Not to put you on the spot, but...actually, it is to put you on the spot.

Both of you have been very vehement in your certainty that the tribes will now net all the fish that we don't harvest due to WSR.

I've continually asked you to give me some evidence of that...and while Jacob just says it's going to happen, Micro, you tell me that you know of all these times where it has.

After asking you guys several times to out with the evidence, you've disappeared from the conversation.

So...go to the "Foregone Opoportunity Analysis" thread and go to town. I look forward to your comments, and especially to your examples and court cases, Micro.

Fish on...

Todd

Manditory release of all wild stocks is the only and best case you will ever have in the future if you ever hope to take on the tribes and the rest ... Don't ***** and don't blow it now...

Horse before the cart guys...

Maybe they are doing this but if the returns are so bad that they have to close a river for sport fishing, then it should be closed to everyone. That is my analysis!

Todd,

You want them to give you evidence of something that will happen in the future?

Isn't that kinda hard to do?

I also feel hatchery production will decline down to NOTHING and then... all that will be left are your nice pretty natives.... and all the local rivers will be shut down.

Looking backwards....

Years ago I used to fish in Swamp Creek, Issaquah Creek and Bear Creek. All are closed now.

Looking fowards....

local rivers will be closed.

Zen,

Not necessarily asking them to tell me about something that hasn't happened, just asking them to justify the comments they made.

They both told me how the Indians were going to take all of our fish, and that it's already happened, and that they were going to tell me exactly how it had happened and how it was going to happen.

Neither of them have backed up any of their comments with anything other than repeating their assertions over again.

Kind of like no one has given reason one for how all the hatcheries are going to close, either, but just keep asserting it over and over again.

Fish on...

Todd

It must be nice to only look at present day "things" and not try to use some conjecture on what may (or in deference to you, what may not) happen.

Guess it depends on whether one is a half empty/half full person, or has a touch of the pollyanna in them and only hope for the best.

I see why you continued your discussion with them.

"Foregone opportunity could lead to our allocation of fish going over to the tribal fishers, and here's why I feel that it could happen..(followed by explanation)."

That's conjecture.

"Indians will take all our fish. They already have done it before! I'll show you where!" (followed by nothing else...)

Not conjecture, but unfounded, undefended, and unjustified assertions that spread fear among sportfishers, same with the hatchery elimination conspiracy.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. See ya tomorrow, no posse in tow.

Unsubstantiated hatchery elimation posts? I don't think so. Here is a Tri-Cities Herald article describing concern over WDFW's lack of commitment to hatcheries. Visit the hatcheries and it is obvious. Money is not being made available to them.


Editorial Note: GO KENNEWICK MAN!!!!!!! You won in court just the other day!!!

******************************************
FISH RETURN, BUT CASH SHORT FOR RINGOLD HATCHERY
By Mike Lee
Herald staff writer

RINGOLD -- Clyde Cochlin's Isuzu Trooper seems to know the way here on its own.

He's put 208,000 miles on it, mostly on fishing trips from his Finley home to the Grande Ronde River or this hot spot and hatchery on the Columbia River.

But these days, Cochlin and his fishing buddies wonder just how long the state Fish and Wildlife Department's Ringold Springs facility will continue to raise millions of salmon and steelhead.

"We really don't think the state is working in the best interest of keeping Ringold open," said Cochlin, 60, who's fished at Ringold for more than 40 years. "We're afraid it's going to go belly up."

Federal hatchery money is shriveling, forcing elimination of Ringold's spring chinook program late last year. Also, staff positions in Ringold's salmon program have been reduced over the last several years. And some observers don't see the state as being very aggressive in trying to find new business for the under-used facility.

This winter, Ringold is back in the public eye because the state has a chance to restart spring chinook production here -- at least for one year.

"There are some very, very good possibilities here, not only to have a national monument, but a national monument that is rich with nice beautiful fish," said Bruce Beamer, Tri-City fishing guide.

But state officials are hesitant, saying they don't have any money to raise 1.1 million more salmon.

For Cochlin, who's volunteered religiously at Ringold for years, the prospect of continuing to lose pieces of the place to budget cuts is depressing, despite official assurances the salmon and steelhead program is safe.

"This is a very fluid type of business," said Manuel Farinas, Eastern Washington hatchery operations manager for the Fish and Wildlife Department. "There are a lot forces, a lot of changes going on."

Ringold reductions not alone

Ringold was established in the early 1960s to make up for fishery damage done by dams on the Columbia and Snake rivers.

In 1938, Congress recognized the progressive decline of Columbia fisheries and authorized hatchery money through the Mitchell Act.

Statewide, more than 90 rearing facilities produce more than 200 million fish, which become the vast majority of those caught by anglers.

But these days, hatcheries are under heavy scrutiny to ensure efforts to increase sport fisheries aren't hampering recovery of threatened and endangered wild salmon.

State officials say they are undergoing a "major realignment" that coincides with regional efforts to create a comprehensive hatchery policy.

They are also facing tighter budgets. In the fall of 1999, federal cuts of more than $1 million in Washington's slice of Mitchell Act money forced hatchery programs to be reduced around the state. One casualty was spring chinook at Ringold.

That leaves the facility to raise roughly 3.5 million fall chinook and 255,000 steelhead this year.

The steelhead are upper Columbia River fish called Wells stock and are considered a backup run for that endangered run. For instance, if there's a shortage of broodstock at Wells Hatchery, the Ringold fish could be used to aid recovery.

Farinas, the state manager, said he doesn't expect another big reduction in federal funds for 2001 and dismisses speculation the hatchery is dying. "Ringold Springs plays a very important role for the fishers in that area," he said. "And, therefore, I don't think that (closure) will occur."

As for staff reductions, Farinas said cuts aren't as deep as anglers think. And, he said, the Fish and Wildlife Department is spending taxpayer money more wisely by reducing middle managers.

"We will continue to operate that facility," he said. "My intent is to continue looking for different avenues to bring that facility to its full complement."

New springers in limbo

More than 120 miles north of Ringold, 1.5 million spring chinook -- offspring of the huge 2000 run -- are being reared in federal hatcheries at Leavenworth and Winthrop. By late March, they will be marked with a clipped fin and hauled elsewhere.

Money for fin clipping -- $184,000 -- was secured by Sen. Slade Gorton, R-Wash., one of his last acts before leaving office.

That money essentially saved the eggs from being destroyed by federal agencies concerned the down-river stock of hatchery salmon would harm "wild" stocks in Northcentral Washington.

The fish were spared, but the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says it doesn't have money or space to raise them until they are ready for their ocean run. The state says the same thing.

"If it is the desire of the federal government to bring that production from Leavenworth to Ringold Springs, then they need to come up with the money to continue that production," Farinas said. "We are still waiting."

So, the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission is pressing the Bonneville Power Administration for what is comparative pocket change to raise the spring chinook at Ringold, roughly $175,000.

"We don't want to see a lack of money do them in," said commission spokesman Chuck Hudson, noting Ringold fish production is important to tribal fishing seasons.

Big runs bring big questions

Even if Ringold does manage to snare the Leavenworth spring chinook this year, Farinas cautions that might just be a one-time bonus. "That doesn't mean this production will become a permanent program," he said.

But tribes are more optimistic about the potential of hatchery efforts -- and frustrated that state and federal agencies seem unprepared to handle a boom in salmon.

A huge chinook run is expected again this spring, creating the possibility of having plenty of broodstock for Ringold and other rivers that have been without springers for years. The early prediction is for 364,000 spring chinook at Bonneville Dam.

Under current policy, tens of thousands of "surplus" spring salmon will be killed in 2001 -- likely provoking public outrage as threatened fish destruction did earlier this year, tribal leaders predict.

Greg Pratschner, manager for the Leavenworth hatchery complex, said federal agencies are starting to plan for the 2001 run, hoping to avoid another high-profile problem.

"What we don't want to do is get caught in a situation in May or June when these fish are coming back without a decision" about what to do with them, he said. "We have always had to deal with scarcity, and now we are having to deal with abundance."

Hudson said the tribes won't let up.

"When we talk about planning for abundance, it means planning for and funding facilities like Ringold to be fully operational for growth," he said. "That will be our battle cry for 2001. 'Plan for abundance. Make a home for the fish.' "

barnettm.

If you'd like to see more funding for your pet hatcheries, go to the legislature and ask for it.

When Reiter Ponds was put on the chopping block a few years ago we local sportsmen got all over it, and whattayaknow?, the money was found, and the hatchery kept going. It can be done.

That article is four years old, and is obviously not connected to the WSR/hatchery elimination conspiracy that I was alluding to.

The other thread about hatchery reduction has the information about the over 100 hatcheries in Washington...we don't need to rehash it here, either. If you want to go back to the other thread, we can talk about it more there, if you'd like.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd

Could it be that there is a very close relationship between threat and cave in?
By this I mean that the threat of "forgone opportunity" excercising could lead to caving in to tribal demands? I think so. The state has caved to threats over and over again for good reason. They always lose to the tribes in court. Right now there are several threats , not the least of which focuses on the Columbia River. Threats to sue (as usual) over the dams create concessions to the tribes. You probably are aware of many others. Threats will have a big effect on the North of Falcon process getting underway. Threats come concerning hatchery policy and on and on. They threaten and we cave. Maybe we have no choice but they don't have to actually excercise a right or privelage to get their own way ...usually to the sports fishing industry's detriment. And , in my opinion, to the detriment of our fish. Notice I say "our fish"? That is how I see it. The fish belong to all of us.

The tribes have a tendancy to do whatever they can to get more fish. I believe it was two years ago during fall king season on the Hoh the state shut down the river to sportsmen to protect the fish during extremely low water. While it was closed to us, the tribe but nets in and used jet boats to scare more fish in the nets. I believe Bob even had pictures of this going on.

Yep I remember when that happened. Everyone was a little peeved. I wonder how mr steelhead will rationalize that?

Jacob,

That's my point exactly.

The tribes were using jet boats to herd trapped fish into nets, fish that couldn't get away. I didn't get a chance to go out and witness it, but from what I heard, it was pretty much despicable the way it was going down.

However, it was perfectly legal, and protected activity, well within their treaty rights.

Sportsmen weren't fishing, and we raised a big stink about it, and the tribes stopped it. Not because they had to, mind you, but because they looked really bad doing it.

Read the thread "Foregone Opportunity Analysis" and you'll see that point as one of the reasons why foregone opportunity isn't the big bugaboo it's made out to be, among several others.

At the end of my responses to Smalma's questions about my analysis, you'll see that the reasons include;

1. I think we can win in court
2. They can't win, even if they do in court. At best for them, we go right back to where we were before the WSR regulation, so they get no fish because of it, and they get really bad PR for trying to ruin our efforts to put more fish on the spawning beds.
3. If there is no foregone opportunity fight, their half gets bigger, too, because of more fish on the spawning grounds.

Why would they push it? There's absolutely nothing that they could possibly gain from it, only lose. Them and the fish, and us.

If they leave well enough alone, we all come out ahead, them, us, and the fish.

Fish on...

Todd

"If they leave well enough alone, we all come out ahead, them, us, and the fish."

So am I correctly understanding you? If the tribes continue to gill net the rivers as they are now and the sport fisherman are forced into a statewide WSR policy, thats OK and we call it a win win?

Bruce,

I think Todd is saying that it's much easier to put pressure on the tribes to stop killing wild fish when we aren't doing it ourselves.

If that's not what he's saying, I'm sure he'll straighten me out.

Thanks Dan, it was a sincere question. I would hope that would be his response. Because I don't see this as a win win, however I do understand that motivation, I just don't agree with it. Hopefully I'm wrong.

before I get bashed i want it to be perfectly clear that I am all for wild steelhead release per say but what the tribes do and are doing will not change case in fact- as the grays harbor native fish returns are increasing so is the netting and qoate allocation to tribes been increasing just look at the matter of fact fomulas!! the tribes see these statistics and are taking advantage of the scientific data to increase their catch even though it is and has been catch release for the sportsman for years. Now my opinon and mind you it is just my opinion that it will continue to be the same in other river systems as the resource does improve! I have asked many questions to the management resources of the rivers on the O.P. for example that do the surveying and decision making for determination of health of different runs and have asked their opinions of what will mosy likely happen with the proofof increased survival rates and catch allocations and thr response has been that the net quates will be increased if runs are increasing. Now I do not want to get into a he said she said scenerio but I have been talking to biologist for the tribes that tends to agree with me but yes this is just a maybe what is in store for the future I sure hope not!!!PEACE

I can't disagree with what FASTWATER said. I have no confidence in the tribes to stop the late-season netting. I would have bet that WDFW would talk their way around a statewide WSR forever, too......

That being said, if we do get statewide WSR permanently, at least I can feel a little better about the effort we sport anglers are putting forth. If the tribes continue to net late in the season, at least I can bag on them for it and not be too hypocritical. I guess that's up to the tribes to decide. Otherwsie it's like we expect them to do something we won't do ourselves.

I only read the first post but I will read the rest just as soon as I tell you one more time Todd I have sent for the information, I have sent for the information. Ok so I told you two more times . BY the way did I tell you I sent for the information?

I can tell you what I have seen till I am blue in the face but I rather you see something you can believe and confirm yourself, so I have sent a request for info to the wdfw who has been really good at sending me info lately.

You as well as I know the wdfw is being flooded with emails and letters right now so there taking a little time to respond.

"Forgone opportunitty" is a word the lawyers drummed up kind of like "separation of church and state" Its actually called "right to surplus fish" and the definition to that, what it means, and how it can be used including how they can take over there 50% when we do not take our share of the surplus. I have already posted this directly from the boldt decision.

The court battle has already been fought and won by tyhe tribes but I am sure I can come up with plenty examples of how it has and is being used.

It was a pretty good year on the bogey this season and the tribes were offered all those surplus fish in the hatchery creek that made it past the sports fishers. You the one where they were stacked like cordwood, but the hatchery already had there qouta. But again I can spit out several xample till I am blue in the face thats why I have sent for the tangable words from the state.

P.S Whether you like it or not they do have the right to surplus fish. That you cannot competantly deny. Will they net our share? They havent shown me they give a damn about the fish.