collapse

Advertisement


Author Topic: wild fish advocates  (Read 3009 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: 5975
  • 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: 5975
  • 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

Poll: Supreme Court will decide if 'habitual drug users' lose their gun rights by HunterStrait
[Today at 06:00:53 AM]


Anyone use game carts? by jhouckwsu
[Today at 05:59:36 AM]


Weatherby Vanguard vs. Browning x bolt by JBar
[Today at 04:39:39 AM]


Restraining Order to Prevent Sherman Wolf Removal by Dan-o
[Yesterday at 09:48:27 PM]


GMU 368 Nasty Creek Rd Access (Gate) by Kingofthemountain83
[Yesterday at 09:36:40 PM]


FS Surbu BFG 50 by Tacticalhammer
[Yesterday at 09:36:18 PM]


Pack wheel by millerwheeler
[Yesterday at 09:26:47 PM]


E WA waterfowl guide by 92xj
[Yesterday at 09:13:44 PM]


Where do the bulls go? by TeacherMan
[Yesterday at 09:04:39 PM]


Winthrop - Winter Range Road Closures by Kingofthemountain83
[Yesterday at 08:55:31 PM]


Bearpaw Season 2025 by kramman
[Yesterday at 08:51:05 PM]


Mushroom ID Thread by MLHSN
[Yesterday at 08:50:05 PM]


No upland with dog during deer and elk season? by buglebuster
[Yesterday at 08:22:23 PM]


Let’s see ur heavy pack out pics by ganghis
[Yesterday at 07:11:45 PM]


2025 blacktail rut thread by swanderek
[Yesterday at 07:01:53 PM]


West side antler buyers by trophyhunt
[Yesterday at 06:18:29 PM]


2025 deer, let's see em! by bigmacc
[Yesterday at 03:45:16 PM]


Mt. St. Helens Goat by Gonehuntin01
[Yesterday at 03:23:04 PM]


My new BB Gun by JDHasty
[Yesterday at 02:41:00 PM]


Comment against Ski Resort expanding into Colockum elk/deer habitat by Boss .300 winmag
[Yesterday at 02:11:14 PM]

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2025, SimplePortal