I don't know how many people know that the lawsuit by WT has been filied not just an intent to sue anymore. If we want fisheries in Puget Sound including all the rivers we better get on the phones and contact our local represenatives. For Whatcom county call Kelli Linville at (360) 786- 7845 or Doug Erickson at (360) 786-7845. Myself I left voice mails with them on Fri. and they will contact me on Mon. I also left messages with Jeff Koenings (360) 902-2234 the head of WDFW and Bob Leland (360) 902-2817 the head contact for steelhead. The last person that might be helpful is Will Rohel at (360) 733-4640 he is the WDFW commision chair. I have a copy of the lawsuit and we stand to loose approx. 3,575,000 coho plants and 2,035,000 steelhead plants. If people on the coast think that this dosen't effect you, just imagine what a zoo it will be out there when that many more people try to crowd into those rivers. The last person you might want to contact is Kurt Beardslee of WT and let him know how hopping mad you are. I have talked with him and he didn't seem to think that that many people were so pissed off. Maybe he dosen't even care. Well I got to go my 3 year old daughter and I have to go feed our HATCHERY STEELHEAD for our club and our fishing future.

Baitchucker,

I am all for calling and getting aquainted with WDFW and commission people. A good respectable conversation leads to a better working relationship.

But I have got to ask, what is your strategy in this? Calling and getting upset with these people about a issue of the courts will be counter productive. And I know that they allready are trying to figure out what they are going to do counter the suit.

This is an issue for the courts, and the only way to become involved it to hire some layers and get involved that way, something I dont recomend either without a better understanding of if WT really has a leg to stand on.

Mike

I hear your point on the WT lawsuit but you, of all people, could help educate all of us on Washington Trout I think. RFA should be right in the face of this issue. Members of PSA are all asking what response we can have to this damaging tactic WT has of suing to effect WDFW management of our fisheries.

What is their real agenda?
Wo are the people involved? What kind of history to these people have?
Why do they avoid suing the netters who obviously kill ESA listed fish by the thousands and are doing so right now or the CR.

email me privately if you have time

Mike Gilchrist, I didn't call these people and get angry and yell at them. They were very helpful and I had great conversations with the ones I have already spoke to. The reason I called them was to let them know how concerned I was about this issue. Remember these people work for us the Tax payers and are ready and willing to listen to our concerns. One of the reasons for my concern is in the last 2 years our club has raised $30000 to raise Steelhead in the Nooksack system. The money also goes to other acctivities such as kids fishing derbys, and stream inhancement. Now if we can't raise these fish the 100's of people that donated money are not going to be to happy when we can't plant fish. Maybe when they call me I can give them WT phone #.

Grandpa,

Wasn't it just last year that PSA and WT got together to limit the tribal chinook fisheries in and around Puget Sound? I'd think that the powers that be in PSA know exactly who the WT people are and what their agenda is.

WT, along with the WSC and TU, also collected thousands of pages of information about the CR tangle net fishery and wrote countless letters to the managers about the ESA violations that not only took place last year, but are going to take place again this year if things don't change.

Why in the heck do you think the commercials are fishing far less than last year? Because many groups gathered the facts, made the calculations, and wrote letters. WT was one of the groups that did threaten to sue NMFS if things didn't change from last year.

In response to the hard work done by several folks in several organizations, the potential ESA impacts of a tangle net fishery were re-evaluated and the season was shortened considerably.

Where were all the sportsmen then? Don't assume that just because a group is doing something that you don't like that they are always doing something you don't like, and especially don't assume that they have a hidden agenda that is designed to screw you out of what you want.

If that was WT's intention, I doubt that the PSA State Board would have been working with them over the last couple of years, nor would have other fishing or fishing related groups.

Fish on...

Todd.

Todd

Your points are well taken. PSA did work with WT in the past but things got off track when WT started down the path they are on now to take things to court to try to force their narrow agenda which appears to be the closure of all hatcheries.

The tangle nets are still in the Columbia killing ESA listed fish but you are correct that progress has been made. I think PSA has hesitated to come out in opposition to WT due to the good things that they jointly tried to do in the past. There is a real dilemma there. I guess I am mostly searching for an agenda more than I am convinced of a particular or "hidden" agenda. I am speculating on a hidden agenda because I can't see their current position in a clear light. Recent cooperation among stake holders has shown alot of promise for the majority. I just don't see the WT lawsuit mentality as leading to anything positive for our fisheries.

Well thought out posts and an extremely important issue. What I read in the News Tribune yesterday seemed to indicate that the impetus for the WA Trout lawsuit was to get the Dept of Fish & Wildlife to accomplish some changes that were due a couple of years ago. I would like to hear more about this from Grandpa and Todd and others in the know.

Todd -
Again I'm confused. Is the WT lawsuit from last year the one where NMFS (now NOAA fish) was taken to court over the co-manager's Fisheries Management Plan for allowing the take of chinook?

If so and you consider that plan to be a commerical fishing plan then you have been seriously hooded-winked.

Tight lines
Smalma

eddie my son....WT is indeed trying to force action to reform hatcheries by suing. WDFW is working on a plan to reform hatcheries and some are now models of how things should be done..problem is that Gary Locke wants to close the very hatcheries that are showing the most promise. I spoke with a well known legislator the other day and he told me that I was "right on target" when I suspected that the governor comes out against the hot buttons..teacher's pay and successful hatcheries to name a couple ...that way we won;t resist so much when he changes his mind in exhange for more taxes or more entitlement programs or more state employees (aka Democratic votes)....So maybe Wt is learning how to play cutthroat politics...it that is the case Iguess I can applaude them for that...I just feel better supporting sports fishing in general that a narrow cause like wild fish...no question they are an icon of the Northwest and need to be protected and saved..I just don't believe in WT's way of saving them. And I am still not convinced that they are who they claim to be....Todd said to go to their website and everything I need to know is right there in black and white....NO NO NO..everything THEY want me to know is there..Their actions speak volumes about who they are not their words.

Grandpa, tell me more. I will give you a call this week to set up a lunch - if you would prefer to wait til then that would be okay. However, I have a feeling that you and PSA can do a great job of education through this forum. My question is what do the hatchery reform models look like? Is there info on the WDFW web site? In looking at Gov. Locke's initial budget proposal I noticed hatcheries on the Naselle and McAllister Creek (I think there was another one or two as well) were proposed for closure. Are these the ones where the new models are slated to be implemented? Inquiring minds want to know.

Thanks

One exciting idea being tried on the Op at a hatchery slated for closure by Gary is taking eggs from the redds of wild fish and bringing them to the hatchery to ensure a much higher survivability rate....wild fish mind you...I admit that I have to read my huge volumes of emails to remember all the facts but I, too , have an inquiring mind....so much to read so little time

After checking out the WT web site I saw that they have a list of Donors/supporters.
I think it might be a good idea to write these supporters and tell them as long as they support WT we as sportsman will no longer support there companys. Boycott any WT supporters. I have allready sent out afew e-mails to some of them.

What is Wa trout's url. I would loke to see who their sponsers are.

B Gray,
The web site is at www.washingtontrout.org
Than go to "Support WT" Than go to "2003 wild fish soiree and benefit auction" The list of donors is down a little ways on that page.

Duroboat15 - I am not inclined to flames, but the inconsistency of your actions (boycotting those companies lending support to WT) and your signature at the bottom of the page (Chinook are the Best all else pale in comparison!!!!!), is really funny. If you really believe Chinook are the best, maybe you should give WT a call directly and THANK THEM.

Thanks for playing.

Back Eddy

Hey Duroboat.
I think you're on target for going after WA Trout!

What these people understand is money.

They seem to be about lawsuits and headlines and use both to get themselves attention and funding.

I think the quickest way to shut them down is to make their sponsors aware of public dissaproval. Donations to non-profits are all fine for a corporation until they start hurting the bottom line and granting agencies don't like people calling in to complain about what they have funded.

I doubt any of their lawyers would work for free.

Has anybody figured out what their agenda really is?

It seems like they go after the state and feds because they are easy targets.

Why don't they go after the dam operaterors (oops that might offend one of their sponsors like the BPA) or muciple water sources for taking all the water (oops, that might angered the seattle public utilites antoher contributor) or the devlopers and timber companies and farmers for degrading the habitat (that would be really popular now wouldn't it).

I don't think they'r about helping fish, they seem to be about employing lawyers by suing any easy target that won't put up too much resistance. They then claim victory, and ask for more funding showing off their victories in cout as the reason they should be funded. And somehow this is supposed to help the fish.

I don't get it. I think their donors have been had.

Sorry for the rant,

Geoduck

Back Eddy,
I do think chinook are the best.
And I think WT is one of the worst org.'s after reading there web site. I dont think they are doing anything to help the problem. If anything they are part of the problem. But thats just my opinion. And if I can do anything to combat them I will.

Geoduck,
Thanks for the support.

I went to the WT website and looked at the donors and it looks to me like mostly fly fishing concerns and a couple of kayakers...This kind of fits...Not that there is anything wrong with fly fishing or kayaking but I am getting more and more convinced that the agenda of WT is to eliminate the crowds of sport fishers on "their" rivers so they can paddle their kayaks and fly fish in peace. There is a whole life style their that is fine as long as it doesn't seek to outlaw my lifestyle to enhance theirs. This is where I get the "boutique fishing" idea. One of their sponsors is the Douglas Ranch...great private group of fly fising only lakes in BC for catch and release rainbows..All of that is great and worth supporting but what seems to be happening is that people like WT want to stop the rest of us from enjoying fishing our way so they can be left to their special little boutique streams full of wild fish. Just another opinion on my way to attempt to understand the logic of WT. Do they really care about salmon? I'm not yet sure.

Smalma,

I was talking about two different things...one was PSA's and WT's joint endeavor to further restrict tribal fishing in Puget Sound (I believe), and the other involved the re-evaluation of actual ESA impacts from the Col. River tangle net fishery.

Probably could have been stated more clearly, wasn't talking about the 4(d)/hatchery program issue from last year.

Fish on...

Todd.

Todd -
Still confused. The only suit (fall/winter of 2001?) that I remember was the one against the co-manager's Puget Sound Harvest management plan that WT settled with NMFS after the Feds agreed to go to a full blown EIS regarding the management plan. The 2002 and 2003 seasons were to go forward under the original plan (modified for conditions appropriate for that year's run sizes) with the EIS completed for the 2004 season.

Some folks thought that was just a commerical fishery plan but it was much more than that.

Tight lines
Smalma