collapse

Advertisement


Author Topic: wild fish advocates  (Read 3011 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: 5976
  • 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: 5976
  • 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

Pathfinder's Opening Day Deer by hunter399
[Today at 04:41:29 AM]


It was a great year by NOCK NOCK
[Yesterday at 06:40:46 PM]


Bullet performance 2025? by jrebel
[Yesterday at 06:35:23 PM]


Youth Cow Elk - Yakima South GMUs 364, 368 by fishngamereaper
[Yesterday at 06:01:54 PM]


I'm Going To Need Karl To Come up With That 290 Muley Sunscreen Bug Spray Combo by blindluck
[Yesterday at 05:55:19 PM]


King of the mountain caught sleeping by rainshadow1
[Yesterday at 05:33:45 PM]


Calling Cougars? by rainshadow1
[Yesterday at 05:31:04 PM]


Gutpile Care, yes there is such a thing. by Goshawk
[Yesterday at 05:22:22 PM]


2025 deer, let's see em! by MADMAX
[Yesterday at 04:56:41 PM]


Called about Returned Alta Buck Permit by 7mmfan
[Yesterday at 02:42:51 PM]


BBQ Flats camping during modern? by jrebel
[Yesterday at 12:14:05 PM]


Big bear on trail cam Kitsap County by Sundance
[Yesterday at 10:40:22 AM]


2025 blacktail rut thread by jowings22
[Yesterday at 10:15:35 AM]


2025 elk success thread!! by ballpark
[Yesterday at 09:04:37 AM]


Recommendations for Pressure Washers by Boss .300 winmag
[Yesterday at 08:56:49 AM]


Mill creek watershed by 3cityhuntr
[Yesterday at 08:38:16 AM]


Stop Moving Dead Deer Outside of 100 Series GMUs by HUNTIN4SIX
[Yesterday at 08:00:20 AM]

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2025, SimplePortal