Mike Gilchrist
Offline
silver
Profile Status:
Reged: 01/18/01
Posts: 102
Loc: Federal Way, WA
|
|
They plan to sue to close 18 Puget Sound hatcheries. See their website for info. More later...
http://www.washingtontrout.org/hatchnoticepr.html
[ 07-01-2002, 10:01 PM: Message edited by: Mike Gilchrist ]
--------------------
Mike Gilchrist
Will you allow (Used to say:the Industrial Fishing Fleet) anyone to devastate the resources and YOUR sport? Recreational Fishing Alliance, Your Voice on Capitol hill
www.rfawashingtonst.org
|
POS Clerk
Offline
2 salt
Profile Status:
Reged: 06/04/02
Posts: 29
Loc: oregon
|
|
Hatcheries were not created to provide angling opportunity for recreational fishermen. They were created in an effort to produce more salmon for commercial harvest. If this suit is an effort to reduce the negative consequences of poor hatchery practices then I wish them all the luck in the world. Naturally spawning, robust, wild populations are what all sport fishermen should consider the goal of our long-term strategies. It should not be the shortsighted, greed induced dogma of increased hatchery dependence…
POS Clerk
|
fishinSinsation
Online!
Puke & Rally
Profile Status:
Reged: 03/16/02
Posts: 1265
Loc: Kenmore, Wa
|
|
might not be such a bad thing, cant keep kings on most rivers anyways
--------------------
UA Local 32
|
fishdoc
Offline
Thick Tail
Profile Status:
Reged: 01/30/02
Posts: 3170
Loc: SWWA
|
|
I replied more on another board about this...but my point is simple. Wild fish need hatchery fish to survive...no doubt. Without hatchery fish our native fish will be gone in...hmmm...12 years...thats a guess. ![[Big Grin]](images/icons/grin.gif)
My .02
Jim
--------------------
If we always do what we've always done, we'll always get what we've always gotten.
|
driftin4steel
Offline
steelie
Profile Status:
Reged: 06/26/02
Posts: 219
Loc: sky
|
|
It is a sad condition our native runs of fish are in, and not just chinooks. My feeling is that we need to do as much as possible to save these runs. At this point I think closing down hatcheries may do more harm than good. The hatcheries should be set up to run in such a way that they effect the wild fish as little as possible. I'm certainly not an expert on this subject, it is just my opinion.
|
Quillback
Offline
South of the Mason/Dixon line
Profile Status:
Reged: 02/08/02
Posts: 2618
Loc: Arkansas
|
|
I agree that WDFW needs to reform it's hatchery problems with a view towards helping wild fish, but if these hatcheries are closed down you can forget about fishing for Chinook in Puget Sound, both sportfishing and commercial. The tribes will still be able to take their fish but there will never be enough wild chinook to support recreational and commercial fishing, Washington Trout is doing a great diservice to sports fishermen in state by filing this lawsuit.
--------------------
I'd rather be fishing
|
DJFISHS2XS
Offline
silver
Profile Status:
Reged: 11/05/01
Posts: 109
Loc: Oak Harbor WA
|
|
I think were all being fed a line of BS. Hatchery fish do not deplete the natives nor do they screw up the genetics of the runs. I am from Michigan originaly and they brought Puget sound salmon to the great lakes in 1962 in exchange for makanaw trout (thats lake trout to us michiganders) Then smolts were placed in streams across the upper penisula and the northern part of the lower penisula. Then runs have never been better I well even go as far to say its slightly better then here. I see 50 pound fish each year and there is a 5 fish limit on kings and 10 on humpys. Now on difference is the Indians in michigan dont net salmon (they stick to lake trout and white fish) Im am against netting but I do believe that someday the sport fishing guys and the indians well be in the same boat fighting against the tree huggers. I see reports on all kinds of places but no one checks the background/creditbility of the researchers.
A report funded by PETA for example always has PETA in its best interest. There is TREE HUGGERS in the federal government I know I work for it. If
these tree huggers are so worried they should attack the environmental issues, Like polution, pestisides, stream rehab etc. Be spectical of the reports...Opps Im on a soap box....DJ
|
WoodsyWayne
Offline
MODERATOR -Bi-Coastal Intelligence
Profile Status:
Reged: 07/15/01
Posts: 5708
Loc: Below Mt. Baker
|
|
hmmmm
interesting,............... I need to start getting more involved with this stuff, I just can't stand all the reading, never was much of a reader.
Can barely make it through movies too!
ah well, I try
Woodsy Wayne
[ 07-02-2002, 08:36 AM: Message edited by: wayne ]
--------------------
Fishermans Prayer: G-d grant that I may fish until my dying day, and when it comes to my last cast I then most humbly pray, When in the the lord's safe landing net I'm peacefully asleep, that in his mercy I be judged as big enough to keep
|
Quillback
Offline
South of the Mason/Dixon line
Profile Status:
Reged: 02/08/02
Posts: 2618
Loc: Arkansas
|
|
Something else to remember, WA Trout is going after Chinook hatcheries now, if they win this case, Steelhead hatcheries will be their next target, also remember if this case goes to court, fisheries decisions could well be made by a judge that doesn't know a carp from a chinook, remember Judge Boldt? That guy was senile but yet made a decision that has a huge effect on fishing for steelhead and salmon in this state. WA Trout's vision of the world is to have native only fish in our rivers and set the regulations so that it's fly fishing only with a single barbless hook. If this scares you should speak out against this outrage they are perpatrating.
--------------------
I'd rather be fishing
|
BW
Offline
steelie
Profile Status:
Reged: 01/08/02
Posts: 161
Loc: Lakewood /wa
|
|
Say there Quillback, I and not trying to start anything but Judge Bolt made it clear before the trial started that he thought the Tribe's procession was weak. Unfortuately they went on and proved their case. It has been up helded severel times in our courts. It can only be changed now by congress. Don't think that will ever happen.
|
Quillback
Offline
South of the Mason/Dixon line
Profile Status:
Reged: 02/08/02
Posts: 2618
Loc: Arkansas
|
|
Well BW, I wasn't calling for a reversal of the Boldt decision, I agree it will probably stand forever, BUT it was a terrible decision by a judge many thought was mentally incompetent at the time, my point was that leaving fisheries management in the hands of judges is a big mistake, more litigation is going to cause more problems, the only winners are going to be the lawyers.
--------------------
I'd rather be fishing
|
BW
Offline
steelie
Profile Status:
Reged: 01/08/02
Posts: 161
Loc: Lakewood /wa
|
|
In this case however I think the Tribes may be our new best friends. Can't help but think they will have something to say about this.
|
Quillback
Offline
South of the Mason/Dixon line
Profile Status:
Reged: 02/08/02
Posts: 2618
Loc: Arkansas
|
|
You are right BW, I can't imagine the tribes will sit this one out as they will probably feel the greatest impact if hatcheries are shut down, I don't think commercial fishermen will be pleased either, I for one, am willing to bury the hatchet with these groups so that we can unite and fight to preserve our fisheries.
--------------------
I'd rather be fishing
|
Quillback
Offline
South of the Mason/Dixon line
Profile Status:
Reged: 02/08/02
Posts: 2618
Loc: Arkansas
|
|
I'm posting way too much on this topic, but it ticks me off, anyway, I agree in some ways with WA Trout that state hatcheries could be run in a better way, however I wish they would work with the state to institute reform instead of adopting an all or nothing approach, i.e., if you don't do it our way we are going to sue to shut you down. Another issue is funding, it's easy to stand back and point out what is wrong with current hatchery methods, but it's expensive to make major changes, where is the money going to come from? The state is currently suffering from a budget crises, I guarantee you that "fixing" hatcheries is not a state government priority.
--------------------
I'd rather be fishing
|
stlhdh2o
Offline
Chromer
Profile Status:
Reged: 05/03/02
Posts: 810
Loc: Pugetropolis
|
|
If you go to the provided link and look at the arguments presented for why they are targeting PS hatcheries something glaringly obvious should jump out at you. The arguments are equally applicable to all of the many factors that harm wild fish. You could use the same arguments to argue "get the nets out" or "tear the dams down".
The problem with the solution proposed is that it targets not the most important factor or the factor that could have the biggest impact but the factor that might be the most politically feasable to change. This is backwards thinking. We should be looking solutions, not political bandaids. Frankly its why I tend not to involve myself politically in matters pertaining to fishing. The solutions are aggravatingly simple but politically and popularly intolerable.
Remove all impediments to fish migration. This includes both dams and nets. Discontinue all forms of fishing until such time that the wild runs have recovered. Use that 'down time' to develop a management plan that manages for the protection of wild fish, not one that fakes it (run health) with hatchery numbers. This would be the most opportune time to dismantle Washington's abhorrent hatchery system.
See why I don't weigh in on political matters? Although my suggestions make perfect sense they will never be heeded because people would be voted/laughed/lynched out of office if they tried to enact such proposals. I suppose you could criticise them for not being grounded in reality...but I would say that anyone who tries to enact a proposal mitigating the effects of man on wild fish without considering first dams and nets is equally in fantasy land.
--------------------
\m/
|
Quillback
Offline
South of the Mason/Dixon line
Profile Status:
Reged: 02/08/02
Posts: 2618
Loc: Arkansas
|
|
Good points, what you say is probably an impossibility, I can't see the dams ever coming down, and the nets coming out, and if this never happens wild fish will probably never recover in the Puget Sound region, I personally believe that even though a hatchery fish is in some ways "inferior" to a wild fish, that given the current environment it's better than nothing. Also we don't live in a static environment, the Puget Sound area continues to grow, and growth is inherently bad for fish and all wild animals, the clock will never be turned back to 1890 the rivers will never be the same again. The state is also proposing to build an ever larger road network which we will have a chance to vote on this fall, if approved it will allow growth to accelerate even faster which is bad news for fish, especially wild anadromous fish. We've had a couple of good years lately because of improved ocean conditions for salmon and steelhead, I dread the coming of the next el Nino.
--------------------
I'd rather be fishing
|
Todd R
Offline
Chromer
Profile Status:
Reged: 10/29/01
Posts: 892
Loc: Seattle, Washington
|
|
Here are my (not so) quick points on this issue...
1. WT has been trying for years to get the impassable dam on Tokul Creek, owned and operated by WDFW to get water for the TC hatchery, upgraded to allow ESA-listed chinook to go by it and spawn. As of yet, the state has done nothing about it. That dam is in direct violation of the ESA...
2. Failures in attempts to negotiate or have useful conversations generally end up in court. Does suing for the end of operations of those hatcheries mean that they will end? The answer is no, at least not if the state decides to bring their operations into compliance with the law.
3. If fishermen want to make sure that those hatcheries do not close, don't attack WT for suing over their non-compliance. Get on the state's back for not complying with the law. If the hatchery operations were lawful, there would be no basis for a lawsuit, nothing to sue over.
Who's the bad guy here?
No one, actually.
WT wants the hatcheries to be in compliance with the law. Anyone who doesn't like that has a fairly serious problem, in my book.
WDFW wants the hatcheries to be in compliance with the law. The problem is that they don't have the money to fix them.
Is there some sort of middle ground? Yes, there is. The middle ground is improved compliance, better management with existing financial resources.
How does that come about? Voluntarily, or through a structured settlement with promises in the context of a lawsuit.
Has it happened voluntarily? No.
Will these hatcheries close? Probably not.
What likely will happen is that the lawsuit will be settled if certain conditions are met by WDFW. What they are, I don't know.
I do have a strong feeling about one, though. Tokul Creek wouldn't even be on that list if a concrete dam twenty feet wide and four feet tall was either equipped with a fish ladder or removed entirely and a different water withdrawal system were set up. WT has been asking for this ESA-mandated action for a long time, and has received nothing back.
Hence, a lawsuit.
This isn't about hatchery vs. wild fish, it's not about barbless flyflingers vs. bait fishing bonkers, and it's not about commercial fishing and treaty fishing.
It's about specific violations of state and federal laws that are going on continually, and have been doing so for quite a while. WDFW probably doesn't have the funding to fix all of them, but probably wouldn't mind being forced to fix them via settlement of a lawsuit.
Money to do that, if not new, would have to be reallocated from other places.
I'd rather see ten well-run hatcheries, in substantial if not complete compliance with the law, than twenty way out of compliance.
We'll see how it turns out...
Fish on...
Todd
--------------------
http://www.rvrfshr.com
For all your fishing hardware needs!
"Correct in Design"
|
Mike Gilchrist
Offline
silver
Profile Status:
Reged: 01/18/01
Posts: 102
Loc: Federal Way, WA
|
|
Thankyou for the insight Todd. The issue I currently have with WT is that regardless of their motives, and what they hope to accomplish, they have loaded their guns and are pointing them directly at a multi-billion dollar sport fishing industry. This forces sportfishers to re-act, specifically it forces me to re-act. There is no way they could not expect backlash on this.
[ 07-03-2002, 06:53 AM: Message edited by: Mike Gilchrist ]
--------------------
Mike Gilchrist
Will you allow (Used to say:the Industrial Fishing Fleet) anyone to devastate the resources and YOUR sport? Recreational Fishing Alliance, Your Voice on Capitol hill
www.rfawashingtonst.org
|
Quillback
Offline
South of the Mason/Dixon line
Profile Status:
Reged: 02/08/02
Posts: 2618
Loc: Arkansas
|
|
You are right Mike, the sportfishers I have talked to about this are very angry with Wa Trout and the stance it has taken. They feel directly threatened by this action and now equate Wa Trout as an organization with PETA, Earth First and other radical environmental organizations that care only about their own agenda. Thanks to your and your organization Mike for fighting the good fight!
--------------------
I'd rather be fishing
|
Quillback
Offline
South of the Mason/Dixon line
Profile Status:
Reged: 02/08/02
Posts: 2618
Loc: Arkansas
|
|
Todd R I had trouble accepting part of your argument that the state (WDFW) will compromise and allocate money from elsewhere to "Fix" the hatchery problems to satisfy Wa Trout, With the state having massive budget problems it's not going to be a simple "reallocation" of money to fix what will probably cost millions of dollars. There is a possibility the state will just close them down. After all the state is looking to close some very popular state parks in pite of some very vocal opposition. I don't know if you are a spokesman for Wa Trout, but if so, it concerns me because it doesn't seem that things have been thought though very well. This is not a good time to ask the state to "reallocate" money that doesn't exist. If Wa Trout did think of possible outcomes than I have to believe the true intent is to shut down hatcheries which by itself will not help wild Chinook at all.
Is Tokul creek on that list too? The bulletin nly talks about chinook hatcheries, but Tokul is a steelhead hatchery, if it is closed then kiss steelhead fishing on the Snoqualmie goodbye.
--------------------
I'd rather be fishing
|
4Salt
Offline
dual red striper
Profile Status:
Reged: 01/18/02
Posts: 474
Loc: Lynnwood, WA
|
|
Perhaps, since the ESA is a federal law, and I believe that any litigation would probably take place in federal court, federal money would be available to help the state come in to compliance, should there be a judgement against them? Hopefully Todd could elaborate more on the subject?
--------------------
Ronco Pro-Staff
|
Gooose
Offline
Ancient Mod
Profile Status:
Reged: 09/14/01
Posts: 11057
Loc: Area 12
|
|
Just posted this on another board regarding the same subject.
"Yes 4Salt it surely is about the law and upon rereading the Washington Trout news release it is also all about SHUTTING DOWN 100% COMPLETELY ALL HATCHERY CHINOOK PRODUCTION IN PUGET SOUND!
Thank you not Washington Trout! If all of WTs demands are enacted then good bye recreational fishing for chinook in Puget Sound as there are not and won't be enough naturally produced chinook to allow a tenth of the current recreational effort let alone any increases and this includes catch and release people. You ESA experts can twist the numbers any way you want but the truth is thats what will be the result. You all know that there is a certain amount of incidental "take" or more plainly "kill" allowed under 4d that is apportioned to many activities including even CNR fisheries for chinook or for that matter any fishery where listed chinook may be encountered. With zero hatchery chinook the truth is quite naked...zero chinook fishery including blackmouth. Quite possibly other fisheries may also be restricted further or even closed down due to this action. So lets hear it from the ESA experts... please tell us the whole truth? I for one would love to hear it. I suggest everyone read that press release closely and several times."
Also don't expect the Federal government to bail out anyone...this is easily gleaned from the Fed's efforts to bail out on their Mitchell Act funding of the Columbia River hatcheries. Ain't it great that Utopia is just around the corner for a small select group? ![[Roll Eyes]](images/icons/rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Independent Advocate For The Fish
Not Represented By Any Organization
Simple Solutions to Simple Problems
Simple Solutions to Complex Problems
There's lies, damned lies and then there are statistics......Mark Twain
|
Quillback
Offline
South of the Mason/Dixon line
Profile Status:
Reged: 02/08/02
Posts: 2618
Loc: Arkansas
|
|
Goose - Right on! I couldn't have said it better, Wa Trout needs to move to California, they sound like they come from there, no true Washington native would belong to such a screwy group.
--------------------
I'd rather be fishing
|
Gooose
Offline
Ancient Mod
Profile Status:
Reged: 09/14/01
Posts: 11057
Loc: Area 12
|
|
Quillback ![[Wink]](images/icons/wink.gif) !
Seems like I tossed a bucket of ice water reality on some guys?
--------------------
Independent Advocate For The Fish
Not Represented By Any Organization
Simple Solutions to Simple Problems
Simple Solutions to Complex Problems
There's lies, damned lies and then there are statistics......Mark Twain
|
Gooose
Offline
Ancient Mod
Profile Status:
Reged: 09/14/01
Posts: 11057
Loc: Area 12
|
|
Hey Mike e-mail me at Gooose@tscnet.com...I'm signing up with RFA! Hope anyone else who wants commonsense and logic in the direction of our recreational fisheries and conservation/restoration issues considers joining also....this sure opened my eyes!
--------------------
Independent Advocate For The Fish
Not Represented By Any Organization
Simple Solutions to Simple Problems
Simple Solutions to Complex Problems
There's lies, damned lies and then there are statistics......Mark Twain
|
boater
Offline
Chromer
Profile Status:
Reged: 05/03/01
Posts: 693
Loc: seattle
|
|
todd, you seam to be a very smart person , can you explain why the state in the last few years has been trapping the returning chinook at tokul creek and trucking them upstream instead of just trapping them and placing them above this concrete barrier and letting them go on there merry way like they used to do in the past ?
|
Gooose
Offline
Ancient Mod
Profile Status:
Reged: 09/14/01
Posts: 11057
Loc: Area 12
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 