would you or "do" you support what they are trying to do ?

Washington Trout is an animal rights/environmental extremist organization in trout's clothing.

WT is also lawsuit happy it seems. Their current lawsuit against WDFW seeks to close Puget Sound hatcheries in the interest, they say, of wild Chinook salmon. In the past it appears that WT has done some things that are admirable but in recent times they have moved towards an agenda more like PETA than what their name might suggest. The current lawsuit appears to be on track to be settled out of court as other WT initiated lawsuits have been in the past. It remains to be seen what sort of booty they walk away with this time. Whatever it is they will also walk away with far fewer supporters and alot more enemies. Some very big guns, and ex-supporters, have lined up in opposition to WT since this latest lawsuit was filed.

I , for one, really question WT's motives and will watch what they do rather than listen to their rhetoric which is peppered with misleading statements and half truths. WT looks more and more like an organization, like PETA, that wants to end fishing , not help it. I know I have said in the past that I thought WT had a hidden agenda and I still believe that. Some say..Oh NO their agenda is right there on their website. Bunk! I think the hidden agenda may just be very extreme and very unfriendly to fishermen. ..and hunters...

here is a link to the wt website for the page that shows people or groups that donated stuff to them for there up comming auction LINK , i went to the association of northwest steelheaders website and seen that buzz ramsey is an honaray director, is this the same buzz that heads up the nsia that is fighting to keep hatcherys open ? maybe someone could have buzz come on here and explain why he is a part of a group that is donating to the group that is trying to close our hatcherys ?

WT is trying to save our wild salmon and steelhead. What ever could they be thinking? I do not agree with all they do, but I know Ramon and know he is 100% for the fish. And he is willing to work his heart out for what he beleives in. I respect that.

I believe what is best for salmon is best for sport fishermen.

I believe what is best for salmon is properly planned hatchery programs that do not impact wild populations and emphasize natural production.

I believe that what WT is doing will benefit us all in the long run. The problem will be getting past the short-term rhetoric we face when questioning hatchery augmentation.

I support WT tactics in this suit and wish them luck


Regards

P.O.S. Clerk

They Suck !!!!!
They are a left wing group that if they don't get there way they don't want to play and will do whatever it takes to ruin it for everyone else. They are by no means friends of the average sportsfisherman.
All they want to do is sue everyone who dosen't agree with them.
Peace Superfly

Washington Trout is a radical, left-wing organization that has no idea what the hell they are talking about, I am just waiting for them to practice PETA and ALF (Animal Liberation Front) tactics by burning or sabotaging a hatchery. Looking at their history, it appears that they sue to pad their pockets so they can afford more suits. They are basing their allegations on California rivers and one SW Wash. River. The recent results of a smolt trap done by a tribe found that NO hatchery steelhead or hatchery coho had chinook fry in their stomachs after they were pumped. Hatchery coho and steelhead were trapped 30+ miles away 2-3 days after their release from the hatchery that I operate and a state hatchery that we work with hand in hand. They caught Dolly Varden and Bullheads in their trap as well and they were the only species that had chinook fry. Why don't they sue the fish that is eating the fry rather than the alleged fish from a river 1000 miles away? Better yet, sue mother nature, in this case she is causing the problems.

Their research methods are faulty, no scientific review to speak of. When a member of our sportfishing organization called Kurt Beardslee, he basically couldn't back it up. He kept spinning his wheels and dodging the questions. I support a boycott of the businesses and drafted a letter telling those companies the potential impact of the lawsuit and that scores of fishermen will be signing it in May pledging our that we will not support or purchase their products and services.

WDFW finally got the clue that they need to fight this and my conversations with them (to some of the highest levels in the agency) provide me with confidence that their lawsuit is a joke. I just hope the judge agrees and they will run and hide.

pos if WT get there way and shut down the steelhead and salmon hatcherys they just as well close down all the rivers and if that happens they will never reopen the rivers for us ever so i hope WT dont ever win this in court. i think the indians have a say on this one. i dont think WT have leg to stand on in court oh ya WT take your ball and go home.

PETA!!!

EXTREMISTS!!!

ANTI-"SPORT"FISHING"!!!

LEFT WING!!!

Looks like they are pissing all of the same people on this board who feel like their 'right' to fish is sacrosanct.

For that reason alone, I like them.

If not for WT's litigation what leverage would there be against poor hatchery practices?

This answers to the posted question will breakdown into two predctable groups....those that feel native fish populations in Washington rivers are above the needs of sportsmen to fish and those that feel their right to fish supercedes the need to protect wild steelhead and salmon.

Why don't people understand that taking the position 'hatchery fish at the expense of wild fish, or at the expense of my right to fish' is an equally radical position to that of WT?

In the end, hasn't their litigation resulted in WDFW's compliance with Federal law? The only way I could see some one viewing this as bad is if they didn't agree with the ESA listings in the first place...a very difficult position to defend, but I'm listening.......

What do I think of them? Wolf in sheep's clothing. They want to cut away our fishing opportunity one thing at a time.

But why the hell is everything that any one person on this board doesn't like supposedly left wing? Our illustrious President and his administration has done a lot to screw over salmon and the environment in general, and no one calls him left wing.

h20...don't forget that your posts are every bit as predictable as mine...

There is no question that protecting wild salmon and steelhead is everyone's wish. To state that without WT there would be no hope for hatchery reform is just not so. Reforms are underway but remember the politics of all of this. The money. WT sues to accelerate the process supposedly by seeking to close the hatcheries down. That solution would be akin to closing all fishing in Washington State tomorrow by edict. Executive order tomorrow that calls for riparian zones of 1 mile back from all river and stream banks. Designate all of Puget Sound closed to any and all fishing until further notice. Outlaw all fishing in the country except catch and release fly fishing. Those sound ridiculous but they are extreme measures that could really accelerate the revival of wild fish stocks. Suing WDFW is extreme as well and has alienated a large group of people who used to support WT. The suit also wastes really scarce funds that could go to better use. WDFW is not the only villian and should not be the only target of our disapproval of the decades old decline of wild salmon and steelhead.

Unfortunately politicians feeding at the trough of public funds have to rule on where the limited budgets get spent. Hurting businesses cry to these pork creators for relief from strangling regulations so decisions are made that adversely effect the environment and our fish runs. The political process is cumbersome and good things take way to long to come to pass, but suing WDFW to accelerate a process that is underway is a hostile act and puts WT in that category of being part of the problem and not part of the ultimate solution.

By the way, I don't think the WT lawsuit issue is driven by Ramon's self-described "far left" politics. Saving our salmon and steelhead should be a joint effort of all ideologies. Unfortunately group consensus doesn't work too well if one party insists on an extreme agenda and will not listen to the majority.

grandpa-

"two predictable groups..."

I didn't forget.

I kinda think both parties involved are blowing smoke up our butts and not telling "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help the fish."

Although I don't like the ideas of diminishing fishing opportunities, I do like the fact that *someone* is keeping the WDFW in check. I don't trust the WDFW.

On the flip side, I fear any group that has hidden motives and agendas, especially when it comes to fishing. I don't trust WT either.

Well said parker! That about sums up my position as well. I know Aunty probably thinks I'm a closet supporter of WT, as I've hesitated to join the critical bandwagon, and have tried to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I see it about like Surecatch. I don't necessarily agree with WT's tactics, and I don't know Ramon personally, but I respect his position and his willingness to defend it here, even in the face of such open hostility.

I like Washington Trout.

They make it clear that they are not trying to hide their agenda: the preservation and recovery of Washington's wild fish resources, without favor to any stakeholder group.

Washington Trout is not anti-fishing. Nor is it pro-fishing. It is pro-fish. It does not advocate for animals' rights. It is advocating for the rights of PEOPLE who have not had the opportunity yet --that all have us on this board have enjoyed-- to derive benefit from this particular public resource (wild fish), either because they don't live here, or haven't gotten around to it yet, or because they haven't been born. Wild fish are a public resource; they belong to everybody. People who have already used that resource don't have anymore right to it than anybody else. WT is one of many groups fighting to preserve our public resources so that everybody will be able to enjoy those resources forever.

Washington Trout does not invent its positions based on ideology, whim, or any agenda other than preserving and recovering wild fish. It bases its position on established principles of conservation-biology, the preponderance of current science --based both on our own field work and the peer-reviewed, published work of others, and on our interpretation (shared by many others) of state and federal environmental laws.

Washington Trout does not focus on any one area that may impact wild fish declines and or recovery. It does not pick solely on anglers, commercial fishers, or even on hatchery or harvest issues. Washington Trout is working on issues and challenging policies across the entire range of practices that can negatively impact wild fish, including forestry, agriculture, development, hydro-power, and other habitat issues. it works with government agencies and sometimes against them. It cajoles, presses, sometimes strikes deals, and sometimes challenges, sometimes in court. It has gone up against nearly every interest group in the Northwest to defend Washington's wild fish, including private business, the Washington Departments of Ecology, Natural Resources, Transportation, and Fish and Wildlife, Tribal agencies, The EPA, NMFS, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Forest Service. It has also worked cooperatively with every one of those entities (and still does).

It has accomplished a lot. It has improved management practices in both fisheries and habitat regulation. It has saved literally thousands of salmon and steelhead streams that were incorrectly identified and that would have been otherwise damaged or destroyed by forestry, agricultural, or development practices. It has reopened hundreds of miles of streams that had been blocked to fish migrations by poorly designed culverts or other fish-passage barriers. It has designed and implemented habitat restoration projects throughout Washington. It continues to work on all these issues every day.

And it is working to improve hatchery practices so that they don't negatively impact wild fish, particularly wild fish listed as Threatened or Endangered under the ESA. It shares the widely held view that current hatchery practices are contributing to the decline of wild stocks and jeopardizing their recovery. It shares the widely held skepticism that those practices can be improved if hatchery management continues at is present scale.

It makes its hatchery position clear: If the agencies running those programs cannot or will not improve those practices, then the programs should be closed. If improvement of those programs means lowered production schedules, and that impinges on some commercial or recreational fishing opportunity, then that price should be paid to recover at-risk stocks, just as other prices will have to be paid on other fronts. Wild fish recovery will not come free or painlessly. The fish have been forced to accommodate us for obviously too long; if we want them to recover, we may have to accommodate them for awhile. The question is in what we value most.

When you feel your self-interest threatened, it is easier to challenge someone's motives or imagine some "hidden agenda." That saves you the trouble of having to listen to or intelligently debate their argument, to examine the evidence, or indeed, your own motives.

I like Washington Trout because I believe in its mission. And yes, it signs my paycheck. My job is to advocate that mission. Once again, I encourage anyone sincerely interested in learning about that mission, and all the work WT undergoes to achieve it, to visit the WT website (www.washingtontrout.org). Examine all of the research, restoration/preservation, and advocacy WT is engaged in. Decide for yourself if the long-term interests of wild fish are compatible with your interests.

Ramon Vanden Brulle, Communications Director
Washington Trout
PO Box 402
Duvall, WA 98019
www.washingtontrout.org

ramon, i personaly want to see wild fish recovered and i`m sure everyone else here does to, but, after reading your lawsuit, where are the studys on the hatcherys in question, can you post it ?, how many wild fish are being eaten by hatchery fish on each of these rivers ?, what in your expert opinion is the correct amount of smolts that can be released and not have any effects on the wild fish ?, can the size of the smolts be reduced to have lesser effects ?, other than closing a hatchery, how should they be operated ?

Ramon your arguments are well stated and somewhat convincing. The real problem with your arguments is your methodology. Your agenda is fixated on "wild" fish. Like a free range chicken is better than a pen raised chicken. Only wild fish matter ...Ends of story.

There are a myriad of causes in your far left world that must be forced down everyone else's throat because you think you are so right and the majority of folks are so wrong. We must be forced to your way of thinking by extreme measures. It isn't that you are FOR something as much as it is that you are AGAINST so much. You don't like the president and 70% of the populace does and that pisses you off so bad because YOU are right and the 70% crowd is uninformed and WRONG. So you pitch a tent in the middle of the road to make your point. You pound a spike in a tree to hopefully injure a logger who might try to cut down a tree. You sue. And then you try to disguise your true intentions with window dressing..."Come to the WT website if you don't believe me....you'll see the light..." BULL
You aren't going to win the hearts and minds of the majority if you say "Screw those farmers!" "Our wild fish need the water more than their crops do!" Shut their water off or WT will sue the pants off you.

Well Ramon, I wish WT would go back to looking at the gill nets and the culverts and the siltation of the streams etc etc...stop demonizing and stop suing. Extremism will drive a wedge in an otherwise willing group of supporters.

Im also curious about how many smolts the herring seiners kill. Or how many wild steelhead the gillnetters kill. the list could go on and on, so lets just blame the hatcheries.

THANK YOU FOR CLEARING THAT UP RAMON!

Now I know what WT. is all about.

I'm not joinin.
I'm not contributing.
I'm not signing any petitions with their name on them.
I'm not participating in anything that might add credibility to their (agenda).

I don't think WDFW, should be sued.

I think the funds could be used for better things.

Unlike some, I do trust WDFW. I think they make some mistakes but in the long run I think they do what they think is proper, and I think they have the sportfishermans, welfare in the forefront of any program they undertake, and do the best for us that funds and laws allow.

I would like to see an organization that figures out a way to enhance, enforement of the rules, that are inplace now... over limit..illegal tactics...destruction of habitat...etc. etc.

Maybe, something along the lines of crimestoppers, or block watch... or something that gives us an avenue to help out in some way other than trying to get ahold of a warden who is spread way to thin as it is.

The posts on this board go a long way in the right direction, but about all I hear about is the fact that the gamie never showed or there was no answer when we did call.

Hell, maybe we could get one to post on here just what we should do if we observe an infraction and what they need from us to help them do their job.

We need people at the launches checking catches, on the rivers, on the piers, at the planing commision.

We need to be represented at the environmental department. I can't rebuild my dock or boathouse, but you can log up to the shore or fertilize your golfcourse.

Who checks to see if the septic systems along the shores are functioning properly?

WDFW needs more workers and more HELP.

We need a lobby that works for the sportsfisherman.

We all need to figure out who to E-mail with our message!

Our representatives biggest personal goal is to be re-elected, it doesn't matter if DEMO. or REP. if they think they will lose enough votes, by not doing our calling, or gain enough by listening, they will respond!

It's just as easy to E-mail one of them as it is to post on here.

Start with the district and move up, city,
county, state, fed. It doesn't matter if your registered voter or old enough to drive, send em all one and tell them to get with the fisherman or you will vote for somebody who will.

Do you think the PEOPLE who belong to PETA are any more passionate about their agenda than you are? I'll bet there are way more fisherman than there are members of PETA or just about any other special interest group.

We need to be HEARD!

Ranting on here is PREACHIN to the CHOIR!

Get off the dime!

Tell it to somebody that needs to hear it!



herm

( btw.... I do)

Herm

you make some excellent points. WDFW is changing for the better. The WDFW commission appointed by gov Locke is more to blame for disastrous policy than the agency. WT should sue Gov Locke and his commission of commercial harvest puppets, not WDFW. In fact they should take him prisoner and put him in trout jail...make him share a cell with Curt Smitch, his fishing CZAR...geeeez what a pair to draw to.

Boater,

I will sincerely believe you when you say you want wild fish recovered. I don't know that I agree that everybody does. The salmon is a big thorn in a lot of peoples' sides, people who are no freinds to anglers. I believe some of them would be glad to see wild fish out of their hair. I think a lot of others want to do right by wild fish up to some point where it hurts too much. Frankly, I beleive many anglers fall in that category.

The answers to every one of your fair questions is positive. There are many things that WDFW could change about the way it operates hatcheries short of shutting them (or at least all of them) down. Some of the changes may not be enough to eliminate the harmful impacts on chinook, but they would certainly reduce them, possibly enough that they could at least be in compliance with the ESA. So far, WDFW shows no inclination to make those changes. They include reducing the size of fish at release, chanoing the timing of releases, reducing the total number of releases and/or possibly closing certain programs, and most importantly actually carrying out monitoring that will tell managers whether these measures are reducing impacts and by how much. Business as usual will not get the job done.

Grandpa,

I have to take exception. You're using an old and not very nice debating tactic. You are attacking my credibility by accusing me of indefensible behaviour without having any idea if I'm guilty of any of them. As it happens, I've never pitched a tent in the middle of the road, or was ever even close to involved in spiking a tree or any other act that ever put one single person in the slightest physical jeopardy (and I do take personal insult at that ugly implication). I've never tried to shut anyone's water "off." I believe you're for banning nets; do you think that might cause some pain? (Not to you.)

I have tried to be as clear and as honest as I could be. I can honestly tell you that I am at a complete loss regarding my "true agenda." Maybe you can spell out what exactly you think it is, and I can respond.

And actually, well over 70% of the people polled in the Northwest favor recovery of wild fish, and that majority holds up when people are told what it could cost. It may just be the majority of fishers (recreational, commercial, and tribal) who favor the hatchery fish. Oh, yeah, and the property rights folks. (But by the way, being in that 70% doesn't make me think that your 30% should have to sit down and shut up now.)

Herm,

I respect your position. It's clear you at least read what I wrote. You might not want to hear it, but I can tell you that we are at eachothers' elbows on some of the fights you mentioned.

Ramon Vanden Brulle,
Washington Trout

Ramon

My analogies of radical protests were not specific to you personally..sorry if you thought so. Another question I have is what would you and WT do if your lawsuits did not achieve your ends? Would you consider civil disobedience? Would you consider massive fish kills at the hatchery? Would you consider harassing the hatchery workers? Follow them home? Would you consider fire bombing a hatchery or two? Dumping red paint on anyone you see fishing?

When you say 70% of the people are for saving wild salmon you know as well as I do that the way a poll is structured will affect the results. Do you walk to school or carry your lunch? WOW 50% of the population walks to school. I think the average citizen of Washington is going to be for saving wild fish and eagles and spotted owls etc...That is a simplistic thing to ask. Solving the HOW part of saving those wild fish takes a lot more knowledge and information.

One step at a time..first one issue then another (lawsuits) until your final agenda is realized which I truly believe is some pollyanna vision of pristine streams full of wild trout like when Adam and Eve were around. Is there room for compromise in your vision? I'm still not sure.

You're keeping me up late because I can't let this go. In one sentence you apologize, and then in the very next one you start doing it all over again.

Every one of the questions you ask in your first paragraph is inflamatory, unfair, an unfounded in any fact or experience regarding WT. I can answer without hesitation for every staff and board member at WT that the answer to every one of your transparent and dispicable accusations is absolutely no.

You seem like a reasonably competent thinker. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I will not answer any more of your posts. As a representative of Washington Trout, I actually have a responsibility not to debate under these terms. You obviously disagree with WT's position. Maybe you even disagree with our interpretation of the facts. You have never said.

I will say that my interpretion and position is based on a deep familiarity with the controversies involved, and careful evaluation of the known facts, and the most credible arguments on both sides.

What's yours based on, whether you get to keep fishing, grandpa?

If you want to save wild fish there is only one way to do it, Get rid of the fricking nets anything else is in vain and a waste of time period! Open your damn eyes! look what it did ifor Florida and California. Closing the hatcheries is going to toast the native fish faster than continuing on the path we are on now. The poachers are not going to stop poaching, the netters are not going to stop netting, and 100% percent of the take is going to be wild fish DUH! Pull your head out of your arse! Everybody will be bass fishing in ten years because salmon and steelhead will be extinct or illegal to fish for at all, for that matter you wont be able to fish for anything anywhere salmon are present for fear of incidental take. They have already started that crap on the Columbia R. Its closed to all foodfish when its closed to salmon. Its putting a real damper on my shad fishing

Ramon...don't reply if that is how frustrated you are with facing the fact that WT is moving in an extreme direction. My examples are exteme in the sense that they pose a rhetorical question as to what WT may become. You take this way too personally.

If not to fish then why are you so panicked to save wild fish? To look at them? I think all of these efforts to improve fish runs are designed to improve fishing opportunities. Apparently you don't.

Grandpa, salmon are very important ecologically. Their only purpose is not just for people to catch. Just thought I would point that out.

In answer to the original question, I would, do and continue to support WT. I don't always agree with their specific tactics, but in general, I support maintenance of wild fish, and they are effective in that goal.

If you can think past the goal of how many hatchery brats you want to catch next year, and want to think about whether your kids will be able to fish for salmon and steelhead fish, I'd encourage you to support them as well. Hatcheries are a short term solution, which becomes unstable when budget shortfalls happen, as they are happening now. If you depend on hatcheries for your fishing, when the money goes away, the fishing stops. Oregon is going to suck in three years.

That is why wild fish matter.

Hello mcfly, you just said it yourself!!!!!!
"when the money goes away the fishing stops" What the hell do you think the lawsuits doing? whether the hatcheries run out of money our are closed due to lawsuits the result is the same. No fishing! DUH!

To start let me be clear that I believe that "watch dog" groups are important in resource managment. They keep the managers on their toes and foster debate. Through debates postions are clarified, information and viewpoints exchanged and by- standers educated. All very good things; in addition I throughly enjoy a good discussion/debate.

Secondly I have had the opportunity to meet may of those working for Washington Trout and have found them to a very talented group with enviable didication. Washington Trout is fortunate to have such a staff and should be congratulated for bring such a group together.
They have been able to do some very good work in developing new infomation.


However I find Washington Trout's methods in the public arena very distributing. When attempting to be a catalyst for change their actions and retoric seem to indicate that their philosophy is that the "ends justify the means".

An example of what I mean. In WT's recent news release regarding their lawsuit against WDFW's steelhead and coho hatchery program it states: "The problem can be significant. A California study reported that 532,000 hatchery salmon consumed 7.5 million wild chinook fingerlings in the Feather River. Each hatchery juvenile ate an average of 14 wild salmon." According to Sam Wright's declaration on WT's web site that information is from Sholes and Hallock, 1979. A review of that artilce (found in Calif. Fish and Game 65 (4): 239-255, 1979) I found that the salmon doing the predating was chinook yearlings. While the above quote is techincally correct I feel it is deliberately mis-leading in defining the potential problem from steelhead and coho yearlings. As we all know each of the salmonid speices have significantly different behaviors and what is true of one may or may not be so for others. In addition I found that the hatchery yearling chinook were released in January and Febraury right on top of what were likely newly emergent fry. The very life stage at which they would be most vulunerable to predation. Whereas in the Puget Sound area the coho and steelhead hatchery smolts are released later in the spring when the chinook fry are large, more mobile, and likely elusive as they have survived for several months in a hostile environment loaded with predators (scuplins, whitefish, cutthroat, bull trout, wild coho yearlings, wild chinook yearlings, wild steelhead parr and smolts, and resident rainbows). I am all for attempting to error on the side of the wild resource however when doing so it might be more honest to state that your case is doing so.

In my various dicsussions (debates?) with Ramon he has chided my a number of times for using information that was not peer reviewed (I often note my observations from field work whether published or not). He noted his information is the "best science" avaialable from peer reviewed literature. The Sholes and Hallock paper "An evaluation fo rearing fall-run chinook salmon, Onchorhynchus tshawawytscha, to yearlings at the Feather River hatchery, with a comparison of returns form hatchery and downstream release" was not a study to look at predation but rather a comparison in release stratgies. The WT news release quote from above is found in the discussion section of the paper. The information was a personall communication from 2 Cal fish bios; not a peer reviewed study. Apparently Ramon and WT have different standards for themselves than for others.

In the same news release it is stated that coho can take chinook fry up to 46% of their body length. That infomation comes from Pearsons and Fritts, 1999. The 46% came from their experiment #1 where an individual coho was place in a partitioned hatchery incubation trough with 6 chinook of 3 sizes; there were 8 cells or replicas. The hold area for the each test was 16.1 inches by 16.1 inches by 12.6 inches deep. The fish were held in the area for up 29 days without being feed. While the study certainly helped clarify the potential maximum forage size of coho I not sure how often they would b able to catch a healthy unconfined fry of that size. How often willthey find a fish in an area the size of a bread box and have 4 weeks to catch them? The authors did note that the larger fish were eaten after the smaller fish had been taken. Again I find the implication in the news release that hatchery coho busy eating fry 46% of their length misleading.

WT as stated that residual hatchery steelhead ate juvenile salmonids up to 44% of their length. This information is in the discussion section of the Pearsons and Fritts paper and is from unpublished Oregon Department Fish and Wildlife data. Peer reviewed?

It is my opinion that such bias selection of data is counter productive to salmon recovery. It not only taints much of the excellent work the WT's staff has done it also undermines all those working in the recovery arena. It is further counter productive in that these various law suits focus the discussion on salmon recovery on hatchery and harvest issues allowing those habitat abusers a scape goat to divert attention from their actions. While fully support and have work hard to correct hatchery and harvest problems we can not let those issues use our precious resources (very limited) but rather we need to direct those resources to the larger issues - the habitat/hydro. In those rivers that I'm most familar with the complete elimination of all fishing and hatcheries would not result in noticeable long term improvement in the status of the chinook populations. With current and ongoing degradation of key habitats the chinook populations are doomed.

Unfortunately WT's news release on the hatchery steelhead and coho law suit is not the exception but the norm. While it may be tempting to excuse the mis-leading information as a honest mistake I'm not sure that is the case. Especially after Ramon's statement earlier in this thread - that is his position is based on "careful evaluation of the known facts".

my $0.02

Tight lines
Smalma

Smalma

Thank you for your well thought out reply as well as your caveats, this did contain the most typo’s of any of your previous high quality posts, perhaps it is because you are speaking from the heart.

With regards to citing peer reviewed all I can say is that in Oregon ODFW is precluded from citing or using any study that has not undergone peer review when formulating any intricate or complicated biological policy or opinions. This requirement comes from an October 2000 Legislative Management review of ODFW and has in my opinion worked well in raising the bar of scientific correctness. This does not mean that ODFW staff cannot look at other data, but when laying the basis for policies and programs they must present logical and well considered reasons for each action. I enjoy this scientific approach and believe everyone should follow this example. However it is not incumbent upon WT to follow these rules. The only bar they must hurdle is the legal one, and as if you have not learned yet requires no measure of fairness or truth. All that will be required will be proof of either WDFW’s arbitrary implementation of safety protocols regarding hatchery augmentation or their failure to follow specific legal requirements for incidental take from hatchery operations.

Many other people on this thread have grumbled that WT efforts should be aimed somewhere else first like gill nets and ocean harvest. I do not feel that way. It is like the analogy of trying to reduce car accidents. Suppose there is a lady who drinks a bottle of tequila before driving from Portland to Seattle and is definitely impaired. She also during the trip talks on her cell phone and applies makeup the whole way. Now, many people might think that each action is something that can equally cause an accident, and that might be true. But the first thing I would aim at stopping is the act that is illegal as I would have the law to back me up. It does not mean that her other actions are not likely to cause an accident but they are not at this time against the law.
Gill nets are not illegal, incidental take without a permit is. You do not have to like it but it is the law. It is not up to WT to make gill nets illegal, it’s up to all of us…


P.O.S. Clerk

I'm not saying that hatcheries are the problem, rather, I think there are an ineffective solution. The statistics clearly indicate that hatchery management, as currently implemented in the state of washington, returns fewer fish, by at least an an order of magnitude (you do understand what that phrase means, don't you?) than wild fish smolt populations of the same size.

Therefore, tribal and commerical pressures are not the point. They are merely a pressure point on an ineffective solution, which can lead to steelhead returns such as we saw this past season.

I agree with WT other organizations to a point, that hatchery stocks apply pressure to wild stocks, and are therefore deleterious to wild stocks, but my belief is that the problem is different. We are clinging to a belief that hatchery production can keep us fishing,when the data indicates that hatchery returns are getting worse, for a given plant of fish. We are on a path to a train wreck. And no one is paying attention.

I generally support Washington Trout. I certainly believe that Washington Trout has the wild fish's best interest in mind.

For the most part, this has been an interesting and informative thread and some good ideas/information have been shared.

One interesting point noted by many here is that there are SO many groups and activities negatively affecting wild salmon/steelhead. Dams, siltation, netting (whatever the skin color), sport fishing, and land/river use. Unfortunately, the WDFW belongs on this list. While I am not for "banning all hatcheries", I do believe that some hatcheries do more harm than good. For example, there are hatcheries the block upstream migration of fish. This is no different that a dam. If we can't agree that dams hurt fish, then the pro-fish/pro-fishing movement will get nowhere.

I think that one point that often gets lost is that Washington Trout would not sue if the WDFW was following the law. In many cases, they are not. If WT just frivolously sued to harass, they would not be winning!

Having said all this, I believe that Washington Trout has made a disastrous mistake with the scope of this lawsuit. I think that they have shot themselves in the foot and will lose supporters. I am not saying that the idea of going after some hatcheries now is a bad idea, but going after all of them (essentially)without the broad support of fishermen is a mistake. I do believe that they could have waited several years, and continued to gather public support as their credibility grew and as their progress in other areas became apparent.

Even with my reservations regarding the current law suit, I still support Washington Trout. They HAVE opened up miles of spawning habitat. They HAVE protected many streams that were improperly classified (talk about a "hidden agenda", who did the original classifications?). They HAVE identified, and thereby protected, genetically distinct resident trout in places that would have been destroyed. For these reasons, I support Washington Trout.

Smalma

Thanks for your well thought out assessment of some of the facts. It is obvious that just because someone says something in print doesn't make it so....

And AuntyM...once again you make excellent points and state your case beautifully.

The rest of you that I disagree with are making your points known in a positive way so thanks for them,too. The majority will decide.

Without the lawsuits and deceptive propaganda coming from WT I can see myself supporting much of what they try to do. Most of us here acknowledge that there is much to do to improve habitat, in particular, and obviously harvest and , of course, hatcheries. The three "h's" are the building blocks of salmon and steelhead recovery on the West Coast. It is ok for a group to zero in on one of the three and try to make a real difference there. What is not ok, in my opinion, is to use fund raising to fuel a war chest for the purpose of suing one part of the problem, WDFW. Everyone should realize that WT is going to , once again, settle the latest lawsuit out of court and get all of their costs paid for by YOU the taxpayer. I REALLLLLY object to that. How much money they receive in this latest outrageous suit will be plastered all over the internet.

What is the end game here? Is it to end fishing as we know it? What is WT's goal in the end? When all the hatcheries are closed and there are only wild fish do they want to see how long it will take for there to be no fish so they can go down in history as saying I told you so? I just cannot see the goal. Just to continually point to the "fish" is too simplistic.

Even though this has brought out predictable responses and some excessively emotive rhetoric on my part I think it has served to get the majority's opinion out on the table and that is that WT is going down the wrong road and has lost alot of potential support for what they do that is good.

Wake up Ramon..you guys stepped in it this time.

Folks -
Please note that nowhere my previous post did I discuss the merits of the WT's law suit(s).
My issues are with how information is or is not presented to the public.

It is my opinion based after many years of working with public, indsutrial and governmental groups for the protection of the wild salmonid resources of the State of Washington that such suits nearly irrelevant to the recovery of those resources we all care about. At best they can serve as a catalyst for action. State and Federal policies and laws are continously at risk from special interest groups - it is the American way! The continuation of, the development of, and enforcement of policies and laws that most of us would consider favorable to fish is going require the support and vigilance of a broad spectrum of vocal users -THAT CAN BE US! It will not be a narrowly focus organization though they should be natural allies.

Again it is my opinion that success of such a coalition is likely to be dependent on two factors: 1) Information - knowledge is power, especially in swaying that vast majority of fence sitters and 2) the ability to focus on the key larger issues. My earlier post attempted to address the first, BSing the public will return to bite us in the rear. Some of the discussion of this thread illustrates the need of the second.

Continually this business of banning gill nets keeps coming up. Now I'm not of fan of gill nets and am concern about by-catch and the potential of selective pressures that gill nets can put on a population. However I find that they are very minor player in the depressed status of salmonid populations that we care about. Is the status of upper Columbia/Snake chinook and steelhead largely the result of gill netting or water withdrawal. power generation, and habitat degradation? Is the status of Oregon Coastal coho the result of gil netting or habitat degradation, hatchery/wild inteactions, and general over-harvest? Is the status of Puget Sound chinook the result of gill netting or the loss of estuaries, stream channel simplication, other freshwater impacts, over-harvest, and hatchery/wild interactions? Is the status of bull trout throughout the west the result of gill nets or habitat fragmentation, non-native species interactions and over fishing?

I submit that the answer in each is the latter not gill netting. Obivously gill nets are part of the harvest equation but only part. The battle over gill nets in reality is by enlarge about catch allocation, if the nets didn't catch their fish someone would be stepping in to catch the fish. If you wish to fit for a larger piece of the allocation pie knock yourself out - just don't so in the name of resource protection. If you wish to work for healthy wild stocks then lets address those larger issues. I have attempted to provide some of my limited knowledge and experience to the readers of this forum for that cause - Have I been wasting my time?

Tight lines
Smalma

Ramon,

Will WT be endorsing/supporting the HSUS/PAC again, if they do what Lisa Wathne stated they would do if Locke signs SB5179..

Just why did WT support the efforts to take away a wildlife management tool and in turn cause more expendatures?

Auntym, when or if they do come up with a way to kill fewer listed fish, its not like the state will lower the percentage of listed fish the netters will be able to kill, they will kill the same amount and take more hatchery fish, this isnt a conservation effort on the part of the states, its all about harvest and removing excess hatchery fish.

In answer to the very first question - yeah, I like WT.

Anyone who aggressively advocates for allowing wild salmonids to continue their existance - preferably with robust populations is alright by me.

Pretty telling about this board too that so much venom is directed at conservationists -rather than the industries that are drawing the curtain on salmon in the northwest.

When advocating for wild fish becomes 'too radical', this board becomes irrelevant.

Conservation at any means and or cost?

Not to get off the topic, RacerDan, but I'd suggest losing our wild salmon stocks is TOO high a cost - don't you agree?

Im all for saving wild stocks, as most people are. Its the method of how to do so that is being debated. If you think sueing WDFW will help attain that goal thats your opinion. The debate swirls around the science of WT not whether one is for saving wild smolts.

Ramon, i was wondering how you came up with the number for the amount of wild chinook that are being eaten by hatchery smolt, 5.7 million if i remember correctly, is there some where on your website with this info ?, thanks.

Boater,

I am at home today and don't have the answer to your question at my finger tips. Let me get back to you tomorrow.

Ramon Vanden Brulle
Washington Trout

Boater,

Here is the language from our press release:

"The problem can be significant. A California study reported that 532,000 hatchery salmon consumed 7.5 million wild chinook fingerlings in the Feather River. Each hatchery juvenile ate an average of 14 wild salmon. If each hatchery coho or steelhead released into Puget Sound streams consumed just one listed chinook, Washington Trout estimates the loss at approximately 5.7 million wild salmon."

We are citing a California study that showed that yearling hatchery chinook each consumed an average of 14 wild chinook apiece. Smalma objects to the citation, correctly pointing out that yearling chinook are not yearling coho or steelhead. Our belief is that since WDFW does not have adequate data to demonstrate what the level of predation from yearling coho or steelhead actually is, while acknowledging that it "undoubtedly occurs" (their quote), then data from other studies involving yearling hatchery fish should be considered when trying to calculate the risk of releasing yearling hatchery juveniles. It certainly should not be summarily dismissed. It should also be considered that while coho and steelhead are not chinook, hatchery coho yearlings are generally more aggressive, and hatchery yearling steelhead are considerably larger than yearling chinook. It should also be noted that WDFW DOES release yearling chinook into Puget Sound rivers (and that we are suing over that in a seperate case).

But be that as it may, we are not alleging that hatchery coho and steelhead are each eating 14 wild chinook juveniles. we are not even alleging that each is eating one. We're saying the problem CAN be significant, that IF each hatchery fish ate one wild chinook, that would result in 5.7 million dead chinook (roughly the number of hatchery releases of coho and steelhead). If every other hatchery fish ate a chinook, it would be almost 3 million. If every FIFTH hatchery juvenile ate just one chinook, it would be over a million. You get the idea.

Remember that WDFW has to only kill ONE chinook without authorization to violate the law, and they have no authorization for their hatchery programs. It is WDFW's responsibility to demonstrate that whatever rate of "take" (the killing or harming of a listed species) is occuring is biologically insignificant, in order to continue operating the hatcheries. the burden of proof is on them, not the fish. We believe the available evidence strongly suggests that the take is significant, and WDFW has not met its responsibilty to justify its actions.

Some apparently object to our action based on evidence that "strongly suggests" significant harm. I would remind them that the burden of proof lies with hatchery proponents. Releasing millions of hatchery fish into watersheds occupied by listed fish is the "action" that requires justification. We believe WDFW's "justification" relies on little more than their own opinions and wishful thinking. That is not enough, no matter how reasonable they can make it sound.

Ramon Vanden Brulle,
Washington Trout

Why dont you do a study in a Washington state river as opposed to relying on one study done in California?

Actually, we are relying on the study in California and several other studies, including one conducted by WDFW staff that showed hatchery coho can and will eat wild chinook, as well as WDFW documents that acknowledge that predation from hatchery juveniles on wild chinook "undoubtedly occurs" in Puget Sound rivers. I think I've said that before.

Given that WDFW and NMFS acknowledge the problem, but can't determine exactly how bad it is (even though they "figure" it's probably fine, despite evidence that suggests it's probably not fine), the better question might be why WDFW doesn't do the work necessary to determine just what level of harm is occuring from their hatchery operations, and what steps they might be able to take to minimize it so they can come into compliance with the ESA. Then you wouldn't have WT to worry about on this particular issue.

Ramon Vanden Brulle
Washington Trout

thanks ramon, but, how can the state do an accurate study on this if you are suing them to prevent the release of the hatchery smolts that would be needed in the study ?