collapse

Advertisement


Author Topic: wild fish advocates  (Read 2994 times)

Offline plugger

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • ****
  • Join Date: Sep 2011
  • Posts: 492
  • Location: moses lake
wild fish advocates
« on: January 18, 2016, 06:52:49 AM »
Well, there at it again. Now there going after Columbia river hatcheries. Article in the Spoksman review. They filed a motion to sue. So where will they dump all those hatchery smolts when they cave to there demands.  :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: Maybe its time to turn all the hatcheries over to the tribes. Good luck suing them. Find a way to transfer the funding to them.

Offline bowtech721

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Longhunter
  • *****
  • Join Date: Feb 2009
  • Posts: 856
  • Location: Oakville WA
Re: wild fish advocates
« Reply #1 on: January 18, 2016, 10:26:44 AM »
Groups like the WFC are our biggest threat when it comes to NW fishing... makes me sick.

Offline Ridgeratt

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (+11)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Posts: 5965
  • IBEW 73 (Retired) Burden on the working class.

Offline DOUBLELUNG

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Mar 2007
  • Posts: 5837
  • Location: Wenatchee
Re: wild fish advocates
« Reply #3 on: January 20, 2016, 05:06:11 PM »
One of the VERY few things with higher standing in federal law than the Endangered Species Act is treaties.  The Mitchell Act hatcheries are critical to providing salmon for tribal harvest, and courts to date have affirmed that the federal treaty obligation includes ensuring an adequate quantity of fish for treaty fishermen in their U&A areas.  The WFC may be able to affect HOW the Mitchell Act hatcheries produce fish in the interest of ESA listed species, but I don't believe ESA can undermine the obligation to produce hatchery fish for harvest.
As long as we have the habitat, we can argue forever about who gets to kill what and when.  No habitat = no game.

Offline j_h_nimrod

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2011
  • Posts: 1597
  • Location: Humptulips, WA
Re: wild fish advocates
« Reply #4 on: January 20, 2016, 05:47:08 PM »
 :yeah:

They would be hard pressed to reduce production rates and about the only real direction they could push things would be modified release practices or timing.  The tribes are the Columbia hatcheries best friends right now.  It sucks how much carte blanche the tribes have for hunting and fishing, but they know how to protect their treaty rights and any any infringement on them. They are pretty much peeing up a rope here but they will likely cost the public many $$$ in this ridiculous threat of litigation. 

Offline plugger

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • ****
  • Join Date: Sep 2011
  • Posts: 492
  • Location: moses lake
Re: wild fish advocates
« Reply #5 on: January 20, 2016, 07:28:10 PM »
Didn't the state dump all the steelhead smolts for the Puget sound streams for the same reason. They trucked them to the East, put them in rock and sprauge lakes among others? Just the threat of a law suit was all it took.

Offline Ridgeratt

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (+11)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Posts: 5965
  • IBEW 73 (Retired) Burden on the working class.
Re: wild fish advocates
« Reply #6 on: January 20, 2016, 07:32:19 PM »
They also dumped a huge numbers on the west side. Green lake had a 10 fish limit on them. I can't remember all the lakes but it was a batch.

Offline j_h_nimrod

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2011
  • Posts: 1597
  • Location: Humptulips, WA
Re: wild fish advocates
« Reply #7 on: January 20, 2016, 09:19:59 PM »
IIRC those were all fish intended for non- Columbia rivers and waters not covered by the Mitchell Act. It was also blue to a bunch of spineless legislator crapping themselves at the threat of another ridiculous lawsuit.

 


* Advertisement

* Recent Topics

Boring & relining .22 barrel, any recommendations? by Blacktail Sniper
[Today at 09:19:00 AM]


Hunting with a suppressor - dumb idea? by Antlershed
[Today at 09:17:49 AM]


Do you need a place to stay??? Methow / Alta / Chiliwist? by ASHQUACK
[Today at 08:55:41 AM]


Bear Snare? by Wendego716
[Today at 08:37:51 AM]


Nile bull hunters by lee
[Today at 07:19:19 AM]


Panhandle whitetail dates by Jimmy33
[Today at 06:57:53 AM]


Talking About Barely Legal by Alan K
[Today at 06:15:14 AM]


GMU 111 Aladdin Moose Hunt 2025! by HillHound
[Today at 05:06:48 AM]


Japanese Kei truck? by Farmer72
[Yesterday at 09:34:28 PM]


climbing stick users by hughjorgan
[Yesterday at 08:15:22 PM]


WHAT DID YOUR TRUCK COST NEW? by N7XW
[Yesterday at 07:40:02 PM]


Idaho on the verge of outlawing by EnglishSetter
[Yesterday at 07:28:27 PM]


Quality tag by lewy
[Yesterday at 06:45:36 PM]


Goose hunting in Spokane by Badhabit
[Yesterday at 05:50:41 PM]


.45 kentucky rifle and patched roundballs by Boss .300 winmag
[Yesterday at 05:10:57 PM]


Moose's 2025 Upland Season by bighorns2bushytails
[Yesterday at 03:23:24 PM]


Smoked salmon by mikey549
[Yesterday at 02:17:02 PM]


Unit 346 little naches by jrebel
[Yesterday at 01:46:49 PM]


Sheep Ewe - Whitestone Sheep Unit 20 by Pathfinder101
[Yesterday at 12:14:46 PM]


Blue Tongue and EHD outbreak in NE Washington by hunter399
[Yesterday at 08:39:56 AM]

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2025, SimplePortal