Another lawsuit (intent to file)

Bones

Active Member
Curious if anyone could provide insight on this lawsuit winning in court using section 9 of the ESA and would it affect future steelhead broodstock programs as I would imagine some mortality would occur with any broodstock progam.

It would be nice to have a productive discussion on the topic, If possible.


 
Last edited:

Jim Travers

Active Member
Tell all litigating parties to get MY name on the legal documents involved in this case under the part where it lists all parties receiving SUMS at the end.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JS

dustinchromers

Active Member
I'm thinking back to the promises of doubled and tripled steelhead numbers thrown out when the Skagit plants were sued out of existence.

There will be plenty of salmon for all comrade. One only needs to trust these reforms and do their part.

This suing for nothing productive is getting old. Do these people do any real heavy lifting habitat work with the funds they get or does it all go towards "administrative costs and legal fees?"
 

_WW_

Geriatric Skagit Swinger
WFF Supporter
There will be plenty of salmon for all comrade. One only needs to trust these reforms and do their part.

This suing for nothing productive is getting old. Do these people do any real heavy lifting habitat work with the funds they get or does it all go towards "administrative costs and legal fees?"
I'm not going to hand you the easy answer. But your answers can be found with some research.
 

Bones

Active Member
I agree that hatcheries or broodstock programs can have a negative impact on wild steelhead runs. Being human and living in WA has a negative impact on wild steelhead.

I do not agree that hatcheries and broodstock programs are so negative in their impact that they are the limiting factor in wild steelhead recovery and should be completely stopped.

I do agree that the .org from the link, has successfully eliminated the next generation of steelhead advocates by using a singular, idealistic approach, to wild steelhead recovery.

I do blame WDFW for not having their permits in order and opening themselves to litigation.
 

Rob Allen

Active Member
It doesn't matter what any of us "believe". There is science and there is speculation. I'll stick with science.


The problem is that the science isn't a lot better than speculation because there are too many variables to even come close to accounting for them all.
In general terms all hatchery programs are bad for wild stocks, no hatchery programs have been shown to have long term benefits for wild stocks.
Some hatchery programs under reform may cause significantly less damage to wild stocks than before reforms.
The question is are some of these latter programs giving us enough of a benefit to be worth the expense?
At that point the science is irrelevant and the issue becomes subjective because wild fish are not societies only concern. It's not even WDFW'S only concern.

Fact is WDFW once again has failed to do It's job, and left itself open and liable to a lawsuit.

Agree or disagree with the lawsuit, it is WDFW'S fault. They have enough money, they have enough people, they just didn't do the work they are legally required to do.

Will the lawsuits help wild steelhead? Nope.

Nothing humans can do will help wild steelhead.

We are ALL just children sitting in our dirty diapers complaining about the mess WE made having known all along how to use the toilet..
 

Support WFF | Remove the Ads

Support WFF by upgrading your account. Site supporters benefits include no ads and access to some additional features, few now, more in the works. Info

Latest posts

Top