A pretty big group of people made signs and protested the war in Iraq and a pretty big group protested those protestors supporting the war. Peaceful protests are a way of publicly displaying a person's ideology either in support or opposition to a cause or belief.

Lawsuits are almost like belly buttons anymore, seems like everybody's got one. It is so easy to sue someone for anything. Like the fat guy suing McDonalds or the lady the other day who jumped in front of a train to commit suicide and after she survived she sued the train company and WON for losing an arm. Tort reform is hopefully on the way but in the mean time people and organizations sue others to achieve their ends but mostly to achieve monetary gain. The medical system is reeling from lawsuits as are many small businesses and individuals.

I don't really like the "anti" protests but I hate lawsuits. Both tactics are often times organized and funded by interest groups and not individuals. When we were babies we cried when we didn't get our way..now we sue.

So grandpa, let's say that WT wins an injunction to stop hatchery plants. Would you be in favor of a lawsuit to stop the injunction or would a protest be a suitable alternative?

I am not in favor of lawsuits as they are usually not a win/win proposition. I think being specific to this WT lawsuit, I would not assume that an injunction against WDFW would be followed by yet another lawsuit. An appeal most certainly. You seem to be trying to simplify this issue as if those opposed to the WT lawsuit only care about being able to harvest more fish in total disregard for the resource. That just isn't the case.

Grandpa, To answer your question, neither is worse than the other. In our free society, when one is harmed (or perceived to be harmed), there are a number of possible responses that can be made. You have mentioned two. Sometimes a combination of these two are used. While I am not a member of the Trial Lawyers Assn. , I am concerned about the latest buzzphrase - tort reform. In many ways I see this as a weakening of general and product liability laws in this country. I believe that punitive damages are appropriate when a company or organization causes a significant problem with seemingly malice and forethought. A couple of examples spring to mind, the pipeline up in Bellingham and the Ford Pinto.

So, I see both protests and lawsuits as being viable ways of effecting change in our society. Certainly the monetary rewards from lawsuits are clear. As are the risks associated with bringing a lawsuit. We would make a mistake if we did not see that there are monetary rewards from protests on occasion. Additionally, I'm certain that not everyone who protests (marches, boycotts, etc) have the same motivation. Greed as a human response is not restricted to lawsuits alone.

Now, as to the WT lawsuit, well there are other threads that are carrying the load.

My $0.02, I look forward to buying you lunch today.

thanks eddie..well said as usual

grandpa, I challenge to read any of my posts and find anything to support this sentence from you You seem to be trying to simplify this issue as if those opposed to the WT lawsuit only care about being able to harvest more fish in total disregard for the resource. That just isn't the case. I am simplifing the issue and that sentence is troublesome because you seem to be putting words in my mouth that I didn't say and frankly don't feel!! I saw (read) you do the same to Ramone.

Which also prompts the question:

"Which is worse, character assasination or a lawsuit?"

other fishermen should not be our opponent... lets all get together and ban nets. ban commercial export of salmon and ban all commercial steelhead fishing

I hate lawsuits and I'm not much of a protester, but they both beat the bullet to the head that occurs in some non-democratic parts of the world when people challange their government!