Is the “sue and settle” practice really “science” for wild steelhead?
The stated purpose of groups such as Wild Fish Conservancy, The Conservation Angler, the Wild Steelhead Coalition, and the Native Fish Society is to eliminate hatchery plants of steelhead by establishing wild steelhead gene banks, and turn these steelhead rivers into catch-and-release fisheries. They persuade us with attractive vocabulary — “diverse,” “extinct,” “wild steelhead gene bank” and “wild fish recovery.” They disingenuously conflate the terms “wild” and “native.”
What they don’t cite is any direct, dispositive and credible scientific foundation to support their claim that the elimination of hatchery fish will rebound the “wild” strains of steelhead in our rivers.
But science is not the goal of these organizations. The goal is for us to demand more catch-and-release gene banks.
For almost 100 years, hatchery broodstock steelhead have been spawning with native steelhead rather than returning to the hatchery. During the same period, hybrid surviving smolts, along with the pure “native” smolts, if any now, swim to the ocean and return to spawn and are identified by their adipose fin as “wild” fish. But “wild” could be anything from 100 percent native steelhead genes to 100 percent hatchery genes, or both to an unknown degree. What use are unknown gene banks except to curtail our recreation and livelihood by the expansion of catch-and-release?
I would prefer the adults in the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife manage our steelhead.
