Back to Court?

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Chris Johnson, Jul 10, 2014.

  1. Salmo_g

    Salmo_g Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Messages:
    8,635
    Likes Received:
    2,984
    Location:
    Your City ,State
    SS,

    Of course juvenile spring chinook would move downstream due to the small amount of fry colonization habitat in the spring in particular. And when those spring chinook fry move downstream, they will find most of the suitable habitat occupied by spring chinook fry from other, more productive spawning and rearing habitat, like lower Icicle Creek and Nason Creek and White Creek.

    Icicle Creek is nearly perfect for bull trout. Productivity is low, but otherwise it is nearly perfect. Steelhead might do better in upper Icicle Creek; there already is a resident rainbow population, probably related to the endemic steelhead population. Chinook productivity drops off markedly when stream gradient exceeds 1.5%.

    Sg

    Sg
     
  2. Thomas Mitchell

    Thomas Mitchell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2008
    Messages:
    844
    Likes Received:
    291
    Location:
    Bellevue, WA
    Hi Salmo.

    I've benefited enough from your posts over the years and acknowledge my own ignorance on fisheries biology (trying to fix that though) such that I take your opinion very seriously. However, my expertise is in the world of non-profit finance with a fair amount of focus on helping small non-profits become sustainable so that their good work persists in the field. I have yet to come across an organization with litigation revenue as a revenue stream in a long-term business model. Unless there were some sort of compensation over and above legal fees, I'm having difficulty seeing how it would work. For example in the current lawsuit, it appears the $45K in restitution that the WFC gained was paid directly to their lawyers. But who knows, maybe they have come up with an innovative business model around litigation? I hope not...

    Where success in legal actions might be more important is in securing funding from other sources by demonstrating that they can drive change. If there is a constituency aligned with the WFC agenda, they will be much more inclined to open their wallets when they have tangible examples of something that changed as a result. This is the fundraising plight of nearly all small non-profits >> how to demonstrate 'roi' when the 'return' is some sort of social good.

    FWIW - I don't support WFC or even know anyone involved with the org (I think). However, I'm in the process of setting up my second 501(c)3 in addition to my day job. It is called The Sol Duc Foundation after my favorite OP river and it will be devoted to funding projects directed at improving our riverine environment in the PNW (not just the 'Duc). So I've been trying to research the issues as well as the orgs addressing them. If there's any reading you would recommend to help me get up to speed, it'd be greatly appreciated.
     
    Tim Cottage likes this.
  3. Salmo_g

    Salmo_g Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Messages:
    8,635
    Likes Received:
    2,984
    Location:
    Your City ,State
    Thomas,

    I'm the antithesis of an expert on finance. I was repeating unvetted hearsay. It's based on nothing more than the observation of WFC's litigation on low-hanging legal fruit, meaning easy wins or settlements that have little biological or ecological consequence. So if an organization undertakes easy litigation that produces $$ but results in little or no measurable environmental improvement, what is the logical inference? I may have leapt to an unwarranted conclusion.

    Sg
     
    sopflyfisher likes this.
  4. Andrew Shoemaker

    Andrew Shoemaker Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    208
    Likes Received:
    76
    Location:
    Olympia, WA
    +1
     
  5. Alex MacDonald

    Alex MacDonald Dr. of Doomology

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    4,006
    Likes Received:
    1,460
    Location:
    Haus Alpenrosa, Lederhosenland
    this is bullshit! Beardsley's found a bottomless cash cow in Harriet Bullet, unfortunately. She can't live forever (over 90 now!), and once she croaks, poor Kirk will have to find real work! He's probably good at chasing ambulances. Harriet has said more than once that she'd like to close down all the campgrounds on the icicle, and get rid of the private property owners there so she can have the place return to what it was like 85 years ago when she was a little girl. The Icicle's one of the very few streams in the area that the wild fish conservancy has failed to close, and Beardsley's a marked dirtbag in this area.
     
    DimeBrite likes this.
  6. DimeBrite

    DimeBrite MA-9 Beach Stalker

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,199
    Likes Received:
    793
    Location:
    Marine Area 9
    100% correct. The Sleeping Lady next door (Bullit owned) and the history of how the Feds acquired the land for this hatchery explain why the WFC keeps litigating this over and over. What a waste of money.
    Don't pick sides or donate money until you understand all the motives.


     
  7. doublespey

    doublespey Steelhead-a-holic

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2003
    Messages:
    645
    Likes Received:
    53
    Location:
    Bothell, WA
    WFC - the "Tim Eyman" of fishery conservation. :confused:
     
  8. Chris Johnson

    Chris Johnson Member: Native Fish Society

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    601
    Location:
    Bellingham Wa.
    Out of curiosity, what would " working with" wdfw mean? How would that work and what would be your goal?
     
  9. Rob Allen

    Rob Allen Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,885
    Likes Received:
    920
    Location:
    Vancouver WA


    and destroying rivers is a big source of revenue for WDFW... oh wait whats the WDFW budget look like compared to the money they bring in??? DOH!!!!

    the older I get the more I start to believe that the intelligent thing to do is to shut off more hatcheries.
    the attitudes of a large percentage of anglers who participate in the hatchery river fishing lower the quality of the fishery. Hatcheries do not provide high quality angling. they provide an opportunity for greedy people to display the flaws in their character.


    Hatcheries are a miserable failure on all counts. they do not provide anything of value to society. that cannot be obtained in other ways.

    here is what they provide.

    1. low quality fishing experiences
    2. increased pollution
    3. fights among anglers
    4. a false sense of achievement in fish restoration
    5. a tiny false economy
    6. support for a commercial fishing fleet that should be at the bottom of the ocean
    7. lawsuits because the agencies running them refuse to follow the law.


    salmon and steelhead hatcheries are greed plan and simple nothing more nothing less. The state of Washington would be a better place without them. We could put the money into actually doing something good.
     
    stilly stalker and sopflyfisher like this.
  10. stilly stalker

    stilly stalker Tuna sniffer

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,863
    Likes Received:
    474
    Location:
    Carlsbad, CA
    what do you consider #1?
     
  11. Chris Johnson

    Chris Johnson Member: Native Fish Society

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    601
    Location:
    Bellingham Wa.
    I consider habitat restoration # 1

    Removing barriers to 25 mi. of stream would fall under that category.
     
  12. Rob Allen

    Rob Allen Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,885
    Likes Received:
    920
    Location:
    Vancouver WA


    Mt. Rainier will do that one day.. My St Helens did that to the Toutle and it worked perfectly as a steelhead restoration tactic... too bad we allowed greedy people to screw it up.

    the best solution for every wild run is to remove hatcheries from their watersheds. as James Jim Lichatowich said "hatcheries are always a compromise."

    time for us to admit that hatcheries are bad for the state of Washington. Montana did and their fishing is better than ours.

    no hatcheries and no commercial fishing = healthy runs in systems that have enough habitat and better runs than we have now everywhere. not a single wild run in Washington would be damaged by the removal of hatchery fish.
     
  13. Wilken

    Wilken Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    22
    Location:
    Hobart, WA
    Yeah it's bullshit that someone is actually trying to stand up to WDFW and the feds who refuse to follow their own laws while they continue to drive wild fish populations into extinction via overharvest, hatchery production, unchallenged migration barriers and poor habitat management. Look at wild steelhead.... currently sitting at 2-3% of their historic abundance. WDFW's response to that.....what do you mean there's a crisis?...talk to me when it's 0.5% and my head is so far in the sand (or up my asshole) that I can't hear you anymore!

    Yeah.....hatcheries don't harm wild fish, global warming is a hoax and the world is flat. I'm sure Kurt is really scared of the white trash he encounters on the streams near Leavenworth and I'm not talking about worm containers. Thankfully, they are the minority, even on the dry side. Only complete idiots think threats and violence are a solution. Stupid is as stupid does. Some people don't give a crap about facts or being informed or even thinking....as long as there is a hatchery drone on the end of their line or on their BBQ. Shameful but as someone once said....ignorance is bliss.
     
    o mykiss likes this.
  14. stilly stalker

    stilly stalker Tuna sniffer

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,863
    Likes Received:
    474
    Location:
    Carlsbad, CA
    hatcheries artificially inflate #s that allow commercial fishing and gross mismanagement to continue. The reality of empty rivers will sink in fast.

    I would love to see a 10 year ban on commercial fishing and all take fisheries in general. Think about how well the sockeye that are coming up the columbia would fare if we declared this run hands off? How many fish do you think would show up 3 years from now? Kind of boggles the mind, doesnt it? BUT NO, we will likely triple the limits, extend the season over and over, and by the time its all said and done the # of fish that make it to spawn wont be anything spectacular
     
    plaegreid likes this.
  15. stilly stalker

    stilly stalker Tuna sniffer

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,863
    Likes Received:
    474
    Location:
    Carlsbad, CA
    douchebag rednecks dont pay their fines thats why.

    Go on up to the Samish river's "meat hole" sometime and see bareknuckle fightings, stabbings, excessive drinking and multiple death threats all before 6am.
    Same thing with Reiter. Ive seen fights, guns pulled, malicious vandalization of personal property, blatant poaching of natives, as well as poaching of hatchery fish out of the little creek that leads into the hatchery pens.

    Hatcheries concentrate douchebags. PLain and simple. The amount of revenue generated by license sales etc doesnt even all go back to the WDFW, it gets siphoned off into the general fund. Without the MULTI million dollar drain of hatcheries, a lot of that $$ allocation could go to habitat restoration, increased enforcement, community outreach etc ( all job creation BTW which is a good thing)
     
    sopflyfisher likes this.