A last-minute effort in the Washington Legislature seeks to involve anglers in efforts to stabilize native steelhead populations in the state's rivers and streams.
State Sen. John Braun, R-Centralia, appeared in front of the Washington state Senate Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources on Thursday, Jan. 29, asking lawmakers to consider advancing a bill that would establish wild broodstock conservation programs all across the state.
Anglers and some fish advocates came to bat for the bill during the hearing, but a well-known trout advocacy group, Trout Unlimited, testified against the policy.
Senate Bill 6241, if passed by the Legislature and signed into law this year, would direct the Washington state Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to begin steelhead conservation programs in each watershed with native steelhead runs. WDFW would be responsible for leading the program through some of the 80 hatcheries it operates across the state, but would rely largely on help from volunteers.
“It’s a bill that came to me from a group of fishermen in Southwest Washington and really reflects their long expertise and their observation of similar programs in operations in Oregon principally, and also in Alaska,” Braun said. “There’s a lot of benefits.”
Volunteers would be asked to bring wild catches of mature steelhead that are ready for rearing to local fisheries in a plan that hopes to increase the number of viable fish in the state's hatcheries while preserving the unique genetics of specific steelhead runs — and do so at a lower cost to the state. According to testimony from Braun and others, the idea is based on programs already existing in other states and in a smaller capacity in Washington.
According to the fiscal note with the bill, 14 of the state's 36 water basins with wild steelhead runs already have similar wild broodstock programs.
The bill might, however, face an uphill battle to be passed this year. The fiscal note on the bill shows a roughly $14 million price tag to operate the conservation programs over the next year and would require nearly $30 million every two years after. The costs of necessary capital investments to update, improve, expand or repair hatchery facilities for these programs were not calculated but listed simply as “non-zero,” meaning there is an uncertain price tag.
Braun disputed the fiscal note, saying he wasn’t convinced it would be that expensive to establish the additional 22 wild steelhead broodstock programs the bill calls for. But he added that given the difficult financial outlook for the state, he and the bills' other sponsors had another much less costly version of the bill drafted for the committee to consider advancing.
“$14 million for the program in a year like this is not going to happen, so we do have a substitute for your consideration that should bring that cost down considerably,” Braun said. “I’m not sure I agree with that fiscal note, but there's just neither the time nor the funding to have an argument about that.”
Other than a major budget concern, the bill received widespread praise from anglers and other fish advocates who testified. The bill faced two detractors testifying against passage. Possibly surprising to some, Trout Unlimited, a group often known for steelhead trout advocacy, testified in opposition.
Jonathan Stumpf, representing Trout Unlimited, said the organization was concerned about making decisions on the state's fish conservation and hatcheries through the Legislature. The group argued they would prefer that the state leave these types of decisions to those managing hatcheries, including tribal, state and federal authorities.
“Hatchery management decisions directed by RCWs is not how the state should be handling these types of decisions,” Stumpf said. “Instead, consideration of hatchery programs should be implemented by the state and based on biological, ecological and social conditions or science based management by the managers at WDFW, treaty tribes and where applicable NOAA fisheries.”
Another testifier, David Moskowitz, who identified himself as a longtime fish advocate in Washington and Oregon, argued against the bill, calling into question the claims of how successful similar programs have been in Oregon. He argued that the programs in Oregon have not tracked their results closely enough to credit them with large success.
“It's really important to take a really clear-eyed look at this proposal,” Moskowitz said. “It's expensive. It doesn't have a track record.”
Some conservation groups, as well as advocates of recreational fishing, came out in support of the bill, including the Coastal Conservation Association and the Animal Research Initiative.
Executive Director of the Coastal Conservation Association Nello Picinich advocated for the bill as a way to reengage the recreational fishing community in a state where recreational steelhead fishing has declined in the last 10 years. Picinich added that he has seen the programs in Oregon receive enough support from volunteers both through labor and fundraising to sustain them with little cost to the state and argues the same could happen in Washington.
Amanda Fox, representing the Washington Research Initiative, said her organization supports the program as a way to stabilize the numbers of steelhead in the state's rivers while the state continues to look for more viable long-term solutions to restoring native fish runs.
“Wild broodstock programs can help stabilize struggling steelhead populations in the short term by protecting genetic integrity and preventing further collapse,” Fox said. “However, it's also important to be clear about what’s driving declines with the primary causes being human created.”
