The Outdoor Line Forum

The Duvall-based organization, led by Kurt Beardslee is suing the WDFW to prevent any further hatchery steelhead releases in Puget Sound streams.

This unprecedented legal action seeks to take the reigns of wildlife management out of the hands of our government and into the hands of whomever raises the most money.

Make no mistake, money is what the Wild Fish Conservancy is all about.

In 2011, payroll expenses for WFC was $929,332.

That is just under half of their total reported revenue of $1,999,164.

The Wild Fish Conservancy is a 501 C3 "Non profit" organization that gets it's funding by applying for grants and receiving gifts from private organizations.

The question is, with a payroll that's 46% of their funding...Is this really a "Non profit" organization and what is the real agenda here?

Take a look at this and decide for yourself http://www.nonprofitfacts.com/WA/Wild-Fish-Conservancy.html#balanceSheet

If you believe that the Director, Wildlife Commission and biologists of the WDFW should be in charge of our state's wildlife resources then please take a minute and email Governor Jay Inslee, urging him to release our hatchery steelhead on schedule and fight the lawsuit brought by the Wild Fish Conservancy!

https://fortress.wa.gov/es/governor/

The Wild Fish Conservancy (WFC), a charitable non-profit group from Washington State, has been pushing litigation against state, federal, and tribal natural resource managers in order to stop the production of hatchery salmon and steelhead.They have recently been victorious in legal action against the Lower Elwha Klallam Indian tribe for the Tribe’s desire to produce hatchery-reared fish for harvest, rights secured by federal treaty.

Over two months ago, WFC threatened legal action against Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for their production of Chambers Creek winter steelhead. WFC's argument for the legal action is that the Chambers steelhead stocks harm ESA-listed steelhead, chinook and bull trout.

WFC’s motive is simple: they want salmon and steelhead hatcheries eliminated. WFC wants hatcheries eliminated because they are under the impression that hatchery salmon and steelhead are suppressing the ability of depressed wild stocks to recover. The sad reality is wild stocks throughout the Pacific Northwest are depressed or declining because of habitat destruction and alteration. The habitat that was once capable of supporting millions of returning adult salmon and steelhead is severely affected by dams, which fragment habitat, restrict passage for adult and juvenile fish, and alter flow regimes which create unseasonable temperatures and limited spawning areas. Furthermore, flood protection was built on nearly every river in the Northwest and has been documented to have removed up to 90% of historic spawning and rearing channels in certain important river basins. Flood protection is also well-documented to channelize rivers which reduces suitable spawning gravels and nearly eliminates the accumulation of valuable large woody debris.

We could write extensively about all of the known factors that suppress the ability of depressed wild populations to recover: sedimentation from logging, agriculture and development; the increasing discharge of toxic urban runoff; the disrupted trophic regimes of critical estuarine areas; a history of river channel alteration to aid downstream log transport. Most importantly, we can describe that where hatchery production has been reduced or eliminated, wild fish have not responded in a way some people anticipated: the wild populations have not responded with an increase in population abundance. Additionally, there are many rivers throughout the Pacific Northwest that have no known presence of hatchery-origin fish, and the native, wild populations have exhibited a similar trend as most rivers in the Northwest: a gradual population decline or stagnant, depressed population abundance.

Placing the blame of wild salmon and steelhead population declines on hatcheries is illogical and naïve. This misplacedblame exonerates the true reasons for population declines and erases a long history of intensive resource extraction, pollution and development. Furthermore, pushing to end hatchery production significantly reduces incentive for recovery. Throughout resource conservation history, it has been proven that the stakeholders are the sole voice for conservation. In the case of the Pacific Northwest, the anglers, commercial fishers, and tribal fishers are the stakeholders. If there is no one present to place intrinsic value on a resource, there is very little incentive to protect the resource. This idea can be evidenced in other parts of the United States where listed species have no stakeholders to provide a voice for them resulting in little desire to preserve and promote their abundance and very limited funding availability necessary for recovery.

We are sport anglers, commercial fishers, tribal fishers, conservationists and concern citizens. We are the stakeholders. We are asking the Wild Fish Conservancy and other non-profit groups with the intension to reduce or eliminate hatchery production to focus their resources towards issues that willprovide a measurable benefit. Eliminating the Chambers steelhead programs will not protect wild populations from harm and it certainly will not provide a beneficial outcome. By initiating litigation, the WFC alienates vast numbers of people who should otherwise be their allies and partners in the shared goal of salmon and steelhead recovery. We all share a common vision for recovery for these species, but recovery cannot come with the hefty price of eliminating opportunity and incentive.

Scott Weedman


http://www.3riversmarine.com
http://www.alaskakingsalmonadventures.com

Amen to that Scott!!!

I would also like to add that it pisses me off to hear that special interest groups are trying to eliminate hatcheries in Washington on the misguided notion that somehow the native runs will magically reappear.

Frankly, I remember the good old days when there were so many hatchery fish coming back to Reiter that they were trucking them back down to Lewis street!!!

I for one do not care if the fish I catch are wild or not. They all taste great. Being a father and a grandfather I can tell you from experience that it is a tough sell to my grandsons to stand in ice water up to their waist for the remote possibility of a bite. Same goes for my favorite river the north fork of the Stilly. Fishing is a predatory act period!

The more fish there are in the rivers the better the fishing is. If the so called naturalist really want to go back to the roots of fishing than go sharpen a stick.

Vent over

Well said Sharky!

It boggles my mind that the WFC is focusing on the miniscule impact hatchery programs have on our wild runs when the major offenders such as pollution, cormorant predation, pinniped predation and habitat degredation go unaddressed... It simply blows me away!

So, why is this very profitable "non profit" not using more of their funds to rehabilitate habitat and what is the Wild Fish Conservancy really up to?

I said it before and I say it again: When we render our watersheds unusable to salmonids, without question we are harming human lives.

Just ask the residents of Steelhead Drive on the north fork of the Stilliaguamish... God rest their souls and God bless the Firefighters and rescue workers still searching for their remains.

Researched this a bit more and it is eye opening for sure when you evaluate WFC as an organization.

When you review IRS Form 990, over the five calendar years from 2008 to 2012, the WFC received $7,145,400 in financial support of which $6,691,074 represented “public” or government support.

WFC has been involved in a slew of lawsuits sometimes with other not-for-profits as co-plaintiffs under their term of “advocacy” but also seems to provide “research” on wild-fish populations and habitats and developing model “restoration” projects.

The following research and restoration projects were listed on WFC’s own website that were funded fully or partially by the Feds or our State of Washington government:

• Cherry Creek Floodplain Restoration - Project cost of $550,000 funded by Puget Sound Acquisition & Restoration , King Conservation District, Stewardship Partners, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, WFC In-kind Match, Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) and Snohomish County LE
• Deer Lagoon Restoration Assessment – Project cost of $171,650 funded by Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) and Island County
• Garrison Creek Watershed Restoration – Total project cost $540,462 ($150,462 – Phase 1 and $390,000 for Phase 2) funded by Salmon Recovery Funding Board (created by the Washington State Legislature)
• Grays Harbor Juvenile Salmon/Fish Use Assessment – Total project cost $195,752 funded by Grays Harbor County LE, Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) and – USFWS
• Heritage Native Trout Program – Total project costs $140,000 funded by Bonneville Power Administration Fish and Wildlife Program
• Hood Canal Nearshore Juvenile Fish Use Assessment – Project cost $114,300 funded by Salmon Recovery Funding Board (created by the Washington State Legislature)
• Lower Dosewallips Floodplain & Estuary Restoration – Project cost of $811,000 funded by State of Washington and Puget Sound Acquisition & Restoration
• Mason County Water Type Assessment – Project cost $104,400 funded by Salmon Sate Projects and Salmon Federal Projects (agencies not specified)
• Snyder Cove Creek Fish Passage – Project cost $214,000 funded Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program (ESRP) - program was created by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
• Twanoh State Park Beach Restoration – Project cost $570,000 funded by Washington State Parks, Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) and Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program (ESRP) - proposed funding
• Upper Weiss Creek Fish Passage – Total project cost $169,800 funded by Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO)
• West Sound Water Typing Assessment – Initial project cost of $139,850 (appear they got another $295,000 for Phase III) funded by Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO)

It would be interesting to fully understand if any of these grant monies were utilized for lawsuits. At the very least, it seems questionable that WFC, a 501(c)(3) non-profit, receives all this grant money by government agencies then turns around and files lawsuits such as the Chambers Creek (WDFW), Elwha Hatchery (Olympic National Park, NMFS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and hatchery managers for the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe) and others (Department of Interior).

Perhaps it is time we hold our government officials more accountable for the grants they provide to “non-profits” that turn around and file these lawsuits and explore a common ground between sport fishing, commercial fishing and tribes to also curb these lawsuits.

Time to get Jessie!

I haven't yet seen the root reason(s) they are suing, but the simplest form arguement I'd think about is spawning ground. Wild's take the river to spawn, common knowledge. Hatchery spawn where??? In the HATCHERY!!!!!?????

So, I back the WDFW by that logic alone. IMO, only reason anyway.