WDFW settles with the Wild Fish Conservancy and...

[snowpack]

I was speaking to a wdfw representative on Friday about fish returns. First I expressed my sincere discontent with the raising license costs, along with decreasing opportunities/fish returns/accessible land for sportsman use. His response was, well you're touching on several different issues. Well yes because I have several different reasons to stop supporting the wdfw if they continue to misuse the sportsman dollar. He quickly attributed the decline in fish stocks to what he said was a continuing 30 year trend in slowing fish return rates. I was quick to ask him what research has been done to create a plan to reverse these results.  He was quick to put the blame on global warming, changing oceanic conditions, weather patterns, drying creek beds, lack of spawning territory, ect. I again tried to redirect the conversation back to what is currently being done to monitor these conditions to start providing some kind of informational pattern to help us determine which, if not all these conditions are contributing to the diminished returns of even hatchery fish. He replied since the latest economic dip it has been hard for the department to fund these activities at full capacity. So basically we are paying more for less and they know it. Gentlemen was also kind enough to inform me that most of the revenue they receive doesn't come from license sales. Most comes from the feds. Boy this is starting to make more and more sense to me. They don't have to care about what we want as sportsman because at the end of the day we aren't who pays the bills.

I wonder if he is referring to Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson.  I read recently that the feds were distributing $20 million to Washington for 2014 from these sources.  They are federal excise taxes on sportsman to support fish and wildlife.  If that is part of what that guy is referring to, then you would think WDFW would know that 'no fish or wildlife' pretty much means no sportsmen, then nobody buying the sporting goods and paying the associated tax that eventually comes back to them.  The more licenses sold generally means the more in PR/DJ money a state gets.   

[bigtex]

You will Never see me apologize for WDFW......But  NOAA made it easy for the greenies. And I'm sure not by mistake.....

I'm not trying to support WDFW on this one.

WDFW truly did violate the law when in 2007 NMFS listed steelhead on the ESA and WDFW kept the hatcheries open without a NMFS permit. Legally, they should've closed it down that day and waited for the permit to arrive, 7 years later and we're still waiting. So on that end I support WDFW, they did what's right for the fish and not legally.

Now what this did was essentially open the door for WDFW to get sued, and WDFW admits that.

Now when it comes down to the lawsuit. These fish would've been released next month, obviously no federal lawsuit would've been completed by then. So essentially no fish would've been released this year. Now, if you really look into it, WDFW had an uphill battle to even come close to winning this lawsuit, because they simply violated federal law. So what's better, settling and releasing 180,000 or going to court and being told WDFW can't release any until they get a permit?

Really the finger should be pointed at NMFS for taking forever to issue a permit. It would be like being a restaurant owner and waiting for that business license to show up, you may have submitted the paper but you can't open till you get it. Well in this case, WDFW opened the restaurant without the license.

[RG]

You will Never see me apologize for WDFW......But  NOAA made it easy for the greenies. And I'm sure not by mistake.....

I'm not trying to support WDFW on this one.

WDFW truly did violate the law when in 2007 NMFS listed steelhead on the ESA and WDFW kept the hatcheries open without a NMFS permit. Legally, they should've closed it down that day and waited for the permit to arrive, 7 years later and we're still waiting. So on that end I support WDFW, they did what's right for the fish and not legally.

Now what this did was essentially open the door for WDFW to get sued, and WDFW admits that.

Now when it comes down to the lawsuit. These fish would've been released next month, obviously no federal lawsuit would've been completed by then. So essentially no fish would've been released this year. Now, if you really look into it, WDFW had an uphill battle to even come close to winning this lawsuit, because they simply violated federal law. So what's better, settling and releasing 180,000 or going to court and being told WDFW can't release any until they get a permit?

Really the finger should be pointed at NMFS for taking forever to issue a permit. It would be like being a restaurant owner and waiting for that business license to show up, you may have submitted the paper but you can't open till you get it. Well in this case, WDFW opened the restaurant without the license.

I agree with your point but my issue is, how proactive has WDFW been with NMFS to get that license.  Have they just sat by the mailbox waiting for the permit to arrive and continued to release fish in the meantime?  Have they called and followed up with NMFS?  Have they gone over there and pitched a fit?  Have they hounded them, called the supervisor of the supervisor?  Have they threatened their own lawsuit?  In other words, have they done every possible thing to move NMFS off of "stall" mode to get this permit?  If not then they haven't taken it seriously and have allowed themselves to be in violation negligently.  It may be interpreted that they don't really care that much and were looking for an excuse to close the hatcheries in the first place since the hatchery reductions began probably 10 or 12 years ago, before this 7 year period, anyway.  I knew the manager of the Reiter fish hatchery on the Skykomish and went there regularly to visit with him in the early 2000's.  The state had changed their tack on hatchery steelhead by that point, well before 7 years ago.  Some of it was budget reductions or redistribution and some of it was because they were listening to the special interest voices.  They did it quietly and hoped nobody would notice they weren't catching any fish at Lewis Street, the Cracker Bar, Hanson's Drift, Douglas Bar, etc. but there were still fish in the pond at Reiter for some reason.  People just stopped buying licenses and fishing for steelhead. 

Had they come out publicly and said "gee, we have less money to spend so we need to make some decisions, sorry, hopefully when the budget improves we can give it back" people may not suspect they have sinister motives.  I believe they are using the NMFS as an excuse to justify something they started a long time ago and that they are listening to special interests and not their constituents in the fishing community. 

[snowpack]

Along the same thoughts, RG....why was NMFS so slow and uncaring?  I imagine a few were still doing work around the office, not out playing on the party boat at waterside restaurants and day-trippin in the San Juans.    I would think they would have at least had a semi-streamlined permit review process (due to all the other ESA fish in WA) that a permit regarding steelies listed as late as 07 could have moved through in a timely manner.   

[Special T]

It sure seems like the WDFW puts itself in a lot of catch 22 situations...

[WSU]

I must be missing some thing, i don;t fish so excuse my ignorance.
In order to raise steel heads didn't they just use harvested eggs for steel head in the area, then raise and release them? Are they really genetically different?

On a separate note, wasn't there a program that tried to spread salmon carcases on the rivers to help promote cadis fly growth?

The fish of concern for the lawsuit are the Chambers Creek steelies.  They aren't really that different genetically.  If they were, they couldn't spawn with the strains that have built up in the rivers.  But they aren't the same, either.  The fish stray into rivers enough that overall, they have kept themselves nearly identical along the entire west coast.  It might take a thousand years to get a successful trait to spread from Alaska to California, though. It would be like asking if a blacktail from Whidbey Island is the same as a blacktail from high up in the North Cascades.

You are incorrect on the genetics.  Chambers Creek fish are different.  So different, in fact, that their different run timing will be a probable defense for WDFW and their hatchery programs that are getting reviewed by NOAA.  They aren't from the rivers they are being released to (Chambers Creek, not the Sky, Skagit, etc.).

[chiefeng]

Here's a link with more info on what's going on and who is doing it. If you look closely at who the wild fish conservancy really is and where their money comes from you will be shocked. Is it really a non profit with over 900,000 in payroll, someone is getting rich off the tax payer dime again. Most if not all their donations come from the Government. http://www.theoutdoorline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2231 http://www.theoutdoorline.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2213 

[jumpin]

wdfw wants all the people in one place at 1 time, its easy to keep tabs.  they can hand out tickets for not wearing life jackets for bankies! Look at ling cod, sturgeon, spot prawns, rock cod, crab you name it. All seasons were open year around. they are giving it all away to commercial and tribes.