Dear Mr. Ramon Vanden Brulle, Communications Director Washington Trout:

You can continue to address me however you wish. Grandpa isn't my real name as AuntyM is not her real name. Whatever floats your boat. I do not feel that you somehow need to be addressed with some reverence like a man of great stature. To me you are a man with a mission that I vehemently disagree with, an enemy combatant if you will. You are not someone I hold in great stature. I will try harder to be polite however.

I need to spend a little more time than I have this afternoon looking at your two page rebuttal to me and when I have I will respond more completely so you can more completely trash everything I say in greater detail.

I will only say at this time that what I find misleading over a period of time and not with this specific snippet of your opinions is that you and WT try to put a different face on your objective sometimes to appeal to a specific audience. The environmental side of your argument says that restoring the environment and "wild fish" is a noble goal that should be achieved at almost any cost and that goal is an end to itself. Fish are incidental to that game. Maybe they are simply like the canary in the coal mine as an indicator species. Maybe like the spotted owl or the snail darter.No mention of what the end game is or more specifically how you know you have achieved that environmental goal. You are currently wrapping yourself in the ESA and using it as the justification for extreme measures. Mitigation is not in that vocabulary. It is either your way or off to court you go. And you usually will say that it is not WT's idea it is the LAW, the ESA.

I am gratified that WT has not to this point seen fit as many other extreme environmental and animal rights groups have to resort to more extreme and sometimes illegal and violent means to force views on those who do not agree. Thank you for that. You only resort to words and law suits to try to force others to follow your philosophies.

I think that the ESA is used in many cases too narrowly without regard to the damage it can cause. Kind of like spending a dollar to save a nickle. Some common sense is in order.

In conclusion I will state my firm opinion about you and WT. You want hatcheries closed and you don't give a rip about the consequences to fishermen as long as your agenda is met. Are serious reforms only the ones WT approves of? I think more people need to know that your way would result in immediate disaster for fisheries in this state for the long term goal of saving wild fish. How many wild fish? When that number is "saved" by WT then what? Only fly fishing on private ranches run by sponsors of WT? If hatcheries are so bad then fishing has got to be worse doesn't it? What comes after that? No dams, no irrigation? No timber cutting?

I just don't feel comfortable with your nose being anywhere inside the tent because I am quite sure once it is in you will try to bowl over everyone until they all "see the light" as laid out by WT.

Sincerely

Mister Grandpa, director emeritus of Citizens Against Washington Trout