Dude, the kill em all logic is illogical.
When frustration turns to killing fish out of spite, it's pretty sad. What, do they think these fish are WT members?

I am amazed you could see my hidden adgenda, especially since I dont have one. I have said repeatedly that I do not know if W.T. is right or wrong. (My guess is they are wrong, but I am silly enough to want to see their evidence.)

I was simply curious to see what percentage of us would be willing to give up our fishing to save wild salmon. I did not, and do not, say we should, or need to, give up our fishing. It was a hypothetical question.

What I learned is that some folks can't read too well; some don't understand the term hypothetical, and some are truly paranoid.

I was beginning to think that W.T. has some hidden adgenda, simply becase several folks said they did. But now that I see that anyone who even remotly appears to disagree with a popular position MUST have a hidden adgenda. Maybe W.T. is simply concerned about our wild fish?

Maybe our paranoia comes from years of being screwed over by groups that "dont have a hidden agenda", Hypothetically speaking of course... I think most people had a problem with the WAY the poll was worded. It was sort of a "are you stupid?" or "just not very smart?" line of questioning. There was no way to answer without helping the WTA's stance. I dont think the problem was with the way we were reading it, more so the way it was written.

I don't find WT's agenda to be hidden at all...go to their website and check it out, it's right out in the open.

Their agenda is to do whatever they can to protect and perpetuate wild fish runs in Washington.

While this may often time work to the benefit of sportfishermen, it doesn't always.

Last year they fought the tribes, along with PSA, to limit tribal fishing in puget sound...which definitely benefitted the rest of us.

Now they're targeting hatcheries or hatchery practices that affect wild chinook, which doesn't benefit recreational fishers.

The goal is the same...to protect wild chinook. It hasn't changed just because the user group affected has changed.


That being said...it seems to me that IF there is indeed illegal predation upon wild chinook fry by hatchery smolts, then one of two things can be done. One, WDFW can apply for a 4(d) exemption to incidentally "take" wild chinook fry during normal hatchery operations, or two, hatchery smolts must be released before they are large enough to predate upon wild chinook fry.

Hopefully there will be those, and other, opportunities to solve the alleged problem without shutting down all hatchery production.

Fish on...

Todd.

Todd and Bob,

Thank you both for your calm(er) voices in a time of confusion and fear regarding a possible loss of our current fishing opportunities.

As Todd so eloquently put it (paraphrasing here), as sport fishermen we may have to take our lumps to help protect wild fish. But let me point out a possible long-term benefit from short-term pain. What IF after a decade or so, wild fish populations rebounded to the point that they number close to or as high as our current return of hatchery fish? Seems to me, there is a reduced sense of accomplishment we all feel when we take hatchery "brats." Wouldn't it be something if all the fish were natives, and in numbers high enough where the people who prefer to thump them could do so relatively guilt (and hassle) free? Seems like a win-win to me, and I can find lots of fishing opportunities over the next few years or more as we give our native stocks a chance to rebound.

So I say, kudos to Washington Trout for not accepting the status quo, stirring the pot and having the courage to do what is right. At some point, our wild fish have a right to more than just marginal survival, and we as sport fishermen should be SCREAMING at the state not to give us hatchery brats, but to pass legislation helping to pay for increased habitat restoration - the very REAL field work Washington Trout also undertakes. I feel many of you are very short-sighted in your take on this thing. I'm sure you will disagree.

Respectfully,

Back Eddy

Observations:

1) As a group, we're more interested in our selfish opportunity to fish recreationally than to conserve the resource upon which our recreation depends. And some of us wonder why the general public doesn't realize that anglers are the "true" friends of the fish. "Whatever," as my kids would say. But our responses here are the living proof of our collective ineffectiveness at championing our causes.

2) WT's mission is a noble one, and I support it. However, (to adopt the theme of the day) a wise general picks his battles carefully if he can, and does not focus on winning small battles at the expense of losing the war. Just an awkward way of saying that I'm disappointed that WT chooses to engage in actions that have a higher public profile instead of engaging in the actions that could do much more for the conservation of wild fish.

3) WT can sue, but they have to prove their case. Their allegations are flawed. Do larger hatchery smolts eat smaller wild smolts? Of course - if it is in their nature and provided they have the opportunity to do so. Some, if not most or all, Puget Sound hatcheries have been delaying the release of their coho until June 1 to protect chum and pink smolts which are smaller than wild chinook and are favored targets of hatchery coho. Most, but not all, wild chinook smolts are in the estuary by June 1. So, the situation isn't perfect, but a lot of protection is already provided by current hatchery operations. There may be room for improvement.

Secondly, and perhaps Smalma will help with this, I thought rainbow trout (including steelhead) don't usually become piscivorous (fish eating) until they are about a foot long, larger than most smolts. I know that steelhead smolts in a trap box, for instance, will eat anything, including smaller fish, when the opportunity presents itself. However, I think that in the natural environment, their diet is restricted to insects and other aquatic invertebrates until the steelhead become larger. So for starters, I think perhaps WDFW and NMFS will only have limited agreement with WT's allegations.

4) It's not illegal to take a listed species - IF you have an incidental take statement or permit or are covered by a 4(d) rule. WDFW's hatcheries could obtain - and should - such coverage through formal consultation with NMFS, which I'm surprised if that hasn't already been done. But then, I get surprised all the time.

5) Fly fishermen only become "holier than thou" when thou makes nasty dipsh!t statements against them or about them.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Just as an aside, it's a good idea to proof read before sending a letter to a group or government agency. A well written letter will hold more weight and make a stronger point.

Writing

Salmo

You did a great job of proving one of my points ...thanks!!!

I bet the thing in the back of many minds (including mine) is the fear that giving up hatchery fish opportunities is likely to NOT lead to larger wild fish runs eventually.

The problem is complex, and reducing hatchery impacts will not equal fish recovery. Fish populations have been in decline for more than 100 years. It has been overharvest, habitat loss AND hatchery problems that have caused the decline.

While WT's goal may be admirable, if coho and steelhead hatcheries are cut back, the end result will be more pressure to take wild fish. Remember, setting fishing seasons is not based on science, purely. It's science and political pressure. I still see harvest of wild chinook allowed, even though the species is threatened and the population is supposed to be recovering.

No wonder the skepticism. And so, instead of just chinook being listed, we could end up with lots of listed species.

When you think about it, the group is called Washington Trout not Washington Kill a Silver Save A Chinook! I think that it is just a bunch of BS. The steelhead and silvers eat smaller bait like shrimp and large plankton when they first reach the salt not chinook smolts.

Good point, the letter I sent was free of capitalization, punctuation, and indentation errors as I have ms word. It was worded slightly better to but I just typed up the above letter really quick before I went to work.

How much data does the Wa trout have on the Puget sound rivers? Absolutley None? My three year old daughter was crying today because fish she fed cannot go into the river. She will not be able to see the results of her efforts. She may be only three but she does understand that these fish will not be in the river for her to catch when she is old enough to go by herself. I hope the Wa trout people think about their actions, because they are not only ruining our fisheries, but the fisheries of the future.

Dan S. The reason I said not to jump all over me for typing the message I typed was for liberals like you who did jump on me for passing a message along. If you have a problem with me relaying information take it up with me in person not on the computer. I live at 7720 guide meridian , Lynden Wa. 98264. I have had enough of your liberal crap. We as sportsmen need to unite against WA Trout, not fight against one another.

That was not baitchucker on the last reply that was the pimpinshrimp. We were on his computer.
Dan S.

The baitchucker and I are two of hundereds of people that think the same way up here in the Northwest corner of the state. We only want to see fisheries for our children and their children. Face it boys the buffalo are gone, the only thing that gives us fisheries is hatcheries. All you liberal *******s who think otherwise can kiss our asses.

One other point to remember here is that WDFW is not the only agency or group responsible for fisheries decisions here in Washington. I haven't seen the lawsuit and I am opposed to it. That is because I think suing WDFW is absolutely counterproductive and also makes an endrun around some other culprits:

The Fish and Wildlife Commission for one makes alot of questionable decisions in favor of commercial harvest (nets)

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) who has authority over ESA and is also caving to the tribes (nets)

Gary Locke who appoints the commissioners and hired Curt Smitch as his fishing czar (nets)

Legislature in general who are basically not informed with a few exceptions like Bob Oke and Jim Buck. These guys pass the laws tht favor commercial harvest (nets).

So I know WT has picked a target ,WDFW, maybe because they are the weakest in court I don't know. I hope they spend some of their energy on some of these other villians too.

When election time comes , if you want to save wild fish vote the Gary Locke gang OUT OF OFFICE....Write you legislators.

I think we can all agree that hatcheries have contributed to the demise of our fish runs in some way, but this isn't how.

Wouldn't it be more of the other way around? The native smolts in the system gorging themselves on a huge flood of thousands of recently released hatchery fish? As I see it, native Coho and Steelhead are in the river the longest during their smolting period, other salmon pretty much head for the salt as soon as they emerge and can swim. As we have recently discussed, some native steelhead parr stay in the rivers for two years before heading to salt.

So what fish do you think could eat more babies? Hatchery fish that are in the system for a week on their way out, or native coho and steelhead smolts that are living in the system for up to two years, and probably pretty hungry?

I also question the smolt-eating prowess of hatchery fish. These guys have been packed in pens eating Purina Trout Chow for a year. Now when they are released they go downriver hunting down and preying on wild chinook smolts?

Remember WT and TU did not support the BAN initiative either. Apparently their studies showed that nets actually enhance fishing opportunities.

I'd like to see WT bring back native chinook and steelhead to the Cowlitz.

In short, I think it's a joke. It's obvious their goal is to shut down all hatcheries. It's too bad they couldn't conduct some REAL research to determine the TRUE impacts hatcheries have on wild fish. Instead of this bunch of BS!

It's too bad that these well organized and funded groups can't better use their time, effort, and money for causes that might actually help the fish.

Ike

Let me guess, pimpinshrimp. You were having a bad day? Life in Lynden got you down? Well, whatever......I'm just not going to join in your 'monkey-flinging-poop' game....as easy as it would be.

Have a day.

OK, I'll play. So let's say we all throw our faith into hatcheries and ignore the demise of wild runs. Then a few years down the road the state has a budget crisis (gee, is it possible?) and puts the ax to the hatcheries. What will your children fish for after that?
Compared to hatchery fish, wild fish return in greater percentages. And they do it for free.
Forethought doesn't make me a liberal.