for soliciting public input when it's developing hatchery
operating plans.
Washington Trout alleged in its suit that hatchery operations caused harm to
Puget Sound chinook salmon listed as "threatened" under the federal
Endangered Species Act by blocking spawning areas, by producing competitors
for the wild fish and by causing other effects. It asked the court to
prohibit the release of this spring's crop of coho salmon and steelhead
trout smolts until the lawsuit was settled. Observers said that if the young
fish could not be released to salt water on time - or nearly on time - they
would have to be destroyed.
The negotiated settlement does not require any specific changes in hatchery
operations. It does require the department to solicit public input earlier
in the process of developing its hatchery plans, to respond to the input in
writing and to submit both the input and its responses to the National
Marine Fisheries Service, which has final say in approving hatchery plans.
•
At least one observer isn't happy with the agreement. Frank Urabeck,
director of fishing affairs for the Northwest Marine Trade Association, said
he thinks it will work to the department's disadvantage.
"I'm glad we're not going to bury 5 million smolt steelhead and coho,"
Urabeck said. "But I really see the litigation as just a form of harassment.
In the end, it takes a lot of resources, money and people's time away from
what we have to do to help wild fish."
Regarding the new public comment opportunity, "the reality is there's only
going to be a handful of people, primarily Washington Trout, that is going
to avail themselves of that process," he said. "I'm not sure the additional
delay and additional cost is going to be worth what we might gain in terms
of new ideas."
Urabeck estimated the procedure would set back the planning program "3-to-6
months, maybe longer."
•
Urabeck's criticism may be one of the few negative things you hear about the
new process. For sure, you won't hear it from Fish and Wildlife or from
Washington Trout.
The agreement itself prohibits such comments
So all we get is Ramon's viewpoint of the settlement ........
Previous Topic
Index
