Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner
1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,835 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/113524_fish21.shtml

How come they don't sue the logging industry? They don't even mention the potential for destroying the gene pool with escaped Atlantic Salmon from the Farms. They could get all the damn dams removed. They will have to start shooting seals at the locks. By God those liberals better be ready to become human shields at the hatcheries. What a reach!

Matt

"Everyday that you wake up and decide not to go fishing...is one less day you'll go fishing." Forrest Maxwell
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
465 Posts
They don't discuss it in the article in the PI but in their Spring 2003 newsletter Washington Trout has an article titled "Risky Business" about the Salmon farms in WA and BC.

You can read a summary of hatchery study on from the link on this web page or join to get the newsletter with a more comprehensive review.

http://www.washingtontrout.org/WFRmarch03.shtml

This lawsuit could affect fishing opportunity but it's goal is to preserve the long term health of the fishery and I support it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,835 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I'll support anything based on good science. This is kind of like those porno adds with the little back squares. We may not be looking at the big picture. There are a lot of variables not accounted for in this gigantic algorithm we call earth.

Matt

"Everyday that you wake up and decide not to go fishing...is one less day you'll go fishing." Forrest Maxwell
 

·
Stop Killing Wild Steelhead!
Joined
·
5,673 Posts
It is pretty much a fact of legal procedure that when these environmental suits are filed they are usually dealt with on a one-battle-at-a-time basis.Not because there arent other factors or issues involved, and not because the parties are ignorant of those divergent facts, but simply because it is legally expedient to do so. There appears to be a good body of researched evidence behind the suit(s). Yes, this may "have a negative impact on sportfishing". But what are we about here? Are we about saving the big numbers of meat for the hook, or are we about restoration of a precious resource? If we really mean to make a difference then we have to be willing to invest,(not sacrifice), something for the future. If it is true that the hatchery fish are damaging the wild fish stocks then we must reconsider the overall value of the hatchery system as it has been operating.And of course the other issues need to be addressed as well.Perhaps having things presented in court, and sorted out there, will help the process along.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,860 Posts
Matt,
As a liberal, I take some offense at your blaming the suit on "liberals." Like conservatives, liberals vary greatly as to their beliefs. It's always sort of bad business to apply labels to a whole group. I've always hoped that both ends of the political spectrum could agree on saving wild fish at least. But apparently not.
This suit sounds very important on the surface. I do believe that everything is going to hell in a handbasket and anybody who disagrees with that is just not fishing or hates or does not care about wild fish.
I have never thought about the effect that hatch jobs might have on King Salmon. Kings, as you know, with their early spawn, pump their the eggs into the eco. system which tends to feed steelhead and other fish. We don't consider the influence of one factor on another. We don't see the connection that there is in each and every organism. This suit could shed new light on this subject and therefore it should go forward.
We must sue to move the government these days. As a big critic of WDFW, I think they should have their asses sued off for their negligence and total failure to protect our native fish.
Having read the article, I see nothing to alarm me. The suit has an interesting thesis which, in my humble opinion, should me moved to the courts for a complete hearing. What will you think if the court finds the facts of the case to be true?
bobl:professor
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,017 Posts
Groups sue to prod state action on protecting wild ...

Good debate fella's, I agree with both parties on certain points, but I will add this slant. First off, I feel that killing any native species anywhere, anytime is very bad. But us flyfishers that feel this way are a minority, hopefully with education the masses will learn. So if we put an end to the hatcheries, all the meat fishers are going to turn their interest to the native runs, So the question is, is that better for native runs? It would only work if all native fish were catch and release everywhere, all the time. While I dream about that, Reality kicks in and says, Not a chance. Figure out a way to get the meat fishers on board, and then we can drop a J-dam bomb on the hatcheries. Or a sea-launch cruise missile, you pick.:beer2 YT:rolleyes
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,835 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
My dear friend Bob,

You are right about the term liberal. As a teenager, I grew up on “All in the Family” and that term doesn’t seem to translate into the new millennium. I understand all to well the degradation of our fisheries and blame Judge Bolt, but that is just my opinion and everyone has one. I believe that in order for all the runs to return, they will have to shut down all commercial, sport and Indian fishing from here to AK. I know that’s a harsh hit, but what will it take? All the north sound rivers completely devoid of life? I’m afraid that we may never know the answer as long as the WDFW is concerned about income that’s derived from license sales. In the health profession, we call that a conflict of interest. If I’m taking care of your mom and your neighbors mom at the same facility, but your neighbor is greasing my palm every month or so, you could get my license revoked. I guess that fish biologists don’t have the same kind of standards. However, I can do my part. When I’m fishing the Lower Sol Duc on Monday, I may catch a native 20-pound monster and I will let it go even though the law says I can kill it. I know I’ve said before that if the law says I can kill it and eat it then…whatever. I believe that if I do this, I am not only doing what little I can, but may actually catch its offspring sometime in the future. If the court finds the facts of the case to be true, then I will abide by the law. I hope they do figure it out. The way the Sky fished this year; I don’t think we have much time left. I just think that multiple suits are in order.

Matt

"Everyday that you wake up and decide not to go fishing...is one less day you'll go fishing." Forrest Maxwell
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,835 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Thanks Mcronariver,

That site led to other links so I could research this a bit better. That was some cool stuff.

Matt

"Everyday that you wake up and decide not to go fishing...is one less day you'll go fishing." Forrest Maxwell
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
844 Posts
Groups sue to prod state action on protecting wild ...

The problem I have with Washington Trout is that they are made up of true believers. Zealots hardly ever have a rational response to a problem.

I've been involved pretty extensively in conversation organizations and know their politics extremely well. Washington Trout operates unlike the typical organizations that sportsmen usually support. As Hugh Lewis says, "Washington Trout is to wild fish what the National Audubon Society is to wild birds: we exist to do the bidding for the animal. This is not to be confused with other organizations that focus on fish and birds for other primary reasons. For instance, Trout Unlimited is to fishing what Ducks Unlimited is to duck hunting. Their bidding can include good conservation work for fish and for ducks, but their end goal is for fishing and for hunting as sports that use the animal. Any form of fishing has never had, and never will have, any part in Washington Trout's mission."

They say they are the Auduban Society for the fish...Well, I don't support the Auduban Society either. They DO operate like a animal rights organization because, in fact, they are an animal rights organization. That worries me and I think it should worry anyone that wants to save the salmon but also wants to retain their future ability to fish for them. IMO even C&R fishers should not take Washington Trouts means of accomplishing their goals lightly.

Washington Trout also fractures sportsmen in to groups. They are advocates of I-713, the trapping initiative. They, IMO, have no business advocating such an initiative and further puts them out in to the radical camp.

Lastly, IMO, conservation organizations that are sportsmens base usually are far more successful at protecting animals and usually do not pick up the radical agendas. If you want to help the critters, there's were I suggest you put your dollars.
 

·
Mother Nature's Son
Joined
·
1,347 Posts
Call me crazy but I have yet to see a situation where Man hasn't bungled things up. While the hatcheries do provide salmon for killing, the native runs have been decimated as a result. What has taken millions of years to perfect, man has seemed to ruin within the past hundred years or so.

Every time humans try to find a fix for something we've broken, we break something else. Sure there are some success stories, ie, Peregrine Falcons are now back from the brink of extinction but Man was the one who put it there.

The other interesting scenario is that although I don't promote what the forest industry is doing to our streams, I am guilty of owning a home. I am to blame for deforestation. We all want the cheapest homes, and this requires that the logging industry get as much lumber as possible from a given tract. In short, we are the ones who make the forest industry do what they do. We vote with our dollars.

While up in Canada, I did see a hatchery program that I liked. The hatchery wasn't really a place where people extracted eggs and milt, it was a place that provided a perfect place for salmon to spawn. In particular, a small stream had been diverted to an area where gravel of the perfect size created the perfect stream bed. Around the stream bed were trees that protected the young fry from too many predators. All in all, what this hatchery provided was a place where the salmon could do what they would naturally be able to do before the environment was damaged. The beauty of this idea was that it still allowed for genetic diversity. There was minimal maintenance, except to ensure that the stream was kept in ideal shape.

Another interesting observation about the terms liberal and conservative. My observation is that they mean the opposite that one would first expect. It is the liberals who are trying to protect the environment and the conservatives who generally try to exploit the natural resources. I find the terms ironic because the conservatives certainly don't want to conserve...

I think before we're able to get all of this back together again we need to look at the consumptive acts and choices that each of us make. We're the ones that are responsible for the way that our earth is. We're the ones that are responsible for the degradation.

Hopefully we can make the difference that will ensure vibrant populations in the future but this will mean that we make the sacrifice now.

Skinny
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
844 Posts
"It is the liberals who are trying to protect the environment and the conservatives who generally try to exploit the natural resources. I find the terms ironic because the conservatives certainly don't want to conserve."

HUH?? Are you confusing political parties with termonology? Conservative and Liberal aren't really indicators about where people stand on the environment. In fact, the terms are extremely over used and not understood in their proper light. All they really gauge are peoples willingness towards change.

Most conservation organizations I support are definitely conservative led. Ducks Unlimited, for example, is very large group of mainly hunters that band together to protect wetlands. How can you say that they "certainly don't want to conserve?" IMO, these organizations are much more successful at protecting the environment than are non-sportsmen based groups which are usually on the "liberal" side of the spectrum.
 

·
Mother Nature's Son
Joined
·
1,347 Posts
My point is more that we generally associate Democrats as being liberals and Republicans as being conservative and in the context of the political parties, the opposite meaning of the those terms is more accurate. In the context of this thread, the liberals are being accused of wanting to ban the hatchery programs because they are detrimental to the wild stocks.

From the above, I was just making an observation that the political agenda for liberals, which are mostly associated as being democrats, is more often geared toward protecting the environment and the agenda for republicans is more often to exploit the environment.

As for protecting wildlife, I'm not arguing that conservative groups aren't really there to conserve, just that "conservatives", politically speaking, don't mean the same thing.

Skinny
 

·
Mother Nature's Son
Joined
·
1,347 Posts
Completely aside, I do have a couple of questions regarding the use of acronyms...

For the life of me, I don't know what "IMO" or "IHMO" stand for.. (at least I think I've seen that).

Could somebody clue me in on the use of these and other terms??? I had to ask a friend of mine what LOL stood for...
:thumb
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,860 Posts
This post seems to have taken a political twist of sorts, and that should be OK as long as the subject remains fly fishing related.
Liberal-Conservative people may be characterized by their willingness to change as CWUgirl stated. Skinny, though, in a more political sense of the words, equates Democrats with Liberals and Republicans with Conservatives. By and large he is also correct. But where does fly fishing come in to all this?
The environmental record of the Republicans is next to criminal. Check and see what the Bush people have done to wetlands, rivers, clean water, pollution standards, lumbering practices, mining regs. and on and on.
Democrats have not been ultra sanitary on these issues, but I feel proud, as a member of that great unwashed mass, that I am a Democrat.
And Matt, old buddy, no harm done.
blaw. :professor
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
844 Posts
As someone who just completed a degree in political science a mere two days ago(still one more quarter for graduation requirements), it is my duty to be.....an independent. A libertarian in name, mixed ticket voter... Not a big fan of either major party and third parties, while they do serve a purpose, lack any real power and never will have power. Geez, I get a degree and I come out less certain than when I came in. :beathead
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,642 Posts
Groups sue to prod state action on protecting wild ...

CWUGirl, you sound like you know very little about this organization. I know a few people there, and they are not liberal zealots or radicals. Many of them are anglers; the difference between them and many other anglers is that they care more about the resource than preserving their angling opportunities, and they're willing to tailor their angling habits to avoid undue pressure on wild stocks that are under threat. This is a very science-based organization. Given how difficult it is for any non-profit organization to raise funds to keep operating in the type of economic environment we are in, I sincerely doubt WT would have taken this step if the science wasn't pretty compelling. The fact that this kind of legal initiative stirs so much ill will (I heard one of the guys at Kaufmann's in Bellevue griping about it on Saturday) just goes to show that what many fly fishers (who like to hold themselves up as friends of the environment and wild fish) really care about is being able to fish - even if it's just over a bunch of hatchery zombies.
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top