I think it is great to have NGOs advocating for better management of our natural resources, as long as they remain impartial. In the case of WT, they are essentially in the pockets of government (govt with money anyway), and in my mind they lose their credibity as objective advocates. An example is the Cedar River Hatchery that WDFW and the City of Seattle are proposing. How can they argue against hatcheries with native species and simply ignore hatcheries where non-native species are propogated??? I'll tell you how. They are being PAID in "research grants" for their silence.

What a bunch of hypocrites. . .

I think it is great to have NGOs advocating for better management of our natural resources, as long as they remain impartial. In the case of WT, they are essentially in the pockets of government (govt with money anyway), and in my mind they lose their credibity as objective advocates. An example is the Cedar River Hatchery that WDFW and the City of Seattle are proposing. How can they argue against hatcheries with native species and simply ignore hatcheries where non-native species are propogated??? I'll tell you how. They are being PAID in "research grants" for their silence.

What a bunch of hypocrites. . .

I missed something somewhere??

Ramon

Here is a straight forward question: What is your end game? When all the wild fish are "saved" and all the hatchery fish are gone what will you do? Fish for them? Let the tribes gill net them? Take pictures of them?

One more thing Ramon...Previous postings with references to examples of extreme environmentalist behaviors were not meant to accuse you personally of such actions but to illustrate what measures extemists sometimes take to advance their causes. It was meant to say that using lawsuits to get your way could lead down the road to extremism and would ultimately narrow your base of support. As you can see, on this board anyway, your group is opposed 70% to 30%. It is possible to oppose WT's methods and still support wild fish restoration.

Don't sell yourself short Aunty. I think you wield a lot more influence here and on the other boards than you give yourself credit for.

I believe that Ramon has demonstrated that he can "take some heat." He probably takes more than anyone else. (except maybe chappy )

Aunty you must admit, if it were your organization (RFA) that were being bombarded with this much innuendo and outright hostility (unfounded or not) would you want to continue trying to defend your position here when (as Ramon pointed out) nobody seems to be listening, (OK, 30% of those polled are) and the rest are just slingin' mud?

I would be happy to listen to the answers of the questions I posed to him..

I said I would be happy to respond to specific queries. The problem is that whenever I post, it creates a flurry of responses, and the format on this board doesn't allow me to review all the posts while I'm responding. If I miss anybody, I'm sure you'll let me know.

Auntie,

I can take the heat. It's my job. I will say that in court, the kind of childish crap that I am objecting to here would simply not be allowed. You said you think debate is a good thing. How about practicing it? IN case you didn't know, it involves speaking to the points your opponent raises. Instead of calling me names or attacking my character, speak to some of the points I actually made in my last post. I'll remind you of two: DO you believe WT is involved enough in harvest issues? Do you think implying that we are capable of criminal behavior is going too far?

Smalma

First, let me say that my reference to your post wasn't so much directed at you as at your acolytes, who I believe act hypocrytically when they are willing to cite your expert opinion as objective truth when you tell them what they want to hear, but then seem to find you as human as the rest of us when you challenge some of their beliefs. To be frank, I really would prefer not going toe to toe with you in this forum. I think we can accomplish more by just presenting our competing positions rather than directing our posts to each other. You're a good advocate for your position, and I try my best; maybe we can leave it at that.

Havng said that, I find it near impossible to debate you on issues of who is being misleading. I fnd that you often seem to misinterpret my remarks or mischaracterise my positions, making elaborate, often eloquent cases against something I didn't say. It's an old technique.

You disagree with WT's interpretation of the evidence. For instance, we believe the Feather River Study does bear on this case; that's why we included it in our complaint and in the expert declaration by Sam Wright supporting the complaint. You think it isn't or shouldn't be relevant. You can make the case why you think so, but disagreement doesn't make either of our positions misleading.

You know as well as I do that a Press Release is an advocacy tool where WT gets to make its case. If you'll pardon me, I'll allow WDFW to make it's own case. So far they haven't said anything (publicly) about the Feather River citation. They have publicly made misrepresentations of basic facts. For instance, the timing of when they turned in applications for take authorization for the hatcheries. They said they turned them in in 2001. That's just not true, not a matter of their interptretation. They also said they have indication the "no predation is occuring." Is no predation occuring? Is that what WDFW knows?

And finally, I'm sorry but I cannot take seriously your accusations of being misleading in the context of this particular debate when you sign the post "smalma."

Fish Pirate

I've followed your posts with interest on other boards. I thought you were better informed. WT has been and is significantly involved in the Cedar River hatchery issue. We brought a case against the city of Seattle in 1999 over the inadequacy of the EIS for the Cedar River Habitat Conservation Plan, which included the plans for the proposed sockeye hatchery. We are working with the city of Seattle and other stakeholders to improve the planned operations of the hatchery by serving on the Cedar River Anadromous Fish Committee. Other members of that committee have publicly accused us of trying to block the hatchery because we are pressing for scientifically sound planning and operation of the facility (which is really our goal in the PS case). So there you go.

Driftboater.

WT endorsed the trap-ban initiative (I assume that's what you're talking about), as did many other environmental organizations. We never gave it any money. We endorsed it for the same fundamental reason we endorsed the net-ban initiative. The state was inadequately managing small mammal trapping, to the detriment of a variety of resources (including some wild fish) and seemed intransigent about making improvement, so a ban became the best option by default. I can not say for sure what we will do if the initiative proponents refile. We did endorse it the first time, so it is a possibility, but we would have to look at the new initiative and conditions on the ground.

Incidentally, that is the same position we are taking in our hatchery suit. We are saying that hatcheries are currently being operated in a way that is harming PS chinook, and that proposed changes don't go far enough to mitigate that harm. If WDFW can't or won't improve its hatchery practices, then they should shut them down. That is different than saying the hatcheries MUST be shut down. Do you all believe that they only way they can be improved is to be shut down?

Grandpa

I told you I will not answer your posts. If you have a legitimate question, ask an adult to post it for you.

Ramon Vanden Brulle,
Washington Trout

WT endorsed the trap-ban initiative (I assume that's what you're talking about), as did many other environmental organizations.

Well Ramon if you won't respond to me anymore atleast you publicly admit that WT is and environmental organization.

I can't find a consenting adult to post for me in response to your pout but I'll keep searching. <img border="0" alt="[wall]" title="" src="graemlins/wall.gif" />

When you accuse someone of being a liar, or infer it, as you have me in the past, it DOES become a personal attack.

Polling hint:

In a poll the question should be neutral, the answers are where you get to inject the hyperbole.

I remember Vision Hooks Aunty...

I remember how you publicly called me and my friend liars...how you used the same low brow tactics you and grandpa used in this thread (insinuation, accusations of a 'hidden agenda' etc etc ad nauseum) to try to discredit me in that one. Maybe it worked, maybe it didn't...

What I continue to think is funny is that you are quite sure you feel like you come out looking like a winner in these conversations when in fact what happens is, the below the belt tactics you use diminish the effectiveness of whatever fair points you have to make in the debate.

Here is a paraphrased example of what I mean....

You accused WT of only working against the hatchery issues, Ramon counters by saying that's unfair, we've worked on this issue here and the other issue there. Instead of revisiting your erroneous statement and acknowledging its inaccuracy, or at least taking a step backward, you ignore the point fairly made.

That WT strikes fear into the hearts of those hell bent on harvest at any cost, including the costs to native fishes, is exactly why they are important to have around. If nothing else when these subjects arise it helps illustrate how weak and pathetic the arguments of hatchery at any cost' proponents really are.

That is not to say that I don't listen with open ears when Smalma and Ramon delineate the differences the between their positions...certainly a conversation of that magnitude would be one that we can all take something from....

Auntie,

Of course you're entitled to express your opinion. I'm just asking for a fairer debate. You don't like WT's position on hatcheries. I suppose we don't like yours, though I don't know that I've heard it exactly. One might gather that you fully support current practices, but I would just be guessing, Whatever, I imagine we've both given up on trying to convince each other. What we can do is engage in honest and fair advocacy to influence the positions of others listening in.

I'll acknowledge that this particular thread is about WT and all it stands for and practices. Fair enough. I gather that you don't like WT very much or at best consider it a necessary evil. It seems your biggest beef is with what you call our focus on hatcheries. We do work very hard on that issue and we always have. I summed up our position thus: If hatcheries can't or won't be improved, they should be shut down. Now, you apparently don't believe that actually is our position. there's not much I can do about that, but I do wish you would at least address whether you think the position as I stated it is reasonable or not, on the off chance I might be telling the truth.

Do you think the hatcheries can be improved without shutting them down? Do you have any ideas? Do you think they need to be improved? Do you think they are not harming PS chinook? Do you think that should matter one way or the other? I'm wishing we could actually debate those issues fairly, rather than who is credible or not. Why not let the arguments themselves demonstrate their own credibility?

I refer you to the web page because I keep having to remind you that we are more or less on the same page on habitat issues, and that WT has a record that can demonstrate that. You can go to our web page and take what's there with as much salt as you like, but it will also give you places to go to confirm whether we have actually done what we claim. We are also (as near as I can tell) on almost the exact same page on commercial and tribal harvest issues. Again, I can't give WT's entire resume here, so I invite you to start an investigation into that claim on our website, and see if you can disprove me, rather than just claim it isn't so.

The NMFS suit cost us a lot of time , energy, and money. I'm sorry if the outcome disappoints you. It disappointed us. But we did work hard and we did win what we believe is a significant step forward, and we don't intend to stop there. I encourage you, RFA, and everybody else to get involved, and comment on the draft EIS when it is released. You can make a difference.

You ask how many timber companies we've sued, how many power companies. We and others won a very important case last year that will force timber companies to leave much wider buffers around floodplains, what's called the channel migration zone, to leave room for rivers to meander and change course. It could have a profound effect on preserving and improving river productivity. We are the lead plaintiffs in a case involving Puget Sound Energy hydro operations in the Skagit basin.

You should also know (if for no other reason than I've said it again and again here) that we don't just sue everybody as a first course of action. We take part in public processes; we sit down face to face with resource agencies and stakeholders to try to negotiate better practices that meet the biological requiremnts of recovering fish populations, and often better compliance with the law. Those processes often result in better conditions that preclude the need to go to court.

We went through many of ther same processes for a considerable amount of time before we filed the hatchery suits. Please note that PS chinook have been listed for four years, and WDFW has been in techincal violation of the ESA for more than two years. Our direct engagement with WDFW over these issues goes as far back as nine years.

You may not like us goring your ox, and you have every right to fight against it, but you should acknowledge that WT's record demonstrates that we have not singled you out. If you research our record, you'll have to acknowledge it.

I do admit that I continue to be frustrated that WT itself is the focus of discussion, rather than our positions and the evidence we cite to support them, (with all due acknowledgement and respect to smalma of course).

By the way. Washington Trout is proud to call itself an environmental organization. We say it again and again. We have never claimed to be a fishing organization, and go to some pains to correct anyone who thinks we are.

Ramon Vanden Brulle
Washington Trout

Your assuming I'm not a member who IS unhappy with the use of my contributions....

Why the hell do you care? Are you a member, or just like the attention?

I will say that in court, the kind of childish crap that I am objecting to here would simply not be allowed.

So says Ramon.....Childish crap? This ISN"T a court room thank goodness. This is an internet chat bulletin board and we are not under your cross examination and we won't be sentenced to WT prison for pissing you off if we vehemently object to your party line talking points. We are voicing opinions...feelings...we are not destifying.

The 67% or so of us who object seem to be all saying the same thing over and over..We don't agree with your tactics. Your agenda is real narrow in a large complex ESA driven problem.

There you go again making a blatant misrepresentation, I'll leave open the possibility that you are not intentionally lying but that you may have just misinterpreted what you read...something we are all guilty of from time to time.

I have never, nor would I ever, admit to lying on this or any other BB for the simple reason that I have not ever done so. I have been wrong before, if that is what you referring to...and yeah, I've admitted that. Which is more than I can remember you ever having done...

The first stone in this thread was cast in the polled question itself....the only reason I am making my voice heard here is because I've been in Ramon's shoes and faced the exact same kinds of assaults from the exact same characters, those that have been around long enough know that to be true. I think its unfair and I would like it known that if nothing else SOME PEOPLE NOTICE.

Do I really have to go back through each of your posts on this thread to quote the insinuations, mischaracterizations, hyperbole, attacks, question dodging etcetera? My feeling is that they are quite plain for all to see, at least to anyone that has any inkling what the term 'fair debate' means.

My last and final word in this thread? Is it still a 'special interest group' if a full thirty percent (whoops, thirty three percent ) of those polled support WT and their 'agenda'

grandpa, Aunty M brought up the "courtroom" thing in the 23rd post on this thread. I wish people would realize that you can be passionate about an issue and discuss that issue with a person with a different point of view and NOT be demeaning. I've read numerous times on this board about " it's time to throw some hay bails in the water to take care of the nets" and didn't hear one peep about eco- terrorism, WT files a lawsuit and somebody insinuates that their next step could be illegal ? Oh thats right, it was just a retorical question. So grandpa, if WT wins the lawsuit instead of settling out of court and hatcheries close what kind of terrorism are you planning?

36%

40%....

...not bad for a bunch of PETA freaking, eco-terrorists with the hidden agenda of eliminating all fishing for all sportfish everywhere....

Oh..I forgot environmentalists.

...and 'libs'...

..and 'flyfishermen'...

..and lefties...

h2o, you forgot a couple:

"Elitists"

"Tree huggers"

"Anti-Americans"

And dare I say? Oh well, here goes: Democrats!

Where did I put my Birkenstocks...?

I think I left them next to the tofu, which is right by my vegan shopping list....I'll find them after I finish my organic, non-pasteurized juice.

Don't bail, AM......I'm interested in hearing both sides, although it would be nice if the respective sides could state THEIR case without trying to trivialize the other viewpoint.

Fish management is often a complex issue that can't be addressed in a "I'm right, you're wrong" manner. Both sides have valid points....we could just use a little less emotion in the delivery.