I'm sad that the Puget Sound Partnership hasn't shut down all the duplicative, self-serving, non-profits who are "saving the Sound". As it was formed to do. For budget reasons.

I'm disappointed that Blue Light hasn't choked on his own bile yet. If money is a problem, I'm sure we can pass the hat and raise it toot sweet.

Pass the hat. Let us know how you do.

How's the fund raising going, bubbles? Whatcha up to?

Maybe the end began here in Crosscut.

http://crosscut.com/2011/07/07/alaskan-way-viaduct/21082/The-environmentalists-case-for-waterfront-tunnel/

On August 31 I posted on my blog, cruisemastersboating.blogspot.com the following comment on Mike Sato's firing::

As one who has cruised around the edges, and sometimes in the world of public relations and the media, it is always sad when an organization which relies so heavily on public awareness and people mobilization, as does People for Puget Sound, eliminates its most crucial tool. For me, the genius of PPS, in addition to its interaction with government, has been informing, inspiring, coordinating and making know to all of us what is happening and what is needed on the Sound, and giving us ways to respond. After all, we're the stewards of these waters and we need to constantly know where and how to be good stewards. Puget Sound News and Weather has done that for us, big time!

To eliminate this can be folly.

And it now turned out to be folly, big time.

Mike does a good job expressing anger about the closure of People for Puget Sound, while not expressly naming names. He certainly makes the case, as have other former staffers, about how the broader community, including members, volunteers and supporters, were not made more aware of the dire nature of the situation.

Had the Board and the executive director taken the challenge public, there is little doubt that a sum might have been raised. Perhaps even a substantial sum. One need only look to the arts community, in particular Intiman Theater. Intiman was a in a much, much worse situation financially, with a gigantic debt and well-known management problems. But Intiman's greatest assets were its deep-pocketed Board and other supportive theater groups.

People for Puget Sound was best at communications, public relations and self promotion. They raised tremendous awareness about the Sound, and the founder, Kathy Fletcher, fought mightily for clean up. But there are a great many other non-profit environmental organizations working on Puget Sound and the waterways that fill her. Save Our Salmon. Save Our Wild Salmon. American Rivers. Toxics Coalition. Duwamish River Clean Up Coalition. While none of these are nearly as successful at obtaining media coverage as People for Puget Sound, they are all committed to a clean and healthy Puget Sound.

Mike's biggest mistake, however, is claiming "Puget Sound will no longer have a watchdog and advocate focused exclusively on the Sound’s well being." Puget Soundkeeper Alliance pre-dates People for Puget Sound. Indeed, Kathy Fletcher was a founding Board Member of Soundkeeper, but left to form her own organization where she had more control. She used her tremendous skills to create a highly visible, publicly active organization.

Puget Soundkeeper Alliance is part of the international network Waterkeeper Alliance. "Founded in 1999 by environmental attorney and activist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and several veteran Waterkeeper Organizations, Waterkeeper Alliance is a global movement of on-the-water advocates who patrol and protect over 100,000 miles of rivers, streams and coastlines in North and South America, Europe, Australia, Asia and Africa." Kennedy was the keynote speaker at Puget Soundkeeper's fundraiser in October 2000. Soundkeeper was well known for using kayakers to patrol and report pollution, as well as perform clean ups. But their most aggressive action is conducted quietly: Puget Soundkeeper Alliance uses their findings to enforce the Clean Water Act through legal action. Where the state department of ecology has often captitulated to political pressure -- and concern about harming maritime industry -- Soundkeeper works in the public interest to see that our nation's and state's environmental laws, and environment, are upheld.

If there is any benefit to the closure of People for Puget Sound, it is that perhaps the People will pay more attention, and pay out of their pockets for such valuable advocacy, protection, and enforcement. For the good of the People and Puget Sound.

As executive director of a long-standing (28 years) watchdog and advocacy organization focused exclusively on the Sound's well being, I will have to take issue with Mike's statement: "Puget Sound will no longer have a watchdog and advocate focused exclusively on the Sound’s well being".

That said, we applaud the work of Mike, Kathy, Tom and the dedicated Board, staff and volunteers of People for Puget Sound.

Without any direct knowledge of the financial challenges they faced, it appears to me that this decision, justified or not, was made in the best interest of the Sound and maintaining the maximum impact of the programs established of the 20-plus year history.

This has to hurt those that have worked so hard for this legacy, but the fact is, you have helped change the course and created a turn-around in the way we view our signature waterway and the land-based activities that impact it. Thank you!

Now its up to all of us to figure out a way to do little more to fill this void.

Chris Wilke
Puget Soundkeeper

Thanks for writing. It's so weird Sato didn't acknowledge your org and others. It's not as though he's not well aware or anything. Appreciate you and "love obsolete tech" above both balancing him out for the sake of us readers.

Its not weird, its typical. Acknowledge others and Uncle Sugar might give them some of your pie.

Researchers at Oregon State University have determined the Number One Threat to PNW salmon and their habitats is increased immigration into the region; the vast majority of which comes from outside the U.S. and Canada.

What is Puget Soundkeeper Alliance's position on the various "sanctuary" policies for illegal immigrants that have been adopted by Puget Sound governments?

Researchers at Oregon State University have determined that bluelight should choke on his/her own bile. They concluded that the result of bluelight choking on said 'bile' would have a net-positive effect on the comments section of Crosscut.

Yup, the degradation of Puget Sound is the fault of 'illegal immigrants'. Wow. I'll bet your poor-little-brain makes all the area's problems the fault of 'illegals', huh? It's just easier that way!
(That's a rhetorical question, btw, so do us a favor and please don't come back out from under your rock to answer it.)

No, not all of the Sound's problems are the result of illegal immigrants. Very many of them are the fault of mindless Party Partisans who vote for buzz words, intentions and affiliations and squawk hard to stifle honest discourse. Sound like anyone you know?

Bluelight's question is valid. Please answer it, Puget Soundkeeper Alliance.

Blue Light's question is not valid because he reframes "population growth" (the real issue) as "immigration...the vast majority of which comes from outside the U.S. and Canada" (an ideological punching bag).

The real issue does need to be addressed.

What drives "population growth" in the Puget Sound region?

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2013729560_census22m.html

As the article you cite notes, "the census information did not include demographic breakouts." To get a real answer (data, not arm waiving) you need to dig deeper. It's true that immigration used to be a major portion of U.S. population growth, but that's changed in the past few years: http://www.prb.org/Articles/2012/us-population-growth-decline.aspx

In any case, I'm more concerned about global population growth, not just national or regional. If you think we can solve local issues by somehow preventing any immigration and ignoring global growth over the long run, you're stuck in ideological lala land.

I have nothing positive to say about People for Puget Sound, in my experience it was a way for wannabe environmentalists to feel good about themselves. People for Puget Sound was all about process, not progress. I can't tell you how many hours I wasted sitting through the PROCESS, and when I suggested People for Puget Sound look for tangible ways to show progress I was labeled "out of line".

One less parasite sucking off concerned citizens heartstrings.

The "Seattle way" planning process is pure obstructionism. Planning agency leaders invite public participation to lend credence to back room dealmaking amongst an insanely anti-environment elite who proudly hoodwink and fleece the public. Those who believe the seawall plan will enhance migrating salmonids have fallen for a lie. The Seattle Waterfront plan is for a tourist trap, a pretense of environmental conscientiousness.

The elite are praying Jesus comes back soon, sends the liberals to hell, waves a magic wand and restores eden. Whee! Meanwhile, they have the right as christians to destroy the planet for profit, priviledge, prestige, power and luxury. Good bye Seattle. Your legacy of rampant environmental destruction has culminated in a tunnel plan that will damage beyond repair and even topple downtown buildings. The middle finger in black tower too will eventually fall. Good riddance.

PSP should be next if effectiveness is any measure of an organizations performance.

Since the Puget Sound Partnership is to advise local governments when their practices negatively affect the Sound, what is the Puget Sound Partnership's position on the various "sanctuary" policies for illegal immigrants that have been adopted by Puget Sound governments?

The major difference is that PPS is (was) an NGO, while the PSP is: "An agency of state government, to be known as the Puget Sound partnership, ... created to oversee the restoration of the environmental health of Puget Sound by 2020. The agency shall consist of a leadership council, an executive director, an ecosystem coordination board, and a Puget Sound science panel." RCW 90.71.210 (2007).

Whatever problems we have with effectiveness the PSP, unlike PPS, is accountable to the people and local governments of the region. We own its failures due to our own inability to hold our elected officials' feet in the water.

I think we owe these groups' failures also to effective efforts to render them ineffectual, as happened when the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority was disbanded just 11 years after it was started. As its name suggested, the PSWQA had some authority. After intense political opposition from the right it was eventually killed and replaced by the much less powerful Puget Sound Action Team. The Olympian ran a timeline of Puget Sound cleanup programs at the state level: http://www.theolympian.com/2006/08/06/45317/history-of-puget-sound-cleanup.html

It's an old trick to weaken a government program and then complain hypocritically that it's not effective. I don't see where this gets us, since the health of Puget Sound affects us all regardless of party affiliations.

Puget Sound Partnership is accountable? really ? How can they be accountable with no enforcement? It's exactly the samething as the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority or the Puget Sound Action Team. Changing the name at taxpayer expense to perform the same nothingness.

The Puget Sound Partnership is a Political Patronage Playground for the Environmental Elite. It should be disolved.

What exactly did they accomplish? Something that is measurable and please don't use the tired and meaningless "Awareness".

I think it's sad news that PPS is shutting down, and as a past supporter I have to say I'm surprised too that they didn't reach out to us. I hope Crosscut will run a follow-up piece on the Puget Sound advocacy groups that remain.

Me, too. And I hope they, especially, report on their funding and political affiliations.