Would you help raise money to combat Washington Trout propaganda?

Grandpa,

What, really, is the point of your poll question? I think it's about as pointless as asking BB members if they would help raise money to combat WDFW, USFWS, NMFS, & NPS propaganda. Or, how about we combat our own bulletin board propaganda? Is every opinion propaganda? Are facts propaganda?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Aunty M has it down..the point is that 70% of those polled so far oppose WT. Not scientific but as valid as WT's "studies".....I had a lot of fun helping little kids fish today on Greenlake and those laughing, appreciative little kids are what this is all about in my opinion. These liberal dinosaurs who want to impose their "anti" world on the majority need to get a life.

So the point is....we need to stand up and combat groups like WT if they use extreme measures to force their narrow agenda on us....hanging an environmental name on an organization doesn't make it good. It is the actions that count...like suing....

I just sent in my $35 to support WT again this year. Wish I could afford to add a few zeroes behind it, too. Becuase the narrow agenda you mention is just this: to save our wild fish!!!

I thank my lucky stars there are organizations like WT willing to put their neck out for our wild fish and wild places. Unlike you, hatchery fish and paved wilderness is not where it's at for me.

Good fishing to you,

Back Eddy

Back Eddy

I apprecdiate your dedication to your cause. I just think $35 could be better spent...but we will agree to disagree.

Wonder just where that 35 is going? Ya know they endose and support efforts by the Humane Society of the United States..

WT is an animal rights organization and not a feel good trout club

My guess.... into a lawyers pocket.

Grandpa, Driftboater and Elkrun,

As long as the membership of Washington Trout is happy with the way their fees are utilized, why the hell should you guys care?

Is the Humane Society now a fringe group Driftboater? The only thing I can see that you might have to worry about from them is if they catch you beating your dog...

...because they think somehow casting as many negative aspersions as possible will keep anyone considering joining away...?

Most people join WT out of concern for the health of wild fish runs, IMO...so I highly doubt the likes of the grandpa's of the world crying PETA!! every time this subject comes up will have much influence on a decision such as that.

Yeah, but what about this Aunty:

Let's say Grandpa and the rest of the WT haters suddenly decided that Hood canal shrimp needed to be protected at all costs! (meaning NO more shrimping!)

I'd just bet that you'd be singin' a little different tune about the freedom to express radical, inflammatory, unsubstantiated opinions then...

Remember, PETA says shrimp are animals too!!! :p

4Salt,,

Big difference from your local Humane Society and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)
Shame on you for not knowing the difference, ignorance is no excuse nowdays!

"combat Washington Trout propaganda?"

..and this isn't?

My mistake then driftboater,

I thought you was talkin' bout the nice folks that take care of abused cats and dogs.

With all of the PETA paranoia around, I guess I jumped the gun! (pun intended )

4Salt,,

Washington Trout supported efforts from our local HSUS/PAC in Puget Sound. I am not sure of their entire involvement but they did endorse the efforts publically, wished I had a list of financial contributions and I would bet WT would be there but I do not ,I can only speculate and since Ramon has never replied to any of my direct questions regarding this, the speculation continues to grow.

4Salt,

forgot to mention many make that same mistake, thus the reason they raise millions of dollars a year. They are very good at decieving their donators..

The reason I speak for WT is because it's my job. I can't imagine that anyone else would go through the frustration of entering this particular arena to speak for WT without getting paid.

These are not debates. I give WT's position or respond to specific queries, and then people accuse me of lying, or being guilty of something that they have apparantly made up out of thin air, or imply that because I advocate a position against their self interest , then I am apparently within a whisker of committing crimes against property and people, capable of doing harm to fellow citizens. (That wasn't "borderline," auntie?)

Future posts make clear that many people don't even read my posts before responding. I have attempted to summarize the science supporting WT's position, and invited readers to review documents on our web site. NOw auntie says that she hasn't seen any. She wants to know why we don't get involved in harvest issues or sue NMFS. I have responded to her several times to explain that WT has always and still is fighting to reform harvest practices in Washington. We did sue NMFS over salmon harvest in Puget Sound. We did not win all we hoped but we did win the public the opportunity to help shape harvest policy. NMFS will now have to prepare a full Environmental Impcat Statement before approving harvest plans in PS. The EIS has to examine a range of alternatives to the proposed plan, including significantly reduced, and even no harvest. Every one of you will have the opportunity to review and offer input to the EIS before it is approved. Enough credible voices will be able to influence the outcome. WT will be there. Who of you will be?

Smalma doesn't find WT's hatchery science credible, and he doesn't think nets are a problem. That should really suprise no one. What surprises me (though less and less) is that most of you are willing to treat his word as gospel on hatcheries, but seem to find him more fallable on harvest. Mark Twain said, "show me where a man gets his corn pone, and I'll tell you what his opinion is."

I have attempted to communicate WT's positions and mission as clearly and honestly as possible. I do not wish to force anyone to agree with either, but neither do I appreciate vilification for being an advocate. I absolutley can not take part in discussions that attempt to insert slanderous insinuations about WT the organization, except to deny them in the strongest terms. In the future I will attempt to respond when I can to civil inquiries, but I will not participate in baitings.

Ramon Vanden Brulle,
Washington Trout

...and someone wondered aloud why some people are hesitant to mention their affiliation or membership with WT publicly on this board....



Thanks for sticking your chin out there Ramon. Wild fish need strong advocates, even though I don't agree 100% with the ideaology of your organization I admire the passion and conviction with which you advocate for wild steelhead and salmon.

Ramon,

Should I just continue speculating that WT endorsed not only with their name but their wallet.

A simple yes or no will do.
Will WT be supporting them again if they push another intiative next fall?

Just asking simple questions in hopes of simple yes or no answers.

Ramon -
I'm afraid you are making my point for me! You state that you "absolutely can not take part in discussions that attempt to insert slanderous insuations about WT the organization". However in a thread a few days ago you all but accussed WDFW and its staff of lying - it is probably just as well that discussion disappeared.

You stated above in this thread that I don't "find WT hatchery science credible". In fact I have not seen any WT hatchery science but rather WT supporting their argument with other's science (mostly published). I have absolutley no problem with that and have no problem with that science.

My largest problem was with the mis-leading use of "science" in WT news releases. For example the citing of the Feather River hatchery yearling chinook predation on wild chinook fry as what may be typical of hatchery steelhead and coho without having the honesty to acknowledging that the study was with chinook and it may or may not be typcial for other species.

I further objected to your double standard of dismissinng my observations but using various personal communications in your arguments. It was not that I found the science not credible but rather your uses of that information.

You further state "he doesn't think nets are a problem". What I actually said was "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." As I have stated a number of times for Puget Sound chinook the information that I have examined leads me to believe that habitat factors are the largest limiters of Puget Sound wild chinook. Be happy to go into more detail if anyone wishes.

But even if one were to accept that harvest or more appropriately over-harvest is a major factor in the status of those fish the impacts from gill nets continue to less than a major factor. If you wish to look at the various harvest impacts in more detail I refer you to appendix A of the 2003 co-managers Puget Sound Chinook Fisheries Management Plan - believe WT has a copy. If you don't I'll be happy to supply you with a copy of the appendix. From memory I think you'll find that for the extreme north Sound stocks (Nooksack and Skagit) the majority of the impacts are in Canadian waters (mostly sport and troll), for the Snohomish the largest impacts come from the West Coast of Vancouver Island fisheries (sport and troll) and Puget Sound recreational. For the White River spring chinook that largest impact (more than 90% of the impacts) is from the Puget Sound recreational fisheries. For the Strait of Juan de Fuca stocks the majority of impacts occur in Alaska (SE) and BC. The South Sound stocks and the Skokomish gill net fisheries (most tribal) have larger impacts.

I find your characterizations of my comments a mis-represntation of my statements and there in lie the problem.

Tight lines
Smalma