Post by: jackelope on April 25, 2014, 09:17:52 PM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/apr0114c/
The Skykomish will be the only puget sound river getting hatchery fish.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on April 25, 2014, 09:22:21 PM
...pretty much ends recreational steelhead fishing on the Snoqualmie River. Boooo....
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/apr0114c/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/apr0114c/)
The Skykomish will be the only puget sound river getting hatchery fish.
I hope you know who your neighbors are.................. :bash:
Post by: snowpack on April 25, 2014, 09:32:15 PM
Means the people that do want to fish will crowd into smaller and smaller areas. Might get as bad as that Alaskan combat fishing.
Post by: Bullkllr on April 25, 2014, 09:47:49 PM
...pretty much ends recreational steelhead fishing on the Snoqualmie River. Boooo....
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/apr0114c/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/apr0114c/)
The Skykomish will be the only puget sound river getting hatchery fish.
Not seeing anything about a settlement in that link... :dunno:
Post by: jackelope on April 25, 2014, 09:56:50 PM
...pretty much ends recreational steelhead fishing on the Snoqualmie River. Boooo....
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/apr0114c/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/apr0114c/)
The Skykomish will be the only puget sound river getting hatchery fish.
Not seeing anything about a settlement in that link... :dunno:
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.
........“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.”
Maybe settlement was the wrong word. Maybe "crumbled to special interest yet again" would have been more appropriate.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on April 25, 2014, 10:02:37 PM
http://www.freedomworks.org/content/sue-and-settle-how-epa-removes-power-states-and-hands-it-environmental-groups (http://www.freedomworks.org/content/sue-and-settle-how-epa-removes-power-states-and-hands-it-environmental-groups)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/18/lawsuit-challenges-feds-over-sue-and-settle-tactics-on-endangered-species/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/18/lawsuit-challenges-feds-over-sue-and-settle-tactics-on-endangered-species/)
Post by: MarkyMark on April 25, 2014, 10:05:24 PM
Post by: snowpack on April 25, 2014, 10:17:41 PM
Post by: Wingin it on April 26, 2014, 06:34:10 AM
Post by: MtnMuley on April 26, 2014, 06:55:20 AM
Post by: Special T on April 26, 2014, 07:13:07 AM
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?
Post by: Stickerbush on April 26, 2014, 07:22:51 AM
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?
Lots of groups spread salmon carcasses but I thought it was primarily on smaller tributaries. And to bring nutrients back into the soil of forests, but could benefit caddis fly as well. They would usually get spawned out carcasses from hatcherys to do this
Post by: jackelope on April 26, 2014, 07:36:41 AM
Does this eliminate nets on the Skagit? 1 potential bright side, although small in comparison?
How many fishing guides will this run out of business?
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on April 26, 2014, 07:47:23 AM
"WDFW will pay the Conservancy $45,000 for litigation expenses"... That's the real ball-slapper here. You can sue the WDFW and get us to pay for it. Not Right. Not one bit.
Called "sue and settle" Greenies and their lawyers have been doing it for decades. And our governments are just happy to cave. Congress can change the litigation cost to the litigants and that would help immensely.
Post by: justyhntr on April 26, 2014, 08:36:40 AM
Post by: snowpack on April 26, 2014, 10:08:34 AM
I must be missing some thing, i don;t fish so excuse my ignorance.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.
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?
Post by: steeleywhopper on April 26, 2014, 11:10:11 AM
Post by: Mtn.Ghost on April 26, 2014, 01:32:13 PM
WDFW and Politicians :beatdeadhorse:
Post by: calawahsteelie on April 26, 2014, 04:20:22 PM
Post by: Bullkllr on April 26, 2014, 09:25:09 PM
"When the lawsuit was filed, WDFW officials said the department was vulnerable to litigation because its hatchery steelhead operations had not been approved by NMFS following the ESA listing of Puget Sound steelhead in 2007. Scott said WDFW worked with tribes to revise and update its HGMPs for all Puget Sound steelhead hatcheries, and resubmitted them to NMFS earlier this year."
Not sure how true it is, but rumor has it that the only reason NMFS did not approve the plan yet was because WDFW failed to apply. After seven years.
With the litigation settled, Scott said the department will work with tribal and federal officials on an aggressive schedule to complete the NMFS review.
Great job, all! :tup:
Circus fricken' clowns could do a better job... or 3rd graders...or crack addicts...heck, anybody!
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/reeltimenorthwest/2014/04/25/lawsuit-over-hatchery-steelhead-plants-in-westside-rivers-appears-resolved-but-not-the-outcome-sport-anglers-wanted/ (http://blogs.seattletimes.com/reeltimenorthwest/2014/04/25/lawsuit-over-hatchery-steelhead-plants-in-westside-rivers-appears-resolved-but-not-the-outcome-sport-anglers-wanted/)
Post by: bigtex on April 26, 2014, 09:57:13 PM
NMFS lists Puget Sound Steelhead under the ESA. In order for WDFW to continue with hatchers steelhead programs in this area they essentially need a permit to operate the hatchery from NMFS. WDFW submits the paperwork to NMFS.....
Federal budgets come and NMFS essentially reduces their permitting program personnel along with all other programs in their agency... WDFW is still waiting on their permits.
Basically what you have is WDFW operating without a federal permit to operate these hatcheries.
The Wild Fish Conservancy is basically saying WDFW you can't operate these hatcheries in these rivers until you get a permit. The sad part is, it's true. WDFW was setting themselves up for legal issues, but they decided to go ahead and continue with the hatchery programs. Legally, they were supposed to wait until the permit showed up
Post by: Forks on April 27, 2014, 06:20:18 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on April 27, 2014, 07:46:04 AM
Thank you Bigtex for clearing this thread up. WDFW has been waiting for years for the permit to show up.And what groups friends are responsible for that??? :yike: :kneel:
Post by: RG on April 27, 2014, 09:01:09 AM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on April 27, 2014, 09:08:50 AM
So they wait for years.... That sounds to me like ineffective management. If I order something and I have to wait for years I take steps to fix it. If I were the WDFW and I knew that the future of steelhead fishing for all young people in Washington State would be eliminated or at least reduced to basically nothing if I didn't get that permit, I might think it was important enough to do whatever it takes to make something happen. I call this caving to political pressure because it sure seems to me that it was awfully convenient to sit back and wait, knowing it wasn't going to happen, then make up some stinkin lame weak excuse about the cost of litigation so we have to eliminate the hatchery program most places. They eliminated the hatchery program for steelhead pretty much in the late 90's. It's been so reduced compared to the early 90's and before then that you wouldn't be able to tell if any hatchery fish were released or not by fishing. This is an excuse for mismanagement. It just sounds easy to justify because you can blame NWFS for failure to manage by WDFW. That is a really weak excuse.I agree ...I am beyond tired of all this crap ...The only steelhead that will be caught in the future is from the Indians and there nets ,,, :bash: :bash: :bash: :pee: And they will be Native .... Wait a minute ...DO NOT WE LIVE ON EARTH TOO !!!! Birrrrrrrrrrrrrr Dirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on April 27, 2014, 09:16:54 AM
Post by: Dhoey07 on April 27, 2014, 09:57:34 AM
Am I over the top to think that someone or some people seriously dropped the ball here and should lose their job? Where's the accountability?
Post by: snowpack on April 27, 2014, 10:13:08 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on April 27, 2014, 10:35:06 AM
Post by: LabChamp on April 27, 2014, 01:06:46 PM
Post by: snowpack on April 27, 2014, 02:15:27 PM
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. :dunno:
Post by: bigtex on April 27, 2014, 05:16:14 PM
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.
Post by: RG on April 28, 2014, 08:42:26 AM
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.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.
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.
Post by: snowpack on April 28, 2014, 10:24:30 AM
Post by: Special T on April 28, 2014, 10:27:19 AM
Post by: WSU on April 28, 2014, 10:29:26 AM
I must be missing some thing, i don;t fish so excuse my ignorance.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.
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?
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.).
Post by: chiefeng on April 30, 2014, 11:51:01 AM
Post by: jumpin on April 30, 2014, 12:46:03 PM