The Outdoor Line Forum

This is from our friends at the CCA and it hits the nail on the head

Last week, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) announced that in response to a recent federal lawsuit filed by the Wild Fish Conservancy it would likely stop the planned released of over 900,000 early-winter hatchery steelhead this spring. This represents over 2/3 of all the steelhead produced by WDFW in Puget Sound and would have a devastating effect on our fisheries. We understand that officials at WDFW may be in negotiations with the plaintiffs and they need to hear from you that further reductions in our hatchery production and infrastructure are unacceptable. Please click here (or below) to take action by contacting WDFW leadership.

https://www.votervoice.net/CCAPNW/Campa ... 68/Respond

Sadly, this unfortunate situation was entirely avoidable. For nearly a decade, WDFW and NOAA Fisheries have failed to complete the hatchery plans required under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), leaving these steelhead hatcheries at great risk of this type of largely procedural lawsuit under the ESA. The Wild Fish Conservancy's lawsuit clearly was designed to take advantage of this inaction. Unfortunately, the recreational fishing community will pay the price.

CCA Washington and the recreational fishing community support wild fish recovery efforts as well as responsible, science-driven hatchery production to maintain our fisheries. In fact, CCA Washington led the charge during the 2012 legislative session to get WDFW a historic $66 million investment in Capital Budget funding to make hatchery and fishway improvements. Many of these projects were designed to ensure compliance with hatchery reform recommendations.

Our Puget Sound hatchery steelhead fisheries are at a tipping point. Since 2004, WDFW has reduced hatchery steelhead production in these programs by over 50% and implemented other hatchery reforms in the name of wild steelhead recovery. Declaring a complete end to Puget Sound hatchery steelhead production is an extreme proposal that ignores the significant changes that have been made to these programs. Recreational anglers, who directly pay for this hatchery production with fishing license fee revenue, deserve better.

Please click https://www.votervoice.net/CCAPNW/Campa ... 68/Respond to send an email to WDFW Director Phil Anderson and the Fish and Wildlife Commission urging them to support the continuation of Puget Sound hatchery programs now and into the future through continued responsible, science-driven management that recognizes the importance of wild steelhead recovery and the value of steelhead fisheries to our state's economy and way of life. The process to send these e-mails takes less than a minute!

License fee and excise tax revenue derived from recreational anglers is now WDFW's single largest source of funding. WDFW ought to be looking for ways to increase hatchery production, through science-based tools like wild broodstock programs and improved smolt release strategies, rather than completely shutting down hatcheries and fisheries.

Thank you,
CCA Washington

Thanks for posting this Robbo, and DONE!!

Without HGMP's in place WDFW has been a sitting duck for this type of lawsuit since 2005. As the memo from CCA mentioned these plans were submitted in 2005 and they have simply never been issued. It's not for lack of trying either. The situation was compounded by the budget cuts at both NOAA and the department after the 2008 financial meltdown and the paperwork, well, it's just sat there awaiting review. Sadly, this colossal flub by the two departments has created the perfect opportunity for a tiger shark like the WFC to swoop in and further their agenda with a lawsuit.

Everyone knows that I'm a wild steelhead nut, however, I'm also a fisherman and I believe we can have our steelhead cake and eat it too. We can run our hatcheries in a responsible manner and still have wild steelhead to catch and release providing 5 to 6 months of fishing opportunity during the winter months when fishing opportunities are scarce. There are folks on both ends of the extreme on this issue, but I believe the current system can work with some very minor adjustments.

WDFW staff has gone to great lengths to restructure the hatchery steelhead programs in the Puget Sound basin after the ESA listing of steelhead here and staffers on the HSRG board that reviewed their initial HGMP permits saw little to no flaws in them. So...why then have these HGMP's never been issued? That's the million dollar question.

Great report Robbo. I would love to say that I have the answer that would solve all of these issues, but sadly I do not.

I'm guessing that none of the people running these hatchery-hating so called "non-profit" groups have ever set foot in a jet sled or heaven forbid put bait on a hook.

As usual, I'm betting that the statistics being used to justify these law suits is greatly flawed, or out and out lies like they used when they killed the Grandy Creek Hatchery project on the Skagit. Thanks Washington Trout and others.

It is my opinion that these folks won't be happy until all of the jet sleds and drift boats are gone so they can have the streams to themselves. Then they can stand out in the water in their high end waders and their natty little vests and fling feathers at magical native fish.

Robbo has a great point when he talks about responsible hatchery management. With all of the increases in population it is unrealistic to think we can go back to the way it was. I have said it before and I'll say it again. Fishing is a predatory act period! More fish is better.

http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/artic ... on-against

Possibly a good first step...

Dumping 900,000 hatchery steelhead smolts is only part of this deal. The Wild Fish Conservancy also wants the Nooksack, Skagit, and Snoqualmie Rivers to become wild gene banks for wild steelhead. That would mean the elimination of hatchery steelhead plants from the North Fork Nooksack, Marblemount hatchery on the Skagit, and Tokul Creek on the Snoqualmie.

Robbo -
Under WDFW's statewide steelhead plan gene banks are defined as -

"Wild Stock Gene Bank: One area within each steelhead DPS where wild steelhead stocks are
largely protected from the effects of hatchery programs. Each stock selected must be sufficiently
abundant and productive in order to be self-sustaining in the future. No releases of hatchery
steelhead will occur in streams where spawning occurs or where rearing takes place. Fisheries
can be conducted in these areas if wild steelhead management objectives and ESA regulations (if
applicable) are met."

In 2012 the Sol Duc became the first "official" gene bank in the State and recently the East Fork Lewis, NF Toutle/Green and Wind on the lower Columbia. Supposedly next up will be Puget Sound. Fortunately there are a number of potential candidates in the Puget Sound many of which have been defacto "gene banks" or wild salmonids management zones (WSMZs) that only require the WDFW going through the processes of establishing them without any changes current management practices (including the release of hatchery fish).

One example (can provide a number of others if desired) is on the Skagit where the Sauk has been a defacto gene bank since 2008. It is not planted with hatchery steelhead (or any other anadromous salmonids) is Catch and Release for all salmonids except hatchery steelhead (strays) with selective gear. No where does the Statewide Steelhead plan require entire basins be set aside as a gene bank. The Sol Duc, EF Lewis and NF Toutle/Green are all parts of larger river systems.

Let's compare the Sol Duc and Sauk for a moment. Both are a major component part of larger watersheds. Both are no longer planted with hatchery steelhead and both have robust wild populations. Assessments by WDFW determined that they are two of a very small handful of populations that have a zero risk of extinction a hundred years from now. The major difference is that the Sauk is a much larger basin; the Sol Duc drains 219 square miles and has an average flow of 1,270 cfs while the Sauk drains 714 square miles with an average flow 4,332 cfs.

There is no logical reason that the Sauk could not be an adequate gene bank for the Skagit basin steelhead; it in fact would be by far the largest gene bank in the State.

Curt

I get it Curt and fully support the Sauk as a wild steelhead gene bank and conveyed that message to three of the Commissioner's in a conference call late last week. My point in posting the earlier comment was to raise awareness of the common steelheader who thus far seems to be absent in the latest happenings on the steelhead front.

Thanks Robbo, most of us blue collar weekend fishermen that contribute the lions share of funding for our so called fisheries, truly appreciate the effort. It just seems to me that nearly every decision being made, seems to be taking away and not adding to my experience as a fisherman. I find it very hard to believe that the hatcheries are the problem. How about habitat, gillnets, incidental catch? It would be nice to see the special interest groups drop a few law suits on those guys.

Sharkey

Here's the latest from Rep. Hans Dunshee. This letter is being circulated amongst the State and Federal legislators right now

Dear Congress member or Senator,

I am requesting your assistance to encourage the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to swiftly complete the review of hatchery programs in Puget Sound for Endangered Species Act authorization under the 4(d) rule. Failure to expeditiously complete the review could result in termination of hatchery production critical to maintaining tribal and state-managed fisheries.

On March 31, 2004 the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) submitted more than 75 Hatchery Genetic Management Plans (HGMPs) for review by the NMFS. In a letter from NMFS dated August 4, 2004, the WDFW and treaty tribes were informed that NMFS anticipated completing a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) by the summer of 2005. NMFS noted that “A final EIS may then be completed by winter 2005-2006, after which time NOAA Fisheries will release ESA 4(d) Rule determinations for the hatchery plans.” The letter concluded by stating that “Your work on these hatchery plans is important, and will substantially contribute to on-going salmon recovery efforts within the region.” As of March 31, 2014, the final EIS had not been completed and the NMFS had completed a review of only one of the HGMPs.

The lack of a completed NMFS review of the HGMPs places these hatchery programs at risk of third party litigation for violation of the ESA and the prohibition of take. On March 31, 2014, the Wild Fish Conservancy filed litigation alleging that the WDFW early winter hatchery steelhead programs in the Puget Sound area were operating in violation of section 9 of the ESA for causing take of threatened Puget Sound Chinook salmon, threatened Puget Sound steelhead, and threatened bull trout. The litigation seeks, among other things, to enjoin the WDFW from implementing and funding these programs unless and until compliance with the ESA is achieved.

Termination of these hatchery steelhead programs would result in the loss of tribal fisheries and a multi-million dollar loss to the recreational fishing industry. Troubling as this may be, it pales before the potential loss in Chinook, coho, and chum fisheries that would occur if similar litigation was initiated against the remainder of hatchery programs in Puget Sound.

To address this risk, we are asking that you encourage the NMFS to swiftly complete the review of hatchery programs in Puget Sound for Endangered Species Act authorization under the 4(d) rule. In particular, we would be interested to learn when the final EIS for Puget Sound hatcheries will be completed, and the schedule for completing the review of all Puget Sound hatchery programs.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Hans Dunshee

Thank you kindly for the great service Hans...it's very much appreciated