In the Washington State Register, published today, WDFW has announced the beginning of a 30-day public comment period for Puget Sound Hatchery Genetic Management Plans (HGMPs) submitted to NMFS for ESA autorization. The public is invited to review the plans and submit comments to WDFW. WDFW will respond to all comments in writing, and forward the comments and responses to NMFS for review with the HGMPS.

The State Register Notice, the full text of the HGMPs, and instructions for submitting comments can be found on the WDFW website at:

http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/hat/hgmp/

Washington Trout encourages all interested parties to review any or all of the Puget Sound HGMPs and submit appropriate comments. This is an opportunity to become meanigfully involved in this important process, to influence improvements in WDFW hatchery practices, and to help ensure the effective recovery of federally listed Puget Sound chinook salmon.

Those interested in hatchery reform processes can review these operational hatchery plans for consitency with acknowledged reform needs, and with recommendations from the Hatchery Science Review Group and other independent science panels.

WT will of course be significantly involved in this process. As they become available, we will post drafts of our comments on the WT website (www.washingtontrout.org), along with relevant source material, to assist individuals and organizations in their own reviews and comments. Anyone seeking more detailed information is welcome to contact Washington Trout directly.

Ramon Vanden Brulle
Washington Trout

So Ramon what is "appropriate comments" and "relevant source material" ?? I take it that means anything that agrees with WT short sided agenda. Anything else would be inappropriate and nonrelevant! Pretty good guess huh! I bet WT has there lawyers standing by just waiting to make them some more $$$$.

Give it a break. he was informing people to use their right to make comments on the proposals. Which he didn't have to do concidering he knows a lot of people disagree with his stance. Seem liek a good thing to me.

Not everything is a conspiracy.

JJ

Whatever JJ,
Why doesnt WT have there own forums page on there website to spew out there propaganda?

I guess the same could be asked of others around here too. I thought this was a public board or is it only public if you don't support WT?

JJ

Sooner or later the contributors to WT's bank account will realize that WT is not doing a thing for them by fighting other fishing interests. The money will then dry up and so will WT (I hope).

Thanks Ramon!

See ya on the battlefield (I'll be on the other side) but sure appreciate the information!

Unlike a few, I believe your intentions are good no matter how flawed your methods are.



herm

You know, it would be one thing if Washington was once famous for trout fishing and now the fish are gone and a grass roots organization called WT was created to bring back the great loss.

But that is not the case. Instead, it appears that a make- believe organization has sprung up with a make -believe agenda to create something that never was at the expense of fisheries that really do exist.

Sorry JJ, you are wrong.

Ramon has to post this stuff here. It is his job.
He doesn't do it out of the goodness of his heart. He does it because it is part of the job he is paid to do. Nobody would take the beating just for fun.

So Ramon, just out of curiosity has WT taken a stand on the proposed summer bait ban? If so what is it. If not why not?
There is a chance we might agree on something here (as I hold the minority position on this site that bait should be banned where wild parr are present).

Any comments?

BTW when will WTs comments on these hatchery plans be posted?

What systems have WTs top priority right now?

Geoduck

Actually, nothing in my job description would absolutely require me to post on this board; I drafted and broadcast a Press Release, and WT sent out an "Action Alert" to our own mailing list; we also posted on several boards, but not all. I post here because I like you folks so much.

Seriously, this is a big forum, and all things considered, worth the abuse. But I do want to note that I don't HAVE to come here (and you're right: I probably wouldn't off the clock), and that all things considered, posting this particular info on this board would appear to be contrary to WT's interests (I imagine that many comments that I might solicit from this board would be opposed to WT's position), so I hope you can appreciate that.

Right now, WT does not have a position on the proposed bait ban. We, along with others, do believe that recreational angling management must acknowledge and cope with steelhead and salmon impacts at all life history stages, but we have not analysed whether this particular proposal is an appropriate response. Sorry if that seems like I'm dodging, but we are working on the issue generally, most notably within the Wild Steelhead Coalition's "steelhead summit" process.

On your second question, I wish I could offer you a firm deadline on when we will post our comments. They will likely dribble out as we finish them for each individual HGMP. My own hope is that we can post at least drafts of most of our comments by the middle of the comment period, so that they can actually be of help to anyone interested in submitting their own comments (either to agree or disagree with us). Hopefully some will be on the website before that.

We will obviously focus first on the programs that were cited in our suits (which does not incude every HGMP on WDFW's list). I can tell you that we will be looking hard at the Skagit, Snohomish, Green, Puyallup, and some Hood Canal systems.

Thanks for the civil inquiry.

Ramon Vanden Brulle
Washington Trout

Is Washington Trout still working to close the hatcheries in question? Has your staff made site visits to these hatcheries as provided for in the lawsuit settlement?

Good luck in your quest to save the wild fish.

Washington Trout continues to stand by its position: WDFW's Puget Sound hatchery programs do more harm than good. If current practices can not be significantly improved in order to eliminate or at least minimize current impacts, they should be discontinued.

While our preliminary reviews of the HGMPs lead us to believe that WDFW's current plans are insufficient to effectively minimise those impacts, we remain open to hearing substantive responses to our concerns. We believe this new process holds promise for improving hatchery practices in Puget Sound, and we are committed to giving it a fair chance to work.

WT staff have been visiting hatchery sites for about a week, analysing impacts from water diversions, intake screens, discharges, etc. We are also reviewing fertilization, incubation, and rearing facilities and practices.

Ramon Vanden Brulle
Washington Trout

I just read one of the plans ( marblemount winter steelhead) I don't really know a lot about this place or what they do but the plan that is submitted for it is extremely vague and doesn't address the genetic issue at all from what i can tell These are supposed to be genetic managment plans but don't address genetics ?? hmmm sounds like the same old thing they have always been doing..

Sounds like the old wolf has donned a new set of sheep's clothing and found a back door into the barn. I would be nice if those opposed to simply closing hatcheries could tag along on the "inspections" that WT made mandatory as part of their out of court settlement with WDFW. Since no one at WDFW is allowed to talk about any of this we can get a pretty one sided view point from WT . I am honestly hoping that some good comes out of this but I am very skeptical given the stated goals expressed here and elsewhere by WT.

The wolf is guarding the chickenhouse and has been sisnce the beggining of salmon/steelhead managment in this state..
The wolf is the combined harvest interests of this state.

There you go again.

I come here to provide information and answer honest inquiries, but you of course just see the plot thickening. I don't know what you mean when you say WT made the hatchery site visits "mandatory." (If you mean that WT purposely worked to exclude the rest of the public from visiting the hatcheries, that's not true.) If you would like to visit a WDFW facility, try giving them a call. They say in all of their public pronouncements about this process that they want to make their hatchery planning as "transparent" as possible.

And I have no idea what you mean about WDFW not being allowed to talk about any of this. First of all, they're talking about it plenty (in the State register, on their website, in a press release they issued on Wed, and of course in the HGMPs themselves; that IS their case, you ought to read them; of course, then you'd have to muddle your viewpoint with facts). Second of all, I don't know of any external force that would make them stop talking. Plus, the most important part of this whole process will be WDFW's published responses to the public's comments.

WDFW is in the driver's seat, not WT, and we will all be able to read their responses to WT's and everybody else's comments. This is an opportunity for everyone, hatchery proponents, hatchery "reformers," and hatchery "closers" to ALL make their cases (never mind that WT's position is more complex than you insist on painting it).

If nothing else, we'll all get to see WDFW's written responses to WT's and others' concerns. (including every independent science review panel in the region)

I know you like to make stuff up, and use innuendo and insinuation to help make your case. It's easier than trying to understand the facts and make an honest argument, and it must be fun, but you ought to cut it out. It doesn't serve your position very well.

There's really no point in you and I going round and round again, so you really don't need to bother responding. You have here an opportunity to make your case in a forum that has the potential to actually make a difference. Why not take advantage of it, instead of merely trying to demonise your opponents.

I know that yours is a time-honored strategy that the right has made into an effective art form; the legacy of Willie Horton, I suppose.

Ramon Vanden Brulle
Washington Trout

Willie Horton???? Here is a little research on that first: It was Al Gore who introduced Willie to the political campaign in 1988....
(New York: Harper Collins, 1990) pp. 224, 264-65, 295-96. 307-08.

. . . [Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Al Gore] had been accusing [Massachussetts Governor and fellow Democratic presidential candidate, Michael] Dukakis of weakness for months. . . . On April 12, in a debate, Gore resorted to a new issue to make Dukakis appear weak. Some years ago, a convicted murderer in Massachusetts named Willie Horton had

been furloughed by prison authorities and committed a rape. The furlough policy had begun under the administration of Dukakis's Republican predecessor. The governor, in any case, does not review the furloughs of individual prisoners, a process handled by a board. Most states have similar policies, and so does the federal government


As far as the site visits by WT to the hatcheries. you guys devoted 2 pages (4&5) of your 11 page lawsuit out of court settlement to this issue. The language is specific to WT and does not oepn the door to visit by the public. There is hold harmless language and a requirement that WT carry a $1,000,000.00 insurance policy for the 30 days that the site visit provisions cover.

Item #21 near the end of the legal verbage in the 11 page out of court settlement document specifically states that parties to the agreement cannot speak out against anything in the agreement. They can speak but just not question or be critical of anything. Only statements of support are specifically allowed.

And finally Ramon , I said I hope something good comes out of the hatchery reform process. My agenda is to enhance and promote sports fishing in Washington. I happen to believe that hatcheries must play a role for the forseeable future for there to be a meaningful sports fishery in this state. I agree that hatcheries need reform. I do not agree that eliminating the hatchery program will restore wild fish. I happen to believe that WT has an agenda that is more an animal rights agenda than a sports fishing agenda so I oppose WT for that. I just don't trust WT to act in a manner that benefits sportsfishermen and I do not trust what you say just because you say it. The proof will be in what WT does and not what you say. The proof will be in how you work the system to achieve your ends. This is not a personal slam at all just a vehement disagreement of one organization's course of action to achieve an end game.

So good luck in the process and I hope the fish and the sport of fishing win.

Rob,
What exactly are you trying to say in that last post? Its a tad confusing.

outlaw.. what i am saying is that managment has been harvest drives and harvest influencet from the very beginning.

What i am saying is that WDFW does what is in "the best interest of" thoes who want to kill fish be they sport tribal or commercial..
What i am saying is harvest gets what it wants no matter what the wild fish lobbiests ask for and no matter how sound their reasoning..

If I contributed to WT's bank account I would want them to do more than take the game department to court.

barnett.. you mean like restore spawning and rearing habitat on the Washougal river?? You mean things like fighting against a net fishery on the lower columbia that killed thousands of wild winter ateelhead every year.. you mean you'd contribute if they did things like that???
well hmmmmmm. They DO!