WDFW coastal hatcheries out of compliance?

So we have to play buy the rules but they don't I guess.
 
Chris Johnson said:
So we have to play buy the rules but they don't I guess.
Click to expand...
Not sure what the author wants other than to make WDFW look bad for utilizing his research. The information may or may not result in different choices. It's pretty f'ing counterproductive to call the department out prior to them even having the ability to change anything based on the information. The purpose is clearly to be anti-wdfw. It isn't helping fish populations.
Shaming the agency has not proven effective. I don't understand why the three letter acronym groups think that is the path to increased abundance.
I become more and more frustrated with the alphabet soup groups. Their mission is no longer to help fish. It is to attack WDFW. WFC's anti-wdfw agenda has led them to partner with groups like The Humane Society who would prefer to end all fishing and hunting. That's what all this will get us.
Meanwhile, the actual agencies in charge of the factors that limit production are not discussed by them. There is no longer a single group that I will give a red cent to.
They have lost their way.
 
charles sullivan said:
Not sure what the author wants other than to make WDFW look bad for utilizing his research. The information may or may not result in different choices. It's pretty f'ing counterproductive to call the department out prior to them even having the ability to change anything based on the information. The purpose is clearly to be anti-wdfw. It isn't helping fish populations.
Shaming the agency has not proven effective. I don't understand why the three letter acronym groups think that is the path to increased abundance.
I become more and more frustrated with the alphabet soup groups. Their mission is no longer to help fish. It is to attack WDFW. WFC's anti-wdfw agenda has led them to partner with groups like The Humane Society who would prefer to end all fishing and hunting. That's what all this will get us.
Meanwhile, the actual agencies in charge of the factors that limit production are not discussed by them. There is no longer a single group that I will give a red cent to.
They have lost their way.
Click to expand...
They've had 14 years to gather information and come into compliance, but why bother. Just keep doing what we always did, and keep closing fisheries.
 
charles sullivan said:
Shaming the agency has not proven effective. I don't understand why the three letter acronym groups think that is the path to increased abundance.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's about shaming the agency, I think it's about informing those in the public who care about the resource. They are a public agency that should answer to the public.
 
Chris Johnson said:
I don't think it's about shaming the agency, I think it's about informing those in the public who care about the resource. They are a public agency that should answer to the public.
Click to expand...
No one outside of us cares, Chris. That’s the problem, the public could give a shit. You’ve been to enough dinners, you know who attends.
 
Chris Johnson said:
They've had 14 years to gather information and come into compliance, but why bother. Just keep doing what we always did, and keep closing fisheries.
Click to expand...
Are you sure that this data is not why certain streams were left open last year? I think that the rivers mentioned were the ones left open, although I could be wrong. Maybe it's in an effort to kill those hatchery fish.

The article is silly at best. If the data has just been collected in the last year, what is the department supposed to do when the plants happened prior?

The bigger issue is that it's another case of the fish groups going after WDFW. It's always WDFW when the agencies that are more responsible for fish declines are DNR, ACE, local flood districts, DOT...........

It's always WDFW. All that has done is well nothing. We can close hatcheries, nothing is gonna change, except the tribes at some point will sue. So, more litigation and more acrimony with the tribes.
 
charles sullivan said:
WFC's anti-wdfw agenda has led them to partner with groups like The Humane Society who would prefer to end all fishing and hunting. That's what all this will get us.
Click to expand...
Is this the partnership you are referring to?

Critical Endangered Species Act Protections Restored by Federal Court Decision – Wild Fish Conservancy Northwest

wildfishconservancy.org wildfishconservancy.org
"This week, we are celebrating a federal court’s major decision to restore vital Endangered Species Act protections...
A huge thank you to the diverse coalition of environmental and animal welfare groups*, as well as the state and city attorney generals**, for defending America’s landmark environmental law and protecting hundreds of threatened and endangered species, including the Northwest’s wild fish, amidst the ongoing extinction crisis and in the face of our changing climate.

*Earthjustice filed the lawsuit on behalf of Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Parks Conservation Association, WildEarth Guardians, and the Humane Society of the United States.

(BTW should be "attorneys general" in the US)

Granted that history is rife with unintended and unwanted consequences of the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategy.
 
As steelhead marine survival rates remain low or continue to decrease, then the adverse effects of hatchery steelhead programs inevitably increase, in terms of too many pHOS spawners. So at a time when we rely on hatchery steelhead in order to have any steelhead fishing at all, the management plan indicates that hatchery plants need to be even further reduced. It's like this book was written to make steelhead a rare species, not abundant enough for anyone to bother fishing for. Talk about a gloomy looking future.
 
My issue is that most of the groups are working towards making WDFW behave as they wish. So, tear them down until your perspective wins the day. Take them to court at every turn. Shame them publicly.

All the while, pay no attention to the other agencies and groups who are actually having a large effect on fish runs. It is painfully stupid. They are at the point where they are actually siding with groups who aim to eliminate fishing and hunting to "reform" the department as they want it. I know what that means for the Humane Society of the US.
 
Does the WDFW 10 Year Plan from this thread show that the WDFW mission is already being changed from within and by (politicians and) demographics that oppose angling and hunting?

Old406Kid said:
I wasn't aware of this until just now but in reading it it appears that a number of proposals, if enacted, would have an effect on us.
Starting on about pg. 29 there appears to be changes mentioned on the use of undesignated roads and trails along with streamside access.
Unfortunately, the comment period closes at 5 p.m. tomorrow, 2/28.

https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/02293

This is the link for public input.
https://publicinput.com/10YearRecStrategy
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: JS
Chris Johnson said:
Enlighten me.
Click to expand...
Dikes- that is the Army core of Engineers, local diking districts and FEMA. It is all backwards economics.
Forestry practices- DNR (with some science help from WDFW. In fact, WDFW has been pushing for greater buffers. This is on public and private lands
Agricultural impacts- State Ag and Ecology- whenever any change is proposed the legislature threatens to defund ecology
Groundwater and surface water withdrawals- Ecology and now local planning offices after recent court cases
Culverts etc- DOT
Wetlands- local planning, Ecology and EPA. Mostly local planning
Shoreline reg's- local planning and ecology (ecology approves local reg's)
Dams- FERC, NMFS and others

The only thing WDFW really does is harvest (sport and cowboy commercial) and hatcheries. Honestly, I used to think hatcheries were a big problem. I no longer do. I think there are issues with harvest because of them at times. If you look at the amount of hatch fish in the PS, it's hard to say they are limiting anything. On the coast? I don't really think so with the exception that they allow for harvest of wild fish at hatchery rates and bi-catch etc.

The problem as I see it is that people say that WDFW is in charge of the fish. Fish runs are down. So, it stands to reason that WDFW is to blame. The thing is, WDFW has no real power over anything habitat wise. They are in charge of harvest and hatcheries.
 
charles sullivan said:
The problem as I see it is that people say that WDFW is in charge of the fish. Fish runs are down. So, it stands to reason that WDFW is to blame. The thing is, WDFW has no real power over anything habitat wise. They are in charge of harvest and hatcheries.
Click to expand...
This is actually a very valid point that, I admit, I hadn't really thought of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top