Post by: TheHunt on April 01, 2014, 04:51:30 PM
WDFW will not release 'early winter' hatchery steelhead
this spring unless legal issues are resolved
OLYMPIA –The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) will not release early winter hatchery steelhead into rivers around Puget Sound as planned this spring unless it can resolve issues raised in January by the Wild Fish Conservancy and restated in a lawsuit the group filed this week.
Phil Anderson said WDFW leaders made the “very difficult” decision last week under the threat of litigation by the Conservancy, a non-profit group based in Duvall, Wash. In late January, the group filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue the department over its management of early winter (Chambers Creek) steelhead hatchery programs.
On Monday, March 31, as the 60-day period ended, the group filed a complaint in U.S. District Court in Seattle against the department and the state Fish and Wildlife Commission, alleging WDFW has violated the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). The group contends WDFW’s planting of Chambers Creek steelhead undermines the recovery of wild Puget Sound steelhead, salmon and bull trout, which are listed as “threatened” under the ESA.
Anderson said the department planned to releases about 900,000 juvenile steelhead this spring into rivers that flow into Puget Sound. Those fish are produced at nine hatcheries and represent about two-thirds of all hatchery steelhead produced by WDFW hatcheries in the Puget Sound region. Steelhead planted this spring would return to the rivers in 2016 and 2017.
He said WDFW is vulnerable to lawsuits over its hatchery steelhead operations because they were not approved by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) following the ESA listing of Puget Sound steelhead in 2007. WDFW submitted Hatchery Genetic Management Plans to NMFS in 2005 for its steelhead programs, relative to their potential impacts on Puget Sound wild chinook salmon. However, NMFS’ review of those plans was not completed. WDFW is nearing completion of updates to its steelhead plans to reflect recent hatchery improvements based on the most current science.
“We believe strongly that we are operating safe and responsible hatchery programs that meet exacting, science-based standards,” he said. “But without NMFS certification that our hatchery programs comply with the Endangered Species Act, we remain at risk of litigation. We are working hard to complete that process.”
Jim Scott, who heads the WDFW Fish Program, said the department and the Conservancy were not able to reach an agreement on WDFW’s steelhead hatchery management practices during the 60-day period, but he said discussions will continue in the hope of reaching a settlement by early May so that the 2014 plantings can take place.
“It’s in everyone’s best interest to quickly reach an agreement that will promote the recovery of Puget Sound steelhead and provide for tribal and recreational fisheries,” Scott said. “Going to court would force us to redirect our staff to defend our programs in litigation, rather than focusing on conservation and restoration of Puget Sound steelhead.”
Scott said the department acknowledges that scientific findings indicate certain hatchery practices may pose an impediment to wild fish productivity and recovery. But he noted state managers have worked hard to reform hatchery programs and have taken significant steps to protect ESA-listed wild steelhead. Actions since 2004 include:
• Reducing the number of early winter steelhead released in the Puget Sound watershed by more than 50 percent to minimize interactions between hatchery fish and wild steelhead.
• Reducing the number of release locations from 27 to nine.
• Collecting eggs from early-returning hatchery fish to maintain separation in the spawning times of hatchery and wild fish.
• Using genetic monitoring to guard against hatchery steelhead interacting with wild stocks.
“We want to continue discussions with the Wild Fish Conservancy in an attempt to address its issues,” Anderson said. “I’m hopeful that our decision last week to hold off on releasing hatchery fish will keep us from having to spend our time in a courtroom, arguing about injunctions, and instead let us find real solutions that promote wild steelhead recovery.”
Post by: Bullkllr on April 01, 2014, 05:18:35 PM
Post by: jstokes12 on April 01, 2014, 05:20:29 PM
Post by: snowpack on April 01, 2014, 05:29:00 PM
http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20140331/NEWS/303319995/federal-judge-sides-with-wild-fish-advocates-on-hatchery-issue-in (http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20140331/NEWS/303319995/federal-judge-sides-with-wild-fish-advocates-on-hatchery-issue-in)
I don't know of any rivers that have had a wild fish rebound once the hatchery brats were stopped. By rebound, I mean a significant change in numbers like 500-->5,000 not 500-->600.
Post by: WSU on April 02, 2014, 11:12:17 AM
You can thank the Wild Fish Recovery law suit. :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
WDFW will not release 'early winter' hatchery steelhead
this spring unless legal issues are resolved
OLYMPIA –The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) will not release early winter hatchery steelhead into rivers around Puget Sound as planned this spring unless it can resolve issues raised in January by the Wild Fish Conservancy and restated in a lawsuit the group filed this week.
Phil Anderson said WDFW leaders made the “very difficult” decision last week under the threat of litigation by the Conservancy, a non-profit group based in Duvall, Wash. In late January, the group filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue the department over its management of early winter (Chambers Creek) steelhead hatchery programs.
On Monday, March 31, as the 60-day period ended, the group filed a complaint in U.S. District Court in Seattle against the department and the state Fish and Wildlife Commission, alleging WDFW has violated the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). The group contends WDFW’s planting of Chambers Creek steelhead undermines the recovery of wild Puget Sound steelhead, salmon and bull trout, which are listed as “threatened” under the ESA.
Anderson said the department planned to releases about 900,000 juvenile steelhead this spring into rivers that flow into Puget Sound. Those fish are produced at nine hatcheries and represent about two-thirds of all hatchery steelhead produced by WDFW hatcheries in the Puget Sound region. Steelhead planted this spring would return to the rivers in 2016 and 2017.
He said WDFW is vulnerable to lawsuits over its hatchery steelhead operations because they were not approved by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) following the ESA listing of Puget Sound steelhead in 2007. WDFW submitted Hatchery Genetic Management Plans to NMFS in 2005 for its steelhead programs, relative to their potential impacts on Puget Sound wild chinook salmon. However, NMFS’ review of those plans was not completed. WDFW is nearing completion of updates to its steelhead plans to reflect recent hatchery improvements based on the most current science.
“We believe strongly that we are operating safe and responsible hatchery programs that meet exacting, science-based standards,” he said. “But without NMFS certification that our hatchery programs comply with the Endangered Species Act, we remain at risk of litigation. We are working hard to complete that process.”
Jim Scott, who heads the WDFW Fish Program, said the department and the Conservancy were not able to reach an agreement on WDFW’s steelhead hatchery management practices during the 60-day period, but he said discussions will continue in the hope of reaching a settlement by early May so that the 2014 plantings can take place.
“It’s in everyone’s best interest to quickly reach an agreement that will promote the recovery of Puget Sound steelhead and provide for tribal and recreational fisheries,” Scott said. “Going to court would force us to redirect our staff to defend our programs in litigation, rather than focusing on conservation and restoration of Puget Sound steelhead.”
Scott said the department acknowledges that scientific findings indicate certain hatchery practices may pose an impediment to wild fish productivity and recovery. But he noted state managers have worked hard to reform hatchery programs and have taken significant steps to protect ESA-listed wild steelhead. Actions since 2004 include:
• Reducing the number of early winter steelhead released in the Puget Sound watershed by more than 50 percent to minimize interactions between hatchery fish and wild steelhead.
• Reducing the number of release locations from 27 to nine.
• Collecting eggs from early-returning hatchery fish to maintain separation in the spawning times of hatchery and wild fish.
• Using genetic monitoring to guard against hatchery steelhead interacting with wild stocks.
“We want to continue discussions with the Wild Fish Conservancy in an attempt to address its issues,” Anderson said. “I’m hopeful that our decision last week to hold off on releasing hatchery fish will keep us from having to spend our time in a courtroom, arguing about injunctions, and instead let us find real solutions that promote wild steelhead recovery.”
Actually, you can thank WDFW for not doing their job and obtaining a permit sometime in the last decade. They've had years to get their act together and simply didn't do it. Be pissed at WDFW for failing to do its job.
Post by: WSU on April 02, 2014, 11:13:17 AM
The blows our steelhead fisheries take seem endless. If this happens there will literally be no steelhead to fish for anywhere around Puget Sound. I could support some change to what's happening hatchery-wise- but not more cuts and closures.
Agreed. We need recovery and hatchery fish both.
Post by: jackmaster on April 02, 2014, 11:25:28 AM
Post by: Bullkllr on April 02, 2014, 11:47:28 AM
Both groups need to pull their heads out, of course we wont really see the affect this for what 3 to 5 years? Anyone know how long it takes a hatchery steelhead to come back to spawn in the river it was released in? Can anyone tell me the big difference from a nate to a hatchery is? Isnt the idea here is to have all rivers teaming with steelhead again...
Well, it really is a complicated issue:
Hatchery fish return normally about 2 years from release date, a % will return after 3 years at sea.
The hatchery/nate issue is the bigger issue in your question. I'm probably biting off more than I can chew here, but in a nutshell most hatchery fish released by WDFW for generations have been "out of the system fish" ie not naturally found in that river. This was done for a variety of reasons. The main winter run fish used by WDFW has been Chamber's Creek stock (yes, the Chamber's Creek in Lakewood). Concerns have been that the out of basin stock depletes the gene pool of the native fish that evolved over millenia to survive and thrive in that particular stream (example - fish that historically traveled hundreds of miles up the Columbia River to spawn in Canada are a much different fish than those that spawn in say, Chamber's Creek...)
The Chamber's Creek stock can have an impact by spawning with "wild" fish. Studies have claimed the spawning success of Chamber's stock is almost nil. But if they cross-spawn with a wild fish, the reproductive capacity of the wild fish is lost with almost zero chance of success in returning fish also. They can also have an impact at the smolt stage by out-competing smaller wild smolts for food and habitat.
The big problem with Puget Sound steelhead is that a VERY low % of released hatchery smolts return as adults anyway. Releases have already been cut way back, but even if they released 10 times as many it may not produce many more adult fish. Smolt survival in Puget Sound is thought to be the limiting factor.
Wild fish throughout PS are protected by ESA, so the WDFW is forced to do something to protect/rebuild those numbers. So far that is not happening, even on rivers where no hatchery plants are made.
So yeah... it's rather a mess...
Post by: WSU on April 02, 2014, 11:56:54 AM
Post by: snowpack on April 02, 2014, 11:59:37 AM
Post by: WSU on April 02, 2014, 12:02:25 PM
So, I wonder if WDFW is thinking ahead to 2016/2017 and what the statewide plan will be? I don't think they can have any kind of steelhead season in a river with ESA steel if no hatchery steelhead are in that river. I think that is why the rivers around PS close early--the hatchery run is considered over by then and they can't allow targeting of wild even for cnr. A no plant year would imply a future no season year (PS region). Then where are all those people going to go to fish? Are we to expect emergency closures on the remaining rivers in 2016/2017? Then where are the folks that fish those other rivers going to go? Oregon, Canada, Alaska, Idaho?
I'd bet $100 they don't have that sort of plan.
Post by: Bullkllr on April 02, 2014, 12:03:10 PM
The other downfall here is all the displaced anglers that add pressure everywhere else. The satsop and nooch are joke now. The peninsula is over-crowded. There is nowhere else to fish and now, apparently, there will be even fewer.
Yes! The Puget Sound streams were suffering from few fish for awhile- but the complete shutdowns have created a huge problem on other rivers for sure.
Post by: jackmaster on April 02, 2014, 12:16:34 PM
Post by: steeleywhopper on April 02, 2014, 02:46:21 PM
Post by: TheHunt on April 02, 2014, 07:12:56 PM
Post by: jackmaster on April 02, 2014, 07:58:08 PM
It is getting to the point where Canada and Oregon is a better place to go fishing. Spend a week and fish as much as you can. I just hope the voting majority (Sport fisher people) will crush the stupidity when voting comes up.:yeah:thats why it so important for the experienced fisherman that know the ins and outs ofthis ssteelhead issue to educate the rest of us, I am a woodsman through and through, I fish oncein awhile, its a blast but i ain't educated at all when it comes to these kind of things, that is whats so AWESOME about HUNT WA..... like I said I will vote the way the fisherman want me to :tup:
Post by: dreamunelk on April 02, 2014, 08:06:45 PM
Post by: Bullkllr on April 02, 2014, 09:42:42 PM
Here is a good link to a site with a good intelligent discussion on the issue:http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/890646/Lawsuit_over_PS_Steelhead_hatc.html#Post890646
That does seem to be a mostly intelligent discussion
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/890646/1.html (http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/890646/1.html)
Post by: jpharcher on April 03, 2014, 06:39:45 AM
sorry but I like steelhead so if with the Green being designated as a Wild gene river and hatchery output coming to a screeching halt for all rivers statewide then I guess while it is legal I will retain my 1 native.
Post by: jackmaster on April 03, 2014, 06:49:23 AM
Post by: Bullkllr on April 03, 2014, 07:57:06 AM
Just 3 years ago the state stopped a very successful broodstock program on the Sol Duc via the Snyder Creek hatchery because the purist said...with little to no scientific backing that brood stock fish were breeding with the natives....broodstock are natives by the way. The Sol Duc is pretty much now a native only river and the pressure has not slowed down so all the "Catch and Release" of Native only fish are being subjected to more pressure and more are being "released" to spawn. I for one am going to start utilizing my 1 fish a year limit if that is the only chance for a fresh fillet for the BBQ.
Oregon seems to have embraced the concept of wild broodstock for supplementing on a number of rivers. I don't know too much about it, but they seem to actually be fishing down there and from what I hear fishing is pretty decent.
I'm sure more people will be taking their 1 native if that is all that's available. Picture the whole Puget Sound area shut down for winter steelhead. The Cowlitz no longer getting planted for the early run. The EF Lewis going "wild gene bank"... this is really bad news for Nooch, Satsop, and coastal rivers...where everyone who wants to fish for steelhead will be.
Post by: snowpack on April 03, 2014, 10:54:15 AM
Post by: Alchase on April 03, 2014, 11:52:14 AM
one thing i do know is the puyallup river was at one time a world reknown (sp) steelhead fishery, what the hell happened there, my dad told me stories of the old days of steelheadn on that river and the stuck was even better but not as many knew about that and its all but wiped out now, sounds like a couple of great rivers to start a massive steelhead rehabilitation program on, i would assume once you get a big established run, you could quit planting it and the ones you realeased before would start spawning up those rivers and presto a new wild run of fish that werent raised in a hatchery :dunno:
I have a Fishing and Hunting news article from 1995 I believe, that lists the Puyallup as the second most productive Steelhead fishery in the state.
Now there are none.
Bring all those plants down and release them in the Puyallup. No wild fish to bother, so no body should get their panties in a wad.
Post by: WSU on April 03, 2014, 11:54:15 AM
Post by: snowpack on April 03, 2014, 12:01:44 PM
A big problem with all Puget Sound streams, Puyallup included, is that the smolts do not appear to survive in Puget Sound. You could release hundreds of thousands and only get a few hundred fish back.I've heard this too. That the rivers actually have healthy levels of smolts, but within a short time (two weeks?) of leaving the river and being in the sound, something like only 1 in 4 are remaining. Then they have to leave the sound for the big ocean and survive out there for a few years.
Post by: jackmaster on April 03, 2014, 12:07:43 PM
A big problem with all Puget Sound streams, Puyallup included, is that the smolts do not appear to survive in Puget Sound. You could release hundreds of thousands and only get a few hundred fish back.i take it they have no clue what is causing this :dunno: is it polution or are the salmon out there snappn them all up, probably polution from the businesses all over the port of tacoma :dunno:
Post by: WSU on April 03, 2014, 12:14:36 PM
Post by: jackmaster on April 03, 2014, 12:18:27 PM
Post by: Alchase on April 03, 2014, 12:19:17 PM
Post by: jackmaster on April 03, 2014, 12:22:40 PM
That does not explain why the Puyallup was such a good fishery up until they shut the hatcheries down?not to start a tribal bashing thread here but the puyallup gets the crap netted out of it, it is stair stepped with nets during the fall, that might have something to do with it, and all those fish gotta come up the puyallup before they can get to the stuck as well....
Post by: WSU on April 03, 2014, 12:26:41 PM
"On one system, basically one out of every 350 hatchery smolts has made it back from the Pacific in recent years, according to a biologist.
And that’s actually twice as good as it’s been elsewhere.
“Over the past 10 years (to the Puyallup), it’s been a .15 percent return; in the heyday, it was 8 percent,” says fisheries biologist Mike Scharpf.
It shouldn’t take a state auditor’s report to figure out that those adults are pretty expensive specimens."
Post by: Alchase on April 03, 2014, 12:29:44 PM
Frustrating that the state destroys such a good fishery, then says "but you can have pinks" :puke:
Nothing wrong with pinks really, but they are not steelhead.
WSU, interesting statement in that article. If no steelhead hatchery, where are they counting them?
Post by: Bullkllr on April 03, 2014, 06:50:20 PM
I will always consider the Puyallup my "home river". It was where I caught my first steelhead in (I think) 1970. I fished it many years after that; it was near my home in Tacoma, and it was productive. I'm sure my observation/experience is quite typical...
From stories I've heard backed up by known statistics, the heyday of steelheading on the Puyallup was in the late 50s into the early 60s. It was top 3 or so in catch numbers every winter- and was putting out fish in the tens of thousands. The state was pumping thousands of smolts into the Puyallup and nearly every other river around, and they were coming back in droves.
In my experience it was consistently productive from the 70s through early 80s. It was producing below the "heyday", but was making the top ten every year, typically putting out 5-8,000 fish/year. So even then, production was beginning to decline.
The winter of 1984-85 was a banner year amidst what was recognized as an overall decline. The Puyallup put out over 10,000 fish (for the last time) and was either #1 or #2 that winter.
After that, there was decent fishing for several years, but it was obvious there was a steady decline. By the early 90s the oldtimers were talking about the "good ol'days" as if they were gone... and they were. By the late 90s popular drifts were practically deserted. Regulars had hung it up or made a few half-hearted trips- as there simply were few fish. BY the early 2000s the river was routinely closing for lack of wild and/or hatchery fish return.
I recall thinking about the downturn back in the 90s. There were really no outward changes in the river itself. The headwaters were in the park, then through timberland that had been intensively logged for generations. The river itself had been channelized in the middle sections and diked in the lower decades before. Commencement Bay at the mouth had been as industrialized as a port can be since the early 1900s. The dams at Electron and Mud Mt. had been there forever. The one change you could see was all the houses in the valley from Sumner to Orting, but that seemed like small potatoes compared to the other factors. The state was still planting fish, albeit less; they just weren't coming back. The tribe was gillnetting, but their catches suffered and seasons were curtailed also. I do not believe there has been a targeted tribal season on steelhead for many years- they catch some during their chum fishery and that's it.
The method used for counting returns takes multiple factors into account; fish caught in tribal and sport fisheries, fish counted at the dams, fish returning to the hatchery at Voight's Creek (which did start releasing steelhead at some point), spawning surveys, etc. Since 2000 some of the numbers they've come up with are shockingly low for both hatchery and wild fish; like in the low dozens of each some years. 2009-10 the total catch reported by WDFW was 83 fish, up from 18 fish the year prior (from a plant of over 200,000); I'm sure it's gone down substantially since then.
So, it's like everywhere, just a microcosm of the boom and bust of steelhead fisheries in Puget Sound and throughout the state. Cause? It's aptly referred to as "Death by 1000 cuts". In-river conditions have gradually worsened. Development has increased. Harvest took it's toll. Estuary damage may have reached critical mass. Hatchery fish impacts on wild fish. Hatchery cutbacks. ESA listing. Ocean survival...etc.
All I know is it's a remarkably sad situation, and a huge loss (one of many).
Post by: BigGoonTuna on April 03, 2014, 08:59:37 PM
That does not explain why the Puyallup was such a good fishery up until they shut the hatcheries down?smolt releases stopped about 4 or 5 years ago. as a hatchery stream, that one was pretty much done by the early '90s.
i think it's about time to stick a fork in winter steelhead fishing in this state. we're about to lose even more opportunity, and what's left is still going to be in decline while getting pounded by everyone.
Post by: Forks on April 04, 2014, 03:52:46 AM
Post by: Wingin it on April 04, 2014, 11:09:41 AM
Post by: BigGoonTuna on April 04, 2014, 05:17:32 PM
Post by: jpharcher on April 04, 2014, 08:36:25 PM
Post by: snowpack on April 04, 2014, 09:50:22 PM
Like when I hear about pollution, you can look at the Duwamish (EPA superfund site) and it still receives runs of wild fish. And then you have rivers else with no pollution and they have fish but at the reduced levels.
For habitat/development, you could say Skagit and Cowlitz have a decent amount of development and can still bring in fish, Puyallup has a lot of development on the lower river and has a run, not huge, but fish are returning. Then you have a river like Queets almost the entirety is in a national park and it is way below what bios say it could handle.
For the ones that point to silting and fine gravel and say that logging roads are the cause, you can look at Toutle and the river was a mudflow wasteland and fish found their way back and repopulated a bit.
Also for logging, the Clearwater was logged big time. They used to log it down to the banks and cut all the creeks and drug logs through them back in the 70's and early 80's--basically one giant clear cut 30ish years ago; and that river still brings in some pretty big fish in decent numbers (below what it could--but more than the log-apocalypse people try to claim).
Also for habitat, you have culverts. The Hoh has had quite a few culverts replaced and opened up all kinds of previously blocked habitat. Still misses escapement more and more each year.
Estuaries--rivers like Naselle or some of the Hood Canal rivers look to have good,intact estuaries and haven't been what they used to be, but Nisqually had a lot done to its estuary many years ago to convert to farm land (being restored now) and it gets fish back (not exactly fishable from what I hear).
One of the things I do see in common with all of them is they all send their smolts to the ocean.
Post by: Bullkllr on April 04, 2014, 11:20:54 PM
I understand the thought of the death by a thousand cuts, but when I hear about the individual cuts it seems like there are examples and counter-examples for each.
Like when I hear about pollution, you can look at the Duwamish (EPA superfund site) and it still receives runs of wild fish. And then you have rivers else with no pollution and they have fish but at the reduced levels.
For habitat/development, you could say Skagit and Cowlitz have a decent amount of development and can still bring in fish, Puyallup has a lot of development on the lower river and has a run, not huge, but fish are returning. Then you have a river like Queets almost the entirety is in a national park and it is way below what bios say it could handle.
For the ones that point to silting and fine gravel and say that logging roads are the cause, you can look at Toutle and the river was a mudflow wasteland and fish found their way back and repopulated a bit.
Also for logging, the Clearwater was logged big time. They used to log it down to the banks and cut all the creeks and drug logs through them back in the 70's and early 80's--basically one giant clear cut 30ish years ago; and that river still brings in some pretty big fish in decent numbers (below what it could--but more than the log-apocalypse people try to claim).
Also for habitat, you have culverts. The Hoh has had quite a few culverts replaced and opened up all kinds of previously blocked habitat. Still misses escapement more and more each year.
Estuaries--rivers like Naselle or some of the Hood Canal rivers look to have good,intact estuaries and haven't been what they used to be, but Nisqually had a lot done to its estuary many years ago to convert to farm land (being restored now) and it gets fish back (not exactly fishable from what I hear).
One of the things I do see in common with all of them is they all send their smolts to the ocean.
Those are all valid observations for sure; it points to the complexity of the problem. I think each river has a varying mix of factors, some of which outweigh others depending on the situation. And different rivers certainly have healthier/less healthy runs. Several you mention may be getting fish back, but not enough to provide any kind of fishery or maybe even sustain a run into the future. In Puget Sound, it is apparent that the farther south you go, the poorer the steelhead are doing, regardless of other factors. On the Hoh and Queets (especially) I think you could argue that current harvest may be the limiting factor. On the CW you can't say the logging didn't have an impact, but the fact that it nearly all got cut in a short time has allowed the upper ends of the system to heal substantially- maybe better than if the drainage was cut more gradually...? Opening culverts will help- but it takes a while- and coho benefit the most as they tend to be more creek spawners. The ocean is a common factor- in general the rivers that dump straight in have higher smolt survival- the farther from the ocean generally means the lower the survival. The ocean is also the factor that fish managers have the least knowledge of or control over. We're back to the no easy solution story, but I'd just be impressed if I saw the WDFW doing more than cutting back hatchery plants and closing more rivers.
Post by: Forks on April 05, 2014, 03:07:08 AM
Sounds like a plan Forks....interested in a very lightly used 2008 clackacraft old school high side?Thank you for the offer. I already have one to get rid of. You should have no problem finding a buyer in Oregon.