Mostly I lurk. But with a buzz on tonight, I feel compelled to predict the future. I have read most of the hatchery dialog recently and I think I can relate to most of the sides of the argument. I think Aunty M and others that are repulsed by WT will end up supporting them. Like Aunty M, I don't want the hatcheries closed but I dont believe that WT does either. Those of you that damn WT for sueing WDFW to close the hatcheries need to understand a few things about motivating any government entity to change.
1. Very few legal actions end up with anybody getting what they asked for in the beginning.
2. Most legal actions are settled out of court, immediatley prior to the first day of the trial.
3. If you think that WDFW is going to sit down with you or any group without a pending lawsuit, smoke the peace pipe and consider changing their hatchery practices----well, have another hit cause it aint gonna happen.
4. WDFW will respond to this legal action.
5. WDFW has proven over and over that they would rather play politics and suffice the short term goals of the special interests over making the hard choices and letting the science dictate what is right for the longterm good of the resouce.
6. WT will make a strong case that the current hatchery practices are bad for wild and ESA fish.
7. The court will not close the hatcheries.
So whats left?
The legal action will force WDWF to review and possibly improve their hatchery practices even if this never gets to trial. In the longrun, WT will be the heroes not the bad guys. Those of you that want to catch more fish in the short term regardless of the longterm consequenses and are "alienated" by WT's lawsuit will get a much needed lesson in Biology, Political Science and Civil Law. Many more of us sport fisherman will support the dedication of any pro-resource group, like WT, that is willing to do what they think is right for the fish regardless of who gets to kill what because of it. Hooray for WT

i agree with wooly bully, washington trout is trying to make changes in the way the state is managing hatcheries and trying to make the state run them within the ESA guidlines, i have never seen them question the federal impact numbers only the fact that the state does not comply with them so when the state does comply with the rules not even washington trout could close them down without challenging the impact guidlines that the feds have set.

I would think that WDFW has our interests at heart. Why wouldn't they??? We are their customer, right? If you do believe that, and if you do believe they are doing the best they can with the little bit of money that they have, then WT was just a pesky irritation that further diluted already scarce WDFW funds.

because it is easyer to ask for the moon in a lawsuit and settle out of court for what you realy want, not many lawsuits are settled for what they ask for.

auntm, washington trout cannot close any hatcheries that are within compliance with esa guide lines, they can however play hardball and try to get the state to comply with them and thats what they are doing. now that the dust has settled in this mess and we can see that they are trying to make the state operate hatcherys within the guidlines of the ESA, why are we arguing with them ?

I believe that wdfw is covering up there mis management of our fisheries over the years and could care less about our interest or the interest of the fisheries that they manage.

It was the wdfw science that established the quotas for the comercial,tribal and sport fishing seasons that ultimately ran our stocks close to extinction.We meaning all of us fishermen just caught and kept what wdfw said we could whether it was sport or comercial.Hatcheries were set up to keep these numbers the same not to satisfy our best interest.They were set up to keep them from having to acknowledge the truth.the truth being that there science did not work and that they screwed up.They could of stopped then and our situation would of been alot diferant than it is now.I believe that the state wil continue down this path unless people like wt make them step up to the plate and change there way of management.Our fisheries do not have the amount of time that politics wants to take to change thier ways of management.just my opinion though just like 99% of the posting going on right now.

i never hear complaints about the money the state is spending "trying" to come up with commercial selective fishing methods, its also ironic that people think we need the commercial fishermans political power to keep hatcheries open when the fact is they dont have any way to catch the fish without severaly impacting esa listed fish so the state is kissing there asses and spending millions trying to find a way for them to do it, quite frankly it makes me sick.

THANK YOU BOATER!!!!!

they are kissing there a## because if they do shut out the comercial interest then they know that they will have to answer to the most powerfull lobby out there,the comercial fisheries.That is not just a handfull of gill netters but a well orginised multinational group with bottomless pockets.You guys think that wt cost the tax payers money,fight the comercial industry when the state says there are no fish left and has to explain why.

I want to clear up a misunderstanding that Auntie seems to have about how the citizen-suit provision of the ESA works.

Under the provision, any citizen can sue any entity for violating any number of "sections" of the ESA. We sued WDFW for violating section-9, which lists all the ways that someone can "take" a listed species, that is, killing, harming, harrassing, etc. When a species is lsited as Endangered, it is illegal to "take" one, period. When a species is listed as Threatened, it is essentialy illegal to take one without peremission (it's a little more complicted that that, but bear with me).

Unfortunately, we could not ask the court to say, order changes to hatchery practices, or force WDFW to apply for permission under the ESA to operate the hatcheries. Under the citizen-suit provision, we can only seek injunctive relief. That is the court can only order the defendant to cease the take; it can't impose conditions, or levy fines, or make WDFW do anything. It can only enjoin the practice resulting in the take, in this case the operation of the hatcheries. then WDFW has to decide whether it can make changes that would satisfy the court that it was no longer breaking the law.

WT asked the court for the only thing it could ask for. Once negotiations started with WDFW, we could start being more flexible and subtle.

Ramon Vanden Brulle
Washington Trout

Wooly Bully, maybe you ought to try those 'writing enhancers' more often; your lead-off post was one of the more insightful and intelligent posts to appear on here.

My prediction is that time will prove WT is correct, and its detractors forgotten - (nothing gets built if all your time is spent tearing-down).

why dont you start a poll and see

i dont know how to do a poll.

I wish I had more time to post on PPBB!
AuntyM,
1. The problem with your special interest group is that you don't have any money. There for Gary Locke, US Congress and JP Keonings dont give a flying #$%^ what you and our kind want. Maybe some day we can all pool our money and buy a politician untill then I am thankful for the WT mission and all those who support them.
2. I didn't say that you do now support WT, I said that in the future you and those who agree with you will realize that the lawsuit really was about forcing WDWF to do the right thing for the entire resource. Any relevant poll would be done years from now. The Statement that 85% dissapprove of the suit today is not relevant.
3. You said ""No one else is making the claim that this settlement will force WDFW to do anything other than to complete the HGMPs and add a public review process."" Anybody out there think that this might improve hatchery practices? I do.
4. You Win. I did not know that this suit had been settled when I posted last night. Thats why I love this site--Lots of great info. Thanks Bob.
5. If you think that WDFW is above ignoring scientific recomendations and that Gary Locke is interested in doing the right thing for the long term good of the resource, try to remember Mr. Bern Shanks and what happened to him and his ideas when he stepped on some big money toes.
6. you said- ""if they had the scientific evidence to prove their case in court, and they had someone else paying the legal fees, then why did they settle out of court?. ""
Why do you think WDFW settled out of court. It takes two to settle. WDFW has not been a responsible steward of this resource. They really don't want the people like you and the non-fishing public to understand this.
7. I never apologized for WT. Don't classify me as a WT apologist. If I was going to apologize for any group it would be my fellow Sporties that demand as many salmonids in the river as possible regardless of the longterm consequenses.
8. I'm sober now...bring it on!

barnettm,
That sounds alot like something WDFW would say..."This suit is wasting our scarce resources"....Pull your head out dude. We are not the customers They are not in business. They are supposed to manage and defend the resource for the public. They are not doing that.

boater & ltlcleo are right on the mark

Thank you garyk and Ramon.

Are you sure?

elkrun,
I was when I wrote it
How do you do the quote thing?