data/admin.txt did not return a true value at counter.cgi line 20.
For help, please send mail to the webmaster (email@example.com), giving this error message and the time and date of the error.
Wild Fish Runs
News and Updates from Washington Trout
In This Issue:
Wild Fish Runs is a bi-monthly publication for WT members and supporters to provide program updates and networking assistance. WT is a conservation-ecology organization dedicated to the preservation and recovery of Washington’s wild fish and the habitat they depend on. Since 1989, WT has sought to improve conditions for all of Washington’s wild fish through research, advocacy, and habitat restoration. Washington Trout is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization.
PO Box 402
15629 Main St NE
Duvall, WA 98019
The DIDSON acoustic camera
This June, Washington Trout researchers had the opportunity to field test a new technology that provides high-definition video images of fish and other submerged objects in low visibility settings. The DIDSON (dual-frequency identification sonar) is a multi-beam acoustic lens sonar capable of producing images of fish in turbid or low-light conditions. Use of this ‘acoustic camera’ in fisheries applications was pioneered in 2001 by the Alaska Department of Fish & Game, which has successfully deployed DIDSON in a variety of riverine habitats and recently concluded that the technology represents a significant advance over existing split-beam sonar for the monitoring of fish passage. In addition to detecting fish in areas not visible to human observers, DIDSON eliminates ambiguity in interpreting sonar signals. By providing realistic, dynamic images of swimming fish, as opposed to the return pulses or intermittent “blips” of split-beam sonar, DIDSON enables researchers to distinguish between animals and moving debris. The DIDSON technology was developed at the University of Washington’s Applied Physics Laboratory, and subsequently purchased by Sound Metrics Corp. of Kenmore, WA. Sound Metrics was kind enough to lend a DIDSON unit to Washington Trout for one week of field testing.
The first place Washington Trout tested the DIDSON was Tuck Creek, a small tributary to the Snoqualmie River just outside the office. At this time of year, Tuck Creek has extremely high densities of young-of-the-year and 1+ juvenile coho, and provided an ideal testing ground for determining the DIDSON’s ability to accurately document juvenile fish presence in small creek settings. Additionally, the DIDSON was used to make a time-lapse recording of fish movement over a 24-hour period; fish images were equally clear during the light of day and pitch-dark of night.
WT Director of Science & Research Eliot Drucker using the DIDSON at the North Fork Stillaguamish test site.
The next testing ground for the DIDSON was the North Fork of the Stillaguamish River, where Washington Trout is taking part in an ongoing effort to monitor the effectiveness of a series of engineered log jams installed in 1998. There are numerous pools adjacent to the log jams that are too deep to effectively determine adult chinook presence using snorkel or light-video surveys. By mounting the DIDSON on a submerged plate side-by-side with a conventional video camera, WT was able to assess differences in the tools’ ability to image large fish utilizing structurally complex habitat. Whereas water turbidity reduced the light-video camera’s depth of field to only a few feet, DIDSON recorded clear pictures of fish up to 35 feet away.
Further testing took place in WDFW’s Wallace River Hatchery forebay. Large numbers of returning summer chinook in the confined area provided perfect conditions for determining whether DIDSON could accurately record individual fish images in high-density situations. Over 1000 adult chinook made up a large school that was observed using both conventional videography equipment and the DIDSON.
The final testing ground for the DIDSON was the marine nearshore environment of Skagit Bay. Here a diverse community of fish including bull trout, cutthroat trout, shiner perch, staghorn sculpin, starry flounder provided a favorable setting for determining whether DIDSON could be used to distinguish among individuals of different species based on body morphology. The DIDSON was deployed on a long boom that was hand-held in one of Washington Trout’s research vessels.
Data generated during Washington Trout’s week of DIDSON testing are currently being analyzed, and it appears that the ‘acoustic camera’ may have many valuable applications for determining fish presence and distribution as a part of Washington Trout’s research and restoration monitoring projects.
Above-water view of fish at the Wallace River Hatchery
DIDSON Video Frame – School of summer chinook, up to 1 meter in length, observed at the Wallace River Hatchery
During June and July 2004, Washington Trout field crews conducted fish species composition and distribution surveys in 17 streams within the City of Redmond. The City had previously performed stream reconnaissance studies to characterize its watershed resources, but the WT survey represented the first comprehensive and systematic inventory of fish species composition and distribution within Redmond’s watersheds. The primary objective of the new survey was to collect data that will help to refine the extent of known fish-bearing water within the City.
Fish presence was documented in 71% of the streams which WT crews were granted permission to access by landowners. Fish observed included juvenile and adult coho salmon, juvenile and adult cutthroat trout, stickleback, and sculpin. Of those streams where fish were absent, all were characterized as potentially fish-bearing on the basis of physical characteristics of the stream habitat. These results indicate that the distribution of fish and fish habitats in the City of Redmond had been underestimated in the past.
Data collected during the surveys will be incorporated into an interactive web-based Geographic Information System (GIS). The web page will enable visitors – the general public and agency staff alike – to view primary field data and accompanying photographs of fish and fish habitat recorded during the course of the project. The web page will also allow users to select among a number of GIS background layers for viewing, including county and private roads, topography, and aerial photographs. (For other examples of WT’s interactive online maps, visit www.washingtontrout.org/maps)
The results of Washington Trout’s surveys in Redmond will be submitted to the Washington Department of Natural Resources to amend existing stream-course and water-type maps, if necessary. Additionally, based upon the results of the analyses, WT will provide comment and direction for revising the City of Redmond’s current Stream Classification System.
WT Field Biologist Mary Lou White measures water depth at the mouth of a culvert in Idylwood Park, Redmond
Coastal cutthroat trout collected during
In March of 2004, Washington Trout was hired by San Juan County to conduct a qualitative habitat reconnaissance and culvert assessment on Fish Trap Creek, a small stream that drains a 736-acre watershed on the west side of Orcas Island into Deer Harbor. Existing stream conditions, fish habitat, barriers to fish passage, and salmonid spawning and rearing potential were of particular interest, since this information will help inform future restoration recommendations for Fish Trap Creek, and will also aid in developing design plans for the Deer Harbor Bridge project. San Juan County will use the results of Washington Trout's watershed assessments to implement the most ecologically and economically appropriate salmon restoration and protection projects.
At first glance, Fish Trap Creek’s potential to bear fish is easily overlooked, due to altered hydrology, agriculture, and man-made barriers. No fish were in fact observed in Fish Trap Creek by Washington Trout Crews in 2004. However, it is currently classified by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources as a fish-bearing stream on the basis on physical characteristics such as stream width and gradient.
WT Field Biologist MaryLou White assessing a culvert at a driveway crossing near Deep Meadow Lane.
Because of its agricultural history and modifications to its hydrology, Fish Trap Creek is lacking in flow and in-stream LWD, and is therefore deficient in both deep water and riffle/pool complexes which together form favorable fish habitat. Fine sediment also covers the stream bottom which limits access to spawning gravel. Nevertheless, Fish Trap Creek has a number of important attributes of a stream that is still capable of supporting fish: (1) isolated patches of spawnable gravel; (2) mid-channel and headwater ponds which could provide rearing habitat upon the removal of man-made barriers; 3) wetlands which aid in ground water recharge, improve ecological diversity, protect water quality, and provide flood control; 4) stretches of intact riparian corridor; and 5) a well-defined estuary at its mouth. Unusual in the San Juan archipelago, such estuarine environments are of critical importance during the life history of Pacific salmon.
Fish Trap Creek is a potentially important watershed for salmonid use in the San Juan Islands. It is unrealistic to believe that restoring this creek would be an easy task. Many of its current deficiencies, though, can be corrected. Flows can be enhanced by redirecting the stream channel through sediment depositional areas and by improving connections at the headwater lake. High water temperatures can be reduced by planting riparian corridors and pond banks. Large woody debris can be added to the stream and fish-passage barriers can be removed. As in the early stages of the Weiss Creek restoration project, improving habitat in Fish Trap Creek may appear a daunting task. Fortunately, there are communities willing to protect natural areas in need of help. Support, patience, and a positive vision go a long way in restoring the function of any watershed.
WDFW Proposes New Hatchery-Steelhead Facility on the Skagit River (by Ramon Vanden Brulle)
On July 22, a public comment period ended on a Draft Environmental Impact Statement issued by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for a new juvenile steelhead acclimation and rearing facility on the Skagit River. The DEIS evaluated two possible sites: (1) the confluence of Grandy Creek and the Skagit River, and (2) the existing Puget Sound Energy compound on the Baker River. WDFW is proposing to rear and release 334,000 hatchery steelhead at one of the sites, and another 200,000 at existing facilities at Barnaby Slough and the Marblemount Hatchery in the upper river.
WT Board President Bill McMillan volunteered his time to lead the Washington Trout review of the DEIS and submit substantive comments, assisted by Wild Salmon Recovery Initiative staff. The review found the DEIS does not meet the state’s own standards of environmental review. The DEIS misrepresents the nature of the project to avoid evaluating its full impacts on wild fish, arbitrarily dismisses and does not adequately consider reasonable alternatives, and fails to even demonstrate whether the proposed project will improve hatchery-steelhead harvest or increase protection for wild steelhead.
According to WDFW the new facility will not increase hatchery-steelhead releases in the Skagit Basin, but will provide a more rational and conservative distribution of hatchery-release sites in the river. It claims that the total target for steelhead releases in the Skagit is already 534,000; over 300,000 released at Marblemount, the rest distributed between Barnaby, the Baker facility, and various offsite-planting locations, including Grandy Creek. WDFW asserts the new facility will shift the majority of plants to a single site in what it calls the “lower” river, better distributing fishing opportunity and pressure throughout the river, providing more efficient brood collection, and shifting ecological impacts from hatchery releases away from the upper river, where, according to WDFW, the majority of wild steelhead spawn and rear.
Unfortunately, nearly all these assertions are unfounded, unsupported, or simply false. Most importantly, it is misleading and inaccurate to assert that the project is not intended to increase hatchery releases in the Skagit River. According to the DEIS itself, total Skagit River hatchery-steelhead releases over the last eleven years have averaged only 418,000. The target of 534,000 was met only one of those years. This includes years when brood-collection and egg-take targets were significantly exceeded, suggesting that the current program may be unable to meet the smolt target. The DEIS frankly admits that if the project is delayed or deferred, the program will continue to fall short of production goals.
Increasing the actual number of hatchery-steelhead smolts produced by the program is clearly an aim of the new proposal, but the DEIS asserts that releasing 534,000 hatchery fish into the Skagit River does not need to be evaluated, because it is an “existing condition.” But as demonstrated above, the condition does not actually exist, except in the aspirations of WDFW hatchery managers. Additionally, when WDFW increased its Skagit basin steelhead-release goals to the current target (an increase of approximately 300,000), that increase never underwent environmental review. Even if it were true that the new proposal does not represent any significant change from current levels of hatchery production, it does represent an unevaluated level of production. But in fact if the proposed action meets its goal, the increase in actual smolt releases will be real and significant, roughly 28%. It is inaccurate, unreasonable, and arbitrary to assert that no increase will occur and therefore the potential environmental impacts of releasing 534,000 steelhead smolts into the Skagit River do not warrant full review. State law in fact requires such a review.
In view of these and other shortcomings, inconsistencies, and omissions, WT believes that the DEIS does not satisfy state environmental-review standards. The refusals to consider the program’s contribution to cumulative impacts or to consider and evaluate other reasonable alternatives appear to violate state standards. By most accepted measures, Grandy Creek and Baker River are mid-river sites, not “lower” river sites as misleadingly described. Potential alternatives were dismissed based on arbitrary, unsupported determinations that they would not satisfy the purpose and need for the proposed action, but the DEIS does not demonstrate that the new proposal is any more likely to meet the purpose and need than the alternatives not considered. In fact, the DEIS does not satisfactorily demonstrate that the new proposal can achieve either of its stated goals, increasing harvest opportunity in the lower Skagit or providing increased protection for Skagit wild-steelhead stocks. Finally, the refusal to evaluate the impacts of the planned releases leaves unexamined clear indications that increases in hatchery releases since 1992 may in no small part be responsible for the recent decline in both wild and hatchery steelhead populations in the Skagit basin. WT respectfully recommended that WDFW withdraw the DEIS and reconsider its proposal.
WT Board President Bill McMillan on the Skagit (Photo taken 2000)
Washington Trout staff have been monitoring and reviewing state and federal proposals for improving fishing and hatchery management in Puget Sound. The Puget Sound Treaty Tribes and WDFW have prepared three “Resource Management Plans” for protecting Puget Sound chinook salmon, listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act since 1999. The three RMPs, one governing harvest activities and two for hatchery operations, have been submitted for approval to NOAA Fisheries, the federal agency in charge of managing listed salmon under the ESA. Both fishing and hatchery activities have been identified as factors in the decline of PS chinook. Under the 4d Rule for PS chinook, NOAA Fisheries must determine whether state/tribal plans to manage hatcheries and fisheries will adequately protect PS chinook populations and contribute to their recovery.
On July 12, a public comment period ended to solicit input on the scope of issues that should be addressed in NOAA’s Environmental Impact Statement on the two hatchery RMPs, one for Puget Sound chinook hatchery programs and the other for non-chinook salmon and steelhead programs in Puget Sound. The plans detail how each of the relevant individual hatchery programs will be operated, what its expected impacts to listed PS chinook will be, how those impacts are being or will be minimized or eliminated, or how the benefits of the hatchery program justify its risks and impacts.
In summer 2003, Washington Trout submitted substantial comments to WDFW regarding the individual hatchery plans associated with the two RMPs (See WT Report, spring 04; “An Overwhelming Body of Evidence: How Hatcheries are Jeopardizing Salmon Recovery”). In general, WT found the hatchery plans inadequate to warrant ESA authorization, and recommended that WDFW withdraw them for significant revision, and/or consider scaling back or discontinuing many of its Puget Sound hatchery programs.
WT used this public-input opportunity to try and influence the pace, direction, and scope of hatchery reform in Puget Sound. We recommended that NOAA evaluate the RMPs and individual hatchery plans to determine how they reconcile with existing and emerging hatchery-reform recommendations, including the recent findings of the Columbia River Power and Conservation Planning Council’s Independent Science Advisory Board and the Hatchery Science Review Group. We suggested that NOAA adopt firm timelines, performance standards, and enforcement mechanisms for hatchery-reform efforts. Our comments promoted several potential alternatives to the proposed RMPs, and other issues that NOAA should consider in the EIS, including: replacing or supplementing hatchery programs with habitat preservation/restoration; full implementation of the HSRG recommendations; full implementation of WDFW’s Wild Salmonid Policy; a decrease in artificial production in selected programs; establishing non-hatchery watersheds as references for analyzing impacts of hatchery production. The full text of Washington Trout’s July 12 comments are available at PSscopingcomments.shtml.
On July 1, Washington Trout submitted to NOAA Fisheries our review of its Puget Sound Chinook Harvest Resource Management Plan; Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The DEIS is required under the National Environmental Policy Act, in this case to evaluate all the potential environmental impacts of NOAA’s approval of the co-managers’ RMP for Puget Sound harvest activities.
WT’s review found the DEIS inadequate in several fundamental respects. NEPA requires a thorough and fair analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the “Proposed Action” (the RMP) as well as reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Action. The dismissals of several proposed alternatives to the RMP appear to be arbitrary, and in the discussion of alternatives that are considered, the analyses are cursory and biased. The analysis of the RMP itself fails to adequately consider or evaluate its full environmental impacts, particularly the impacts on PS chinook. The economic and environmental analyses do not include the full economic, social, and environmental costs of chinook harvest under each of the considered Alternatives. The opportunity costs associated with the RMP are not fully evaluated, and benefits to chinook harvest and chinook conservation that might reasonably be expected under one or another alternative are never considered or even identified. The DEIS fails to make a compelling extra-biological case for accepting potentially unacceptable levels of risk in the RMP.
On May 17, WT submitted to NOAA Fisheries our review of NOAA’s Proposed Evaluation and Pending Determination on a Resource Management Plan (RMP), Pursuant to the Salmon and Steelhead 4(d) Rule (PEPD). The PEPD presents NOAA’s preliminary approval under the ESA 4d Rule of the co-managers harvest RMP. If approval is finalized, the RMP would govern all fishing in Puget Sound until 2010. Fishing carried out under the terms of the RMP would be exempt from ESA enforcement.
Washington Trout does not believe NOAA has adequately justified its decision to grant take authorization to fisheries implemented in accordance with the RMP. The PEPD fails to make a compelling case for accepting the levels of risk and uncertainty associated with the RMP. It uncritically and in many cases inappropriately accepts and endorses several controversial assertions by the co-managers, without any documented support and in many cases without any discussion whatsoever. Most notably, the PEPD explicitly sanctions a “minimum fisheries regime,” a “base level” that fisheries will not drop below, even under conditions when the co-managers expect these populations to be at critically low levels of abundance.
Washington Trout respectfully recommended that NOAA Fisheries substantively revise the both PEPD and the DEIS, and request additional information and appropriate changes in the RMP from the co-managers before final NEPA or ESA determinations are developed. Click on the following links to read the full text of Washington Trout’s reviews of the DEIS and PEPD.
On May 28, The Bush Administration announced a new policy regarding the treatment of hatchery and wild salmon and steelhead in federal ESA-listing decisions. A one page draft of the policy, developed by NOAA Fisheries, the federal agency in charge of managing ESA-listed salmon and steelhead, was leaked several weeks prior, and appeared to indicate the administration intended to count hatchery fish with wild salmon in an attempt to remove ESA protections from declining wild populations, provoking broad opposition throughout the region from scientists, wild-fish advocates, environmentalists, community leaders, regional policy makers, and members of Congress.
The May 28 announcement appeared to back away from some of the most potentially damaging immediate impacts of the policy, stating that at least 25 of the 26 currently listed populations of salmon and steelhead would likely remain protected under the new policy. However, the administration has made no significant revision in language presented in the leaked draft, and while temporarily retaining federal protections for wild fish stocks, the policy will still include hatchery fish along with wild fish in determining health of individual stocks, something most scientists say likely will impede long-term recovery.
A wide range of respected fisheries scientists and ecologists have gone on record maintaining that a policy that combines hatchery fish in with wild fish in making decisions on protections will jeopardize the recovery of listed wild populations. Representatives from NOAA’s own scientific advisory panel noted in an article that appeared in the prestigious journal Science, “much evidence exists that hatcheries cannot maintain wild salmon populations indefinitely,” and warned that while it is contrary to the science, including hatchery fish in listing decisions “opens the legal door to the possibility of maintaining a stock solely through hatcheries.” (Emphasis added.)
The new policy will be the subject of public hearings and comment periods. WT supports the opportunity for the citizens of the Northwest to voice their opinions on what is clearly an important issue. Also reacting loudly to speculation about the legal implications of the policy have been industry and development groups, who favor the removal of ESA protections for both hatchery and wild fish, and the reduced restrictions on logging, agriculture, and development that would result. It is clear they believe this policy should open the door to early de-listings, and plan on using the policy to further that agenda.
The foundation of NOAA’s new policy, that hatchery salmon are capable of contributing to the recovery of ESA-listed wild populations, is completely unproven. While hatcheries can produce fish for harvest, not one hatchery program designed specifically to supplement and recover a wild population has any record of proven success, and the preliminary results from these programs are far from encouraging. A review of hatchery supplementation programs in the Columbia River, published last year by the Columbia River Power and Conservation Planning Council’s Independent Science Advisory Panel, was extremely critical of current conservation-hatchery programs in the Columbia Basin, and found few encouraging results.
This is not based in science, and it’s bad public policy. At best, it is irresponsibly premature to even partially base a salmon-recovery strategy on such an unproven and risky approach. At worst, it’s a cynical attempt to circumvent true recovery, for the benefit of particular stakeholders. In fact, far from being a means to recovery, the overwhelming preponderance of scientific evidence strongly suggests that hatchery fish threaten the long-term viability of wild salmon and steelhead populations. Hatchery fish decrease the genetic fitness of wild populations, compete for food and habitat, spread disease, and promote increased predation. Hatchery runs create harvest pressures that declining wild runs cannot support. The offspring of wild-hatchery mating survive and reproduce much less successfully than true wild fish, weakening a population’s ability to sustain itself.
Current science strongly suggests that hatchery fish can “replace” wild salmon populations only insofar as they are likely to wind up eliminating the true wild population. The region would be accepting not recovered populations of wild, native salmon, but substitute populations of artificially produced animals significantly different than the lost wild population, and significantly less likely to be able to sustain itself in the wild, no matter what how high the quality of the wild habitat is. It is important to understand that hatchery salmon are not just different than wild fish; they are demonstrably inferior in the traits necessary to survive and reproduce effectively in the wild. Mating between hatchery/hatchery fish and between hatchery/wild fish both result in lowered spawning success relative to wild/wild mating, generally 50%-80%. Healthy, abundant salmon populations generally replace themselves at ratios only slightly above one to one. Even seemingly small reductions in reproductive success at the population level could have devastating results.
Administration officials have claimed they were at the mercy of a 2001 court decision by Judge Michael Hogan to lump hatchery fish in with the wild fish in making ESA determinations. But that simply isn’t true. Judge Hogan did not lump together hatchery and wild salmon under a single category. In fact he did not address the scientific distinction between hatchery and wild fish. On purely legal grounds, Judge Hogan found that the government had acted improperly in the way it had made the distinction. He did not preclude it making that distinction in a different way.
NOAA could have accepted 15 individual petitions to separate hatchery and wild fish and just list the wild fish, which is both legally possible under Judge Hogan’s opinion and biologically necessary to protect wild fish. Conservation and fishing groups have also voiced concern over what could lead to relaxed protections for salmon habitat resulting from the policy. Even if hatchery salmon were not an actual threat to wild fish, the statutory mission of the ESA is to recover naturally reproducing populations by preserving and restoring the natural ecosystems they depend on, not mass-producing artificial facsimiles.
The successful recovery of biodiversity and ecosystem-function requires both high quality habitat and high quality animals to interact with that habitat. Even a policy that preserves salmon-habitat protection through continued ESA-listing of wild salmon and steelhead, but allows those fish to be substituted with unfit hatchery fish, will not result in true or sustainable salmon recovery, and could in fact lead the region’s native salmon populations closer to extinction.
After four years of serving Washington Trout as a GIS Specialist, I have elected to return to Spokane, my childhood home. I have accepted a position with the Spokane Valley Fire Department, performing duties very similar to my responsibilities here at Washington Trout. I have enjoyed tremendously the opportunity to be a part of the Washington Trout community, and I will treasure every memory of my time here. I look forward to maintaining my involvement with this superb organization, both as a member and as a consultant, if the necessity arises.
Over the past four years at WT, I have observed a transition from an organization that relied very heavily on field work and paper documents to a much more dynamic organization that has developed a capacity for conducting meaningful research, providing educational outreach benefits for the local community, all the while maintaining a strong presence in the field. During this time WT has benefited from fully embracing technological solutions to the work at hand, including video fish monitoring techniques, the use of the web to provide interactive stream maps to local communities, and the use of complex modeling techniques to plan restoration projects. I anticipate that this trend will continue at Washington Trout, and look forward to the continued success of the organization.
** Washington Trout would like to thank Joseph for everything he put into his position and gave to the organization. On behalf of everyone on the staff and Board, we’ll miss you and wish you best of luck in Spokane.**
Cary Kindberg is a GIS analyst who comes to Washington Trout with seven years of GIS experience. For the last five years he has been a GIS lead at URS, an environmental engineering consulting firm in Seattle where his main clients have been the EPA and the NAVY. Before that he was volunteering at Pacific Crest Biodiversity Project and at CommEn Space, both local non-profit environmental organizations. Cary’s GIS analysis tasks have varied from fish habitat restoration analysis, tracking mining wastes through surface water and groundwater, to regional transportation analyses. His other experience includes building intra-net web sites for facilities management and conducting field GPS surveys.
Cary was born in Colorado and did most of his growing up between there and Idaho. He moved to Seattle in 1990 to pursue a music career. After touring about the lower 48 states he studied cartography and computer science and earned a degree as a geographer. He is excited to be here with the dedicated and hardworking Washington Trout group in Duvall and looks forward to the challenge.
WT is currently hiring for a part-time Education Coordinator to organize and conduct the Environmental Discovery Program, our primary environmental education program. The Education Coordinator will be responsible for everything from leading classroom presentations and field trips to recruiting seasonal field trip staff to developing the overall program and curriculum. Resumes and cover letters will be accepted until Monday, August 2 and applicants chosen for interviews will be contacted during the first week of August. The position begins in the middle of August and will average 20 hours a week. If you or anyone you know may be interested in this opportunity, please visit our website for a full job announcement at www.washingtontrout.org/jobs.shtml.
WT extends our warmest congratulations to Jamie Glasgow, our Director of Science & Research (Ecology), and his wife Becca on the birth of their beautiful son, Evan Thomas Glasgow on June 14th.
Does anyone out there work for Adobe or have the ability to shop at the Adobe store? WT is in need of the "Adobe Creative Suite" - the standard or preferably the premium edition. We are upgrading our Mac computer and none of our existing Adobe software (PageMaker, Photoshop, GoLive) will work on the new system. Adobe has also discontinued PageMaker for the Mac and replaced it with "In Design" which is included in the Creative Suite. If anyone is able to procure GoLive for the Mac, we would also request GoLive for Windows as well so that everyone involved with website design would be able to work from the same software program. To make a long story short, the software is really expensive (even the upgrade) so if anyone can help, we would greatly appreciate it and would gladly pay whatever your cost might be.
Please contact Candace Beardslee at firstname.lastname@example.org if you can help. Thank you!
Want to get more involved with Washington Trout? WT appreciates your support and can use your volunteer help in a number of ways including the annual WT auction, educational programs, mailing and office assistance, staffing booths at public events, and participating in membership campaigns and other special events. Check out the website for more information on volunteer opportunities and our calendar, which lists upcoming WT and other organizations’ events, meetings, classes, etc. Please contact Leah Hausman at email@example.com if you have an event you would like mentioned in Wild Fish Runsor on the website!
Shop the WT Store and Support Salmon Recovery:
The WT Store is a fun way to open up the front of our office and make a space where people can come in, learn about Washington Trout, and buy something with the knowledge that all proceeds go to support WT. We have been expanding our inventory, bringing in new items and product lines that we think you and your family will enjoy.
We have a wide variety of items to appeal to adults, kids, and kids-at-heart: puppets; stuffed animals; scientific games and kits; tools to explore the outdoors; books to educate and entertain all age levels; Burt’s Bees and Bunny’s Bath personal products; art prints by Joseph Tomelleri, Tanya Hill, Jean Ferrier and original pastels by Tim Harris; chocolate; candles; computer map programs; cards; calendars; a new line of yummy treats and fun gifts for your dog or cat; and of course, WT logo hats, fleece and travel coffee mugs. View some of our store items online at www.washingtontrout.org/store.shtml.
The WT Store is open Tuesday – Saturday, 10am-5pm. We are located on SR 203 at 15629 Main St NE in Duvall, WA. If you need directions to the store, please call 425-788-1167 or email firstname.lastname@example.org.