IFish Fishing Forum banner

1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,534 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Those of you who feel as I do about Washington Trout suing to close Puget Sound Hatcheries can help stop WT!!!

I must give credit for this idea to Quillback of Steelheader.net.

Here is a letter I am sending to more than a dozen companies or groups that have contributed to WT's fundraising auction. Note: Amato Publications, GLoomis, Sage, CC Filson, Eagle Claw, Jim Teeny Inc., Scientific Anglers and Columbia Sportswear are on this list, along with lodges, outfitters and guides who's business depends on hatchery fish being caught.

May 1, 2003

To whom it may concern:

I am disturbed by your recent donation of goods or services to Washington Trout’s 2003 fundraising auction. http://www.washingtontrout.org/2003auction.shtml Perhaps you were unaware that Washington Trout isn’t a fishing advocacy group but rather an environmental organization that has on several occasions sued and/or threatened to sue to stop hatchery production of salmon, trout and steelhead? Do you realize your donation proceeds may be used to further these suits and their goal of closing hatcheries?

I shouldn’t have to point out the obvious damage to your business if there are major closures of fishing opportunities in Washington State. The majority of which is hatchery fish.

While saving wild fish is of major concern to all of us, a better approach is to work WITH Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, National Marine Fisheries Service and other organizations on hatchery reform, habitat restoration, harvest impacts and hydropower issues. I am concerned that this environmental group has duped many people into believing they care about fishing, just by association with the name that includes the word trout and using misleading facts and terminology. If you were to investigate further, I am sure you will discover that wild fish recovery is the immediate goal of this environmental group, without regard to the consequences, including your customers ability to fish for hatchery salmon, trout and steelhead, the northwest economy and your company’s livelihood.

With that said, I am informing you that I am boycotting your business/group. I will be asking other fishing groups, including the Recreational Fishing Alliance, Puget Sound Anglers and the four largest northwest online fishing forums of Ifish.net, PiscatorialPursuits.com, Steelheader.net and Gamefishin.com to do the same.

I will be happy to reverse my decision and recommendation if and when you can assure me any support you have provided to Washington Trout has been withdrawn.

Thank you,

Marsha Schaefer
([email protected])
360-***-****

Hope this is OK Jennie!

Edit, thread title changed

[ 05-02-2003, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: AuntyM ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,534 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
Even if you aren't interested in boycotting these businesses, one thing that could really help is to email [email protected] or mail/call Amato Publications and express your concerns about the direction WT has chosen.

Frank Amato Publications, Inc.
PO Box 82112
Portland, OR 97282
800-541-9498 / (503) 653-8108

Washington Trout has filed a preliminary injunction to stop WDFW from releasing any coho or steelhead this spring, while the case is pending.

I am very disappointed that no Ifishers have responded to this post. That's OK folks. If we lose most of our opportunities, we'll come down, buy Oregon licenses and catch YOUR fish. :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,270 Posts
Thank you for bringing this up. I was unaware of this situation. I going to resaerch this a little further before I make a decision on a boycott.

Thanks AuntyM

:smile:
 
G

·
This is important stuff! There is a big potential of this being a landmark case region wide so it's a good idea to pay attention to this.
Hey let's turn Jerry Dove loose on them :shocked:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,534 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Funny you should mention that Stew.

I failed to point out earlier that the Native Fish Society is partnering with Washington Trout in bringing this suit.

I can assure you, Oregon will be facing this same suit if Washington Trout has any success at all. How long would ODFW hold out before they caved in and closed many hatcheries you all have worked hard to keep open? Not long I guess, with the budget problems facing your state.

Help protect hatcheries now or suffer the consequences later.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
41,361 Posts
Auntie M, this looks like an issue that's been on a slow simmer for several years. Could you give us some details on why these groups want to shut hatcheries? Is it to force change in the hatchery process or is it just to end hatchery production? Normally lawsuits occur when the management and administrative processes break down. What's the history of this issue? Who has been involved? Who hasn't? I'd like to know a little more about what's going on before I can legitimately feel comfortable boycotting businesses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,790 Posts
lawsuits occur when the management and administrative processes break down.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">That's right.....and WDFW has a pretty solid track record of implementing changes at a snail's pace.

I don't agree with this lawsuit.....but at the same time I can see WT's reasons for using the courts to MAKE WDFW implement changes to the hatchery practices that may cause harm to wild fish. Otherwise you get the ol' WDFW Blowoff....

It's a sad commentary on WT and WDFW that it has come to this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,534 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Pete,

Thanks for taking a little interest. Most of the discussions have taken place on "other" boards. :grin:

Hatchery reform has been occuring for several years in Washington. As stated in Fishletter #5

Puget Sound Anglers also oppose WT. Here is a link to a news release, WT's defense of the suit and a letter to WT opposing the action by a PSA member. PSA

The latest suit (this is number 4 now) is WT claiming predation by coho and steelhead smolts eating wild chinook fry. WT based this on a California study on predation that is pretty far removed from the facts surrounding the Puget Sound issues.

The best discussion of this topic occured on the Washington Steelhead Coalition's board

I believe this organization opposes ANY hatchery, and I don't think sport fishers can afford to ignore this threat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
Pete,

this looks like an issue that's been on a slow simmer for several years. Could you give us some details on why these groups want to shut hatcheries?
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Actually we've discussed here on Ifish before.

Washington Trout Suing

Here's the executive summary.

1. WDFW hatchery practices (releasing oversized smolts) have been damaging the native run smolt.

2. Fairly easy fix, tribal hatcheries have addressed the issue already.

3. WDFW has not addressed problem for two years.

4. WT sued to get them to fix the problem.

The lawsuit says fix or close as required by Endangered Species Act.

The end result will be that WDFW will reform and we'll have more salmon.

Washington Trout and Native Fish are also leading the legal fight to ban gillnetting, something a few folks have said was the single most important thing to help salmon.

Always interesting to dive under the surface to see what's really going on eh? <grin>.

Brion
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
119,612 Posts
My brain is full. Can I leave the room?

I have gotten some e mails for and against this post, so I have to learn more about it, before I can feel strongly either way.

My first thought is to jump on the bandwagon, due to historical dealings with Oregon Trout.

However, this isn't clear to me, what is happening, exactly, so I think I have my reading cut out for me.

It's not due to lack of interest at all. It's due to lack of knowledge that I haven't jumped yet. :smile:

I'm studying!

Jen
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,790 Posts
I have gotten some e mails for and against this post,
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">For/against this post or for/against this lawsuit?

Why would anyone be against this post, regardless if you are for/against this lawsuit?
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
119,612 Posts
Sorry... bad choice of words. You know what I meant! :smile:

Anyway... I am reading!! Leave me be! :smile:

Jen
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,534 Posts
Aunty M,
To reply to your original question, I don't know, but I doubt it. ODFW has a better reputation among conservation organizations than WDFW because they place more emphasis on wild fish preservation. I'm not sure if I agree with WT's legal decisions, but the lawsuit has been brought on by lack of consern for wild fish and the law on the part of WDFW and others.

My 2 cents
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,258 Posts
I think it is very premature to conclude that the outcome of the case will be WDFW "reforms" hatchery practices and that somehow will result in more fish. The problem is the release of hatchery smolts on top of endangered wild smolts. The fact that hatchery smolts are larger than wild smolts isn't the main problem...it is the overwhelming number of hatchery smolts that are released. And the only meaningful hatchery "reform" that I can imagine would be cessation, or drastic reduction, of the hatchery program.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,494 Posts
After very LONG deliberation I have concluded that what is good for wild fish is good for mt fishing future Period! Whats bad for wild fish is bad for my fishing future. I proudly support Washington Trout! You guys need to understand whats going on here. WDFW is in gross violation of federal law and has been operating that way knowingly for several years. They were supposed to come up with a plan to remedy the situation and yet they did nothing. It was after extreme patience had been exhausted that WT has brought this suit. WDFW is dead wrong and so is any kind of boycott of WT supporters.. I am going to go buy something from each of the manufacturers listed in this boycott because WT is an excellent organization with my best interests at heart.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,534 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Always interesting to dive under the surface to see what's really going on eh?
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Sure is BL.... and what I found out is that several of your points are misleading. Read the links.

WDFW has been working on these issues and has made quite a bit of progress. Here is the link to their fact sheet regarding this suit.

What WT has done to stop gill netting so far is not anywhere NEAR what they are trying to do to hatcheries. For those of you that don't get it.... no hatcheries mean no fishing by commercials OR sporties. Why should they bother with gill nets when they will close all fishing?

An injunction has beed filed asking to stop THIS SPRINGS COHO AND STEELHEAD plants in Puget Sound.

One organization that I do respect is the Wild Steelhead Coalition. To my knowledge, they have not aligned themselves with WT and NFS on this issue.

What keeps happening is that these suits are settled out of court, and WT receives their legal fees paid for by WDFW and can include additional monetary awards. You know, money that could be used for hatchery reform!

If they are building a war chest, Oregon WOULD be next, because WT doesn't believe a hatchery exists that doesn't harm wild fish.

If you feel you want to stop fishing for several generations, close all hatcheries and see if it helps wild fish recover, then by all means support WT!
 
G

·
Originally posted by rob allen:
After very LONG deliberation I have concluded that what is good for wild fish is good for mt fishing future Period! Whats bad for wild fish is bad for my fishing future. I proudly support Washington Trout! You guys need to understand whats going on here. WDFW is in gross violation of federal law and has been operating that way knowingly for several years. They were supposed to come up with a plan to remedy the situation and yet they did nothing. It was after extreme patience had been exhausted that WT has brought this suit. WDFW is dead wrong and so is any kind of boycott of WT supporters.. I am going to go buy something from each of the manufacturers listed in this boycott because WT is an excellent organization with my best interests at heart.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">We do understand Rob but what you don't understand is the hidden agenda WT has. The problem with the predation of smolt is a fixable problem. When the problem is fixed let's see if WT backs off.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,790 Posts
And the only meaningful hatchery "reform" that I can imagine would be cessation, or drastic reduction, of the hatchery program.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I think that may be overstating it a bit, GSA.

For one, it's not clear to me that this is even a meaningful problem at the Puget Sound hatcheries in question. The findings of any study NOT done on the hatcheries are questionable at best. What needs to happen first is to address whether the same predation that has been documented in other studies is actually happening here.

If it is happening here, THEN we should address changes that can and SHOULD BE made at hatcheries to reduce the problem. It seems to me that WT is putting the cart in front of the horse here. In my opinion, the money they've already had to spend on this lawsuit could have paid to study whether this was a problem with the Puget Sound hatcheries.

My concern is that if WT wins this injunction, they will be stopping a problem that may not exist here. In my mind it is taking drastic measures before a problem is identified. I just can't support taking action like that without having solid evidence first. Get the evidence, identify the problem if a problem exists, THEN do what you have to to get the problem remedied.

IMO, WT is shooting from the hip in this particular case. I think their intentions are good......but the road to **** is paved with good intentions. :wink:
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Top