Survive the Sound 2024

Northern said:
I can't for the life of me figure out how one would become a sponsor. Lots of links to "Become a Sponsor" but they don't seem to lead to any actual info.

Anyone?
Click to expand...

When you select your fish, keep hitting next as you fill out info and it will ask you for a donation at the end.
Long Live the Kings operates the Survive the Sound event. You can donate to them on the link below.
SF

lltk.org

Give To Save Salmon - Long Live The Kings

Make a Gift to LLTK Help bring salmon home for the long run. For more than 30 years, Long Live the Kings has been working hard throughout Puget Sound to recover wild salmon and steelhead and support sustainable fishing. Our efforts to restore this vital northwest icon not only help salmon, but...
lltk.org lltk.org
 

Survive the Sound - Fish Tracking

This fish tracking game uses real data to raise awareness for threatened salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest.
survivethesound.org survivethesound.org

Here's a team...feel free to join via the link
Multiple email addresses means multiple fish.

:)
 
Last edited:
While increasing public awareness is always a plus, real action initiated by NGOs occurs through litigation. Nothing spurs local governments and regulators to actually take incredibly expensive concrete steps to improve species sustainability like a consent decree from a federal judge.
 
Last edited:
krusty said:
While increasing public awareness is always a plus, real action initiated by NGOs occurs through litigation. Nothing spurs local governments and regulators to actually take incredibly expensive concrete steps to improve species sustainability like a consent decree from a federal judge.
Click to expand...
Sometimes those judges actually use science to inform their decisions. Somebody has to do the science. Somebody also has to fund the science. So, it still is necessary to have public (voting) support for this type of work. I think LLTK does good work in this space and I appreciate it.
 
One fish is named 'Sushi'...
Probably not going to be a winner...
;)
 
Matt B said:
Sometimes those judges actually use science to inform their decisions. Somebody has to do the science. Somebody also has to fund the science. So, it still is necessary to have public (voting) support for this type of work. I think LLTK does good work in this space and I appreciate it.
Click to expand...
Agreed!

Federal judges often utilize well qualified technical 'gate-keepers' to assist them in making informed decisions.

Although litigation is often a last resort, its use is crucial, since politicians and regulators are loathe to increase rate-payer costs.

Bioaccumulative toxics and heavy metals currently being discharged (via point and non-point routes) to the Puget Sound play a huge part in species sustainability. Dischargers to the Sound are terrified that they will have to upgrade their very primitive treatment technology to the much more sophisticated (very costly) level required of Spokane River dischargers under the AKART regulation....and they'll likely not do so until mandated in federal court.

At that point a vote is not necessary to fund the necessary action...in fact, for the general public protecting their wallet generally takes precedent over protecting the environment.
 
Last edited:
LLTK has been collecting eggs, raising steelhead to four years old and then releasing them in the Skokomish to reseed the river. They just put some of those adult fish in the river earlier this month. It will be interesting to see the results of their efforts. They are also involved with the installation on the fish guidance structures being added to the Hood Canal bridge.
They have some cool information on their IG account about their projects.
SF
 
krusty said:
While increasing public awareness is always a plus, real action initiated by NGOs occurs through litigation. Nothing spurs local governments and regulators to actually take incredibly expensive concrete steps to improve species sustainability like a consent decree from a federal judge.
Click to expand...
I think that NGO litigation in the fish world is often the leasty succesful long term strategy.

One thing that I like about LLTK is that they do not try to do WDFW's job through litigation. They do try to find new methods and techniques to eliminate the bottlenecks in fish production. Their work in the Hood canal is a very good example. Innovative ways to jump start fish opulations and helping find a workable way to mitigate the Hood Canal Bridge. There are times when the litigous NGO's really get in the way of progress. Inaction is often the result of the constant threat that they represent.

Often the NGO's sue WDFW for some procedural error or change the sportfishing rulebook because they wrongly believe that WDFW is the problem. All the while they miss actual opportunites to do good things for the fish because they can't stop spending their time suing and threatening WDFW and trying to list as many fish as possible regardless of the impotence of ESA with regards to helping conserve fish populations.

Right now, Comprehensive plans are being written in several important PS jurisdictions. The litigous NGO's will not be heard from. They will not comment on county/ city shoreline management plans, they do not comment on project level developments. They sure as hell worry about anything WDFW does though.

Occasionally one will bring suit that may help. I don't think that he juice is woth the squeeze though. Money would be better spent just buying land.

I do understand that my thoughts on the subject are very PS- centric. There may be times on the East Side where a more litigous approach is required.
 
Stonedfish said:
LLTK has been collecting eggs, raising steelhead to four years old and then releasing them in the Skokomish to reseed the river. They just put some of those adult fish in the river earlier this month. It will be interesting to see the results of their efforts. They are also involved with the installation on the fish guidance structures being added to the Hood Canal bridge.
They have some cool information on their IG account about their projects.
SF
Click to expand...
They Skok reseeding deal is really an inovative idea using innovative techniques. Good on LLTK!

With the success of their program on the Hamma Hamma etc. one would think that the state may look at using that sort of program on any number of creeks that are going to be open to fish passage as barriers come out. The biggest impediment is that they will be sued by the litigous NGO's unless they have strong tribal buy in. Those NGO's won't fight the tribes.
 
Our litigious NGOs very successfully partner with the tribes in court.

On the Spokane, after many years of mostly wasted effort via the Spokane River Regional Toxics Task Force (which basically produced a huge toothless Comprehensive Plan that's ignored because it's a voluntary approach) the real progress has occurred through legal action by the River Keeper and tribes.

Regulators (USEPA & WA Department of Ecology), counties and municipalities absolutely LOVE substituting Comprehensive Plan development meetings for action...which allows them to avoid making unpleasant decisions for years!
 
Last edited:
krusty said:
Our litigious NGOs very successfully partner with the tribes in court.

On the Spokane, after many years of mostly wasted effort via the Spokane River Regional Toxics Task Force (which basically produced a huge toothless Comprehensive Plan that's ignored because it's a voluntary approach) the real progress has occurred through legal action by the River Keeper and tribes.

Regulators (USEPA & WA Department of Ecology), counties and municipalities absolutely LOVE substituting Comprehensive Plan development meetings for action...which allows them to avoid making unpleasant decisions for years!
Click to expand...
I think we are talking past one another a bit, or at least not speaking the same language.

The Comp Plans that I am talking about are county/ city level land use plans that dictate zoning policies, urban growth areas etc. Shoreline management plans create the regulations for regulating development in shoreline areas. In the PS, shoreline plans and their implementation really do have a huge effect on salmon habitat both freshand salt water. I would argue that they are far more important than hatchery policy. They generally go through without any discussion from the WFC's and TCA's of the world. Hell, I don't think even WDFW ever comments. I will look into that though.

I believe the comprehensive plan that you are citing is specific to a plan to reduce PCB's in the Spokane river. We are talkning about 2 different things with similar names.

I have no doubt that lawsuits can push government agencies into action. The culvert case is a good example. In the same way a threat of lawsuits can lead to inaction. Sometimes both are true at the same time. Your example is a good one and is real. I was speaking more about the Fish.orgs that we see suing or threatening suit with WDFW. I suspect we are speaking about a different set of .org's. I don't know much about Spokane though. I'm blissfully ignorant when it comes to that city/ area.
 
charles sullivan said:
I think we are talking past one another a bit, or at least not speaking the same language.

The Comp Plans that I am talking about are county/ city level land use plans that dictate zoning policies, urban growth areas etc. Shoreline management plans create the regulations for regulating development in shoreline areas. In the PS, shoreline plans and their implementation really do have a huge effect on salmon habitat both freshand salt water. I would argue that they are far more important than hatchery policy. They generally go through without any discussion from the WFC's and TCA's of the world. Hell, I don't think even WDFW ever comments. I will look into that though.

I believe the comprehensive plan that you are citing is specific to a plan to reduce PCB's in the Spokane river. We are talkning about 2 different things with similar names.

I have no doubt that lawsuits can push government agencies into action. The culvert case is a good example. In the same way a threat of lawsuits can lead to inaction. Sometimes both are true at the same time. Your example is a good one and is real. I was speaking more about the Fish.orgs that we see suing or threatening suit with WDFW. I suspect we are speaking about a different set of .org's. I don't know much about Spokane though. I'm blissfully ignorant when it comes to that city/ area.
Click to expand...
We were, indeed, talking about two very different uses of the same commonly used term!
 
Last edited:
Mossback said:

Survive the Sound - Fish Tracking

This fish tracking game uses real data to raise awareness for threatened salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest.
survivethesound.org survivethesound.org

Here's a team...feel free to join via the link
Multiple email addresses means multiple fish.

:)
Click to expand...
Team is currently tied for first in donations, due to just a couple donations ...
Only five fish so far, so....
Join, donate and pick a fish !!!!
:)
 
Mossback said:
Team is currently tied for first in donations, due to just a couple donations ...
Only five fish so far, so....
Join, donate and pick a fish !!!!
:)
Click to expand...
I took King Tony. I donated 25 bucks. It appears like the team PNWFF may be in the lead for donations.

It would be cool to see if we could get more donations.

I am happy to sponsor another fish or 2 if we get some more donations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top