Beware of Washington Trout. Their lawsuit which is already filed in federal court seeks to eliminate hatcheries in the Puget Sound region. WT believes that ALL hatcheries are bad. WT is NOT a fishing organization as you mnay think they are. WT is not a feel-good catch and release fly fishing fraternity. WT is a political group opposed to hatcheries and probably in the long run opposed to you fishing at all. Like PETA, Washington Trout disguises their agenda in the public eye and changes their stated view to suit their audience. The lawsuit against WDFW alleges that the hatchery practices of WDFW damage the ESA listed wild Chinook in our Puget Sound Rivers. The WDFW proposal submitted to NMFS may stall the lawsuit. To make my point that WT is opposed to hatcheries of any kind, I cite their threat to sue over the possible permanent Sockeye hatchery on the Cedar River. The Sockeye run in Lake Washington was imported here and in no way is a "wild" run worthy of any ESA-type listing. Yet WT is opposed to enhancing that fishery which could occur every year in the future should that hatchery become a reality by 2005. So be educated on issues and beware of strange bedfellows like Washington Trout. JOin the Recreational Fishing Alliance today.

If they get around to suing over the Cedar River sockeye hatchery, I'm pretty sure you'll find out that it would be because of the hatchery's impacts on listed PS chinook, not anything to do with the sockeye, per se.

I'm interested in hearing what their gripe in partiular is, as I haven't heard yet.

Fish on...

Todd.

grandpa first of all you don't know what your talking about.

Washington Trout is very much a fishermans organization. Started by fishermen, run by fishermen. Hatcheries weather you like it or not have negative impacts on wild runs. That fact is extremely well documented. The Puget Sound hatcheries in question under this lawsuit have been needing to come into compliance with ESA for years. WDFW has absolutely failed to even come up with a plan for such compliance they are over a year late for having developed such a plan. Washington trout has tried working with the department through all other channels to get them to address the issues regarding puget sound's ESA listed chinook salmon. The department absolutely refuses to do what they are required by law to have done. Not only does WT have the right to sue the department they are legally and morally right to do so it is the right thing to do. no matter how much you dislike it.
To care about fishing and ro be a responsible angler you MUST first care about the fish. If not you are just a user plain and simple. Washington Trout understands that as anglers it is their responsibility to fight for thoes fish that would otherwise go extinct (as Puget Sound Chinook are now doing). If you had not noticed that is what an ESA listing means.. It means they are going extinct! Frankly i could care less about the non native runs that you are referring to just like i don't care about the walleye in the Columbia. There is NO difference. if shutting down thoes hatcheries is what is required to keep a native species from going extinct I am absolutely all for that. However that is NOT what WT wants!!! They want the hatcheries to be operated in a manner that complies with ESA.. They want WDFW to stop breaking the law! and stop killing listed species.. I don;t see how anyone who cares about the future of the sport would have a problem with that.

I am a little confused, how could a hatchery have an impact on wild stocks? What are the hatcheries doing that does not comply with the ESA listinngs?

Regardless of WT or not, a sockeye hatchery on the Cedar would be STUPID and just an excuse to start damaging natural lake spawning areas by bulkheading the shoreline and building docks, and damaging the river by armoring it to control floods and erosion, when what really should be done is getting people to quit building in the floodplain and stay away from shorelines Hatchery supplementation of a healthy self-sustaining population like the LW sockeye would start the locally adapted stock on a downward spiral, like it has in every river with every other species that this was tried on over the past century. Here are some of the things that can go wrong: Hatchery fish spawn with wild fish and the run timing gets screwed up, because every hatchery manager wants to be sure to make their egg quota and so takes the majority of their broodstock from the early part of the run. Subsequent fish spawn too early and eggs get washed out by the first fall flush. Confused hatchery fish also try to spawn with the lake spawners, who have developed seperate genetic codes from the river spawners, and reverse the genetics that make these two distinct spawning adaptations successful. Hatchery gets a disease and infects all the wild fish. Hatchery takes a big chunk out of wild spawners (have to put a wier across the river of course) and then have one of those perennial distasters like the "alarm didn't work and nobody noticed" incedent that just occured a few months ago on the Nestucca. I could go on and on but by now you should have the picture - and an ugly one it is WT or no, we should all oppose this stupidity

Hey Spawnout and RA3 you've come up with the solution .....let's move all of the inhabitats of Seattle to a reservation down on some unused nuclear testing facility desert in Nevada....you guys are the scintillating brainbstormers of solving all our fish problems. Sorry Ra3 but I was in on the ground floor formation of WT back in 86 thru 90 in a flyfishing club....that group and WT has zero connection to the common fisher...hey join them if you can afford to fish Argentina or New Zealand for guess what.... non-native Brown trout.

not here to fight about that Gooose. I am a fly fisherman and a fly fishing club member. I am as connected to the "common" angler as it gets. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone in the leadership of WT who has been to Argentina or NewZealand or who could even begin to imagine being able to afford such a trip. Some of the leading members are very close personal friends and almost as dirt poor as me. not all fly fishers are the suburban driving white collares yuppies you believe them to be. and Damn few steelhead fly fishers are that way.

Having said all that.... That is not even remotely the issue here. The issue here is that WDFW is killing lots of ESA listed chinook salmon with no plans to lessen the problem even thought they were told to over a year ago. They are by their actions telling the federal government, puget sound chinook and me and you to go to hell! They are doing it with so much foreknowledge it can only be intentional. From that I can only draw one assumption. The managment of WDFW does not care if Puget Sound chinook go extinct!!!!! That is exactly what thier actions show!

RA3,WT has gone to pains to point out that it is not a fishermens organization on previous threads.They claim to be an environmental group.
I think it's pretty clear that they are antihatchery and are not merely trying to push the State into legal compliance.

OK guys I admit that I don't know everything like some on this BB do...I am in a learning curve when it comes to Washington Trout. I do know a few things though and have been around long enough to smell a smoke screen. Washington Trout appears to me to be an environmental-type protest group seeking to eliminate ALL hatcheries. Washington Trout appears to be issuing contradictory messages about their purpose or "cause". I am no big fan of WDFW but I have learned that it takes time and patience to achieve compromises. WDFW has filed a plan to amend the practices of the Puget Sound hatcheries to NMFS. If approved this plan , which I'm sure is not perfect, would make needed changes to the way hatcheries operate. We will all see what direction Washington Trout's federal lawsuit takes if the hatchery plan is approved.
Concerning the Sockeye hatchery on the Cedar: The Sockeye run is an imported one so any discussion of the "wild" sockeye co-mingling with hatchery Sockeye is just misinformed. Whether the presence of Sockeye of whatever origin damages or could damage the weak Chinook presence in the Cedar is up for debate.
And last but not least, it seems that trout fishermen always show up in the debate discussing salmon in the rivers. I'm not slamming fly fishermen at all since I partake in that sport too. It just seems to me that these trout groups ,sometimes in alliances with environmental extremeists, always complain about salmon issues. Is it because if we had no salmon in the rivers the trout fishing would be better? I honestly don't understand. Personally I think a Sockeye fishery in Lake Washington helps bring more people to the sport of fishing....AAAA maybe that's what WT and the trout fishermen don't like: All those OTHER fishermen on THEIR river, lake or stream???

Yo Gramps,

I think you're way, way off base.

With all the interests aligned against Washington's fish - from dam operators to irrigators - you're barking up the wrong tree in declaring that somehow WT is the enemy.

Are they extreme? Let's hope so! 'Cause that's what its going to take to preserve Northwest salmon. The fishing organizations, to date haven't been up to the task. Then people like yourself criticize those who do step up and fight for the fish. With this sort of backbiting and infighting it's no wonder Washington's stocks are circling the drain.

I will throw my vote into the fray. My vote is for hatcheries, the Indians, and the federal government. Without these last two groups we would be screwed in many regions of Washington ( the Columbia River comes foremost to mind). The pundits in Washington DC think it is cool to see Indians fish and so they send money. The Indians take this money and turn it into fish, via hatcheries, and we get what is left over. Better than nothing. The fishing pressure on the rivers is too strong to be supported via natural production. It needs to be supplemented via hatcheries. The state appears to be getting out of the business of fish making, and so we are left with the federal government and their hatcheries.

I started this dialogue about Washinton Trout to see what others think , not to pretend to be the world's foremost expert on the subject. Some of the people posting here express their opinions as if they are chiseled into the law of the land and anyone who doesn't agree with their posting is a pitiful moron. WOW.

I am aware that Washington Trout has been an ally in the past. The simple truth is that if they get their way there would be no fishing in Puget Sound at all. For two reasons. Their initial lawsuit that is now settled got them one of their goals which is to get the "ZERO FISHING" option on the table in the North of Falcon process. Secondly if all the hatcheries were to close the fishing as we know it would close too. There are simply not enough "wild" fish to support fishing at all. And forget the catch and release argument. WOW Trout and Steelhead come from the hatcheries too. Let's hear some substantiates facts for a change boys.

Grandpa,

Started this dialogue?

Sounds more like a bash to me. Then you try to back-peddle by professing not to know everything like some on this BB. From another who definitely does not know everything, let me offer you some friendly advice. KNOW THE FACTS before you hit the 'Add reply' button. Otherwise we might get the idea that the quote of John Wayne you made in an earlier thread is autobiographical.

4 Salt:

Oh wise one...Exactly what are the "Facts" about Washington Trout? I'm all ears...

Do they oppose all hatcheries? If not which ones do they advocate?

Did they push through the "zero fishing" option for Puget Sound?

Did they threaten to sue of the proposed Cedar River Sockeye hatchery?

Please explain to us how Washington Trout is a fishing organization. Not just started by fishermen and run by fishermen. A fisherman could start any kind of political advocacy group.

How can you positively tell if a fish is wild?

What exactly is the "documented" harm done by hatcheries?

Do I have the right to oppose Washington Trout's lawsuit without being branded a moron?

If you applaud their lawsuit and support it are you smarter than those who oppose it?

Just the Facts...Just the Facts

4salt forgive me here for jumping in but i am gonna answer all the q's raised by grandpa

1)Do they oppose all hatcheries? If not which ones do they advocate?
Answer: They do not oppose hatcheries! they oppose hatchery practices that cause problems for wild stocks!!!!!!


2)Did they push through the "zero fishing" option for Puget Sound?
Answer: I don't know but if a stock becomes listed allowing targeted fisheries on thoes stocks is illegal and it wouldn't matter if WT pushed for it or not!

3) Did they threaten to sue of the proposed Cedar River Sockeye hatchery?
Answer: Again i don't know but the state spending any more money on a nrew hatchery program is stupid when they don't have the money to run the hatcheries they already have!!!!!

4) Please explain to us how Washington Trout is a fishing organization. Not just started by fishermen and run by fishermen. A fisherman could start any kind of political advocacy group.
Answer: Is Ducks Unlimited a hunting group??? I suggest that instead of assuming things about the group that you actually get to know some of WT's members. You'll find that 99% of them are avid fishermen who want increased angling opportunityjust not at the expense of the last of the Puget Sound Chinook.

5)How can you positively tell if a fish is wild?
Answer: 1. a fin clip 2. a rubbed dorsal fin 3. in some cases the physical charecteristics
4. life history can be determined through scale samples 5. ever day WDFW bio's tell not only what fish are hatchery and which are wild but they can tell through genetic testing exactly who the parent fish were and where they spawned in many cses.

6)What exactly is the "documented" harm done by hatcheries?
Answer: if you are sincere in wanting this info I can e-mail you as much as you want.

7)Do I have the right to oppose Washington Trout's lawsuit without being branded a moron?
Answer: yes of course as long as I have the right to disagree and not be branded an anti-fishing radical enviromentalist wacko

8)If you applaud their lawsuit and support it are you smarter than those who oppose it?
Answer: NO absolutely not maybe better informed and or differently motivated but knowledge and motivation does not translate to intelligence

One question RA3: Considering the unavoidable truth that any hatchery would have some impact on naurally spawning fish is there any hatchery that you or WT wouldn't oppose?

Gooose No one on this board wants it filled with the scientific documentation he requested nor would anyone read it. If he really wants it i'll mail it to him, if you want it i'll e-mail it to you too.

If you would notice they are only opposing thoes hatcheries which have a negative impact on the wild stocks!!! There are a fewhatchery programs in Oregon that have had no negative impact on wild stocks you don't see any groups complaining about them....

I think most of the people here should be interested in the facts about the WT lawsuits and their stand on hatcheries. Most of us on here don't want to be told to stop fishing. That is a possibility if the hatcheries close.
I am going out now to find a WT member and introduce myself. I will visit the hatchery that his group is in favor of and report back.

Here is my 2 cents worth,
Ever since the Bolt Decision our State (You and I) have suffered the consequences. Take a look at our recreational fishing ports, i.e.; Westport, Sekiu, P.A., Illwaco, Tacoma, Seattle etc; they are economically devastated by the results of this Decision. Throw into the mix the ESA now WT and a basket full of other Federal decisions and anti fishing groups and bingo hardly a fish left for the sportsman to CR or CK.

Take a look back at the fees we used to pay for fishing salmon and steelhead they have gone way up with not much if any benefits to the fisherman paying those fees. Tacoma's Point Defiance area used to have the best year round fishing in the State with Winter being the best season with abundant Chinook feeders through out the Winter, now... maybe 1/8 the fish we used to have from the mid 80's back.

In my opinion the WT and PETA among other NON FISHING ORGANIZATIONS ARE THE START of the END to eliminate all of the recreational fishing in the State within the next 3-8 years.

In this thread their have been some assumptions about the Cedar river hatchery that are not correct. See
http://www.cityofseattle.net/util/CedarRiverHCP/Fish.htm

Hello Aunty,

That'll be 1 hour detention for you young lady!

No, not trying to chide. I definitely should realize the futility of trying to keep discussion of these issues civil and fact-based.

I happen to know first-hand though that certain parties will not participate anymore in these "discussions" due to the general atmosphere of hostility and closed-mindedness. It is sad really, whether we agreed with them or not, so much could be understood about the intricacies and politics behind them if we could only conduct ourselves in an adult manner.

Class dismissed...

p.s. Thank you RA3 for responding. Grandpa, you want to know what WT or the RFA or any other organization really stand for? Do some research.

I think the toughest thing about this "issue" is that it's not one issue; it's several issues, and the solution to one is the problem for others, and vice versa.

Here's my somewhat informed opinion of the various groups mentioned so far...

1. Washington Trout: a wild fish advocate.

Creating recreational opportunity may or may not happen, depending on the scenario that their advocacy is playing out in. Examples...suing to close out of compliance hatcheries does not help recreational fishing (or tribal or commercial, for that matter). However, challenging WDFW/NMFS's harvest plans for Puget Sound and the Columbia River do, since they are almost entirely about commercial harvest and tribal ESA exploitation rates. Either way, recreational opportunity (or not) is a byproduct of wild fish advocacy, not a goal.

2. Wild Steelhead Coalition: Recreational fishermen who are wild fish advocates.

Not as cut and dry as some of the others. The point is to create recreatiohal opportunity, but the definition of "opportunity" may satisfy some and not others. Examples...mandatory release of wild steelhead, year round. That creates opportunity for those who choose not to harvest wild steelhead by leaving more in the river and more to spawn. For others, however, the inability to directly harvest a wild fish is a dimunition of opportunity. The WSC believes in well-run hatchery programs for tribal, commercial, and recreational fisheries, but is still in the process of creating a specific stance on balancing the recreational opportunity with the inherent damages caused by hatchery programs (greatly simplified for space reasons!).

3. RFA, TU, PSA: Also fish advocates, but leaning more towards opportunity than other groups. (Though there are specific differences between these groups, I lumped them together for purposes of this discussion because they seem more similar than dissimilar).

Examples: Energy is spent fighting for a bigger piece of the available harvest for recreational fishers. Economics of sportfishing vs. the political power of commercial fishing. Sometimes opportunity is sought at the expense of needed conservation (my opinion, to be sure).

4. Commercial fishers: $$$$$

Examples: Participating in a tangle tooth net fishery on the Columbia that catches three to four wild chinook and wild steelhead (ESA listed) for every harvestable hatchery chinook. Definitely not conservation minded. Participating in fisheries on the Columbia that have an ESA exploitation rate on listed sockeye of FIVE fish...and putting out miles of net to get them. I could go on here...

5. NMFS/WDFW/ODFW/USFWS: Managers.

Protocol seems to be fish like hell, overharvest is eventual, both commercial and recreational, then close fisheries and/or list stocks. Politically caught between the commercials and the recreational fishers (not to mention tribes), working with opposing mandates to provide economically sound commercial fisheries, quality recreational fisheries, and protection of all species, whether they be targeted or not. While caught in the middle between user groups, they're also being sued by groups like WT for violating the ESA and other mandatory environmental laws. Oh, yeah, less money each year to do it, especially the harder it gets to please all three user groups.

5. Tribal fisheries: $$$, treaty rights, co-managers.

The money is getting thinner and thinner, to the point that it makes almost no sense economically to do it. Problem is...some of the value of treaty rights is in the exercise of them themselves, not just in money. Tend to blame problems on habitat and hydropower, since those are the two H's that they don't screw up as much as the others do.

......

Those are just five of the representative user groups...and there are many more. With competing values and goals, and enough blame to go around that no one has to take any personal responsibility for their role in the decline of our fisheries, it's tough to get anything worthwhile done.

All those groups want more fish in the rivers, and all want it at the expense of at least one, if not all, of the other groups.

How do we sit down and make our common goal of more fish convert into our opposing goals of who gets the fish and when/where they get them?

Frankly, I don't see that happening, except perhaps through specific coalitions of some or all of those groups for specific projects, i.e., PSA and WT may spar over the hatchery suit, but are working together on the commercial harvest issues in Puget Sound. WSC, TU, WT, and others have all been gathering/sharing information about the Columbia debacles, and working together to clean them up. WDFW and TU, and with WT, do stream rehabilitation projects, sometimes funded with federal dollars.

I guess that's just the way it has to be...and I think that's OK, for the most part. "When we agree, then let's help each other out and sit on the same side of the table. When we don't, then we'll sit on opposite sides of the same table."

Don't make it/take it personally. Everyone has different goals, and yours aren't anymore important than anyone else's (except to you. Mine are to me, too )

The good thing about this arrangement is that nothing too extreme happens because there are too many hands in the pie for someone to grab it all.

The bad thing about this arrangement is that nothing extreme happens when it is needed because too many hands are in the pie.

Hmmm....sounds a lot like the political process in a democratic society, which I think is the lesser of many evils, though far from perfect.

Here's my overall dream for fisheries management:

Everyone with a stake is at the table...issues are dealt with specifically, not generally...everyone who is on the same side of an issue works together...everyone who is not agrees to disagree on this issue...no one takes anything personally, or attacks anyone personally...science is the prevailing tool in conservation issues...money and politics are the prevailing tools in allocation issues...money spent on lawsuits is better spent on research and field work...and while no one gets exactly what they want, everyone gets mostly what they want.

Pipe dream? Maybe. Impossible? No.

Join up in one of the above organizations, or one like them, and get involved. Heck, join several. I either have or do belong to many different groups, except for being a commercial fisherman or a tribal fisherman.

You know how cool it is to eat a tomato from your own garden, even if it cost ten times more to grow than one from the store? Or to catch a fish on a fly you tied, or spinner you made, yourself, even if you'd likely catch three on a pro's fly or lure?

You can really get that feeling when you catch a fish when you know you played a role in getting that fish in the river in front of you to catch.

Fish on...

Todd.

Todd,

As usual, you bring clarity and a rational perspective to these debates. Now if we could only bring ourselves to listen...

Ready to listen anytime 4Salt but also would like to hear some answers to our concerns and questions which we never got? BTW openmindedness and fairplay are a 2 way street wouldn't you agree? Lastly I recall the WT spokesman Ramon was last seen after he was rebuked for stepping over the line regarding personal info about a well respected member of this board who chose to challenge WTs statements and claims in a well thought out cogent discussion. But hey if they want to claim that hostility and closemindedness is their cause for not participating....well the shame is not on the side of the truth.

Todd as always that was very well stated.

Congratulations Todd for a very succinct presentation of your opinion. Good points. You are correct about PSA and WT working together on some things and working against each other on the hatchery issue. My questioning of issues was and is intended to start a good debate..which is happening here to some extent. I wish Mike from RFA would elaborate more on what he knows about WT as I have listened to him a few times recently learning more and more all the time.

AuntyM: I like you assessment of 4Salt....he is kind of like the hall monitor. Arms folded...allknowing smirk...as he blasts us for our opinions. I'm still waiting for his Todd-Like repsonse loaded with facts he MUST have right on the tip of his tongue.

4Salt: I ,too, know more than you think about fishing issues and politics. I do belong to fishing organizations and I have and do fight for what I believe in by getting involved in person..not just here in the peanut gallery. I love to fish and do not apologize for wanting to fish every chance I get. Take Mike's advise and click on the link to the Landsburg Mitigation by the City of Seattle. Try to read the whole thing then come back with pithy comments about the issues and try real hard not to blast those of us trying to debate and learn more. We are mere mortals trying to do our homework and learn from each other....don't toss us into detention study hall yet.

Grandpa,

I have kept pretty quiet on WT front for a while now because nobody will gain anything from what more I could say. I aired my displeasure with WT on hatchery issues in past threads. The simple truth is that we need tol be judging WT on thier actions, not thier words and not the words of others. If I learn of some substancial news I will pass it along.

That is a sound philosophy Mr. Gilchrist. It also happens to be the same one I employ regarding the Recreational Fishing Alliance.

Being from Oregon I found your recent stance on wild steelhead retention very telling.

Grandpa,

No arms folded sitting in judgement here. DEFINITELY NOT all-knowing. We went through this battle about 3 or 4 months ago over WT and their lawsuits on all 3 BB's. EVERYONE that participated, did so in a passionate manner. Some excellent insight and knowledge was exchanged as well, but just like every hot-button issue seems to do, it deteriorated into a series of personal attacks and general mayhem that IMHO negated most of the positive aspects of the "discussion".

I do not recall ever stating that you knew nothing about fisheries issues, and I wasn't blasting you for stating your opinion, just the manner in which it was presented. IMHO, if you wish to initiate good debate over these issues, starting out in an inflammatory manner is not the best way to accomplish this.

Wouldn't you agree that to truly understand an issue it is best to hear from all sides? It is much easier to form an educated opinion when all of the data is present. When these discussions degrade into name-calling b!tch fests, and the free exchange of ideas and opinions is quashed, one more time IMHO, it is the sportfishing community who is ultimately the loser.

I have always thought of WT as a fish conservation minded organization. Challenging hatchery programs can be consistent with fish conservation. However, it appears to me that WT has missed the mark in its challenge to Puget Sound chinook hatcheries.

Do PS hatchery chinook adversely affect wild, ESA listed chinook? In some cases, yes, of course. No affect is an almost impossible standard to achieve. Is any amount of adverse effect illegal under ESA? No, a limited adverse effect is permitted under the ESA.

I spoke with the biologist who wrote NMFS' opinion on the PS chinook hatchery and genetics management plan a few days ago. He said that comparing past hatchery practices to present and proposed practices under the approved plan is an apples and oranges type of comparison. Hatchery practices are being modified to REDUCE, NOT ELILMINATE, adverse effects on wild chinook. That is legal under the ESA. Eliminating all adverse effects might require closing so many of the hatchery operations that there would be NO commercial or recreational chinook fishing opportunity. Given the diverse interests, I think WDFW and NMFS are saying that would be an action of final resort to achieve recovery of the listed chinook. It's legitimate to ask why anyone would choose that alternative if it isn't necessary.

More importantly I think is that WT's lawsuit includes the "conservation" hatcheries. There are small hatchery operations that exist almost for the sole purpose of maintaining chinook populations that are at most risk of extinction. WT's suit is opposed to the Elwha channel program that prevents extinction of Elwha chinook and will provide the broodstock to restore that population when the dams are removed. WT's suit opposes the Whitehorse program that maintains the fragile NF Stillaguamish chinook and provides marked fish for a valuable stock indicator project. Anyone who knows the Stilly is aware that there isn't enough remaining stable chinook spawning gravel to maintain the population in the near term. This program is necessary to restore and recover the chinook run in the future. WT's suit also opposes the White River spring chinook hatchery, without which, the recover of White River chinook is impossible.

I agree that most PS chinook hatchery production occurs for the sole purpose of providing commercial, treaty, and recreational fishing opportunity. To the extent that those operations really do get in the way of survival and recovery of wild chinook, the hatchery practices do need to be modified, reduced, or perhaps closed down in some cases. But to seek the closure of conservation hatcheries that are essential to the recovery of some very unique PS chinook stocks is irresponsible, and misguided, conservation in my opinion.

The state's fisheries, and WT, would be better served by having WT oppose WDFW's slot limits on Columbia River walleye. The regulation is designed to produce more and larger walleye broodstock. Walleye are an exotic species imported from the mid-west. Walleye are known to be an effective predator on salmon and steelhead smolts. Seems like a lawsuit to extend the northern pikeminnow bounty to include walleye, and the elimination of protective regulations for walleye would be a more effective and dedicated conservation action.

WT is like most conservation organizations. Like Audibon, Sierra Club, or Wilderness Society. Their hearts are in the right place. I might agree with many of their positions and actions, but I disagree when they get it wrong. It does look to me as though WT missed the mark with their total opposition to PS chinook hatchery operations.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmon g

I appreciate your understanding as well as your point of view but you look at things from the inside of the administrative process looking out, while myself and WT have to look from the outside looking in. One cannot walk in to a bargaining process asking for exactly what you want. Chances are by the time you are done you will leave with less than what you hoped for. If you ask for what you want as well as what you feel you can negotiate away you will likely do better. An example would be if I went to a hatchery and told the personnel sheepishly that I would like them to change their practices to help wild fish. I would likely not get what I asked for. However, if I filed in court that current practices at this hatchery were in violation of the ESA and that this and any other hatchery that continues to do this should be shut down, chances are these same hatchery employees would say “you know we could just change our practices”. :p
Politics and science do not work in the same way, stop pretending there is a moral right and wrong embedded in politics.

The last I heard WDFW had to file under 4d rules how they were going to mitigate the negative affects of hatchery planting on these ESA listed fish, and that they had failed to do that in violation of the ESA. Did something change?

POS,

You're right, of course. You don't begin negotiation with your bottom line.

If I was unclear, let me add that I'm certain politics and science are different. Oh, are they ever different! Interestingly, tho, they are both amoral. While the methods are different, I think the most impressive difference is that politics has no allegiance nor truth, only interests. Science uses systematic methods to seek truth.

I do have a perspective that is probably different than most anglers. Conservation organizations serve an important role in our system of checks and balances. While trying to keep my eye on the larger prize of fishery conservation, I'm frustrated when I see WT or other organizations tying up a lot of resources in efforts that may do little to effect the outcome of recovery, all the while ignoring other or larger actions that have a more significant influence on eventual outcomes.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
- -- Joseph Joubert

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who
dares not, is a slave.
-- Sir William Drummond

I 'm with SlabQuest on the purpose of a discussion. I'm not sure if POS Clerk is saying he is an idiot, a bigot or whatever...or is he talking about others who disagree with his point of view? Not sure...I am sure that discussions can lead to progress...thanks for the quote SlabQuest.

Support the Cedar River Hatchery!!!

Well, I certainly was NOT intending for that quote to spawn a new round of name-calling

SlabQuest

Do you believe that the quote in question was somehow directed at you?

Why?

Do you fail to reason?


Just fun-in wit cha slab

It's tough to say anything here without starting a name calling spree..Even when poking fun I get caught up in the jabs back and forth..what I really want to do is extract some information..not to call names or poke fun in a maliscious way...So with that said I think Slab is too sensitive...

oops..didn't mean to copy the whole thing....just the part about walleye and exotic species....it has always made me scatch my head why so little attention (it seems) is paid to walleye or even bass predation on smolts.....why should we be encouraging bass or walleye to do better where they can chomp on smolts?

POS, no, I thought the quote you posted was appropriate and not derogatory to anyone.