WA Trout declares war on recreational fishing

[Mike Gilchrist]

They plan to sue to close 18 Puget Sound hatcheries. See their website for details. More later....

http://www.washingtontrout.org/hatchnoticepr.html

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Your title is inaccurate as well as inflammatory. 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…

A mind is like a parachute… Both work better when OPEN!

*** Clerk

[ 07-01-2002, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: *** Clerk ]

[Mike Gilchrist]

Yes the title is inflamitory, it is intended to get people to read it.

Bottom line, a lawsuit directed at closing down virtually all puget Sound (EDIT)Salmon(EDIT) Hatcheries, however correct you think they are, has the impact of shutting down allmost all recreational fishing in Puget Sound, its tributaries, and much of the fishing in the straights of Juan De Fuca. This will cost thousands of jobs as well. They might not thinkof this as going after recreationl fishing, but that is the result.

[ 07-02-2002, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: Mike Gilchrist ]

[rob allen]

Mike as I read that article WT wants not to close hatcheries but to make WDFW obey the law!!!!! And at that it is 10 out of 55 hatcheries. That in now way could be thought of as "virtually all puget Sound Hatcheries" There is a big difference between less than half and virtialy all.

Again is WDFW was not violating ESA they would not be getting sued. In Washington all of our salmon problems were caused by people not following exsisting laws. WDFW is breaking the law and therefore WT has every right and in fact a responsibility to sue the Department and anyone who cases about the survival of these fish should be 100% behind WT. If you are not behind them then you do not care if Puget Sound Kings go extinct.. One or the other. You CANNOT say you want them saved but want to keep doing things that kill them off.

[Jim]

Well, I have never been on the same page as Washington Trout, and I am certainly not this time. This entire threat of a lawsuit is solved by fin clipping. I have never...ever seen a Washington Trout group at any fin clipping that I have been a part of. Lets get the Kings clipped so that all can know which is wild and which is hatchery. I don't know and I don't think anyone knows if we can truely bring our wild fish runs back to the production level they need. This process needs baby steps not giant leaps. Hatchery fish do more for our wild runs than any other single effort, we need those fish to ensure the strength of our wild runs.

Thats my .02

Jim

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Mr. Gilchrist

Although elimination of the hatchery releases would reduce recreational harvest levels in the short term, it would more than likely not reduce recreational fishing in the long term.
Commercial harvest interests are who is benefiting the most from our current system; any changes would allow reallocation of this resource to benefit sportsmen and wild fish populations equally and reduce the impact commercial harvest currently has.

The chances of this suit working are remote, yet it may succeed in making hatchery managers rethink their current practices benefiting both hatchery and wild fish populations.

[Mike Gilchrist]

***,

I regret that I don't have time to get into a long debate on this subject right now, so I will simply say that I have a much different opinion of the role of hatcheries than you and I will reply to you that short term in Puget Sound could easily be 20 to 50 years due to the level of environmental damage done to our watersheds- and that is asuming that we actually succeed in fixing them. Also, there is very little commercial fishing in Puget sound any more, except tribal, and that allocation is not going anywhere.

[Pilar]

A question Jim .... How do hatcheries help wild fish ?

Fin clipping is a must, I agree with you there but I do not understand why you think hatcheries will help wild fish.

[Phish_on]

Yes ... I want to read that logic.

[Get Bit]

Pilar,
I think Hatcheries take the pressure off of wild runs by being the target for harvest. If there were no hatchery fish wouldn't wild stocks be the entire resource for harvest ? There are also a number of broodstock programs right now that continue to show a great deal of promise.If this continues, we will be able to compliment wildstocks in watersheds with the same genetic strains of fish and be able to harvest fish on a limited basis.

Get Bit

[Pilar]

Get Bit .... That makes sense but think about this. The same augmentation makes it possible for netting seasons to occur. This opens that wild population to predation by nets. A 'net' loss I would say, since the nets do not discriminate. Also there has been some talk of competition between introduced runs and native fish on the same watershed. Any of you F & G biologists want to comment on that?

[ 07-02-2002, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: Pilar ]

[Get Bit]

Pilar
I can see that logic too. Doesn't it boil down to keeping strains of fish in their own watersheds and creating a commercial fishery thats forced to be selective in their harvest ? My frustration has always been the sportfishermen's inability to rally together for a common goal. We spend so much time bickering for own little agendas that we shoot ourselves in the foot when it comes to having the political clout to force change.

Get Bit :smile:

[luguando]

I vote for the fin clipping. This issue is an emotional one and should be debated. The idealistic view is to eliminate all hatcheries. The practical view is to have hatcheries to sustain adequate populations for commercial and sport fishers. A draconian move like eliminating a large percentage of current fish production seems like a knee jerk reaction to me. Fin clipping should be implemented to distinguish between the natives and hatchery fish. Then, the **** falls in to the enforcers lap about how all the native fish get protected and what methods of harvest will be allowed for the hatchery fish.

[rob allen]

Just as a side not I know many of the top people at Washington Trout and without excepton everyone I know there is an extremely avid sport fisher suggesting that they are somehow at war with sportsfishers is absolutely wrong. They are fighting for the sportsfishers greater good. Maybe you have not seem them clipping hatchrey fish because they were busy doing snorkle counts,spawning surveys or writting letters and lobbying congress for fish friendly legislation. Or maybe they were sueing WDFW for allowing the commercial harvest od Puget Sound endangered chinook. or maybe they were off helping WDFW and NMFS determine bull trout and west slope cutthroat populations in central Washington.. or maybe they were busy filling out grant forms to get money to buy and restore schoolhouse creek on the Washougal river. WT is the best friend that Washington salmonids have...

[4Salt]

Hey Rob,

You might have a tough time convincing superfly of that... graemlins/icon_argue.gif :grin: :grin:

http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=009529

[Mike Gilchrist]

I have a few minutes here so:

I have never had a big problem with Washington trout untill this point. They have done many good things.

But when they stepped over the line, they stepped way over the line. I have been looking at their press release, trying to figure out - is this just a bluff to get the Department to move faster on hatchery reform? I conclude NO, this looks like a aggressive move to shut down hatcheries without reform. I conclude this because of two statements:

“At least ten of WDFW’s Puget Sound chinook hatcheries have artificial barriers at the facilities that block wild chinook from reaching important spawning and rearing habitats”

This is true, and correctable, but not without money, something the state has no surplus of at this time.

“Hatchery chinook released into the wild compete with wild chinook for food and habitat, and in some cases actually prey on wild juveniles.”

This one is unchangeable. They both go to the ocean, they both feed on the same food.

If Washinton Trout is threatening to sue based on these points, points that they know are not correctable, then I must conclude that this is not a bluff and they intend to force closure of hatcheries leaving the sportmen without fish to catch.

Rob Allen, I will give you credit, you caught a mistake I made, I did not specify salmon hatcheries in my earlier post. I will edit that as they don't seem to be after the trout hatcheries at this time. But since hatchery steelhead could potentially eat wild chinook, whats next....

I will update as I find out more specifics

[Jim]

Pilar,
Just got in and really appreciate your response. The answer to your question is almost complete in the above statements except for one huge deal. The commercial fisherman of Washington in the big picture have minimal impacts. It is the Canadian commerical fleet that gets upwards of 60% of our Coho and40% of our Kings. If we only send wild fish to them they only have wild fish to harvest and harvest they will. The moratorium is over in 2-3 years and the Canadian Commercial Fleet will be back on the water. Thats my logic for whats its worth.

Jim

[rob allen]

only thing is Jim they will catch our wild salmon anyway..Having no hatchery fish will make it unprofitable for them to target" our" fish.

But that is not the point the point is that WDFW is violating ESA by having hatchery practices that kill wild fish... Thats the bottom line.

[Jim]

Rob,
All right, I will buy that...so lets get everyone committed to clipping fish, so that we can have 100% clipped hatchery fish...or at least close. Otherwise there is no way to tell if the fish is wild or not and its a silly argument and an even sillier lawsuit.

Jim

[rob allen]

Jim even if they are all clipped they will still kill wild fish. This is not a harvest issue it's about the negative impacts the hatchery fish have on wild fish. It has absolutely nothing to do with harvest.
When you plant smolts by the hundreds of thousands they push the smaller numbers of wild smolts into marginal habitat where theydon't survive as well. There is new data coming out that suggests in years of poor ocean survival that the millions of hatchery fish outcompete the few hundred thousand wild fish for the available food. The finally when hatchery fish spawn in the wild they reduce the ability of the wild fish to reproduce..

WDFW hatchery's kill wild puget sound chinook. They are a MAJOR limiting factor in the recovery of puget sound chinook WDFW knows that is true and they are doing nothing at all about it.. That is why WT is sueing them...

[Jim]

Rob,
I don't know how long you have been in this game but I have been around long enough to see it go full circle twice. New science...new studies...new findings...new, new, new etc. If we want just wild fish then everyone and I mean everyone must be shut down. No harvest for anything for anybody. Will they rebuild that way...I have no doubt...they are much more resilient than we give them credit for. I would be for this if it was a 100% shut down...do I think that is possible...nope. So, lets make sure that all hatchery fish are clipped and that we handle the unclipped fish with the dignity they deserve, but as one who has been chest deep in water with a slippery 35# King in my hands that dignity road is a tough one. As for the smolt issue the studies that I am aware of show that hatchery fingerlings are much more aggressive than their wild counterparts but the wilds catch up and pass them quickly...nothing wrong with survival of the fittest anyway.

Jim

[Sponge Bob]

Guys, WDFW fin clips almost all their Puget sound Chinook. The ones that they do not clip are not clipped because an agreement cannot be reached with the local tribes. That is the only reason that 100 % of Chinook are not clipped. As far as the hatchery reform goes WDFW is working on the problems that they have with barriers, screens and etc. but the budget for hatchery repairs and improvements is not there. What can you do with no money?
Instead of spending all their money on lawsuits and such maybe WT could help with these improvements.
As far as the genetics of hatchery and wild fish mixing and being detrimental to wild fish, I think that this argument is totally obsurd. graemlins/stupid.gif These fish have been trucked and planted all over the state for years, (out of watershed) so I feel that the so called wild fish that everyone are trying to "save" are actually proginy of hatchery-wild parents. So catch your fish, enjoy the time spent outdoors, and shut up!! :mad: :grin: :grin:

[TheRogue]

Oh, boy, another argument!!!! S.S.D.D.

I don't have any dealing with Washington Trout. I just make an assumption that they adhere to the same principles that Oregon Trout has made so clear the last few years.

1. NO hatchery fish.

2. No harvest of wild fish.

3. Therefore, no harvest of ANY fish, period.

In my mind, there's pretty good biological support for lots of what the conservation groups have to say. I mean, really, most any of us can tell the difference between a 12lb hatchery steelie and a 12lb wild fish within the first 30 seconds of the fight, whether it be the jumping or the line screaming off the reel.

Of course, there's pretty good biological support for all of us packing up, leaving the NW, and heading enmasse to Arizona as well.

No one thought about what was best for the wild fish for about 100 years, the strategy of these groups doesn't take into account what is best for the human population. I've talked before about the problems faced with "farmed" fish, and how fish farms would grow exponentially world wide if we shut down all of our harvest fisheries. What's worse??

Of course, we could all be vegans.....and shut down ALL C&R fisheries as well, because we shouldn't do ANYTHING to harm these beautiful creatures :rolleyes:

Want to help wild populations??? Clip ALL hatchery fish, eliminate by-catch of non-finclipped fish(gill netters and purse seiners), and educate your fellow fisherpeople about harvesting hatchery fish and the proper way to handle those wild ones.

Mr. Gilchrist.....the title of your post just needs a little editing....say, "WA Trout declares war on recreational Catch and Eat fishing"

My 0.02

kyle

[ 07-02-2002, 07:22 PM: Message edited by: TheRogue ]

[Wild Chrome]

Sponge,
If all these hatchery fish can reproduce, where are all there non-clipped offspring? Fact is, most wild salmonids are the progeny of wild salmonids. If you haven't seen the recent science on this issue, then you might want to review it.

[TheRogue]

Chrome.....if that's the case, then why, on some rivers where they've been saturating the water with hatchery fish for 100 years, aren't the wild fish all gone?? Do you think maybe these fish are a little tougher than people give them credit for???

[Cigar]

HATCHERIES.....FISH FARMING...... :whazzup:

What's the difference?

Cigar :rolleyes:

[garyk]

Mr. Gilchrist,

Your headline is better suited for the tabloids or AM talk radio -- it does little service here.

From your posts, I infer that you have not spoken with WT staff about this issue - yet you plaster a provocative topic line that adds little, and instead only detracts from your organization's credibility.

Many constantly bemoan how sportsmans/conservation groups are splintered and only marginally effective. Your flaming-headline tactic perpetuates that separation.

You wrote regarding moving fish barriers - ‘This is true, and correctable, but not without money, something the state has no surplus of at this time.' Actually, WA and OR have plenty of money in their respective fishery budgets, they simply elect to spend the vast majority on hatcheries at the expense of everything else.

BTW, I'll add that I'm not affiliated with WT in any way nor do I know their staff. However, after spending 19 years in various degrees of involvement in fish conservation, I've grown less tolerant so-called fishing conservation groups whose focus seems to be immediate gratification rather than long-term system health.

A comment for Sponge Bob who wrote: ‘As far as the genetics of hatchery and wild fish mixing and being detrimental to wild fish, I think that this argument is totally obsurd.'

SB - the bibliography of papers and reports documenting the deleterious effects of hatchery salmonids on wild populations is extensive. Vincent in Montana kicked it off in the 1970's and the stack of papers implicating hatcheries in the decline of natural populations has only grown since. For a readable synopsis of the situation, begin with the book Fish Without Rivers.

Finally, please don't suggest that us who are concerned about fish ‘shut up'. I'm posting this because I want future generations of Northwesterners to be able to enjoy abundant populations of salmonids. Sometimes the truth is the most uncomfortable thing and recognizing the failure of the hatchery paradigm and advocating instead for investing the money and effort where it will do long-term good for us all, is a key element to sustaining our fishing heritage.

[boater]

i would realy like to know why there are any wild fish left in a river that has a hatchery on it ?, and also the thought that the ocean cant support wild and hatchery fish is nonsence, the amount of fish that it supports now is a tiny fraction of what it used to support back in the early years when there were millions of fish, did the ocean shrink ?

[TheRogue]

I'm posting this because I want future generations of Northwesterners to be able to enjoy abundant populations of salmonids. Sometimes the truth is the most uncomfortable thing and recognizing the failure of the hatchery paradigm and advocating instead for investing the money and effort where it will do long-term good for us all, is a key element to sustaining our fishing heritage. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">And, does this include catch and eat fisheries?? Again, and again, and again, this ends up where it's at...... NOTE!!! Our fishing heritage is based upon fishing and HARVESTING, not on flipping a fly and oohing and aaahing over a "rise". Wonderful...I get to show my grandson the 100's of thousands of fish jumping Celilo Falls (of course, we'll tear the dams out), and say "Yup, we used to be able actually try to catch these things with hooks, and we even got to eat one now and then!!! But isn't this so much better, to see them jumping like this??"

BTW.....a while back, several tribes threatened to sue WDFW to STOP finclipping....said by doing this, there would be too much harvest of "their" fish, and they wouldn't be able to sustain "their" fisheries. Real reason??? Because then we can actually count the number of wild fish that die in the nets, 'cause they'll be the ones with the adipose fins. Notice the commercial fishing interests kept it pretty quiet around that time as well...same reason. Once again, the ability of a government agency to do it's job is hamstrung by multiple lawsuits from competing interests.

Boater....I think they're talking about the river environment having a "maximum" smolt number, or something like that...not the ocean. It's something that actually kinda makes sense, there being only X amount of nutrients in the water. Hence the idea behind using the hatchery carcasses to "fertilize" the river.

I've got to get off of this machine, my wife's gonna beat me up for being on this long tonight!! :wink: :wink:

[ 07-02-2002, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: TheRogue ]

[garyk]

Rogue -- yes indeed, my idea of 'our fishing heritage' includes having enough to keep. Note my prior use of the word abundant.

From what I wrote, I don't know how you could have gotten an impression to the contrary?

Abundantly yours!

Garyk

[boater]

i have read about this all over on all the boards, alot of you people live in oregon and have probly never seen a river up here choked with nets 4 to 5 months a year, dont you people think that has had any effects on the population of wild fish, i have grown up fishing puget sound and its streams and have had first had experiance in this and all i can say is if you think hatcheries are the main reason for wild fish populations declining, you are off your rocker.

rob allen wrote somewhere that hatcheries are a Major limiting factor in puget sound chinook recovery, i say call 1-800-347-4669 and listen to that, also look up the data of what our rivers used to put out, the skagit was once the king of them all, the green/duwamish out produced the cowlitz, the puyallup was a great river also, rob, nets are the limiting factor in our fish of any species thats targeted by them, now go ahead and blast me, no better yet, explain to me why i am wrong.

[rob allen]

boater I would never say you are wrong nets are clearly a large factor maybe even the main one. But not far behind is thw hatcheries.. And again I will say this If WDFW was not breaking the law WT would not be sueing them!!!!! I don;t know about you but I am all for getting rid of one large factor even if there is a larger one out there.. If we can get rid of the nets too great but for now I will take what I can get as long as it benefits wild salmon.

[Sponge Bob]

Chrome,
Hatchery fish have been passing hatchery racks for years. Hatchery and wild fish do spawn with each other, so there are 'hatchery-wild' progeny. I see it every year. These progeny are hatchery fish that are born and live in the wild and because they are not finclipped when they are young they return as 'wild' adults to be passed upstream. A hatchery chinook and a wild chinook are really no different.
garyk,
Do these reports include the effects of the population growth of the northwest, pollution as a result of this growth? Do these reports include estuary, and ocean studies? Do these reports single out hatchery fish as the only factor to the decline of 'wild' fish? Who benefits most from these reports? Were these reports done by non-partial parties? just some questions I have for these know all reports. I still beleive that the genetics of hatchery fish and wild fish are the same. With out our hatcheries suplementing our rivers and streams we would have no chances of catching and havesting salmon. WDFW does not have money to put into hatchery reform, if this money is being spent on hatcheries I surley don't see it. Most facilities I visit are pretty well run down, the crews have been getting by on an essentials only budget since August '01. The future looks pretty bleak for the upcoming fiscal year also. Show me the money!!!!
No offense intended with 'shut up' I want these fish around for my children and grandchildren also. Sometimes the truth is right in front of us and we don't even know it .
Rouge,
You are exactly right on the tribal objection to mass marking fish in the Puget Sound. Many fish are not clipped because an agreement cannot be reached. Most of the south sound does indeed mass mark ALL their chinook. Also, I have seen the implementation of nutrient enhancement on several rivers including the Willapa and Puyallup. You would not beleive the amount of 'wild' fry in these rivers. This is a direct and almost immediate result of this program.
Rob,
If 'wild' fish are so superior why can they be beat out by a lowly hatchery fish? If WDFW had the funding that is required to update and improve the hatcheries that need it, they most certainly would, but thanks to the lovely tax cutting inititives those funds are not there.

[John]

Hey to ***hole that wants the hatcheries closed. We pay for these hatcheries through our fishing fees, in fact there are a few on the Oregon coast that we are fighting to keep open. If your chicken **** ideas are so great then why is every fishermen on the north coast up in arms. Also why did hundreds of fishermen show up to keep the Sandy summer run hatcherie and other runs going. The rivers can not support runs in catchable numbers. At least not enough to take some home for dinner, and make all of us go out and spend millions of dollars to catch them.

[Wild Chrome]

It may seem drastic, but is that bad? Are subtle changes going to recover wild fish? Don't we have to give something (now) to get something (later)? Are we cheating future fishermen by maintaining hatcheries now? Hatchery reform might work, might not. Certainly costs a ton of money that we don't have right now and may not for a long time, if ever! Do wild fish have time to wait and see what happens? Reproducing wild fish are proven to work well!

Just a few thoughts.

[Mike Gilchrist]

Garyk,

Some of your post is quite amazing to me. Where should I start

"Your headline is better suited for the tabloids or AM talk radio -- it does little service here."
Actually, my headline is perfectly suited to the internet. Even with only the posts from the last day showing, there are well over 30 different topics asking for attention from the readers. It is like the front page of the newspaper- the headline has to draw people in to get readers.

"From your posts, I infer that you have not spoken with WT staff about this issue - yet you plaster a provocative topic line that adds little, and instead only detracts from your organization's credibility."
I informed the readers of this board that an organization intends to force the closure of 18 hatcheries. This is per their own press release, not some information I paid for in the back room of the local tavern. I added that these closures would greatly restrict fishing opportunity for all anglers who fish for salmon in the Puget Sound basin. Posting this factual information detracts from my organization's credibility? You are correct in that I have not spoken to the leadership in WT. I don't shy away from that contact, but it is not required to understand what they are doing. One thing I would not believe for a moment is that the leadership at WT would not expect a backlash from sportfishing considering their actions intend to shut down fisheries. Do you understand the scale of what they propose?

"Many constantly bemoan how sportsmans/conservation groups are splintered and only marginally effective. Your flaming-headline tactic perpetuates that separation."
This is a very interesting comment, considering that it is those of you in the vocal minority that provide the majority of the splintering effect. The majority of the anglers/voters everywhere just want to continue to fish and the majority of those fishing want to continue to eat fish. I want to work towards sustainable wild populations of salmon and steelhead while continuing to keep those voters fishing because it is those voters who have the power to provide real progress in the effort to obtain sustainable populations of Salmon and Steelhead. Those in the vocal minority wish to attempt impose the most restrictive regulations possible first which in turn removes the power from the voters (because they wont care if they are not fishing) and cripples the best chance to obtain sustainable populations of Salmon and Steelhead.

[ 07-03-2002, 07:07 AM: Message edited by: Mike Gilchrist ]

[ReelMcCoy]

This argument is revolving around the impact of hacheries on wild fish. I live on the Nehalem river here in Oregon. The main fork has been managed as a wild river for ten years now. I can tell you I have seen no major incress in the fish that return each year.

So I submit that there is another problem. I can tell you after playing in this river for 40 years and I do mean playing I am older than that. That the problem is in the watersheds. I have seen this river go from cold and clean to choked with algea. This has the effect of changing the nutrients thus changing every thing up the food chain. Less food less fish!

What could cause this. It is quite simple the water is lower and slower. This is a direct result of logging the watersheds. It not only removes the larger trees that support the mosses and other vegetaiton it also exposes the top soil that helps choke the spawing beds. And like the gile netters it is not the only way to do it, or the best way or even the cheapist it the way my granfather did it so it is the way I am going to do it.

I am sure that hachery fish have an impact on wild fish expecially when you take fish from one river to another as so often happens. We all know that the majoity of the eegs layed each year die. There is only a very small percentage that return each year. Even on pristine rivers. So why don't we use the native stock as brood stock each year. You would only need a small percentage of the wild fish to do this. We would only be helping to incress the survival rate. Then there would be no issue with the mixing of wild fish and hachery fish. They would all be wild in essence.

[Straydog]

Here's some thoughts from someone with over 25 years in the industry.

First off, bottom line is if you close the hatcheries and have no catch and eat fishery, well over 50% of the folks fishing, buying licenses and fighting for our cause will become golfers or anything other than fishers.

Some argue this and say catch and release anglers are a larger porportion than I give them credit for. Again, after a quarter century of daily work in tackle shops or departments interacting with the fishers, I say "it just ain't so".

Fact is, the catch and eat folks are the "meat and taters" of our sport, the economy it supports, the funding that goes to fish management and the voices we hear fighting for our cause.

Now, some will say "economy be damned", we need to do this for our grandkids. Ok. One thing though, if we push out the vast majority of those that support ODFW, where will they get thier funding to move forward in any direction? Are the loggers going to send them money to work on habitat imporvement? Is the shipping industry going to send them money to work on riparian repair? Is the Ag industry going to chip in to help them work on pollution issues? Is the Legislature going to appropriate them more money to work on the other two "H"'s? (hatcheris and harvest will be gone, remember?) A resounding NO! is the obvious answer to these questions. To this add the fact that we will have virtually destroyed the industry and thier financial and political support goes away.

End result? WT will have reached their goal of providing their membership with an elitist fishery that a handful of folks thoroughly enjoy while any hopes of recovery to ever reinstate catch and eat fisheries will have gone the way of the buffalo.

[4Salt]

Here is a posted response from another BB from Todd Ripley. Todd is an attorney who formerly worked for WDFW. It may help to clear things up a bit on this issue:

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

[Wild Chrome]

Great post, 4Salt. How about this idea which I've heard from Trout unlimited and several biologists from various regional organizations: Some rivers set aside as wild fish sanctuaries with no hatcheries, C&R regs and the lions share of habitat restoration. Other rivers, likely those with inferior habitat, more dams, etc, stocked heavily, yet with some wild fish protections also (sorting where possible, some habitat restoration, fin clipping, etc. Maybe we can have our cake and eat it too?

[Thumper]

I'd buy that ...... IF you leave the Lewis River system alone. Nada. No touchee. Fuggedaboudit!

[IronHeader]

My RFA membership check is in the mail!

[garyk]

Mr. Gilchrist:

I'll not go round-n-round with you.

If you think inflamatory headlines and trying to tear down another conservation group that is ostensibly working toward the same goal as you are, is an effective strategy for success - then so be it.

But I disagree with your action for all the reasons I previously posted.

As a regional representative for your organization, and I assume, fulltime conservationist I would expect a higher standard from you. Just 'cause it's the internet is no justification at all.

[TheRogue]

So, after following the discussion over on Bob's BB.....does anyone believe that, if there's any success by Washington Trout on this issue, that Oregon Trout won't be far behind???

Lots of work to save some Oregon hatcheries....and, now what??

Any way to head this off in Oregon before it starts??

Kyle

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

W-T's Answer:

"I would like to take the opportunity to respond on behalf of Washington Trout. We appreciate the opinions expressed on this forum, from both our detractors and our defenders. Others have articulated here and on other threads some of the scientific basis for the position that hatcheries have been a factor in salmon and steelhead declines, and that their productive role in recovery will be very limited at best. My goal here is not to add to that debate (although perhaps at some other time...), but rather to just outline WT's position, goals, and motivations regarding the action at issue here: our filing of a 60-day notice of intent to sue WDFW over their Puget Sound chinook-hatchery program.

Technically, we say in our 60-day notice that we will seek "relief" from the courts, which implies we will sue to shut down the hatcheries, and that's what we said we're prepared to do in our press release (and I suppose we would be prepared to do that if necessary). But really what we're saying is that WDFW needs to start complying with the law. Their hatcheries are currently violating the ESA and they have to stop. Yes in many cases they would have to shut down the hatcheries to do that, but probabaly not in all cases. Further, WDFW has a mechanism under the ESA 4d Rule to recieve exemption from ESA enforcement for its hatchery program. They can submit "Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans" to NMFS for approval (and should have a long time ago). These HGMPs would describe how WDFW will minimize or mitigate the harm the hatcheries do to listed wild fish, and/or make the case for how the "benefits" of the hatchery program outweigh or justify whatever harm they do. They've had since June 2000 to prepare and submit the HGMPs. So far they haven't, and they continually push back their promised deadlines. (Now they're saying "maybe" by the end of this year.) If they do have a plan for modifying operations or a case for justifying current operations, we want to see it, review it, and offer input (as is ours and everyone else's right under the 4d Rule). At this point we have no confidence that we will see it in a timely fashion without applying pressure. After all, these chinook are THREATENED with extinction. Isn't time of the essence?

It boils down to this: WDFW has to comply, just like everybody else, with the ESA; they could do it by ceasing the harm they are causing listed fish through the hatchery program (even if that means temporarily or permanently shutting down some hatcheries), or they could do it by using their 4d option of making a publicly-reviewed case for an exemption. They have done neither. The goal of our 60-day notice is to force at least one or the other.

WT's sole mission is the protection and recovery of wild, native fish; we do not advocate for sportfishing interests. But we have not "decalred war" on recreational fishing by "focusing" on hatcheries and "ignoring" harvest and habitat. First, WT is not against more fish in the rivers; we simply believe that the science points us in a clear direction toward that goal of healthy, harvestable fish populations; current hatchery management will not take us in that direction. Second, even if it DID shut them all down, this suit would affect only 18 out of the 55 state, tribal, and federal hatcheries in Puget Sound (over a hundred throughout the state). And finally, WT works on ALL issues affecting wild fish, and recreational fishers HAVE NO BETTER FRIENDS THAN WT on habitat issues, and ALMOST NO OTHER FRIENDS BESIDES WT on harvest (including tribal harvest) issues.

You should all know (and probably do) that WT is involved in a seperate suit regarding the Tokul Creek steelhead hatchery, alleging site impacts that harm listed chinook (fish-passage barrier, unscreeened water intake, and habitat degradation associated with bank-hardening to protect the facility grounds from flooding). We are not at this time contemplating any specific actions targeting any other hatcheries besides Tokul and the 18 listed in ur 60-day notice. I would note however, that WDFW acknowledges site impacts that are likely harming listed fish at at least 30 hatcheries throughout the state, making them vulnerable to similar suits.

A few weeks ago, WDFW made a big stink out of fining one guy for poaching listed chinook on the Skagit River, and carried on about how enforcing the law is their "top priority." If that's so, all we're really asking them to do is look in the mirror. They will say they're "working on it" and now we're just getting in their way. Well, they've had TWO YEARS to "work on it" and we haven't seen anything yet. When NMFS adopted the 4d rule in June 2000, they gave everyone until Jan 2001 to do things like prepare and submit HGMPs. That 6-month grace period ended a year and a half ago, and now WDFW says they need MORE time (without saying how much more), in the meantime continuing to run the hatcheries exactly as they always have. How much time do the fish have? If WDFW does have a solution to propose, great. They have 60 days to propose it (I guess 50-something now).

Washington Trout is fighting for better forest managemnt, better land-use regulations re agriculture and development, and more consistent application and eforcement of existing environmental laws including the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and Washington's Hydraulic Code. We are fighting daily for commercial and tribal salmon-harvest management that makes sense, and that will allow depressed stocks to recover. We are currently sueing the National Marine Fisheries Service over Puget Sound harvest-management, trying to reduce harvest levels and modify commercial-fishing practices. We carry out important research, and design and implement model habitat-retoration projects. In short, we are working every day to protect and recover Washington's wild fish and their habitats. Learn more about WT at www.washingtontrout.org" (http://www.washingtontrout.org)

Ramon Vanden Brulle,
Communications Director
Washington Trout

[ramon vb]

I want to thank POSClerk for posting my reply from the other board, and I really do want to try and stay out of the way of this discussion, but a lot has been said here and elsewhere, and I want to add a few more points by way of clarification. First, it is important to recognize that WT has not filed a suit in this case, only issued a notice. It is perfectly conceivable that WDFW could take an action or make a proposal that would convince us not to sue, or at least wait and see. We sincerely hope that happens (lawsuits are expensive, risky, and a lot of hard work). Washington Trout is staffed by professional scientists and environmental advocates, not frothing at the mouth lunatics, despite what you may have heard or believe.

(As a point of minor clarification to a specific concern expressed above: Our notice focuses solely on chinook production. If any of the facilities we list produce other species, our action is not likely to have a major impact on those operations. We can only seek relief for violations of the ESA. It is perfectly conceivable that WDFW could continue to produce steelhead, coho, chum, or some other species at those or any facility without causing the specific harm to chinook that we allege, as long as they resolve any site impacts that may exist [the types of things that prompted our Tokul suit]. We might not like the impacts those operations would have on those species, but we’d have no basis to sue under the ESA.)

While both the chinook and Tokul cases focus mainly on site and operational impacts from hatcheries, Washington Trout is also very concerned about the well documented genetic, reproductive, and population impacts of artificial supplementation programs. Simply put, while hatchery fish can be genetically similar to their wild counterparts in a broad sense, their genetic QUALITY is inferior, manifested in traits that include lower age and size at maturity, lower fecundity of females, and fewer and less pronounced secondary sexual characteristics in males (spawning coloration, back humps, jaw kypes, exposed teeth). These traits directly contribute to lowered reproductive success, generally 1/2 to 2/3 that of wild fish. It is important to note that hatchery fish can reproduce in the wild, just not as successfully as wild fish. Therein lies the problem. When hatchery fish mate naturally with wild fish, they pass on inferior genetic traits and lowered reproductive capability to the wild population. Not only that, when a wild fish mates with a hatchery fish, it will produce fewer and less fit young than if it mated with another wild fish. For you skeptics, I am afraid that within the scientific and management communities these facts are simply not disputed; every single serious scientific study that has examined the issue has found the same thing. The only serious debate among managers is about the significance of these impacts and whether they can be successfully mitigated.

As far as "improvements" in hatchery practices that have been cited here and elsewhaere, while they are potentially (though unproven) steps in the right direction, they are far from solutions (Not to mention that they have still not even been formally proposed in the context of ESA compliance, let alone fully implemented.) The main culprit in the genetic inferiority of hatchery salmon appears to be a phenomenon called "domestication selection," sometimes called "selection relaxation." Simply put, animals bred and raised in captivity are subjected to pressures (either intentionally or unintentionally) that "select" for traits suitable for survival in their "domestic" or artificial environment, but not necessarily in the wild. In an animal like a salmon, that is capable of producing thousands of offspring at a pop, this can occur extemely quickly, and evidence has shown that the types of weakened traits I described above can occur in hatchery fish only one generation removed from the wild (which is why using native brood stock doesn't solve the problem). Here's what happens: In the wild, egg-to-fry survival among salmon is typically less than 10%; In the hatchery, egg-to-fry survival is typically around 90%. The 80% difference represents genetic material likely not fit for survival in the wild, and it is in this 80% that the weakened genetic traits are being manifested. In other words, we've given these "unfit" eggs a little get home free pass around natural selection (which is why it is sometimes called selection relaxation). Now when these fry are raised to smolts and released, you might expect them to be balanced out now that they are being subjected to natural selection again, And that does happen. Hatchery smolts survive to adulthood at a much lower rate than wild smolts, but not at a difference that would cancel out the 80% boost they got at the egg-to-fry stage. Otherwise hatcheries wouldn't work at all, and you wouldn't get the short term demographic boost you're looking for to get those harvest numbers up. In the wild, almost 90% of the mortality from egg to adult occurs at the egg-to-fry stage, so we're getting that weak genetic material over the biggest hump, allowing it the chance it needs to "infect" the population (and using native brood can even increase that chance, as it reduces the segregation in the wild between wild and hatchery-bred spawners).

Yes, clearly there are some environmental and behavioral factors that influence the fitness of hatchery fish (habitat preferences, feeding ecology, etc.), and concievably those could be corrected. But things like lower age at maturation, reduced fecundity, and modified physical characteristics are clearly genetic, inheritable traits, and much more difficult, if not impossible to resolve. Unfortunatley, the problem of genetic weakness in hatchery fish is likely unfixable. The most concievable way to address the problem would be to drastically reduce egg-to-fry survival in the hatchery, and that would nullify the hatchery's entire raison d'ette. Again, I apologise to hatchery apologists, but these facts are supported by the vast majority of scientific literature on the subject. For more information on these issues, I'd refer you to the work of Reg Reisenbichler at USGS, Ian Fleming at Oregon State Universtiy, Mart Gross at the University of Toronto, Robin Waples at NMFS, and Mark Chilcote at ODFW, among many others.

But that does not address the real and straigthforward violations of law occuring at WDFW chinook hatcheries in Puget Sound.
You should all be aware that since at least 1997, WDFW has acknowledged that 39 of its state hatcheries have at least one site impact that harms wild fish, the complete or partial blockage of fish-passage to important spawning and rearing habitats. Of those 39, 30 are located in the habitats of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead. Of those 30, WDFW acknowledges that 20 are actually blocking listed fish from reaching their habitats (13 in Puget Sound). This is a clear violation of the ESA, but even though WDFW has known about the problem for at least five years, and the affected fish have been listed from three to four years, WDFW has not repaired a single one of these barriers, while they continue to spend money to produce fish at every one of the facilities. Are all of you happy with that situation? Do you honestly expect it to change without some application of pressure? WDFW has been saying for five years that it’s “working on it” but that it “doesn’t have money,” but it continues to produce fish at facilities out of compliance with state and federal law. How about a shift in its “top priorities?” WDFW is the lead state agency for salmon recovery. That should be job #1. It seems to me a realistic angler would realize THAT is in the best interest of fish AND fishers.

If I may, I’d like to take off my WT hat and speak as a fellow angler for just this paragraph. (As some of you may remember, I edited NW Fishing Holes Magazine from 1995 to 1999.) WT wants the same thing all of you do. Lots of fish. Apparently, we disagree with some of you on how to get there. As I said, WT does not advocate for ANY stakeholder group, and it is against our bylaws to get involved in allocation issues, but I personally DON"T agree that attacking poor hatchery practices is attacking sportfishing. I sincerely believe and have said again and again, dating back to when I was editing Fishing Holes, that strong, effective measures to recover wild fish are the best, likely the only way to ensure the future of sportfishing in Washington. I'm sorry, but I challenge any of you to show me any historical, scientific, or even anecdotal evidence that Washington's hatchery program has made sportfishing better. I can show you reams of evidence that it has been and continues to be a major factor in the decline of the resource.

Putting my work-hat back on, I am not embarrassed to admit that WT puts fish ahead of fishers. And I am not trying to be coy. WT believes that the 18 hatcheries listed in our notice do the resource much more harm than good; we would be happy to see some or all of them closed. But we would be perfectly happy to find out if WDFW can run the hatcheries in a way that resolves the problems we cite. If they have a plan to resolve some or most of them, and at least bring the facilities into compliance with the law, we’re prepared to listen; in fact we’ve been waiting to listen for two years now. (I’ll remind you again that WDFW has the option of getting off its butt and completing the process to apply for ESA exemption.)

Finally I also want to remind people that WT has been a very good friend to the recreational fishing community on what I gather is it's #1 issue - commercial harvest. We were the ONLY environmental group in the state to support (and actively campaign for) the I-696 Ban All Nets initiative in 1999. Without any specific funding to do so, that's about all this office worked on that fall. Since then, we've been carrying A LOT of the water in that fight. We challenged the harvest criteria in the 4d Rule; we challenged the WDFW/Tribal Resource Management Plan for Puget Sound chinook harvest, and we're currently spending a lot of money to sue NMFS to stop the RMP (which if not stopped, will reduce chinook escapement goals in PS rivers by as much as half!); we are in the forefront of the fight over the fisco with the "experimental" tangle-net fishery for spring chinook on the lower Columbia that had such a devastating impact on LC and Willamette steelhead. Our efforts on that issue so far have caught the attention of the NW Power Planning Council, which funds the "experimental" fisheries, and could help stop that fishery from going forward next spring. Again, if you’d rather learn more about WT before demonizing us, please visit www.washingtontrout.org (http://www.washingtontrout.org) .

Ramon Vanden Brulle
Communications Director
Washington Trout

[papa bear]

This issue is probably going to get tougher to resolve, not easier, over time. Why? Well, there are just too many of us. The bright side is we may manage to wipe ourselves out (at least to manageable levels) before we wipe out all the fish. We'll have our crash when we max out, like algae do when they run out of phosphorus. For us maybe it's the artificial growth boundaries created by petroleum exploitation for growing, processing, cooling and transporting food (land and sea mining), especially the manufacture of ammonia-based fertilizers. And the Green Revolution (genetically enhanced plants, esp. rice). And "too much" success in sanitation and medicine. Etc.

Meanwhile, an interesting thing about hatchery fish; I don't know much about the salmonids, but with trout ... your lake fish will school around and not fight much over territory. Your river fish has to pick a station and defend it, because the open current is too strong for the fish to stay in at all times. They can only allocate so much energy to hunting, or defending, off station. Wild fish are stronger and more aggressive than stockers. So when they see one, they go off station to chase him away. Then they see another one. Then another. The wild fish dies of winning too many territorial battles. Then the remaining stockers take up the stations.

Result: to crash any wild population in swift water, add stockers.

IF I like having wild fish around, and I do, I think I want to not put stockers in running water. And I prefer watching them to catching them, because I'm painfully aware that the success rate in releasing alive is not as good as we'd like to think. IF I like to catch and eat, and I do, I fish stockers in still water. Or I ocean fish, and try to convince the world's seiner and dragger customers to switch to soybeans. How likely they will is a point to ponder when I'm not feeling so glum as I am today ...